UpperSouthHominy_92632_MY5_2016

Monitoring Year 5 (2016) Report
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site,
South Hominy Creek, French Broad River Basin,
Buncombe County, North Carolina
DMS Project Number: 92632
Data Collected: April - November 2016
Submitted: January 2017
Prepared by
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary..................................................................................................................1
2 Project Background Information...............................................................................................4
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives..........................................................................................4
2.2 Locations and Setting......................................................................................................4
2.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach........................................................5
2.4 Project History and Background.....................................................................................6
3 Methods and Success Criteria...................................................................................................
6
3.1 Monitoring Plan View.....................................................................................................
7
3.2 Stream Monitoring..........................................................................................................
8
3.3 Vegetation Monitoring....................................................................................................
8
3.4 Schedule and Reporting...................................................................................................
8
4 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results..............................................................................
8
4.1 Stream Assessment..........................................................................................................
8
4.1.1 Morphometric Criteria...............................................................................................8
4.1.2 Quantitative Measures Summary..............................................................................
9
4.1.2.1 Mainstem 1 — Bianculli Reach — 797 feet .....................................................
9
4.1.2.2 Mainstem 2 - Bura/Roberson Reach — 1,286 ft...........................................12
4.1.2.3 Mainstem 3 - Davis Reach — 737 ft.............................................................14
4.1.2.4 Unnamed Tributary 1 — Bianculli Reach — 277 ft.......................................16
4.1.2.5 Unnamed Tributary 2 — Bianculli and Roberson Reaches — 890 ft.............17
4.1.2.6 Unnamed Tributary 3 — Davis Reach — 1,742 ft..........................................18
4.1.3 Fixed Station Channel and Riparian Area Photographs ..........................................
21
4.1.4 Bankfull Event Documentation and Verification....................................................21
4.1.5 Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment...........................................................22
4.1.6 Stream Problem Areas.............................................................................................
23
4.1.7 Stream Problem Area Photographs.........................................................................24
4.1.8 Summary of Morphological Results........................................................................
24
4.2 Wetland Enhancement and Preservation.......................................................................
25
4.2.1 Wetland Areas Fixed Station Photographs..............................................................26
4.3 Vegetation Assessment..................................................................................................26
4.3.1 Vegetative Monitoring Plot Photographs................................................................
31
4.3.2 Vegetation Problem Areas Table Summary............................................................31
4.3.3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View.....................................................................
31
4.3.4 Vegetative Problem Areas Photographs..................................................................32
4.3.5 Summary of Vegetation Assessment Results..........................................................32
5 Farm Management Plan...........................................................................................................33
6 Post Construction Project Activities........................................................................................33
7 Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................
34
8 References...............................................................................................................................
34
9 Appendices...............................................................................................36
IPPel South Hominy Miti'�ation Site i
DN9S Project 9263'
Final

Executive Summary
This North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) project preserved, restored,
and enhanced approximately 5,951 ft of perennial stream channel on the mainstem of South
Hominy Creek (2,820 ft) and on three unnamed tributaries (3,131 ft) that feed into South
Hominy Creek within the project area. Additionally, 1.35 acres of wetland habitat was preserved
or enhanced within the project area.
The project site is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina, approximately 5.5 miles
southwest of Candler, North Carolina. The Upper South Hominy (USH) mitigation site is
located on properties owned by Joe and Molly Bianculli, Lorri Bura, James Roberson, and Julia
Davis. Combined, a 16.44 acre conservation easement was established. The conservation
easements for the four properties were conveyed to the North Carolina State Properties Office
between March and June of 2009. The USH mitigation site is located within the French Broad
River basin cataloguing unit 06010105 and within the targeted local watershed hydrological unit
06010105060020.
In 2005, the NCDMS developed a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) for the South Hominy Creek
(SHC) watershed. The objectives of the plan were to develop a set of management strategies to
restore and protect the functional integrity of the watershed, to identify and prioritize stream and
wetland project opportunities, and to address functional deficits. Specific project sites were
identified and prioritized based on a number of factors including the potential for functional
improvement, site constraints, potential stream mitigation units, location within the watershed,
and the number of landowners per site. The USH mitigation project is located within the SHC
Local Watershed Plan area. Coupled with the extensive farm and livestock Best Management
Practices, the project will help to address stream and wetland function by up -lifting aquatic
habitat, water quality, and riparian habitat identified in the LWP study.
Historic land use in the immediate vicinity of the project site has consisted of residential
homes and low intensity agricultural operations primarily consisting of livestock grazing and hay
production. Stream channels within the project area were historically accessed by livestock,
resulting in disturbances to the channel banks and wetland areas. Additional land use practices
included removal of large woody riparian vegetation and mechanized dredging and straightening
of stream channels to increase the amount of usable land. These activities contributed to
degraded and unstable stream banks along with compromised water quality due to lack of
vegetated buffers, soil erosion, and animal waste.
Construction approaches were assigned with the intent to minimize disturbance to the stream
channels and riparian buffers and focus on those reaches that would benefit most from the
appropriate level of site work. As such, areas with stable channel conditions and desirable
riparian vegetation were placed into preservation. Other reaches were treated with restoration
and enhancement level I and level II site work to improve stream functions and terrestrial
habitats that were compromised under the existing site conditions.
Restoration site work on SHC was assigned to the reaches where dimension, pattern, and
profile modifications were necessary to correct areas of instability including incision, eroding
banks, and over -widened and homogenous channel segments. All SHC restoration site work was
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

performed using the Priority III approach. The remaining reaches of SHC were treated with
enhancement level I and level II site work.
Tributary channels and associated riparian buffers were treated with the appropriate level of
site work to restore ecologic functions. These tributary reaches were treated with the appropriate
amount of site work to preserve, restore, and enhance channel reaches and associated riparian
buffers. The upper reaches of the Bianculli tributary north (UT1) and the Davis unnamed
tributary (UT3) were preserved. Restoration level site work on the lower portions of the
Bianculli UTI and the Davis UT3 were conducted using a Priority I strategy. Priority I
Restoration strategies were applied to the lower portion of the Bianculli tributary south (UT2)
and the Roberson abandoned channel (UT2) to reconnect that portion of the channel to the
historic floodplain that was abandoned during former roadside ditch construction. The
remaining reaches of the tributary channels, including Bianculli UT2 and the middle portion of
Davis UT3, were treated with enhancement level II strategies.
Site work targeted reconnecting the SHC channel and tributary channels with historic
floodplains and creating floodplain benches at the desirable elevations to attenuate high flow
events. Periodic out of bank flows along with spring seep hydrology should promote and sustain
hydric soil characteristics and wetland vegetation types in those areas supporting jurisdictional
wetlands. Areas currently supporting jurisdictional wetlands were enhanced by excluding
livestock, removing invasive exotic vegetation, planting wetland vegetation, and creating
ephemeral pools.
The MY5 survey was completed in the fall of 2016. Dimension, pattern, and profile
parameters surveyed in MY5 suggest the restoration, enhancement level II, and enhancement
level I sections of SHC are performing as designed but with some variation from design values.
The bankfull width at cross-section 10 has been slightly below the design value since
construction. However, the deviation is minor and no problem areas or instability have been
observed at cross-section 10 throughout the monitoring period. Cross-section 9 continues to
have a reduction in mean depth, maximum depth (3.1 ft), and cross-sectional area (60.4 ft2) due
to pool aggradation. However, this area appear to be stabilizing, as degree of aggradation has
continued to subside more each monitoring year since it was first captured during MY2 surveys.
Although many dimensional values either increased or decreased in MY2 due to the 5 May 2013
flood event, most dimensional parameters measured at the 10 mainstem cross-sections were
within the design values for SHC during the remaining monitoring years.
Channel profile values revealed minimal changes in channel slope throughout the
monitoring period MYO-MY5. The mainstem 1 reach channel slope returned to 0.012 ft/ft in
MY5; the slope was at 0.013 ft/ft in MY3-MY4, 0.012 ft/ft in MY2, and 0.011 ft/ft in MYO-
MY1. The mainstem 2 reach slope was 0.008 ft/ft in MY5; the slope was also at 0.008 ft/ft in
MY3 and was at 0.009 ft/ft in MYO-MY2 and MY4. The mainstem 3 reach was at 0.007 ft/ft
during MY5; the slope was also 0.007 ft/ft in MY4, and was at 0.006 ft/ft in MYO-MY3.
The MY5 morphological results for the three unnamed tributaries revealed that construction
activities followed the approaches outlined in the mitigation plan. Although small variations
from design values were noted in dimensional parameters such as bankf ill width (UT3 Upper -
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 2
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

XS 1 riffle) and bankfull cross-sectional area (UT3 Lower-XS2 riffle), the three unnamed
tributaries are stable and performing as designed. Moreover, the significant storm events on 28
November 2011 and 5 May 2013 have had no observed negative effects on any of the three
unnamed tributaries.
Storm events on 28 November 2011 and 5 May 2013 resulted in several problem areas
during MY1-MY2. Mainstem 1 reach problem areas were removed during MY4 after repairs
were performed on this reach during the summer of 2015. Repairs included stabilizing cross -
vane structures (sta. 0+50 and 1+50) and sloping back and stabilizing the right bank (sta. 1+45 to
2+75 and 6+25 to 6+50). Due to the success of the repairs, MY4 (2015) field surveys
determined that aggradation and bar formation below structures (sta. 2+25 to 2+50 and 4+00 to
4+50) are stable and are no longer a problem. Field reviews and surveys conducted in November
of 2016 noted four problem areas observed in MY5. The problem areas observed on Mainstem
2, resulting from storm events, include aggradation and bar formation below an engineered
structure (sta. 9+20 to 9+50), and two areas of right bank scour and erosion (sta. 3+45 to 3+70
and 5+05 to 6+10). Aggradation, erosion, and reduced structure integrity previously noted in the
lower portion of Mainstem 2 was repaired in the summer of 2014. No problem areas were
observed on Mainstem 3 during MY5. The step -pool structures on UT -3 Upper Davis Reach
(sta. 0+00 to 2+00) aggraded during MY3, likely due to low flow velocity and a dense
herbaceous layer. This aggradation remained during MY4 and MY5.
The MY5 visual assessment survey found the majority of the 2,820 ft of mainstem channel
banks (95%), channel bed (99%), and engineered stream structures (100%) were performing
adequately. Metrics that scored lower resulted from bed scour or aggradation and sections of
bank erosion.
A total of 129 planted stems (excluding livestakes) were counted during the MY5 survey.
The average density of the planted woody stems in the ten vegetation plots combined was 522
planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes). All ten vegetation plots exceeded success criteria
for planted stem density during the MY5 survey. All vegetation plots were noted as having
volunteer native woody species during MY5. The volunteer woody stems increased the total
stem count for the ten vegetation monitoring plots to 279 (1129 stems per acre).
Although non-native invasive vegetation remains present at the mitigation site, it is less
prevalent when compared to pre -construction conditions and does not pose threat to successional
development of site vegetation. Extensive non-native vegetation treatments were effective
during the construction phase of the project, and maintenance treatments each spring (2012,
2013, and 2014) and during the fall of 2015 continue to suppress undesirable vegetation. Five
dense areas of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), one dense area of bamboo (Bambusa
sp.), and one dense area of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) were observed in MY5.
Additionally, two small areas of easement encroachment was observed during MY5
monitoring. Both areas are cut/mowed paths (approximately 0.02 acres total) from the easement
boundary to the left bank of SHC on the Mainstem 2 Bura property.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 3
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Overall, the USH mitigation site includes 1,093 ft of stream preservation, 1,994 ft of stream
restoration, 522 ft of stream enhancement level I, 2,342 ft of stream enhancement level II, 1.11
acres of wetland enhancement, and 0.24 acres of wetland preservation. A total of 16.44 acres of
stream channel, riparian buffer, and jurisdictional wetlands are protected by a perpetual
conservation easement managed by the NCDMS. It is anticipated that this site should yield
3,498 stream mitigation units and 0.61 wetland mitigation units.
2 Project Background Information
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the USH mitigation project include:
1. Improve water quality in SHC and unnamed tributaries (UT 1, UT2, and UT3);
2. Stabilize on-site streams so they transport watershed flows and sediment loads in
equilibrium;
3. Promote floodwater attenuation and all secondary functions associated with more
frequent and extensive floodwater contact times;
4. Improve in -stream habitat by improving the diversity of bed form features;
5. Protect riparian communities, habitats, and wetlands and enhance floodplain
community structure; and
6. Enable improved livestock practices which will result in reduced fecal, nutrient, and
sediment loads in surface waters.
The objectives of the USH mitigation project include:
1. Preservation of 1,093 linear feet of un -impacted stream channel and forested riparian
area by placing them in a conservation easement for perpetuity;
2. Restoration of the pattern, profile, and dimension of 1,148 linear feet of the mainstem
of SHC;
3. Restoration of channel dimension, pattern, and profile of 846 linear feet of unnamed
tributaries to SHC on the Bianculli, Bura/Roberson, and Davis properties;
4. Restoration of dimension and profile (enhancement level I) of the channel on 522
linear feet of SHC along the Davis property;
5. Limited channel work combined with livestock exclusion and invasive species control
(enhancement level II) on 2,342 linear feet along SHC and unnamed tributaries;
6. Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary;
7. Preservation or enhancement of approximately 1.35 acres of wetlands across the
project site; and
8. Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations on the
Bianculli, Roberson, and Davis properties.
2.2 Locations and Setting
The USH mitigation site is located in southwest Buncombe County, North Carolina,
approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the town of Candler, North Carolina (Figure A.1). To
access the site from Asheville, North Carolina, take I-40 west to the Enka Candler exit (Exit 44).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 4
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

At the light, turn right, onto Smokey Park Highway/US-19S/US-23S and proceed 3.0 miles.
Turn left on Pisgah Highway/NC-151S and proceed for 6.0 miles. Turn right on SRI 103/S
Hominy Road. Proceed 0.2 miles on SRI IONS Hominy Road then turn right on Connie Davis
Road. Connie Davis Road is a private unpaved driveway that accesses the Bura and Davis
properties and the lower end of the project site. A narrow driveway bridge crosses SHC
approximately 0.3 miles from the start of Connie Davis Road. A large fescue pasture to the right
of the driveway and bridge, used for parking, is located at a latitude/longitude of 035° 28' 51.10"
North and 082° 44'52.45" West. Access to the upper portion of the reach will be from the
second drive to the right past Connie Davis Lane. Turn right off of SR 1103/S Hominy Road on
to Canter Field Lane, a private drive, 0.25 mile after passing Connie Davis Road. A fescue
pasture located to the left of the private driveway and before the one lane bridge will be used for
parking. The pasture is located at a latitude/longitude of 035° 28'39.35" North and 082° 45'
01.06" West.
The USH mitigation site is located in the upper portion of the SHC watershed (Figure A.2).
Most of the first and second order headwater tributaries originate below ridgelines and peaks that
range in height from 3,000 to over 4,000 ft in elevation. The southern portion of the watershed
drains from the highest peak, Mount Pisgah, at a height of 5,721 ft. The drainage area for SHC
at the lower end of the project site is 7.1 mi2 (4,515 ac). The two tributaries on the Bianculli
property, named for the purpose of this project as tributary north (UTI) and tributary south
(UT2), each have drainage areas <0.1 mi2. The unnamed tributary on the Davis property (UT3)
has a drainage area of 0.1 mi2 (66.7 ac).
The USH mitigation site is located in the Hominy Creek watershed of the French Broad
River basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8 -digit hydrologic unit code 06010105
and 14 -digit hydrologic unit code 06010105060020. The Hominy Creek watershed is within the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 04-03-02. South Hominy Creek
has been assigned the Stream Index Number 6-76-5 by the NCDWQ.
2.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
Overall, the project site consists of approximately 5,951 ft of stream channels, as measured
from the channel thalweg on the as -built drawings. A total of 16.44 acres of aquatic and riparian
habitats are held in a perpetual conservation easement. Channel morphology was modified by
implementing multiple restoration levels and construction approaches (Table A.1). Project assets
and components are summarized in Figure A.3. Channel restoration was accomplished on 1,148
ft of SHC along with 522 ft of enhancement level I and 1,150 ft enhancement level II mitigation.
The Bianculli tributary north (UTI) was preserved (94 ft) in the upper portion; the lower 183 ft
was restored to provide stable channel banks and connectivity with forested floodplain. The
Bianculli tributary south (UT2), including the portion of the formerly abandoned channel on the
Roberson property, was mitigated using enhancement level II (654 ft) and restoration (236 ft)
actions. The unnamed tributary on the Davis property (UT3) was preserved on the upper most
777 ft, enhanced through the middle 538 ft, and restored on the lower 427 ft. The two small
spring fed channels on the Davis property (spring seep north 144 ft; spring seep south 78 ft) was
placed into preservation.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 5
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

2.4 Project History and Background
Land use in the USH watershed consists largely of forested areas, pastureland, hay fields, and
low-density residential development (NCWRC 2010). Although land use has resulted in the
creation of impermeable surfaces within the watershed, impervious areas are primarily from low-
density residential development and roads. Low-density residential development and open space
land use comprise approximately 3.0% of the watershed, and impervious surfaces comprise
0.14% of the watershed (Yang et al 2002; Homer et al 2004). Future residential development
pressures can be expected from the current trend of influx of people to Buncombe County and
western North Carolina in general; however, dramatic changes in land use in the SHC watershed
are not anticipated in the immediate future.
On-site land uses include livestock grazing, hay production, forested areas, and low density
farm and residential developments. Grazing of livestock has occurred over many years and
access to the stream channels has not been prohibited. Narrow riparian areas and lack of
exclusionary fencing contributed to the degradation of on-site wetlands and channels banks.
The NCDMS acquired the project site from four landowners (Suzanne Loar, Patrick
Roberson, James Roberson, and Julia Davis). Following site acquisition, the Loar property was
sold to Joe and Molly Bianculli and the Patrick Roberson property sold to Lorri Bura. The
NCWRC performed the initial site assessment, designed the restoration plans, and provided
construction oversight (NCWRC 2010). Construction of the USH mitigation project took place
between 20 June and 30 November 2011. Stream and riparian impacts were addressed using
natural channel design techniques, eliminating livestock access to the riparian areas and stream
channels, and removing all foreign materials (old fencing, scrap metals, out buildings, etc.) from
within the project footprint. The as -built morphological surveys were completed in February
2012. Vegetation planting was conducted between December 2011 and February 2012; the
baseline vegetation survey was completed in February 2012. The Monitoring Year -1 (MY 1)
survey was conducted during October and November 2012. A diversion channel was
constructed in October of 2012 to carry storm water runoff to SHC further upstream of the
Connie Davis Road bridge; whereas, prior to the project, storm runoff entered SHC adjacent to
the upstream right bank bridge abutment. The MY2 survey was completed in November 2013.
The MY3 survey was completed in October 2014. The MY4 survey was completed in
November 2015. The MY5 survey was completed in November 2016. Project reporting history
and contact information are presented in Tables A.2 and A.3. Project attributes for SHC, UTI,
UT2, and UT3 are presented in Table A.4.
3 Methods and Success Criteria
MY5 conditions for the USH mitigation site were determined during September -November
2016. Established representative cross-sectional dimensions and longitudinal profile data were
collected using standard stream channel survey techniques (Harrelson et al. 1994; NCSRI 2003).
The geomorphology of the stream was classified using the Rosgen (1994, 1996) stream
classification system. Project site MY4 morphological data were analyzed using Carlson survey
software for AutoCAD and converted to Bentley Microstation Version 8.0. Plan view drawings
were prepared using ESRI ArcGIS software with overlays of site features on the most current
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 6
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

CGIA Orthoimagery. Stream data was processed and overlain on previous monitoring data using
Microsoft Excel with graphing of cross-sectional data and profile data printed from Excel. Bed
material composition and mobility was assessed by doing a reach -wide and riffle cross-section
pebble counts. Vegetation surveys and data reduction were completed following established
Carolina Vegetation Survey protocols (Lee et al. 2006). Additional project monitoring
components were performed following the guidance of the NCDMS procedural Guidance and
Content Requirements document (NCDMS 2012). References to the left and right channel banks
in this document are oriented when viewing the channel in the downstream direction.
Monitoring protocols and performance criteria follow what is outlined in the NCDMS site
specific mitigation plan for the USH mitigation site and the USACE Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (USACE 2003). Site monitoring will consist of data collection, analysis, and
reporting on channel stability and survival of riparian vegetation and will be conducted on an
annual basis for a minimum of 5 years post construction.
3.1 Monitoring Plan View
Survey data and plan view sheets provide a means to compare current project site conditions
to the design specifications and the baseline condition following construction. Plan view sheets
not only provide a detailed representation of the current condition of project site channel
geomorphology, stability, and riparian vegetation but also illustrate the location of all fixed point
survey locations for the mitigation site (Figure D.1).
All 14 established cross-sections on SHC, UT2, and UT3 were resurveyed in MY5. Ten
established cross-sections were resurveyed on SHC, six riffles and four pools. Riffle (XS 1, XS3,
XS5, XS7, XS8, and XS 10) and pool (XS2, XS4, XS6, and XS9) cross-sections were resurveyed
to compare channel morphology and stability to the baseline condition. The single riffle cross-
section on the restored section of UT2, Roberson property, was resurveyed. Three cross-sections
(riffles: XS 1 and XS2; pool: XS3) were resurveyed on the restored portion of UT3, Davis
property.
Longitudinal profile surveys were conducted to evaluate thalweg movement and change in
channel slope. The longitudinal profiles of the entire mainstem of SHC and the restored portions
of UT2 and UT3 have been surveyed each year following construction (MYO-MY5). A
longitudinal profile survey was performed on the restored portion of UTI following construction
(MYO). The longitudinal profiles of the enhancement level II (UT2) and preservation portions of
UTI and UT3 have not been surveyed since pre -construction.
Vegetation monitoring plots were resurveyed at the 10 established locations along the
mainstem of SHC and the tributaries. Vegetation plots are identified on the plan view sheets and
will be used to determine survival of planted stems over the course of project monitoring.
Fixed photo stations were established at 26 locations on the stream channels and riparian
areas. Five photo stations were established in wetland areas across the project site. Fixed station
photographic points were established to provide visual comparison of channel banks, in -stream
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 7
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

structures, and riparian buffer condition over time. Fixed station locations are identified on the
plan view sheets.
In addition to all the established monitoring locations, plan view sheets illustrate site
topography, easement boundaries, and other attributes of the project to aid in the long-term
monitoring of the mitigation site (Figure D.1).
3.2 Stream Monitoring
Stream morphological surveys in MY5 included cross-sectional (dimension), pattern,
longitudinal profile, and bed material measurements. Bankfull flow events were monitored using
a simple crest gauge.
3.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Established vegetation monitoring plots within the planted conservation easement were
resurveyed in MY5 in accordance with established NCDMS/CVS protocols (Lee et al. 2006).
Vegetation plots were evaluated to ascertain the performance and density of planted woody
stems. The 10 vegetation plots were again photographed to provide a visual record of each plot
over time. Minimum success criteria, established by USACE (2003), for planted woody
vegetation must be 320 stems/acre in year -1, 280 stems/acre in year -3, and 260 stems/acre during
the year -5 monitoring period.
3.4 Schedule and Reporting
The MY5 document was prepared following NCDMS content requirements and procedural
guidelines (NCDMS 2012). The report documents the mitigation sites pre-existing
morphological values, design values, and a quantitative summary of the post construction
morphological and vegetative project elements. The report also includes photographic
documentation of the sites past and present condition. Annual monitoring reports will build
upon the data tables, graphs, and photographs presented in this report.
Annual monitoring reports will provide a discussion of any significant deviations from the
as -built condition as well as the potential for the mitigation site to meet the success criteria for
channel stability and vegetation survival at the end of the 5 -year monitoring period. Monitoring
reports will be submitted annually to the NCDMS, preferably by March 1.
4 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
4.1 Stream Assessment
4. 1.1 Morphometric Criteria
Channel cross-sectional dimensions, pattern, and longitudinal profile were surveyed in
September - November 2016 for MY5 to document morphological characteristics of the active
channel (Figure D.1). In addition, the locations of all constructed stream features (i.e., rock
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 8
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

vanes, log vanes, J -hook vanes, geolifts, wood toe, and root wads) were assessed for stability and
structural integrity.
4.1.2 Quantitative Measures Summary
MY5 morphological data were obtained by resurveying established fixed survey locations on
the mainstem of SHC and the three unnamed tributaries. Morphological data from established
cross-sectional survey stations were compared with existing, reference, design, and previous
years monitoring data for riffle stream features (Tables B.1 and B.1.1). Mean morphologic and
hydraulic data presented in Tables B.1 are from riffle cross-sections 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 on the
mainstem of SHC. Mean values were not derived for the single riffle cross-sections surveyed on
UT2 and UT3 Upper and UT3 Lower (Table B.1.1). Morphological data presented in Table B.2
reflect post construction dimensions for each of the 14 individual cross-sections, including both
riffles and pools, established on the mainstem of SHC, UT2 and UT3. Channel cross-sectional
data plots were used to evaluate the channel condition and for the visual comparison of channel
stability over time (Figure B.1).
Statistical values of the pattern data for each mainstem reach (Mainstem 1 Bianculli Reach,
Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson Reach, and Mainstem 3 Davis Reach) are presented in Table B.1.
Insufficient pattern geometry on UT2 and UT3 Upper resulted in a low sample size (N=1) of
pattern data parameters (Table B.1.1). Pattern geometry data was more robust for UT3 Lower,
and a range of values were calculated for each parameter (Table B.1.1).
Longitudinal profile data, including feature lengths, depths, slopes, and spacing, for the three
SHC mainstem reaches and the restored portions of UT2 and UT3 were evaluated. Statistical
values of each profile parameter are presented in Table B.1. Longitudinal profile data for UT2
and UT3 are presented in Table B.1.1. Longitudinal profile data plots were used to evaluate the
channel condition and for future comparison of morphological data over time (Figure B.2).
Channel bed material was surveyed by performing a reach -wide pebble count consisting of
10 pebble grabs from both riffle (6) and pool (4) features along the entire mainstem of SHC. The
reach -wide pebble count is used to assign a number to the stream type classification based on
median grain size (D50) encountered. Additionally, pebble counts were performed by collecting
100 pebbles from each of the 10 (6 riffles and 4 pools) mainstem cross-sections (Tables B.I and
B.2). Pebble counts were not performed on UTI, UT2 or UT3 due to homogenous (silt) bed
material. Pebble count data plots are presented for visual comparison of bed material data over
the course of the monitoring surveys (Figure B.3).
4.1.2.1 Mainstem 1 — Bianculli Reach — 797 ft
The entire length of Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach of SHC within the conservation easement is
797 ft. The Bianculli reach was divided into two approach levels (restoration and enhancement
level II). The channel length of the restoration reach is 630 ft. The channel length of the
enhancement level II reach is 167 ft.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 9
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Dimension. -Channel dimensions data from three cross-sections (XS 1 riffle, XS2 pool, XS3
riffle) were collected in the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure
B.1). Channel dimensions of the two riffle cross-sections were compared with the range of
design values (Table B.1). Design values for riffle bankfull width ranged from 27.4 to 39.4 ft.
Bankfull widths during MYO-MY5 have ranged from 26.9 to 33.5 ft. Bankfull width (29.0 ft) at
cross-section 1 in MY4-MY5 was within the range of design bankfull width. In previous
monitoring years, the bankfull width at cross-section 1 was slightly below the range of design,
likely due to the proximity of the Bianculli barn (<15ft) to the top of the right bank of SHC,
which necessitated a reduced amount of bank shaping in this location during construction.
Bankfull width at cross-section 3 (MY4=33.5 ft) has been within the range of design values each
monitoring year post -construction. Dimensions of each individual cross-section are presented in
Table B.2.
Design values for riffle cross-sectional area ranged from 43.8 to 75.5 ft2. Bankfull cross-
sectional area ranged from 54.8 to 62.9 ft2 for the as -built channel and 42.3 to 75.9 ft2 in MYl-
MY4 (Table B.1). Riffle cross-section 1 (60.1 ft2) approximated the mean design value (57.9
ft); whereas, riffle cross-section 3 (75.9 ft2) was slightly above the maximum design value for
cross-sectional area during MY5.
Mean depth at bankfull for both riffle cross-sections ranged from 1.6 to 2.3 ft during MYO-
MY5 (Table B.1). Cross-section 1 mean depth (2.1 ft) remained within the design value range
for mean depth. Mean depth at riffle cross-section 3 (2.3 ft) was slightly higher than the design
mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2 ft) during MY5.
Riffle bankfull maximum depth design values ranged from 2.0 to 3.3 ft (Table B.1).
Bankfull maximum depths for the two riffle cross-sections ranged from 2.6 to 3.4 ft during
MYO-MY1. These values were within the design range for riffle maximums depths. In MY2-
MY5, the values ranged from 2.5 ft to 4.2 ft, slightly above design range values. The increase at
cross-section 3 was due to bed degradation along the left channel. Riffle cross-section 1
maximum depth (3.1 ft) was within the range for bankfull maximum depth values in MY5.
Riffle cross-section 3 maximum depth decreased slightly (4.1 ft) in MY5 after remaining at 4.2 ft
in MY3-MY4, possibly indicating that the riffle bankfull maximum depth is stabilizing.
The width/depth ratio design values ranged from 12.0 to 18.6 (Table B.1). Following
construction, the width/depth ratio for the two Mainstem 1 reach riffle cross-sections ranged
from 13.2 to 14.4. In MY1, width/depth ratio values ranged from 13.6 to 14.2 ft. During MY2,
width/depth ratios ranged from 14.1 to 17.4. During MY3, the width/depth ratios ranged from
14.2 to 15.0. During MY4, the width/depth ratios ranged from 14.5 to 14.6. During MY5, the
width/depth ratios ranged from 14.0 to 14.8. Width/depth ratio values have been within the
range of design values during all monitoring surveys.
The post -construction entrenchment ratios, a measure of vertical containment, have been
similar to the existing range of 6.6 to 13.4. Entrenchment ratios taken from measurements at the
two riffle cross-sections have ranged from 8.1 to 12.2 during MYO-MY5 (Table B.1).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 10
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Pattern. -Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal change in
pattern geometry on the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach. Channel sinuosity (1.1) is low due to a
single meander bend in this reach located at station 2+50 to 3+50. The MY5 values for channel
belt width, radius of curvature, and meander wavelength are similar to the values obtained from
the pre-existing site survey and are within the range of design values (Table B.1).
Profile. -The entire length (797 ft) of the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach longitudinal profile
was surveyed during MY5 (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.012 ft/ft during MY5, a slight
decrease from MY3-MY4, a slight increase in slope from MYO-MY1 (0.011 ft/ft), and the same
as MY2 (0.012 ft/ft). Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated following the
monitoring survey (Table B.1).
The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 32.4 to 62.9 ft and were within the range of design
values (15.8 to 86.9 ft). Riffle length ranged from 48.2 to 108.2 ft in MY 1. The maximum riffle
length was exceeded in one measurement by approximately 20 ft in MY1. Minimum riffle
length was slightly below the range of design values for one measurement in MY1. Riffle length
ranged from 45.5 to 85.5 ft during MY2. Riffle length ranged from 12.7 to 41.5 ft in MY3.
Riffle length ranged from 30.6 to 122.2 ft during MY4. Riffle length ranged from 8.0 to 74.Oft
during MY5. One measurement (8.0 ft) was below the design range of values for riffle length in
MY5. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.011 to 0.016 ft/ft in MYO, 0.010 to 0.020 ft/ft in MY1, and
0.006 to 0.018 ft/ft in MY2. A single riffle slope measurement (0.006 ft/ft) was slightly below
the design range of values (0.007 to 0.027 ft/ft) during MY2 survey. Riffle slopes ranged from
0.0002 to 0.027 in MY3. A single riffle slope measurement (0.0002 ft/ft) was well below the
design range of values during the MY3 survey. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.0045 to 0.0126 ft/ft
for MY4, with just one measurement 0.0045 ft/ft) slightly below design values. Riffle slopes
ranged from 0.0022 to 0.0401 ft/ft in MY5. A single riffle slope measurement (0.0401 ft/ft) was
well above the design range of values during the MY5 survey.
Pool lengths were within the range of design values (14.7 to 96.7 ft) in MYO (20.7 to 34.4 ft),
MY1 (18.4 to 56.7 ft), and MY2 (26.7 to 35.4 ft). Pool lengths (21.5 to 86.3 ft) were again
within the range of design values during MY3. Pool lengths during MY4 ranged from 33.1 to
97.1 ft, with one measurement (97.1 ft) slightly above the range of design values. . Pool lengths
during MY5 ranged from 19.6 to 98.4 ft, with one measurement (98.4 ft) slightly above the range
of design values. Pool maximum depths have ranged from 4.2 to 5.9 ft during MYO-MY5 and
are within the design range of values (3.6 to 8.8 ft).
Six in -stream structures (1 rock vane, 1 log vane, and 4 J -hooks) were constructed in the
Mainstem 1 reach to provide grade control, channel stability, and a heterogeneous bed form for
increased habitat. Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from 86.7 to 217.6 ft in MYO, 98.1 to 240.4 ft in
MY1, 58.9 to 297.0 ft in MY2, 37.0 to 122.2 ft in MY3, 34.6 to 177.2 in MY4, and 26.6 to 171.9
ft in MY5. One measurement (26.6 ft) was slightly below design range of values for pool -to -
pool spacing during MY5. The thalweg alignments and edge of water survey points that define
the location of the active channel for the as -built channel are presented in Figure D.1.
Substrate Data. -Riffle substrate particle sizes at cross-section 1 and cross-section 3 revealed
that the D50 ranged from 22.1 to 28.9 mm during MYO, 40.9 to 46.7 mm in MY1, 32.0 to 56.4
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 11
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

