20181271 Ver 1_Mitigation Monitoring Report Review_20211029

Mitigation Project Name
DMSID
River Basin
Cataloging Unit
County
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
100083
Yadkin
03040101
Surry
USACE Action ID
DWR Permit
Date Project Instituted
Date Prepared
Stream/Wet. Service Area
Signature of Official Approving Credit Release
2018-01789
2018-1271
6/22/2018
9/24/2021
Yadkin 03040101
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone (Site Establishment).
2 - For NCDMS projects, the initial credit release milestone occurs when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been approved by the
NCIRT and posted to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria are met:
1) Approval of Final Mitigation Plan;
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property;
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan;
4) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit issuance is not required.
3 - A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankful event performance standard has been met.
Credit Release Milestone
Cool Stream Credits
Project Credits
Scheduled
Releases %
Estimated
Scheduled
Release #
Proposed
Released #
Not Approved
#Releases
Approved
Credits
Anticipated
Release
Year
Approved
Release
Date
1 - Site Establishment
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 - Year 0 / As -Built
30.00%
1,438.030
1,438.030
0.000
1,438.032
2021
9/24/2021
3 - Year 1 Monitoring
10.00%
479.343
2022
4 - Year 2 Monitoring
10.00%
479.343
2023
5 - Year 3 Monitoring
10.00%
479.343
2024
6 - Year 4 Monitoring
5.00%
239.672
2025
7 - Year 5 Monitoring
10.00%
479.343
2026
8 - Year 6 Monitoring
5.00%
239.672
2027
9 - Year 7 Monitoring
10.00%
479.343
2028
Stream Bankfull Standard
10.00%
479.343
2025
Totals
1,438.032
Total Gross Credits
4,793.432
Total Unrealized Credits to Date
0.000
Total Released Credits to Date
1,438.032
Total Percentage Released
30.00%
Remaining Unreleased Credits
3,355.400
Notes
Contingencies (if any)
Project Quantities
Mitigation Type
Restoration Type
Physical Quantity
Cool Stream
Restoration
2,842.775
Cool Stream
Enhancement I
210.849
Cool Stream
Enhancement II
5,639.220
Page 1 of 2

Mitigation Project Name Honey Mill Mitigation Site USACE Action ID 2018-01789
DMS ID 100083 DWR Permit 2018-1271
River Basin Yadkin Date Project Instituted 6/22/2018
Cataloging Unit 03040101 Date Prepared 9/24/2021
County Surry Stream/Wet. Service Area Yadkin 03040101
Debits
Cool Stream
Restoration
Credits
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
4,793.432
Released Credits
1,438.032
Unrealized Credits
0.000
Converted Credits
0.000
Owning Program
Req. Id
TIP #
Project Name
USACE
Permit #
DWR
Permit #
DCM Permit
#
Remaining Balance (Released credits)
1,438.032
Remaining Balance (Unreleased credits)
3,355.400
Total Remaining Balance (Released and Unreleased credits)
4,793.432
Page 2 of 2

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Honey Mill Mitigation Site/ SAW-2018-01789/ Surry
County
Date: Monday, November 1, 2021 7:54:11 AM
Attachments: Honey Mill 100083 YD 101 STR Initial Release KB.odf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR# 20181271 v.1
Doc Type — Mitigation Monitoring Report Review
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
[mailto: Kimberly. [e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 12:53 PM
To: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie
<[e-mail]>; Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; Aaron Earley
<[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie
<[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Stanfill, Jim <[e-mail]>;
Hajnos, Edward A <[e-mail]>; Horton, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Honey Mill Mitigation Site/ SAW-2018-
01789/ Surry County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Good afternoon Kelly and Paul,
The 15-Day As-Built/MYO review for the Honey Mill Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-01789) ended
October 26, 2021. This review was done in accordance with Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule. All comments received from the NCIRT are incorporated in the email below. Please
address IRT concerns by replying to this email and document your responses in the MY1 Report.
There were no objections to issuing the initial (30% ) credit release of 1438.030 cool SMUs. Please
find attached the current signed ledger. The IRT is not requesting a site visit at this time.
USACE Comments; Kim Browning:
1. USACE concurs with DWR's comments, particularly #3. The Mitigation Goals and Objectives in
the final mitigation plan state that existing forested riparian buffers will be enhanced and
protected. The project implementation portion of the final mit plan states that along each
restoration and enhancement reach, cattle will be excluded and open areas of the buffer will
be planted. Removing supplemental planting is a modification to what was agreed upon and
changes the overall functional return. The IRT requires that the originally agreed upon

planting plan be implemented or credit ratios on UT2, UT2A and UT5 will be adjusted prior to
the next credit release.
2. The legend on Figure 3 shows the same symbols for permanent and mobile veg plots.
3. The 10-ft farm path should be shown on the figures in future monitoring reports.
4. Do the allowable activities in the easement exceptions allow for maintenance of the farm
path? The IRT would have preferred for the farm path to be excluded from the easement.
NCDWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Section 1.3.2 (UT5) —The narrative states that pre -construction the downstream channel's
flow disconnected from the original stream alignment and during construction the
disconnected portion of channel was abandoned and backfilled and the flow was reconnected
with its natural flow path. Why was this not shown as a deviation on the Sheet 1.33 redline?
2. Section 5.1.6 — Please elaborate on the data point based alignment change for the upstream
portion of UT5 (Enhancement II reach).
Section 5.1.7 —The statement, "Some areas of supplemental planting were removed at the
engineer's discretion", is not a valid justification for altering the planting plan that was
submitted and approved in the Final Mitigation Plan. It appears that no supplemental
planting was completed in the riparian buffers along UT2, UT2A, UT5. Additionally, only half
of the riparian buffers along UT3, UT4, UT6 and sections of Venable Creek were supplemental
planted. Based on the redline drawings this appears to be a substantial modification to the
approved Plan. Please provide a percent area of the Shaded Supplemental Planting Zone that
was not planted. DWR is recommending that supplemental plantings in these areas be
implemented in accordance with the approved Plan during the next dormant season or
adjustments to credit ratios be considered.
4. Section 5.1.8 — For the section of fence line removal, what was the adjacent land use changed
to?
5. Section 5.2.2 — Are there any long term management concerns with having the culvert extend
beyond the internal crossing? Will it require additional coordination with Stewardship on any
pipe maintenance/replacement?
6. Sheet 1.8 — Please confirm that the pre -construction profile as shown resulted in no changes
with ford crossing installation.
7. Table 9 — It's very nice to see a good species diversity across all of the veg plots.
USEPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. 1 noted all (very few) redline changes in the plan diagrams and concur with all changes. My
only comment is that structures update in red for the plan views should also appear in the
stream profile to help illustrate differences in the planned or designed grade and the actual
grade of either the thalweg or banks.
2. Figures 3.3, 3.4 and Sheet 1.5: What happened to the fence that seems to end around UT213

and begins again around the top of UTS? It appears open ended but is this suitable even with
the change in land use (livestock removal) of the adjacent (former) pasture?
3. Very pleased to see additional land fenced off on the north side of Venable Creek to provide
more buffer between the pasture and the riparian zone within the conservation easement.
4. Encroachment of CE due to requested landowner access road noted with no corrective action
needed.
5. Planting followed the plan very closely with just a few minor substitutions; all appear suitable
and maintains a diverse mix of species and habits.
6. UT2B does not appear on the Planting Plan sheets 2.2 and 2.5.
7. All the photos of the streams, veg plots, and mature trees are excellent.
Please reach out with any questions.
Regards,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers