20181271 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2021_20220224

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20181271 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/24/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/24/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Kelly Phillips [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20181271 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Honey Mill Mitigation Site
County: Surry
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: HoneyMill_100083_MY1_2021.pdf 12.93MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Kelly Phillips
Signature:*
Zeilpt P Ellis

1 _ /y
A Ft " f 2-
�I ' ! ! ja 1 '-x .�,4. r- rx y
r �'i _ k f Jy6 *r
ire 9 T °'' v..j. :r°F
� iqqll " h � a6= ['ate; r `+'� � -Y �yy� F �'''.:
''II:'''i:*
'---i''
id._.;:r..r.:3::, F 5, '� �zi,..,:::,11,"...,,7,_::::._,.-.,.;:.i,:-.
:''
4.
eyf " _:y^-� y�. *vim i' „ r=''' .''':::'i l''''''.�:14
l' `'
4'4'C-4-'-':.
'+,".� ) %M
l:r''''I''''.'''''1°'--'1::.
I.
'.4::':-..
:''...
'":'—'''-r1:.::I
-.':''
� �" Ya ,�` .vz`�. . � �: n`:':
.ir‘
'':
:11:71.
Aril- t.� ga_v ,. e �� " fY tM. .Yr.�
MONITORING YEAR 1 HONEY MILL MITIGATI:V.ON SITE
.-';I:'1°'4'-:''—''''*-'-'''''
Surry County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT DEQContractNo. 7619
-:-''
DMS Project No. 100083
FINAL Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101
USAGE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01789
NCDEQ DWR#: 18-1271
RFP#: 16-00746
RFP Issuance Date: December 7, 2017
Data Collection Period: October 2021—December 2021
FINAL Submission Date: February 18, 2022
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

°Vail*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
February 18, 2022
Mr. Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
RE: Draft Year 1 Monitoring Report
Honey Mill Mitigation Site, Surry County
Yadkin River CU 03040101
DMS Project ID No. 100083/ DEQ Contract#007619
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services(DMS) comments
from the Draft Year 1 Monitoring Report for the Honey Mill Mitigation Site that were received on January
31,2022.The report has been updated to reflect those comments.The Final MY1 Report is included. DMS'
comments are listed below in bold. Wildlands' responses to DMS' comments are noted in italics.
DMS'comment:Add the RFP issuance date to the report cover.
Wildlands'response: The RFP issuance date of December 7, 2017, has been added to the report cover.
DMS' comment: Please reference the January 3rd approval for the 2.5 acres of proposed replanting in
the executive summary. Consider adding an adaptive management section to the report to detail any
additional efforts required to assess any concerns specific to this issue beyond routine stem counts.Will
supplemental evaluation be conducted to validate the success of the replanted areas of are soil samples
being submitted for laboratory analysis?
Wildlands'response: The date of approval has been added to the executive summary.
As stated in the MY1 report for Honey Mill's Mitigation Site, the 2.5 acres of supplemental planting will
be conducted only within in wetland areas and/or areas of the floodplain which are trending much
wetter than previously anticipated. The Site's planting list for implementation after construction did not
contain a good mix of bareroot species tolerant to wet or saturated soil conditions, especially facultative
species with a wetland indicator status of FACW or OBL. The determination for our proactive approach to
supplementally plant with species more conducive to wetland and wetland type conditions was to
address a planting oversight for the proposed areas, prevent potential stem mortality, and keep
vegetation densities and vigor within the floodplain thriving. Therefore, Wildlands used professional
judgement to determine the necessary course of action, rather than developing an adaptive
management plan for replanting an area under the minimum replanting threshold or conducting
laboratory soil analysis. Neither of which would likely provide any additional, necessary information than
what was presented in the MY1 report.
Wildlands is not planning to provide any supplemental evaluation of the replanting areas. Currently,
Wildlands conducts site-wide reviews of the project area, as well as vegetation plot monitoring
throughout the open planted areas. With 5 permanent vegetation plots located within the replanted
areas and 4 mobile plots that will be relocated throughout the open planted areas within the riparian
corridor, the replanted areas will be sufficiently monitored.Additionally, when the NC IRT approved our
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
proposed species list, there was no mention of needing any additional monitoring nor providing an
adaptive management plan.
DMS'comment: Please indicate in Section 1.4.2 if any previous invasive treatments were conducted in
the areas of concern being treated this dormant season. Are the invasives resprouts, seedlings or
areas not previously treated?
Wildlands'response: The following sentence has been added to section 1.4.2 for clarification: These areas
of invasives are present in the existing forested areas have not been previously treated at this stage of the
project. All areas of invasives are scheduled to be treated before the onset of the 2022 growing season.
DMS' comment: Please include an outline showing the approximate 2.5-acre replanting areas on the
CCPV Figures.
Wildlands'response: Figures have been updated to show the wetland supplemental planting area.
DMS' comment:Add the date the visual assessments were conducted to the top of each visual
assessment table.
Wildlands'response: The date has been added to all visual assessment tables.
Digital Support File Comments:
DMS'comment: Please submit the features that characterize the random vegetation plots in the
digital deliverables.
Wildlands' response: Digital deliverables have been updated to add the random vegetation plot feature
class.
DMS' comment:There were several issues noted with the vegetation table and supporting data:
1. Please ensure that the submitted input workbook for the veg tool supports the table included in the
report. The differences between the data and report table occur with the random plots.This appears
to be caused by blank height values in the submission. Please explain why there are blank height cells
for random plots.
2. Be sure to include each year's random plot data in the random plot sheets so that the vegetation
performance standards summary table includes these data.
3. Please do not change the color coding of the output-this color coding is based on the 2016 IRT
guidance for vegetation performance standards and it is monitoring year specific.
4. Note that in the input template Nyssa Sylvatica and Nyssa sylvatica are both used since the drop-
down list was overwritten. Please correct this so that only Nyssa sylvatica is included (e.g., lowercase
species name).
Wildlands'response: Wildlands has re-entered the random vegetation plot data. The black height values
were present to show that the stems were missing rather than confirmed dead. However, the raw data
and summary table have been updated to show only the stems that were confirmed present in MY1 with
height values. The raw data now matches the performance standards summary table. The color coding
has been updated to the IRT guidance and the species have been updated using the dropdown list.
As requested, Wildlands has included two (2) hard copies of the final report, a full final .pdf copy of the
report with the DMS comment letter and our response letter inserted after the cover page, and a full
final electronic submittal of the support files.A copy of the DMS comment letter and our response letter
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

