20110118 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20140808

I
Monitoring Year 1 Report
FINAL
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site,
South Hominy Creek, French Broad River Basin,
Buncombe County, North Carolina
EEP Project Number: 92632
Contract Number: D06082; Task Order: 08 F1305 -1 b -d
Data Collected: October 2012- November 2012
Submitted: 7 February 2014
Prepared by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
in Partnership with the
r, s 2014
' VV A W
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
c�
7
Fl lai le l eiit
1.100 .
nop-=
M1 9@
of
109!
2
I AUG 8 2014 I 1

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 .............................................. ............................... 5
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 Morphometnc Criteria ........................................................ ............................... 8
4.1.2 Quantitative Measures Summary ......................................... ............................... 8
4.1.2.1 Mamstem 1 — Bianculli Reach — 797 feet ................ ............................... 9
412.2 Mamstem 2 - Bura /Roberson Reach — 1,286 ft .......... ...............................
11
4.1.2.3 Mamstem 3 - Davis Reach — 737 ft .......................... ...............................
13
4.1.2.4 Unnamed Tributary 1 — Bianculli Reach — 277 ft ... ...............................
15
4.1.2.5 Unnamed Tributary 2 — Bianculli and Roberson Reaches — 890 ft ............
15
41.2.6 Unnamed Tributary 3 — Davis Reach — 1,742 ft .... ...............................
16
4.1.3 Fixed Station Channel andRRiparian Area Photographs ...... ...............................
18
4.1.4 Bankfull Event Documentation and Verification ............ ...............................
18
4.1.5 Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ...................... ...............................
1,8
4.16 Stream Problem Areas ................ ............................... ...............................
20
4J.7 Stream Problem Area Photographs ................................. ...............................
20
4.1 8 Summary of Morphological Results .............................. ...............................
20
4.2 Wetland Enhancement and Preservation ......... ...... ............................... ...........
21
4.2 1 Wetland Areas Fixed Station Photographs ........................ ...............................
22
4.3 Vegetation Assessment .............................. ....... ...............................
22
4.3.1 Vegetative Monitoring Plot Photographs ..... ....................................... ....:.......
24
4.3.2 Vegetation Problem Areas Table Summary ....................... ...............................
24
4.3.3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View ........................ ............................... .25
4 3.4 Vegetative Problem Areas Photographs ..... . .... . ........ . ... ............... : .... .......... ..
25
4.3 5 Summary of Vegetation Assessment Results ................ ...............................
25
5 Farm Management Plan .................. ........... ......................... ............................... 26
6 Acknowledgements .................................................................... .............................26
7 References ................................................................................. .............................26
8 Appendices..... .... .. ..... .................. ...... .................. .........28
Up-pct South Honury NhL1gauon Site 1
LP Proicct 92632
MY Rcpou— FINAL— Icbmffly 2014

Executive Summary
This North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) project preserved, restored,
and enhanced approximately 5,951 ft of perennial stream channel on the mamstem 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 NCEEP contracted with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) under -task order 08FB05 -lb -d to prepare a mitigation plan,
acquire permits, manage informal contracts, oversee construction, and monitor post - construction
channel performance and riparian vegetation. The Upper South Hominy mitigation site aims to
provide approximately 3,497 stream mitigation units and 0.60 wetland mitigation units to the
NCEEP
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, Lori 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 NCEEP developed a Local Watershed Plan (L-WP) for the South Hominy Creek
(SHC) watershed. The objective of the plan was 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 targeting aquatic
habitat, water quality, and riparian habitat as 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 to increase land area for grazing and hay
production and mechanized dredging and straightening of stream channels to increase the
amount of usable land. These activities have 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 o_n 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
Uppei South Hominy N itigadorn Site
CEP Project 92632
N Y I Report — FINAL — I-cbi uary 2014

and enhancement level I and 11 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
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 (UT I) and the Davis unnamed
tributary (UT3) were preserved. Restoration level site work on the lower portions of the
Bianculli UT and the Davis UT3 were conducted using a Priority I strategy. Restoration
Priority I 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.
In- stream installation of rock and wood structures was utilized throughout the restored and
enhanced reaches of SHC Rock cross ,vanes and J -hook structures were constructed for grade
control to prevent head -cut formation, to promote stable banks on outside of meander bends, and
to increase bed form diversity. Log vanes and root'wads were installed along selected reaches to
reduce near bank stress and increase in- stream habitat. Similar materials and structure types
were utilized on the tributary channels, specifically to address grade control, channel slope, and
bed form diversity On -site materials, particularly logs and, root wads were salvaged and
incorporated into site construction Additional materials such as large rock boulders were
purchased from a local quarry and hauled to the construction site
Site work targeted reconnecting the SHC channel and tributary channels with historic
floodplams and creating floodplam benches at the desirable elevations to attenuate high flow
events. Periodic out of bank flows along with spring seep hydrology should promote and sustain
hydnc 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 monitoring year -1 (MY 1) survey revealed that construction activities at the USH
mitigation site in 2011 followed the approaches outlined the in the USH Mitigation Plan
(NCWRC 2010). Dimension, pattern, and profile parameters surveyed in 2012 suggest the
restoration; enhancement level II and enhancement level I sections of SHC are performing as
designed with little to no variation from design values. Small deviations were found in bankfull
width at two riffle cross - sections (XS1 and XS 10). Bankfull width at these two cross - sections
was slightly below the design value. However, problem areas or instability were not observed at
Uppci South Hominy MiUg.ition Sitc 2
LEP Project 92632
MYI Repoit— FINAL — February 2014

either cross - section. By in large, all other dimensional parameters measured at the 10 cross -
sections remain within the design values for SHC. Pattern and profile values derived from the
MY 1 survey reveal that the malinstem reaches of SHC are within the design values for these the
two morphological parameters. Reach -wide substrate particle size analysis revealed that the
MY 1 D50 value was within the very coarse gravel category. The median particle size at each of
the 6 riffle cross - sections fell within coarse to very coarse gravel categories during the MYI
survey
The MYI morphological results for the three unnamed tributaries revealed that construction
activities followed the approaches outlined the in the 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 are stable and performing as designed. Moreover, the significant storm event on 28
November 2011 did not have any observed negative effects on any of the three unnamed
tributaries.
Problem areas (1 -4) caused by the storm event on 28 November 2011 were again noted in the
MYI survey. Sloughing of the right channel bank, J -hook arm scour, and bar formation was
observed in the Mamstem 1 reach from sta. 1 +50 to 3 +00. Aggradation was observed in
Mamstem 2 reach, sta. 9 +25 to 9 +75, where a large amount of bed material formed a inid-
channel bar below a J -hook stream structure. Aggradation of bed material was also observed
directly below 4 of the last five rock structures on SHC. Although these structures are intact and
stable, habitat that existed,after construction has been lost due to significant filling of the pools.
Repair plans and a Scope of Work will be developed and presented to NCEEP to address, the
needed modifications to the problem areas. Repair work will likely occur in the summer of
2014.
A total of 173 planted stems were counted during the MYI survey. The average density of
the planted woody stems in the ten vegetation plots combined was 700 stems per acre. All ten
vegetation plots exceeded the success criteria for planted stem density during the MY 1 survey.
Three vegetation plots (VP4 =12, VP8 =6, VP10 =1) were noted as having volunteer native woody
species during MY I. The volunteer woody stems increased the total stem count for the ten
vegetation monitoring plots to 192 (777 stems per acre).
Although non - native invasive vegetation remains present,at the mitigation site, it is less
prevalent compared to before construction. Invasive vegetation treatments were effective during
the construction phase of the project and will be routinely continued throughout the monitoring
phase.
Overall, the USH mitigation site included 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 NCEEP. It is anticipated that this site should yield 3,498
stream mitigation units and 0.50 wetland mitigation units.
Uppci South Hommy Mitigation SILC 3
L'L'PTro1cU 92632
MY I Rc,port — I INAL — FLbrudl v 2014

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 I, 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 floodplam
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 main
stem 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).
At the light, turn right, onto Smokey Park Highway /US- 19S/US' -235 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 103/S 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 Lane. A large fescue pasture to the right
Upper South Hominy Mrtteabon SuC 4
LLP ProjCd 92632
MYI Repoit — FINAL — February 2014

of the driveway and bridge, used for parking, is located at a latitude /longitude of 035° 28'51.10"
North and 0826 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 SRI 103 /S Hominy Road on
to Canter Field Lane, a private drive, 0.25 mile after passmg,Conme Davis -Lane. 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'
0106" 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 ridgelmes 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 mil (4,515 ac). The three tributaries named for the
purpose of this project as tributary north (Bianculli property, UT1), tributary south (Bianculli
property, UT2) each have drainage areas <0.1 m12. The unnamed tributary on the Davis property
(UT3) has a drainage area of 0.1 mil (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 cataloguing unit 06010105 and 14-
digit hydrologic unit 060101'05060020 and 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 (UT I) was preserved (94 ft) in the upper portion; the lower 183 ft
was restored to provide stable channel banks and connectivity with a bankfull or floodplain
feature. The Bianculli tributary south (UT2), including the portion of the formerly abandoned
channel on the Roberson property, was mitigated using enhancement level lI (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
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 intensity residential and open space land use
Uppei South Honuny Mitigation Site 5
ELI' Project 92632
MYI Rcpoit— FINAL — febwary2014

comprises approximately 3.0% of the watershed, and imperviousness in the watershed is 0.14%
(Yang et al 2602; 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 NCEEP 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 ripanan,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 completed in December 2011 through 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. During this same period of 20 -12, a
small adjustment was made on the Roberson property to improve storm water runoff. A
diversion channel was constructed to carry runoff to SHC further upstream of the Connie Davis
Lane bridge; whereas, prior to the project, storm water flow entered SHC adjacent to the
upstream of the right bank bridge abutment Project reporting history and contact information
are presented in Tables A.2 and A.3. Project attributes for SHC, UT1, UT2, and UT3 are
presented in Table A.4.
3 Methods and Success Criteria
Monitoring year -1 conditions for the USH mitigation site were determined during October
and November 2012. 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 MY morphological data were analyzed using
RIVERMorph stream assessment and restoration software, Version 5.0.1 (RSARS 2010).
AutoCAD and Carlson engineering software (2012) were used to generate plan view drawings.
U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 topographical maps were used to determine stream drainage
area. Bed material composition and mobility was assessed in MY 1 by doing a reach -wide and
riffle cross- section pebble counts ( NCSRI 2003). 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
NCEEP procedural Guidance and Content Requirements document,(NCEEP 2012). References
Uppei South Hominy Mitigation Site 6
CEP Project 92632
iV I Rcpoit — FINAL — February 2014

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 will follow what 'is outlined in the NCEEP 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
The MY 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. The
MY plan view sheets not only provide a detailed representation of the current condition of the
project sites channel geomorphology, stability, and riparian vegetation one year post -
construction but also reveal the location of all fixed point survey locations for the mitigation site
(Figure D.1).
All 14 established cross - sections on SHC, UT2, and UT3were resurveyed in MY I. 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. One cross - section on the
restored section of UT2, Roberson property, was resurveyed. Three cross- sections (riffles: XS 1
and XS2; pool. XS3) were resurveyed during MY on restored portion of UT3, Davis property.
The longitudinal profile of the entire mamstem of SHC was resurveyed in MY
Longitudinal .surveys using Total Station equipment will be repeated in each of the four
remaining monitoring years to evaluate thalweg movement and change in channel slope.
Longitudinal profiles also were surveyed on the restored portions of UT 1, UT2, and UT3
following construction. For the purpose of the MY1 report, the enhancement level II and
preservation portions of UT I, UT2, and UT3 were not resurveyed in 2012.
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, and 5 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 structures, and other morphological features over time. Fixed station locations are
identified on the MY1 plan view,sheets
In addition to all the established monitoring locations, the MY 1 plan view sheets reveals site
topography, easement boundaries, and other attributes of the project to aid in the long -term
monitoring of the mitigation site (Figure D.1).
Uppct South Hominy Mitigation SiLC 7
EEP Projcu 92632
MY1 Rcpott- 1=1NAL- 1'cb1Uarv2011

3 2 Stream Monitoring
Stream morphological surveys in MY 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 in buffer restoration areas were resurveyed in MY1
in accordance with established NCEEP /CVS protocols (Lee et al. 2006). Vegetation plots were
evaluated to ascertain the performance and density of planted woody stems. Permanent fixed -
point photo stations were resurveyed in MY 1 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 and 260 stems /acre during the year -5 monitoring period.
3.4 Schedule and Reporting
The MY 1 document was prepared following NCEEP content requirements and procedural
guidelines ( NCEEP 2012). The MY 1 documents the mitigation sites pre - existing morphological
values, design values, and a quantitative summary of the post construction morphological and
vegetative project elements. The MY1 '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 NCEEP, preferably by March 1.
4 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
4.1 Stream Assessment
4.1 1 Morphometnc Criteria
Channel cross - sectional dimensions, pattern, and longitudinal profile were surveyed in MY1,
October and November 2012, to document morphological characteristics of the active channel
(Figure D.1). In addition, the locations of all constructed stream features (i.e., rock 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
Monitoring year -1 morphological data were obtained by resurveying established fixed survey
locations on the mainstem of SHC and the three unnamed tributaries. Morphological MY 1 data
from established cross - sectional survey stations were compared with existing, reference, design,
Uppci South Homing Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
iVil I Repoit — FINAL— February 2014

and as -built data for raffle stream features (Tables B.1 and B.1.1). Mean morphologic and
hydraulic data presented in Tables B.1 are from raffle cross - sections 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 on the
mainstem of SHC. Mean values were not derived for the single raffle 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
raffles and pools, established on the mainstem of SHC, UT2 and UT3. Channel cross - sectional
data plots were used to evaluate the MY1 channel condition and for the visual comparison of
channel stability over time (Figures B.1).
Statistical values of the pattern data for each mainstem reach ( Mainstem 1 Bianculli Reach,
Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson Reach, and Mamstem 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 was calculated for each parameter (Table B 1.1).
Longitudinal profile data, including feature lengths, depths, slopes, and spacing for each of
the three SHC mamstem reaches and the unnamed tributaries 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.I.I. Longitudinal profile data plots were used to evaluate the MY1
channel condition and for future comparison of morphological data over time (Figures B.2).
Channel bed material was surveyed by performing a reach -wide pebble count consisting of
10 pebble grabs from both,nffle (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 1 and
B.2). Pebble counts were not performed on UT 1, UT2 or UT3 due to homogenous (salt) bed
material. Pebble count data plots are presented for visual comparison of bed material data over
the course of the monitoring surveys (Figures B.3)
4.1.2.1 Mamstem 1 – Bianculli Reach – 797 feet
The entire length of Maanstem 1 Bianculli reach of SHC within the conservation easement is
797 ft. The Biancullt reach was divided into two approach levels (restoration and enhancement
II). The channel length of the restoration reach is 630 ft. The channel length of the enhancement
II reach is 167 ft.
Dimension — Channel dimensions data from three cross - sections (XS 1 riffle, XS2 pool, XS3
riffle) were collected in the Mamstem 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 (Table B.1). Design values for riffle bankfull width ranged from 28.1 to 37.2 ft. Bankfull
widths during MYO ranged from 26.9 to 30.1 ft and 26.9 to 30.0 ft during MY I. Bankfull width
(26.9 ft) at cross - section 1 in MY 1 remained slightly narrower than the minimum design bankfull
width. The slight reduction in bankfull width is likely attributed to the proximity of the Bianculli
barn to the top of the right bank of SHC ( <15ft) Bankfull width at cross - section 3 (30.0 ft,
UPpci South Hommy Mitigation Sitc 9
EEP Project 92632
MY I Rcpoil — FINAL — Fcbwary 2014

MY1') matched the mean design value for bankfull width in both years 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 52.9 to 63.7 ft in MY 1
(Table B.1). Both of the riffle cross - sections surveyed approximated the mean design value
(61.3 ft2) for cross - sectional area during MYO -MY 1.
Mean depth at bankfull for the two riffle cross - sections have ranged from 2.0 to 2.1 ft (Table
B.1). Cross - section 1 mean depth (2 0 ft) matched the design value for mean depth in MY 1.
Mean depth at raffle cross - section 3 (2 1 ft) was within the design mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2)
during MY 1.
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 3.2 ft during MYO
and 2.7 to 3 2 ft in MY I. These values were within the design range for riffle maximums depths.
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 Mamstem 1 reach riffle cross - sections ranged
from 13.2 to 14.4. During MY I, width/depth ratio values ranged from 13.6 to 14.2 ft.
Width/depth_ratio values have been within the range of design values in both the MYO and MY1
surveys.
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 two riffle
cross - sections ranged from 8.8 to 12.1 in MYO -MY I (Table B.1).
Pattern. - Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal change in
pattern geometry on the Mamstem 1 Bianculli reach. Channel sinuosity (1.1) is low due to only
a single meander bend located at station 2 +50 to 3 +50. The MY 1 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 Mamstem 1 Bianculli reach longitudinal profile
was surveyed during MY 1 (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.011 ft /ft. Feature lengths, slopes;
depths, and spacing were calculated following the monitoring survey (Table B.1).
The MYO raffle lengths ranged from 32.4 to 62 9 ft and were within the range of design
values (15.8 to 86.9 ft) for riffle length Riffle length ranged from 48.2 to 108.2 ft during MY1.
The maximum riffle length was exceeded in one measurement buy approximately 20 ft in MY 1.
This could be attributed to aggradation in the middle portion of the reach that occurred during a
large storm event after'the as -built survey but prior to the MY1 survey. The aggradation
extended the length of the riffle that was upstream of the large meander bend by filling in most
of the large pool that was present before the bed movement occurred. Riffle slopes ranged from
0.011 to 0.016 ft /ft m.MYO and 0.010 to 0 020 ft/ft in MY 1. All riffle slopes were within the
design range of values (0.007 to 0.027 ft/ft) during MY1.
Uppei South Hominy ivLttgauon Site 10
EL'P Project 92632
MYI Rcpoit- FINAL- I-Lbivarv2014

Pool lengths were within the range of design values (14.7 to 96.7 ft) in MYO (20.7 to 34.4 ft)
and in,MYI (18.4 to 56.7 ft). Pool max depths have ranged from 4.2 to 5.9 ft over MYO and
MY 1 and are within the design range of values (3.6 to 8.8 ft).
Six in- stream structures (I 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 and 98.1 to 240.4 ft
in MY1; all values are within the design range of values (44.2 to 309.4 ft) for pool -to -pool
spacing The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the location of the
active channel for the as -built and MY 1 channel are presented in the plan view sheets (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 and 40.9 to 46.7 mm in MY1 (Table
B.1). The D50 at both cross - sections were in the coarse gravel category (16.0 to 32.0 mm) in
MYO and very coarse gravel category (32.0 to 64 0 mm) in MY1. 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 Mamstem 2 - Bura/Roberson Reach - 1,286 ft
The entire length of Mamstem 2 Bura /Roberson reach of SHC within the conservation
easement is 1,286 ft The Mamstem 2 reach was separated into two distinct approach levels
(restoration and enhancement 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 dimensions data from four cross - sections (XS4 pool, XS5 riffle, XS6
pool, XS7 raffle) were collected in the Mainstem 2 Bura /Roberson reach and plotted for visual
evaluation (Figure B.1). Channel dimensions from two riffle cross - sections (XS5, XS7) were
surveyed during MYO and 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 30.5 to
37.5 ft in both years post- construction. Riffle cross - section 5 has approximated the mean
bankfull width value design value (30.7) both monitoring years. 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 and 61.6 to 65.4 ft2 in MY (Table B.1).
Both of the riffle cross - sections surveyed have approximated the mean design value (61.3 ft2) for
cross - sectional area during the MYO -MY 1 surveys.
Mean depth at bankfull for the two riffle cross - sections have ranged from 1.7 to 2.0 ft during
MYO -MY 1 (Table B.1). Cross - section 5 mean depth (2.0 ft) matched the design value for mean
depth in both MYO and MY 1. Mean depth at cross - section 7 (1.7 ft and 1.8 ft) was within the
design mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2) during MYO and MY 1.
Uppci South Hominy Nhtigation SIIC 1 1
GFP Project 92632
MYI Rcpotl- FINAL- I'cbindrv2OI4