mm in MY2, 35.0 to 40.0 mm in MY3, 29.1 to 42.5 mm in MY4, and 22.8 to 33.6 mm in MY5
(Table B.1). The D50 pebble sizes were in the coarse gravel category (16.0 to 32.0 mm) in
MYO, very coarse gravel category (32.0 to 64.0 mm) in MY1-MY3, and a combination of coarse
and very coarse gravel in MY4 and MY5. The D50 for each individual cross-section, including
the pool count (cross-section 2), are presented in Table B.2. Plots of the cumulative percent of
particles finer than a specific particle size for the riffle pebble counts are summarized in Figure
B.3.
4.1.2.2 Mainstem 2 - Bura/Roberson Reach - 1,286 ft
The entire length of Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach of SHC within the conservation
easement is 1,286 ft. The Mainstem 2 reach was separated into two distinct approach levels
(restoration and enhancement level II) based on channel condition prior to construction. The
channel length of the restoration reach is 518 ft. The channel length of the enhancement level II
reach is 768 ft.
Dimension. -Channel dimension data from four cross-sections (XS4 pool, XS5 riffle, XS6
pool, XS7 riffle) were collected in the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach and plotted for visual
evaluation (Figure B.1). Channel dimensions from the two riffle cross-sections (XS5, XS7) were
compared with the range of design values (Table B.1). Design values for riffle bankfull width
ranged from 28.1 to 37.2 ft. Bankfull widths have ranged from 29.5 to 38.3 ft each year post -
construction. Riffle cross-section 5 has approximated the mean bankf ill width design value
(30.4 ft) each of the five monitoring years. Riffle cross-section 7 slightly exceeded the
maximum design value during MYO (37.5 ft) and MY1 (37.4 ft), was within the design range
during MY2 (37.1 ft), and exceeded the range again in MY3 (38.3 ft), MY4 (37.4 ft), and MY5
(37.2 ft). Dimensions of each individual cross-section are presented in Table B.2.
Design values for riffle cross-sectional area ranged from 43.8 to 75.5 ft2. Bankfull cross-
sectional area ranged from 62.2 to 65.2 ft2 in MYO, 61.6 to 65.4 ft2 in MY 1, 61.8 to 62.2 ft2 in
MY2, 64.6 to 65.0 ft2 in MY3, 61.3 to 65.3 ft2 in MY4, and 58.1 to 65.0 ft2 in MY5 (Table B.1).
Both riffle cross-sections were well within the range of design values for cross-sectional area
during the MYO-MY5 surveys.
Mean depth at bankfull for the two riffle cross-sections have ranged from 1.6 to 2.2 ft during
MYO-MY5, which was within the design mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2) (Table B.1). Cross-
section 5 mean depth matched the design value for mean depth with mean depth of 2.0 ft in
MYO-MY2, increasing slightly to 2.2 ft in MY3-MY4, and decreasing slightly in MY5 to 2.1 ft.
Mean depth at cross-section 7 ranged from 1.6 to 1.8 ft in MYO-MY5.
Riffle bankfull maximum depth design values ranged from 2.0 to 3.3 ft (Table B.1).
Bankfull maximum depths for the two riffle cross-sections ranged from 2.6 to 3.4 ft during
MYO-MY5. Cross-section 5 maximum depth increased slightly in MY5 to 3.4 ft from 3.3 ft in
MY4. Cross-section 7 maximum depth has been 2.7 ft in the MYO-MY3 monitoring surveys, 2.6
ft in MY4, and 2.5 ft in MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 12
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

The width/depth ratio design values ranged from 12.0 to 18.6 (Table B.1). The width/depth
ratio for the two Mainstem 2 reach riffle cross-sections ranged from 13.4 to 23.8 during MYO-
MY5. The width/depth ratio for cross-section 7 (MYO=21.6; MY1=21.4; MY2=22.1;
MY3=22.7; MY4=22.9; MY5=23.8) is moderate to high for a "C" stream type. Although the
channel bed and banks are stable at this location, a bankfull width on the high end of the design
range coupled with a mean depth on the low end of the design range resulted in the width/depth
ratio at cross-section 7 higher than the maximum design value. A significant inner berm is
present at cross-section 7, influencing the width and depth values. This feature increased in size
following the 5 May 2013 flood event, further influencing the channel dimension at this location.
The post -construction entrenchment ratios, a measure of vertical containment, were similar to
the existing range of 6.6 to 13.4. Entrenchment ratios taken from measurements at riffle cross-
section 5 and cross-section 7 have ranged from 7.4 to 11.4 during MYO-MY5 (Table B.1).
Pattern. -Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal to no
change in pattern geometry to the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach; however, dimension and
profile adjustments were made to the existing channel. Sinuosity for the as -built channel was
1.1. The MYO-MY5 values for channel belt width, radius of curvature, and meander wavelength
were similar to the values obtained from the pre-existing site survey (Table B.1).
Profile. -The entire length (1,286 ft) of the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach longitudinal
profile was surveyed during MY5 (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.008 ft/ft in MY5, the same
as MY3 (0.008 ft/ft), and a slight decrease in slope from MYO-MY2 and MY4 (0.009 ft/ft).
Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated for each monitoring survey (Table
B.1).
The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 47.6 to 77.8 ft, which were within the range of the
design values (15.8 to 86.9 ft) for riffle length. The MY (27.1 to 82.2 ft) and MY2 riffle
lengths (44.2 to 83.3 ft), determined from multiple (N=5) riffle features, also were within the
design range. The MY3 riffle lengths ranged from 5.4 ft to 82.9 ft. One measurement (5.4 ft)
was below the range of design values for riffle length. The MY4 riffle lengths ranged from 13.0
ft to 92.1 ft. One measurement (13.0 ft) was below the range of design values, and one
measurement (92.1 ft) was above the range of design values for riffle length. The MY5 riffle
lengths ranged from 6.7 ft to 122.5 ft. One measurement (6.7 ft) was below the range of design
values, and one measurement (122.5 ft) was above the range of design values for riffle length.
Riffle slopes ranged from 0.007 to 0.014 ft/ft in MYO, 0.007 to 0.024 ft/ft in MY1, 0.004 to
0.019 ft/ft in MY2, 0.0006 to 0.046 ft/ft in MY3, 0.0000 to 0.0146 ft/ft in MY4, and 0.0000 to
0.0238 ft/ft in MY5. Several riffle slope measurements fell outside the design range of values
(0.007 to 0.027 ft/ft) in MY4; however, all riffle slope measurements were within the designed
range of values in MY5 with the exception of one riffle at 0.0000 ft/ft.
Pool lengths were within the design values (14.7 to 96.7 ft) during MYO-MY2, ranging from
32.8 to 87.1 ft. Pool lengths ranged from 24.1 to 121.2 ft during MY3, slightly higher than the
design values. Pool lengths ranged from 22.0 to 91.2 ft during MY4, which is within design
values. Pool lengths ranged from 14.8 to 138.4 ft during MY5, slightly higher than the design
values. Five in -stream structures (3 log vanes, and 2 J -hooks) were constructed in the Mainstem
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 13
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

2 reach to provide grade control, channel stability, and a heterogeneous bed form for increased
habitat. Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from 69.1 to 469.9 ft in MYO, 65.1 to 466.6 ft in MY I,
128.4 to 455.8 ft in MY2, 37.6 to 150.1 ft in MY3, 42.9 to 183.3 ft in MY4, and 21.0 to 188.7 ft
in MY5. Pool -to -pool spacing exceeded the maximum spacing for pools based on design values
(44.2 to 309.4 ft) in MYO-MY2 and it fell short of the minimum spacing during MY3 and MY5.
The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the location of the active
channel for the as -built survey is presented in the plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. -Statistical values for the substrate data are presented in Table B.1. Riffle
substrate particle analyses at cross-section 5 and cross-section 7 revealed that the D50 values
were 49.4 mm and 31.4 mm during MYO (Table B.2). D50 particles sizes decreased in MY1 at
cross-section 5 (16.7 mm) and cross-section 7 (18.6 mm). D50 particle sizes increased in MY2
at cross-section 5 (28.8 mm) and cross-section 7 (32.0 mm). In MY3, D50 values were 22 mm
for cross-section 5 and 23 mm for cross-section 7. The MY3 D50 values fall within the coarse
gravel categories. In MY4, D50 values were 25.3 mm for cross-section 5 and 22.4 mm for cross-
section 7. The MY4 D50 values fall within the coarse gravel categories. In MY5, D50 values
were 19.7 mm for cross-section 5 and 15.6 mm for cross-section 7. The MY5 D50 values fall
within the medium and coarse gravel categories. Riffle substrate data along with field
observations suggests the project site stream channel is predominately made up of a gravel and
cobble matrix. Plots of the cumulative percent of particles finer than a specific particle size for
the riffle cross-section pebble counts are summarized in Figure B.3.
4.1.2.3 Mainstem 3 - Davis Reach - 737 ft
The entire length of Mainstem 3 Davis reach of SHC is 737 ft. The Davis reach was
separated into two distinct approach levels (enhancement level I and enhancement level II),
based on channel condition prior to construction. The channel length of the enhancement level I
reach is 522 ft. The channel length of the enhancement level II reach is 215 ft.
Dimension. -Channel dimension data from three cross-sections (XS8 riffle, XS9 pool, XS 10
riffle) were collected in the Mainstem 3 Davis reach and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure
B.1). Channel dimensions from the two riffle cross-sections (XS8; XS10) were compared with
the range of design values (Table B.1). Design values for riffle bankfull width ranged from 28.1
to 37.2 ft. Bankfull widths have ranged from 29.6 to 31.0 ft for cross-section 8 and 25.3 to 27.4
ft for cross-section 10 during the MYO-MY5 surveys. Bankfull width for cross-section 10 was
slightly under the minimum design value during each of the five monitoring surveys. Both the
right and left banks were shaped at this location and a bench was established on the left bank.
Bankfull width was measured at the front edge of the bench. Therefore, additional width is
available for flows to expand out onto the bench during bankfull or greater flows. Channel
banks at cross-section 10 were stable and performing satisfactorily during the MYO-MY5
surveys. Dimensions of each individual cross-section are presented in Table B.2.
Design values for riffle cross-sectional area ranged from 43.8 to 75.5 ft2. Bankfull cross-
sectional area ranged from 53.4 to 65.1 ft2 for the as -built channel, 53.7 to 66.0 ft2 in MY 1, 59.4
to 64.3 ft2 during MY2, 61.2 to 62.3 ft2 during MY3, 58.5 to 62.3 ft2 during MY4, and both
cross-sections were at 61.2 ft2 during MY5 (Table B.1). Both riffle cross-sections have
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 14
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

approximated the mean design value (61.3 ft2) for cross-sectional area during the MYO-MY5
surveys.
Mean depth at bankfull for the two riffle cross-sections ranged from 2.1 to 2.2 ft for the as -
built channel and was the same during MY1. Mean depth at bankfull values ranged from 2.2 to
2.3 ft in MY2. During MY3, mean depth at bankfull values ranged from 2.1 to 2.2 ft. During
MY4-MY5, mean depth at bankfull values ranged from 2.0 to 2.3 ft (Table B.1), with the mean
depth of cross-section 10 slightly higher than the design mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2 ft).
Riffle bankfull maximum depth design values ranged from 2.0 to 3.3 ft (Table B.1).
Bankfull maximum depths for both two riffle cross-sections were 3.1 ft during MYO. Cross-
section 8 was again 3.1 ft in MY1-MY2 and MY5, and 3.0 ft in MY3-MY4. Cross-section 10
was 3.0 ft in MY1 and increased to 3.4 ft during the MY2 and MY3 surveys, slightly exceeding
the maximum depth design value. Bankfull maximum depth was 3.3 ft during MY4 and then
increased to 3.4 ft in MY5, slightly higher than the range of design values. Degradation (0.4 ft)
along the right bank occurred during the 5 May 2013 flood event. This is apparent in the visual
comparison of cross-section 10 plots (Figure B.1).
The width/depth ratio design values ranged from 12.0 to 18.6 (Table B.1). Following
construction, the width/depth ratio for the two Mainstem 3 reach riffle cross-sections ranged
from 12.1 to 13.9. Width/depth ratios ranged from 12.4 to 13.8 in MY1, 11.5 to 13.9 during
MY2, 12.2 to 14.1 in MY3, 10.9 to 15.4 in MY4, and 11.1 to 14.8 in MY5. The width/depth
ratio at cross-section 10 was within the range of design values in MY3, but MY4-MY5 survey
measurements indicate that the values have fallen below normal range again as a result of the
increased depth.
The post -construction entrenchment ratios, a measure of vertical containment, were improved
compared to the existing range of 6.6 to 13.4. Entrenchment ratios taken from measurements at
the two riffle cross-sections have ranged from 9.4 to 21.7 during MYO-MY5 (Table B.1).
Pattern. -Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal to no
change in pattern geometry to the Mainstem 3 Davis reach. In large part, only dimension and
profile adjustments were made within the existing channel. Sinuosity for the as -built channel
was 1.1. The MYO-MY5 values for channel belt width, radius of curvature, and meander
wavelength were similar to the values obtained from the pre-existing site survey (Table B.1).
Profile. -The entire length (737 ft) of the Mainstem 3 Davis reach longitudinal profile was
surveyed during MYO-MY4 (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.006 ft/ft during MYO-MY3 and
increased slightly in MY4-MY5 to 0.007 ft/ft. Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were
calculated following each monitoring survey (Table B.1).
The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 22.0 to 60.8 ft and were within the range of the design
values (15.8 to 86.9 ft). The MY1 riffle lengths ranged from 30.4 to 58.5 ft, and the MY2 riffle
lengths ranged from 29.1 to 60.5 ft. MY3 riffle lengths ranged from 9.0 to 56.9 ft. One
measurement (9.0 ft) was slightly below the range of design values. MY4 riffle lengths ranged
from 11.6 to 75.8 ft with one measurement (11.6 ft) was slightly below the range of design
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 15
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

values. . MY5 riffle lengths ranged from 7.8 to 59.2 ft with one measurement (7.8 ft) was
slightly below the range of design values. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.008 to 0.020 ft/ft in MYO,
0.010 to 0.019 ft/ft in MY1, 0.004 to 0.015 ft/ft in MY2, 0.006 to 0.034 ft/ft in MY3, 0.0022 to
0.0136 ft/ft during the MY4 survey, and 0.0022 to 0.0154 in MY5.
Pool lengths were within the design values range (14.7 to 96.7 ft) in MYO-MY2 (MYO=17.6
to 38.5 ft; MY1=17.1 to 55.6 ft; MY2=17.5 to 43.0 ft). Pool length values ranged from 30.1 to
111.6 ft during the MY3, with one measurement (111.6 ft) being slightly above the range of
design values. Pool length values ranged from 30.6 to 52.9 ft during the MY4 and 19.5 to 88.2 ft
in MY5, well within the range of design values. Four in -stream structures (3 j -hook log vanes, 1
rock cross vane) were constructed in the Mainstem 3 reach to provide grade control, channel
stability, and a heterogeneous bed form for increased habitat. Pool -to -pool spacing was within
the design value range (44.2 to 309.4 ft) in MYO (65.6 to 258.1 ft) and MY1 (64.2 to 225.1 ft).
MY2 pool -to -pool spacing values ranged from 42.2 to 229.7 ft, MY3 values ranged from 39.0 to
112.0 ft, and MY5 values ranged from 31.5 to 114.9 ft, revealing that a single measurement
during each year was slightly below the design values range. MY4 values ranged from 45.3 to
106.4 ft, which was within the range of design values. The thalweg alignment and edge of water
survey points that define the location of the active channel for the as -built survey is presented in
the plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. -Statistical values for the substrate data are presented in Table B.1. Riffle
substrate particle analyses at cross-section 8 and cross-section 10 revealed that the D50 values
were 47.7 mm and 33.5 mm during MYO. The MY1 D50 value for cross-section 8 was 37.9 mm
and 25.0 mm for cross-section 10. The D50 value in MY2 was 29.2 mm at cross-section 8 and
16.0 mm cross-section 10. The D50 value in MY3 was 24 mm at cross-section 8 and 14 mm at
cross-section 10. In MY4, the D50 value was 24.3 mm at cross-section 8 and 17.6 mm at cross-
section 10 (Table B.2). The MY4 D50 values are within the coarse gravel category throughout
the reach. In MY5, the D50 value was 22.2 mm at cross-section 8 and 17.9 mm at cross-section
10 (Table B.2). The MY5 D50 values are within the coarse gravel categories throughout the
reach. Riffle substrate data along with field observations suggests the project site stream channel
is predominately made up of a gravel and cobble matrix. Plots of the cumulative percent of
particles finer than a specific particle size for the riffle pebble counts are summarized in Figure
B.3.
4.1.2.4 Unnamed Tributary I - Bianculli Reach - 277 ft
The upper most portion of UT1 was mitigated using a preservation (94 ft) approach. The
lower portion of UTI was restored (183 ft) during construction using a Priority I approach. The
lower two-thirds of UTI had been ditched by previous property owners in an attempt to quickly
drain two small spring areas and the adjacent wooded wetland. The existing channel was
severely entrenched and was approximately 3 ft below the floodplain and forest floor. A new
channel was constructed to reconnect the channel to the floodplain and wooded wetland. An
ephemeral pool was constructed at the outflow of UTI, further enhancing the quality of the
adjacent wetlands. The existing ditched channel was filled with compacted material during
construction. The banks of the new channel are very low (<12 in.) over much of the reach to
allow for the desired connectivity with the floodplain and associated wetlands. Due to its short
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 16
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

length and relatively little flow, a cross-sectional survey was not performed. Minimal pattern
was added to the new channel when constructed. The entire length of the new channel was
surveyed following construction. Pattern and profile data for UTI are presented in the plan view
drawing sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. -Bed material in UTI was not collected during the MYO-MY5 surveys.
From observation, it consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials.
4.1.2.5 Unnamed Tributary 2 - Bianculli and Roberson Reaches - 890 ft
Unnamed Tributary 2 originates on the Bianculli property. The first 654 ft was treated as
enhancement level II mitigation; the last 45 ft of UT2 on the Bianculli property was restored.
The portion of UT2 on the Roberson property had been rerouted to divert the flow to a roadside
ditch and the original channel abandoned to expand agricultural practices. In order to restore
flow back to UT2 and adjacent wetlands, flow was piped under Canterfield Lane during
construction. Channel alignment was similar to what it was prior to flow diversion. A new
channel (191 ft) with grade control structures and bankfull benches was constructed to carry the
re-established flow.
Dimension. -A single riffle cross-section (XS 1) was surveyed on the restored portion of UT2
and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure B.1). Therefore, a range of dimensional values are not
presented for UT2 (Table B.1.1). Channel dimensions for UT2 cross-section 1 are also presented
in Table B.2. Bankfull widths have ranged from 21.9 to 26.3 ft during the MYO-MY5 surveys.
Bankfull cross-sectional area was 14.2 ft2 in MYO, 13.9 ft2 in MY1, 13.7 ft2 in MY2, 14.4 ft2 in
MY3, 13.4 ft2 in MY4, and 16.0 ft2 in MY5. Mean depth at bankfull for the riffle cross-section
was 0.6 ft in MYO-MY5. Bankfull maximum depth for the riffle cross-section was 1.4 ft in
MYO-MY3, decreased slightly to 1.3 ft in MY4, and returned to 1.4 ft in MY5. Following
construction, the width/depth ratio for cross-section 1 was 35.8, dropped slightly in MY1 to 34.9,
was 34.8 in MY2, was 35.6 in MY3, and increased to 42.5 during MY4 and 43.3 in MY5. The
entrenchment ratio was found to be 12.5 in MYO, 12.8 in MY 1, 12.9 in MY2, 12.5 in MY3, 11.8
during MY4, and 10.7 in MY5.
Pattern. -Due to short length of the restored channel, insufficient pattern data precluded
presentation of a range of pattern data values. Moreover, a Priority III approach during
construction resulted in minimal no change in pattern geometry. The MYO-MY5 values for
channel belt width, radius of curvature, and meander wavelength are presented in Table B.1.1.
Profile. -Only the portion (191 ft) of the restored UT2 channel longitudinal profile was
surveyed during monitoring surveys, MYO-MY5 (Figure B.2). The MY5 longitudinal profile
survey did not include the short (45 ft) section of channel on the adjoining Bianculli property and
does not include the section of channel piped under Canter Field Lane. Two rock sills were
constructed to provide grade control and channel stability near the confluence of UT2 and SHC.
Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated following the longitudinal
survey (Table B.1.1). The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 12.3 to 31.8 ft. The MY riffle
lengths varied slightly ranging from 13.8 to 21.9 ft. The MY2 riffle lengths ranged from 22.3 to
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 17
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