‘14111111.1111"
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
have been included inside the front cover of each report's hard copy, as well. Please let me know if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
//R/u(147__S---,fs
Kristi Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

PREPARED BY:
PIIIIP
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full-delivery stream mitigation project at the
Honey Mill Mitigation Site (Site)for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS).The project restored and enhanced a total of 8,683 linear feet
(LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in Surry County, NC.The Site is located within the Rutledge,
Stoney and Flat Shoal Creek—Ararat River targeted local watershed (TWL)and NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-07-03.The project is providing 4,793.432 cool stream mitigation units
(SMUs)for the Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101110020.
The Site's immediate drainage area as well as the surrounding watershed has a long history of
agricultural activity.The project excludes livestock, creates stable stream banks, converts pasture to
forest, and implements BMPs to filter agricultural runoff. These actions address stressors by reducing
fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs to project streams, and ultimately to the Ararat River, and
reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on the Site to upstream and downstream resources.
Approximately 20.2-acres of land has been placed under permanent conservation easement to protect
the Site in perpetuity.The established project goals include:
• Improve stream channel stability,
• Treat concentrated agricultural run-off,
• Improve in-stream habitat,
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and wetland vegetation,
• Exclude livestock from streams,and
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses.
The Site's construction and as-built survey were completed between February- May 2021. Planting of
the Site and installation of monitoring features occurred in late February 2021. Fencing installation was
completed in May 2021. In Monitoring Year 1 (MY1), the Site has met the required stream success
criteria.The average planted stem density is 379 stems/acre and is on track to meet the MY3
requirements. Seventy-nine percent of vegetation plots met criteria.The three vegetation plots with low
stem densities are located in either wetland areas or areas trending wetter than anticipated; therefore,
Wildlands proposed voluntarily replanting these areas within the restored riparian corridor
(approximately 2.5 acres) with more wetland tolerant species to the IRT.The supplemental wetland
planting was approved by the IRT January 3, 2021 and the correspondence is available in Appendix G. In
addition to these areas, Wildlands will supplementally plant approximately 7.0 acres of the established
riparian forest as initially outlined in the Site's Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020) and subsequent MVO
IRT Comment Response Letter dated 12/7/21. All supplemental planting areas will be conducted in
2022, prior to the onset of the growing season. No bankfull events were documented during MY1.The
MY1 visual assessment identified four invasive vegetation areas of concern within the wooded
enhancement II reaches.These areas will be treated in MY2.
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL iii