Riffle bankfull maximum depth design values ranged from 2.0 to 3.3 ft (Table B.1).
Bankfult maximum depths for the two riffle cross - sections ranged from 2.7 to 3.2 ft during
MYO -MY 1. Both cross - section 5 (3.2 ft and 3.1 ft) and cross - section 7 (2.7 ft and 2 7 ft) fell
within the design range for riffle maximums depths.
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 14.9 to 21.6 during MYO-
MY1. The width/depth ratio for cross - section 7 (MYO =21.6 and MYI =21.4) is moderate to high
for a "C" stream type. Although the channel bed and banks are stable at this location, a bankf ill
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 slightly higher than the
maximum design value. A significant inner berm is also present at cross - section 7, influencing
the width and depth values.
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 were 11.1 and 7.5, respectively, for both MYO and MYI (Table
B.1).
Pattern. — Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal to no
change in pattern geometry to the Mamstem 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 -MY 1 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 MYI (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.008 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 1 riffle lengths (27 1 to 82 2 ft),
determined from multiple (N =5) riffle features, also were within the design range. Riffle slopes
ranged from 0.007 to 0.014 ft/ft in MYO and 0.007 to 0.024 ft /ft in MY1. All riffle slopes were
within the design range of values (0.007 to 0.027 ft/ft).
Pool lengths were within the design values (14.7 to 96.7 ft) in MYO and MY 1, ranging from
32.8 to 87 1 ft. Five in- stream structures (2 log vanes, and 3 J- hooks) were constructed in the
Mainstem 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 and 65.1 to 466.6 ft
in MYI, exceeding the maximum spacing for pools based on design values. The thalweg
alignment and edge of water survey points that define the location of the active channel ,for the
as -built and MY 1 surveys are presented in the MY 1 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 MYI at
Uppu South Hominy Mitigation Site 12
LHP Project 92632
MYI Rcpoit— FINAL— Pcbruiry2014

cross - section 5 (16.7 mm) and cross - section 7 (18.6 mm). The MY1 D50 values fall within the
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 Mamstem 3 Davis reach of SHC within the conservation easement 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 dimensions 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 raffle cross - sections (XS8, XS10) were
compared with the range of design values (Table BA). Design values for riffle bankfull width
ranged from 28.1 to 37.2 ft. Bankfull widths for cross - section 8 (25.5 ft and 25.7 ft) and cross -
section 10 (3,0.1 ft and,30.1 ft) were virtually the same during the MYO and MY1 surveys.
Bankfull width for cross - section 10 was slightly under the minimum design value. Both the right
and left banks were shaped at this location and a bench was established on the left bank. The
bankfull bench is 6 5 ft°wide and is essentially flat, varying in elevation by only 0.15 ft from
front to back. 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.
Cross - section 10 appeared stable and performing satisfactorily during the MYO -MY I 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 fe for the as -built channel and 53.7 to 66.0 ft2 during the
MY survey (Table B.1). Both riffle cross - sections have approximated the mean design value
(61.3 ft2) for cross - sectional area during the MYO -MY 1 surveys.
Mean depth at bankfull for the two as -built riffle cross - sections ranged from 2.1 to 2.2 ft and
was the same during MY (Table B.1) Cross - section 8 mean depth (2.2 ft) matched the
maximum design value for mean depth in both MYO and MY 1. Mean depth at cross - section 10
(2.1 ft) was within the design mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2 ft) during the MYO -MY1 surveys.
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 were 3.1 ft during MYO and 3.1 ft
(XS8) and 3 0 ft (XS 10) during the MY survey.
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 Mamstem 3 reach riffle cross - sections ranged
from 12.1 to 13.9. The MY1 width/depth ratios ranged from 12.4 to 13.8. The width/depth
ratios of both cross - sections are typical for a "C" stream type.
Upper South Homury Mitigation Site 13
EEP Project 92632
MY'1 Rcpoit — I INAL— Fcbruary 2014

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 two riffle
cross - sections were found to be 9.7 and 21.6 for MYO and 9.7 and 21.3 for MY 1(Table B.1).
Pattern — Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal no change
in pattern geometry to the Mainstem 3 Davis reach. In large part, dimension and profile
adjustments were made within the existing channel. Sinuosity-for the as -built channel was 1.1.
The MYO 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 and -MY1 (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.006 ft/ft. Feature lengths,
slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated followmg,the monitoring surveys (Table B 1).
The MYO raffle lengths ranged from 22.0 to 60.8 ft, which were within the range of the
design values (15.8 to 86.9 ft) for riffle length. The MY riffle lengths ranged from 30.4 to 58.5
ft and were again within the design range for riffle length. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.008 to
0.020 ft/ft m MYO and 0 010 toO.019 ft/ft m MY1 All riffle slopes were within the design range
of values (0.007 to 0.027 ft /ft)
Pool lengths were within the design values (14.7 to 96.7 ft) in MYO, ranging from 17.6 to
38.5 ft, and again in MY1 ranging from 17.1 to 55 6 ft. Four in- stream structures (3 J -hook log
vanes, and 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
fell within the design value range in MYO (65.6 to 258.1 ft) and again in MY1 (64.2 to 225.1 ft).
The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the location of the active
channel for the as -built and MY1 surveys are presented in the MY1 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 (Table B.2). The MY1 D50 values fell within the coarse and
very coarse gravel categories both years. 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.
Upper South Hominy MitigaUOn Site 14
EEP Project 92632
MYI Rcpoit — FINAL — Fcbiu.ry 2014

4.1.2.4 Unnamed Tributary 1 – Bianculli Reach – 277 ft
The upper most portion of UT was mitigated using a preservation (94 ft) approach. The
lower portion of UT on the Bianculli property was restored (183 ft) during construction using a
Priority I approach. The lower two- thirds of UT 1 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 top of the
channel bank and forest floor. A new channel was constructed that is connected to the forest
floor and associated wetland. An ephemeral pool was constructed at the outflow of UT I, 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 (512 in.)
over much of the reach to allow for the desired connectivity with the floodplain and associated
wetlands Due to its short 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 UT are
presented in the plan view drawing sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data —Bed material in UT 1 was not collected during the MYO or MY 1 survey.
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 abandoned to expand agricultural
practices and the flow was routed to a road -side ditch. 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 width during MYO was 22.6 ft and 22 0 ft in MYL Bankfull cross -
sectional area was 14.2 ft2 in MYO and 13.9 ft2 m MY 1 Mean depth at bankfull for the riffle
cross - sections was 0.6 ft in both MYO and MY 1. Bankfull maximum depth for the riffle cross -
section was 1.4 ft during MYO and MY 1 Following construction, the width/depth ratio for
cross - section 1 was 35.8 and dropped slightly in MY1 to 34 9 The entrenchment ratio was
found to be 12.5 in MYO and 12.8 in MY 1.
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 and MY 1 values for
channel belt width, radius of curvature, and meander wavelength are presented in Table B 1.1.
Uppei South Hominy NLtieabon Site 15
CEP Project 92632
NIYI Repot t— FINAL- 1'tbivary 2014

Profile. —Only the portion (191 ft) of the restored UT2 channel longitudinal profile-was
surveyed during MY 1 (Figure B.2). The 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 seals 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 MY1 riffle lengths vaned slightly ranging from
13 8 to 21.9 ft. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.009 to 0.012 ft /ft in MYO and 0.007 to 0.016 ft/ft in
MYI. Pool lengths ranged from 10.7 to 23.1 ft in MYO and 17.1 to 23.1 ft in MY1. Pool -to-
pool spacing ranged between 50.6 to 69.2 ft in both MYO and MY1. Channel slope was 0.012
ft/ft. The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the location of the
active channel during the as -built and MY 1 surveys are presented in the MY 1 plan view sheets
(Figure D 1).
Substrate Data. —Bed material was not collected in UT2 during the MYO survey. From
observation, it consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials-
4 12.6 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.11 (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 lower 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 types and the significant
changes in channel slope, the lower 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 also
are presented in Table B.2. Comparison of UT3 Upper dimensional values with the design
values are presented in Table B 1.1. Bankfull width during MYO was 12 9 ft and 13 0 ft in MY 1,
slightly exceeding the design bankfull width of 12.0 ft. Bankfull cross - sectional area was 10.3
ft2 in MYO and 10.6 ft2 in MY and exceeded the maximum design cross- sectional area of 7.5
ft2 Mean depth at bankfull for the riffle cross - sections was 0 8 ft in both MYO and MY I; the
design range for mean riffle depth was 0.4 to 0 6 ft. Bankfull maximum depth for the riffle
cross - section was 13 ft in MYO -MY I and ranged from 1.0 to 14 ft in the design plan.
Uppet South Hominy Mitigation Site 16
CEP Project 92632
MY[ Repoli— FINAL— Februenv2014

Following construction, the width/depth ratio for cross - section 1 was 16.1 and is within the
design range of 16 0 to 20.0. The width/depth ratio was again 16.1 in MYL
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 Il approach. Therefore, very little meander
is present in this section. The MYO -MY 1 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 again in MY1 (Figure B.2). The total profile length includes the section of UT3
from the wet -ford downstream to dust below the confluence with the Spring Seep South and
Wetland C inflow, 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 the as -built and MY surveys (Table B.1.1). The MYO riffle
lengths ranged from 13.7 to 26.4 ft and 13.3 to 25.1 ft in MY I. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.054
to 0.102 ft /ft in MYO and 0.054 to 0.106 ft/ft in MYL 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 and 2 2
to 5.0 ft in MY 1. Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from, 21.2 to 24.2 ft in MYO and 20.0 to 27.1 ft in
MY 1 Pool to poll spacing values are within the design range for UT3 Upper. Channel slope
was 0 088 ft /ft m MY 1 The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the
location of the active channel for the as -built and MY surveys are presented in the MY plan
view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data -Bed material in UT3 Upper was not collected during the MYO -MY 1
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.
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 width during
MYO and MY 1 was 9.9 ft and within the design range of 8.0 to 12.0 ft Bankfull cross - sectional
area was 7.6 ft2 in MYO and 7.4 ft2 in MY 1, slightly below the minimum design value of 8.6 ft2.
Mean depth at bankfull for the riffle cross - section was 0.8 ft in both MYO and MY 1; 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 -MY 1 and ranged from 0.9 to 2 2 ft in the design plan. Following
construction, the width/depth ratio for the UT3 Lower raffle 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
Pattern -The section of UT3 Lower was restored by constructing a priority I meandering
channel with three distinct bends over the course of 226 ft. Therefore, a range of pattern
Upper South Hommy Mitigation Site 17
CEP Nolen 93632
MY I Repou - FINAL- Febwary 2014

geometry values were determined for UT3 Lower. The MYO -MY 1 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 MY 1 (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 MY 1 survey (Table B.1 1). The MYO -MY 1 riffle lengths have slightly exceeded
the design values both years post - construction, ranging from 8.8 to 28.8 ft. The design range for
maximum riffle length values was 10.0 to 18.0 ft. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.013 to 0.065 ft/ft
in MYO and 0.007 to 0.05 ft/ft in MY I. The design slopes ranged from 0.01'8 to 0.056 ft /ft for
UT3 Lower. A single slope measurement was below the design range of values in MYL This is
likely due to the surveyed point location along the profile in which the measurement was taken
and not indicative of the entire channel.
Pool lengths ranged from 16.0 to 19.7 ft for the as -built channel and 17.8 to 27.4 ft in MY L
Pool, lengths were within ,the design range of values (13.4 to 32.3 ft). Pool -to -pool spacing
ranged from 47.6 to 63.4 ft in MYO -MY 1, exceeding the maximum design range for pool -to -pool
spacing. Channel slope was 0.029 ft /ft. The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points
that define the location of the active channel for the as -built and MY 1 surveys are presented in
the MY plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data —Bed material in UT3 Lower was not collected during the MYO -MY 1
surveys. From observation it consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials.
4.13 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 MY 1
4.14 Bankfull Event Documentation and Verification
One bankfull event (28 November 2011) was documented between the end of construction
and completion of the entire as -built survey (Table B.3). A wrack line above the bankfull
elevation was observed and photographed for verification on 5 December 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 gage readings were negative
for bankfull events.
4.1.5 Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
A visual assessment of the project reach was performed to inspect the morphological stability
of the channel and to serve as a basis for comparison with future channel stability monitoring.
Based on the visual assessment of the channel features, stream structures, and channel banks
Uppci South Honimv NIntUuon Suc 18
I -EP Prolou 92632 y
MY Repoit— FINAL — I- Lbivarv2014

following the flood event on 28 November 2011 (MYO) several areas of instability were
apparent. The most instability was observed in the Mamstem 1 Bianculli reach (sta. 1 +50 to
3 +00) and was associated with the large meander bend. Above the meander bend, a structure
had failed and 50 ft of the right bank had sloughed into the channel. Below the structure, a large
amount of bed material had aggraded and formed a mid- channel bar.
A second area of instability was observed in the Mamstem 2 Bura /Roberson reach (sta. 9 +25
to 9 +75). A large amount of bed material aggraded at this location and formed a mid - channel
bar. However, the observed areas of instability make up only a small percentage of the overall
stable condition of the SHC mamstem. No areas of'mstability were observed on the three
unnamed tributaries.
A visual assessment was performed over the entire project site several times during the
calendar year 2012, including visits following storm events and to perform the MY monitoring
survey. Based on the visual stream stability assessment of channel features, stream structures,
and channel banks, there were no new areas of instability. Metrics generated from the MY 1
visual stream stability assessment are reported in Table B.4. The MY1 "scores" from the visual
stream stability assessment largely reflect the damage that occurred during the 28 November
2011 flood event. In fact, 2012 (MY 1) was positive in terms of project site rehabilitation
following the 2011 storm with many areas self - adjusting. Channel banks were better protected
with the continued growth of planted vegetation, and the stream channel stability also showed
signs of improvement. However, specific structures, channel bank segments, and channel
features will require modification for the project site to reach its full potential.
Visual assessment of Mamstem 1 B>ancull> reach,during MY revealed that problem areas
that occurred during the 2011 storm event were still contributing to a lack in desired form and
function of channel morphology. A significant (> 50 %) reduction in pool depth and habitat in
the large meander bend at station 2 +25 to 3 +00 persists due to the large amount of bed material
that was deposited at this location during the storm event of 2011 Bank scour and erosion
continue to plague the right bank between station 1 +75 to 2 +25 and station 6 +25 to 6 +75. The
second structure (sta. 1 +50) in this reach was compromised with several sill and arm rocks
dislodged. These observed channel stability problems are reflected in the stream visual stability
morphology assessment (Table B 4).
Visual assessment of Mainstem 2 Bura /Roberson reach during MY revealed that aggraded
areas below structure 1 (sta. 1 +00), structure 4 (sta. 9 +25), and structure 5 (sta. 12+75) still were
present. Although the structures are stable and fully intact, the large amount of deposition in the
pools below each of these structures has significantly reduced available pool habitat and altered
thalweg alignment. In addition, pool depth, length and available rootwad habitat cover have
been lost (Table B.4).
Visual assessment of Mainstem 3 Davis reach during MY revealed the least amount of
impact from the 2011 storm event (Table B 4) Aggraded areas below structure 1 (sta +25),
structure 2 (sta. 2 +75), and structure 4 (sta. 7 +00) still exist, significantly reducing available pool
habitat and to a lesser extent altering thalweg alignment. Channel bed and channel bank
Uppci South Hominy Mitigation Sitc 19
EEP Proicut 92632
htl I Repot — FINAL — Febitiary201-4

observations suggest morphological function across the majority of Mainstem 3 reach is being
attained.
4.1.6 Stream Problem Areas
Several problem areas with regards to channel morphology, structure stability, or bank
stability were observed during the MYO -MY1 surveys. Problem areas observed along the SHC
mainstem channel, resulting from the 28 November 2011 storm event, are noted on the MY1
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 with the stream channel include aggradation and
bar formation, bank scour, and structure stability. Problem areas were most apparent in the
Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach in association with the large meander bend. Another obvious
problem area, largely due to aggradation and bar formation, was in the Mainstem 2
Bura/Roberson reach Outside of aggradation below three structures, no problem areas were
observed in the Mainstem 3 Davis reach or on any of the three unnamed tributaries.
Additionally, these problem areas were further detailed in the stream feature visual stability
assessment section above and the stream feature visual stability assessment table.
4.1.7 Stream Problem Area Photographs
Channel, stream structure, and banks stability problem areas observed during the MYO -MY 1
surveys were photographed for documentation of the extent of the damage and instability on 5
December 2011 and June and November of 2012. These photographs are included in Appendix
B of this report (Figure B 6)
4 1.8 Summary of Morphological Results
The MY survey was completed in the fall of 2012. Dimension, pattern, and profile
parameters surveyed in MY 1 suggest the restoration, enhancement level II and enhancement
level I sections of SHC are performing as designed with little to no variation from design values.
Small deviations were found in bankfull width at two riffle cross - sections (XS 1 and XS 10).
Bankfull width at these two cross - sections was slightly below the design value. However,
problem areas or instability°was not observed at either cross - section. By in large, all other
dimensional parameters measured at the 10 mainstem cross - sections were within the design
values for SHC. Pattern and profile values derived from the MY 1 survey reveal that the
mainstem reaches of SHC are within the design values for -these the two morphological
parameters. Reach -wide substrate particle size analysis revealed that the 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 MYl survey.
Problem, areas resulting from the storm event on 28 November 2011 were again noted in the
MY 1 survey. Right channel bank sloughing, J -hook arm scour, and bar formation was observed
in the Mainstem 1 reach from sta 1 +50 to 3 +00 A second problem area was observed on
Mainstem 2, sta. 9 +25 to 9 +75, where a large amount of bed material formed a mid - channel bar
below a J =hook stream structure. Aggradation of bed material was also observed directly below
4 of'the last five rock structures on SHC Although the structures are intact and stable, habitat
Uppct South Honiny Mitigation Site 20
ECP Project 92632
MYI Rcpott— FINAL— Pebruarv2014

that existed after construction has been lost due to significant filling of the pools. Repair plans
and Scope of Work will be developed and presented to NCEEP to address the needed
modifications to the problem areas. Repair work will likely occur in the summer of 2014.
Overall, the MY1 survey found the majority of the 2,820 ft of mainstem channel was stable and
performing as designed.
Monitoring year -1 morphological results for the three unnamed tributaries revealed that
construction activities followed the approaches outlined the 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 did not have any observed negative effects on any
of the three unnamed tributaries.
4.2 Wetland Enhancement and Preservation
C1earWater Environmental Consultants Inc. identified nine wetlands totaling approximately
1.35 acres in the project area during an October 2009 field'investigation of jurisdictional
wetlands (Figure B.7).
Wetland C —(Part of Davis Sprang Seep South) is approximately 0 01 acres and is adjacent to
Davis UT3 There is a hand built rock sprang 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 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.
Wetland D was further enhanced by creating three ephemeral pools to increase wetland plant and
amphibian habitat
Wetland E —as 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, sprang flow was reconnected to the
formerly abandoned UT2 further enhancing the long -term viability of the area.
Wetland G —as 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 non - native
invasive vegetation. Chinese privet Ligustrum smense and multiflora rose Rosa multiflora were
the dominant non - native vegetation types present pre - construction.
Wetland H —is approximately 0.05 acres and is located adjacent to Bianculli UT2
Enhancement to this area included the extensive treatment of non - native invasive vegetation.
Uppci South Hor nm'1iLigation Site 21
CEP Prolcct 92632
N1YI Rcpou— PlNAL— febmuy2014

Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense and multiflora rose,Rosa multiflora were the dominant non-
native vegetation types present pre - construction.
Wetland l —is approximately 0.06 acres and is located between a pasture, which is actively
mowed and grazed pasture, 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 J and 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 UTL It is a forested wetland with
trees and shrubs throughout. Pre - construction UT 1 had been deeply channelized in an attempt to
direct flow away from the wet area and to quickly move water to SHC During construction,
priority I restoration of UT established flow back up to the forest floor elevation 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 -MY 1 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
(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
Uppei South Hominy Mitigation Site 22
F,BP Project 92632
MYI Rcpoit— FINAL— Ftbruaiv2014

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 1— Thirteen planted stems (526 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 1 (VP 1) during the MYO survey. The 13 planted stems recorded in VP 1
represent ten native woody species originating from both containerized and bare -root nursery
stock. Twelve planted stems (486 stems per acre) were recorded in MY1 (Table C.8). One dead
stem, a river birch Betula, nigra, was documented. The herbaceous layer and planted stems in
VP 1 are performing as desired and exceeds year -1 success criteria, of 320 stems per acre.
Vegetation Plot 2 — Fourteen planted stems were found in vegetation plot 2 (566 stems per
acre) in MYO The 14 planted stems recorded in VP2 represent 11 native woody species
originating from both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. Plant vigor was good in VP2
with 14 planted stems (566 stems per acre) recorded during MY 1 (Table C.8).
Vegetation Plot 3 —In vegetation plot 3, 19 planted stems were recorded (769 stems per
acre) in MYO. The 19 planted stems recorded in VP3 represent 14 native woody species
originating from both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. Survival of the original 19
stems in VP3 was documented in MY (Table C.8). Planted stem density (769 stems per acre)
exceeds the minimum success criteria for vegetation performance.
Vegetation Plot 4 — Sixteen planted stems (648 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 4 during the MYO survey. The 16 planted stems recorded in VP4 represent ten
native woody species originating from both contamerized and bare -root nursery stock
Performance of VP4 exceeds the minimum success criteria with 16 stems (648 stems per acre)
again recorded in MY 1 (Table C.8). Including the twelve volunteer stems noted in VP4, the total
stem count was 28 (1,333 stems per acre) for MY1 (Table C.9).
Vegetation Plot 5 —In vegetation plot 5, 25 planted stems were recorded (1,012 stems per
acre) in MYO The 25 planted stems recorded in VP5 represent 14 native tree and shrub species.
Planted stems were both container grown and bare -root nursery stock Planted stem density (971
stems per acre) remained high even though one stems was crushed by vehicle encroachment into
the easement and VP5 during MY 1 (Table C.8). A total of 24 stems were recorded, one fewer
compared to the previous monitoring survey.
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
Uppci South Hominy Mitigation Site 23
EEP Project 92632
N1Y1 Rcpoii— FINAL— febivaiv2014