29.5 ft. The MY3 riffle lengths varied ranging from 3.5 to 56.6 ft. The MY4 riffle lengths
varied ranging from 10.0 to 33.7 ft. MY5 riffle lengths varied from 3.7 to 44.2 ft. Riffle slopes
ranged from 0.009 to 0.012 ft/ft in MYO, 0.007 to 0.016 ft/ft in MY1, 0.012 to 0.018 ft/ft in
MY2, and 0.010 to 0.075 in MY3. Riffle slope was not calculated in MY4 because water surface
measurements were distorted by the presence of a small beaver dam. Riffle slopes weren't
calculated in MY5 due to a lack of water in the channel during surveys. Pool lengths ranged
from 10.7 to 23.1 ft in MYO, 17.1 to 23.1 ft in MY1, 12.3 to 15.4 ft in MY2, 6.6 to 29.0 ft in
MY3, 5.8 to 34.2 ft during MY4, and 4.4 to 33.5 ft in MY5. Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from
50.6 to 69.2 ft in MYO-MY2, 11.2 to 63.7 ft in MY3, 15.8 to 54.6 during MY4, and 10.7 to 65.7
ft in MY5. Channel slope ranged from 0.015 to 0.019 ft/ft in MYO-MY3 and was not calculated
in MY4-MY5 due to the lack of water surface measurements. The thalweg alignment and edge
of water survey points that define the location of the active channel during the as -built survey is
presented in plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. -Bed material was not collected from UT2 during the MYO-MY5 surveys.
From observation, it consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials.
4.1.2.6 Unnamed Tributary 3 - Davis Reach - 1,742 ft
The UT3 channel on the Davis property was approached several different ways during
project planning and implementation based on existing condition and need. The upstream most
portion of UT3 is bordered by a mature forest and has stable channel features; therefore, it was
treated as a preservation (777 ft) reach. The middle portion of UT3 was infested with non-native
invasive vegetation and the banks were littered with old farm equipment. The middle portion
was treated as enhancement II (538 ft) during construction by removing the invasive vegetation
and all foreign materials, excluding livestock from the riparian zone, and performing some
targeted bank shaping along the right and left channel banks. The bottom portion of UT3, from
the wet -ford to the confluence with SHC, was restored during construction using a priority II and
priority I restoration approach. Because of the two different restoration approaches and the
significant changes in channel slope, the bottom portion of UT3 was divided into the upper (201
ft) and the lower (226 ft) restoration sections. Presented below are the dimension, pattern, and
longitudinal profile data for both the upper and lower reaches of the UT3 restoration section.
Unnamed Tributary 3 - Davis Reach - Upper Restoration 201 ft
Dimension. -A single riffle cross-section (XS 1) was surveyed on the UT3 Upper restoration
section and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure B.1). Therefore, a range of dimensional values
are not presented for UT3 Upper. Channel dimensions for UT3 Upper cross-section 1 are
presented in Table B.2. Comparison of UT3 Upper dimensional values to the design values are
presented in Table B.1.1. Bankfull width during MYO was 12.9 ft, 13.0 ft in MY 1, 12.9 ft in
MY2, 14.4 ft in MY3, 15.4 ft during MY4, and 13.4 ft in MY5. Values from each survey is
slightly higher than the design bankfull width of 12.0 ft.
Bankfull cross-sectional area was 10.3 ft2 in MYO, 10.6 ft2 in MY 1, 9.9 ft2 in MY2, 8.9 ft2 in
MY3, 8.4 ft2 during MY4, and 7.8 ft2 in MY5. Values have been slightly higher than the
maximum design value for cross-sectional area (7.5 ft2) in each monitoring year.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 18
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Mean depth at bankfull for the riffle cross-section was 0.8 ft during MYO-MY2, slightly
exceeding the design values range for mean riffle depth (0.4 to 0.6 ft). In MY3-MY5, the mean
depth reduced to 0.6 ft, placing it within the range of design values. Bankfull maximum depth
for the riffle cross-section was 1.3 ft in MYO-MY2, 1.1 ft in MY3, and 0.9 ft during MY4-MY5,
which is slightly below the range of design values (1.0 to 1.4 ft). This can be attributed to the
aggradation in this reach. Following construction, the width/depth ratio for cross-section 1 was
16.1 and 16.5 in MY1. The width/depth ratio (16.7) was slightly higher in MY2, but was still
within the design range of 16.0 to 20.0. During MY3, the width/depth ratio was 23.0, slightly
above design range, increased to 27.3 during MY4, and decreased back to 22.9 in MY5.
Pattern. -A range of pattern geometry values are lacking on the UT3 Upper restoration
section due in large part to channel type (Ba). This section of UT3 was restored by designing
step -pool channel features and employing a priority II approach. Therefore, very little meander
is present in this section. The MYO-MY5 values for channel belt width, radius of curvature, and
meander wavelength are presented in Table B.1.1.
Profile. -The entire length (201 ft) of the UT3 Upper restored channel longitudinal profile
was surveyed in MY5 (Figure B.2). The total profile length includes the section of UT3 from the
wet -ford downstream to just below the confluence of Spring Seep South and Wetland C, station
0+00 to 2+01. A series of nine rock step -pool features were constructed to provide grade control
and channel stability. Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated following
each monitoring survey (Table B.1.1).
The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 13.7 to 26.4 ft, 13.3 to 25.1 ft in MY1, 17.7 to 26.5 ft in
MY2, 11.7 to 60.5 ft in MY3, 13.3 to 54.6 ft in MY4, and 3.8 to 90.8 ft in MY5. Riffle slopes
ranged from 0.054 to 0.102 ft/ft in MYO, 0.054 to 0.106 ft/ft in MY1, 0.058 to 0.092 ft/ft in
MY2, 0.053 to 0.095 ft/ft in MY3, 0.073 to 0.090 ft/ft during MY4, and 0.043 to 0.101 ft/ft
during MY5. The design slopes ranged from 0.095 to 0.120 ft/ft for UT3 Upper.
Pool lengths ranged from 2.9 to 5.1 ft for the as -built channel, 2.2 to 5.0 ft in MY1, 2.4 to 4.5
ft in MY2, and 6.0 to 7.4 ft in MY3, 3.3 to 6.8 ft during MY4, and 4.1 to 7.0 ft in MY5. Pool -to -
pool spacing ranged from 21.2 to 24.2 ft in MYO, 20.0 to 27.1 ft in MY1, 18.6 to 48.3 ft in MY2,
18.0 to 66.4 ft in MY3, 17.7 to 58.2 ft during MY4, and 5.3 to 96.4 ft in MY5. Several pool -to -
pool spacing measurements have been slightly below the design values each monitoring year.
Additionally, a couple of pool -to -pool measurements exceeded design values in MY2-MY5.
However, this was an artifact of measurement stations and not an indication that pool spacing has
changed significantly on UT3 Upper. Channel slope ranged from 0.082 to 0.089 ft/ft in MYO-
MY5. The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the location of the
active channel for the as -built survey is presented in the plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. -Bed material in UT3 Upper was not collected during the MYO-MY5
surveys. From observation native material consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials. Gravel
and cobble material was added to the channel following construction to increase roughness and
provide benthic organism habitat. An increase of very fine particle size material has been
observed over the past five monitoring surveys.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 19
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Unnamed Tributary 3 - Davis Reach - Lower Restoration 226 ft
Dimension. -Two cross-sections, XS2-riffle and XS3-pool, were surveyed on the UT3
Lower restoration section and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure B.1). Dimensional
parameters, for cross-sections 2 and 3, representing the condition of the priority I channel
restoration of UT3 Lower are presented in Table B.2. Dimensional parameters for the riffle
cross-section (XS2) were compared with the design values (Table B.1.1). Bankfull widths have
ranged from 9.1 to 10.2 ft during MYO-MY5. Bankfull width measurements have been within
the design range (8.0 to 12.0 ft) each monitoring year.
Bankfull cross-sectional area was 7.6 ft2 in MYO, 7.4 ft2 in MY 1, 7.3 ft2 in MY2, 6.7 ft2 in
MY3, 5.8 ft2 during MY4, and 5.3 ft2 in MY5. Cross-sectional area values have been below the
minimum design value of 8.6 ft2, likely due to aggradation, caused by low energy flow allowing
herbaceous vegetation to fill the channel and collect fine sediment, which has occurred
throughout the reach during MY3-MY5.
Mean depth at bankfull for the riffle cross-section was 0.8 ft in MYO-MY1, dropped slightly
during MY2-MY4 to 0.7 ft, and to 0.6 ft in MY5. The design range for mean riffle depth was
0.5 to 0.7 ft. Bankfull maximum depth for the riffle cross-section was 1.4 ft during MYO-MY1,
dropped slightly in MY2 to 1.3 ft, dropped again in MY3 to 1.2 ft, and dropped again in MY4-
MY5 to 1.1 ft. Maximum depth values ranged from 0.9 to 2.2 ft in the design plan. Following
construction, the width/depth ratio for the UT3 Lower riffle cross-section was 12.8 and fell
below the design range of 16.0 to 17.1. The width/depth ratio was 13.2 in MY 1, 14.4 in MY2,
14.5 in MY3, 13.4 during MY4, and 15.7 in MY5.
Pattern. -The lower most portion of UT3 was restored by constructing a priority I
meandering channel with three distinct bends over the course of 226 ft. Therefore, a range of
pattern geometry values were determined for UT3 Lower. The MYO-MY5 range of values for
channel belt widths, radius of curvatures, and meander wavelengths are presented in Table B.1.1.
Profile. -The entire length (226 ft) of the UT3 Lower restored channel longitudinal profile
was surveyed during MY5 (Figure B.2). A "C" type channel was constructed with a series of
four riffles and three pool features. Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated
following the MYO-MY5 surveys (Table B.1.1).
The design range for riffle length values was 10.0 to 18.0 ft. The MYO-MY5 riffle lengths
have exceeded the design values all years post -construction, ranging from 6.9 to 58.6 ft. Riffle
slopes ranged from 0.013 to 0.065 ft/ft in MYO, 0.007 to 0.057 ft/ft in MY1, 0.012 to 0.058 ft/ft
in MY2, 0.012 to 0.128 ft/ft in MY3, 0.021 to 0.051 ft/ft during MY4, and 0.0108 to 0.058 ft/ft
in MY5. The design slopes ranged from 0.018 to 0.056 ft/ft for UT3 Lower. Minimum and
maximumiffle slope measurements have been below and above the design range of values in
each year post -construction; however, mean riffle slopes (MYO=0.039 ft/ft; MY1=0.027 ft/ft;
MY2=0.039 ft/ft; MY3=0.048 ft/ft; MY4=0.034; MY5=0.036) have been within the design
range each monitoring year.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 20
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Pool lengths ranged from 16.0 to 19.7 ft for the as -built channel, 17.8 to 27.4 ft in MY1, 12.1
to 22.4 ft in MY2, 5.4 to 23.0 ft in MY3, 6.7 to 22.0 ft during MY4, and 5.9 to 23.7 ft in MY5.
All pool lengths have been within the design range of values (13.4 to 32.3 ft) except for a single
pool length measurements in MY2 (12.1 ft), MY3 (5.4 ft), MY4 (6.7 ft), and MY5 (5.9 ft). Pool -
to -pool spacing ranged from 16.7 to 69.8 ft in MYO-MY5, exceeding the maximum design value
(33.1 ft) for pool -to -pool spacing. Channel slope was 0.088 ft/ft in MY4 and again in MY5. The
thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the location of the active channel
for the as -built survey is presented in the plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data.—Bed material in UT3 Lower was not collected during the MYO-MY5
surveys. From observation it consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials.
4.1.3 Fixed Station Channel and Riparian Area Photographs
Fixed station photographs document pre- and post -construction conditions and provide a time
series view of the USH mitigation site stream channel features and riparian areas (Figure B.4). A
total of 26 photo stations were established during the as -built survey. These same 26 stations
were photographed again in MY5.
4.1.4 Bankfull Event Documentation and Verification
One bankfull event (28 November 2011) was documented between the end of construction
and completion of the as -built survey (Table B.3). A wrack line above the bankfull elevation
was observed and photographed for verification on December 5, 2011 (Figure B.5). To monitor
additional bankfull events, a simple crest gauge was installed on the right bank (sta. 7+75)
downstream of cross-section 6 and adjacent to a large root wad feature. Although several storm
events occurred in 2012 (MY1), visual observations and crest gauge readings were negative for
bankfull events.
A second bankfull event was observed and documented on May 6, 2013 (Table B.3). This
was a major storm event that produced 3.5 inches of rain in a 24-hour period at the Asheville
Regional Airport. Over a 6 -day period, more than 5 inches of precipitation was recorded.
Property owners in the SHC watershed reported collecting more than 7 inches of rain in personal
gauges over the same period of time. The median daily discharge for the French Broad River at
Asheville is 2,000 cfs. On May 6, 2013, the discharge for the French Broad River at Asheville
was 23,200 cfs, more than ten times the median daily flow. The French Broad River crested at
9.98 ft, 2 feet above flood stage. A 3.3 ft high stream gage plate, station 8+00 on the Mainstem 1
reach, was over -topped during the May 6, 2013 flood event. The simple crest gauge at station
7+75 on the Mainstem 2 reach revealed that SHC crested at 5.0 ft, two feet above the bankfull
elevation (Figure B.5). Bankfull flow was estimated to be 250-350 cfs based on regional curves
during project design. Using base flow data correlated with the stream gauge plate, a bankfull
flow of 295 cfs is estimated at the project site. A flow cresting at 5.0 ft would have an estimated
discharge of 490 cfs.
A third bankfull event occurred on October 14, 2014 with wrack observed on October 28, 2014
within the floodplain (Table B.3). A storm produced 2.41 inches of rain in a 24-hour period at
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 21
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

the Asheville Regional Airport. In addition, 1.53 inches of rain fell in the 11 -day period
preceeding the larger 2.41 -inch event, and crest gauge readings were indicative of a recent
bankfull event.
A fourth bankfull event occurred on October 3, 2015 with wrack observed October 14, 2015
within the floodplain (Table B.3). A storm produced 2.23 inches of rain during a 24-hour period
at the Asheville Regional Airport. In addition, 5.19 inches of rain fell in the 9 -day period
preceding the 2.23 -inch event, and crest gauge readings were indicative of a recent bankfull
event.
4.1.5 Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Monitoring Year -5.—A visual assessment was performed over the entire project site several
times during the calendar year 2016, including visits to perform the MY5 monitoring survey.
Based on the visual stream stability assessment, one new area of stream bank instability was
observed on the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach during MY5. Metrics generated from the
MY5 visual stream stability assessment are reported in Table B.4.
Visual assessments of the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach during MY5 indicate that stream
repairs performed during summer 2015 have remained successful in eliminating all problem
areas between Sta. 0+00 and 6+50. Problem Areas 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 were all removed during
MY4, and these areas were observed to be functioning as designed during MY5 surveys.
Visual assessments of the Mainstem 2 Bura reach during MY5 indicated little change from
previous observations during MYO-MY4. The cross -vane at Sta. 0+50 (Former Problem Area 5)
was reported during MY3 to be stable and is no longer considered a problem. High storm flows
created heavy aggradation (Problem Area 4) in the downstream pool of structure number 4 (sta.
9+20 to 9+50). A riffle has formed in the pool of the structure; however, a small pool has
formed just downstream creating high quality habitat. Stream repairs to a large structure and
both banks were completed during summer 2014 at Sta. 12+75 (Former Problem Area 7) and the
area is currently stable and well -vegetated. Sediment bars deposited during the 2013 flood event
remain stable during MY5. Additionally, approximately 130 linear feet of right bank scour (Sta.
3+45 to 3+70 and 5+05 to 6+10) was observed (Problem Areas 11 and 12).
Visual assessment of the downstream Mainstem 3 Davis reach during MY4 and MY5 indicate
that banks at Sta. 0+00 to 0+20 (Former Problem Area 9) have stabilized and are no longer
considered a problem. The aggradation, which occurred during a November 2011 storm event,
in pools below structures 1, 2, and 4 remained unchanged during MY5. The structures are
functioning as high-quality riffle habitat and do not appear to be causing problems.
Visual assessments of the unnamed tributaries onsite indicate that the step structures on the UT -3
Upper Davis Reach (sta. 0+00 to 2+00) have aggraded (Problem Area 10) due to low flow
velocity and a dense herbaceous layer. Otherwise, Site tributaries are functioning as designed.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 22
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

4.1.6 Stream Problem Areas
Several problem areas with regards to bank stability, channel morphology, and structure
integrity were observed during the MYO-MY5 surveys. Problem areas observed along the SHC
mainstem channel, resulting from the 28 November 2011, 5 May 2013, and various other storm
events, are noted on the MY5 plan view sheets (Figure D.1). The problem, likely cause, and
location of each observed stream problem area is presented in Table B.S. Issues within the
stream channel include aggradation and bar formation, bank scour, and structure integrity.
Additionally, these problem areas were further detailed in the stream feature visual stability
assessment section above and the MY5 stream feature visual stability assessment table (Table
B.4).
Mainstem 1 Bianculli problem areas previously documented during MY1-MY3 were
assessed during the stream survey, and due to stream repairs performed during summer 2015, are
no longer apparent in this reach. The second downstream structure (Sta. 1+50) was repaired and
stabilized; therefore, Problem Area 1 was removed. The right bank scour/sloughing of
approximately 110 linear feet between Sta. 1+45 to 2+75 was sloped back and stabilized;
therefore, Problem Area 2 was removed. The 30 feet of right bank scour between sta. 6+25 and
6+50 was repaired; therefore, Problem Area 6 was removed. Pool aggradation within the reach
between sta. 2+25 to 2+50 and 4+00 to 4+50 appears to have stabilized due to repairs; therefore
Problem Areas 3 and 8 were removed.
Problem areas in the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach include aggradation and bar
formation. Problem Area 4 (sta. 9+20 to 9+50) includes aggradation in the downstream pool of
an engineered structure during high storm flows. A riffle has formed in the pool of the structure;
however, a small pool has formed just downstream providing high quality habitat. The 5 May
2013 flood event contributed to significant scour, bar formation, and loss of function of an
engineered structure at the lower end of the reach (sta. 12+25 to 12+75) (Former Problem Area
7). This area was repaired during the summer of 2014 and is no longer considered a problem.
Additionally, approximately 130 linear feet of right bank scour (Sta. 3+45 to 3+70 and 5+05 to
6+10) was observed (Problem Areas 11 and 12).
The Mainstem 3 Davis reach has endured 2 major flood events since construction, but little
channel instability was observed during MY5. Aggradation of pool features below engineered
structures 1, 2, and 4 was first observed following a November 2011 storm event. Aggradation
in these three areas altered the as -built dimensions of each pool, decreasing pool depth and
length. This aggradation remained unchanged during MY5. The structures are functioning as
high-quality riffle habitat and do not appear to be causing problems. Additionally, previously
documented Problem Area 9 (sta. 0+00 to 0+20) is stable with good vegetation root depth and
density along the bank, and is no longer considered a problem.
Of the three unnamed tributaries onsite, only one small portion in the UT -3 Upper Davis
Reach had issues during MY5. Due to the low flow velocity and a dense herbaceous layer, the
step pool structures (sta. 0+00 to 2+00) have aggraded (Problem Area 10).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 23
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

4.1.7 Stream Problem Area Photographs
Channel bank, stream bed, and engineered structure integrity problem areas observed during
the MYO-MY5 surveys were photographed for documentation of the extent of damage and
departure from as -built condition. Problem area photographs are included in Appendix B of this
report (Figure B.6).
4.1.8 Summary of Morphological Results
The MY5 survey was completed in the fall of 2016. Dimension, pattern, and profile
parameters surveyed in MY5 suggest the restoration, enhancement level II, and enhancement
level I sections of SHC are performing as designed but with some variation from design values.
Small deviations were found in bankfull width at one riffle cross-section (XS 10). Bankfull width
at this cross-section has been below the design value in all five monitoring surveys following
construction. However, problem areas or instability were not observed at cross-section 10.
Several areas of aggradation and degradation were observed during the MY2 survey, often
associated with the surveyed cross-sections. Cross-section 9 had reduction in mean depth,
maximum depth (1.7 ft), and cross-sectional area (14.9 ft2) due to significant pool aggradation.
However, these areas appear to have stabilized, as no significant change was captured in the
MY3-MY5 surveys. Although many dimensional values either increased or decreased in MY2
due to the 5 May 2013 flood event, most dimensional parameters measured at the 10 mainstem
cross-sections were within the design values for SHC during MY3-MY5.
Pattern values derived from the MY5 survey reveal that the mainstem reaches of SHC are
largely within the design values for this morphological parameter.
Channel profile values derived from the MY5 survey reveal slight changes in channel slope
compared with MYO-MY4 channel slope values. The mainstem 1 reach channel slope returned
to 0.012 ft/ft, the same slope value as MY2. This is a slight increase from MYO-MY1 when the
slope was 0.011 ft/ft, but a slight decrease from MY3-MY4 when the slope was 0.013 ft/ft. The
mainstem 2 reach slope returned to 0.008 ft/ft the same value as MYO-MY1 and MY3. During
MY2 and MY4, the channel slope was 0.009 ft/ft. The mainstem 3 reach remained 0.007 ft/ft
during MY5. It was 0.006 ft/ft during MYO-MY3. Riffle slope measurements varied from the
design values in each of the three mainstem reaches. However, the mean riffle slope for each of
the mainstem reaches approximated the design mean riffle slope. The majority of all other
profile values were within the design ranges for the features measured.
Reach -wide substrate particle size analysis revealed that the MY5 D50 value was within the
very coarse gravel category. The median particle size at each of the 6 riffle cross-sections fell
within the coarse to very coarse gravel categories during the MY5 survey.
Previous problem areas on Mainstem 1 resulting from the storm events on 28 November
2011 and 5 May 2013 were repaired in the summer of 2015 including compromised rock vane
structure, in addition to areas of bank erosion, aggradation, and bar formation. No problem areas
were noted on Mainstem 1 during MY5 field surveys.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 24
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Problem Area 4, observed on Mainstem 2, sta. 9+20 to 9+50, resulted from a large amount of
bed material forming a mid -channel bar below a J -hook stream structure during the 2011 flood
event. This material was shifted to the right bank during the 2013 flood event forming an inner
berm or lateral bar. The constructed pool below the J -hook was functioning as a riffle during the
MY5 survey, although a small pool has reformed on the downstream end of the newly formed
riffle creating some high quality and diverse habitat. Additionally, approximately 130 linear feet
of right bank scour (Sta. 3+45 to 3+70 and 5+05 to 6+10, Problem Areas 11 and 12) was
observed in this reach.
No Problem areas were observed on the Mainstem 3 reach during the MY5 survey.
However, aggradation of bed material directly below three of the four engineered structures has
reduced constructed pool habitat. Aggradation in these three areas altered the as -built
dimensions of each pool, decreasing pool depth and length. This aggradation remained
unchanged during MY5. The structures are functioning as high-quality riffle habitat and do not
appear to be causing problems.
The MY5 visual assessment survey found the majority of the 2,820 ft of mainstem channel
banks (95%), channel bed (99%), and engineered stream structures (100%) were performing
adequately. Metrics that scored lower resulted from bed scour or aggradation and sections of
bank erosion.
MY5 morphological results for the three unnamed tributaries revealed that construction
activities followed approaches outlined in the USH mitigation plan. Although small variations
from design values were noted in dimensional parameters such as bankfull width (UT3 Upper -
XS 1 riffle) and bankfull cross-sectional area (UT3 Lower-XS2 riffle), the three unnamed
tributaries were stable and performing as designed. Moreover, the significant storm event on 28
November 2011 and 5 May 2013 did not have any observed negative effects on any of the three
unnamed tributaries.
4.2 Wetland Enhancement and Preservation
Nine wetlands totaling approximately 1.35 acres were identified within the project area
during an October 2009 field investigation of jurisdictional wetlands (Figure B.7).
Wetland C.—(Part of Davis Spring Seep South) is approximately 0.01 acres and is adjacent
to Davis UT3. There is a hand built rock spring box at the head of this feature. Wetland C was
treated as a preservation area during construction and the removal of non-native invasive plants
and livestock access were the two management activities directed at this area.
Wetland D.—is the largest wetland on site totaling approximately 0.69 acres. Wetland D is
adjacent to SHC and was heavily impacted by cattle before construction. Despite previous
impacts from cattle access, Wetland D has the highest diversity of wetland plant species found
within the study area. In addition to excluding livestock from Wetland D, the area was enhanced
by removing a 4 -inch pipe that was installed by the landowner to divert spring flows to SHC and
away from the wetland area. This resulted in replenishing spring water back into the wetland.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 25
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Wetland D was further enhanced by creating three ephemeral pools to increase wetland plant and
amphibian habitat.
Wetland E.—is approximately 0.02 acres and is adjacent to SHC and Roberson UT2. This
wetland was greatly impacted by cattle. A large pile of scrapped farm machinery, metal, and tree
stumps were removed from this feature. Additionally, spring flow was reconnected to the
formerly abandoned UT2 further enhancing the long-term viability of the area.
Wetland G.—is approximately 0.05 acres and is contiguous with Bianculli UT2 and adjacent
to Canter Field Lane. Enhancement to this area included the extensive treatment of Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Wetland H.—is approximately 0.05 acres and is located adjacent to Bianculli UT2.
Enhancement to this area included the extensive treatment of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Wetland I.—is approximately 0.06 acres and is located between a pasture, which is actively
mowed and grazed, and the left bank of Bianculli UT2. In addition to the removal of the non-
native vegetation, easement fencing now encompasses the delineated area removing the livestock
access and mechanized encroachment that was occurring pre -construction.
Wetlands Jand K.—combined are approximately 0.04 acres and are located adjacent to the
Bianculli southwestern property line. This area was treated for non-native invasive vegetation
and permanently protected with the establishment of the conservation easement and exclusionary
fencing.
Wetland L.—is approximately 0.44 acres and is the second largest wetland within the project
area. Wetland L is located adjacent to SHC and Bianculli UTI. It is a forested wetland with
trees and shrubs throughout. Past landowners channelized UTl in an attempt to direct flow away
from the wetland and to quickly move water to SHC. During construction, priority I restoration
of UTI established a new channel and directed the flow into an ephemeral pool that was created.
The restoration of UT 1 and creation of the ephemeral pool significantly enhanced the wetland
feature and amphibian habitat.
4.2.1 Wetland Areas Fixed Station Photographs
Fixed wetland station photographs document the pre -and post -construction conditions of the
jurisdictional wetland areas found on the USH mitigation site. Wetland photographs from the
MYO-MY5 surveys will serve as a comparative timeline sequence with future photographs over
the course of the monitoring surveys (Figure B.7).
4.3 Vegetation Assessment
The USH mitigation site was revegetated with a variety of annual and perennial native seed
mixes during construction to minimize soil erosion immediately following ground disturbing
activities and to provide a diversity of herbaceous plant species within the conservation easement
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 26
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

(Table C.1). A large number of mature trees and shrubs, representing a variety of species, were
not disturbed during construction. Most of these trees and shrubs were located along top of the
SHC channel banks and within the established conservation easement. They were retained
because they were contributing to bank stability, providing shade to the stream, and would be a
seed source that would help contribute to the revegetation of the project area.
Native tree and shrub species, including live stakes, were installed during November and
December 2011 and January 2012. Live stakes were used to promote the long-term stability of
the channel banks, particularly in areas of potential high bank stress. A total of 5,000 livestakes
consisting of three different species were installed along SHC and the three unnamed tributaries
(Table C.1). A total of 1,492 native tree and shrub species were installed (Table C.2). Woody
stems were propagated as either bare -root whips or containerized stock. Woody stems were
dispersed across the mitigation site to enhance riparian areas that were lacking woody stems due
to past land use practices. Shrub and tree selections ranged from species tolerant (obligate
wetland) to weakly tolerant of flooding (facultative upland). Shrubs and trees were matched
with one of four planting zones based on a species wetness tolerance (Figure D.1). Planting
zones typically ranged from wet areas with saturated soils to upland areas where the soils were
better drained.
To monitor the performance of the planted woody stems, ten vegetation assessment plots
were established following woody stem installation (Figure D.1). Location, orientation, and
dimension information for each of the ten vegetation monitoring plots is located in Table C.3.
Stem counts, plant vigor, plant damage, and overall stem density was assessed for each
vegetation monitoring plot (Tables CA - C.8).
Vegetation Plot L Thirteen planted stems (526 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 1 (VP 1) during the MYO survey, representing ten native woody species
originating from both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. Twelve planted stems (486
stems per acre) were recorded in MY I. One dead stem, a river birch (Betula nigra), was
documented. During the MY2 survey, 11 planted stems (445 stems per acre) were recorded.
One dead stem, a dogwood (Cornus florida), was observed. The VP1 herbaceous layer is
adequate and the planted stem density exceeds year -2 success criteria of 320 stems per acre.
Two red maple (Acer rubrum) volunteer stems were recorded in VP 1 during the MY2 vegetation
survey. Including the two volunteer stems, the total stem count was 13 (526 stems per acre) for
MY2. During the MY3 survey, 9 planted stems (364 stems per acre) were recorded. One black
cherry (Prunus serotina) stem was dead, and one bitternet hickory (Carya cordiformis) stem was
missing in MY3. During the MY4 survey, 9 planted stems (364 stems per acre) were recorded.
One bitternet hickory (Carya cordiformis) stem was missing in MY4. Five black walnut
(Juglans nigra) were recorded in MY4. Five stems had vine damage due to the presence of
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) in the plot. During the MY5 survey, 7 planted stems
(283 stems per acre) were recorded. One Schumard's oak (Quercus shumardii) stem was
missing and one black cherry (Prunus serotina) stem was dead in MY5. Five black walnut
(Juglans nigra) were recorded in MY5. Two planted stems had vine damage.
Vegetation Plot 2.—Fourteen planted stems were found in vegetation plot 2 (566 stems per
acre) in MYO, representing 11 native woody species originating from both containerized and
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 27
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

bare -root nursery stock. Plant vigor was good in VP2 with 14 planted stems (566 stems per acre)
recorded during MYL The MY2 stem count documented 14 planted stems (566 stems per acre).
The MY3 stem count documented 13 planted stems (526 stems per acre). One river birch
(Betula nigra) stem was dead in MY3. Four volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
stems were recorded in MY3. The MY4 stem count documented 13 planted stems (526 stems
per acre). Seven stems had vine damage due to the presence of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) in the plot. The MY5 stem count documented 12 planted stems (486 stems per acre).
One river birch (Betula nigra) stem was dead in MY5. Two planted stems had vine damage due
to the presence of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) in the plot. Two volunteer tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems and one volunteer elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) were
recorded in MY5.
Vegetation Plot 3.—In vegetation plot 3, 19 planted stems were recorded (769 stems per
acre) in MYO representing 14 native woody species originating from both containerized and
bare -root nursery stock. Survival of the original 19 stems in VP3 was documented in MYL
Survival of planted stems remained above the minimum success criteria in VP3 during MY2
with 17 stems (688 stems per acre) recorded. Planted stem density exceeds the minimum success
criteria for vegetation performance. One tag alder Alnus serrulata volunteer stem was recorded
in VP3 during the MY2 survey. Including the single volunteer stems, the total stem count was
18 (728 stems per acre) for MY2. The MY3 stem count documented 18 planted stems (728
stems per acre). One additional white oak (Quercus alba) stem that appeared to be planted and
four volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY3. The MY4
stem count documented 18 planted stems (728 stems per acre). Four volunteer tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) stems, one volunteer white oak (Quercus alba) stem, and one volunteer
tag alder (Alnus serrulata) were recorded in MY4. The MY5 stem count documented 17 planted
stems (688 stems per acre). One tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) stem was in MY5. Four
volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems, three volunteer black walnut (Juglans
nigra) stem, and one volunteer white oak (Quercus alba) were recorded in MY5.
Vegetation Plot 4.—Sixteen planted stems (648 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 4 during the MYO survey representing ten native woody species originating from
both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. Sixteen stems (648 stems per acre) were
recorded again in MYL Survival of 15 planted stems (607 stems per acre) were recorded in
MY2. Including the 40 volunteer stems (38 poplar, 2 black cherry) counted in VP4, the total
stem count was 55 (2,226 stems per acre) for MY2. The MY3 stem count documented 16
planted stems (648 stems per acre). One additional sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) stem that
appeared to be planted, two volunteer oak stems (Quercus sp.), and 68 volunteer tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY3. The MY4 stem count documented 16
planted stems (648 stems per acre). Additionally, 88 volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY4. The MY5 stem count documented 15 planted stems
(607 stems per acre). One oak (Quercus sp.) stem was dead in MY5. Additionally, 46 volunteer
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and five volunteer black walnut (Juglans nigra) stems
were recorded in MY5.
Vegetation Plot 5.—In vegetation plot 5, 25 planted stems were recorded (1,011 stems per
acre) in MYO representing 14 native tree and shrub species. Planted stems were both container
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 28
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