HONEY MILL MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 1-2
1.3 Project Attributes 1-4
1.4 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment 1-6
1.4.1 Vegetation Assessment 1-6
1.4.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity 1-7
1.4.3 Stream Assessment 1-8
1.4.4 Stream Hydrology Assessment 1-8
1.4.5 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity 1-9
1.5 Monitoring Year 2 Summary 1-9
Section 2: METHODOLOGY 2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES 3-1
▪ Honey Mill Mitigation Site
• Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL iv

TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
Table 1.1: Credit Summary Table 1-2
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements 1-3
Table 3: Project Attributes 1-4
FIGURE'
Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View(Key)
Figures la-d Current Condition Plan View
APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data
Table 4a-c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Mature Tree Photographs
Permanent and Mobile Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross-Section)
Cross-Section Plots
Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Recorded Bankfull Events
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 12 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 13 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Supplemental Planting Documentation
Proposed Supplemental Planting (1/3/22 email)
Table 14 Proposed Wetland Supplemental Planting
Figure 2 Proposed Wetland Supplemental Planting Areas
Table 15 Proposed Shaded Supplemental Planting
Honey Mill Mitigation Site Record Drawings—Planting Overview (Redlines)
Appendix G Correspondence
Monitoring Year 0 (MYO) Report Comments 12/7/21
DMS Technical Workgroup Memo (10/19/2021)
Pebble Count Data Requirements (11/18/2021 email)
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL v

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full-delivery stream mitigation project at
the Honey Mill Mitigation Site (Site)for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS).The project restored and enhanced a total of 8,683
linear feet(LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in Surry County, NC.The Site is located within
the Rutledge, Stoney and Flat Shoal Creek—Ararat River targeted local watershed (TWL)and NC
Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-07-03. A conservation easement has been
recorded and is in place on 20.2 acres.The project is providing 4,793.432 cool stream mitigation
units (SMUs)for the Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101110020.The Site
contains eight unnamed tributaries (UTs)to Venable Creek(UT1, UT2, UT2A, UT2B, UT3, UT4, UT5,
and UT6) and the mainstem of Venable Creek, which has been broken into four reaches and flows
in a north easterly direction through the site. Multiple riparian wetlands exist on-site, however, no
credit is being sought for project wetlands.
Please refer to Table 1 and Table 1.1 for project credits by stream and the credit summary table
respectively. Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated to
commence in 2027 given the success criteria are met.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
Project Components
Mitigation Mitigatio
Project Stream Plan As Built Mitigation Restoration n Ratio Credits
Footage1 z,a Footage Category Level (X:1)
Venable Creek Reach 1 91 91.000 Cool ElI 2.500 36.386
Venable Creek Reach 2 211 211.000 Cool El 1.500 140.566
Venable Creek Reach 3 1647 1,647.000 Cool R 1.000 1,646.644
Venable Creek Reach 4 1958 1,958.000 Cool ElI 2.500 783.042
UT1 273 273.000 Cool R 1.000 272.885
UT2 Reach 1 742 742.000 Cool ElI 4.000 185.462
UT2 Reach 2 342 332.000 Cool R 1.000 342.364
UT2A 893 893.000 Cool ElI 4.000 223.310
UT2B 70 70.000 Cool N/A 0.000 0.000
UT3 Reach 1 784 784.000 Cool ElI 3.000 261.279
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-1

Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
Project Components
Mitigation Mitigatio
Project Stream Plan As Built Mitigation Restoration n Ratio Credits
Footage1 z,a Footage Category Level (X:1)
UT3 Reach 2 306 306.000 Cool R 1.000 306.172
UT4 440 440.000 Cool ElI 3.000 146.780
UT5 518 518.000 Cool Ell 3.000 172.553
UT6 Reach 1 214 213.000 Cool ElI 3.000 71.242
UT6 Reach 2 205 205.000 Cool R 1.000 204.747
Total: 4,793.432
Notes:
1.Internal culvert crossing and external break excluded from the credited stream footage.
2.No direct Credit for BMP's.
3.UT6 originates within an overhead powerline easement.The conservation easement extends up to UT6's origin under the
powerline,but proposed crediting does not begin until the stream exits the overhead easement.
Table 1.1:Credit Summary Table
Project Credits
Stream
Restoration Level
Warm Cool Cold
Restoration N/A 2,772.812 N/A
Enhancement I N/A 140.566 N/A
Enhancement II N/A 1,880.054 N/A
Preservation N/A N/A N/A
Totals N/A 4,793.432 N/A
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is providing numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin River Basin. The Site was selected
based on its potential to support the objectives and goals of multiple conservation and watershed
planning documents such as the 2009 Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) and the
2015 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Communion's (NCWRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP).Table 2 below
describes the project goals and how functional uplift at the site will be measured and monitored.
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Nef Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-2

Table 2:Goals,Performance Criteria,and Functional Improvements
Cumulative
Goal Objective/Treatment Likely Functional Performance Measurement Monitoring
Uplift Criteria
Results
Install livestock
fencing on all or Visually
portions of the Site monitor
There is no
Exclude and/or permanently fenced
Reduced agricultural required No cattle
livestock remove livestock runoff and cattle performance portions of observed in
from stream from all or portions trampling in streams. standard for this site to ensure easement.
channels. of the Site to exclude no cattle are
livestock from stream metric. entering the
channels and riparian easement.
areas.
Bank height All cross
Reduction in ratios remain sections have a
Construct stream below 1.2 over
sediment inputs from 11 cross- BHR<1.2.
Improve channels that will the monitoring
stabilityof maintain stable cross- bank erosion, section Channels are
period.Visual
reduction of shear surveys in stable have
stream sections, patterns, assessments
stress,and improved MY1,2,3,5, maintained the
channels. and profiles over showing
overall hydraulic &7. constructed
time. function. progression riffle and pool
towards
stability. sequence.
Reconstruct stream Four bankfull
Reconnect channels with events, No bankfull
channels appropriate bankfull Dispersion of high occurring in Venable Creek events
with dimensions and flows on the separate years R3 Crest Gage recorded in
floodplains. depth relative to the floodplain. during the MY1.
existing floodplain. monitoring
period.
Install habitat Increase and diversify
features such as available habitats for
constructed riffles, macroinvertebrates, There is no
Improve cover logs, and brush fish,and amphibians required
toes into
instream leading to performance N/A N/A
restored/enhanced
habitat. colonization and standard for this
streams.Add woody
materials to channel increase in metric.
beds.Construct pools biodiversity over
of varying depth. time.
Survival rate of
Restore and Reduction in 320 stems per 9 permanent 11/14(79%)
enhance Plant native tree and floodplain sediment acre at MY3, vegetation vegetation
native understory species in inputs from runoff, 260 planted plots,and 5 plots have met
riparian zones and
floodplain plant appropriate increased bank stems per acre mobile the MY3
and stability, increased at MYS,and 210 vegetation success criteria
species on
streambank LWD and organic stems per acre plots in MY1, of 320 stems
vegetation. streambanks. material in streams at MY7. Height 2,3,5,&7. per acre.
requirement is 7
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-3