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 (Table C.8).
Vegetation Plot 7. —In vegetation plot 7, 18 planted stems were recorded (728 stems per
acre) in MYO. The 18 planted stems recorded in VP7 represent 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 MY 1 (Table C.8).
Vegetation Plot 8 —Twenty-seven planted stems (1,093 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 8 during the MYO survey. The 27 planted stems recorded in VP8 represent 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).
VP8 is the only vegetation monitoring plot to include live stakes. 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 MYI, one of which was a silky dogwood live stake (Table C 8). The
other missing or dead stems were planted as bare -root stock. Twenty-three planted stems (931
stems per acre) were relocated during the vegetation plot survey Six volunteer stems were noted
in VP8 which brought the total stem count to 29 (1,173 stems per acre) in MY1 (Table C.9).
Vegetation Plot 9 —In vegetation plot 9, 16 planted stems were recorded (648 stems per
acre) in MYO. The 16 planted stems recorded in VP9 represent 13 native tree and shrub species.
Planted stems were both container grown and bare -root nursery stock. Two stems were dead in
VP9 during MYI. Stems density (567 stems per acre) remains high in VP9 with 14 stems
documented (Table C.8)
Vegetation Plot 10 — Twenty-one planted stems (850 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 10 during the MYO survey. The 21 planted stems recorded in VP 10 represent 13
native woody species originating from both containerized and bare -root nursery stock, Two
stems were missing during the MYI survey. Stem density of the 19 remaining planted stems
was 769 stem per acre (Table C.8). Including the 1 volunteer stem noted in VP 10, the total stem
count for MY 1 was 20 (809 stems per acre) (Table C.9)
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 the plot. Plot photographs will be compared overtime
to evaluate the plots performance throughout the monitoring period. The MY I vegetation plot
photographs reveal the positive performance of all the plots during the first year of planted stem
and herbaceous layer growth following construction (Figure C.1).
4.3.2 Vegetation Problem Areas Table Summary
Areas ,of dense multiflora rose Rosa multijlora, 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
Uppei South Hominy Mitigation Site 24
CEP Project 92632
MYI Repoit— FINAL— februaiy2Oi4

throughout the project area during the construction period. A follow up treatment of invasive
exotic vegetation occurred in the spring of 2012 (MY I). 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 to have only a sparse occurrence during the
MY1 survey: Therefore, the vegetation problem areas table (Table C.9) is used only for a
placeholder for future monitoring reports and will be populated if problem areas are encountered
during on -going surveys of the mitigation site.
4.3 3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
A vegetation problem areas plan view was not generated for MY 1 because herbaceous
vegetation and planted stems have performed satisfactorily. Because the large areas of invasive
vegetation were treated successfully during construction and retreated early spring 2012, non -
native vegetation has been largely curtailed. Following the MY I survey, there were no areas of
the conservation easement that were devoid of native herbaceous or woody vegetation, and no
areas of heavy non - native infestations were observed
4.3.4 Vegetative Problem Areas Photographs
Vegetative problem area photographs were not taken in MY 1 because of the satisfactory
performance of the planted woody stems across the entire project and the isolated occurrence of
non - native invasive vegetation. Therefore, Figure C 2 will be used as a placeholder for future
monitoring surveys to provide visual record of areas needing additional planting of native
vegetation or the occurrence, size, and dispersal of non - native vegetation.
4.3 5 Summary of Vegetation Assessment Results
A total of 184 planted stems 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. Only one vegetation plot (VP8) contained live stake stems. The other 9 vegetation
plots consisted of both native bare -root whips or 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 were counted during the MY 1 survey. The average density of
the planted woody stems in the ten vegetation plots combined was 700 stems per acre. Three
vegetation plots (V'P4 =12, VP8 =6, VP10 =1) were noted as having volunteer native woody
species during MY I. The volunteer woody stems increased the total stem count for the ten
vegetation monitoring plots to 192 (777 stems per acre).
Invasive vegetation treatments were effective during the construction phase of the project.
Although non - native invasive vegetation remains present at the mitigation site, its occurrence is
sparse. Isolated specimens and small infestations of Chinese privet, multiflora rose, oriental
bittersweet, Japanese honey suckle, and to an lesser extent, Japanese knotweed were observed
during the MY 1 survey. Treatment of areas of observed invasive vegetation occurrences will be
routinely continued throughout the projects monitoring phase.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 25
EFP Proiect'92632
MYl Report— FINAL— Pcbivary2014

Overall, the vegetation condition assessment, in terms of both planted native vegetation and
non - native invasive vegetation, of the project was favorable in MY (Table C.10). Planted
vegetation across the project site, including channel banks and the riparian buffers, is performing
as desired one -year post construction. Moreover, invasive vegetation was treated again in MY
and high concern non - native species such as Japanese knotweed, Japanese honeysuckle, oriental
bittersweet, and multiflora rose occurrences and densities are low. Chinese privet, a
low /moderate invasive species of concern, was significantly reduced following chemical
treatments during project construction and MY
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 NCEEP 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).
Storm water run -off from the Roberson pasture and hill slope was entering the conservation
easement adjacent to Connie Davis Road following construction. The traditional conveyance of
the storm flow was along a roadside depression that directed the outfall of the water to SHC at
the upstream edge 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 creek at the bridge. To alleviate the landowners concern
of potential erosion to the bridge abutment, the NCEEP 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 floodplam ;Interceptor was submitted to NCEEP for
approval. Construction was completed in October 2012, dust prior the MY 1 survey. The
constructed storm flow conveyance channel now outfalls to SHC at station 12 +75 (Figure D.1).
6 Acknowledgements
J. Ferguson, S. Loftis, and B Burgess of the NCWRC collected and analyzed the field data
reported in this monitoring document. J Ferguson prepared the plan view drawings for the
project report S. Loftis prepared the monitoring document. Special thanks to the NCWRC and
NCEEP staffs who improved this document with their thorough review and thoughtful
suggestions
7 References
AutoCad. 2012. Version 2012.0.0. Copyright 2012, AutoDesk, Inc., San Rafael, California.
Uppci South Hominy tMILigaUOn SItC 26
EEP PrQlcci 92632
MYI Rcpou— FINAL— Itbivaiv 2014

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:
http-//wwwmrlc.gov/publicationsphp (May 2010).
Lee, M. T., R. K. Peet, R. D. Steven, T R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS_EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Available www nceep net/ business /monitormg/veg /datasheets htm
(October 2006).
NCEEP (North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program). 2012. Version 1 5. Procedural
Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Documents North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina Available:
http / /portal ncdenr.org /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/wgg /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.
RSARS (RIVER Stream Assessment and Restoration Software). 2010. Version 5.0.1
Professional edition. Copyright 2002 -2010, RIVERMorph LLC, Louisville, Kentucky.
Available. www nvermorph.com (March 2013).
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 Quality. 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.
Uppci South Hominy Mitigation Site 27
LL'P Project 92632
M Y I Rcpoit— FI NIA L -1 cbruary2014

Appendix A.
General Tables and Figures
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 28
LEP Project 92632
N Y I Report — FINAL— Rbrttary 2014

Table A.1 Restoration Levels, Mitigation Approaches and Component Summations, Upper
South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation
Site Project Components
L
O
L
O
Project Segment or
'� ,>,
a
= u
+�
CQ
a
a,
Stream Reach ID
Btanculli South Hominy Cr
600
R
P3
630
0 +00 to 6 +30
14
630
Btancullt South Hominy Cr
169
EII
P3
167
6 +30 to 7 +97
25 1
67
Bianculli Tnb North (UT1)
100
P
94
0 +00 to 0 +94
5 1
19
Btanculli Tnb North (UT 1)
138
R
P1
183
1 +00 to 2 +83
1 1
183
Btancullt Tnb South (UT2)
44
R
P 1
45
6 +54 to 6 +99
1 1
45
Btancullt Tnb South (UT2)
654
EII
SS
654
0 +00 to 6 +54
25 1
262
Bura /Roberson South
477
R
P3
518
I +00 to'2 +25,,7 +25 to 10 +00, t 1 +68 to
1 1
518,
Hominy Cr
12 +86
Bura/Roberson South
775
EII
P3
768
0 +00 to I +oO, 2 +25 to 7 +25, 10 +00 to
25 1
307
Hominy Cr
11+68
Roberson Abandoned Ch UT2
170
R
PI
191
0 +00 to 1 +91
1 1
191
Davis South Hominy Cr
500
El
P3
522
0 +00 to 5 +22
15 1
348
Davis'South Hominy Cr
227
EII
P3
215
5 +22 to 7 +37
25-1
1 86
Davis UT3 upper
775
P
777
0 +00 to 7 +77
5 1
155
Davis UT3 middle
538
Ell
SS
53 -8
7 +77 to 13 +15
25 1
215
Davis UT3 lower
426
R
PI
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
Totals
5,809
5,951
3,498
Component Summations
Steam x Riparian Wetland (Acre) Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Level Stream g
M �,
(ratio) Length(1 fl Units Rivenne Non- Rivenne Units
Restoration (1 1)
1,994
1,994
Enhancement 1(2 1)
522
348
:'
1 I 1
056
Enhancement II (2 5 1)
2,342
937
"
Creation
Preservation (5 1)
1,093
219
024
005
r
HQ Preservation
Totals
5,951
3,498
1.35
0.49
R = Restoration
P 1 =Priority I
aSource USACE (2003)
bSource Rosgen (2006)
P = Preservation C = Creation
P2 = Priority 2 P3 = Priority 3
EI = Enhancement I
S' = Stabilization
Uppu South Hominy ivItheation Site 29
EEP Prolat 92632
RIl I Rcpott — FINAL — February 2014
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 Pro�iect,Ac ivity and Reporting History
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Conservation easement acquired (by NCEEP)
1 1 June 2009
11 June 2009
Miti ation Plan_
23 January 2009
30 November 2010
Final Design - 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
Mitigation Plan/As -built Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
22 February 2012
28 February 2013
Year 1 Monitoring
16 November 2012
30 September 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
Native Seed Mix Sources
Company and Contact Phone:
Year 3 Monitoring
1- 800 - 873 -3321
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Year 4 Monitoring
NC Wildlife,Resources Commission
Dan River Prison Farm, Same as above
Year 5+ Monitoring
Carolyn Jernigan 919 - 731 -7988
Monitoring Performers:
Bolded items represent those events or deliverables that are variable Non - bolded items represent events that are standard components over
the course of a typical project
Table A.3 Project Contacts, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy
Mitigation Site Project Contacts
Project Owner
Contact Information
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NC Ecosystem Enhancement.Program
Harry Tsomides
5 Ravenscrofr 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:
Firm Information /Address:
Stream Monitoring POC
NCWRC, same as above
Vegetation Monitoring POC
NCWRC, same as above
Uppei South Hummv Mitigation Site 30
EEP Piolet,t 92632
MY I kepott — FINAL — Fcbruary 2014

Table A.4 Project Attributes, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Project Attributes
Project County
Buncombe
Ph sio ra hic Region
Blue Ridge Mountains
Eco_ re Ion Reference USACE 2003)
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Project River Basin
USGS HUC for Pro ect 14 digit)
French Broad River
06010105060020
NCDW Sub -basin for Pro ect
04 -03 -02
Within Extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
Yes
NCWRC Class Warm, Cool, Cold
Cold
Percent of project Easement Fenced or Demarcated
Beaver activity Observed During Design Phase?
100%
Yes
SHC
UT3
Davis
UT2
Bianculli /Roberson
UT1
Bianculli
Drainage Area m12
7 1
0 1
<0 I
<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
Included in total
Included to total
Included ui total
0 2
Included in total
Included in total
Inc luded'imtotal
72
Included in total
Included to total
Includ6d'm total
897
Included in total
Included to total
Included in total
Watershed Im ervlous Cover (percent)
<1 0
Included to total
Included tn,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 Acreagc�of Conservation Easement (including stream channel)
1644
Included in total
Included to total
Included m,total
Total (undisturbed) Vegetated Acreage Within Easement
75
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
Ros en Stream Classification of Pre-Existing
C4
G5
abandoned
G5
Ros en Stream Classification of As -built (Design)
C4
B5 /C5
C5
E5
Valley Type
VIII
V,II
VIII
VIII
Valley Sloe
000973
0 10480
Valle- Side Slope Ranee g 2 -3 %)
0 09 -0 24
0.07-029
Valley Toe Slope Ranee g 2 -3%
0 003 -0 026
0 02 -0 19
Cowardin Classification Reference Cowardm 1979)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Trout Waters Designation CWRC
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
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
80
155
0 15
5
Uppet South Hominy i\IiLigauon Site 31
EEP Project 92632
MY Repots— fIN, \L— Fcbruaiy2014

Figure A.1 Vicinity Map Upper South Hominv Mitigation Site. I
Legend
Project Watershed Boundary v
Project Hydrologic Unit
County Boundary
Water
Interstate
US Highway
NC Highway
HAYWOOD CO.
�s
BUNCOMBECO. 63
•1T
'\ HENDERSON CO.
276
From Asheville, NC, head west on 1-40 turn. Take exit 44 and go south on US 19/US 23 /Smokey Park Highway for 3.0 miles. Turn left on to NC
151 /Pisgah Highway and travel for 6.0 miles before turning right on to Davis Creek Road/S. Hominy Road (SR 1103).
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded
conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight, and stewardship or the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of
their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activities by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior
coordination with EEP.
0 1 2 4 6 w v~
Miles
rV
t
` 14
Project Vicinity Map
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project Number: 92632
Buncombe County, North Carolina
February 2010
32
Map Insert
A

Figure A.2 South Hominy Creek Watershed Boundary and Project Area Map.
Legend
Project Easement Boundary
�� /; � � ,•,-�,�( �1' { }} � S-
�
�,
Q Project Watershed Boundary
Water
Drainage Area = 7.1 mil
Project Location
'! ✓)
0.25 0.5
r�
nici It
Fftc ,
1
Project Watershed Boundary Map
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project Number: 92632
Buncombe County, North Carolina
33
Map Insert
N

C O I�
Ld CL
z
�C C C C
O p C N N
N 01 a) CJJWJWJ
'\J 7 Iz �p V V O vOI�Jr7J�
9 v"v y p c c p m r7 co � 00 �!-1 LO
Co d)�° o b _ c' 'j c .� W C�7 y N L -r-
1.%
Uso o 3 J Oo c m c c a> II II II II II II
o '°a4 Pp b dQ S. , /- v � � .. u , ,i' C) d w W W 0 CJ
o o_
n000b4 ` by
°o o.o. is _ —
a>i 4)
:I" i 7 +•
_ c c
o E 2 2,E
o u v� o Q,
I ' `'„A �� d o - �'�.�' ✓ a O U H H
o°o p
a oQQOa
O s J 1 v _-C
N (n
U
cm
- - _ �G, llo rr�� �� � -•mil -�•» f � W
D�
on
7oo ° o Qn
oOO° ^ aooboG
00 ow si.oc - °s � - �. Ln IiP#
IS Lo
71 4S
�.•� -' '-.'�; 7� MAO
�" �'" r� ✓� , .'� ,n'-° � `mot - �a � „ � �_' ,, � �'
r

• _� v- rte- a ', .-r
cu
_ 0 CO 07
y N N E Lo I, Z rcym
N Q7
w° J c � II II II w
y ` c c c c L
-.� ...r- K• ?i -` emu - - _ �"' r=, p E E W s
C _
F 7 ti Wa y o c c o ar M
LLJ CD 0)
W W
Um 0_ 0O o
_'
J y
I1 U7 0
VJ L VI
o 0
ar c 0
�` »r _jam 4 r� - %�✓ S�r;T Q o cq
y C m
` d O (�
� Q m N
oo
-41 -
CL
Ogp°ff��
U QOf�,pp40,(2
OID
o b° 6 LO
_. _L =+ter '..1>'� -, �� .,-' ,-.r � � �' � r1 � ;� \ , , -� -� • ] � J � � �dq
is �._.�_••' s�� -""' _ti..,r. J' `� e { ,G y ®
"tom -�K� - T-• - * xe - >L -�� _ C\ �,=�� Gt
Z-4.
O y ® ®'
Ln
Ln
Et

Y`�• -r
V -low
Nl
. Ili
' ,
'e
7 `ruF'� .u`
' vt{
� 3
O
U
M
`bU
4_;
ILIkIlL, lI pw
Y
a�
U
C
O
Z
N
t
r
C�
N G
> >
a
w y0
N
J J
o
�
J-i
L
w
r
N
-A I.;
c
C�
N G
> >
a
w y0
N
J J
o
m
'0 0
w
rc
� a
N
o ° w
D
0
9 u) c y o o v
cr
J OO N c r-
um a w w w 3
L_ U_ Li w w L, L_
JJJJ.J J J
Ntn��00 � 00
�c
LNr'It LO
N�
Z
C
m�
L
J J J
YI
O
C C C C C C
O
(n
Oz
U)
,1
E�00�
U
N N 0— N° O
C c e o c Z Z
*a
_
CD ° ° m a,
t t' N L
°O
N N N
C C L C) C
wwa�wam
M L .s
0
o
H O O
E
,
.N.
°
-t
w
c a s
V
Co
alai
7
y
� C C
J L L
Q
(n (n N
A
IiVJ
�
M
N
M
i
O
�Z
O
a
0-
L
1 A
3
1L
W
O
U)
W
O
O
O �
r
r
iL
1°�

wit
1 to
9
71, I!E A
Cujv 2,
-i) Q)
a) (U cu
E E,:r, 2 E
i> j>
0 Wo
is 11) JE
c C: 0
re)
C) D
0 01
0
w q)
0
om
4) (D
(n U)
> V)
25
V) V)
7V
12,
L
C:)
aN
d --
vi
s -
Ln -
0
L)
Z
o
E
0
CL 0
E 0
r
0
0
m CL
0
cm
m
to
m
w CM o
z
T
0
X
m
0 LU
Cn LU
E
>
>
E
Ld
0
(D
c c
C:
c
-C
2 0
0
0
C
2 E
E
Ld
0)
0 C
5
Ld
U) 93
c =3 U
. o
u) -r-
_c
_j
00
Q_
(V w C
of
Li r
om
L- L� Ls. L� w L� LL
q- LO
-i) Q)
a) (U cu
E E,:r, 2 E
i> j>
0 Wo
is 11) JE
c C: 0
re)
C) D
0 01
0
w q)
0
om
4) (D
(n U)
> V)
25
V) V)
7V
12,
L
C:)
aN
d --
vi
s -
Ln -
0
L)
Z
o
E
0
CL 0
E 0
r
0
0
m CL
0
cm
m
to
m
w CM o
z
T
0
X
m
0 LU
Cn LU

Appendix B.
Morphological Summary Data Tables and Plots
Uppet South Ilomuty Mitigation Site 38
I;LP Project 92632
NIY I Rcpott — FINAL— I'ebruary 2014

U
x
N
i-.
U
x
i-w
C�
CC
C�
Q
0
N
C�
U
cd
N
cn
r-r
r�
Cd
.r
N
Q
N
U
oA
W
W
M.
-u
M �-
0
T_ I
� ` n
J
� � r
N
110
kn
N
M
lO
O
W)
W)
M
N
N
01
00
O1
O1
ON
r
00
V
N
M
00
00
N
N
"O
IO
110
01
�O
o
10
00
01
cC
M
r
00
1p
kn
In
00
N
01
O
N
N
O
rn
O
C
bL
�
r
N
M
O
r
d'
01
M
DD
01
r
M
01
O
M
M
r
N
00
C
O
00
W1
Q
M
00
M
N
r
00
Vl
V1
r
N
O
d'
DD
O
O
It
O
h
Nr
O
00
00
M
N
N
N
O
v1
M
O
O
DO
V'1
M
Vl
O
p
O
O
V1
v1
v1
v1
In
V1
N
In
V1
V1
7
d'
C
In
O1
M
M
00
00
N
N
O
00
M
N
r
O
M
O
O
M
M
O
M
O
O
aMO
C
O
Q
Q
O
N
U
O
O
O'
N
r
r
O
00
M
r
M
00
00
lO
Nt
vim,
O
N
O
Z
u
m
a00
01
07
M
O
Io
M
00
V'
V1
_
M
r
y
O
w
v1
N
M
Q\
N
O
N
M
O
O
O
O
M
O
M
01,
L
r
O\
N
N
M
O
N
00
N
N
O
V'1
M
O
V1
O
^
V1
r
M
cN•1
r
N
^
M
lO
N
O
M
•--�
�
O
d'
O fn
^
O
00
Vl
M
r
M
r
r
V1
O
U
r
00
--�
00
V'
b0+
O
O
N
N
N
O
V1
N
O
N
^
M
N
rn
M
N
D
�
o
�
O
OA
Oi
a°
L
COI
C.�
01
V1
O
M
M
M
^
^
r
ID
M
00
M
01
O
O
M
N
O
M
O
00
O
\0
00
O
01
Q
In
N
(V
O
C
O
�
O
1. C
U O
M
r
N
N
O
Do
v1
DO
^
01
DD
DO
'N
O
ADD
41
r
r
v1
O1
M
v1
01
N
M
N
01
O
yMj
O pp
�+ C
00
K
M
N
O
�'
00
M
N
O
C
r`
•� Iv*.
M
O
10
00
^
O
r
N
r
^
r
00
M
O
M
N
00
N
Q1
r
Vl
r
M
Vl
r
r
W
M
M
r
00
N
M
M
01
d
�O
00
M
00
00
M
In
M
O
O
O
N
O
a0
r
�n
vl
ID
O
�O
M
N
r
01
O
01
�0
r
O
01
7
O
N
O
�
O
r
N
N
O
Obi
O
N
N
N
d
N
O
In
�
o
0
0
v
M
r
N
>
Q.
6!
r+
C
u
U
IV
C
O
d
OD
7
R
v
Ell
00
�D N
bA
O.
Q
Q
A
b
a o
a
Q a
x
x 00
'
3
b
w
a
cd
ca
M.
-u
M �-
0
T_ I
� ` n
J
� � r