grown and bare -root nursery stock. A total of 24 stems were recorded in MYL Planted stem
density (971 stems per acre) remained high even though one stem was crushed by vehicle
encroachment into the easement and VP5 during MYI. A total of 21 planted stems (850 stems
per acre) were counted in the MY2 survey. Four volunteer stems (3 tag alder, 1 black cherry)
were recorded in the MY2 plot survey, increasing the total stem count to 25 (1,011 stems per
acre). The MY3 stem count documented 19 planted stems (769 stems per acre). Two dead
stems, one elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and one pignut hickory (Carya ovata), and one
missing stem, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) were documented in MY3. Four volunteer red
chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), one volunteer sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and one
volunteer black locus (Robinia pseudoacacia) stems were recorded in MY3. The MY4 stem
count documented 19 planted stems (769 stems per acre). The MY5 stem count documented 19
planted stems (769 stems per acre). Five volunteer tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), one
volunteer sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), one volunteer black locus (Robinia pseudoacacia),
one volunteer American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and one hawthorne (Crataegus sp.)
stems were recorded in MY5.
Vegetation Plot 6.—Fifteen planted stems (607 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 6 during the MYO survey. The 15 planted stems recorded in VP6 represent 12
native woody species originating from both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. A total of
15 planted stems (607 stems per acre) were documented in VP6 during MYI, the same number
as the previous survey. A total of 14 planted stems (567 stems per acre) were recorded in MY2.
Volunteer stems (5 poplar) increased the total stem count to 19 (768 stems per acre) in MY2.
The MY3 stem count documented 12 planted stems (486 stems per acre). One dead beautyberry
(Callicarpa america) stem, one missing flowering dogwood (Cornus flordia) stem, and eight
volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY3. The MY4 stem
count documented 10 planted stems (404 stems per acre). One missing flowering dogwood
(Cornus flordia) stem, one missing dwarf chinkapin oak (Quercus prinoides), one missing
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), and 45 volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems
were recorded in MY4. The MY5 stem count documented 9 planted stems (364 stems per acre).
One dead black cherry (Prunus serotina) stem, one missing dwarf chinkapin oak (Quercus
prinoides), one missing cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), 11 volunteer tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) stems, one volunteer black walnut (Juglans nigra) stem, and one
volunteer elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) stem were recorded in MY5.
Vegetation Plot 7.—In vegetation plot 7, 18 planted stems were recorded (728 stems per
acre) in WO representing 14 native tree and shrub species. Planted stems were both container
grown and bare -root nursery stock. A total of 17 stems (688 stems per acre) were documented in
MYL Stem density (648 stems per acre) for VP7 remained well above the minimum success
criteria in MY2 with 16 planted stems recorded. The MY3 stem count documented 18 planted
stems (728 stems per acre). One flowering dogwood (Cornus flordia) stem that appeared to be
planted, two volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems, and two volunteer sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) were recorded in MY3. The MY4 stem count documented 17 planted
stems (688 stems per acre). One dead black cherry (Prunus serotina) stem, three volunteer tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems, and two volunteer sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) were
recorded in MY4. The MY5 stem count documented 17 planted stems (688 stems per acre). Ten
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 29
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems and three volunteer sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) were recorded in MY5.
Vegetation Plot 8.—Twenty-seven planted stems (1,093 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 8 during the MYO survey representing 18 native woody species. Seven stems
were planted as live stakes in VP8. Live stake species consisted of silky dogwood Cornus
amomum (4 stems) and silky willow Salix sericea (3 stems). The other 20 planted stems were
from containerized and bare -root nursery stock. A total of 4 stems were missing (2) or dead (2)
in VP8 during MY1, one of which was a silky dogwood live stake. The other missing or dead
stems were planted as bare -root stock. Twenty-three planted stems (931 stems per acre) were
relocated during the MY 1 vegetation plot survey. Six volunteer stems were noted in VP8 which
brought the total stem count to 29 (1,173 stems per acre) in MY I. Twenty-two planted stems
(890 stems per acre) were recorded during the MY2 survey. Six live stakes were counted and
included in the planted stem count for VP8. The MY3 stem count documented 19 planted stems
(769 stems per acre). One dead beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) stem, one missing
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), one missing bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), one
volunteer red maple (Acer rubrum) stem, one volunteer tag alder (Alnus serrulata) stem, and two
volunteer sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) were recorded in MY3. The MY4 stem count
documented 18 planted stems (728 stems per acre). One missing persimmon (Diospyros
A.rginiana), one missing bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), one missing red oak (Quercus
rubra), eleven volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems, and three volunteer
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) stems were recorded in MY4. The MY5 stem count
documented 17 planted stems (688 stems per acre). Seven planted stems had vine damage. One
volunteer red maple (Acer rubrum), ten volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems,
and eight volunteer sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) stems were recorded in MY5.
Vegetation Plot 9.—In vegetation plot 9, 16 planted stems were recorded (648 stems per
acre) in MYO representing 13 native tree and shrub species. Planted stems were both container
grown and bare -root nursery stock. Two stems were dead in VP9 during MYL Stems density
(567 stems per acre) remained high in VP9 with 14 stems documented. Two more stems were
missing and presumed dead in MY2 survey, decreasing the stem count to 12 planted stems (486
stems per acre). The MY3 stem count documented 10 planted stems (405 stems per acre). One
dead beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) stem, one missing persimmon (Diospyros virginiana),
one missing black cherry (Prunus serotina), and one missing mockernut hickory (Carya alba)
were recorded in MY3. The MY4 stem count documented 11 planted stems (445 stems per
acre). One missing persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) and one yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava)
were recorded in MY4. The MY5 stem count documented 8 planted stems (324 stems per acre).
One missing possumhaw (Ilex decidua), one dead American beautyberry (Callicarpa
americana), and one cherrybark oak (Quercus pagado) were recorded in MY5. In addition, four
volunteer black walnut (Juglans nigra) and three tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems were
recorded in MY5
Vegetation Plot 10.—Twenty-one planted stems (850 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 10 during the MYO survey representing 13 native woody species originating from
both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. Two stems were missing during the MY1
survey. Stem density of the 19 remaining planted stems was 769 stem per acre. Including one
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 30
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

volunteer stem noted in VP10, the total stem count for MY1 was 20 (809 stems per acre).
Nineteen planted stems were recorded in VP 10 during the MY2 survey. The MY3 stem count
documented 14 planted stems (567 stems per acre). One dead beautyberry (Callicarpa
americana) stem, one dead red bud (Cercis canadensis), one missing mockernut hickory (Carya
alba), two missing bitternut hickory (Carya ovata), and two volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY3. The MY4 stem count documented 15 planted stems
(607 stems per acre). One missing mockernut hickory (Carya alba), one missing bitternut
hickory (Carya ovata), and 14 volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems were
recorded in MY4. The MY5 stem count documented 15 planted stems (607 stems per acre).
Twelve volunteer tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems, one black cherry (Prunus serotina),
and two persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) stems were recorded in MY5.
4.3.1 Vegetative Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetative monitoring plot photographs were taken during the MYO vegetation monitoring
survey to establish a baseline condition of each plot. Plot photographs will be compared
overtime to evaluate the plots performance throughout the monitoring period. The MYO-MY5
vegetation plot photographs reveal the positive performance of planted stem and herbaceous
layer growth following construction for all plots (Figure C.1).
4.3.2 Vegetation Problem Areas Table Summary
Areas of dense multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and
pasture fescue (Festuca spp.) along with other less ubiquitous invasive species were chemically
treated throughout the project area during the construction period. A follow up treatment of
invasive exotic vegetation occurred in the spring of 2012 (MY1), spring of 2013 (MY2), spring
of 2014 (MY3), and the fall of 2015 (MY4). The 2012 treatments focused on the Mainstem 1,
UTI, and UT2 conservation easement areas. The 2013 maintenance of non-native vegetation
spot treated the Mainstem 2 reach. In the spring of 2014, the entire Mainstem 3 reach and all of
the UT3 reach on the Davis property were treated. In the fall of 2015, invasive treatments were
performed site -wide.
Areas of high infestation were encountered during the initial treatment phase, particularly
adjacent to UT2 (right bank), but the majority of problem invasive areas were observed as only
isolated occurrences during the MY1-MY5 surveys. Five dense patches of Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) were found in the site during MY5. Additionally, one dense
patch of bamboo (Bambusa sp.) was observed at the upper end of the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson
Reach. Furthermore, a dense patch of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) was observed along the
UT2 Bura/Roberson reach, encompassing Wetland E. These are summarized in Table C.10
(Appendix Q.
4.3.3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
Vegetation problem areas for MY5 are depicted on Figure D.1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 31
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

4.3.4 Vegetative Problem Areas Photographs
Vegetative problem area photographs were taken in MY5. Four dense patches of Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) were observed in isolated areas of the site. Additionally, one
patch of dense bamboo (Bambusa sp.) and one dense patch of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
were observed. These areas are depicted on Figure D.1.
4.3.5 Summary of Vegetation Assessment Results
A total of 184 planted stems, excluding livestakes, were counted during the MYO survey.
The average density of planted woody stems recorded in the ten 100 m2 vegetation plots
combined was 749 stems per acre in MYO excluding livestakes. Three vegetation plots (VP5=1;
VP7=1; VP8=7) included live stake stems. All ten vegetation plots consisted of both native
bare -root whips and containerized stock. All ten vegetation plots exceeded the success criteria
for vegetation stem density during the as -built baseline survey.
A total of 173 planted stems, excluding ivestakes, were counted during the MY1 survey. The
average density of the planted woody stems in the ten vegetation plots combined was 700 stems
per acre excluding livestakes. Three vegetation plots (VP4=12; VP8=6; VPIO=1) were noted as
having volunteer native woody species during MYL The volunteer woody stems increased the
total stem count for the ten vegetation monitoring plots to 192 (777 stems per acre).
A total of 161 planted stems, excluding livestakes, were counted during the MY2 survey.
The average density of the planted woody stems in all the vegetation plots combined was 652
stems per acre excluding livestakes. Five vegetation plots (VPI=2; VP3=1; VP4=40; VP5=4;
VP6=5) were noted as having volunteer native woody species during MY2. The volunteer
woody stems increased the total stem count for the ten vegetation monitoring plots to 213 (862
stems per acre). The vast majority of volunteer stems in VP4 (N=38) are tulip poplars.
A total of 141 planted stems, excluding livestakes, were counted during the MY3 survey, a
decrease of 7 stems from MY2. The average density of the planted woody stems in all the
vegetation plots combined was 570 stems per acre excluding livestakes. All vegetation plots,
except VP 1 and VP9, were noted as having volunteer native woody species during MY3. The
volunteer woody stems increased the total stem count for the ten vegetation monitoring plots to
252 (1020 stems per acre).
A total of 139 planted stems, excluding livestakes, were counted during the MY4 survey, a
decrease of 2 stems from MY3. The average density of the planted woody stems in all the
vegetation plots combined was 562 stems per acre, excluding livestakes. All vegetation plots,
except VP2, VP5, and VP9, were noted as having volunteer native woody species during MY4.
The volunteer woody stems increased the total stem count for the ten vegetation monitoring plots
to 322 (1303 stems per acre).
A total of 129 planted stems, excluding livestakes, were counted during the MY5 survey, a
decrease of 10 stems from MY4. The average density of the planted woody stems in all the
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 32
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

vegetation plots combined was 522 stems per acre, excluding livestakes. All vegetation plots
were noted as having volunteer native woody species during MY5. The volunteer woody stems
increased the total stem count for the ten vegetation monitoring plots to 279 (1129 stems per
acre).
Overall, the vegetation condition assessment, in terms of both planted native vegetation and
existing non-native invasive vegetation, within the conservation easement was favorable in
MY1-MY5 (Table C.11). Five high density areas of Japanese honeysuckle (approximately 0.24
acres total) were observed and are depicted on Figure D.1 (Appendix D). Additionally, one
small patch (approximately 0.09 acres) of dense bamboo (Bambusa sp.) was observed onsite, as
well as a dense patch (approximately 0. 12 acres) of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Planted
vegetation across the project site, including both channel banks and the riparian buffers, is
vigorous and abundant. Chinese privet, a low to moderate invasive species of concern, was
significantly reduced following chemical treatments during project construction (2011) and with
follow-up treatments in the early spring of 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. Scattered stems of
Chinese privet remain in the easement but are minimal and below mapping thresholds.
Additionally, two small areas of easement encroachment were observed during MY5
monitoring. These are both cut/mowed paths (approximately 0.02 acres total) from the easement
boundary to the left bank of SHC on the Mainstem 2 Bura property.
5 Farm Management Plan
The USH mitigation project included livestock best management practices (BMPs) such as
livestock exclusionary fencing and developed watering facilities on the Bianculli, Roberson, and
Davis properties. The NCDMS funded all livestock BMPs in full through a task order contract
with the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The Buncombe County Soil
and Water Conservation District designed and managed the installation of the BMPs through a
contract independent of the channel and riparian construction contract. Additional details on the
locations and quantities of the livestock BMPs are included in the Upper South Hominy
Mitigation Plan (NCWRC 2010).
6 Post Construction Project Activities
Storm water run-off from the Roberson pasture and hill slope was entering the conservation
easement adjacent to Connie Davis Road via a roadside depression that directed the outfall of the
water to SHC on the upstream side of the Connie Davis Road bridge abutment. During the
heavy rain event in November 2011 that resulted in flooding and damage to other parts of the
project reach, landowners that rely on the bridge for access to their home requested that the
storm conveyance be moved so that it did not enter SHC at the bridge. To alleviate the
landowners concern of potential erosion to the bridge abutment, the NCDMS requested that the
NCWRC design and construct a conveyance channel upstream of the bridge. In the spring of
2012, a topographical survey of the area and a design plan for a floodplain interceptor was
submitted to NCDMS for approval. Construction was completed in October 2012, just prior the
MY1 survey. The constructed storm flow conveyance channel now outfalls to SHC at station
12+75 (Figure D.1).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 33
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Following the flood event on May 5, 2013, several site visits were made by both NCWRC
staff and NCDMS staff. During a joint visit with NCDMS to discuss channel bank repairs on the
lower end of the Mainstem 2 reach just upstream of the Connie Davis Road bridge, questions
were directed towards two large diameter trees growing adjacent to the right bank bridge
abutment and conservation easement. A large maple was leaning at more than a 45° angle and
its root mass was undercut by at least 5 ft (horizontal) along the right bank. A large cherry with
many dead limbs was obviously declining in health.
Recent damage to the right bank, upstream of the two trees, occurred due to the loss of an
upstream cherry tree during the May 5, 2013 flood event. Reducing risk to the bridge crossing
and minimizing potential damage to the right bank by removing the two trees was considered
integral to project success. The NCWRC obtained permission from the landowner, James
Roberson, and contracted with a certified arborist to remove both two trees. The trees were
taken down in sections using a chainsaw and crane on April 28, 2014. All tree material and
debris were removed from the area.
During the summers of 2014 and 2015, several failing instream structures were repaired. In
2014, the downstream -most J -hook on the Mainstem 2 reach (sta. 12+75) was replaced. The
right bank was sloped back and replanted, and aggradation in the pool below the structure was
corrected. In 2015, repairs were made to address all problem areas between sta. 0+00 and 6+50.
Two structures were repaired, severely eroded banks were sloped back, matted, and replanted,
and several aggraded pools were repaired. All repairs are successful thus far, and the
corresponding problem areas were removed from this report.
7 Acknowledgements
K. Jernigan, P. Perkinson, and A. Keith of Axiom Environmental, Inc. collected and analyzed
the field data reported in this monitoring document. K. Jernigan prepared the plan view
drawings for the project report. C. Faquin, G. Lewis, K. Jernigan, and P. Perkinson prepared the
monitoring document. Special thanks to the NCDMS staff who improved this document with
their thorough review and thoughtful suggestions.
8 References
Autocad. 2012. Version 2012.0.0. Copyright 2012, AutoDesk, Inc., San Rafael, California.
Harrelson, C. C., J. P. Potyondy, and C. L. Rawlins. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM -245, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Homer, C., C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie and M. Coan. 2004. Development of a 2001 national
land cover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing Vo1.70, No.7, July 2004, pp 829-840. Available:
htlp://www.mrlc.gov/publications.php (May 2010).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 34
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Lee, M. T., R. K. Peet, R. D. Steven, T. R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS—DMS Protocol for
Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Available: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-
protocol-v4.2-levl-5.pdf (October 2008).
NCDMS (North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services). 2012. Version 1.5. Procedural
Guidance and Content Requirements for DMS Monitoring Documents. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, North Carolina. Available:
htlp : //portal. ncdenr. ora/web/eep/fd-forms-templates.
NCSRI (North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute). 2003. Stream restoration: a natural
channel design handbook. North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute and North Carolina
Sea Grant, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Available:
www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/. (May 2010).
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2010. Mitigation Plan (FINAL)
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site, South Hominy Creek, French Broad River Basin,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. Watershed Enhancement Group. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers), Wilmington District, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Wilmington, North
Carolina.
Yang, L, C. Huang, C. Homer, B. Wylie, and M. Coan. 2002. An approach for mapping large -
area impervious surfaces: Synergistic use of Landsat 7 ETM+ and high spatial resolution
imagery. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 29: 2, 230-240.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 35
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Appendix A.
General Tables and Figures
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 36
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table A.1 Restoration Levels, Mitigation Approaches and Component Summations, Upper
South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Homin Miti ation Site Project Components
0
0
s
�
U
y�
b0
bA C�
y bA a�
� a�
s"
� bA y
•�,
b0 O
bA �
Project Segment or
`"
a
99
;~
9
Stream Reach ID
Wad
a
a
Bianculli South Hominy Cr.
600
R
P3
630
0+00 to 6+30
1:1
630
Bianculli South Hominy Cr.
169
EII
P3
167
6+30 to 7+97
2.5:1
67
Bianculli Trib North (UT 1)
100
P
94
0+00 to 0+94
5:1
19
Bianculli Trib North (UT 1)
138
R
P1
183
1+00 to 2+83
1:1
183
Bianculli Trib South (UT2)
44
R
P1
45
6+54 to 6+99
1:1
45
Bianculli Trib South (UT2)
654
EII
SS
654
0+00 to 6+54
2.5:1
262
Bura/Roberson South
477
R
P3
518
1+00 to 2+25; 7+25 to 10+00; 11+68 to
1:1
518
Hominy Cr
12+86
Bura/Roberson South
775
EII
P3
768
0+00 to 1+00; 2+25 to 7+25; 10+00 to
2.5:1
307
Hominy Cr
11+68
Roberson Abandoned Ch UT2
170
R
P1
191
0+00 to 1+91
1:1
191
Davis South Hominy Cr
500
EI
P3
522
0+00 to 5+22
1.5:1
348
Davis South Hominy Cr
227
EII
P3
215
5+22 to 7+37
2.5:1
86
Davis UT3 upper
775
P
777
0+00 to 7+77
5:1
155
Davis UT3 middle
538
EII
SS
538
7+77 to 13+15
2.5:1
215
Davis UT3 lower
426
R
P1
427
13+15 to 17+42
1:1
427
Davis Springs (north)
144
P
144
0+00 to 1+44
5:1
29
Davis Spring (south)
72
P
78
0+00 to 0+78
5:1
16
Stream Totals
5,809
5,951
3,498
WETLAND C — Davis
Spring (South)
0.01
Pres.
0.01
5:1
0.002
WETLAND D — Roberson
0.69
Enh.
0.69
2:1
0.345
South Hominy Cr
WETLAND E — Roberson
Abandoned Ch UT2
0.02
Pres.
0.02
5:1
0.004
WETLANDS G/H/I/J/K —
Bianculli Trib South (UT2)
0.19
Pres.
0.19
5:1
0.038
WETLAND L — Bianculli
0.44
Enh.
0.44
2:1
0.22
Trib North (UT 1)
Wetland Totals
1.35
1.35
0.609
Component Summations
Mitigation Level Stream
Stream
Riparian Wetland (Acre) Wetland Mitigation
(ratio) Length(If)
Mitigation
Riverine Non-Riverine Units
Units
Restoration (1:1) 1,994
1,994
Enhancement I (1.5:1) 522
348
Enhancement II (2.5:1) 2,342
937
Preservation (5:1) 1,093
219
Wetland Enhancement (2:1)
1.13 0.565
Wetland Preservation (5:1)
0.22 0.044
Totals 5,951
3,498
1.35 0.609
R = Restoration P = Preservation C = Creation
P 1 = Priority 1 P2 = Priority 2 P3 = Priority 3
'Source: USACE (2003)
'Source: Rosgen (2006)
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
EI = Enhancement I
S = Stabilization
37
EII = Enhancement II
SS = Stream Bank Stabilization

Table A.2 Project Activity and Reporting History, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Project Activity and ReportingHistor
Mitigation Site Project Contacts
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Deliver
Conservation easement acquired (by NCDMS)
11 June 2009
11 June 2009
Mitigation Plan
23 January 2009
30 November 2010
Final Desi - 90%
28 February 2010
30 November 2010
Construction
29 June 2011
31 October 2011
Temporary S&E seed mix applied to entire project area
29 June 2011
31 October 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
29 June 2011
31 October 2011
As -built physical survey
16 December 2011
1 February 2012
Containerized and bare root plantings installed over entire project area
9 November 2011
20 February 2012
As -built vegetation survey
2 February 2012
22 February 2012
Invasive Species Treatment
--
Spring 2012
Mitigation Plan/As-built (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
22 February 2012
28 February 2013
Year 1 Monitoring
16 November 2012
30 September 2013
Invasive Species Treatment
--
Spring 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
30 November 2013
30 May 2014
Invasive Species Treatment
--
Spring 2014
Structure Repairs
--
Summer 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
17 November 2014
17 February 2015
Structure Repairs
--
Summer 2015
Year 4 Monitoring
17 November 2015
21 December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
11 November 2016
14 December 2016
Table A.3 Project Contacts, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy
Mitigation Site Project Contacts
Project Owner
Contact Information
NC Division of Mitigation Services
NC Division of Mitigation Services, Harry Tsomides
5 Ravenscroft Dr.
Asheville, NC 28801
Designer(s):
Firm Information/Address:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Jeff Ferguson
1751 Varsity Drive
Shannon Deaton
NCSU Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27695
Construction Contractor:
Firm Information/Address:
Suttles Trucking and Grading, Inc.
Suttles Trucking and Grading, Inc.
10 Edwards Drive
Nebo, NC 28761 (828-659-2104)
Planting Contractor:
Company Information/Address:
Suttles Trucking and Grading, Inc.
Same as above
Seeding Contractor:
Company Information/Address:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Same as above
Native Seed Mix Sources
Company and Contact Phone:
Ernst Conservation Seeds, LLP
1-800-873-3321
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Company and Contact Phone:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Dan River Prison Farm, Same as above
NC Forest Service
Carolyn Jernigan 919-731-7988
Monitoring Performers (MYO-MY2):
Firm Information/Address:
Stream Monitoring POC
NCWRC, same as above
Vegetation Monitoring POC
NCWRC, same as above
Monitoring Performers MY3-MY5):
Firm Information/Address:
Stream Monitoring POC
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Vegetation Monitoring POC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603 (919-215-1693)
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 38
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table AA Project Attributes, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Project Attributes
Project County
Buncombe
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge Mountains
Ecoregion (Reference: USACE 2003)
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Project River Basin
French Broad River
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
06010105060020
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
04-03-02
Within Extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
Yes
NCWRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Cold
Percent of project Easement Fenced or Demarcated
100%
Beaver activity Observed During Design Phase?
Yes
SHC
UT3
Davis
UT2
Bianculli/Roberson
UT 1
Bianculli
Drainage Area (mit)
7.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Stream Order
4
1
1
1
Restored Length (ft)
2,820
1,742
890
277
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Watershed Type (Rural, Urban, Developing, etc.)
Developing
Developing
Developing
Developing
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.) (percent)
Residential
Ag -Row Crop
Ag -Livestock
Forested
Etc.
<3.0
0.2
7.2
89.7
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Watershed Impervious Cover (percent)
<1.0
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
NCDWQ AU/Index Number
6-76-5
N/A
N/A
N/A
NCDWQ Classification
C, Tr
C, Tr
C, Tr
C, Tr
303d Listed?
No
No
No
No
Upstream 303d Listed Segment?
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification Number
Buncombe Co. 20110118
Same
Same
USACE 404 Action ID Number
SAW -2011-00076
Same
Same
Total Acreage of Conservation Easement (including stream channel)
16.44
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Total (undisturbed) Vegetated Acreage Within Easement
7.5
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Total Riparian Buffer Acreage as Part of the Restoration
7.0
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Rosgen Stream Classification of Pre -Existing
C4
G5
abandoned
G5
Rosgen Stream Classification of As -built (Design)
C4
B5/C5
C5
E5
Valley Type
VIII
VII
VIII
VIII
Valley Slope
0.00973
0.10480
Valley Side Slope Range (e.g. 2-3%)
0.09-0.24
0.07-0.29
Valley Toe Slope Range (e.g. 2-3%)
0.003-0.026
0.02-0.19
Cowardin Classification (Reference: Cowardin 1979)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Trout Waters Designation (NCWRC)
No
No
No
No
Species of Concern, Endangered, Etc.? (Y/N)
No
No
No
No
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Series (dominant)
Depth (in)
Clay (%)
K
T
Iotla Loam
80
15.5
0.15
5
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 39
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Fiizure AA Vicinity Mar), Umer South Hominv Mitigation Site.
Le;eutl
Project Watershed Boundary �
'94 Project Hydrologic Unit
y County Boundary
Water
Intmtate
US Haghli'ay
NC Highway
BLN-I COIIVIBE CO
Project Site
L19 :
4j
X19
70
h 4311e�,. ,iti
CC N
J
HAYWOOD CO
e I
701,
E� HENDERSON CO -
r
F. Dar daetiilet lN( 634 "S,- an :- -Z,.i- Take enw 44 and fo xtch On Lis 19,VS 23'Smo1e- Park M&—, Q. Tun Ste; on. to NC q
151'PI.E.A is elmay and tr;w%-I fen 6 0 nuke before -.u+n• n& as to :)ati'u Caeeit Rw&S, Hominy Road (SK 1103 )
The ;object pnoieo ;tte It an em•nrotmxa'a, to ;caab4u :rte of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) tad i meeat +a::ed ln' a teeouced
cone aran ea- m4 a i. but z bcrdaed liv land under pnvate mnuw:h* Aoce!4* the titre may tetl}rim tram me area, new or alatsa the ermune
boundary and thae&ta xz s; by the ecrsal pnblx --s not pnmitted ceess by aAaaaed pgsatmei of Sate and fedem: afeuc ar their
da–ignee, c zntracto'� mvdt-d in th4 derelapumsL m erIlEhL and swna&h* an the testorabon sit! is pemsiteed nitlnn the term. and nnsr£rs of
thou det`aaoed rale=. liny mtentied rte t -=mum or acttitic by any percnr a of the -e peet-igtaly -aaanaowd sales and actn:tu: retlusre;. prxcv
cooraiaaaon %%-!& DMS.
North Carolina Project ViciuitV map Map insen
Department of — -7
Environmental
Quality Upper Southm Hominy13itigaton Site
DMS Project Ntutlxr- 92632
Division of Buncombe County. North C'arvlina
Mitigation
Services
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 40
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report – Final – January 2017

Figure A.2 South Hominy Creek Watershed Boundary and Project Area Map.
Legend, Y`,,.w' 7._
.. Pf012Ct E ement Boundary. ,� t►�'d'• r J J .J"" ;.
0 Proyect Watershed Bound irS`
Water
V' Drainage area = 7.1 mi= ,•"' -
Project Location
`
4 . _ *� .� a•c. 4+. #dap � � , � � a E U �� I � �� � ,
_-- f
{ �sG p
RgGA
0.5 1 f"v+h pq rr Jr+L'iyn �.
ie
+n _�
North Carolina+ V In7en
Department of Pr�aect['atcrslted Bottndat5 Environmental (IRV
Quality Upper South Honoutitigat on Site
DMS Project Number:9'63?Division of Buncombe CountyNorth C'arolista
Mitigation
Services
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 41
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure A.3 Project Components and Assets Map, Aerial Photography NConemap 2006, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
ILAS :'d
jo 0 150 SCC 450
Seale: = 1 j`'
North Carolina Department South Hominy Creek Mitigation Components (As -Built)
of Environmental Quality DMS Project No.: 92632 Buncombe County, NC
Division of Mitigation Bianculli Property Reach
Services
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 42
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

Figure A.3 Continued
15p 0 150 app 450 Soutb Hominy Cr.: Restorgtion = 51BLF
Enhancement Level II = 768LF
Scale' 1" = 150' UT2: Restoration = 191 LF
North Carolina Department South Hominy Creek Mitigation Components (As -Built)
of Environmental Quality DMS Project No.: 92632 Buncombe County, NC
Division of Mitigation Burra/Roberson Properties Reach "' ""
Services p
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 43
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

Figure A.3 Continued
As—Built Mitigation Approach — South Hominy Creek-
' 'Jnvis Prnnert.x1anaervati©n Easemeni
% South Hominy Cr.: EnhmncemenPreset Level I = 522LF unvo
Enhancement Level 11 — 215LF rvptpn
UT3: Preservation = 777LP Restoration
Restoratlon = 427LF
I D0 0 100 200 i]U Enhancement Level 11 = 53OLf Enhancement Level I
Spring Soap (north) PreservatroD = 144LF Enhancement Level ll
Scale: t " = i 30' Spring Seep (south): Preservation = 7$LF - - - - - wetland Enhancement
North Carolina Department South Hominy Creek Mitigation Components (As -Built) /STM
of Environmental Quality DMS Project No.: 92632 Buncombe County, NC `s`
Division of Mitigation Davis Property 'Reach`~
Services
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 44
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

Figure A.3 Continued
I.V 450 Enharcarnar,4 Level II = 53RD Enhancement Level 1
S ting seep kncsrtlr): PrrrXerv(rtiwr = +ziLF - Erharrcerr+ent Leval it
�I = -.. `prlrg 5"p iscuth): Presarvador = 19LFN°°Mlard EnharreemeM
North Carolina Department south Hominy geek Mitigation Components (As -Built) �^
of Environmental Quality DMS Project No.: '92632 Buncombe County, NC
Division of Mitigation Davis Property Reach
Services
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 45
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

Appendix B.
Morphological Summary Data Tables and Plots
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 46
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table B.1 Existing, Reference, Design, and As -built Stream Channel Morphology Data Summary for South Hominy Creek (SHC).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Channel Morphology Data Summary
Parameter (Riffles Only) Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
(SHC) Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
(SHC) Design
Dimension and Substrate
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
30
27.2
37.3
31.1
32.0
3.6
7
28.1
37.2
30.3
31.2
3.5
5
28.1
30.7
37.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
203.0
370.0
320.0
311.3
55.6
7
64.0
329.0
104.0
146.4
106.9
5
68.4
182.2
296
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
70
50.8
81.4
70.2
69.7
9.9
7
43.8
75.5
62.0
60.7
11.6
5
43.8
61.3
75.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.5
1.7
2.6
2.2
2.2
0.4
7
1.5
2.2
2.0
2.0
0.3
5
1.5
2.0
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
3.8
3.2
3.2
0.4
7
2.3
3.3
3.0
2.8
0.4
5
2.0
2.7
3.3
Width/Depth Ratio
10.5
20.1
15.0
15.0
3.5
7
12.7
20.9
16.4
16.3
3.4
5
12.0
15.4
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio
I 6.6
13.4
9.9
9.8
2.0
7
2.3
11.2
3.4
4.7
3.6
5
2.4
5.9
8.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
2.0
1.4
1.5
0.3
7
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.3
0.4
5
1.0
1.3
1.5
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft)
I
30.0
38.7
32.8
33.8
3.3
7
30.5
38.2
31.6
32.8
3.1
5
30.5
32.8
38.15
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
I
1.6
2.4
2.1
2.1
0.3
7
1.4
2.1
2.0
1.8
0.3
5
1.4
1.9
2.1
D50 (mm)
17.3
39.2
24.5
26.9
8.1
7
15.2
62.3
46.5
42.6
20.8
4
15.2
42.6
62.3
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
I
I 28.2
97.4
46.0
56.8
26.1
6
64.7
240.0
88.0
120.2
81.8
4
53.1
154.7
256.2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
29.7
545.1
294.3
295.8
209.7
6
12.7
105.0
49.6
54.2
38.1
4
10.7
70.7
256.2
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
I
I 0.9
17.0
9.2
9.2
6.6
6
0.5
3.4
1.6
1.8
1.2
4
0.4
2.3
6.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
140.0
561.5
307.5
307.0
148.3
6
131.0
350.0
342.5
291.5
107.2
4
108.0
288.9
469.8
Meander Width Ratio
I
0.9
3.0
1.4
1.8
0.8
6
1.9
11.9
7.9
7.4
5.0
4
1.9
5.0
6.9
Profile
OIL-
-
=a=
:wI
A
Riffle Length (ft)
12.6
85.9
53.7
53.5
21.9
14
!27.65.0
57.5
51.9
16.8
4
15.8
52.3
86.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
I
0.01177
0.03597
0.01733
0.01967
0.00709
14
0.01128
0.02103
0.01329
0.01472
0.00433
4
0.00737
0.01703
0.02669
Pool Length (ft)
I
16.0
84.1
42.2
42.7
19.6
11
27.1
41.0
30.9
32.5
6.2
4
14.7
55.7
96.7
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.9
7.7
4.4
4.5
1.3
11
3.8
5.3
4.3
4.4
0.7
4
3.6
6.2
8.8
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
28.4
537.8
184.4
=
173.1
8
41.4
307.9
77.0
125.9
123.0
4
44.2
176.8
309.4
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 47
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Table B.1 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Channel Morphology Data Summary
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
(SHC) Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
(SHC) Design
aRi%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
30
30
20
20
aSC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
7.6
16.1
29.7
45.4
1.3
0.0
aD16 / D35 / D50 / D84 / D95 / DlP / DIsP
0.23
23.9
56.6
144.4
211.0
98.0
90.0
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ftb
1.0 to 1.3
0.5 to 1.2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
98
71 to 160
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mb
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (mit)
7.1
Impervious cover estimate (%)
<1.0
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.6
4.6
Bankfall Discharge (cfs)
250
350
322
Valley Length (ft)
2604.1
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2893.7
2893.7
Sinuosity
1.11
1.11
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.009
0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
0.009
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
0.66
1.26
Proportion Over Wide (%)
5
Entrenchment Class (ER Range)
Low (>2.2)
Incision Class (BHR)
Moderately Unstable (1.06-1.3) to Highly Unstable (>1.5)
BEHI VL% / L% /M% / H% / VH% / E%
NA
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
NA
Biological or Other
NA
a Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock, (values derived from reach -wide pebble counts). Dip = max pavement, Di'P = max sub -pavement. Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
b Methodology should be cited and described either here or in text
= Non -Applicable; NA = Not Available
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 48
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Table B.1. Continued
Parameter - (cross-sections 1&3)
MY4
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Mainstem 1 - Bianculli Reach - 797 feet
MY5
Parameter - (cross-sections 1&3)
MYO
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
MYl
SD n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
MY2
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
29.0
32.4
30.7
MY3
2.4 2
29.0
33.5
31.3
31.3
3.2
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
236.0
350.0
293.0
293.0
80.6 2
236.0
350.0
293.0
293.0
80.6
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ff)
57.9
72.4
65.2
65.2
10.3 2
60.1
75.9
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Si) n
2.31
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
26.9
30.1
28.5
28.5
2.3 2
26.9
30.0
28.5
28.5
2.2
2
27.1
29.6
28.4
28.4
1.8
2
29.2
32.7
31.0
31.0
2.5
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
236.0
362.0
299.0
299.0
89.1 2
236.0
362.0
299.0
299.0
89.1
2
236.0
362.0
299.0
299.0
89.1
2
236.0
350.0
293.0
293.0
80.6
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ff)
54.8
62.9
58.8
58.8
5.7 2
52.9
63.7
58.3
58.3
7.6
2
42.3
62.3
52.3
52.3
14.1
2
59.8
71.4
65.6
65.6
8.2
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.0
2.11
2.1
2.1
0.01 2
2.01
2.1
2.01
2.0
0.1
21
1.6
2.1
1.8
1.8
0.4
2
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.1
0.11
2
Bankfull Max Depth (fr)
2.6
3.2
2.9
2.9
0.4 2
2.7
3.2
2.9
2.9
0.4
2
2.5
4.2
3.3
3.31
1.2
2
3.2
4.21
3.7
3.7
0.7
2
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
14.4
13.8
13.8
0.9 2
13.6
14.2
13.9
13.9
0.4
2
14.1
17.4
15.7
15.7
2.3
2
14.2
15.0
14.6
14.6
0.6
2
Entrenchment Ratio
8.8
12.0
10.4
10.4
2.3 2
8.8
12.1
10.4
10.4
2.3
2
8.7
12.2
10.5
10.5
2.5
2
8.1
10.7
9.4
9.4
1.8
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.1 2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
2
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
28.81
32.0
30.4
30.4
2.3 2
28.7
31.7
30.2
30.2
2.11
2
29.01
32.1
30.5
30.5
2.2
2
31.5
35.3
33.4
33.4
2.7
2
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.0 2
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.1
2
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.7
0.3
2
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.1
2
D50 (mm
22.1
28.9
25.5
25.5
4.8 2
40.9
46.7
43.8
43.8
4.1
2
32.0
56.4
44.2
44.21
17.2
2
35
40
37
37
5
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
121.0
1
124.1
1
104.5
1
104.5
1
Radius of Curvature (ft
97.0
247.0
2120
185.3
106.1 3
61.0
178.0
95.0
107.3
52.2
4
70.3
208.7
79.7
119.6
91.2
3
70.3
208.7
79.7
119.61
91.2
3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
3.2
8.2
7.1
6.2
3.5 3
2.0
6.6
3.3
3.8
2.0
4
2.4
7.5
2.6
4.2
3.4
3
2.4
7.5
2.6
4.2
3.4
3
Meander Wavelength ft
315.0
329.0
322.01
322.0
9.9 2
293.0
327.0
310.0
310.0
24.0
2
296.9
361.4
329.2
329.2
45.6
2
296.9
361.4
329.2
329.2
45.61
2
Meander Width Ratio
4.0
1
4.1
4.6
4.4
4.4
0.3
2
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.6
0.2
3
3.4
3.81
3.6
3.6
0.2
3
Profile
Riffle Length (11)
32.4
62.9
60.1
52.6
12.9 5
48.2
108.2
51.9
63.5
25.2
5
44.9
85.5
53.9
59.4
17.2
5
12.7
41.51
31.6
28.5
12.0
6
Riffle Sloe (ft/ft)
0.01581
0.01107
0.01197
0.01258
0.01525 5
0.01037
0.02020
0.01160
0.01388
0.00438
5
0.00646
0.01798
0.01572
0.01403
0.00448
5
0.00020
0.02730
0.01930
0.01690
0.01110
6
Pool Length (11)
20.7
34.4
29.1
28.5
5.01 5
18.4
56.7
26.7
33.2
15.8
5
26.7
35.4
29.4
29.7
3.4
5
21.5
86.3
54.7
54.3
21.4
10
Pool Max depth (ft)
4.7
5.9
5.4
5.3
0.51 51
4.21
5.41
5.1
4.8
0.6
5
4.4
5.8
5.2
5.1
0.5
5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
86.7
217.61
114.31
133.2
59.61 41
98.11
240.41
104.11
136.7
69.4
4
58.9
297.01
89.1
133.5
110.51
4
37.0
122.2
61.0
73.1
30.9
10
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mm4
1
1
35.01
1
1 38.51
52.2
1
1
!48r!
D84 (mm
1
1
81.('1
1
1
1 1
1
94.71
1
1
1
104,61
1
1
96
Parameter - (cross-sections 1&3)
MY4
MY5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
29.0
32.4
30.7
30.7
2.4 2
29.0
33.5
31.3
31.3
3.2
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
236.0
350.0
293.0
293.0
80.6 2
236.0
350.0
293.0
293.0
80.6
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ff)
57.9
72.4
65.2
65.2
10.3 2
60.1
75.9
68.0
68.0
11.2
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.01
2.2
2.11
2.1
0.11 2
2.1
2.31
2.2
2.21
0.1
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
4.2
3.9
3.9
0.5 2
3.1
4.1
3.6
3.6
0.7
2
Width/Depth Ratio
14.5
14.6
14.6
14.6
0.1 2
14.0
14.8
14.4
14.4
0.6
2
Entrenchment Ratio
8.1
10.8
9.5
9.5
1.9 2
8.1
10.4
9.3
9.3
1.6
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0 2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft)
32.1
35.2
33.7
33.7
2.2 2
31.4
36.0
33.7
33.7
3.3
2
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.0
0.2 2
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.0
0.1
2
D50 (mm)
29.1
42.5
35.8
35.8
9.5 2
22.8
36.6
29.7
29.7
9.8
2
Pattern
0
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length ft
30.6
122.2
59.8
69.3
40.1 6
8.0
74.0
27.0
35.0
25.0
8
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.00450
0.01260
0.00810
0.00810
0.00260 7
0.00220
0.04010
0.00800
0.01130
0.01240
8
Pool Length (ft)
33.4
97.1
36.0
46.4
23.0 7
19.6
98.4
37.0
45.6
22.2
11
Pool Max depth (ft)
4.61
4.6
4.6
4.6
0.0 11
4.81
4.81
4.8
4.8
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
34.61
177.21
109.91
111.81
60.1 61
26.61
171.91
49.0
68.7
46.1
11
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from =led reach -wide pebble counts based on the pro ortions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mm4
1
1
48.81
1
1 1
1
48.5
D84 (mmJ
I
1
100.01
1
1 1
1
1
88.0

Table Bl. Continued
Parameter - (cross-sections 5&7)
MY4
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Mainstem 2 - Bura/Roberson - 1,286 feet
MY5
Parameter - (cross-sections 5&7)
MYO
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
MYl
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
MY2
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
MY3
30.4
37.4
33.9
33.9
4.9
2
30.4
37.2
33.8
33.8
4.8
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD n
4.9
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD n
1.9
MinMax
2
Med
Mean
SD n
Bankfull Width (ft)
30.5
37.5
34.0
34.0
5.0 2
30.5
37.4
33.9
33.9
4.9
2
30.5
37.1
33.8
33.8
4.7
2
29.5
38.3
33.9
33.9
6.2 2
Floodprone Width ft
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9 2
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9 2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ff)
62.2
65.2
63.7
63.7
2.1 2
61.6
65.4
63.5
63.5
2.7
2
61.8
62.2
62.0
62.0
0.3
2
64.6
65.0
64.8
64.8
0.3 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.2 2
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.2
2
1.7
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.2
2
1.7
2.2
2.0
2.01
0.4 2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.7
3.2
3.0
3.0
0.3 2
2.7
3.1
2.9
2.9
0.3
2
2.7
3.0
2.91
2.9
0.3
2
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.0
0.4 2
Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
21.6
18.3
18.3
4.7 2
15.1
21.4
18.2
18.2
4.4
2
15.0
22.1
18.6
18.6
5.0
2
13.4
22.7
18.1
18.1
6.6 2
Entrenchment Ratio
7.5
11.1
9.3
9.3
2.5 2
7.5
11.1
9.3
9.3
2.5
2
7.6
11.1
9.3
9.3
2.5
2
7.4
11.4
9.4
9.4
2.8 2
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0 2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0 2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft]
31.81
38.3
35.0
35.0
4.6 2
31.61
38.21
34.9
34.9
4.7
2
31.7
37.9
34.8
34.8
4.3
21
30.9
39.1
35.0
35.0
5.8 2
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.7
2.01
1.8
1.81
0.2 2
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.2
2
1.6
2.0
1.8
1.8
02
2
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.9
0.3 2
D50 (mm
31.4
49.4
40.4
40.4
12.7 2
16.7
18.6
17.7
17.7
1.4
2
28.9
32.0
30.4
30.4
2.2
2
22.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
1.0 2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
93.0
193.0
143.0
143.0
70.7 2
83.0
172.0
90.0
115.0
49.5
3
54.6
68.2
59.0
60.6
6.9
3
54.6
68.2
59.0
60.6
6.9 3
Radius of Curvature (ft
90.0
137.0
114.0
113.7
23.5 3
61.0
131.0
83.5
89.8
29.5
4
60.1
113.7
97.3
90.4
27.
3
60.1
113.7
97.3
90.4
27.5 3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft ft
3.0
4.6
3.8
3.8
0.8 3
2.0
4.3
2.2
2.7
1.1
4
2.4
3.4
3.1
3.0
OS
3
2.4
3.4
3.1
3.0
0.5 3
Meander Wavelength ft
214.0
343.0
229.0
262.0
70.5 3
164.0
233.0
200.0
199.3
28.3
4
186.6
229.3
222.0
212.6
22.8
3
186.6
229.3
222.0
212.6
22.8 3
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
6.4
4.8
4.8
2.3 2
4.4
7.6
5.4
5.7
1.4
4
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
0.3
3
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
0.3 3
Profile
Riffle Length ft
47.6
77.8
70.9
68.8
12.3 5
27.1
82.2
70.4
63.1
21.7
5
44.2
83.3
65.2
65.3
14.1
5
5.4
82.9
20.7
29.7
24.9 13
Riffle Sloe (ft/ft
0.00719
0.01452
0.01287
0.01192
0.00280 5
0.00735
0.02459
0.01110
0.01293
0.00679
5
0.00414
0.01899
0.00582
0.01022
0.00739
5
0.00060
0.04570
0.01090
0.01590
0.01290 13
Pool Length (ft)
32.8
78.5
56.3
54.1
17.5 5
44.4
87.1
63.5
61.8
17.2
5
41.1
56.7
47.9
48.3
5.8
5
24.1
121.2
48.7
55.9
27.6 16
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.5
4.4
5.9
4.7
4.5 5
3.9
6.3
4.8
5.0
0.9
5
3.7
5.4
4.2
4.5
0.7
5
3.5
5.2
4.4
4.4
0.9 2
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
69.1
469.9
271.8
270.7
218.4 4
65.1
466.6
283.4
274.6
213.5
4
128.4
455.8
254.2
273.1
140.6
4
37.6
150.1
63.3
75.51
37.3 16
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values detennined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the progortions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 mm
35.01
1
1
1 38.5
52.2
23
D84 (mm
81.61
1
1
1 94.71
1
104.6
81
Parameter - (cross-sections 5&7)
MY4
MY5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
30.4
37.4
33.9
33.9
4.9
2
30.4
37.2
33.8
33.8
4.8
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (1f)
61.3
65.3
63.3
63.3
2.8
2
58.1
65.0
61.6
61.6
4.9
2
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.61
2.2
1.91
1.9
0.41
2
1.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
0.4
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
3.3
3.0
3.0
0.5
2
2.5
3.4
3.0
3.01
0.6
2
Width/Depth Ratio
14.1
22.9
18.5
18.5
6.2
2
14.2
23.8
19.0
19.0
6.8
2
Entrenchment Ratio
7.5
11.1
9.3
9.3
2.5
2
7.6
11.1
9.4
9.4
2.5
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
LO
1.0
0.0
2
LO
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft)
31.8
38.2
35.0
35.0
4.5
2
31.6
38.0
34.8
34.8
4.5
2
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
0.4
2
1.6
2.1
1.8
1.8
0.4
2
D50 (mm
22.4
25.3
23.9
23.9
2.1
2
15.6
19.7
17.7
17.7
2.9
2
Pattern
1
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature to
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length ft
13.0
92.1
34.4
44.7
25.7
8
6.7
122.5
34.4
39.5
35.6
t0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.00000
0.01460
0.00530
0.00660
0.00490
8
0.00000
0.02380
0.01190
0.01230
0.00690
15
Pool Length (ft)
22.0
91.2
55.1
56.1
19.2
15
14.8
138.4
56.9
60.9
339
15
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.5
4.5
4.0
4.01
0.71
21
4.61
4.61
4.6
4.6
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
42.91
183.31
593.01
79.91
40.01
151
21.01
188.71
71.2
87.3
50.2
15
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the pro ortions of the number of riffles and ools
D50 (mm
48.81
1
1
48.51
1
D84 (mmi
I
1
100.01
1
1
1
1 1
88.01
1

Table Bl. Continued
Parameter - (cross-sections 8&10)
MY4
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Mainstem 3 - Davis Project Reach - 737 feet
MY5
Parameter - (cross-sections 8&10)
MYO
Dimension and Substrate -Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
MY1
SD
n
Min
Max
MY2
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.3
MY3
28.2
28.2
4.0
2
26.1
30.1
28.1
28.1
2.8
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (tf)
58.5
62.3
60.4
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Onl
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Si)
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Si) n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Si)
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.5
30.1
27.8
27.8
3.3
2
25.7
30.1
27.9
27.9
3.1
2 26.1
29.9
28.0
28.0
2.7
2
27.4
29.6
28.5
28.5
1.6
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2 292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
53.4
65.1
59.2
59.2
8.2
2
53.7
66.0
59.8
59.8
8.7
2 59.4
64.3
61.9
61.9
3.5
2
61.2
62.3
61.8
61.8
0.8
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.1
2.21
2.1
2.11
0.0
2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
0.1
2 2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
OJ
2
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
0.1
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
0.0
2
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
0.0
2 3.1
3.41
3.3
3.31
0.2
2
3.0
3.4
3.2
3.2
0.3
2
Width/Depth Ratio
12.1
13.9
13.0
13.0
1.3
2
12.4
13.8
13.1
13.1
1.0
2 11.5
13.9
12.7
12.7
1.7
2
12.2
14.1
13.2
13.2
1.3
2
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
21.6
15.6
15.6
8.4
2
9.7
21.3
15.5
15.5
8.2
2 9.8
21.0
15.4
15.4
7.9
2
9.9
20.1
15.0
15.0
7.2
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.1
2
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.1
2 1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter ft
26.6
31.3
29.0
29.0
3.31
2
26.9
31.3
29.1
29.1
3.1
2 27.6
31.4
29.5
29.5
2.6
2
29.1
31.0
30.1
30.1
1.3
2
Hydraulic Radius ft
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
0.1
2
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.1
2 2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
0.1
2
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.1
2
D50 mm
33.5
47.7
40.6
40.6
10.0
2
25.01
37.9
31.4
31.4
9.1
2 16.0
29.2
22.6
22.6
9.3
2
14
24
19
19
5
2
Pattern
T
I
WT
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
39.0
50.0
47.0
45.3
5.7
3
38.0
56.2
44.3
46.2
9.2
3 31.8
39.0
35.4
35.4
5.1
2
31.8
39.0
35.4
35.4
5.1
2
Radius of Curvature (ft
102.0
187.0
144.5
144.5
60.1
2
73.4
166.7
120.1
120.1
66.0
2 125.4
2,S.7
182.1
182.1
80.1
2
125.4
238.7
182.1
182.1
80.1
2
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
3.4
62
4.8
4.8
2.0
2
2.4
6.5
4.5
4.5
2.9
2 3.9
6.1
5.0
5.0
1.5
2
3.9
6.1
5.0
5.0
1.5
2
Meander Wavelength (ft
188.0
382.0
268.0
279.3
97.5
3
186.8
304.0
222.4
237.7
60.1
3 192.8
202.4
197.6
197.6
6.8
2
192.8
202.4
197.6
197.6
6.8
2
Meander Width Ratio
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
0.1
3
1.5
22
1.5
1.7
0.4
3 1.0
1.3
12
1.2
0.2
2
1.0
13
12
1.2
0.2
2
Profile
Riffle Length ft
22.0
60.8
I„
37.2
40.4
17.0
5
30.4755.6
8.5
32.1
40.6
12.9
5 29.1
60.5
48.0
46.7
11.5
5
9.0
59.6
19.9
27.0
20.2
8
Riffle Sloe (fr/ft)
0.00856
0.02029
0.01368
0.01399
0.00501
5
0.0102109
0.01284
0.01465
0.00396
5 0.00361
0.01529
0.01067
0.01085
0.00476
5
0.00610
0.03420
0.01040
0.01370
0.00920
8
Pool Length (ft)
13.2
38.5
22.4
252
10.9
5
17.1
45.8
38.9
16.6
5 17.5
43.0
23.5
26.3
10.0
5
30.1
111.6
40.8
56.5
27.4
8
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.9
5.1
4.4
4.5
0.5
5
3.6
4.8
4.6
4.4
0.5
5 3.8
4.2
3.9
4.0
0.2
5
0.0
0.0
2.5
2.5
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
65.6
258.1
174.8
1683
94.7
4
642
225.1
170.5
157.6
80.1
4 42.2
229.7
100.8
118.4
82.0
4
39.0
112.0
74.0
78.0
24A
8
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from =led reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (nuri4
1
35.01
1
1
F F
1
38.51
522
1
19
D84 (mmi
1
91.61
1
1
1 1
1
94.71
104.61
1
55
Parameter - (cross-sections 8&10)
MY4
MY5
Dimension and Substrate -Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.3
31.0
28.2
28.2
4.0
2
26.1
30.1
28.1
28.1
2.8
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (tf)
58.5
62.3
60.4
60.4
2.7
2
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.2
0.0
2
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
2.01
2.3
22
2.2
0.21
2
2.0
23
2.2
22
0.2
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
0.2
2
3.1
3.5
3.3
3.3
0.3
2
Width/Depth Ratio
10.9
15.4
13.2
13.2
3.2
2
11.1
14.8
13.0
13.0
2.6
2
Entrenchment Ratio
9.4
21.7
15.6
15.6
8.7
2
9.7
21.0
15.4
15.4
8.0
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft)
26.9
32.31
29.6
29.6
3.8
2
27.71
31.2
29.5
29.5
2.5
2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.1
02
2
2.0
22
2.1
2.1
0.1
2
D50 mm
17.6
243
21.0
21.0
4.7
2
17.9
22.2
20.1
20.1
3.0
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft '
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length ft
11.6
75.8
26.4
34.3
21.1
9
7.8
hL
59.2
26.7
28.0
A
16.7
El
9
Riffle Sloe (ft/ft)
0.00220
0.01360
0.00840
0.00820
0.00340
9
0.00220
0.01540
0.00900
0.00810
0.00370
9
Pool Length (ft)
30.6
52.9
41.5
41.4
7.9
10
19.5
88.2
33.8
41.0
20.4
11
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.0
l
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
453
106.4
67.2
75.7
22.2
9
31.5
114.9
65.2
67.4
25.4
10
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mm4
1
48.81
1
1
1
48.51
1
D84 taunj
1
100.01
1
1
1
88.01
1

Table B.1.1 Existing, Reference, Design, and As -built Stream Channel Morphology Data Summary for Roberson UT2 and Davis UT3, Riffles Only.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Channel Morphology Data Summary (DMS Project Number 92632)
Parameter Riffles Only)UT3
( Davis Pre-ExistingCondition
Reference Reach
Basin Cr (C)
Reference Reach
North Br (Ba)`
UT3-u er Ba Design
pp ) g
UT3-lower, C Design
g
Dimension and Substrate
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Mean
Mean
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.9
10.0
4.4
6.1
3.4
3
30.7
8.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.0
15.3
14.0
11.8
5.0
3
85.0
11.6
15.0
20.0
25.0
27.7
40.0
54.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.5
7.4
6.5
6.1
1.5
3
57.4
4.2
6.0
6.9
7.5
8.6
9.2
9.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.4
3
1.87
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.8
1.4
1.4
0.4
3
2.4
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.9
1.6
2.2
Width/Depth Ratio
3.0
13.8
3.3
6.7
6.1
3
16.4
15.4
16.0
18.0
20.0
16.0
16.6
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
3.1
1.6
2.1
0.9
3
2.8
1.5
1.9
2.2
2.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
3.4
3.7
3.6
3.6
0.1
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.0
10.4
6.7
7.7
2.4
3
32.6
N/A
10.4
10.7
10.9
10.6
11.1
11.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.2
3
1.76
N/A
0.8
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm)
N/A
38.5
27.0
20-30
10-20
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
6.8
39.5
23.8
24.7
14.5
7
105.0
17.0
13.8
16.8
22.3
23.6
26.8
29.7
Radius of Curvature (ft)
45.5
146.8
81.6
86.4
39.2
7
106.0
13.0
33.0
56.4
71.9
30.1
38.4
43.6
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
5.4
17.4
9.7
10.2
4.7
7
3.5
1.6
4.1
5.6
6.0
3.0
3.8
4.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
8.5
180.3
37.6
52.8
58.1
7
350
29.0
70.0
76.9
89.7
97.6
102.1
106.8
Meander Width Ratio
0.8
4.7
2.8
2.9
1.7
7
3.4
2.1
1.7
1.9
1.2
2.5
2.7
2.9
Protileb
Riffle Length (ft)
65.0
N/A
1.8
2.0
2.2
10.0
14.0
18.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.02103
0.14200
0.09500
0.10000
0.12000
0.01861
0.03747
0.05634
Pool Length (ft)
70.0
N/A
4.0
4.4
4.8
13.4
22.8
32.3
Pool Max Depth (ft)
5.3
0.95
1.8
2.0
2.2
1.0
1.6
2.2
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
90.1
68.0
22.8
23.0
23.2
22.3
27.7
33.1
a Only a single riffle was surveyed for the Basin Creek (6.8 mi') reference reach, 1998.
b Channel impacts and low flow precluded meaningful channel feature evaluation.
c Only a single riffle was surveyed for the North Branch reference reach, Wolf Creek Engineering, PLLC, 2008..
Upper South Hominy %titration SItC 52
MIS Project
Final

Table B.1.1. Continued
Parameter - (cross-section 1)
MY4
MY5
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
UT2 - Roberson Project Reach - 236 feet
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max Med Mean SD
n Min
Max Med
Mean Si) n
Bankfull Width (fr)
23.9
Parameter - (cross-section 1)
26.3
MYO
282.3
1
MYl
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (if)
MY2
1
16.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
MY3
1
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
42.5
1
43.3
Entrenchment Ratio
11.8
1
10.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Onl
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max Med Mean SD n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Sl)
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Si)
n
Bankfull Width fr
22.6
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
1
22.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
21.9
1
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
22.6
Flood tune Width ft)
282.3
1
282.3
282.3
1
282.3
10.0
33.71 18.1 19.7 8.7
5 3.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fF)
15.01 14.7 C,
Riffle Slope ft/ft)
14.2
No water in channel to measure slopes.
1
Pool Length (ft)
13.9
34.2 18.6 17.0 11.7
5 4.4
33.5 21.4
13.7
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.9
1.01 1.0 1.0 0.1
2 1.41
1.4 1.41
14.2
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
15.8
54w6i 36.2 36w7i 17.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
65.7 4LIJ
34.3 23.3 5
0.6
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mmI
0.6
I I
I NA
0.6
D84 (nunj
I NAI I I
I I
0.6
I
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
35.8
34.9
34.8
35.8
Entrenchment Ratio
12.5
12.8
12.9
12.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
22.9
22.3
22.2
22.9
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.6
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
D50 (mm
NAI
NAI
NA
NA
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
45.0
1
45.3
41.4
41.4
Radius of Curvature (ft,46.0
1
116.4
50.8
1
50.8
1
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
2
1
5.3
3.9
1
3.9
1
Meander Wavelength (ft
134.0
1
187.7
1
135.1
1
135.1
1
Meander Width Ratio
1.9
1
2.1
1
3.2
1
3.2
1
Profile
I
L
Riffle Length ft
12.3
31.8
27.5
23.9
10.2
3
13.8
21.9 20.4 18.7 4.3
3
22.3
29.5
24.3
25.4
3.7
3
3.5
56.6
7.9
14.3
18.8
7
Riffle Sloe (ft/ft)
0.00857
0.01177
0.01119
0.01051
0.00171
3
0.00683
0.01602 0.01594 0.01293 0.00528
3
0.01211
0.01799
0.01400
0.01470
0.00300
3
0.01040
0.07500
0.02200
0.03450
0.02550
7
Pool Length (ft)
10.7
23.1
21.71
18.5
6.8
3
17.1
23.1 20.1 20.1 4.2
2
12.3
15.4
13.9
13.9
2.2
21
6.6
29.0
12.3
14.6
9.1
6
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.8
1.3
1.21
1.11
0.31
31
0.9
1.0 0.9 0.9 0.1
2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
2
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
50.61
69.2
59.91
59.91
13.11
21
57.4
57.4 57.4 57.4 0.01
1
54.7
54.7
54.7
54.7
0.0
1
11.2
63.7
28.8
30.0
18.9
6
Substrate (reach -wide)
D50 (mmI
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
NAI I I I I I NAI
NA
NA
I
D84 (rimij
I
I
NAI
I
I
I
I
I NAI I
NA
NA
Parameter - (cross-section 1)
MY4
MY5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max Med Mean SD
n Min
Max Med
Mean Si) n
Bankfull Width (fr)
23.9
1
26.3
Flood rove Width (ft)
282.3
1
282.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (if)
13.4
1
16.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.61
1
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
42.5
1
43.3
Entrenchment Ratio
11.8
1
10.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
1.0
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter ft
24.1
1
26.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.6
1
0.6
1
D50 mm
NA
NA
Pattern
•
�
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length ft
10.0
33.71 18.1 19.7 8.7
5 3.7
44.2 10.6
15.01 14.7 C,
Riffle Slope ft/ft)
No water in channel to measure slopes.
No water in channel to measure slopes.
Pool Length (ft)
5.8
34.2 18.6 17.0 11.7
5 4.4
33.5 21.4
18.7 12.7 5
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.9
1.01 1.0 1.0 0.1
2 1.41
1.4 1.41
1.4 0.0 I
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
15.8
54w6i 36.2 36w7i 17.0
5 l0w7l
65.7 4LIJ
34.3 23.3 5
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mmI
NAI I I
I I
I NA
D84 (nunj
I NAI I I
I I
I NAI
I