Table 2:Goals,Performance Criteria,and Functional Improvements
Likely Functional Performance Cumulative
Goal Objective/Treatment Uplift Criteria Measurement Monitoring
Results
feet at MY5 and
10 feet at MY7.
Treat Install agricultural There is no
concentrated BMPs in areas of Treatment of runoff required
agricultural concentrated before it enters the performance N/A N/A
runoff agricultural runoff. stream channel. standard for this
metric.
Visually
Permanently Protect Site from inspect the No easement
Establish encroachment on the perimeter of encroachment
protect the Prevent
conservation riparian corridor and the Site to was observed,
project Site easement
easements on the direct impact to ensure no except for 0.04
from harmful encroachment.
Site. streams and easement acres noted in
uses.
wetlands. encroachment MYO.
is occurring.
1.3 Project Attributes
The Site's immediate drainage area as well as the surrounding watershed has a long history of
agricultural activity. Stream and wetland functional stressors for the Site were related to both
historic and current land use practices. Major stream stressors for the Site pre-restoration included
livestock trampling and fecal coliform inputs, lack of stabilizing stream bank and riparian
vegetation, active erosion, and incision.The effects of these stressors resulted in channel
instability, degraded water quality, and the loss of both aquatic and riparian habitat throughout
the Site's watershed when compared to reference conditions.
The overall Site topography consists of steep, confined, and moderately confined valleys along the
tributaries and flow into a more open and gradually sloped valley along the mainstem of Venable
Creek.The project begins at a roadway culvert located at the intersection of Little Mountain
Church Road and Venable Creek.The watersheds for UT3, UT4, and UT6 are roughly bound by
Venable Farm Road to the west. All of the reach watersheds are encompassed by the Venable
Creek watershed,which extends south past Little Mountain Church Road.The Site is typically
defined by forested and agricultural land use with sporadic development of rural homes.
Pre-construction conditions are outlined in Table 3 below and Table 8 of Appendix C.
Table 3: Project Attributes
1111 Project Information
Project Name Honey Mill Mitigation Site County Surry County
Project Area(acres) 20.2 Project Coordinates 36°25'43.03"N
80°36'39.01"W
Planted Acreage 5 acres(full planting)plus supplemental planting
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-4

Table 3: Project Attributes
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic
Piedmont River Basin Yadkin River
Province
USGS Hydrologic Unit 3040101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14- 03040101110020
8-digit digit
Project Watershed Summary Information
2011 NLCD Land Use Forest(65%),Cultivated(21%),
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-03 Classification Shrubland(5%),Urban(9%),Open
Water(0%)
Project Drainage Area Project Drainage Area(acres)
705 Percentage of Impervious 0.8%
Area
Reach Summary Information
Venable Creek UT2 UT3 UT6
Parameters UT1 UT2A UT2B UT4 UT5
R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2
Length of reach
(linear feet) 91 211 1,647 1,958 273 742 332 893 80 784 306 440 518 213 205
Post-
Restoration
Valley Unconfined to Confined
confinement
Drainage area 183 519 599 705 334 21 43 21 9 15 18 9 12 8 10
(acres)
Perennial(P),
Intermittent(I), P P P P P I/P P P P P P P I/P P P
Ephemeral(E)
NCDWR Water
Quality Class C
Classification
Morphological
Description N/A E4 E/C4 N/A E4b N/A C4b N/A N/A N/A E4b N/A N/A N/A A4
(stream type)-
Pre-Restoration
Morphological
Description
(stream type)- N/A B4 C4 N/A C4b N/A B4 N/A N/A N/A C4b N/A N/A N/A A4
Post-
Restoration
Evolutionary
trend(Simon's N/A III IV N/A III N/A IV->V N/A N/A N/A III N/A N/A N/A III
Model)-Pre-
Restoration
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the
United States- Yes Yes USACE Action ID#SAW-2018-01789
Section 404
Waters of the
United States- Yes Yes DWR#18-1271
Section 401
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-5

Table 3: Project Attributes
Division of
Land Quality
(Erosion and Yes Yes NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCG010000
Sediment
Control)
Endangered Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Species Act
Regulatory Considerations
Historic
Preservation Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Act
Coastal Zone
Management
Act
(CZMA)/Coastal No N/A N/A
Area
Management
Act(CAMA)
FEMA
Floodplain No N/A N/A
Compliance
Essential
Fisheries No N/A N/A
Habitat
1.4 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring for MY1 was conducted between October and December 2021, with hydrology data
collected between January and December 2021.The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria
for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in the Honey Mill Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2020).
1.4.1 Vegetation Assessment
The overall planted density for the Site in MY1 was 379 stems/acre, exceeding the MY3 monitoring
requirement of 320 stems per acre.The planted stem density in the permanent vegetation plots (VP)
ranged from 202 stems/acre to 526 stems/acre.VP5 and VP6 exceed MY3 requirements, but by less
than 10%. Permanent plots VP4 and VP9, with a planted stem density of 202 stems/acre and 243
stems/acre respectively, did not meet the MY3 monitoring requirement. Both plots are located in
areas where soil saturation is probably the contributing factor to the high mortality in the plots. VP4
is located in an existing wetland. VP9 was established in the floodplain of Venable Creek Reach 4 and
its confluence with UT6, however,the implementation of priority I restoration along UT6 likely raised
the water and resulted in wetter than expected floodplain conditions.
The overall MVO planted density for mobile vegetation plots ranged from 81 stems/acre to 607
stems/acre. The mobile vegetation plot(MVP) 1, with a low planted stem density of 81 stems/acre,
was also located just outside of an existing wetland.This area is also trending wetter than
anticipated, and wetland vegetation was outcompeting the planted stems in this area of the
floodplain. All other mobile vegetation plots were on track meet the MY3 planted stem density
requirements. Summary data are located in Appendix B and photographs of each plot are located in
Appendix A.
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-6