b
,N
0
U
W
0
T
id
U
n.
3
u
N
u
s
s
U
<d
V_
'D
G
N
U
U
U
.b
A
s
a
v
E
U
td
a
7
N
x
E
a
E
u
a
x
ro
5
a
y
O
0.
ti
E
C2
X
U
O
V
U
t
f�.
U
s_
U
U
p
U
N
U
.b
G
CC
b
U
U
.D
7
O
�T
0
0
b
O
U
m p
U
cc
V
a
G.
Q
C
O
z
u
Rl
�r
r �
'u J
p l0 L
_ � I
:J J
J
J — —

b
a�
O
U
GA
Q�
H
Iffi
r
29
J
c <
� ^z
V
ILI C'
mac•
A
N
b
N
X
A
N
M
�D
N
01
d
C
7
N
�'
--�
'�
M
O
•--'
•--�'
•--'
N
O
O
M
N
o0
00
�D
u
N
l�
O
N
O
Nrn
�n
0
CN
A
,�
~
O
C
O
a
0
a
W
kn
��O
M
O
D1
01
�
r-
N
01,
oo
M
00
O
�t
W')
00
N
oo
r--
W
00
01
00
N
N
M
O
O
M
M
O
M
00
M
M
yD1
N
�--i
—
M
I
O
M
M
M
O
O
-
�`
vi
O
M
O
0
't
M
9
b
00
01
00
N
N
M
O
O
N
M
O
V
N
C
�
Q1
O
Q�
u
O
Ni
M
C'
00
�0
v)
.O
�,
M,
fV'
p
N
C'
CA
N
O
M
O
d
V
O
0o
t-
t-
oo
G\
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
M
00
O
00
�
I
N
M
In
G
�
�
N
C
O
t
U
cu
M
M
N
4n
v'1
-n
V1
d
O
O
DD
W')
�0
OA
Ocr,
A
00
p
p0
O
cr,
00
D1
v'1
M
N
O
V
v)
M
N
•E
00
a1
N
N
M
O
�--�
O
�n
to
�0 N
N
M
00
'vn
M
p
y
N
,00'�
V1
^+
M
N
00
N
N
M
N
M
O
�
O
O
kn
O
W
�--�
01
00
t
r
C\
N
O
O
^'
O
O
--'
00
^'
M
00
N
N
M
O
O
�--'
'n
L
N�
a
a
o
O
N
M
N
N
00
00
N
N
kn
t-
M
M
N
M
N
M
O
O
01
00
�D
00
01
M
00
00
�
M
V'�
N
O
10
00
N
M
N
M
O
O
to
r-.
3
3¢
Q
Q
0
t
3
b
0
A
a
e
a.
w
a
o
3
0
0
L
y
c
c00
v
00
v
a
F.
O
A
a ed
a
Iffi
r
29
J
c <
� ^z
V
ILI C'
mac•

b
N
L:
S7
O
U
H
N
d'
J �
J C
h .o
74
I
c �
c rq
_ J
G
✓) v rJ
�c
G
A
G
cl
N
'L7
I
N
G
N
M
N
Q�
6J
.Q
G
G�
7
In
fj
oo
N
N
O
M
Q rn
N
O
un
O
N
L
a
O
a
M
N O,
00
1-
O
oo l--
M
[�
-
M
00
O
D
N
y
M O \D
M
00
00
O�
�D
r
4,
M
O
N
Ca �z
C
N
ON
O
b M O\ M
N
00 O�
N
O
V1
OM
M
Vi I
M O
M
D�
00
O
t�
00
IP
ID
N
M
N
DD
N
io0
[�
d'
,�
Ic
1.0
\
M M O
r--
M
M,
00
L Q
O
rq
~
N
M
M
00
�O
IC
N
d'
1.0
G N
O
� �
O
N
d
n
G
C
C tC
O O\
r-
OI
N
t` I
�
kr) 00
1
M
00
O
�I
pp
v� oo N O
O
N
O
O
N
O
M O
O
N
N
t
00
O�
O t` O�
O
M M
N O
oo
d
O
r-- 001
O
00
00
N
[�
t`
•G
�C
O\ M .--,
M
00 Ol
M M
00
�,
d'
O
O
u M O �D
M
V'
N
rn
N
O I D\
O
M M
N O
-
00
'�
O
O 00
O
00
O1
t`
M
0\
00
'p Tt C\ M ,--,
M
00 CT
�-'� M
O
M
It M'
O\
t
O
00
a
°
N
I
N
M
OMO
N
M �4
lOi
�,
d
M M
N
i�
,G
O
00
l,-
d
O
O Cl
O
O�
oo
M,
M
M
q,
.fir
N
N
O
O
O
coq
I1
O
y
45
kn
lu33�Q
3 15
v' ° x
c
W
3
x
s
�❑
o
o �C,3
_
U
°
�
G'
N
d'
J �
J C
h .o
74
I
c �
c rq
_ J
G
✓) v rJ
�c

b
a�
0
U
N
C�
M
n
=u
J
Sc ^j
fJ
,7 � G
Q
N
.b
U
X
G
N
M
N
a
L
N N N
N N N N
N
N
N N
M
N N M
M
tn
In
W)
W'1
�
7
Z
[� r
01-0-
M 0
N O
O
N
M
1.0
O
Q
00
O
c
O
L
�
O
W
oN to 00
to
M
^ ,
W
=
r- O c�
N M M to
.--,
O
N
D
O [�
-�
O
00
[-
U
N N
�
N
°
O
O
kn 00
..-r �--i .--, wl
M
M
to C'
tn
t?
00
00,
"o
to
v1
O
CC
� �
�
N
°
•--�
Q
�
Cd
-+ O O
N .-. 00 M
C�
1,0
00
^'
X
O 01 D
M
N M M
~
00
�n
�n
p
M �O
N
M
M
O
to
n
N
a
v
O
=
°
a
L
>
ee
o
p
[� O
O � r-
O
� 00
'n
"t
G
tn N M
wl
M
M N I.O
—
O
M
M
N 01 wl
N
N
M
(� 00
�
y
O
�
Z
U
C
N N N
N N N N
N
N
N N
M
N N M
M
6>
�
O
O
�--�
M
�--^ O
t�
-� O
OD
M oo
O O ^� 00
O
M
O O
�n
cV
A
00
C>
++
>a
00 'n 'N
•G
CC'
l� O O�
N M M
N 0
kn
O
U
N Ntt In
.n
N
N
O
0
O
00 00 v) N
M
O
O 11O
O
v) 00 O
O
N
00
00
rA
[- O G�
L
kr)
N
�t
N
a
a
O
X
pM
N M M
N
�
°
�
N
00 00
IC
M
Vl
N
M
O
O,
wl
N M N
N
M
00
[-
M
In
kn
N
M
M
O 00
'C14
O
O
PC LLB
�'
G
N
to
U
U
3 3
Q Q
U
rib
ww
a
a,w
3"o
g
a��
o�3W�
�b
�b
a
°
ca
a
R
U
a
0
Q C
a
L
M
n
=u
J
Sc ^j
fJ
,7 � G

0
M
H
C�
Q
'C3
c�
N
A
O
i-+
O
C�
A
un
C�
b4
O
O
N
.ti
U
Q
b
N
Q
a�
W
bA
Q
ti
x
W
a�
L�
i'l �a
Ell
�r
G
El
s "_
_ J C
N L �
J
G
.l L
oo
D\
O
M
N
N
O
N
N
'7
N
00
M
N
C
cXE
kn
M
�
O
A
V
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
a0
00
O
l-
00
IO
l-
L
C
N
O
O
O\
O
O
eN
00
M
M
N
O
N
V
M
N
N
r-
N
3
�
o
0
F
110
O
M
O
M
r-
N
O
M
O
M
N
C
o0
l-
00
O
O
M
O
00
O
O
O
O
Vl
C
XN
N
N
r-
O
O
N
O
N
1.0
�
N
00
N
N
�
A
O
O
O
v'i
N
O
N
O
[�
O
O
DD
O \
00
N
O
M
IC
�o
v1
IC
N
N
N
N
O
p
�
d
O�
oo
ao
O
,_
O
t-
oo
O
O
oo
00
y
O
oo
v
O
O
O
O
O
M
M
O
zt
N
z
y'
u
fY
°o
a
V
O
N
Vl
00
wl
O
Q
Q
O
O
O
O
.
Q
V
Q
O\
00
O
L
v
Cd
0U
An
en
I..I
C C
OM
00
Vl
00
N
N
M
M
O
O
M
M
'n
M
O
�
V'1
p
a
L
Q
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Mimi
C
6�
G
M
to
O
O
O
O
N
O
M
00
Q
U
c
�
0
C
C
-
00
-
r-
l-
00
00
O
IC
N
M
[�
O
N
1.0
O
N
N
U
�
�
�
C
O
+:a
�
k
W
'IT
O
vi
N
M
�
oo
oo
1�0,
t-
oo
cn
en
en
N
00
M
o
a
x
t
'>
i v1
00
00
W)
00
M
r-
M
k
O
In
M
M
M
O
M
6
as
Q
0.
O,
O
Vl
V1
'O
r-
Q'
00
Vl
V,1
00
�D
f�
to
ao
e4
a
Q
cd
b
°
au
Q
p
3
3
Q
A
3
a°
a
a Cd
3
—Olt
x
aj
co
c
O
x
i
x
o
o
a
0
r-
?
6
M
'o
r-
°
;�
a
w
M
p
w
0
o
0=
�
U
a'
U�
a
E
U
p?
L.
C
Cd
L
C6.
A
m
a
a`
i'l �a
Ell
�r
G
El
s "_
_ J C
N L �
J
G
.l L

^C
a�
S~
0
U
H
N
d'
y
�L
c
N c c
^c�
�r�5
A
N
b
N
X
C
N
M
N
O�
y
M
M
N
N
6�
�
G
7
Z
M
00
N
O
o
ul
o
a,
a
c
r.
O
M
C1
�O
�t
C�
00
M
M
�O
¢
M
CY
M
�
^-�
t
""'
C1
"T
17
p
N
N
M
O
N
N
O
'Z
v7'
�
v7
�
N
O
V 1
O
O
n
i,
00
M
N
C
00
N
N
V
M
N
O
�
CC
A
N
O
I
_
O
CO
co
N
N
v')
00
M
�--�
O\
d
C
M
I7
O
I-
a�
O
O
kn
�
°
I
s
U
E�
c
�r
O
C
O
_
OD
Q
O
Ca
cn
O
~
N
O
s
°
"p
M
00
vl
�c
O
N
O'
V�
°
kn
N
-r
N
O
%.
W)
\O
I
It
C1
L
N
00
M
CL
G
O
00
t�
M
N
O
N
00
0
0
0
Q
tn
O
O
v1
b
b
c
O
o
•o
C°
bKA
Of
°C°
s
aQi
aAi
i-
a
u
3
3
o
x
v
w
°�
ce
o
o
x
d
o
°'
Z;
C
"
°
a�
cd
o
Qa
a
Q
c
O
a
0
o
3
E
o
'
co
R
y
C
a
d
o
A
P.
p-
N
d'
y
�L
c
N c c
^c�
�r�5

'C
U
CC
l�
11
� A
J �
� G
L
c
Q
°
N
b
U
X
C
N
M
N
O\
L
V'1
6l
�
G
00
M
cd
Q
O M
O
CL
O
nr
_
�
U
00
o
�
o
W M
�--�
�n
O
d'
oo
Q
O O [-
kn
00
°\
7
7 V
C/1
M
6o U
O O O
O
00
M
M
r
O
Z
�D �D O� l�
00
M
W'l
kn
N
Mi
N
O
O
o0
I
�
AG
O
�
I
4
o
�
M
E'"
O
s
U
- - - -
-
-
-
v,
to
kn
kn
0
0
Q
O
is
iy
00
l�
M
00 °�
00'
N
x
�
o
s
r.,
o
°
o M 00
00
O
N
00
°�
It rn
a
fl,
o
a
d
M
^
O N
O.
l�
M
00
O�
N
vl N
.--i
❑_
M
N
O
O
N
O
on
W
M 3
L
3 ¢ ra Q
Q
3 b
. 3>
b
3
a
o
cn
a
U
A a
X V)
b
w
w
a
O
aU.
ca
L
U .�E L
G
�i
a/
O 0
Cd
Q
a
a`
11
� A
J �
� G
L

a�
U
Q�
CL�
L
r —
ri I
c
j � G
✓1 r' r/
;! G
,v
Q
a
N
'O
N
C_
N
M'
N
O�
y,
—
—
—
—
— — — —
M
M
M
M
M
N
6�
C
7
--�
O
�
C�
M
ci
M
oo,
O
O
O
00
W)
O
A
O
O
a
a
W
�
[—
M
00
00
O
W
y
A
�
O
ca
O
G
'^
N 'n
00
3
01
N
[�
O
M en
O
O
z
00
N
N
N
0�
kn
col
M
N
00
M
O
N
kn
�
�
O
A
�
V
N
M
�--�,
�O
�--�
00
00
O
M
CD
ca
M
°
R
00
Os
I
00
M
00
to
l--
O
00
N
kn,
N
00
N
N
00
O
U
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
O
CD
M
O
00
N
O
O
M
%O
wl
vl
N
l—
vl
M
00
'n
O
v'
M
N
O
N
M
vi
S"
O
01
O
�O
00
00 'n O
M
r-
¢
O
O
O
M
M
O
00
0�
t`
O
N
O
O
z
N
°M
�'`1
�O
N
N
ON
L
abi
M
N
4
G
O
O
O
M
O
Vl
l�
O
I—
00
"t
x
M
M
00
"C
0\
—
M
cc
rn
O
00
NN
00
•--'
O
O
G
O.
b1J
a0.i
U
to
cn
sz
0
b
u
C
fl
Q
a�
d
42
O
vim.
oc
fA
y
t+
co
R
a
U
C
E o
G
A
a d
r —
ri I
c
j � G
✓1 r' r/
;! G

El
U
:J1 J
rD
N Z
o �
U
U JA
v ^
rC. = }
� " 1
OSR
>-
a°
r
C
d
u
C3
y
cl
a
L
V
ON
U
YN'
••
rn
°
mA
_
O O I�
— N N
I�
oovC.00ovv
V
'.
O N M
\o
N M
�
,.
O
00
—
'
O
cq
00
M
J
M
M
iL- CC
O
M
A
7
R
O N N
N M V
N
^
m
r-
M
N
M � \O
00
M
M
o
C
�
N o
�
c
Q�
C
VI
h
O
CR
N
r
O
N
p
'C 65
-
>.
V
>-
O
2
R
CC
•fA
u
�
��
U
Qi O �O
O W
M
vl
[�
l�
COO
�-
In
O
O
r-
O
N
•--
M
•--•
•--
--
N
n
y
w
00 D\ t`
N M V
O_
—
U
,x
U
N N
N
00 V'1
�O
V
^
V
v1
M
0
N
O
N
01
^
N
`/ C
V]
O
00 O\ 00
1/1
N M M
O—
M
'p
=y
m
N N
M
m
M
U a
d
o �E�
o�
O
G
O
M
co
d
0
y
4
y
0
U
N
N
Y
m—
a O U
O 'D
00
O�
�+
M
O
O
O
O
V
N
00
M
b
N
N M C-4
N N M
00
—
0=
%1
=
O
O+ O 00
O
00
'o
N
V
O
M
M
DD
V
N
�D
M
m
M
s mC
t .L
ce
L
L
L
'D
CC,
CL
7
w33¢
s33¢
'O
b
IU
❑
u
❑uE,w'
CL
C
0
.0
b
U
U
C
t
-
in
o
°33¢
�
•_x
❑0��
X
c0 M
O
—
-K '
'�
u
K
-iUU d
❑q�E�b❑
X
O
❑
�3
Z
R
s
iUU
C
❑
—a
h
^
—
¢
C ro
O
E
M
M
U
QN r
d
x C
�
+
�rG
~
O
.
Cma
O
Gm
b
K
x
K
y
d
� b
�❑
o
G —mC
YK +
N
r
CV
'U O
°O
^
^ =X
3
�=d ' .
m
C �a
aUK �
�m
wcmXO
�O
m
(ro C
Ca 7
cL
=
A
o
E
�
oo
Ld
W
Nx
o
K
a
�
c
o
x
c
o
a
m
w
42
-'4
0
v
x
a,
y
Uo
mK
[rorx
=
= a
.
w
Q
;;
a
4
an
d
i
C
^
u
m
m
m
p
w
m
m
m
d
>
O
N
a
rrA
c
m
jo,
`0o
m
m
ai
'fl
L
N
C
w
O
d
G
CO
o�
G
OCI
'W
El
U
:J1 J
rD
N Z
o �
U
U JA
v ^
rC. = }
� " 1

a�
O
U
N
Gq
9.
� N
`n :J
L �
V
�Nz
= r —
J = �
V — —
_ -2
a
R
G
�
=
y
�
O
�
u
y
d
}
N
U
O
o
oo
'rn
V)
O
Q
V
}
r
-
10
N
V
00
M
O
O
O
--
�o
00
z,
L
Oh
O
M
00
Sri
=
00
O
¢'
R
O
O
�
W)
O
�
O
4E
�
L
N
i
'y
N
O
c
y
JR
`
C
N
--
00
l—
7
T
-.--.
O
O
0,
�o
7
D\
oo
M
'T.i
M
N
'O
N
M
M
01
—
cr,
N
G
N
N--
W
M
O
^I
M
N^
�.
z
iG
l
O
O
CN W
M
N
M
�.
V
td
N
oN0
7
0
^I
M
N
Z
N
m
N
L
�
7
CL
0
O
M
=
M
V1
V]
H
N
H
m
N
m
R
I
_
m
,Q
V
O
7
ao
[-
7
vi
iN
�O
r
O
r
.-•
O
d'
M
N
O
cq
N
CA
G
O
V1
O
N
r
r-
10
'^
Vl
N
V
O
V)
O
V'
•..•
N
•�
t�1
•--
N
�O
N
h
l-
M
N
N
Vl--
�
N
N
l�
,-•
M
m
N
V
N
M
m
V
ctl
itl
ctl
iC
i0
y
cE
cd
cd
�
id
CC
�
y
�
yid
_
ii�
C
0
0
C
t
O
O
C
.0
CL
a
s'33¢QO
�
33QOQ
Acc
o
°0
0
>
r-
R
x
c
U
c
x
cd
U
'
O
7;
C
d C
x c0
p
:s
Z
c
W
Y
Y
W
C
O
C
d
'b
C
112
Xw
C
4:
s
iU C
Y
.V C
ttl
"d
O
0
td
b
R
U
ly
cd
.b
V
O
,=
cC
"O
�Uj
c0
O
xw-
e
Y
O
C
cC
w,
a
Z6
Y
c—
Z
o
y
L
F.
�..)
ca
m
Y
4.
C
M
X
cCd
.�
�-
U
R
m
m
X
4-
C
X
cCC
`
0.0
R
C>
R
m
m
Y
' cCtl
4,
G
X
as
.�
CL
O
C..)
R
m
X
`�-
X
`
C9
L
0
�w
m
m
O
L
cCd
m
m
m
R
L
d
C
w
m
O
m
m
Q
w
m
R
m
m
Q
�''
C
d
y
c
cd
m
>
c
c3
C
o
..•
y
.a
7
y
y
�C
c
R
>
a
Y
c
ctl
cd
C
o
R
m
C
m
v
O
L
ti
G
i
ti
�O
O
U
C
C
U
y
O
m
C
O
O
GCC
ai
Gm
W
9.
� N
`n :J
L �
V
�Nz
= r —
J = �
V — —
_ -2

�i
U
N
Q�
L03
L
i
h
v
M I
i
u
y N
O
U �
cE
C �
7 p]
O y�
O ,i-
t
L �
O 00
0. v
O �
a° e
C
d �
A
a L
y y N
c p
O M
•� �� N
L � �
0
r—
^C
= I
7 �
� N
N
c
O
.0 M
Vl `
0
U N
p
F
L � N
Y
3
O C
u G
u
y N
O �
U �
U
m
}
V
C M
C �^
O
u
Con
yN
O
U �
z
Q �
z
m
7
u
H N
H r
O
U
Q —
z �
zl Im
0
f N
i
�Nz
L� _
U
U— —
0
3
d
0
0
0
v
"
o
R
0
m
0
ce
v
V
v
o
R;
0
id
0
0
E
E
C
0
C,
CL
W
L
G
O
s33QAO
�
�33QQQ
£
�
°'o
s33¢oQ
C,
O
C
C
cu
m
Q
U
S
C
C
A
V
0
V
S
i
C
p
C
0
U
M
V
S
7
c�
_
=
U
lam"
Q
U
S
y
4..
x_
p
O
U
C
Y
Y
0
0
G
x
=N
C
U
u
X
G
U—
cd
Y=
U
`
C
cd
U
v
�moti�4?3W?aamo"�_
R
,D
_
c
b
v—
3
c
m
3
—°
o—
w
3=
m
LL
LL
O
C
ctl
w
C
4.
.O
u
C
a
O
U
G
ctl
m
c=a
m
G
x
C
U
m
Y
C
c«.
Y
Y
U
�.
p
O
p
U
o
m
m
x
�-
C
Y
C
U
O
m
m
x
C
w
C
Y
ro
co
`
m
m
m
m
„a+,
L
C
m
cl
m
m
O
m
m
m
c
w
m
>
m
c
7
n
V"
M
a
c
o
L
m
m
m
aci
b
O
X
C
A
m
m
A
W
0
f N
i
�Nz
L� _
U
U— —

Table B.3 Verification of Bankfull Events, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
UpperSouth Hominy EP' ro'ect number 92632
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
if available
5 Dec 2011
28 Nov 2011
Wrack lme observation
Figure B 5, Photo 1
5 Dec 2011
28 Nov 2011
Wrack lme observation
Figure B 5, Photo 2
5 Dec 2011
28 Nov 2011
Wrack line observation
Figure B 5, Photo 3
Uppct South Flonuny Mtugatton 5uc 51
EEP Prolcct 92632
AIYI Rcpott —FINAL — hcbruary2014

U
a�
v]
V
a�
w
ct
cd
U
L.
O
C�
CG
ew �
kn,
V1
O
an
O
vl '
rc a'
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
o a r
Or ea
i;
O
O
V
•�
,`
a.�as��_ S
Y' c. y�,Y o-(4 j��1
k -1.,
. z
tu
1•Ca
AC
�D
AO
AO
IC
l�
a!1
�O
Vl
Vl
Vl
N
W w
a
w
N�
cn cl
I,
�
U
3
O O
u
V3
N
b�A
tz
cd
y
•6
++
cnn
/�
S -
w
N
W
N
y
A
„�j
'O
^
' I
Sir
8
a3 CL
3
.'
�,
.�
�'
N
a
Y ;
o
Ca
.�
n
41
y
on
c
a�i
Ca
u
}c
o
c
I
ec a
o
ooi
ca
o
Q
cq
y
`°
CL
an
b
O
x
d
U °
�? a�
�.
x
W
o
w
W�
one
a
❑
°
y
�'
w
°
N
cz
c
>~
'n a
a
o
°
o
w
°
U
c
o.
0
3
>
.G
CA
cl
o'
°
°
@c
c
`
a�i
�
�
o
o
Q
n -o
—
° a
>
n a w
c
3
w
b
a� °
m
°
o
0�
W
�
o
a
,y
w
a°n b
o a
cv
w
❑
C
o
o
U°
w
°
ou
a,,
o a d
wvw`
o
a °^
Mnl
'
°A
° o
cd
ro
a�
a�
ae O
°' 0
Ca CL
0
�
on y
ew
°�'
-
v E
°
ca
4
U
a°i
-d
U
.�G
y
CL
cC
CQ
`
V]'
C 7
V]
cC O
'O
O N
L
cc
G
Y
U
��
u°
a `o
cq
L)
0
3
o
�
'° ^
C
cl
>
UU
N
rnU
N
M
N N M
'
u
b
N
�r
G h
t
_c
� C
� r✓ L.