Table B.1.1. Continued
Parameter - (cross-section 1)
MY4
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
UT3 Upper - Davis Project Reach - 201 feet
MY5
Parameter - (cross-section 1)
MYO
Dimension and Substrate -Riffles Only
Min
Max
MYl
Mean
SD
n
MY2
Max
Mcd Mean
Si)
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
MY3
15.2
1
13A
Floodprone Width (ft)
500.0
1
500.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ff)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Old
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max Med Mean SD n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Si)
n
Bankfull Width ft
12.9
0.9
13.0
1
12.9
Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
27.3
Flood rone Width ft)
500.0
Entrenchment Ratio
500.0
33.0
500.0
1
37.4
500.0
Bank Height Ratio
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fF)
1.0
10.3
1
1
1.0
10.6
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter(ft
9.9
15.4
I
1
10.6
13.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1
0.8
0.5
1
0.81 1
1
1
0.8
D50 mm
0.8
0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
NA
1.3
0
1
1.3
I
1.3
1.3
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
16.1
1
16.1
1
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16.7
16.1
Entrenchment Ratio
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Ratio
38.8
1
38.5
1
38.8
Profile
38.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
1.0
1
Riffle Length(ft)
1.0
54.6
34.1
34.0
15.5
5
1.0
90.8
26.7
37.0
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
4
Riffle Slope ft/ft
13.2
0.09010
0.08780
1
5
13.4
1
0.08490 0.07860
0.02470
13.2
Pool Length (ft)3.3
6.8
3.6
4.3
13.4
5
4.1
7.0
Hydraulic Radius ft
5.5
1.0
0.81
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.8
1
2.2
0.8
I
5
1.5
0.8
1.51
1.5
I
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
0.8
58.2 r
48.1
40.8
D50 (mm
5
531
NA
12w 11
31 A
43.4
4
NA
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
NA
D50 mm
NAI
I
NA
I
Pattern
D84 (mm
NAI
I
I
I
1
NA
Channel Beltwidth (ft
47.0
1
46.0
1
27.9
1
27.9
Radius of Curvature (ft
133.0
1
116.4
1
122.8
1
122.8
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
11.1
1
9.0
1
11.0
1
11.0
Meander Wavelength (ft
138.0
1
1
187.9
1
187.9
1
Meander Width Ratio
3.9
1
1
2.5
1
2.5
1
Profile
--
*0.085490.08231
-
-
-
-
Riffle Length (ft)13.7
26.4
15.9
17.8
5.0
5
13.3
25.1 4.8
5
17.7
26.5
19.2
20.3
3.6
5
11.7
60.5
39.7
35.9
21.5
5
Riffle Slope (ft ft
0.05368
0.10273
0.09392
0.08727
0.01924
5
0.05493
0.10620 0.02063
5
0.05789
0.09222
0.09022
0.08375
0.01457
5
0.05330
0.09460
0.08980
0.07830
0.01850
5
Pool Len th ft
2.9
5.1
4.6
4.3
0.9
5
2.2
5.0 1.1
5
2.4
4.5
3.9
3.7
0.9
6.0
7.4
6.6
6.6
0.6
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.2
5
1.3
L8 1.7 1.7 2
5
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.2
0.2
5
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.2
0.2
5
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
21.2
24.2
23.1
22.9
1.2
4
20.0
27.1 23.4 23.5 0
E
4
18.6
48.3
36.7
35.1
14.8
4
18.0
66.4
52.8
47.5
21.2
4
Substrate (reach -wide)
D50 (mm
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
NA NA
NA
NA
D84 (.i
I
NAI
I
I
I I
I NAI I I
NAI
NA
Parameter - (cross-section 1)
MY4
MY5
Dimension and Substrate -Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Mcd Mean
Si)
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.2
1
13A
Floodprone Width (ft)
500.0
1
500.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ff)
8.4
1
7.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.61
1
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
1
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
27.3
1
22.9
Entrenchment Ratio
33.0
1
37.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
1.0
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter(ft
15.4
1
13.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.5
1
0.6
D50 mm
NA
0
NA
0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
13.3
54.6
34.1
34.0
15.5
5
3.8
90.8
26.7
37.0
40.1
4
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.07330
0.09010
0.08780
0.08420 0.00740
5
0.04340
0.10110
0.08490 0.07860
0.02470
4
Pool Length (ft)3.3
6.8
3.6
4.3
1.5
5
4.1
7.0
5.5
5.5
1.0
5
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.2
0.2
5
1.5
1.5
1.51
1.5
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
17.7
58.2 r
48.1
40.8
16.5
5
531
96AI
12w 11
31 A
43.4
4
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 mm
NAI
I
I
I
NA
D84 (mm
NAI
I
I
I
I
NA

Table B.1.1. Continued
Parameter - (cross-sections 2)
MY4
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
UT3 Lower - Davis Project Reach - 226 feet
MY5
Parameter - (cross-sections 2)
MYO
Dimension and Substrate -Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
MYl
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
MY2
Si)
n
Bankfull Width (ft
MY3
1
9.1
Floodprone Width(fr)
232.0
1
232.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ff)
5.8
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles On
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Sl)
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Si)
n
Bankfull Width ft
1
9.9
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
9.9
13.4
1
10.2
15.7
1
9.9
26.2
Flood tune Width ft)
1
232.0
25.4
232.0
1.0
232.0
1
232.0
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter ft
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
7.6
9.7
7.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.6
7.3
1
1
0.6
7.6
D50 mm
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
0.8
0
NAI
0.8
0
Pattern
0.7
1
0.8
Channel Beltwidth (11)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
Radius of Curvature (ft)
1.3
1
1.4
Width De th Ratio
12.8
13.2
_
Riffle Length ft
14.4
46.4
36.8
1
15.3
5
12.8
58.6
25.7
27.9
Entrenchment Ratio
6
Riffle Slope ft/ft
23.5
0.05110
0.03610
0.03490
0.01180
5
23.5
0.05850
0.03460
0.03570
0.01910
6
22.7
6.7
22.0
1
14.5
6.3
23.5
5.9
23.7
8.4
Bank Height Ratio
6.8
6
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.0
LI
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.0
1.0
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
22.5
1
43.5
42.1
1.0
4
16.7
60.5
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
33.91
18.3
10.3
Substrate (reach -wide)
lValues determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
10.4
NAI
I
10.6
NA
10.3
D84 (mmJ
I
Hydraulic Radius ft
I
0.7
NAI
I
0.7
0.7
1
0.7
D50 mm
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
Pattern
I L
I
W
Channel Beltwidth ft
23.0
42.0
27.0
30.7
10.0
3
24.1
30.2
28.0
27.4
3.1
3
22.7
28.9
22.7
24.8
3.6
3
22.7
28.9
22.7
24.8
3.6
3
Radius of Curvature (ft
20.0
39.0
30.0
29.8
8.1
4
28.8
44.3
34.9
35.7
8.0
4
31.8
40.0
37.6
36.5
4.2
3
31.8
40.0
37.6
36.5
4.2
3
Rc:Bankfull width 11/11)
1.7
3.3
2.6
2.5
0.7
4
2.9
4.1
2.9
3.3
0.7
3
2.8
45
4.0
3.8
0.9
3
2.8
4.5
4.0
3.8
0.9
3
Meander Wavelength (ft
87.0
113.0
104.0
101.3
13.2
3
85.4
106.6
100.1
97.4
10.9
3
83.9
87.3
85.3
85.5
1.7
3
83.9
87.3
85.3
85.5
1.7
3
Meander Width Ratio
1.9
3.5
2.3
2.6
0.8
3
2.4
3.1
2.8
2.8
0.3
3
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.5
0.2
3
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.5
0.2
3
Profile
Riffle Length fr
10.8
28.7
27.3
23.5
8.6
4
8.8
28.8
23.7
21.2
8.6
4
12.5
28.1
23.0
21.7
6.7
4
6.9
51.2
11.7
20.2
16.1
7
Riffle Sloe (11/11
0.01319
0.06560
0.03791
0.03865
0.02231
4
0.00773
0.05708
0.02228
0.02734
0.02134
4
0.01173
0.05760
0.04394
0.03930
0.02067
4
0.01200
0.12830
0.04830
0.05190
0.04010
7
Pool Length (ft)
16.0
19.7
19.0
18.2
1.9
3
17.8
27.4
19.6
21.6
5.1
3
12.1
22.4
15.7
16.7
5.2
3
5.4
23.0
11.5
13.1
6.5
6
Pool Max depth (11)
1.3
1.8
1.8
1.7
0.31
31
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.3
3
1.6
2.3
1.6
1.8
0.4
3
0.0
0.01
1.71
0.0
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
47.6
63.4
55.5
55.5
11.2
2
46.7
63.3
55.0
55.0
l 1.7
2
47.6
53.4
50.5
50.5
4.1
2
17.8
69.8
29.3
34.81
20.3
6
Substrate (reach -wide)
D50 (mm4
Values determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
I I NAI I I I I I NAI
I
NA
I
NA
D84 (mmi
I
I
NAI
I
I
I I
I
NAI
I
I
NA
I
NA
Parameter - (cross-sections 2)
MY4
MY5
Dimension and Substrate -Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
Si)
n
Bankfull Width (ft
8.9
1
9.1
Floodprone Width(fr)
232.0
1
232.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ff)
5.8
1
5.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.71
1
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
13.4
1
15.7
Entrenchment Ratio
26.2
1
25.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1
1.0
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter ft
9.2
1
9.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.6
1
0.6
D50 mm
NA
0
NAI
0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (11)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
_
Riffle Length ft
8.71
46.4
36.8
31.3
15.3
5
9.6
58.6
25.7
27.9
18.2
6
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.02050
0.05110
0.03610
0.03490
0.01180
5
0.01080
0.05850
0.03460
0.03570
0.01910
6
Pool Length (ft)
6.7
22.0
14.7
14.5
6.3
41
5.9
23.7
8.4
11.3
6.8
6
Pool Max depth (ft
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
1
LI
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
22.5
58.8
43.5
42.1
15.4
4
16.7
60.5
34.3
33.91
18.3
5
Substrate (reach -wide)
lValues determined from ooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 mmI
NAI
I
NA
D84 (mmJ
I
NAI
I
NAI
I

Table B2.—Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross-sections).
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Mainstem
"11
Cross Section
2 (Pool)
Cross Section
3 (Riffle)
Bankfall
Bankfafillmrcncbmcntltatii-----
--
--
------
Cross Section
4 (Pool)
Cross Section 6 (PooI)
'Mean
Bankfall r
-----
------
------

Table B2. Continued.
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Mainstem
Cross Section
7 (Riffle)
Cross Section
9 (Pool
Bankfull
®®®���
FloodimmeWidth (W,
Cross Section
10 (Riffle)
i
—now—
Bankfull Mean
DepthMax
Bankfull r
—
—
----
------
------

Table B2. Continued.
DavisUpper South Hominy HYMS project number 92632)
UT2 Roberson and UT3 Upper and UT3 Lower
UT2 Cross
Section
I Roberson (Riffle)
Cross Sectio
Cross Section
Floodprone Width (W,
Bankfull r ,
-----
------------
.UT3
Cross Section 2 DavisDavis
DepthMax
Bankfull r
—
—
---
—
------
------

Table B.3 Verification of Bankfull Events, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 59
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Upper South Hominy(DMS
project number 92632)
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
(if available)
5 Dec 2011
28 Nov 2011
Wrack line observation
Figure B.5, Photo 1-3
6 May 2013
5 May 2013
Wrack line observation
Figure B.5, Photo 4-6
28 October 2014
14 October 2014
Wrack line observation
Figure B.5, Photo 7
14 October 2015
3 October 2015
Wrack line observation
Figure B.5, Photo 8
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 59
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table 13.4 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment.
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Mainstem 1 - Bianculli Reach — 797 feet — MY5
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run units)
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
2
2
100
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
2
2
1
100
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2
2
100
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
2
2
100
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
2. Undercut
and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
6
6
100
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
6
6
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
6
6
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15% (see guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
document)
6
6
100
[47Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow
7
7
100
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 60
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Mainstem 2 - Bura/Roberson Reach —1,286 feet — MY5
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
35
97
units)
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser
2. Riffle Condition
substrate
6
6
100
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
4
5
80
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
4
5
80
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
5
80
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4
5
80
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
2
130
89
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear
2. Undercut
sustainable and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
2
130
89
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
5
5
100
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
5
5
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
5
5
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
3. Bank Protection
guidance document)
5
5
100
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow
7
9
78
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 61
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Mainstem 3 -Davis Reach — 737 feet — MY5
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
% Stable,
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
Performing
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
as
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run units)
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
0
0
0
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
0
0
0
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
0
1 0
0
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
0
0
0
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear
2. Undercut
sustainable and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
4
4
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
4
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
document)
4
4
100
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow
4
4
100
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 62
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table B.5 Stream Problem Areas, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Stream Problem Areas
Upper South Hominy (DMS project number 92632)
Feature*
Issue
Reach / Station
Suspected Cause/Date
Mainstem 2 - 9+20
Problem Area 4
Aggradation/Bar Formation below J -hook
flood event / 28 Nov 2011
to 9+50
UT -3 - 0+00 to
low flow velocity and
Problem Area 10
Aggradation throughout step -pool structure
2+00
dense herbaceous layer
Mainstem 2 — 5+05
Problem Area 11
Right Bank Scour/Erosion
flood event
to 6+10
Mainstem 2 — 3+45
Problem Area 12
Right Bank Scour/Erosion
flood event
to 3+70
*All Problem Area photographs can be found in Figure B.6. Previously noted Problem Areas 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
9 are no longer considered issues and therefore have been removed from this table.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 63
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.1 Monitoring Cross -Section Plots, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 1, Riffle
2365
2360
w
0
W
2355
2350
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (feet)
As -built WO MY1 —MY2
MY3 MY4 —MYS
—Water surface Bankfull —FPA elev
Cross-section 1, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 1, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 64
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Cross-section 1, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 1, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 1, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 1, facing downstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 65
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

rigure ts.i uontinuea.
Upper South Hominy Creek
2365 Cross-section 2, Pool
2360
0
W
2355
2350
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
AAs -built MYO MY1 -MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Cross-section 2, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 2, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYl.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 66
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Cross-section 2, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 2, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 2, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 2, facing downstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 67
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Clg'u1G D.1 1.V11t lluuU.
2362
2357
w
0
W2352
2347 -L
0
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 3, Riffle
10 20 3
AAs -built MYO
— MY3
Water surface
0 40 50
Distance (feet)
�MY1
MY4
Bankf ill
60 70 80
MY2
MY5
—FPA elev
Cross-section 3, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 3, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 68
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Cross-section 3, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 3, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 3, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 3, facing downstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 69
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

C1gu1G D.1 1.V11t111uuu.
2360
2355
E
W
2350
2345 -�
0
10 20
As -built MYO
MY3
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 4, Pool
30 40 50
Distance (feet)
�MY1
MY4
60 70
MY2
MY5
80
Cross-section 4, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 4, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 70
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Cross-section 4, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 4, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 4, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 4, facing downstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 71
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

r igure ts.i uontinuea.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 5, Riffle
2355
,350
w
0
W
2345 —
2340
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (feet)
As -built MYO MY1 -MY2
MY3 _MY4 _MY5
Cross-section 5, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 5, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 72
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Cross-section 5, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 5, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 5, facing downstream, 15 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 5, facing downstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 73
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

r igure ts.i uontinuea.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 6, Pool
2355
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
,350
w
0
W
2345
2340
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (feet)
AAs-built MYO MY1 —MY2
MY3 MY4 _MY5
—Water surface Bankfull — —FPA elev
Cross-section 6, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 6, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 74
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Cross-section 6, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 6, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 6, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 6, facing upstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 75
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

C1gU1G D.1 %.011L111UGU.
2350
X345
40
W
2340
2335 +
0
10 20
As -built WO
MY3
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 7, Riffle
30 40
Distance (feet)
�MYl
MY4
50 60
MY2
MY5
70
Cross-section 7, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 7, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 76
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Cross-section 7, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 7, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 7, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 7, facing downstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 77
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Clg'U1G D.1 1.011L111UGU.
2345
,340
0
W
2335
2330 '
0 10
AAs -built MYO
MY3
Water surface
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 8, Riffle
20 30 40 50
..Vil"ce (feet) �MY2
MY4 _MY5
—Bankfull � —FPA elev
Cross-section 8, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 8, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 'fig
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Cross-section 8, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 8, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 8, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 8, facing downstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 79
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

rlaure ts.i uontinuea.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 9, Pool
2345
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apr
,..�,340 �
w
0
W
2335
2330
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (feet)
AAs -built MYO MY1 -MY2
MY3 _MY4 MY5
Cross-section 9, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 9, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 80
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Cross-section 9, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 9, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 9, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 9, facing upstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 81
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final— January 2017

r igure ts.i uontinuea.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross-section 10, Riffle
2345
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
,,. 340
0
W
2335
2330
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (feet)
AAs-built MYO MY1 -MY2
MY3 MY4 _MY5
Cross-section 10, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 10, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 82
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Cross-section 10, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 10, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 10, facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 10, facing upstream, 14 November 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 83
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Figure B.1 Continued.
2356
2355
2354
0
1.353
W
2352
2351
0 10
AAs -built WO
MY3
UT2, Roberson
Cross-section 1, Riffle
20 30 40
Distance (feet)
MY 1 MY2
MY4 _MY5
50
Cross-section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, WO.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Cross-section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYI.

Cross-section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2. Cross-section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 14 Nov 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site gs
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.1 Continued.
Cross-section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 86
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
UT3 Upper, Davis
Cross-section 1, Riffle
2357
2356
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2355
a
0
1,354
W
2353
2352
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (feet)
AAs -built MYO MY1 -MY2
MY3 MY4 -MY5
Cross-section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 86
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Cross-section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 14 Nov 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 87
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.1 Continued.
Cross-section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYI.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 88
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
UT3 lower, Davis
Cross-section 2, Riffle
2347
2346
— — —am
— — —am
— — — WEN
— — — ma
— — —
2345
a
0
,344
W
051
2343
2342
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (feet)
AAs -built MYO MY1 -MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Cross-section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross-section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYI.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 88
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Cross-section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014, MY3.
�r IP"*
Cross-section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4. Cross-section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 14 Nov 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 89
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

r igure ts.i uontlnuea.
UT3 Lower, Davis
Cross-section 3, Pool
2341
2340
2339
w
a
0
,338
W
2337
2336
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (feet)
As-built WO MY 1 - MY2
MY3 MY4 _MY5
Cross-section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO. Cross-section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYI.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 90
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Cross-section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross-section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014, MY3.
Cross-section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 14 October 2015, MY4.
Cross-section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 14 Nov 2016, MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 91
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 92
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 93
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

F Iguic D./- %-,uuuuucu
2345
;:111
a
m
2335
2330
South Hominy Creek, Danis Mainstem 3, MYO-MY5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 704 750 900
Channel Distance (ft)
—0—MY0lbalweg Twwe4 ——MY�i'bWwq +NM Tlww"—&--:vSY47hMweg Tbaiweg MY5 Wain guria� $aukfwl
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 94
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017
k
■
•
•
c
c
'�
IC
n
J
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 704 750 900
Channel Distance (ft)
—0—MY0lbalweg Twwe4 ——MY�i'bWwq +NM Tlww"—&--:vSY47hMweg Tbaiweg MY5 Wain guria� $aukfwl
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 94
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

Figure B.2 Continued
LTT2 Roberson, NnfO-MVV
2355
2354
2353
a
2352
aA
a
::
a
W
2351
D
2350
v
2349
'J
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 I80 190 200
Channel Distance (it)
#MYC Thalweg —8-1117Yl Thalwft - - - Li Y2 Th.ahvm -.4-4fY3 Thalweg -.G.MYS Tbalwft—40—MYS Thalweg a Bwkfull
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 95
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

Figure B.2 Continued
2365
2360
2355
W 2350
2345
3344
0
UT3 Upper Davis, MYO-MY5
-)5 50 75 100 125 150
Channel Distance (ft)
—41--MYQ Thnlweg—dlw-7rlYl Thalweg —%iY2 Tlsalweg Thalweg 4r\FY4 Thalweg -45--MYS Thalweg
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 96
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017
175 200 225
-MY5Water Surfnce s Baikfull
A
r
0
U
I
-)5 50 75 100 125 150
Channel Distance (ft)
—41--MYQ Thnlweg—dlw-7rlYl Thalweg —%iY2 Tlsalweg Thalweg 4r\FY4 Thalweg -45--MYS Thalweg
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 96
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017
175 200 225
-MY5Water Surfnce s Baikfull

Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 97
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report—Final—January 2017

Figure B.3 Pebble Count Cumulative Frequency Distribution Plots, Particle Sizes by Category,
and Percent Bed Material by Category, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 98
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
South Hominy Creek
USH Reach -Wide Pebble Count
Reach Wide Pebble Count
100° o
---4
90%
80%
Category
Existing
v 70%
MYl MY2
MY3
II
MY5
D 16 (mm)
:z 60°/u
2.3
7.9 16.0
0
18
18
a 50%
23.9
15.6
18.8 37.4
35
36
36
D50 (mm)
56.6
r 40%
38.5 52.2
48
49
49
D84 (mm)
30%
81.6
94.7 104.6
201%
100
88
D95 (mm)
211.0
140.3
10%
152
199
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10400
Particle Size (mm)
Existing
MYO
��arrn ti5't \Sl'y -"IY3 -=arra a3YS
MY3
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 98
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
USH Reach -Wide Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D 16 (mm)
0.2
2.3
7.9 16.0
18
18
18
D35 (mm)
23.9
15.6
18.8 37.4
35
36
36
D50 (mm)
56.6
35.0
38.5 52.2
48
49
49
D84 (mm)
144.4
81.6
94.7 104.6
96
100
88
D95 (mm)
211.0
140.3
119.0 154.0
152
199
175
Percent (%) Bed Material by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
8.0
2.0
0.0 0.0
1
2
1
Sand
16.0
13.0
9.0 7.0
6
4
5
Gravel
30.0
58.0
61.0 56.0
62
59
63
Cobble
45.0
25.0
30.0 37.0
30
33
30
Boulder
1.0
2.0
0.0 0.0
1
2
1
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 98
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Figure B.3 Continued
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section I Riffle Pebble Count
100"0 - - -
r
90%
i
80°'0
r
70%
L I
a
C
60%
a 50%
40%
U 30%
{
20%
10% -
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1WO 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-90�myd -4IN.MYI --P-•hfY2 -MY3 W4 1i75
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 99
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
USH Bianculli Cross Section 1 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
6.6
6.0
16.5 6.2
9
7
7
D35 (mm)
11.4
14.1
27.0 13.9
16
11
12
D50 (mm)
21.2
22.1
40.9 32.0
35
29
23
D84 (mm)
89.7
71.1
102.7 84.3
93
110
102
D95 (mm)
124.2
109.0
152.7 119.0
143
170
192
Percent (%) Bed Material by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
2.0
0.0
0.0 4.0
0
0
0
Sand
8.0
5.0
0.0 9.0
8
10
10
Gravel
66.0
76.0
71.0 58.0
59
51
50
Cobble
23.0
19.0
29.0 29.0
32
37
38
Boulder
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
1
2
2
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 99
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Figure B.3 Continued
100%
90%
80°x0
70%v
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 3 Riffle Pebble Count
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 100
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
USH Bianculli Cross Section 3 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle (%) Size by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D 16 (mm)
5.1
8.3
10.4 10.8
6
5
5
D35 (mm)
11.0
14.3
21.2 31.7
27
26
23
D50 (mm)
21.0
28.9
46.7 56.4
40
43
37
D84 (mm)
80.9
109.6
114.3 138.9
202
153
99
D95 (mm)
120.2
216.7
163.9 200.3
292
297
210
Percent Bed Material
by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
8
3
0
Sand
11.0
2.0
0.0 12.0
4
10
12
Gravel
67.0
62.0
60.0 44.0
52
55
64
Cobble
22.0
34.0
40.0 44.0
28
24
23
Boulder
0.0
2.0
0.0 1.0
8
9
1
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 100
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Figure B.3 Continued
100%
90%
80%
70°.'
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 5 Riffle Pebble Count
0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
�MYA 13Y1
--*--MY2 -d Nm
100 1 gi) 1 10000
��hfi4"ti �-SCYS
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 101
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
USH Bura/Roberson Cross Section 5 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
6.1
11.3
7.0
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.5
D35 (mm)
14.6
32.0
11.6
14.1
13
7
6
D50 (mm)
30.0
49.4
16.7
28.9
22
25
20
D84 (mm)
106.2
119.2
77.0
93.5
95
106
101
D95 (mm)
179.6
180.0
122.6
141.0
151
205
189
Percent (%)
Bed Material by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
2
4
2
Sand
15.0
6.0
1.0
21.0
23
20
22
Gravel
55.0
54.0
78.0
46.0
42
41
42
Cobble
30.0
40.0
21.0
30.0
32
33
32
Boulder
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
2
2
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 101
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Figure B.3 Continued
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
r
.r
Y
O.I
South 1luminy Creels
Cross Sec Iio11 71Riffle Pebble Count
I 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 102
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
USH Bura/Roberson Cross Section 7 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
5.5
9.7
3.3 4.9
2.5
2
2
D35 (mm)
12.9
21.8
10.3 13.3
13
11
10
D50 (mm)
24.5
31.4
18.6 32.0
23
22
16
D84 (mm)
104.0
82.0
82.6 83.5
67
63
58
D95 (mm)
164.4
128.0
126.1 120.4
147
145
139
Percent (%) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0 1.0
0
1
0
Sand
12.0
6.0
11.0 12.0
15
17
16
Gravel
64.0
69.0
63.0 62.0
68
67
71
Cobble
24.0
25.0
26.0 25.0
17
16
12
Boulder
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
0
1
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 102
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Figure B.3 Continued
100%
90%
80°x4
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 8 Riffle Pebble Count
fa.l 1
rano ��ni
10
Particle Size (mm)
- ,,n-, --.-tin•l
� 0 1( a 10000
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 103
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
USH Davis Cross Section 8 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
1.0
12.3
3.3 1.7
8
2
3
D35 (mm)
22.6
29.3
11.7 16.3
18
13
13
D50 (mm)
35.3
47.7
37.9 29.2
24
24
22
D84 (mm)
96.3
114.4
88.0 73.3
54
67
60
D95 (mm)
245.1
172.6
166.3 112.8
78
90
105
Percent (%) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
1.0
0.0 3.0
0
0
0
Sand
16.0
6.0
7.0 15.0
12
16
15
Gravel
58.0
55.0
63.0 61.0
76
67
71
Cobble
22.0
37.0
30.0 21.0
12
18
15
Boulder
4.0
1.0
0.0 0.0
0
0
0
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 103
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Figure B.3 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 104
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
South Hominy Creek
Crass Section 10 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
100%
Category
Existing
90%
MY1 MY2
MY3
MY4
80%
D16 (mm)
0.6
6.9
70%
0.7
0.6
0.8
D35 (mm)
6.9
17.5
10.9 9.0
60%
6
9
D50 (mm)
17.3
33.5
25.0 16.0
14
50%
18
D84 (mm)
a
94.0
100.0 74.0
55
57
40%
D95 (mm)
118.0
169.1
135.8 127.5
99
97
U
30%
-
Percent (%) Bed Material by
20%
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
10%
MY5
Silt/Clay
10.0
0%
0.0 2.0
3
2
0.01
0.1 1 10 1 i111 1000 10000
17.0
3.0
6.0 18.0
Particle Size (mm)
27
26
Gravel
-*.--Af13 MY4 tMYS
68.0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 104
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
USH Davis Cross Section 10 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1 MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
0.6
6.9
5.3 1.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
D35 (mm)
6.9
17.5
10.9 9.0
7
6
9
D50 (mm)
17.3
33.5
25.0 16.0
14
18
18
D84 (mm)
79.4
94.0
100.0 74.0
55
57
57
D95 (mm)
118.0
169.1
135.8 127.5
99
97
115
Percent (%) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
10.0
2.0
0.0 2.0
3
2
0
Sand
17.0
3.0
6.0 18.0
25
27
26
Gravel
50.0
68.0
64.0 62.0
61
60
63
Cobble
24.0
27.0
30.0 18.0
10
10
11
Boulder
0.0
0.0
0.0 1.0
1
1
0
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 104
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Figure B.4 Photographic Stations Log, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek — (Restoration)
Photo Station 1
Mid channel bar, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, pre -construction.
30 September 2008.
Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 14 August 2011.
Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 12 November 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 105
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 15 October 2015.