1.4.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Invasive Species
There were four areas of established wooded areas with understory invasive species within the project
area.These occupied less than 2%of the easement and are located within the mature forests along UT2
and at its confluence with UT2A, UT3, and UT6, as shown on Figures la - ld. On UT3 and UT6, invasives
consist of a low density of individual, mature stems of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) mixed within
the existing wooded areas.The areas on UT2, UT2A, and UT6 consist of a diffuse number of individual
stems of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),Japanese barberry(Berberis thunbergii), and Chinese privet
throughout the mapped polygons, at a low density.These areas of invasives are present in the existing
forested areas have not been previously treated at this stage of the project. All areas of invasives are
scheduled to be treated before the onset of the 2022 growing season. See Table 5 in Appendix A.
Mapped Encroachment Areas per IRT Request
There are three areas of easement encroachment that were identified at baseline conditions.These
areas are included on the Current Condition Plan View(CCPV) maps per the request of the IRT in the
MVO comments dated 12/7/21 in Appendix G.Two of the areas are located at the culvert crossing on
UT2 and consist of the pipe extending into the easement upstream and downstream of the crossing.The
other mapped encroachment area is a 10-foot-wide farm path that extends into the left floodplain
boundary of the easement.Though all of the encroachments were documented and discussed during
baseline conditions, the IRT has requested that they remain on the CCPV maps throughout the seven-
year monitoring period.
Wetland Supplemental Planting
During the MY1 vegetation plot survey and visual assessment of the Site, Wildlands noted multiple
areas within existing wetlands and areas the restored floodplain that are trending wetter than
anticipated. While these areas are not currently areas of concern with either low stem density or
poor vigor, Wildlands plans to supplementally plant with species more conducive to wetland and
wetland type conditions. Wildlands is hoping that this early proactive action will offset areas of non-
wetland species mortality, allow woody wetland species to become established early in the
monitoring period, and keep vegetation densities and vigor within the floodplain thriving.
Additionally, this will address low stem densities in permanent and mobile vegetation plots identified
in MY1 and as previously discussed in Section 1.4.1.
As mapped on Figure 2.0 in Appendix F, the total area to be planted will consist of approximately 2.5
acres and include a mixture of six bareroot and three live stake species occupying approximately 12%of
the easement area. Species and their quantities are shown in Table 14.Though a wetland planting list
was not specifically included in the approved Honey Mill Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020), six of the
nine species were included as part of the riparian and stream bank planting plans with only three of the
wetland species were not originally included. The additional species are Elderberry(Sambucus
canadensis), Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata). On December 12,
2021, Wildlands requested approval for these additional species in an email to the IRT.The species were
approved in a reply email on January 3, 2022. Please see Appendix F for the full list of the proposed
species and approval correspondence.
Shaded Supplemental Planting per IRT Request
During construction, several pockets of non-forested areas within the wooded buffer were identified
throughout the Site but were limited to the enhancement reaches of UT3, UT4, and UT6 that were
cleared as part of construction, rather than planting the open areas throughout Site's wooded buffer as
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
vloo
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-7