'b
G
0
U
0.
C�
M
:t
c
o
G ,
0
V
N
r
� — L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
pp
00
00
00
06
o0
M
O
_-
O O O
O
�o
kn
kn
vl
kn
_
V) W) W) kn O�
r4
N
E ee o u
kn
Vl
Ul
vl
00
�I
O
a�
N
w
C
=
C
O
n
th
O
O
y
4;
N
Al
y
ctj
Q
p
E N
O
N
O
0
a
°
�,
°
o
'"
c
ro�
3
u�
�>
cam
h
d
°
E
Ca
a�
o
v
o
�
0
o
o
w
°
Q) O
q U
W
w
o
o
°:�
w
c
Eo
-p
U
°'
�a
of
aoicn
a
.d
�,
u
o
w
= c
CA
In
o
o
o
E
cc
3
p
o
cEc
w
E
E•
°
o_
E°
aki y
en
o
o
r.
CL
a
o
E
Y
�,
°�'
o CL
c
mob° Z
Q
w
c°
Y
bjQ
L
C
O
w
`-'
O
.b
Y
C
- --
N
-0
OU
3
U O
❑°
y
w
o,
o
CL
c°
°
M
E`
°u'
cc
a
p
o
-°o
b
03
E Cd
O c
"
u
a>
is
a
>
b O
ca o
N
"
0
'b
V
V 3
°o
b
y
O
�
>
c�i
�°
Z bD E
Z
>
o o
3�
b
0
0
0
E
o
0
-�
C4 Al
3
�a�i
ac'w
M -
o
a� p Q
c
o o 0
°
A
cn
'
y
v
-d
v
aUi 'd
,_,
p
G
-- b
N
•-- :3
o
O
0
Y
O
% C
b
O
O
n
O
b
O
a�
0
Q
O
U
O
c,
ae
U
N
3
°
E
C O
01
U-
w
o
ucn
b
U
co
s a>
w
U U
N
M U
N
M
N
N
M
w
u
MD
U U ,
M
:t
c
o
G ,
0
V
N
r
� — L

U
W
F-�
:t
o ?_
�fi L
G �
C
f. rim
U G
� J
� Q J
ai c a
� •� b
N
p
p
�-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
v'�
�
L
M
G
W
a
C
M
O
O
O
O
fq
en
ON
r
L
4�
y
1
"
_ 3
C
CA
CA
_
lu
F.,
to
c�
bo
t•.
C
to
co
co
Cd
i
3 cz
t
cc
C
a>
W
O
>'
C
to
y N
b
y
3
C
ca
q
c— E
tc
cCC
0.
X
M
m
tc
U
�I
w
q
q
0
YoT A'9
to
ti
v
U.
O
t,
Y
y
C
O
�Or
lu
Z CZ >p
bq
3
°d
Ca
CIS
N
i C
y
iC
j,„ y
rn
rig
°
o 3
°
o
_
Zi
N
O O
CL
30
°
U
'C
C
�
N
rn U
In
>~ C .b
cC
4-i
M
C
b
v,
En
N C
n 3
W S
W
Q
i.
G
w
�
C
..
�
> O
U
_
U
O
cn
bO n01
3
cc
C) O
N
O
q
t
N
`n
f"
O
N O
�n
y
J
to cd
C q
m"
; r
�
L)
N b
w,
y' °
M
Ms
'.
o
U
y
b
o
_
�N
°!
OL
=
'
V]
0
^
CO
C
O
C
C
°
U
a)
o
3
Us
bc
Cd
d C
o'
o
a�
N
W
N .b
OU
q
as
>
Z
m
A CC>w
UU
N
MU
'KZI
N
M
='+
N
ctj
N
M
G
t
O C y
7 C9 L+
�4i.
O
Q�
p
•C L
L Cd
�UU,.;
eS
«4r
riW v�
:t
o ?_
�fi L
G �
C
f. rim
U G
� J
� Q J

Table B.5 Stream Problem Areas, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Stream Problem Areas
U er South Hominy EEP prqject number 92632
Feature /Issue
Reach / Station
Suspected
Cause
Photo Number
Aggradation/Bar Formation
Mamstem 1 - 2 +25 to 2 +75
flood event
Figure B 6, PA3
Mamstem 2 — 9 +00 to 9 +50
flood event
Figure B 6, PA4
Bank Scour
Mamstem 1 — 1 +75 to 2 +25
flood event
Figure B 6, PA2
Engineered structures
Mamstem 1 - 1 +50
flood event
Figure B 6, PA
Uppct South Honunv Mttignuon Site 55
EEP Projc,c t 92632
NIN I Rcpoit — EINAL- 1761U,11y 2014

Figure B.1 Monitoring Cross - Section Plots, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy- Creek
Cross - section 1, Riffle
2365
2360 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
w
r.,
0
w
w
2355
2350
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO N4Y1 water surface Bankfull — —FPA elev
Cross - section 1, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 1, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY 1.

Figure B.1 Continued.
2365
2360
E
c
0
W
2355
2350
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 2, Pool
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO —MY1 Water surface BarMidl — —FPA elev
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY 1.
57

Figure B.I Continued.
2365
2360
w
0
a
v
W
2355
2350 +
0
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 3, Riffle
I�
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO MY1 Water surface Bankfall — —FPA elev
Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.

Figure B.1 Continued.
c
0
a+
:3
:J
s
2360
23-55
2350
2345 +
0
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 4, Pool
10 20
-As-built MYO
30 40 50 60 70 80
Distance (feet)
MY1 Water surface —Bank-full — —FPA elev
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
59

Figure B.1 Continued.
2355
w 2350
C
O
a►
W
2345
2340
Lipper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 5, Riffle
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO AMY 1 — Water surface Bankfull — —FPA elev
Cross - section 5, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 5, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY 1.
N 60

Figure B.1 Continued.
0
0
:4
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross- section 6, Pool
2355
2350
2345
2340
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO NIN' 1 Bankfull Water surface — —FPA elev
Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MY0.
Cross- section 6, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY 1.
61

Figure B.1 Continued.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 7, Riffle
2350
— — — — —
2345
0
2340
2335
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO MY1 Water surface Bankfull — —FPA elev
Cross- section 7, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Cross - section 7, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, WO.
62
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
— — —
Cross- section 7, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Cross - section 7, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, WO.
62

Figure B.1 Continued.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 8, Riffle
2345
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2340
0
w
1
__,35
2330
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO vfYl Water surface Bank-full — —FPA elev
Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
63

Figure B.1 Continued.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 9, Pool
2345
+.
2340
C
O
v
W
2335
2330
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (feet)
As -built NIYO MY1 Water surface Bankftill — —FPA elev
2012, MYO.
64
Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 31 January
I
2012, MYO.
64
Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 31 January

Figure B.1 Continued.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 10, Riffle
1-'4c
— — — — — — — — — —
— — —
2340
0
w
2335 Ole
2330
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO MY I water surface Bankfi ll — —FPA elev
Cross - section 10, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, WO.
Cross - section 10, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
65

Figure B.1 Continued.
Cross - section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 24October 2012, MY I.
M
UT2, Roberson
Cross - section 1, Riffle
2356
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
2355
2354
or
w
C
7r
2353
2352
2351
0 10 20 30
40 50
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO MY 1 — Water surface — Bankfull — —FPA elev
Cross - section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 24October 2012, MY I.
M

Figure B.1 Continued.
2357
2356
2355
e
0
i
t j 2354
2353
2352 +
0
UT3 Upper, Davis
Cross - section 1, Riffle
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (feet)
BAs -built WO MY1 Water surface —Bank-full — —FPA elev
30
Cross - section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO. Cross - section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
67

Figure B.1 Continued.
Cross - section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYl.
Upper 5011th tlomim 68
FIT Prt jcct 9-2631
M) I Rcport FINAL Fcbntar� 2014
UT3 lower, Davis
Cross- section 2, Riffle
2347
2346
— — — —
— — — — —
— — — — —
— — — —
— — — — —
2345
0
as
2344
2343
2342
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO MYI Water surface Baukfull — —FPA elegy
Cross - section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYl.
Upper 5011th tlomim 68
FIT Prt jcct 9-2631
M) I Rcport FINAL Fcbntar� 2014

Figure B.1 Continued.
Cross - section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY 1.
69
ii,.
UTT3 Lower, Davis
Cross - section 3, Pool
2341
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2340
2339
0
c�
2338
2337
2336
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (feet)
BAs -built MYO MY1 — Water surface Bankfull — —FPA elev
Cross - section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY 1.
69
ii,.

Coll�i
c�
O
O
S
O
a�
CC
Q
_N
i-i
.-r
�i
0
N
4]
w
0
v0
00
g
00
0
1
� uogeas -ssojD
o
1
$
�r
^"
o
i
�
p
3
Z uonaas- sso.�D
�
O ci 1
G
rf
s
A
ss
a
$ o
I uonaas -ssoiD
9
� e
A
U
o
tn
9
T
8
pq
$
to �
D
d]
h
N
8
N
O
O
0
0
N N N N N �•�
(j}) U01�8Aa�'i
O
1
1
O

0
0
U
N
f�q
w
bA
4m
i

b
N
U
N
tom.
w
0
�i
8
9
a
Q
i
U
9
e
�a
7
0
0
0
r-
r
8
n
O
�O
8
Q�
o
g
5
C
o � 3
u
O
S Q
d W
d �
A
o U
M �
g
M
00
o
g
N
C
2 ��
low
I.
� p � uoryoas -ssoa�
r�
.
6 uo!Ioas- ssoJ;)
0
0
0
r-
r
8
n
O
�O
8
Q�
o
g
5
C
o � 3
u
O
S Q
d W
d �
A
o U
M �
g
M
00
o
g
N
C
2 ��

•y1
A
w
M
f � I
i = _
- i
0
0
0
r
o
0
M
A
O
ti
A
1
a �
u �
0
dC
y
a
u
CD }CD
o 00
r
u
1 r
o
u011
as- ssol,-)
0
--r
0
M
0
r�
0
(U) UOPBA313
M
f � I
i = _
- i

it
0
w
A
a
A
aG
b
O
A
O
U
NM
F+I
dQ
� M
r! rl N
(;j) UOPBA413
I uopaas -sso {7
ri
rJ
O
O
N
v�
n
i
o �
N
CA
� v
a
V
a >.
A }
S
e
0
g U
i�
1
v� u
0
i�
0
v,
N
o
M
M
N N

Q
0
U
N
CLl
CA
LT.
r

Figure B.3 Pebble Count Cumulative Frequency Distribution.Plots, Particle Sizes by
Category, and Percent Bed Material by Category, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
South Hominy Creek
Rea_c_hWde °Pebble Count-
Slit /Clay Sand Gravel' Cobble Boulder, Bedrock
100%
90 °,° i -i_ I I
I
80% T
70%
S0% -
40% - - -
I
30% — - - 20% —
10% - I _ Irl III
0 01 0.1 1` 10 100 1000 10000
Particle S e,(mm)
tMYO' �eMYl
USH Reach -Wide Pebble Count,
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
D16(mm)
02
23
79
D35 (mm)
239
156
188
D50 (mm)
566
350
385
D84 (mm)
1444
816
947
D95 (mm)
2110
1403
1190
Percent Bed Material by-Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl
Silt /Clay
80
20
00
Sand
160
130
90
Gravel
300
580
610
Cobble
450
250
300
Boulder
10
20,
00
Bedrock
00
00
00
Uppci South Honvnv Mitigation Site 76
GLP Prop -I 92632
MY I Rcpw — FINAL —Fcbi uary 2OI 4

Figure B.3 Continued
South Hominv Creek
Cross Section 1 Riffle Pebble Count
100% Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder. Bedrock
960-14
NOW
709k.
60%
>' 50% I '
400W -
30%
20% .
10% - -
'001 01 11 10 100 1000 10000;
'Particle Size (mm)
t1N1YO -0—myl
USH Bianculli Cross Section 1 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
D16 (mm)
66
60
165
D35 (mm)
114
141
270
D50 (mm)
212
22 1
409
D84 (mm)
897
71 1
1027
D95 (mm)
1242
1090
1527
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
Silt/Clay
20
00
00
Sand
80
50
00
Gravel
660
760
710
Cobble
230
190
290
Boulder
10
00
00
Bedrock
00
00
00
Uppct South Hominv Mitigation Site 77
CLP Prglco 92632
Nllr I Report - PINAL - I- ebrtiary 2014

Figure B.3 Continued
South Hominy Creek
Cross Seciion 3 RiMe Pebble, Count
;100% Silt /Clay Sand Gravel Cobble B
r oulder Bedrock
90%
180%
70%
y 60%
IT-
'50%
E 40%
U 30%
20% 7.T T, i
10%
0%
0 O1 0. 1 1 10 100 1000 10000 1
'Particle Size (mm)
tMYo ,-6—MYl
Uppct South Homuiv Mitigation Site 78
ESP Project 92632
MY l Rcpou —FIN AL
USH Bianculli Cross Section 3 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size,by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl
D16 (mm)
5 1
83
104
D35 (mm)
110
143
212
D50 (mm)
21 0
289
467
D84 (mm)
809
1096
1143
D95 (mm)
1202
2167
163.9
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
Silt/Clay
00
00
00
Sand
110
20
00
Gravel
670
620
600
Cobble
220
340
400
Boulder
00
20
00
Bedrock
00
00
0 110'
USH Bianculli Cross Section 3 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size,by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl
D16 (mm)
5 1
83
104
D35 (mm)
110
143
212
D50 (mm)
21 0
289
467
D84 (mm)
809
1096
1143
D95 (mm)
1202
2167
163.9
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
Silt/Clay
00
00
00
Sand
110
20
00
Gravel
670
620
600
Cobble
220
340
400
Boulder
00
20
00
Bedrock
00
00
0 110'
—Fchru iry 2014

Figure B.3 Continued
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 5 Riffle Pebble Count
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
100%
90%
800/0
70%
c
i 60%
e
> 500/0
a
3 40%
9
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
tMYO tMY1
USH Bura Cross Section 5 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
D16 (mm)
6.1
11.3
7.0
D35 (mm)
14.6
32.0
11.6
D50 (mm)
30.0
49.4
16.7
D84 (mm)
106.2
119.2
77.0
D95 (mm)
179.6
180.0
122.6
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sand
15.0
6.0
1.0
Gravel
55.0
54.0
78.0
Cobble
30.0
40.0
21.0
Boulder
1.0
0.0
0.0
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0
79

Figure B.3 Continued
South-Hominv Creek
Cross' Section 7`Riffle Pebble,Count;
1006/0 Silt/Clay Sand _Gravel Cobble _ Bou_lder —13- rock
90%
80 °,0
s. 60%
rd
T' IF I
40
u 30% —
0%
001 01 1 10 100 1000 •10000
Particle Size (mm),
— 6..MYO amyl
USH Buira Cross Section 7 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
D 16 (mm)
5 5
97
3 3
D35 (nun)
129
218
103
D50 (mm)
245
314
186
D84 (mm)
1040
820
826
D95 (mm)
1644
1280
1261
Percent Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
Silt/Clay
00
00
00
Sand
120
60
110
Gravel
640
690
630
Cobble
240
250
260
Boulder
10
00
00
Bedrock
00
90
00
Uppct South Hommy iVIIHI- ttt0n Suc 80
EEP Prgico 92632
NIY I Rpm i— FINAL— I- cbrumuy2014

Figure B.3 Continued
100%
90%
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 8 Riffle Pebble Count
Silt /Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
80%
1.0
12.3
3.3
D35 (mm)
22.6
29.3
70%
D50 (mm)
35.3
47.7
37.9
D84 (mm)
96.3
c
88.0
D95 (mm)
245.1
172.6
166.3
60%
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
Silt/Clay
0.0
1.0
0.0
Sand
16.0
6.0
7.0
Gravel
50%
55.0
63.0
Cobble
22.0
37.0
30.0
s
4.0
1.0
0.0
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0
�E 40%
9
J 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
tMYO -t`MYI
USH Bura Cross Section 8 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
D16 (mm)
1.0
12.3
3.3
D35 (mm)
22.6
29.3
11.7
D50 (mm)
35.3
47.7
37.9
D84 (mm)
96.3
114.4
88.0
D95 (mm)
245.1
172.6
166.3
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1
Silt/Clay
0.0
1.0
0.0
Sand
16.0
6.0
7.0
Gravel
58.0
55.0
63.0
Cobble
22.0
37.0
30.0
Boulder
4.0
1.0
0.0
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0
E:ll

Figure B 3 Continued
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 10_RifflePebble Count
100%
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble _ Boulder_ Bedrock
900,° I_ 1
8o °,0
C
s 60%
> 50%
a0%
-30% -- — — -
1 l_
Flo °i°
o%
001 011 1 10, 100 1000 110000,
Perticle'Siie (mm)
¢MYO �+MYl
USH Bura Cross Section 10 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl
D16 (mm)
06
69
53
D35 (mm)
69
17 5
109
D50 (mm)
173
335
250
D84 (mm)
794
940
1000
D95 (mm)
1180
169 1
135 8
Percent Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl
Silt /Clay
100
20
00
Sand
170
30
60
Gravel
500
680
640
Cobble
240
270
300
Boulder
00
00
00
Bedrock
00
00
00
Uppct South Hommv Miti-gation Sttc 82
LLP 1 9 2 et. 9202
MYI Repott - FI \'AL- Pebruary 201-4

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. Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 14 August 2011.
30 September 2008.
Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
83

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 2
Channel blockage, sta.2 +50, facing downstream, pre- construction, J -hook, sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 5 September 2011.
30 September 2008.
J -hook, sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
84

Figure BA Continued
Photo Station 3
Right bank erosion, sta. 5 +50, pre - construction, 30 September 2008. J -hook, sta. 5 +00, facing downstream, 5 December 2011.
J -hook, sta. 5 +00, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
IMI

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 4
Sta. 6 +50 to 8 +00, right bank facing upstream, 5 December 2011. Sta. 6 +50 to 8 +00, right bank facing upstream, 20 November 2012.

lllni
its.
7- IT,
ZZ.,
, tm
Ax

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary North, UT 1 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 6
UT facing downstream, pre - construction 28 July 2009. UT1 Priority I channel construction, above vernal pond, 5
September 2011.
UT Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 20 November 2012.