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 1 (continued)
Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 24 April 2016.
Photo Station 2
Channel blockage, sta.2+50, facing downstream, pre -construction,
30 September 2008.
J -hook, sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 5 September 2011.
J -hook, sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
J -hook, sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 106
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 2 (continued)
J -hook, sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 12 November 2014.
J -hook, sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 24 April 2016.
Photo Station 3
J -hook, sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 14 October 2015.
Right bank erosion, sta. 5+50, pre -construction, 30 September 2008. J -hook, sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 5 December 2011.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 107
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 3 (continued)
J -hook, sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
J -hook, sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
J -hook, sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 12 November 2014.
J -hook, sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 15 September 2016.
J -hook, sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 108
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 4
�.`� ,..Jn.. a/!• r ir.9ile a � L`. .. ... { _ . � ..�iilStSiYYi"iil�1Y �~ '1- �i
Sta. 6+50 to 8+00, right bank facing upstream, 5 December 2011
2012.
Sta. 6+50 to 8+00, right bank facing upstream, 20 November
Sta. 6+50 to 8+00, right bank facing upstream, 29 October 2013. Sta. 6+50 to 8+00, right bank facing upstream, 12 November 2014.
Sta. 6+50 to 8+00, right bank facing upstream, 14 October 2015. Sta. 6+50 to 8+00, right bank facing upstream, 15 September 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 109
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure BA Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary North, UTI - (Preservation)
Photo Station 5
UTI facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 28 July 2009.
MYO-2011 no photo taken.
UTI facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 20 November 2012 UT1 facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 29 October 2013.
UTI facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 20 November 2012. UTI facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 110
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure BA Continued
UTI facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 24 April 2016.
Bianculli Property, Tributary North, UT 1 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 6
UTI facing downstream, pre -construction 28 July 2009. UT1, above vernal pond, 5 September 2011.
UTI Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 20 November 2012. UTI Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 1 11
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure BA Continued
Photo Station 6 (continued)
UTI Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 12 November 2014. UTI Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 14 October 2015.
UTI Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 24 April 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 112
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary South, UT2 — (Enhancement I1)
Photo Station 7
UT2 facing downstream, pre -construction, 30 November 2007.
UT2 facing downstream, post invasive removal, 5 December 2011.
UT2 facing downstream, post invasive removal, 20 November 2012. UT2 facing downstream, post invasive removal, 29 October 2013.
UT2, no photo taken W03 2014
UT2 facing downstream, post invasive removal, 17 November 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 113
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
UT2 facing downstream, post invasive removal, 15 September 2016.
Bianculli Property, Tributary South, UT2 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 8
UT2 routed from original channel to a road ditch, pre -construction,
30 November 2007.
UT2 re -connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned channel,
UT2 re -connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned channel,
sta. 0+00 to 0+50, 20 November 2012.
UT2 re -connected to abandoned channel, sta. 0+00 to 0+50,
29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 114
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 8 (continued)
UT2 re -connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned channel,
sta. 0+00 to 0+50, 12 November 2014.
UT2 re -connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned channel,
sta. 0+00 to 0+50, 15 September 2016.
UT2 re -connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned channel,
sta. 0+00 to 0+50, 15 October 2015.
Roberson Property, Tributary South Abandoned Channel, UT2 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 9
Abandoned UT2 channel east of Canterfield Lane, 26 April 2010
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 5 September 2011.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 115
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 9 (continued)
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 20 November 2012
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 29 October 2013.
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 12 November 2014. UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 14 October 2015.
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 15 September 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 116
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 10
Lower portion of UT2 abandoned channel at confluence with SHC, Lower portion of UT2 at confluence with SHC, facing upstream,
Pre -construction, facing downstream, 26 April 2010. 5 September 2011.
Lower portion of UT2 at confluence with SHC, facing downstream,
20 November 2012.
Lower portion of UT2, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Lower portion of UT2, facing downstream, 12 November 2014. Lower portion of UT2, facing downstream, 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 117
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Lower portion of UT2, facing downstream, 15 September 2016.
Bura Property Left Bank, Roberson Property Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Restoration)
Photo Station 11
Livestock access right bank, sta. 1+00 to 1+50, facing downstream.
22 January 2009.
Log vane sta. 1+00 to 1+50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012. Log vane sta. 1+00 to 1+50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 118
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 11 (continued)
Log vane sta. 1+00 to 1+50, facing downstream, 12 November 2014. Log vane sta. 1+00 to 1+50, facing downstream, 14 October 2015.
Log vane sta. 1+00 to 1+50, facing downstream, 15 September 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 119
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 12
Mid channel aggradation, sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream.
22 January 2009.
Log vane at sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream,
5 December 2011.
Log vane sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012. Log vane sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Log vane sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream, 12 November 2014. Log vane sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream, 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 120
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Log vane sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream, 15 September 2016.
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 13
Typical features along channel in enhancement Il reach,
downstream, 22 January 2009.
Fence and invasive removal, bank sloping, sta. 5+00, facing
downstream, 20 November 2012.
Fence and invasive removal, bank sloping, sta. 5+00, facing
downstream, 22 September 2011.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 121
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Fence and invasive removal, bank sloping, sta. 5+00, facing
downstream, 29 October 2013.

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 13 (continued)
Sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 12 November 2014.
Sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 15 September 2016.
Sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 14 October 2015.
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Restoration)
Photo Station 14
Outside meander bend bank stress, sta. 7+25 to 8+00,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7+25 to 8+00,
22 September 2011.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 122
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 14 (continued)
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7+25 to 8+00,
20 November 2012.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7+25 to 8+00,
12 November 2014.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7+25 to 8+00,
15 September 2016.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7+25 to 8+00,
29 October 2013.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7+25 to 8+00,
14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 123
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 15
Bed aggradation and transverse bar, sta. 9+50 to 10+00,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 10+00, 14 June 2012.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 10+00, 22 September 2011.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 10+00, 29 October 2013.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 10+00, 12 November 2014. Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 10+00, 23 November 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 124
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure BA Continued
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 10+00, 15 September 2016.
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 16
Lower portion of enhancement II, sta. 11+50 to 12+00,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11+50 to 12+00,
facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
facing downstream, 22 September 2011.
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11+50 to 12+00,
facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 125
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 16 (continued)
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11+50 to 12+00,
facing downstream, 12 November 2014.
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11+50 to 12+00, facing
downstream, 15 September 2016.
Photo Station 17
Driveway bridge at lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
sta. 12+50, facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11+50 to 12+00,
facing downstream, 23 November 2015.
J -hook sta. 12+75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
22 September 2011.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 126
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure BA Continued
Photo Station 17 (continued)
J -hook sta. 12+75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
20 November 2012.
J -hook sta. 12+75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
12 November 2014.
J -hook sta. 12+75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
15 Sept 2016.
J -hook sta. 12+75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
29 October 2013.
J -hook sta. 12+75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
14 Oct 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 127
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement 1)
Photo Station 18
J -hook proposed, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 25 July 2008,
pre -construction.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0+25,
20 November 2012.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0+25,
22 September 2011.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0+25,
29 October 2013.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0+25, Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0+25,
12 November 2014 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 128
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0+25,
15 September 2016
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement I)
Photo Station 19
In -stream structures proposed to enhance habitat features, sta. 2+00 Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2+25 to 3+50, facing
3+50, facing downstream, 25 July 2008. downstream, 7 December 2011.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2+25 to 3+50, facing
downstream, 20 November 2012.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2+25 to 3+50, facing
downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 129
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure BA Continued
Photo Station 19 (continued)
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2+25 to 3+50, facing
downstream, 12 November 2014.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2+25 to 3+50, facing
downstream, 14 October 2015.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2+25 to 3+50, facing downstream, 15 Sept 2016.
Photo Station 20
Lower end of Enhancement I, sta. 3+50 to 4+50, facing downstream. Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 4+50, facing
25 July 2008. upstream, 19 October 2011.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 130
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 20 (continued)
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 4+50, facing
downstream 20 November 2012.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 4+50, facing
upstream 12 November 2014.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 4+50, facing
upstream 15 September 2016.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 4+50, facing
downstream 29 October 2013.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 4+50, facing
upstream 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 131
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 21
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6+75,
4 October 2011.
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6+75,
29 October 2013.
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta 6+75
14 October 2015.
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6+75,
20 November 2012.
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6+75,
12 November 2014.
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta 6+75
15 September 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 132
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure BA Continued
Photo Station 22
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7+37, lower project boundary,
facing upstream, 15 November 2011.
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7+37, lower project boundary,
facing upstream, 20 November 2012.
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7+37, lower project boundary,
facing upstream, 29 October 2013.
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7+37, lower project boundary
facing upstream, 14 October 2015.
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7+37, lower project boundary,
facing upstream, 12 November 2014.
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7+37, lower project boundary
facing upstream, 15 September 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 133
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 — (Preservation)
Photo Station 23
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
25 July 2008.
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
20 November 2012.
WO -2011 no photo taken.
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
29 October 2013.
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream, Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
20 November 2012 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 134
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
15 September 2016
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 24
UT3 above ford, channel incision, facing downstream, 25 July 2008
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 9 November 2011.
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 20 November 2012.
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 135
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 12 November 2014.
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank shaping,
facing upstream, 15 September 2016.
Photo Station 25
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 14 October 2015.
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 Upper — (Restoration)
UT3 below ford, severe entrenchment and head cutting, 25
July 2008.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0+00, 15 November 2011.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 136
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0+00, 14 June 2012.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0+00, 12 November 2014.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0+00, 15 September 2016.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0+00, 29 October 2013.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0+00, 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 137
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 Lower — (Restoration)
Photo Station 26
UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing
upstream, 15 November 2011.
UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing
upstream, 29 October 2013.
UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing
upstream, 20 November 2012.
UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing
upstream, 12 November 2014.
UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing
Upstream, 15 October 2015 Upstream, 15 September 2016
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 138
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.5 Bankfull Verification Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Photo 1 bankfull event on SHC, Bianculli property, sta. 6+00,
Photo 4 bankfull event on SHC, Bianculli property, sta. 6+00
Photo 2 bankfull event on SHC, Roberson property, sta. 8+00
28 November 2011.
Photo 5 bankfull event on SHC, Roberson property, sta. 8+00
06 May 2013
Simple crest gage verification of the 5 May 2013 bankfull event.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 139
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Stream gage plate, sta. 8+00, Mainstem 1 reach

Figure B.5 Continued
Photo 3 bankfull event on SHC, Davis property, sta. 0+50
28 November 2011.
Photo 7 bankfull event on SHC, right bank Robertson property,
sta. 12+00 facing downstream on 28 October 2014.
Photo 6 bankfull event on SHC, Davis property, sta. 0+50
06 May 2013.
Photo 8 bankfull event on SHC, right bank Bianculli property,
sta.12+00 facing downstream on 14 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 140
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Stream Problem Area Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Blanculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 1
Rock vane after construction, sta. 1+50, facing upstream,
5 September 2011.
Rock vane, sta. 1+50, facing upstream, 20 November 2012.
Rock vane, sta 1+50 facing downstream, 28 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 141
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Rock vane after flood damage, sta. 1+50, facing upstream,
14 June 2012.
Rock vane, sta. 1+50, facing upstream, 29 October 2013
Rock vane, sta 1+50 facing upstream, 28 October 2014

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 1
Repaired rock vane, sta 1+50 facing downstream 14 October 2015
No longer considered a problem during MY4 (2015) field surveys.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 142
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 2
Right channel bank in stable condition, sta. 2+00, facing
upstream, 5 September 2011.
Right channel bank instability after flood, sta. 1+75 to2+25,
facing upstream, 14 June 2012.
Right channel bank condition after 5 May 2013 flood,
sta. 1+75 to 2+25 facing upstream, 18 July 2013.
Right channel bank instability after flood damage, sta. 1+75 to
2+25, facing upstream, 5 December 2011.
Right channel bank instability, sta. 1+75 to2+25,
facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Right channel bank condition after 5 May 2013 flood,
sta. 1+75 to 2+25, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 143
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 2
Right channel bank condition
sta. 1+75 to 2+25 facing upstream, 20 October 2014
Right channel bank condition after 2015 repairs
sta. 1+75 to 2+25 facing upstream, 14 October 2015.
No longer considered a problem during MY4 (2015) field surveys.
Right channel bank condition
sta. 1+45 to 2+75, facing upstream, 28 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 144
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 3
J -hook and meander post construction, sta. 2+50, facing
downstream, 5 September 2011.
Aggradation and bar formation in meander below J -hook after
flood event, sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 5 December 2011.
Aggradation and bar formation in meander below J -hook,
sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Aggradation and thalweg movement following 5 May 2013 flood,
sta. 2+50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 145
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 3
Aggradation below J -hook sta 2+50 facing
downstream 28 October 2014
Meander below J -hook sta 2+50 after summer 2015 repairs
facing downstream 14 October 2015
No longer considered a problem during MY4 (2015) field surveys.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 146
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bura Property Left Bank, Roberson Property Right Bank, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 4
J -hook vane after construction, sta. 9+25, facing upstream,
Inner berm formation below J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 9+50, following
5 May 2013 flood event, facing upstream, 18 July 2013.
Aggradation and bar formation below J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 9+50,
following 5 May 2013 flood event, facing downstream, 14
October 2015.
Aggradation and bar formation below J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 9+50,
after flood event, facing upstream, 5 December 2011.
No photo taken during MY03 2014
Aggradation and bar formation below J -hook, sta. 9+25 to 9+50,
following 5 May 2013 flood event, facing downstream, 12
September 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 147
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 5
Cross vane after construction, facing upstream, sta. 0+50 Cross vane after 5 May 2013 flood event, facing upstream,
14 Aug 2011. sta. 0+50, 18 July 2013.
No longer considered a problem during MY3 (2014) field surveys Crossvane after summer 2015 repairs, facing downstream, sta.
28 October 2014 0+50, 14 October 2015
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 148
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 6
J -hook vane after construction, sta. 5+75, facing downstream,
14 August 2011.
J -hook arm collapse during 5 May 2013 flood event, sta. 5+75,
facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Right bank scour and erosion, sta. 6+25, facing downstream,
occurred during the 5 May 2013 flood event, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 149
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Right bank scour and erosion, sta 6+25 to 6+50 facing upstream,
28 October 2014

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 6
Right bank repairs performed summer 2015, sta. 6+25, facing
downstream, 14 October 2015. No longer considered a problem during
MY4 (2015) field surveys.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 150
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bura Property Left Bank, Roberson Property Right Bank, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 7
J -hook, sta. 12+75, after construction, facing upstream, 22 Sept 2011. J -hook after 28 Nov 2011 flood event, aggradation in pool below
J -hook, 5 December 2011.
J -hook after 5 May 2013 flood event, aggradation above J -hook Right bank scour and erosion during 5 May 2013 flood event,
and scour pool below, 29 October 2013. facing upstream, sta. 12+50, 18 July 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 151
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bura Property Left Bank, Roberson Property Right Bank, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 7
�Yf.i, r to r l4"
PA -7 station 12+75 facing upstream was repaired and is no longer
considered a problem 28 October 2014
PA -7 station 12+75 facing downstream was repaired and is no
longer considered a problem 28 October 2014
Repaired J -hook, sta. 12+75, facing upstream, 15 October 2015 Repaired J -hook, sta. 12+75, facing downstream, 14 October 2015
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 152
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 8
Aggradation below J -hook, sta. 4+00 to 4+50, following
5 May 2013 flood event, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Aggradation below J -hook, sta 4+00 to 4+50, facing upstream,
28 October 2014
Area below J -hook, sta. 4+00 to 4+50, facing upstream, 15 October 2015.
No longer considered a problem during MY4 (2015) field surveys.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 153
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 9
Right bank scour during 5 May 2013 flood event,
sta. 0+00 to 0+20, facing downstream, 18 July 2013.
PA -09 was no longer considered a problem during MY3 (2014)
surveys, 28 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 154
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Davis Property, UT -3 to South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 10
Aggradation due to low flow velocity and dense herbaceous
vegetation, sta. 0+00 to 2+00 UT -3 Upper Davis Reach,
facing upstream, 28 October 2014.
Aggradation due to low flow velocity and dense herbaceous
vegetation, sta. 0+00 to 2+00 UT -3 Upper Davis Reach,
facing upstream, 14 November 2016.
Aggradation due to low flow velocity and dense herbaceous
vegetation, sta. 0+00 to 2+00 UT -3 Upper Davis Reach,
facing downstream, 15 October 2015.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 155
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bura/Roberson Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 11
Right bank erosion due to high flow events, sta. 5+05 to 6+10
facing downstream, 17 November 2015.
Right bank erosion due to high flow events, sta. 5+05 to 6+10
facing downstream, 12 September 2016.
Right bank erosion due to high flow events, sta. 5+05 to 6+10
facing upstream, 17 November 2015
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 156
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.6 Continued
Bura/Roberson Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 12
Right bank erosion due to high flow events, sta. 3+45 to 3+70
facing downstream, 18 April 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 157
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.7 Wetland Delineations Map and Wetland Station Pictures. Map Prepared by
Confluence Engineering, PC and C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Pre -construction
Wetland Photos Courtesy of C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
-v
r
Legend
a 150 3DO eoa �aor"
,n
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 158
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure B.7 Continued
Bianculli Property, Wetland L (Wetland Station 1)
Wetland L, pre -construction, 2009.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
5 December 2011.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
20 November 2012.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
29 October 2013.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
27 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 159
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
14 October 2015.

Figure B.7 Continued
Wetland Station 1 (continued)
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream, 14 November 2016.
Roberson Property, Wetland E and UT2 (Wetland Station 2)
Wetland E, UT2 facing upstream, pre -construction, 2009.
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
5 September 2011.
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
14 June 2012.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 160
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
29 October 2013.

Figure B.7 Continued
Wetland Station 2 (continued)
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
27 October 2014
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
14 October 2015.
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2, 15 September 2016.
Wetland D, facing downstream, pre -construction, 2009.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 161
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream, 22
September 2011.

Figure B.7 Continued
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream,
20 November 2012
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream,
29 October 2013.
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream,
27 October 2014.
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream,
15 September 2016.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 162
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream,
27 October 2015.

Figure B.7 Continued
Roberson Property, Wetland D (Wetland Station 4)
Wetland D, area of livestock access, facing upstream, 2009.
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D, 22
September 2011.
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D,
20 November 2012.
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D,
29 October 2013.
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D,
27 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 163
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D,
14 October 2015.

Figure B.7 Continued
Wetland Station 4 (continued)
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D, 15 September 2016.
Wetland Station 5
Lower portion of Wetland D, livestock impacts, facing upstream,
2009.
Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence,
22 September 2011.
20 November 2012.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 164
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
29 October 2013.

Figure B.7 Continued
Wetland Station 5 (continued)
Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence,
27 October 2014
Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence,
15 September 2016
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 165
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
14 October 2015

Appendix C.
Vegetation Data, CVS Output Tables, and Vegetation Plot Photographs
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 166
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.l Annual Seed Mix, Perennial Native Seed Mix, and Live Stake Species Used to
Stabilize and Revegetate the Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Type Common Name
Scientific Name
Rate
Zone' Number
Annual seed Browntop millet
Panicum ramosum
10 lb/ac
1,2,3
Buckwheat
Eriogonum spp.
15 lb/ac
1,2
Winter rye
Lolium spp.
30 lb/ac
1,2
Winter wheat
Triticum spp.
15 lb/ac
1,2
Perennial native seed
Arrowleaf tearthumb
Big bluestem
Blackeyed Susan
Blue vervain
Deer tongue
Eastern bur reed
Green bulrush
Grey headed cone flower
Hop sedge
Indian wood oats
Indiangrass
Lanceleaf coreopsis
Little bluestem
Many leaved bulrush
Nodding bur -marigold
Oxeye sunflower
Partridge pea
Pennsylvania smartweed
Purple cone flower
River oats
Showy evening primrose
Showy tickseed sunflower
Smooth panic grass
Soft rush
Softstem bulrush
Switch grass
Virginia wild rye
Polygonum sagittatum
Andropogon gerardii
Rudbeckia hirta
Verbena hastata
Panicum clandestinum
Sparganium americanum
Scirpus atrovirens
Ratibida pinnata
Carex lupulina
Chasmanthium latifolium
Sorghastrum nutans
Coreopsis lanceolata
Schizachyrium scoparium
Scirpus polyphyllus
Bidens cernua
Heliopsis helianthoides
Chamaeerista fasciculate
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Echinacea purpurea
Chasmanthium latifolium
Oenothera speciosa
Bidens aristosa
Panicum dichotomiflorum
Juncus effusus
Panicum virgatum
Elymus virginicus
Combined Total 15 lb/ac
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,3
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,3
1,2
1,2
Live stakes Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 1,3 250
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 1,3 3,250
Silky willow Salix sericea 1,3 1,500
Total 1,3 5,000
a Planting zone refer to stream bank & floodplain areas (1), transition & upland areas (2), or wetland areas (3).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 167
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Table C.2 Shrub and Tree Species Installed at the Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Plant Source Was Either Bare Root (B) or Containerized (C) Nursery Stock.
Type Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetness
Indicator
Zone'
Number
Installed
Plantb,c
Source
Shrubs and small trees American beauty berry
Callicarpa americana
FACU
2
20
C
Arrowwood viburnum
Viburnum dentatum
FAC
2
30
C
Button bush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
OBL
1,2,3
30
C
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
FACW
1,2,3
25
C
Possum haw
Ilex decidua
FACW
2
30
C
Red chokeberry
Aroma arbutifolia
FACW
2
20
C
Totals 6
Betula nigra
FACW
2
155
C,B
Medium trees Black cherry
Prunus serotina
FACU
2
100
B
Black willow
Salix nigra
OBL
1,2,3
50
C
Carolina ash
Fraxinus caroliniana
OBL
2
15
C
Dogwood
Cornus florida
FACU
2
200
B
Eastern redbud
Cercis canadensis
FACU
2
100
B
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
FAC
2
23
C
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
FACU
2
25,100
C,B
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
2
20,200
C,B
Southern crabapple
Malus angustifolia
FACU
2
100
B
Totals 9
Quercus shumardii
FACW
2
933
C,B
Large trees Black gum
Nyssa sylvatica
FAC
2
100
B
Bitternut hickory
Carya cordiformis
FAC
2
100
B
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagoda
FAC
2
100
B
Chestnut oak
Quercus prinus
FAQU
2
100
B
Mockernut hickory
Carya alba
FACU
2
100
B
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
FACU
2
30, 100
C,B
Pin oak
Quercus palustris
FACW
2
100
B
Scarlet oak
Quercus coccinea
FACU
2
2,200
C, B
Shagbark hickory
Carya ovata
FACU
2
100
B
Shumard's oak
Quercus shumardii
FACW
2
10,100
C,B
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW
2
200
B
White oak
Quercus alba
FACU
2
30, 100
C,B
Yellow buckeye
Aesculus flava
FAC
2
20
C
Totals 13
1,492
a Planting zone refer to stream bank & floodplain areas (1), transition & upland areas (2), or wetland areas (3).
b Bare root whips ranged from 1 to 2 feet in height; hickory species were less averaging 6 inches in height.
e Container sizes ranged from 5 to 7 gallon; the majority of the plants were in 5 gallon containers.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 168
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Location, Orientation, and Dimension, Upper South
Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 169
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Vegetation Monitoring Plots Photographs
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Stream
Location
Bearing (Degrees from North)
Plot Dimensions (m)
UT2
Plot 1 left bank sta. 2+00
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 2 right bank sta. 7+50
Plot origin (x,y) 1600
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 3 left bank sta. 7+25
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 4 right bank sta. 0+50
Plot origin (x,y) 140°
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 5 left bank sta. 9+50
Plot origin (x,y) 1250
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 6 right bank sta. 10+50
Plot origin (x,y) 1200
5 X 20
SHC
Plot 7 right bank sta. 0+75
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 8 left bank sta. 2+50
Plot origin (x,y) 150°
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 9 right bank sta. 5+75
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
5 X 20
UT3 Lower
Plot 10 left bank sta. 1+00
Plot origin (x,y) 1300
10 X 10
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 169
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table CA Vegetation Metadata, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO-MY5 Vegetation Metadata
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Report Prepared By
Phillip Perkinson
Date Prepared
9/15/2016 10:19
Database Name
Axiom-USH-2016-A-v2.3.l.mdb
Database Location
S:\Business\Projects\12\12-004 EEP Monitoring\12-004.20 South Hominy Creek\2016
Year 5\CVS
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and
project data.
Project, Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes
live stakes.
Project, Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live
stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing,
etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total
stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and
Spp-
Count of living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code/Number
92632
Project Name
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
Description
NCDMS Mitigation Site, Buncombe County, N.C.
Length (ft)
5,804
Stream -to -Edge Width (ft)
30
Area (m2 /acres)
33,586 m2/ 8.3 acres
Required Plots (calculated)
9
Sampled Plots
10
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 170
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.5 Vegetation Vigor by Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 171
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MYO Vegetation Vigor bSpecies
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS
project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
4
3 2 1 0 Missing Unknown
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
2
Betula nigra
River birch
6
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
5
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
5
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
1
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
16
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
1
14
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
8
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
I
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
Quercus alba
White oak
7
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
1
7
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
5
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
2
6
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
9
Salix nigra
Black willow
3
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
4
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
2
2
Total Species
31
27
157
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 171
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.5 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 172
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY1 Vegetation Vigor b
Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS pro'ect number 92632)
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0 Missing Unknown
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
5
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
2
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
2
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
4
4
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
3
6
2
2 1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
7
8
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
1
4
2
1
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
2
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
1
2
1
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
5
6
2
1
Quercus alba
White oak
1
5
3
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
6
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
1
2
3
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
3
3
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
2
3
4
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
5
3
Salix nigra
Black willow
2
2
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
1
4
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
Total Species
31
16
83
63
11
11 6
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 172
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.5 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 173
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY2 Vegetation Vigor b
Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS pro'ect number
92632)
Species
Common Name
4
3
2 1
0 Missing Unknown
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
1
2
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
5
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
1
1 1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
2
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
2
5 1
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
10
2
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
5
5 2
1 1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
3
2
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
2
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
4
7
3
Quercus alba
White oak
1
4
5
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
4
3
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
4
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
1
6
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
3
3
3
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
1
5
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
1
2
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
1
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
2
2
1
1 1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
1
4
Total Species
31
17
78
63 3
7 8
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 173
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.5 Continued
MY3 Vegetation Vigor bSpecies
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS pro'ect number 92632)
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0
Unknown
Aesculus ava
yellow buckeye
2
-Missing
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
I
Betula nigra
river birch
2
1
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
1
1
4
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
2
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
2
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
1
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
2
Cornus Florida
flowering dogwood
9
3
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
7
3
3
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
N ssa s lvatica
black um
6
Quercus alba
white oak
9
4
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
2
Quercus montana
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
3
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
3
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
2
Salix nigra
black willow
3
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
3
1
1
1
Malus an usti olia
southern crabapple
2
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
3
2
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
6
1
1
Quercus
oak
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
7
4
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
4
1
Driodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
5
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
5
5
1
2
35
34
105
41
2
9
12
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 174
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.5 Continued
MY4 Vegetation Vigor bSpecies
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aesculus ava
yellow buckeye
3
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
Betula nigra
river birch
2
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
2
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
1
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
2
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
2
Cornus Florida
flowering dogwood
10
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
5
4
1
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
l
N ssa s lvatica
black um
4
2
Quercus alba
white oak
8
4
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
1
Quercus montana
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
2
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
3
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
3
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
3
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
4
1
Malus an usti olia
southern crabapple
2
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
3
2
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
5
2
Quercus
oak
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
8
2
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
3
1
1
Driodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
5
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
3
3
2
1
1
35
34
102
35
5
4
1
10
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 175
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.5 Continued
MY5 Vegetation Vigor bSpecies
U per South Hominy Mitigation
Site (DMS
project number 92632)
Species
CommonName
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aesculus ava
yellow buckeye
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
Betula nigra
river birch
2
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
1
1
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
9
2
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
7
1
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
4
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
9
2
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
3
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
1
Quercus montana
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
4
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
2
1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
3
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
3
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
2
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
3
2
Malus angustifolia
southern crabapple
2
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
4
1
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
5
2
Quercus
oak
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
10
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
4
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
5
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
5
2
1
33
32
106
22
5
3
5
6
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 176
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.6 Vegetation Damage by Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 177
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MYO Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South
Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number
92632)
Species
Common Name Count of Damage
Categories
(no damage)
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
0
3
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
0
3
Betula nigra
River birch
0
6
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
0
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
0
5
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
0
5
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
0
5
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
0
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
0
8
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
0
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
0
16
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
0
15
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
0
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
0
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
0
8
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
0
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
0
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
0
7
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
0
15
Quercus alba
White oak
0
7
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
0
7
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
0
7
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
0
8
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
0
5
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
0
8
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
0
9
Salix nigra
Black willow
0
4
Salix sericea
Silky willow
0
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
0
6
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
0
4
Total Species
31
0
184
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 177
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.6 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 178
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MYl Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy
Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage Beaver
Human
Trampled Rodents Unknown Vine
Aesculus ava
Yellow buckeye
3
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
3
Betula nigra
River birch
1
4
1
Callicar a americana
American beautyberry
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
3
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
1
4
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
4
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
g
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
3
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
1
13 1
Dios yros virginiana
Persimmon
16
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tuliptree
g
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
3
1
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
1
5
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
4 3
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
2
12
1 1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
10
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
1
6 1
Quercuspalustris
Pin oak
2
6
2
uercus Prinus
Chestnut oak
3
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
2
7 1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
g
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
Total Species
31
15
175 6
5 1 1 2
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 178
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.6 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 179
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY2 Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy
Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled Rodents Unknown Vine
Aesculus ava
Yellow buckeye
0
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
0
3
Betula nigra
River birch
1
3
1
Callicar a americana
American beautyberry
0
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
0
3
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
0
3
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
1
2
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
0
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
1
7
1
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
0
3
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
2
11
2
Dios yros virginiana
Persimmon
1
13
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
0
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
0
2
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tuliptree
0
7
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
0
3
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
0
6
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
4
3
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
0
14
Quercus alba
White oak
0
11
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
1
6
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
0
5
Quercuspalustris
Pin oak
2
5
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
0
4
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
1
8
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
0
8
Salix nigra
Black willow
1
3
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
1
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
0
7
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
0
5
Total Species
31
18
158
15
3 0 0 0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 179
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.6 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 180
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY3 Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy
Mitigation Site (DMS project number
92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of
Damage
Categories
No Damage Beaver
Rodents
Vine
Strangulation
Aesculus flava
yellow buckeye
0
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
0
2
Betula nigra
river birch
1
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American
beautyberry
1
5
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
1
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
0
2
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
0
2
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
0
3
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
common buttonbush
0
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
0
8
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
0
2
Cornus Florida
flowering dogwood
1
12
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
2
11
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
0
1
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
1
I
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
0
7
Malus angustifolia
southern crabapple
0
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
0
6
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
0
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
3
10
3
Quercus
oak
0
1
Quercus alba
white oak
0
13
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
0
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
0
2
Quercus montana
0
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
0
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
3
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
0
3
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
0
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
0
11
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
1
4
1
Salix nigra
black willow
1
3 1
Salix sericea
silky willow
3
1
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
1
5
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
1
4
1
35
34
17
152 1
5
11
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 180
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.6 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 181
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY4 Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper
South Hominy Mitigation Site
(DMS project number 92632)
Species
CommonName
Count of
Damage
Categories
Human
(no damage) Deer
Trampled
Vine
Strangulation
Aesculus flava
yellow buckeye
0
3
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
0
2
Betula nigra
river birch
0
3
Callicarpa americana
American
beautyberry
0
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
1
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
0
1
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
0
2
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
0
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
0
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
0
7
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
0
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
2
11
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
2
10
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
0
1
flex decidua
possumhaw
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
1
6
1
Malus angustifolia
southern crabapple
0
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
0
6
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
0
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
4
6
4
Quercus
oak
0
1
Quercus alba
white oak
0
12
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
1
4
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
1
1
Quercus montana
0
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
0
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
2
2 1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
0
3
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
0
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
2
9
2
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
1
4 1
Salix nigra
black willow
1
3
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
0
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
1
4
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
2
3 1
1
35
34
22
135 2 1
19
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 181
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.6 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 182
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY5 Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of
Damage
Categories
Enter
No Other
Damage Damage Insects
Vines
Other
Damage
Aesculus flava
yellow buckeye
1
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
1
2
1
Callicarpa americana
American
beautyberry
0
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
1
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
0
1
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
common buttonbush
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
1
6
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
0
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
2
10 1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
1
9
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
0
1
Ilex decidua
possum -haw
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
0
7
Malus angustifolia
southern crabapple
0
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
1
5 1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
0
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
1
8
1
Quercus
oak
0
1
Quercus alba
white oak
1
10
1
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
2
3
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
1
1
Quercus montana
0
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
0
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
3
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
0
3
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
0
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
4
8
4
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
0
5
Salix nigra
black willow
1
3
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
0
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
1
4
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
1
4
1
33
32
23
126 1 1
20
1
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 182
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.7 Vegetation Damage by Plot, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site DMS project number 92632)
Plot
Count of Damage Categories
No Damage
92632-NCWRC-VP 1-MYO
0
13
92632-NCWRC-VP2-MYO
0
14
92632-NCWRC-VP3-MYO
0
19
92632-NCWRC-VP4-MYO
0
16
92632-NCWRC-VP5-MYO
0
25
92632-NCWRC-VP6-MYO
0
15
92632-NCWRC-VP7-MYO
0
18
92632-NCWRC-VP8-MYO
0
27
92632-NCWRC-VP9-MYO
0
16
92632-NCWRC-VP 10-MYO
0
21
Total: 10
0
184
MY1 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South HominyMiti ation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled
Rodents
Unknown
Vine
92632-NCWRC-VP 1-MY1
3
10
1
1
1
92632-NCWRC-VP2-MY 1
2
12
1
1
92632-NCWRC-VP3-MY1
2
18
1
1
92632-NCWRC-VP4-MY1
6
11
6
92632-NCWRC-VP5-MY1
1
24
1
92632-NCWRC-VP6-MY1
1
15
1
92632-NCWRC-VP7-MY 1
20
92632-NCWRC-VP8-MY1
27
92632-NCWRC-VP9-MY1
16
92632-NCWRC-VP 10-MY1
22
Total Plots: 10
15
175
6
5
1
1
2
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 183
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.7 Continued
MY2 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South HominyMiti ation Site (DMS project number 92632
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled
Rodents
Unknown
Vine
92632-NCWRC-VP 1-MY2
0
12
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP I -year: 3
4
7
92632-NCWRC-VP2-MY2
2
12
2
9
1
4
92632-NCWRC-VP3-MY2
1
18
1
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP4-year:3
2
92632-NCWRC-VP4-MY2
4
11
4
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP5-year:3
0
22
92632-NCWRC-VP5-MY2
2
22
2
2
2
92632-NCWRC-VP6-MY2
2
14
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP8- ear:3
3
92632-NCWRC-VP7-MY2
0
18
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP9-year:3
1
13
92632-NCWRC-VP8-MY2
3
22
3
152
1
5
l 1
92632-NCWRC-VP9-MY2
3
11
3
92632-NCWRC-VP 10-MY2
1
18
1
Total Plots: 10
18
158
15
3
0
0
0
MY3 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
No Damage
Beaver
Rodents
Vine
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP 10-year:3
0
19
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP I -year: 3
4
7
1
3
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP2-year:3
5
9
1
4
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP3-year:3
0
18
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP4-year:3
2
14
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP5-year:3
0
22
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP6-year:3
2
12
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP7-year:3
0
18
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP8- ear:3
3
20
3
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP9-year:3
1
13
1
Total lots: 10
17
152
1
5
l 1
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 184
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.7 Continued
MY4 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
(no damage)
Deer
Human
Trampled
Vine
Strangulation
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP10-year:4
0
17
13
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP1-year:4
6
4
1
7
5
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP2-year:4
7
6
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP2-year:5
2
7
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP3-year:4
1
17
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP3-year:5
1
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP4-year:4
1
15
1
1
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP5-year:4
0
19
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP6-year:4
1
12
1
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP7-year:4
1
17
1
1
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP8-year:4
0
21
7
10
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP9-year:4
5
7
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP8-year:5
1
4
Total Plots: 10
22 —7r77135
2
1
1 19
MY5 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
(no
damag
e)
Enter
Other
Damage
Insects
Vine
Strangul
ation
Other
Damage
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP10-year:5
2
13
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP 1 -year: 5
2
7
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP2-year:5
2
11
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP3-year:5
2
16
1
1
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP4-year:5
2
14
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP5-year:5
0
19
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP6-year:5
3
9
1
2
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP7-year:5
7
10
7
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP8-year:5
0
19
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP9- ear:5
3
8
2
1
Total Plots: 10
23
126
1
1
20
1
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 185
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation
Site DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VPI
VP2
VP3
VP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
3
2
1.5
Betula nigra
River birch
6
4
1.5
1
3
1
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
5
4
1.25
2
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
5
5
1
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
5
3
1.67
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
1
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
16
8
2
3
1
3
2
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
1.88
1
2
1
6
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
8
4
2
2
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
2
1.5
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
3
2.33
1
5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
8
1.88
2
2
1
2
Quercus alba
White oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
5
4
1.25
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
1
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
6
4
1.5
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
4
4
1
1
1
Totals:
31
184
13
14
19
16
25
Density (stem/acre):
745
526
566
769
648
1,011
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 186
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Continued
MYO Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti
ation Site DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP10
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
3
2
1.5
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
6
4
1.5
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
5
4
1.25
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
5
5
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
5
3
1.67
1
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
1
4
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
16
8
2
3
1
1
2
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
1.88
1
2
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
8
4
2
1
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
2
1.5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
3
2.33
1
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
8
1.88
1
1
3
3
Quercus alba
White oak
7
6
1.17
l
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
6
1.17
1
2
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
5
4
1.25
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
1
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
6
4
1.5
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
4
4
1
1
1
Totals:
31
184
15
18
27
16
21
Density (stems/acre):
745
607
728
1,093
648
850
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 187
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Continued
MYl Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP1
VP2
VP3
VP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
3
3
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
5
2.2
3
1
3
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
1.88
1
1
1
6
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
7
3
2.33
2
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
1.33
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
13
7
1.86
2
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1.67
1
2
3
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
1.17
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
31
173
31
12
14
19
16
24
Density (stem/acre):
700
486
566
769
648
971
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 188
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Continued
MYl Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP10
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockemut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
3
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
5
2.2
3
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
1.88
1
2
1
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Driodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
7
3
2.33
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
1.33
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
13
7
1.86
1
3
2
3
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1.67
1
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pm oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
Totals:
31
173
31
15
17
23
14
19
Density (stem/acre):
700
1 607
688
931
567
769
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 189
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Continued
MY2 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP1
VP2
VP3
VP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
2
2
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
l
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
12
6
2
2
1
3
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
12
7
1.71
1
1
1
4
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
7
3
2.33
2
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
3
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
11
8
1.38
2
1
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
5
2
1
2
4
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
3
3
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
31
161
32
11
14
17
15
21
Density (stem/acre):
652
445
567
688
607
850
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 190
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Continued
MY2 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP10
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockemut hickory
1
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
2
2
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
12
6
2
3
2
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
12
7
1.71
1
2
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Driodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
7
3
2.33
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
3
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
11
8
1.38
1
3
1
1
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
5
2
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
5
5
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pm oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
Totals:
31
161
32
14
16
22
12
19
Density (stem/acre):
1
652
567
648
890
486
769
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 191
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Continued
MY3 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South
Hominy Mitigation
Site (DMS
project number 92632)
Comment
Species
SpType
CommonName
Total
Planted
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VPI-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP2-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP3-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP4-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP5-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP6-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP7-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP8-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP9-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632 -
NCWRC-
VP10-
ear:3
Aesculus ava
Shrub Tree
yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbuti glia
Shrub
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
Tree
river birch
3
2
1.5
2
1
Callicar a americana
Shrub
American beautyberry
2
2
1
1
1
Car inns caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Shrub Tree
common buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Shrub Tree
eastern redbud
7
3
2.33
2
1
4
Cornus amomum
Shrub
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus orida
Shrub Tree
flowering dogwood
12
7
1.71
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
Diospyros vir iniana
Tree
common persimmon
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Shrub Tree
possurnhaw
2
2
1
1
1
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tree
tuli tree
7
3
2.33
2
3
2
Malus angustifolia
Shrub Tree
southern crabapple
2
2
1
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
Tree
black um
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Tree
Americansycamore
8
2
4
6
2
Prunus serotina
Shrub Tree
black cherry
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
Quercus
Shrub Tree
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
Tree
white oak
13
6
2.17
1
5
1
3
1
2
uercus coccinea
Tree
scarlet oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus montana
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus muehlenber ii
Tree
chinks in oak
4
3
1.33
1
1
2
Quercus pagoda
Tree
the bark oak
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Tree
pin oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
uercus Prinoides
Shrub Tree
dwarf chinks in oak
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Tree
northern red oak
11
9
1.22
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Quercus shumardii
Shrub Tree
Shumard's oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Tree
black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Shrub Tree
silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Shrub Tree
Common Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOT:
0
32
32
31
148
32
9
13
18
16
19
12
18
19
10
14
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 192
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Continued
MY4 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
U per South HominyMiti ation Site DMS roiect number 92632
Comment
Species
SpType
CommonName
Total
Planted
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VPI-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP2-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP3-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP4-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP5-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP6-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP7-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP8-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP9-
ear:4
plot
EUSH
92632 -
NCWRC-
VP10-
ear:4
Aesculus ava
Shrub Tree
yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
1
1
Aronia arbuti olia
Shrub
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
Tree
river birch
3
2
1.5
2
1
Callicar a americana
Shrub
American beautyberry
2
2
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Tree
shagbark hickory
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Shrub Tree
common buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Shrub Tree
eastern redbud
7
3
2.33
2
1
4
Cornus amomum
Shrub
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus orida
Shrub Tree
flowering dogwood
12
7
1.71
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
Diospyros vir iniana
Tree
common persimmon
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Shrub Tree
possurahaw
2
2
1
1
1
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tree
tali tree
7
3
2.33
2
3
2
Malus angustifolia
Shrub Tree
southern crabapple
2
2
1
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
Tree
black um
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Tree
Americansycamore
8
2
4
6
2
Prunus serotina
Shrub Tree
black cherry
9
7
1.29
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Quercus
Shrub Tree
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
Tree
white oak
12
6
2
1
5
1
2
1
2
Quercus coccinea
Tree
scarlet oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus montana
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus muehlenber ii
Tree
chinks in oak
5
3
1.67
1
1
3
Quercus pagoda
Tree
the bark oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
uercus alustris
Tree
pin oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus prinoides
Shrub Tree
dwarf chinks in oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Tree
northern red oak
10
9
1.11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Quercus shumardii
Shrub Tree
Shumard's oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Tree
black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Shrub Tree
silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Shrub Tree
Common Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOT:
0
33
33
32
146
33
9
13
18
16
19
10
17
18
11
15
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 193
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.8 Continued
MY5 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South HominyMiti ation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Comment
Species
SpType
CommonName
Total
Planted
Stems
# plots
avg#
stems
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP1-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP2-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP3-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP4-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP5-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP6-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP7-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP8-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP9-
ear:5
plot
EUSH
92632 -
NCWRC-
VP10-
ear:5
Aesculus ava
Shrub Tree
yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
1
1
Aronia arbuti olia
Shrub
Red Chokeberry
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
Tree
river birch
2
2
1
1
1
Callicar a americana
Shrub
American beautyberry
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Tree
shagbark hickory
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Shrub Tree
common buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Shrub Tree
eastern redbud
7
3
2.33
4
2
1
Cornus amomum
Shrub
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus orida
Shrub Tree
flowering dogwood
12
7
1.71
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
Diospyros vir iniana
Tree
common persimmon
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Shrub Tree
possumhaw
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tree
tuli tree
6
3
2
2
1
3
Malus an usti olia
Shrub Tree
southern crabapple
2
2
1
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
Tree
blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Tree
Americansycamore
8
2
4
6
2
Prunus serotina
Shrub Tree
black cherry
7
5
1.4
1
1
2
1
2
Quercus alba
Tree
white oak
11
6
1.83
1
5
1
2
1
1
Quercus coccinea
Tree
scarlet oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus montana
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus muehlenber ii
Tree
chinks in oak
5
3
1.67
1
1
3
Quercus pygoda
Tree
the bark oak
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Tree
pin oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus prinoides
Shrub Tree
dwarf chinks in oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Tree
northern red oak
11
9
1.22
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Quercus shumardii
Shrub Tree
Shumard's oak
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Tree
black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Shrub Tree
silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Shrub Tree
Common Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOT:
0
32
32
31
136
32
15
7
12
17
15
19
9
17
17
8
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 194
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.9 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYI Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VPI
VP2
VP3
aVP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
3
1.67
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
3
3
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
5
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
3
1.33
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus Florida
Flowering dogwood
11
6
2.17
3
1
3
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
2
1
1
1
6
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
22
5
4.6
2
10
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
1.33
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
9
3
3
5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
8
1.88
2
1
2
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1.67
1
2
3
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1.25
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
7
1.14
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
1.17
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
31
192
31
12
14
19
28
24
Density (stem/acre):
777
486
567
769
1,133
971
'Vegetation plots with volunteer species, numbers in bold font.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 195
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.9 Continued
MYl Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti
ation Site DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP6
VP7
aVP8
VP9
VP10
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
3
1.67
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockemut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
5
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
3
1.33
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
6
2.17
3
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
2
1
2
1
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Driodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
22
5
4.6
4
2,1
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
1.33
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
9
3
3
2
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
8
1.88
1
3
2
3
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1.67
1
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1.25
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
7
1.14
1
1
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
Totals:
31
192
31
15
17
29
14
20
Density (stem/acre):
777
607
688
1,173
567
809
'Vegetation plots with volunteer species, numbers are in bold font.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 196
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.9 Continued
MY2 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
aVPI
VP2
aVP3
aVP4
aVP5
Acer rubrum
Red maple
2
1
2
2
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
4
2
2
1
1 3
Aronia arbutifolia
Red chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
2
2
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bittemut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
13
6
2.17
3
1
3
1
Diospyros vir iniana
Persimmon
13
7
1.86
1
1
1
5
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tuliptree
50
5
10
2
38
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
3
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
14
9
1.56
2
1
1,2
1
Quercus alba
White oak
11
6
1.83
1
2
4
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
4
3
1.5
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
l
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
6
5
1.2
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
33
213
34
13
14
18
55
25
Density stem/acre):
862
526
567
728
2,226
1,011
'Volunteer species and numbers are in bold font
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 197
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.9 Continued
MY2 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
aVP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP10
Acer rubrum
Red maple
2
1
2
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
4
2
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
I
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
2
2
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bittemut hickory
3
3
1
I
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
13
6
2.17
3
2
Diospyros vir iniana
Persimmon
13
7
1.86
1
2
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tuliptree
50
5
10
5
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
3
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
14
9
1.56
1
3
1
1
1
Quercus alba
White oak
11
6
1.83
1
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
5
5
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
4
3
1.5
2
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
Totals:
33
213
34
19
16
22
12
19
Density (stem/acre):
862
768
648
890
486
769
'Volunteer species and numbers are in bold font.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 198
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.9 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 199
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY3 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Up
er South Hominy
Mitigation Site (DMS prqiect number 92632)
Comment Species
CommonName
Total
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP1- ear:3
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP2- ear:3
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP3- ear:3
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP4- ear:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP5- ear:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP6- ear:3
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP7- ear:3
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP8- ear:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-VP9-
ear:3
EUSH 92632 -
NCWRC-
VP10- ear:3
Acer rubrum
red maple
3
2
1.5
2
1
Aesculus ava
yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
6
3
2
1
4
1
Aronia arbuti olia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicar a americana
American beaqtyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Ca a ovata
shagbark hickory
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus orida
flowering dogwood
12
7
1.71
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
Dios yros vir iniana
common persimmon
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
possurnhaw
2
2
1
1
1
Liriodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
95
7
13.57
4
6
68
3
8
2
4
Malus an usti olia
southern crabapple
2
2
1
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
black um
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
13
4
3.25
6
1
4
2
Prunus serotina
black cherry
12
7
1.71
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
Quercus
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
13
6
2.17
1
5
1
3
1
2
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus montana
1
I
1
1
Quercus muehlenber ii
chinka in oak
4
3
1.33
1
1
2
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinka in oak
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
11
9
1.22
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Robinia seudoacacia
black locust
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOT: 0 36
35
261
36
10
18
23
85
27
21
24
24
11
18
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 199
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.9 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 200
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY4 Total Stem Count by
Plot and Species
Upper
South Homin
Mitigation Site
(DMS project number 92632)
Comment Species
CommonName
Total
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VPI- ear:4
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP2- ear:4
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP3- ear:4
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP4- ear:4
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP5- ear:4
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP6- ear:4
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP7- ear:4
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP8- ear:4
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP9- ear:4
EUSH
92632 -
NCWRC-
VP10- ear:4
Aesculus ava
yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
1
1
1
1
Aronia arbuti olia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
3
2
1.5
2
1
Callicar a americana
American beautyberry
2
2
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
7
3
2.33
2
1
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus orida
flowering dogwood
12
7
1.71
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
Diospyros vir iniana
common persimmon
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
2
2
1
1
1
Ju laps nigra
black walnut
5
1
5
5
Driodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
171
7
24.43
6
88
3
45
3
11
15
Malus an usti olia
southern crabapple
2
2
1
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
black um
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
13
3
4.33
6
4
3
Prunus serotina
black cherry
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
Quercus
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
13
6
2.17
1
6
1
2
1
2
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus montana
1
1
1
1
Quercus muehlenber ii
chinka in oak
5
3
1.67
1
1
3
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinka in oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
10
9
1.11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOT: 0 35
34
323
35
14
13
24
104
19
55
23
32
11
28
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 200
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.9 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 201
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY5 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper
South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS prqiect number 92632)
Comment Species
CommonName
Total
Stems
# plots
avg#
stems
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VPI- ear:5
EUSH EUSH
92632- 92632-
NCWRC- NCWRC-
VP2- ear:5 VP3- ear:5
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP4- ear:5
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP5- ear:5
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC-
VP6- ear:5
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP7- ear:5
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP8- ear:5
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP9- ear:5
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
V1310 -
ear:5
Acer rubrum
red maple
1
1
1
1
Aesculus ava
yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
1
1
Aronia arbuti olia
Red Chokeberry
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
3
2
1.5
2
1
Callicar a americana
American beau berry
2
2
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
2
2
1
1
1
Carya ovata
shagbark hi kory
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
7
3
2.33
4
2
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus orida
flowering dogwood
12
7
1.71
2
2 1
3
1
2
1
Cratae us
hawthorn
1
1
1
1
Diospyros vir iniana
common persimmon
12
8
1.5
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
possumbaw
1
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
18
5
3.6
5
3
5
1
4
Liriodendron tuli i era
tulitree
109
9
12.11
14
2
5
46
8
11
10
10
3
Malus an usti olia
southern crabapple
2
2
1
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
black um
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
20
4
5
6
1
5
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
9
7
1.29
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Quercus
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
12
6
2
1
6
1
2
1
1
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus montana
1
1
1
1
Quercus muehlenber ii
chinka in oak
5
3
1.67
1
1
3
Quercus pagoda
the bark oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinka in oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
11
9
1.22
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
7
5
1.4
1
2
2
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOT: 0 37
36
284
37
30
12 16
25
67
28
23
30
36
17
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 201
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.10 Vegetation Problem Areas, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MY1-MY5 Vegetation Problem Areas
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Feature/Issue
Station Number/Range
Probable
Cause
Photo
Number
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
UT -2 Bianculli
Invasive
1
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
UT -2 Bianculli
Invasive
2
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Mainstem 1 Sta. 7+25 to 8+00
Invasive
3
Mowed/cut path from easement
boundary to left bank of SHC
Mainstem 2 Sta. 0+90 to 1+30
Encroachment
--
Dense Bamboo
Mainstem 2 Sta. 1+00 to 1+75
Invasive
--
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Mainstem 3 Sta. 5+65 to 6+40
Invasive
--
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
UT -2 Bianculli
Invasive
--
Mowed/cut path from easement
boundary to left bank of SHC
Mainstem 2 Sta. 12+55 to 12+70
Encroachment
4
Dense Multiflora Rose
UT -2 Bura/Roberson
Invasive
5
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 202
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Table C.11 Vegetation Condition Assessment, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MY1-MY5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (DMS project number 92632)
Planted Acreage
8.3
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
(acres)
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
1. Bare Areas
material
0.1
0
0
0
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
2. Low Stem Density Areas
based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem count criteria
0.1
0
0
0
Totals
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
obviously small given the monitoring year
0.25
0
0
0
Cumulative Totals
L 0 R
0
Easement Acreage
16.4
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of
Easement
Category
Definitions
(acres)
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
-Vegetation
Dense patches of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Tan, purple,
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and
0.02
and blue
7
0.45
2.7
Bamboo (Bambusa sp.)
polygons
Two mowed paths from the easement boundary to
Black
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
the left bank of the Mainstem on the Bura property
none
hatched
2
0.02
0.
polygon
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 203
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure C.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 2 February 2012, Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO. MYO.
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012, Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MYl. MYl.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 204
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015,
MY4.
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015,
MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 205
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 206
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012
MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 207
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013
MY2.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014
MY3.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015, Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015
MY4. MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 208
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016
MY5.
209

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23October 2012,
MY 1.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 210
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015,
MY4.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015,
MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 2 1 1
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
212

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 4
No Pictures MYO — 2011
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
W1.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 213
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015,
MY4.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015,
MY4.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 214
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 215
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015,
MY4.
Vegetation plot 5, SHG facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015,
MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 216
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 217
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,5), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (20,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 218
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015,
MY4.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015,
MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 219
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 220
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 221
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
MY3.
ILVA
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015,
MY4.
Vegetation plot 7, SHG facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015,
MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 222
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016
MY5.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 223
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 224
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
MY3. MY3.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015,
MY4.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015,
MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 225
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016
MY5.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 226
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing downstream (0,5), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 227
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
MY4.
228

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 9, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Vegetation plot 9, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 229
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012, Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY1. MY 1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 230
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
MY3.
MY3.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 15 Oct 2015,
MY4.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 23 Nov 2015,
MY4.
231

Figure CA Continued
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 15 Sept 2016,
MY5.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 232
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Figure C.2 Vegetation Problem Area Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 233
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

Appendix D.
Monitoring Year -5, 2016, Plan Sheets
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 234
DMS Project 92632
MY5 Report — Final — January 2017

�� y�, R � il.r'F^ ° � � r ,}, � . .. '����7TT^: •Dy,��*,' 'a-�j � � r d . � � •�� � � v � ,�',�, � , �, 'f
e .�+ ,�� � �{ rl. � ir,�Y91Mi,..�� �� ' • - f .. S'r �,�"'���� � sem, _ M Y! ',r•
Y��+ �. , a .f}L'` f Y pM1� ° r t r.i�ir g' Y1� }. h •P' p�:w � �,•ti
�' Y+' 4.,r a r<. �i. •,yMa', 1�- i �. 'l. :.,�� .` '� y,'Jt
Yr e A
16.
lei
ft
IL I
'� . �#` •N Icy ` �: Y � � � ° _
e l�+8 41,2 ; ; i}? • tiI'r
k, y. 'fix � 04
M1
y
�
° .1 _ 1,1.:_ M i;•�'A1, s.e'y q6 A't•#„
-,lT,. mak• ; E� Ay � d
'N k!'*"tle y�lMyr �ra ��yr• � ��• �L�'�/ � �' ' ..t - �F1 .� '4 ,. a5 � �. .Ja'.
T *� �•ny w -yx� gyp, r ) y
'-a✓!s,4• �• • kI4
jilk
1
�T.
"_, :"" r� ��F hi ' bfr i.' �'�„✓;C � _yam 3 � _ =-� y
oil
.1l
•,
T. �y �, � ����� aft r'! �''�• wr: > � - _ :
yy ��. •.y,A ^6.I' ^ r ,'L " t n �y„a� -�y�'{'.. rl �:y¢
CC
f At
� 11l+ 3 g „fF �`� + �r •.� '�, ° •, ����t e 4� " • ta'a• ¢��14,` � t � ^" ' 4 ^�a, � t �`y,.. s�
y • iiilll `'
7g +� v �.. moo. r �� a� . ,+JS ,'� �� / • • • - • t � y
'��`IY �.�, � � 9 y F"� �'T � +1� J' ; { ° � P '. - l+r ■ y �M
{ • . . ';ice" - Y ei AL , f•�
•,may+ ,i■5, ♦
tai. ¢,mow .4 , ; </ xi ^�
•,'Y y� ^ T „,� ,, I• a " �y, •,y `' .,f '�i /' �~ r • • - • • • - } ,
it
-
' i '.7.�J'y ,�O � • � `+., •C ` �. �a'� 'tet.
y, •: � _ � m ''� . �i;� {fit "I
^
o .
r
-Ire
Af
• _ nor - �/ = '- ALI'
t �•
Wetland Enhancement.
yy
�- ^ .f1:u` Yat.- ;-. �a!'� � :.!^ M . * • . • .
D o oo-o -• -o '_ oi-oo D�' ug
G YEAR 5 PLAN SHEETS
e
Date:

Prepared by:
fix+o„ EnV+mnavenial, Inc,
Prepared for:
NC Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of
Mitigation Services
Project:
UPPER SOUTH
HOMINY
MITIGATION
SITE
Bianculli Reach
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
MONITORING
YEAR 5
PLAN SHEETS
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
DEC 2016
Scale:
1:1000
Project No.:
12-004.20
FIGURE
DA
Sheet 2 of 4
Legend
C3Easement Boundary
7
Parcels
�'
^�•-� Streams
�.Y�.' n
a
/�/ Structures
Y •
Monitoring Reach
r
Cross Sections
s
*
Stream Problem Areas
•%
+ °
Delineated Wetlands
,j
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
�►
Dense Bamboo
Dense Multiflora Rose
` �'•.,`,
+ ,ti �.
Wetland Enhancement Areas
•�
CVS Plots
Plot Origins
Photo Points
, �,
Wetland Photo Station
♦: �/'
Easement Encroachment Area
Prepared by:
fix+o„ EnV+mnavenial, Inc,
Prepared for:
NC Department of
Environmental Quality
Division of
Mitigation Services
Project:
UPPER SOUTH
HOMINY
MITIGATION
SITE
Bianculli Reach
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
MONITORING
YEAR 5
PLAN SHEETS
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
DEC 2016
Scale:
1:1000
Project No.:
12-004.20
FIGURE
DA
Sheet 2 of 4

OY
AE
40
Iry
•fr
r �-
South Hominy Creek
%NW . --
"•• • � ... � ti. � � `�� .f _ tom•_ •
• ■� � •tib G� "4 � 1 t
.i! "4
�yv w•ti 4`��'��� 4 't g".9, " • • �� - • • -
5 • 5i _
... t `'"s.s�a..*+s �`a.`.' �w.� t 'w 1 ��r e ;� �';.�` a k 4.��r �` ��C� 4 ..y.•rY •J.._s.i
� a .�,.�3' � y.,` `s1 n,t 'i�'i'•4` �-��y�4i"L �'•..i "ice '" �:da�- }i i.�g "�' a�i.� 1
,�''q. 'i'�1.r't y. � s Y. r ^t"c' s ;y 4 t a5 :�'a t^- .? ,'d + 1• • i .
F yc sY yib w. ,^:i.� +. •���""i 444"'�• s .• . - ' r - _ _
�yrE�-ti."�M 5+�;�'4 F �' '4 .;hi-•�`��_s � •t i��• �_' •_ r
•1 ^•+•4
H Q.ht4►�+g+ 44.� lcF,� .{ # ' ti� � adt�� S� .. .►ter • � � `' 1
4 �sN4�E '�`yFy�, �i+r. �-tiai iS'Y-�K k�•lr iF � '� � p,��j' ��r 1- :R,.
� t��i e+c _ • , �
44
P
0
J
2
rti
10
•fr
r �-
South Hominy Creek
%NW . --
"•• • � ... � ti. � � `�� .f _ tom•_ •
• ■� � •tib G� "4 � 1 t
.i! "4
�yv w•ti 4`��'��� 4 't g".9, " • • �� - • • -
5 • 5i _
... t `'"s.s�a..*+s �`a.`.' �w.� t 'w 1 ��r e ;� �';.�` a k 4.��r �` ��C� 4 ..y.•rY •J.._s.i
� a .�,.�3' � y.,` `s1 n,t 'i�'i'•4` �-��y�4i"L �'•..i "ice '" �:da�- }i i.�g "�' a�i.� 1
,�''q. 'i'�1.r't y. � s Y. r ^t"c' s ;y 4 t a5 :�'a t^- .? ,'d + 1• • i .
F yc sY yib w. ,^:i.� +. •���""i 444"'�• s .• . - ' r - _ _
�yrE�-ti."�M 5+�;�'4 F �' '4 .;hi-•�`��_s � •t i��• �_' •_ r
•1 ^•+•4
H Q.ht4►�+g+ 44.� lcF,� .{ # ' ti� � adt�� S� .. .►ter • � � `' 1
4 �sN4�E '�`yFy�, �i+r. �-tiai iS'Y-�K k�•lr iF � '� � p,��j' ��r 1- :R,.
� t��i e+c _ • , �
44
P
0
J
2

dbL'
J.
L
GeoEye, i-
?w' I
Imagery Source: ArcGIS Basemap - Oct -Dec 2011
Af
XI -F
I