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary South, UT2 — (Enhancement II)
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.
89

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary South, UT2 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 8
UT2 routed from original channel to a road ditch, pre - construction, UT2 re- connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned channel,
30 November 2007. sta. 0+00 to 0+50, 5 December 2011.
UT2 re- connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned channel,
sta. 0 +00 to 0 +50, 20 November 2012.
•O

Figure BA Continued
Roberson Property, Tributary South Abandoned Channel, UT2 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 9
Upper portion of the UT2 abandoned channel east of Canterfield UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 5 September 2011.
Lane, 26 April 2010.
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 20 November 2012.
M

N 0 � 1 `` Yw-WaM"' �`ro r•� c} � c�
'a¢: r"..r -•",� i "`� S�C�Sx -+ .,+
„c / ..'ir.^N - -•y4rF 6 Vii- <f•,,,�x ` ^"`t 1'�^ ',,��s �. �f�T �'°•r °'a'( *c �_ �c+- ::1
k("p
u� � t'' .�tj � �.����1t� �w•V�`�r� 6�, � �_�„ �-i Z�,,�....- +'�- �`,,� M w�..� -� C �rl}',nu. ,J! "'.•. '—
E s i
��.
x't,_, a.� �,�a.r�t.::.l �yF- .,,•,�,at¢'Ser�fI : -._..r _..+ ; ''��.:.. ••„` ,
J� `�s 6N !'•t>_- a "Y�r' ? '"� i - i :I ter'-. Y 7 -,{ t•T� F.�
. - �'. , �` i J°'ae R,Oa k} � {� :a.:..t � �? - '� , 4- i�` .� i . _ �.-"- - s -f ' _ .'.> � _ "r.. •' .�. c7 I ".i'' =* *ii _ -�.! � -
„yr �y,�a r.•� r
f
Y; � % r .4qi � " -J"i fi� �y�;� (vi�„ 5.4 '!• ��+-- r� L r �� S � s ri

Figure B.4 Continued
Bura Property Left Bank, Roberson Property Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Restoration)
Photo Staton 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
93

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 12
Mid channel aggradation, sta. 1 +50 to 2 +50, facing downstream.
22 January 2009.
Log vane sta. 1 +50 to 2 +50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
rl P I,
11AV I,hni::r.
Log vane at sta. 1 +50 to 2 +50, facing downstream,
5 December 2011.

Figure B.4 Continued
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 13
Typical features along channel in enhancement II 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.
95

Figure B,4 Continued
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Restoration)
Photo Station 14
Outside meander bend bank stress, sta. 7 +25 to 8 +00, Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7 +25 to 8 +00,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009. 22 September 2011.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7 +25 to 8 +00,
20 November 2012.
r•

Figure BA Continued
Photo Station 15
Bed aggradation and transverse bar, sta. 9 +50 to 10 +00, Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 10+00, 22 September 2011.
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 10 +00, 14 June 2012.
97

Figure B.4 Continued
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 16
Lower portion of enhancement 11, sta. 114-50 to 12 +00, Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11 +50 to 12+00,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009. facing downstream, 22 September 2011.
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11+50 to 12 +00,
facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
�M

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 17
Driveway bridge at lower end of Bura/Roberson properties, J -hook sta. 12 +75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
sta. 12 +50, facing downstream, 22 January 2009. 22 September 2011.
J -hook sta. 12 +75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
20 November 2012.
99

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement I)
Photo Station 18
J -hook proposed, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 25 July 2008, Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0+25,
pre - construction. 22 September 2011.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0 +25,
20 November 2012.
1111t,

Figure BA Continued
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.
IIn

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 20
Lower end of Enhancement 1, 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.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 4 +50, facing
downstream 20 November 2012.
102

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.
Photo Station 22
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6 +75,
20 November 2012.
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.
103

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.
No MYO -2011 photo taken.
104

Figure B.4 Continued
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, 20 November 2012.
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 9 November 2011.
105

Figure BA Continued
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 Upper — (Restoration)
Photo Station 25
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.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0+00, 14 June 2012.
106

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, 20 November 2012.
107

Figure B.5 Bankfull Verification Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Photo 1 bankfull event on SHC, Bianculli property,
28 November 2011.
Photo 3 bankfull event on SHC, Davis property, 28 November 2011.
Photo 2 bankf ill event on SHC, Roberson property,
28 November 2011.
1:

Figure B.6 Stream Problem Area Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Bianculli 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 after flood damage, sta. 1 +50, facing upstream,
14 June 2012.
109

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 damage, sta. 1 +75 to
2 +25, facing upstream, 5 December 2011.
Right channel bank instability after flood, sta. 1 +75 to2 +25,
facing upstream, 14 June 2012.
Right channel bank instability, sta. 1 +75 to2+25,
facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
110

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,
sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
1_'ppcl '�,nuli Ilrmni , 111ii ,aaian Sit,
H P )2t,','
- IYI Rcpon IIN.AL IJbn1af
Aggradation and bar formation in meander below J -hook after
flood event, sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 5 December 2011.

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,
5 September 2011.
Aggradation and bar formation below J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 9 +50,
facing upstream, 14 June 2012
Aggradation and bar formation below J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 9 +50,
after flood event, facing upstream, 5 December 2011.
112

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 ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
w +,R
;r
a
J
Legend g
Ow
Stream ,t
0 150 300 800 fl00 -
Parce r~ ` -J' /: _ Feet
113

Figure B.7 Continued
Bianculli Property, Wetland L
Wetland Station 1
Wetland L, pre - construction, 2009.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
20 November 2012.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
5 December 2011.
114

Figure B.7 Continued
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.
115

Figure B.7 Continued
Roberson Property, Wetland D
Wetland Station 3
Wetland D, facing downstream, pre - construction, 2009. Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream, 22 September
2011.
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
116

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.
117

Figure B.7 Continued
Wetland Station 5
Lower portion of Wetland D, livestock impacts, facing upstream, Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence,
2009. 22 September 2011.
Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence, 20 November 2012.
118

Appendix C.
Vegetation Data, CVS Output Tables, and Vegetation Plot Photographs
Upper South Hommy Mitigation Site 119
REP Prolc�.t 92632
MYI Rcpoit— FINAL— February2014

Table C.1 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 e Number
Annual seed Browntop mallet
Panacum ramosum
10 lb /ac
1,2,3
Buckwheat
Eriogonum spp
15 lb /ac
1,2
Winter rye
Lolaum spp
30 lb /ac
1,2
Winter wheat
Tritacum spp
15 lb /ac
1,2
Perennial native seed
Live stakes
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
Elderberry
Silky dogwood
Silky willow
Po lygonum -saga ttatum
Andropogon gerardaa
Rudbeckia harta
Verbena hastata
Panacum clandestanum
Sparganaum ameracanum
Scarpus,atrovarens
Rattbada pannata
Carex lupulana
Chasmanthium lat folium
Sorghastrum nutans
Coreopsas lanceolata
Schazachyraum scoparaum
Scirpus polyphyllus
Bidens cernua
Helaopsis helaanthoades
Chamaecrasta fascaculata
Polygonum pensylvanacum
Echanacea purpurea
Chasmanthaum.lat folcum
Oenothera specaosa
Baden arastosa
Panacum dachotomiorum
Juneus effusus
Panacum vargatum
Elymus vargamcus
Combined Total 15 lb /ac
Sambucus canadensas
Cornus amomum
Sahx seracea
Total
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
1,3
250
1,3
3,250
1,3
1,500
1.3
5.000
a Plantmg zone refer to stream bank & floodplam areas (1), transition & upland areas (2), or wetland areas (3)
C!ppc.i South I-lomunv Mitigation Site 120
I.EP Project 92632
NlV I Repoit - PINAL- rebruanv 201.1

Table C.2 Shrub and Tree Species Installed at the Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Plant Source Was Either Bare Root (B) or Containenzed (C) Nursery Stock.
Type Common Name
Scientific Name
FACU
Zone'
Number
Plant
b'`
Black willow
Salrx nrgra
Indicator
1,2,3
Installed
Source
Shrubs and small trees American beauty berry
Callrcarpa amerrcana
FACU
2
20
C
Arrowwood viburnum
Viburnum dentatum
FAC
2
30
C
Button bush
Cephalanthus occrdentahs
OBL
1,2,3
30
C
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensrs
FACW
1,2,3
25
C
Possum haw
Ilex decidua
FACW
2
30
C
Red chokeberry
Aroma arbutfolra
FACW
2
20
C
Totals 6
Malus angustrfolra
FACU
2
155
B
Medium trees Black cherry
Prunus serotrna
FACU
2
100
B
Black willow
Salrx nrgra
OBL
1,2,3
50
C
Carolina ash
Fraxmus carohniana
OBL
2
15
C
Dogwood
Cornus florrda
FACU
2
200
B
Eastern redbud
Cercrs canadensrs
FACU
2
100
B
Ironwood
Carprnus carohnrana
FAC
2
23
C
Persimmon
Drospyros vrrgrmana
FACU
2
25,100
C,B
River birch
Betula nrgra
FACW
2
'20,200
C,B
Southern crabapple
Malus angustrfolra
FACU
2
100
B
Totals 9
Quercus shumardu
FACW
2
933
C,B
Large trees Black gum
Nyssa sylvatrca
FAC
2
100
B
Bittemut hickory
Carya cord formes
FAC
2
100
B
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagoda
FAC
2
100
B
Chestnut oak
Quercus prmus
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 palustrrs
FACW
2
100
B
Scarlet oak
Quercus coccrnea
FACU
2
2,200
C, B
Shagbark hickory
Carya ovata
FACU
2
100
B
Shumard's oak
Quercus shumardu
FACW
2
10, 100
C,B
Sycamore
Platanus occrdentahs
FACW
2
200
B
White oak
Quercus alba
FACU
2
30, 100
C,B
Yellow buckeye
Aesculus (lava
FAC
2
20
C
Totals 13
1,492
a Planting zone refer to stream bank & floodplam 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
C Container sizes ranged from 5 to 7 gallon, the majority of the plants were in 5 gallon containers
Uppci South Honunv MLugaUOn Silc 121
FEP Projeo 92632
MY] Rcpoit- 1-INAL— Fchruaiv2O14

Table C.3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Location, Orientation, and Dimension, Upper South
Hominy Mitigation Site.
Vegetation Monitoring Plots Photographs
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (EEP project number 92632
Stream
Location
Bearing (Degrees from North
Plot Dimensions m
UT2
Plot 1 left bank sta 2 +00
Plot on m, (x,) 140°
lox 10
SHC
Plot'2 right bank sta 7 +50
Plot origin x, 160°
lox 10
SHC
Plot 3 leff bank sta 7 +25
Plot on m x, 140°
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 4 -n ht bank sta 0 +50
Plot on gin x, 140°
lox 10
SHC
Plot 5 left bank sta 9 +50
Plot on gin x, 125°
lox 10
SHC
Plot 6 right bank sta 10 +50
Plot origin x, 120°
5 X 20
SHC
Plot 7 right bank sta 0 +75
Plot origin x, 140°
lox 10
SHC
Plot 8 left sta 2 +50
Plot an in (x, y) 150°
,10 X 10
SHC
Plot 9 right bank sta 5 +75
Plot origin x, 140°
5 X 20
UT3 Lower
Plot 10 left bank sta 1 +00
Plot origin x, 130°
to X 10
Upper South Hununy NI'Ligahon Site 122
EEP Project 92632
rvIYI Rcpoit— FINAL— Febmarro2014

Table CA Vegetation Metadata, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO -MVI Vegetation Metadata
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project,number 92632
Report Prepared By
C Scott Loftis, A Brent Burgess
Date Prepared
28 March 2013
Database Name
USH MYO -MY1 cvs- eep- entrytool -v2 3 1 mdb
Database Location
C \My'Documents\MY DATA \Word\Restoration \USH\Momtonng
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 pl anted 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
NCEEP Mitigation Site, Buncombe County, N C
Length (ft)
5,804
Stream -to -Edge Width (ft)
30
Area (mz /acres)
33,586 mz /8 3 acres
Required Plots (calculated)
9
Sampled Plots
10
Uppei South Hominy Site 123
ITP Projeo 92632
MY Report — FINAL — Febivary2014

Table C.5 Vegetation Vigor by Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Vegetation Vigor by Species
Upper South
H_ _omin Mitigation Site
-EP
prqject
number
92632
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aesculus flava
Yellow +uckeye
2
1
Aroma arbutifolta
Red Chokeberry
1
2,
Betula nigra
River birch
6
Calkcarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
Carpmus carohmana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
5
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
5
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
1
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
1
2
Cercis canadensts
Eastern redbud
8
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
Cornus Florida
Flowering dogwood
16
Diospyros virgimana
Persimmon
1
14
Fraxinus carolmtana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
8
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
Platanus occidentahs
Sycamore
7
Prunus serotma
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 shumardu
Shumard's oak
9
Saltx nigra
Black willow
3
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
4
2
V,iburnum,dentatum
Southern arrowwood
2
2
Total Species
31
27
157
Upper South Honunv Mitleation Site 124
EEP Proleut 92612
N1 I RLPOIt— FINAL — February 2014

Table C.5 Continued
MY1 Vegetation Vigor b Species
Upper South
Hominy Miti ation.Site (EEP
project
number 92632
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aescu_lus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
1
Aronaa arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
1
1
Betula ntgra
River birch
4
1
Callacarpa ameracana
American beautyberry
5
1
Carpanus carohnaana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
2
1
Carya cordtformis
B>tternut hickory
3
2
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
1
Cephalanthus occadentalas
Buttonbush
2
Cercas canadensas
Eastern redbud
4 1
4
Cornus amomum
S>_lky dogwood
2
1
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
3
6
2
2
1
Daospyros'varganaana
Persimmon
7
8
1
Fraxanus carohnaana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decadua
Possumhaw
2
Liriodendron tulip fera
Tul>ptree
1
4
2
1 1
Malus august folta
Southem•crabapple
2
1
1
Nyssa sylvataca
Blackgum
3
3
Platanus occidentalts
Sycamore
3
1
2
1
Prunus serotana
Black cherry
5
6
2
1
Quercus alba
White oak
1
5
3
1
Quercus coccanea
Scarlet oak
6
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
1
2
3
1
Quercus palustras
Pin oak
3
3
1
1
Quercus prams
Chestnut oak
2
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
2
3
4
Quercus shumardu
Shumard's oak
5
3
Salax nagra
Black willow
2
2
Salax seracea
Silky willow
4
Sambucus =canadensas
Elderberry
1
4
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
Total Species
31
16
83
63
11
11
6
Uppct South I- lonunv MWgutton SRC 125
CEP Prolat 92632
NIYI Repott —FINAL — Februag2014

Table C 6 Vegetation Damage by Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper,South Hominy Mitigation Site
(EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of Damage
Categories
(no damage)
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
0
3
Aroma arbuti_fol>a
Red Chokeberry
0
3
Betula nigra
River birch
0
6
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
0
6
Carpinus,caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
1
Ca rya alba
Mockemut hickory
0
5
Ca rya cordiformis
Bittemut hickory
0
5
Ca rya 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 vir mmana
Persimmon
0
15
Fraxmus carol>mana
Carolina ash
0
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
0
2
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
0
8
Malus an ust>folia
Southern crabapple
0
1
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
0
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
0
7
Prunus serotma
Black cherry
0
15
uercus Alba
White oak
0
7
uercus coccmea
Scarlet oak
0
7
uercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
0
7
uercus palustris
Pin oak
0
8
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
0
5
uercus rubra
Northern red oak
0
8
uercus shu_ mardi>
Shumard's oak
0
9
Salix m ra
Black willow
0_
4
Salix sencea
Silky willow
0
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
0
6
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
0
4_
Total Species
31
0
184
uppci South 1- lununv MaIL"Won Sac 126
EEP ProcU 92632
MY1 Rcpou— FIN AL— Fcbruary 2014

Table C.6 Continued
MYl Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled
Rodents
Unknown
Vine
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
3
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chok6ber y
3
Betula m ra
River birch
1
4
1
Callicarpa amencana
American beautybeiry
6
Carlimus caro_lmi_ana
American hornbeam
1
Ca rya alba
Mockemut hickory
3
Ca rya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
1
4
1
Ca rya ovata
Shagbark hickory
4
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensts
Eastern redbud
8
Comus amomum
Silky dogwood
3
Comus flonda
Flowering dogwood
1
13
1
Diospyros vir miana
Persimmon
16
Fraxinus carolimana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
Linodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
8
Malus an ustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
3
1
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
1
5
I
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
4
3
Prunus serotina
Black cherry,
2
12
1
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
Quercus coccmea
Scarlet oak
10
Quercus pagoda
Chenybark oak
1
6
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
2
6
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
3
uercus,rubra
Northern red oak
2
7
1
1
Quercus shumardti
Shumard's oak
8
Salix ni ra
Black willow
4
Salix sencea
Silky willow
4
Sambucus canadensts_
Elderberry
7
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
Total Species
31
15
175
6
5
1
1
2
Upper South HOfi11Lri' Nirtrgation SIIC 127
CEP Prolcui 92632
NfYI Report — FINAL — Febnr<try2014

Table C.7 Vegetation Damage by Plot, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site EEP roject 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 -MY,O
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- VPI0-MYO
0
21_
Total: 10
0
184
MY-1 Vegetation, Dama a by
Upper South Hominy Miti
ation_ Site
(EEP prOject number 92632
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled
Rodents'
Unknown
Vine
92632 - NCWRC -VP 1 -MYO
2
10
1
1
92632 - NCWRC- VP2 -MYO
2
12
1
1
92632 - NCWRC - VP3 -MYO
2
17
1
1
92632 - NCWRC - VP4 -MYO
6
10
6
92632 - NCWRC - VP5 -MYO
1
23
1
92632 - NCWRC - VP6 -MYO
1
14
1
92632 - NCWRC - VP7 -MYO
17
92632 - NCWRC - VP8 -MYO
23
92632 - NCWRC - VP9 -MYO
14
92632 - NCWRC -VP 10 -MYO
19
]J2
Total Plots: 10
14
159
6
5
1
0
Uppci South HlotnutY NliucaUON Sitc 128
LGP holett 92632
NIYI Rcpoit —I- INAL— I "Lbruary2014

Table C.8 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Planted Stem Count by Plot,and Species
U pper South Hominy Mitigation Site
(EEP prqject number 92632
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VPl
VP,2
VP3
VP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
1
Aroma arbutifol>a
Red Chokeberry
3
2
15
Betula m ra
River birch
6
4
1 5
1
3
1
1
Callicarpa,americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1 2
Carpinus carolimana
American hombeam
1
1
1
Ca rya alba
Mockemut hickory
5
4
125
2
1
Ca rya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
5
5
1
1
1
1
Ca rya ovata
Shagbark hickory
5
3
167
2
Ce halanthus ;occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
267
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
1
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
16
8
2
3
1
3
2
Diospyros vir miana
Persimmon
15
8
188
1
2
1
6
Fraxmus carohntana
Carolina ash
1
I
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Driodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
8
4
2
2
3
Malus an ust>folia
Southern crabapple
1
1
1
N ssa s lvathca
Blackgum
3
2
15
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
3
233
1
5
Prunus serotma
Black cherry
15
8
188
2
2
1
2
Quercus alba
White oak
7
6
117
1
1
1
Quercus coccmea
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
114
1
1
1
Quercus prmus
Chestnut oak
5
4
125
1
Quercus,rubra
Northern red oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardu
Shumard's oak
9
8
112
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
1012
Uppet South Hominy Mitigation Site 129
i_CP Project 92632
MY I RLpou — FINAL— fcbru.uy 2014

Table C.8 Continued
MYO Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (EEP ro'ect 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
Aroma arbutifol>a
Red Chokeberry
3
2
15
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
6
4
1 5
Callicarpa amencana
American beautyberry
6
5_
12
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus carol>ma_na
American hornbeam
I
1
1
1
Ca rya alba
Mockemut hickory
5
4
125
1
1
Ca rya cordiform>s
Bitternut hickory
5
5
1
1
1
Ca rya ovata
Shagbark hickory
5
3
167
1
2
Ce halanthus occ>dentahs
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cerc'Is canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
267
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
1
4
4
Comus flor>da
Flowering dogwood
16
8
2
3
1
1
2
Diospyros vir miana
Persimmon
15
8
188
1
2
1
1
Fraxmus carolm>ana
Carolina ash
I
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tuli >fera
Tuliptree
8
4
2
1
2
Malus an ustifol>a
Southern crabapple
I
I
1
1
N ssa s Ivat>ca
Blackgum
3
2
15
Platanus occ>dentalis
Sycamore
7
3
233
1
Prunus serotma
Black cherry
15
8
1 88
1 1
1
3
3
uercus alba
White oak
7
6
117
1
2
1
uercus c_ occmea
Scarlet oak
7
6
1 17
1
2
1
1
uercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
uercus palustris
Pin oak
8
7
1 14
1
1
2
1
uercus prinus
Chestnut oak
5
4
1 25
2
1
1
uercus rubra
Northern red oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
uercus shumardn
Shumard's oak
9
8
1 12
1
1
1
1
1
Salix m ra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix,sericea
Silky willow
3
1
3
3
Sambucus canadens>s
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
1093
648
850
Uppci Suuth Hominy Mitigation Site 130
I-EP Projeo 92632
MY Report- I-INAL- Rbivarv2014

Table C.8 Continued
MY1 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti a_ tion Site
(EEP 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
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicarpa,americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1 2
Carpmus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1_
Ca rya alba
Mockernut hickory
3
3
1
1
Ca rya cord>formis
Bttternut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Ca rya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1 5
1
Ce halanthus,occ>dentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercts canadens>s
Eastern redbud
8
3
267
Corpus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
5
22
3
1
3
1
Diospyros vir imana
Persimmon
15
8
188
1
1
1
6
Fraxmus carolmiana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
L>riodendron tul> ifera
Tul>ptree
7
3
233
2
3
Malus an ustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
133
1
2
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occ>dentalis
Sycamore
7
2
35
5
Prunus serotma
Black cherry
13
7
186
2
1
uercus alba
White oak
10
6
167
1
2
3
uercus coccmea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
uercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
uercus palustris
Pin oak,
7
6
1 17
1
1
1
uercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
uercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
112
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumard>t
Shumard's oak
8
7
1 14
1
1
2
Salix m ra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
117
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
31
173
31
12
1 14
1 19
16
24
Density - (stem/acre):
700
486
1 566
1 769
648
971
Uppei South Hominy Muieation Site 131
EEP Protect 92632
MIr I Repoo — FINAL— Pcbruary 2014

Table C.8 Continued
MVI Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
U pper South Hominy M_ iti ation Site (EEP p ro'ect 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
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula,nigra
River birch
4
2 1
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
12
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus carohniana
Ca rya alba
American hornbeam
Mockernut hickory
I
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
Ca rya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
3
1
1
Ca rya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1 5
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Cercis canadensis
Buttonbush
Eastern redbud
2
8
2
3
1
267
2
1
5
Comus amomum
Comus florida
Silky dogwood
Flowering dogwood
2
11
1
5
2
22
3
2
Diospyros vir miana
Persimmon
15
8
188
1
2
1
2
Fraxinus,caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
7
3
233
2
Malus,an ustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
133
1
N ssa.s lvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platariu_s occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3 5
2
Prunus s_erotma
uercus alba
Black cherry
White oak
13
10
7
6
1 86
167
1
1
3
2
2
1
3
1
uercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
uercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
uercus- alustris
Pin oak
7
6
117
1
1
2
uercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1 12
1
2
1
1
uercus shurnHdii
Salix m ra
Shumard's oak
Black willow
8
4
7
4
1 14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry,
7
6
117
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
607
688
931
567
769
Uppci South Hommy MILILaUOn Sitc 132
EEP ProlcLi 92632
M71 Rcpoit— FINAL — fLbivary'1014

Table C.9 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
MY1 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
(EEP project number 92632
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP1
VP2
VP3
aVP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aroma arbutifoha
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
3
167
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
12
Carpinus carohmana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Ca rya alba
Mockernut hickory
3
3
1
1
Ca rya cordifoimis
Bitternut hickory
3
5
1
1
1
Ca rya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
3
133
1
Ce halanthus occidentals
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
267
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
6
217
3
1
3
1
Diospyros vir miana
Persimmon
15
8
2
1
1
1
6
Fraxmus carolmiana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex,dec>dua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Driodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
22
5
46
2
10
3
Malus an ust>fol>a
Southern crabapple
4
3
1 33
1
2
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occt,dentalis
Sycamore
9
3
3
1
5
Primus serotma
Black cherry
15
8
188
2
1
2
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1 67
1
2
3
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
125
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 m ra
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):
1
777
486
567
769
1,133'
971
a Vegetation plots with volunteer species, numbers in bold font
Upper South Homury Mitigation Site 133
EEP Prul"I 92632
1%Il I Rcpou — I -IN A L — February 2014

Table C 9 Continued
MY1 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (EEP 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
Aroma arbutifoha
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula m ra
River birch
4
3
1 67
Callicarpa americans
American beautyberry
6,
5
12
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus carohmana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Ca rya alba
Mockemut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Ca . a cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
5
1
1
Ca rya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
3
133
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
267
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Comus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
6
217
3
Diospyros vir miana
Persimmon
15
8
2
1
2
1
2
Fraxinus carolimana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
22
5
46
4
2,1
Malus an ustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
133
1
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
9
3
3
2
2
Primus serotina
Black cherry
1,5
8
1 88
1
3
2
3
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
167
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 shumardn
Shumard's oak
8
7
1 14
1
1
1
1
Salix m ra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
S'alix 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
a Vegetation plots with volunteer species, numbers in bold font
Uppci South Honunv Nltugahon Sac 134
CEP Project 92632
NI Y I Rcpott — FINAL —Fcbru uy 2014

Table C.9 Vegetation Problem Areas, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Vegetation Problem Areas
Upper South Hom ny Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632
Feature /Issue
Station Number/Range
Probable
Cause
Photo
Number
** No vegetation problem areas were observed during MY1. Table C.9 is only a placeholder for
future monitoring reports.
Uppci South Hommy NIILIgnuon Site 135
EGP PrulcLI 92632
NIN I Rcpoil — FINAL —I LIMuary 2014

CZ
O
GIO
O
x
0
N
N
a�
d
0
b
q
O
U
CC
on
N
U
H
M
u7
� U �
-z
O
c., U O
C U
O
O
O
O C L
O
O
� �
'O u
C
C
VO
O
O
�
O E L
O
O
UQ
Ud
L C
O
y O
O
O
O
O
O
3
a
> g
>
i
U Q
V p
M
N
�
c� as
`^
C O y
N
a s u
o
o
N
o
q q
��Rrr S
c N
c O
U)
W
In
p
co�
O
CA
O
p W
a>
a�
>
6� ,
on
aq
U+
RS
s
O.
O.
U
q
p
u
70-G
N�
o
00
o
0
0
>
cj E
cl
�
,..i
�
U 5;
��
W
rn
rn
3
c
�
�
°
y °
40'-
A.
> E,
3 Jo
¢ o
Ca
a�i
¢ E
¢ E
0
M
O
/
�
En
�
IUy
00
.U+
❑❑
cz
cz
U
¢
U
3
O
ti
O
ta
O
u
cC
p
a�
d
U
Ca
°
u
U
¢
W
6.
a
d
¢
C/1
oa
.�
Q
,
>
w
Gn
>
^"
N
M
W
>
7n
M
u7
� U �
-z

Figure C.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
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,
MY 1. MY].
137

Figure CA Continued
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, Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012
MY 1. MY 1.
, 138

Figure C.1 Continued
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, Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY1. MY1.
139

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 4; No Pictures, 2011 -MY0
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23October 2012,
MY1.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
140

Figure C.1 Continued
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,
MY 1.
141

Figure CA Continued
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,
MY 1.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
142

Figure C.1 Continued
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, Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY 1. MY 1.
143

Figure CA Continued
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,
MY 1.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
144

Figure C.1 Continued
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,
MY].
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
145

Figure C.1 Continued
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,
MY 1. MY1,
146

Figure C.2 Vegetation Problem Area Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
( "Figure C 2 is only a place holder for future monitoring reports )
No vegetation problem area photographs were taken during MYO
No vegetation problem area photographs were taken during MY
Upper South Hominy Nlutgauon SrtC 147
I:CP Project 92632
Nil I Repou — F=INAL — Pebruaty 2014

Appendix D.
Monitoring Year -1, 2012, Plan Sheets
Uppct South Hominy Mitigation Sit(. 148
EEP Proles t 92632
M� I RLpoit— FINAL— fcbmarv2014

Figure D.1 Monitoring Year -1, 2012, Plan Sheets, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 149
EEP ProleLl 92632
MYI Repuit — FINAL— Febniary 2014

fuo eAlpllmou tim m
ZLLL'ZS4'Bz8 xed
9Z 7X3 M9 Z94 8Z8 eu04d
99LOZ eulloJe0'41J0N 'elllnseuneM
Asmssejdx3 ulequnoW MowS W9jE),O£80Z
dnoi j aueweaae4u3 peysie>f M
� o
o
w �
v v
x
� w
w
A
O
0
Z
O
r
Q
C7
F
Y
W
W
Q'
U
>m
z
O
S
Z
O
CIO
M
CD
Z
U
w
O
V
�w
j
V
ui
ca
z
♦®
V
m
M31/23/O 311S8 b3nOO M /ue WZ9UU6:l '
SJNIM"G LAIN 9Liro'9U6W eu04d Llla N v r
409LZ 0N "46181ea m t5 } LL, U.
vNnoav� SO H l eMnS ' pN9 liq deo BtLZ i rn p ro =
Niaoa ON 'J IWOO 38WOONne Z£9Z6 ON lO3fObd d33 weJ6ad aueweaue4u3 W019ASwa i, a h
NOUVENAVY )133210 ANIWOH Hinos jo; pwedeJd v m' m
1
N
O
0
z
0
O
O
N
O
N
O
z
0
Cl)
LU
w
Q)
0
0m
Q
co
W W
�W
Q W
U) w
rn
O
QZo LL
¢a0}
V-�lL
w
O � Z FJ5
� Z a,
NQ o,2
�0zC9
N co Z,
It QOU�
O2za
t
a
`o
``%
W J
P�
•boo. •.6'��
J LL
J � �Z:�W
LL 0
Wa
_ .0,
a ad
06 z
Z
ga
o a
Z c^o
_w
>
w + 04
Z
a�a
W a
Zwo�
>Z
Z -
-
w��<-
- -g -zW-
o��w
ag>
=a00w
ZZ5
Z�
Uod — —O
QZUUa
ZOO
agcCZ
gLU
QOcrwCL
m
O1m
cA Z l- » a
F-
(L 0 b m m Z
U=) Z
J0U
oF_-JOOU
US US w H W
UW W(n
U)
Q WUWcn
UC/jQmm>
jQm>
i0mwm0J
Wmmo
w� I
HQ,YYYY0
U
C)w
0
W W W W m
0 0
W W W W
—i Ix
'U UUUatf
�a'zzZ` -,
MF- z
w� - - - -,g
0.w - --
> z,2 2 2 m
o6 o m m m
0w
=M ::cm
�°mM :M :m
Z= ==
p = ==
w
w
w — HHHl— atsazHf-
> Z > > > >
000000�-f
F-
M > > >
-g000
=
Ugcncncnv»
>av�cnc�
N
O
Z
N c7 �t to tO 1�
00 CA 0 - 04
N
O
0
z
0
O
O
N
O
N
O
z
0
Cl)
LU
w
Q)
0
0m
Q
co
W W
�W
Q W
U) w
rn
O
QZo LL
¢a0}
V-�lL
w
O � Z FJ5
� Z a,
NQ o,2
�0zC9
N co Z,
It QOU�
O2za
t
a
`o
``%
1Z l l / /,,,,/
P�
•boo. •.6'��
`Q �
J � �Z:�W
-
_ .0,
U -j 0- w -0
> W a o
O M =
2
g ui W ,?
N J O a O 0
't c" Z (ro h 3
W X�a�ZOZpOD0p0
Y O NOO =0 =0Z
w ��j OOw��3�o0,
z =, O v_�Y
OmH }}Z�ZJZ OW
ch r.
Wv_ rn =,� o��F -�QU
O o o e o
d
c
m
U
3
a
Z
O
Q
0w
U
W V)
H
55 2
°0)
000) M ccoo
Z
U
0
0
0
o
0
M
II
r
a�
0
U
N
O
81
M
ii
I
W
F- O
J all
W ?�
Oti

Boo eNIPIVADU A ON3031 V S3HOd08ddd NOI1b�OLUIN
ZLLL'ZB4'9Z9� �,asssrwq� 8tZZ5lL6L6 xed' J
9Z 7X3 M9L549Z9 0Zuni simnosaa SNOIld001 Nld JNIaO11NOW S�JNIM`d�10 L-AN IWI - _W i;' i c w
9810 9 U M 9u04d ' N U
409LZON'4gleluil a , t1 } LL LL
98LOZ eupaeD WON '9pine9u� BM N w � > �
£Ol H l �eS ' PM8 Iu71deJ BZLZ o a p of
�(eMSS9�dx3 ulelunoyy Alowg 1e9�� pggpZ' vNnoavo ON 'AINnOO 38WOONne Z£9Z6 ON 103fOUd d33' weU8ad lu9w9Ou94u3 WGISA9003 =� Z d h E Z
dnOJS;u9w9aue4u3 P049JO48M NINON m z D
U019siwwO0 9ewno99a'9;ppIIM mupNeO WON NOUVIDI11W >133UO ANIWOH H1f10S jc4 pejed9�d a �° LL
� Of
1�
m
V 1N fh N f") M w o N N V m N m N C1 M N N f7
7
0
Wo�,1
1,0c cow
r1�2 fin` IM c%l co
tcs
C E
� E
%o I- IQi91-
h h N r h r h r h r h h r r h r r h h h r r h h h h r n
O liiCDW
J O
c4 oo w wwwwwwwwwwwwwwccoowwccoowwlwwwwww
O
N
If�7 w N INn cN.� 1w. l�Nyn ppp� N NV_ spy f0 r 0) 1r� ppN�� W cNp
�
N
z
Yww co N Of I. 10 pop p_Np awD fp7p pVp pp cO7p OQ_p O
co co
v v v v v v v v
E
v v v v v v v Y Y Y V V Y V O v v v
Q z
F-- O
c4 vtnmhww O�NNV tnw rwO.O�N.t u7m�Ne0 V'tn
O F
a �aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
VIwUi V)UJ V1N �-�-�- •-e- � �� NN N NNNwwYn yYn
'a.a.a.
w
IcN
yyN
(y�� pp N ppppp� �{ y-� M pp pp
wt�QjO�p�p =1�'S
0'�
j�pyyp� p pOpp
=
b
I
Oppi
Y7VOYN7�f1 V V V
� N
�Np �T �p pOapl pp�w h
N53�/IO
E
Z
O X.
r r r r r r h h h r h r r h(D
N N N N N N N N N N
w 0D w
w�� w w w w w w w w OD
E
Z
O
h r h r r h r r h h
N N N N N N N N N N
w w w w w w w w w w
M
Z
D
cQr
cwp
N ���QQQ((( N !2
a) co I
um) ��r: q N
g�c),g
m rz
F
F-
<O
I
m
a
aaaaaas pp,
JSJ J J J a O. a a J J J J
C" J'4"T'4JJ9IYol4'C�Fa�Ki�ddaO
J
5
�zzzzzuzzz?
U' CD O, LD Q 0 0 L9
R�
a Z
O
�01 1
JN1yNy 55
> 'J
Wa.
-to
N M O N w h w T 0
aaa.aaaaaaCL
v O
>5=35
8
mNmvowf
» » », » >>
E
I
I
I
¢
_
_
c
C � Qp11
as 0 L]
w
f0
N
CD
Q
w (y�7�
W
r r
N
a cNp
O
{Ny
In
wr
T $gp�j
aD 1a�
N Opww�/
(rp 1n
pOpp pppp
rp W
ppNpp pip
w (ppp����
w n
yy
(,) Z
N N
CO CO
N N
CO w
w N
w
N N
w CO
N N
w w
w w
0o
wow
w��wlw
N
OD
w w
w w
CO w
w w
w ONO
C O O
11
J
~
C Z �q11
9�
(0p1 w
N
'O.V� h
n pNy
yw� pN
1� O
wr
O
pep �yy}
1Nn
1n w
N
p�� o
��wpp pwp
N r
OwNwN�
OO
0/ N
t0
N
yyp�� wr
N aD
t0
N
N
wN
w
'A
V l`•�
v v
N O
v v
w
v v
V w
v a
V
g Q
v v
ch N
�_ o
l_0 Wj
fffVVV
O
A
V
N N
r
N
Q
w
a
"� i$am
II
C
Q
J
LL
O
J
O
J
LL
O
J
J
O
J
LL
J
LL
J
J
0
W H
0
w
pLL —
LL
z
O
LL
LL
O
LL
LL
R
O
a
LL
it
LL
it
O
LL
LL
it
LL
rr
LLL L
rr
LL
it
O
°
w
W
W C9
c
au)zy
a LA O
aaaaaaaaa
�
I
�
-
mp.(:,a
���/�
p. 'L
'�
o.awwan.aaaaaa
�_,�_
�
wi
�aFU
ZO�a
� a
Z Ui
SU W
(yn (y�
f1off0Go00wtf
((/N/]] ((/N/]]
(/r�%�
((N�
(O�� (l/�]l
W O
N
7 7
> >
7 >
j >
> >
.7 >
j >
j >
7 >
Z�
0
o
v
7
0
Wo�,1
S
O
CL
in
O
S
z
0
N
5
b
J O
M7
S�
LLaa..1l
N v
Uf
Vf q
N
=
b
=
b
I
a�a
5�
N
z
w
M
0
o
v
7
0
Wo�,1
S
O
CL
in
O
S
I
bi
0
N
5
b
J O
M7
S�
LLJ
5"11
0
a
N
o_
W
Z
I
5�
z
w
z
CL
J
LRi go
yo
z
W
LUW
J
qJ
LL-I
z'
'11J
V
z
� c
0
R
z
F
m z
8 �2 o
Z
W
J 00 d�Z•�LU LL
�S •O =C4.V .
ZW g :�do.6 y �x ``;
6 =
� � �
Oy
v
3
0
Wo�,1
p
O
CL
in
O
S
I
bi
0
N
5
b
yo
z
W
LUW
J
qJ
LL-I
z'
'11J
V
z
� c
0
R
z
F
m z
8 �2 o
Z
W
J 00 d�Z•�LU LL
�S •O =C4.V .
ZW g :�do.6 y �x ``;
6 =
� � �
Oy
z
O
F=
0
O
S
a
'U
0
v
3
0
Wo�,1
p
O
O
in
O
CD
I
bi
0
cV
5
ycf" ?
J O
M7
0
t7f
LLJ
5"11
O:
N
W
Z
w
F
3
I
J
5
o
8
W
I
I
I
¢
_
_
z
O
F=
0
O
S
a
'U
0
v
3
0
Wo�,1
p
°
II
in
O
CD
I
bi
0
cV
5
ycf" ?
J O
M7
0
t7f
f�l
5"11
O:
Z O
F
cr
_�v
oz
�o �
& 8 b
o�
° b
R,
1 ° Q�
/l V
N
/-M
� Q
z 3- -
F � _��
_i� Rig
0
o �
� n
zM av
N
O
N
I
O,
� z
_0
1
h_
tz
M
W
Y
4
w
E
S
N
m
m
O
v
0
°o
M
°
II
in
O.N
o
v
I
bi
0
cV
5
J O
M7
0
t7f
Q
O
a
a.
z
Lr 8 5
v
g
1
�
a
°
in
i
UW
y
w
H O
C'0 M
0
all
b
0
t7f
> 6
O cY
L -
O:

fuo elllPll— auwnn
ZLLL Z9b 9Z9 'Xed
9Z '3x3 W W Z94 9Z9 eu04d
99LOZ eulloaSO 41JON 'elll^seur(eM
AeNweldx3 ule3unoW 4owS ImC) 089oZ
dnoip jueweaueyu3,peysw;eM
uuwo sownossa eAIP11M sullwe0 WON
rssu�wW
IOanOS3a
311 :JOMd T NYId OHS - 311S IllflONVIE]
84ZZ 93L M xed ,. ""'i"
' `Fare p
W
N
•
SONIMH�Ia �'AW
9LV0'9LL616 6uoydi
_il
N
C
N
U
Q
�m
`A1Nf100
409LZ ON '4
E0 L H L e31nS ' PMS IeAdeo 9ZLZ
L,
0
o m
6
W
�o
LL LL
c
II U
NiaoN�
ON 39W00Nne Z£9Z6 ON 103rONd d33
NOIl`d�JI11W �33a0 ANIWOH 1= 11f1OS
weJBwd Iueweoueyu3 we3sAsoo3
jol pejede,d
z
e
I "O--
Z?
m
�'
0 Cl)
t
\ Z o
i,1 0 b to
�,
Al a'' 'll
+ ilk f` A3
}} o %A,
A1i
' IL
A
\\ t
xs2
LLJ
Cf-
09
�f
i, co
} +I I
as
xe
^\• `� L`�1\ m aa
O W
w
'4 ,� \ U)
D
3 b
W
✓ P
0
oUl)
of
0
I
A I I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
07
tz
PD
a
W
O W r W Z
` zIM
g +
m rn2
(.> (nB
9 NI� �i�
1 11 1
o"
00
0c)
C)
O�
•
Y ai
N
O
O
Z
o�
0
O�
oc
H
N
CV
O
z
0
Cl)
Q
O
W
co
}
a.
r
� � Z
O
&!tl U
Y ai
J
J
Q
�m
Y
w
w
II U
I Z
Lo 0
I "O--
=_>
O
�
O�
UAW

Bio 8p1pilmou mmm 31130ad T NV-1d (5Z +9-00 +0 b'1S) OHS
ZLLL Z9b 8Z8 •xBd gas vq, N01103S b2 8nG /NOSN3808 W SLL'6L6 xe3 e• ""'°° "' v
9Z 3x3 LBL9 ZS4 8Z8 •suoyd saonnosaa SEJNUUI"d l-A 9L60 SLL 8L6 suoyd It" `'Yc�" YyyS�z N N v
98L @Z Bullwe0 4NoN''elllnsswteM 409LZ ON '4618182! Vwa N w } LC U.
Asmssajdx3 uls3unoW AIowS vmE) ofi80Z w�0 L H L eNnS ' PM9 IBAdeJ BZLZ o rn p m
vNnoav� 7 z = o
dnog)4u9wsaus4u3 P94w9PM
NINON ON ,UNf10O MINOONne ZEM 'ON iowOUd d33 6wd 3usw8ousyu3 we;s�tsao3 •,� d m 2 z
u01ss1ww03 seamos H PRIPI M supas3 WON NOUVEMAW N33HO 1\NIWOH H1f10S col ps�edald e
9SX
GU 1 y
�r'1 i rll r`
/P
lPr
j.
1 I _
WC.5�,1 \ _
Cq
/ �� 7`I '1 , , ,', •� 'I 7 III � ,` I _ -- -- -- " __ - .w .... _,
i
to 1 X54
%t a
X54 ` 1 > + t \
4
i iii .r I I 1 ii , a
UJ
!L
FIELD LANE
I I j IJl
r
O
o' in
II
ui
u
Q
KI
r
H
U)
z
O
U
w
Y
w
w
U
i
z
0
= e�
F-
00
v
vJ I (f)
I
I
I
1
I _
I
I
I
I
I I '
I
I ,
I
I ,
I
I
.I
I
I
'I
1
I
I
I '
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I �
I �
I
I '
I �
I -
I
I
,I
- I
I
I
I � w
I 3
I
I
I w
1 j
—i — - -,
I -
I 'v
I
I _
P
I Y ^•rY
I .
I
I
_I
I
Y N J W Ej
r+ i a a
�
'IL i
z Z I_
Z O N W
z
W W Q CD
LL _
Lo FS
z
W a s
z3 8
I
I
I
w
J
O
w
a
Lo
N
N O
0
H
z
0
U
w
N�
I.L
D
Z
U)
w
m
O
Y
w
w
� v
_z
� III III
O
=i>
o-,
8 t) cn
:O
J 00
Uj
•I
/ //r
lilt t```````

BioeJIlpllmoummm 311=IOMd V NHIdI99 +ZL-BZ +9 d1S) OHS
ZLLL•Z94 HZ9 XRd ,,as vq, N01103S "Nn9 /NOSN380Z1 - : N
9Z V3 WW Z94 9Z8 •suoyd s3oanOS3a 6LZZ 9lL 6l6 � tc �iice,' ' ri' 4;)'? c y
SE)NIMV'd(3 l-AIN 9Lb0 9lL M euoyd t lll� 0 Of
V69LZ ON VIGIOU 6 LL LL
99LOZ sullaeO WON 'eIIMs6w(6M chi w $�
Aumsseldx3 ulslunoyll tilowS'lee�J 0£90Z VN190aV� w�Ol Hl sAnS' PM8 Isllde�,BZLZ Z rn p m = g o
dnws� >)ueweausyu3 peys�e3epq NINON ON )aNnO0 38WOONne Z£9Z6 ON 103rOMd d33 Bwd lueweaueyu3 ws)s�tsoa3 1 o ? , z °
uolsslwwoo sawnosea s1pplIM supaso yy�oN NOIlNJIlIW �332JO JINIWOH H1f10S :�o; pe,ede d W ^ � i I I z
f
Ij
I,
I,
t! t !
, li rr
T-
1 / _
J/t t — r � _ ..
t CONNIE DAMS ROAD \� f
2
Iry3 W
m
CL �h f 'I I I •♦
\\�
\, \
,\
' v <XS6
I ` �
/
/ r~
t
„r
0
12 /�
I I`
j� y y ✓ rr /
0
L�
We
II
s
N
0
Oi
Ll
w
}
z
0
= c�
F-
R
N
uj
OR
;ir .o�
6m
-cc 65
_
u�
of
left
+rM
sue_
I
_1_
All
I
,d
,
m
\ \ \ \\
+
\
I
I
I
I I
;
'I
I
I
I
-
IL
N
I
-
I
I
I
,
to W > / , xsi
I'
I
I
1
$ (O
I'
t
Z m
,
H
I
I
�
I
I
z
I-
o Z
I
I
o. z
SIS
2
Iry3 W
m
CL �h f 'I I I •♦
\\�
\, \
,\
' v <XS6
I ` �
/
/ r~
t
„r
0
12 /�
I I`
j� y y ✓ rr /
0
L�
We
II
s
N
0
Oi
Ll
w
}
z
0
= c�
F-
R
N
uj
OR
;ir .o�
6m
-cc 65
_
u�
of
left
+rM
sue_
I
_1_
--
I
,d
,
m
+
I
I
I
I I
;
'I
I
I
I
-
I
I
' I
I
I
N
I
2
Iry3 W
m
CL �h f 'I I I •♦
\\�
\, \
,\
' v <XS6
I ` �
/
/ r~
t
„r
0
12 /�
I I`
j� y y ✓ rr /
0
L�
We
II
s
N
0
Oi
Ll
w
}
z
0
= c�
F-
R
N
``ee
Ill '1 �
;ir .o�
00 d•.�:
-cc 65
LLI
_
u�
of
left
+rM
sue_
I
_1_
--
I
,d
,
m
+
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
-
I
I
' I
I
I
N
I
-
I
I
I
,
I'
I
I
� t
$ (O
I'
I
H
I
I
�
I
I
z
I-
0
I
I
o. z
SIS
I
U
w
I
Cl)
NNm
I
I
I
'
D
g �
z
I
20 d
rn +
O
N n
W�J
W�
I
rA
- --
--
—
``ee
Ill '1 �
;ir .o�
00 d•.�:
-cc 65
LLI
_
of
left
N
+
=
7 � ge
J
SO �
ZV� $+
R v+
W
t; _ �,
ic m
CL
�os S
° g,+ �i'
jv
8 E3
_
I
,
m
+
I
N_
I
u4
I
N
(
$ (O
I
H
, I
�
I
z
I-
0
1
I
U
w
I
Cl)
I
Y^
D
g �
z
I
�d N
O
W�J
W�
0
m
1
I
I
�
Y
I
('
w
I
IY
I-
U
I
i-
O O
I
z,o
—
I
—1--
- --
- --
� O
- -
I
1
~
CO
to

fito emipwu mmm
ZLLL ZS4 9Z9 Xej
9Z 7X3 W W Z54 9Z9 eu04d
99LOZ BullolSO LYON 'elllAsSUA- A
Asmssejdx3 ule3unoyq AIowS lewO OE90Z
dnoaf) jueweaue4u3 Pe48Je3eM
uuroO "wnosea OMIPItM B11IPA80 WON
311JOHd'8 Mild N01133S SVAHd sLZZ9LCSLS ?B� ,., .. m I
nanosaa a 1a«!. ti tit 11-f rn
SJNIM"(3 L-AW 9L=LL M eu04d ` °
409LZ ON '48181821 ��" Vvv� m CS } v ' o
C L H L Buns ' PN8 IBNdBO BZLi o a p m $*
TRMN ON'UW0038WOONne Z£9Z6 ON 103rOUd d33 we>;6wdLuew8oue4u3wej9Asoo3 �, d jai z m
NOUVEAMY >1331AO ANIWOH H1f10S _wj pejede d a LL m I
��
t I ?r
, d,
I
;•gyp.,, .�.. No .;
M
�•'�
ti
"I N
00
Z: U3
I
LO
n
,t
X59
IV I t \\ I
I
\
\� '� ` `I• \\
1
QC)
1 � �
\ \ `
'y l i l \'• \ o.
II
�d>
1 pZ
,\` -, � \ i
N
Y Z
I
\�
O
i1 �
%
I
I
i
I
I
I+
I
I
I
I
I
e
O
U')
I
I
I
I
�
I
'I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
bm
1
,I I'
l
I
1
t
I 11,
liY I'
Id ih
•I
1
If
I1, ,
I;
I
\
j
I
I
t o to
I
-/t1
a
I
��
: .
j
I } 1 I
I
I
t I ?r
, d,
I
Y
LLJ
LLJ
x
t-
4 I
'
^ p I
J i
a I
I �f i hid o
ROAD _
C)
;•gyp.,, .�.. No .;
M
�•'�
'•sue:
"I N
00
= U
Z: U3
I
LO
n
I
X59
wZNd
I
e� } M
'� tO M
I
II
�d>
N
Y Z
I
O
I
'
I
Y
LLJ
LLJ
x
t-
4 I
'
^ p I
J i
a I
I �f i hid o
ROAD _
C)
;•gyp.,, .�.. No .;
M
�•'�
'•sue:
,�r0
00
= U
Z: U3
I
LO
n
I
O
�
wZNd
I
e� } M
'� tO M
I
II
�d>
N
Y Z
I
O
I
I
I
I
-
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
O
U')
I
I
I
I
�
I
'I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
P
I�
I
I
I
I
t o to
I
C4
I
I
I
v
�
I
I
I
I
i
�
I '
I
I
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
t
_ .
I
I
N�
I
+
N
W
l
J
LL
i
I
0
g--
0-
,
-
--
d
I
1
�
�
�
I
�
}
I
-
'
Z
I
O
Z
O
I
U
LLI
- -1
--
- --
W-
U
I
fn
o
i
Q
W
w
I
i
S
LLI
U
- -�
——
�
U
}-
_
Z
2
1
D
0 v
cn N
'0
V J
;•gyp.,, .�.. No .;
M
�•'�
'•sue:
,�r0
00
= U
Z: U3

ZLLL ZS4 8ZB XBJ
9Z IX3 M9 Z54'BZ8 euoyd
98LBZ eupaeO WON 'eplASMAOM
Asmssejdx3 ujujunoyy 4owS ImE) 0£80Z
dnoi9 ;ueweoueyu3 . pe4saeleM
a�8 31IdOHd 2 N` Id zin v un 6LZZ•SLL'U6 •Xed v
oaoanos3a It, Ali I ii;ll.,. rn
$JNI/1A�d21a 6"JlW 9LVO 9 L 6L6 euoyd a N
409LZ ON '461 -emu to CS Y v o
vrinoavo co l H L emnS ' pN9 IBJIde'J 8ZLZ i In o m= ' o
11iaoN ON AINnoo 39WOONne Z£9Z6 ON 103rONd d33' wvJBwd)ueweoue4u3 weis�tsoo3 d z� � z
NOUVE)IlIW N33HO JINIWOH H1f10S �o;pe�ede�d ° LL m co
xu
\ 1
IS1
r
g'x CANTER FIELD LANE
i O
Iv
_ t ( � \ ` � ✓� v �rT
\ o
/ N
o \b
i= ti
/ 63 /
;\
V.
I 1
0
cl /
` o
CL Z
/
W UJ
�
Lo
,uW =
r:%'. 0 =C�: U``
o
LC) -- -- IIIIIIII 111111 \ \ \ \`\
•° - -- - -- - -- N
II
R�
U
1•�
W
g
u
N �
0
:3 rn
0
of
L1
Lo
II
r
Oi
w
z
ao
R 11
L
r m
O
D N
P,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
N
dn
I
I
1uj
I
I
C9
i
I
I
LAJ
LIJ
a
I
r
co
m
I
I
I
_
I
Nj
I
1
+�
N V1 ?5
+
r
NN
cc
Wa
3
� J
LL '0'0
—
- --
- --
0 —
U) ,� a
0 11
a
7
X
JO �
I 1
0
cl /
` o
CL Z
/
W UJ
�
Lo
,uW =
r:%'. 0 =C�: U``
o
LC) -- -- IIIIIIII 111111 \ \ \ \`\
•° - -- - -- - -- N
II
R�
U
1•�
W
g
u
N �
0
:3 rn
0
of
L1
Lo
II
r
Oi
w
z
ao
R 11
L
r m
O
D N
P,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
N
dn
I
I
1uj
I
I
C9
i
I
I
a
I
r
co
m
I
I
I
_
I
Nj
I
1
+�
N V1 ?5
�i
J_
�U_ O_O
0 II II
T
>
N m
v
DM
N
N
O
z
01
°
H
N
N
z
O
W
Q
0
W
co
}
g
I
1uj
0
cc
Wa
3
� J
LL '0'0
—
- --
- --
0 —
0 11
0
F_ to
N
N
O
z
01
°
H
N
N
z
O
W
Q
0
W
co
}
g

C
Bio epipll mou m mme
�'• � � •
.,�
i �
No
u
00
II
ZLLL ZSfi•9Z9 •Xed ac`s 1°Yw
9Z 7X3 WW Z94 9Z9 eu0yd s3oanosaa
3- 11=1OUd T NVId £lf1
6=91,L61,6 Xej
jti,
0
M
'
.. •'fie �.
w
SJNIMbda 6'.lW
9LY0 SLL 6L6 •euoyd .
'46181821
N
a
99LBZ eullae0 4P0N 'epinseu� BM
� a msswdx3 uli4unoW /GlowS VNnoavo
�+f'"
Y09LZ ON
co L HL BAnS' PN9 I8Lld8J 9ZLZ
m
r
o w
Z
6
w
=
o
peso 0E80Z
ON AINf10O 38WOONne Z£9Z6 ON 103f OHd d33
weiBa uewe0us u W8
d1 4 3 isA�3
f
o
�v�
>
z
co
dnw �ueweous u HINON
fl 4 3, peysje>jeM
uolsslwwoo sownosea e;llpllM supaeo yyoN
NOIlHJI111N >133HO ANIWOH H1f10S
,ol,pmede d
s
m `-
�,
z M
m
m o
H' O
l9' � N
\ I
L,�
q� a
0
o
to
�'• � � •
.,�
i �
No
u
00
II
00
•�
LL
0
2,Z i
0
0
' •••
,
.. •'fie �.
'I-
�+f'"
-
1 I
f
I
+/,
wa
r
£SX -un
I
I
I
1
Q
�V X ,-
/ �
I
I
1�
q4,
, 1 W
a I z
:3
1
J
f
I
I
r -
I
v
raft � n
Y N u+
/
+ N
l?
tj
+ II
+u
'
+ II
/
ci
J9f1 -
In
AD
l9' � N
\ I
L,�
q� a
0
o
to
�'• � � •
.,�
i �
No
u
00
II
00
•�
LL
0
2,Z i
0
0
' •••
,
�
I
w
z
a
� II
C �
� o
D to
%%111 fell,,
fill / / / /.�.
�'• � � •
.,�
i �
No
:0
`tip.,
±;�,
00
Q v)
00
•�
LL
0
2,Z i
I
' •••
,
.. •'fie �.
'I-
I
I
I
-
I
I
1
f
I
I
I
Y N u+
/
+ N
+ II
+u
'
+ II
/
N d
/
/
Y
+
C
Ed
%%111 fell,,
fill / / / /.�.
�'• � � •
.,�
i �
No
:0
`tip.,
±;�,
00
Q v)
00
•�
LL
0
2,Z i
' •••
,
.. •'fie �.
3
I
I
N
J_
LL o G
all a�.11
>
M o

Bio eAlpilmou
:F,;:,, ZLLLZ949Z9 �sswavy� 3If1a3HOS I? IIVl3a JNIlNVId OHS xe °°•• N 9Z LX3 WWz949Z9 e saoanos3a Ij��yXjrJ`$ N N N
$JNIMV?�a l'JlW 9LV0 9LL 6L6 euoyd a s
409LZ ON '4BIe1821 " 6 > LL LL
99L9Z eullaeO 41+oN 'elllASewteM n `pi WW m
£OL H L e71 s' pN8 IeUdeo 9ZLZ o m
,temsseldx3 ujelunoyy Mows ieele pggpZ vanoavn ON 'Jl1Nf100 38WOONf18 Z£9Z6 ON 103f'02id d33 welBad Iueweoueyu3 wele�lsoo3 Z a y z° rn
dnoag �ueweoueyu3 peyaleyeM MHON m , O
uolselwwo� se�nosea eplplV>A eupae� y�loN NOIlV�JIlIW X133210 JINIWOH H1f10S .loo peledeld m g
° `uuuuuu muummu mmm°�m Q
,a o uu u v v u
a
r� O O p Go d 'a = 0 0 " o o - 0
0- O - v. 0 M O rl o
0 0 O o p�
U) m ,-� .r nl •-• v, O •-� 01 .r ,-. ,--� .-� .-� .-� —6 14
M d W1
•� m EI
O a A
W � �
rl r•1 r7 ry eel rl rl N rl It r11 ^I r`I rV N r1 r1 N rl
N .. C $
y. O Y
Go rTi Lev UVraV Vl� (�l- Il- iuv�:v V � UC.1UVCiU�VVC..�c:�v
'0 �'Cu,'pC -t T -COOS
w www w ww www wwwww'wwww
m
p In v ZZ Cl ° m a
Q C
n u >yyv C p N '.�.
N^ Ah V "C g g •i,.s r: N
'�CJ " �`O= o g e•�,�o�o a vo�� a � C�C� � � �
•p �i' a ,� ° ° c C `C y bij .G �^ ° y ° C , " 0
y Vi V C N C C e C
p c o^ f� G' obi o, 5i C d U p
lu C o�io'�yC ° C� v��a� �a,
Lz u 9 a ti
PL, o a `� ti
m r
Y - °
ig
O A s v,
p C 6 0 cuy a au4 �Q byu cq� ° a, a 5oay4 ro° N a.2 o
M c PQ m L� Co w p A� IA a m m l� C� �[ P. N L� n V) m
w
u w
N �! cc cr
4) I r I- I N d �+
tlJ �
1= • p b lu N O
rJ a u
y
N
v O O G O
o
fu
v
� n
V m
✓� Fi � N ^1 •`1 rl rl rl r! 11 M M ^1 M '' r'1 ^1 rl rl rl rl �'1 �^1 r'1 M M rl nl M M M M
r
N
0.l
M
a nr r e a 0 0
O G C C C fi
a
ZO 'E
y. z y s 6 Ey = ° a sa, o = two ° _
C R r .� v z ? �°. r+ ,s r� A' �' '^ h V " e- t' lz p oCi
i Q► O C "� O C G h o, C go C e y v h
�y tz
°Pr gv°Ty�s�e QR
�au•� oz o N C •wC• eO ,
�x
,u r
°
.p ", '.'�J 41 �� �• iL !�' tai' '° �N, ,Ci .O '$
N wP4v3 �GPDP0P4Aw�7c�i:4.9 -1zz0aw r �iv�i (nV)in✓ J) 'n
b1J
v ,d
v v
G
F. m
;♦ gyp..• "r`'• O ':
00
�Ut
L_
.......••��� ♦ ♦♦
30Nmnma 30 pyin ao
AWONn08 1N31'CM NOLLYA83SNOD
a n
s
•► � 1,
sti
y
e
0
N�z
w
PP
N
z�
Z5
z
X
V N
Z
O
W'N
Mix
rL
As
V) i
O m
/Lad
N
�p
W
N /
o:
O N
U
g�
N
w
V1
N
~W
N
d
Ed
8 IS
e
Z�g
1
2 �O
W
3oNVeanm jo limn ao
AMNnoB 1N3M3SV3 NOWAa3SN00

Bio empllmou nnMM
ZLLLZ94'9Z8 Xe� �os�"'°w M31A NVld JNIINVld - 311S mnONVIS 64ZZ94L646 Xej �,: '• , ' a
9Z 3X3 4649 Z94 9Z9 euoyd s3oanMH :'.,z r i ' t <n
SJNIMVW] 6 -AIN 9LY094L646'euoydlwa N LL
99LOZ euliaeD WON 'epa\sew(eM ' pAIS iN '4 9ZLZ � co w �
CO 4 H4 B3lnS' PN8 I�deJ HZLZ o a
.ceMSSe,dx3 ulelunolry tilauS 3Bw�J o£90Z vwioavo ON `AUNf10O MINOONne Z£9Z6 ON 103rMld d33 wluBad lueweouetlu3 welr.Asoo3 Z d v=i z° o
dnojp ;ueweaueyu3 peysUePM Hiaoa ib z m o,
uolsslwwoo seomosea elNlpilM eupas� 43�oN NOUVE)IM >133HO ANIWOH HIhOS �oj pejede�d m m
uj
LL
N \ ;d0 .6d ••��
a } \
� T Y I T \
CL
O
Y
\` 00
i II
o z N
D, G O
co
J II
o � Z
®1 x
ji
o
I
I r r
r rt a
i
I � o
I �t
i
i
Z
z
g
o
Y / E N
c V
\ \� m r < c Q C Q w
c _ V a f4
"T w �i c z rn o n N E o D
d ^� w c II II U
w z
C3 p o 6 o ca" t "' Q
ui
LLJ _ c ._ c ._
U w ti> ri .i A CO O� � W
m ° eo CO m
3 � U
_ a Z
I > �
I = o
000
= F=-
i > a D m
_ _ 0 to

6io elllPllmou mmm
ZLLL ZS4'9Z9 :xej
9Z 7X3 W W Zoo 9Z9 eu04d
99LOZ eugaeO 41JON '8111nseuAQ
AwAsmdx3 uje;unoVj 4owS Leej°J 0£90Z
dnoia luewe0ue4u3 P049JO48M
H LL7
o� r
a
c� z
0
0
`s v
aoanos3a
M31A NVId JNUNYld - 311S ninON` IG
6LZZSUM Xed,,, -,
Iu,,(1L5 it [it -
c
•b'•. O
�
In
a
00
SONIMW10 6-AW
9LVO9LL6L6 euo4d.
'4618188
�,
N
vanoava
'Jl1Nf10J
W9LZ ON
£OL HL eUnS' PN9'lellde'J BZLZ
m
rn
0
p
>
m
U. LL
-
Nlaor+
ON 38W0'JNf18 Z£9Z6 ON 1O3f02id d33
wei6wd )ueweoue4u3 wGPAs003
d
y
>
i r
NOUVEM11W >13M10 ANIWOH Hinos
roj pejedeJd
m
n
z
o,
O
a
W t°
a °,a
y C N M C O
m pTj t C C C V ° O
CL
c
0 I Z v z cN vN a�EiN
w H o 2 0 c o
d ° [2 a 12 o La
W r- CL CE O W .2 cr a
E
m ° c �
U �z m z
v
3�
a �
I i i i
Il
D
I 1 It A
i
1` o
� J
1 a
1�
x
a.�
� D
spy �
0
0
00 .
0
00
II
5i
v
v
N
0
sd 11
V
z
}
o�
= tll
O
CIO) m
°
Ov' P
•b'•. O
00
LL =
0
0
00 .
0
00
II
5i
v
v
N
0
sd 11
V
z
}
o�
= tll
O
CIO) m
°

• • •o
�
' CO
1 1 • O 381NOONne ZC9Z6 • •
• • •
R.
•
Ci ■fir'■
�a: • ♦ •
V�
,3�,`je_,��• ��•• '�' R ■CSC r � r . •� �
• n^
1
11
I
c Lo 00
m KP C14
cm a
In CL La
v 0 CL
FE o
c ow
•,
Q m in M uouunri ,,,,•
uuuo ■ ■n "„"
uouaon
iuuuuui ",,,'
iuouuui
iuu■■u■■i 1,111
uorouui
uuuuuri
uuuu■oi I�//„
uouuu■i
uuuorrri
0
cD
0
ao _
0
n
r
ai
0
cU
P
U
W
U
P%
O
eco
m
O
N