outlined in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020).Though this was a modification, Wildlands took the
approach of redistributing the same quantity of bare roots but at the higher density(12' vs. 25').
Since this modification was not approved, the IRT, as outlined in their comments for the MYO report
(2021), is requiring Wildlands to implement the original agreed upon planting plan or the credit ratios
would be adjusted prior to the next credit release.Therefore, Wildlands will plant the remainder of the
shaded buffer from the approved mitigation plan prior to the onset of the 2022 growing season.This will
consist of approximately 7 acres and will include species from previously approved planting lists.The
only substitution will be Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra)for Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). See
Appendix F for the planting list and densities, as well as the locations of the supplemental planting areas
on the enhancement reaches demarcated in a red hatch.
1.4.3 Stream Assessment
Riffle cross-sections (XS) on the restoration reaches should be stable and show little change in bankfull
area, maximum depth ratio, and width-to-depth ratio. All riffle cross-sections should fall within the
parameters defined for the designated stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be
evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability
include a vertically incising thalweg and/or eroding channel banks.
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in December 2021. Cross-section survey results indicate
that channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed on all restoration reaches with minimal
adjustments from MYO to MY1. Minor changes occurring within riffles XS8 and XS11 include slight
decreases in cross-sectional areas, mean depths, and decreased bank height ratios.These minor
changes can be attributed to the establishment of herbaceous vegetation along the tops of banks, slight
bed deposition, and the channel naturally narrowing through natural adjustments.
Pebble counts were conducted in March of 2021 during the MYO data collection and were included in
the as-built report (Wildlands, 2021). However, based on a DMS Technical Workgroup memo from
10/19/21 and concurrence received on 11/18/2021 from the DMS project manager for Honey Mill,
pebble count collection is no longer required for the project from MY1—MY7.Therefore, pebble counts
will not be conducted during the remaining monitoring years unless requested by the IRT or deemed
necessary based on best professional judgement. A copy of the DMS Technical Workgroup Memo and
the email confirmation from the DMS project manager (Personal communication, Phillips 2021) are
located in Appendix G.
1.4.4 Stream Hydrology Assessment
An automated pressure transducer was installed on Venable Creek Reach 3 to document bankfull events
throughout the seven-year monitoring period. Henceforth, this device is referred to as a "crest gage
(CG)."At the end of the seven-year monitoring period,four or more bankfull flow events must have
occurred in separate years.
There were no recorded bankfull events during the first year of monitoring.The 30th and 70th percentile
data were collected from the Mount Airy 2 W, WETS station for years 1971-2020.The Site received an
annual precipitation of 35.67 inches which was an average amount of precipitation for this area.
However, the precipitation totals were only 20%greater than the 30th percentile of 32.45 inches. In
years with higher precipitation bankfull events are likely to occur. Please refer to Appendix D for
hydrology summary data and gage plots.
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
vloo
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-8

1.4.5 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
There were no stream areas of concern mapped during the final MY1 visual assessment on 12/7/21.The
streams appear stable and functioning with vegetation developing on the channel banks, and no areas
of scour or erosion were noted.The visual assessment tables are located in Appendix A.
1.5 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
Overall,the Site has met the required stream success criteria for MY1.The average planted stem density
is 379 stems/acre, and the Site is on track to meet the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre. VP4,
VP9, and MVP1 were all located in wetland areas within the floodplain and are individually not meeting
stem density requirements. Wildlands recognizes that the approved mitigation plan planting list had
many upland species; however, there are areas within the restored riparian corridor trending wetter
than originally anticipated.Therefore, Wildlands is voluntary adding supplemental wetland species in
these areas for a total of 2.5 acres. Wetland supplemental planting will be conducted before the onset
of the 2022 growing season. Per the MVO IRT Comment Response Letter dated 12/7/21, Wildlands will
also plant the remainder of the shaded buffer from the approved mitigation plan, as described in
Section 1.4.2.All supplemental plantings areas will be implemented prior to the onset of the 2022
growing season. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions closely match the
baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and streams are functioning as intended. No bankfull
events were documented during MY1.The MY1 visual assessment identified a few invasive vegetation
areas of concern in wooded enhancement II reaches, but no stream areas of concern were documented.
Invasives are also scheduled to be treated before the onset of the 2022 growing season. Wildlands will
continue to monitor these areas and adaptive management measures will be implemented as necessary
to benefit the ecological health of the Site.
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
vloo
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 1-9

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook(Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Stream gages were installed in riffles and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008); however, vegetation data processing follows the NCDMS Vegetation
Data Entry Tool and Vegetation Plot Data Table (NCDMS, 2020).
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003.
Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy,John P. 1994.Stream Channel Reference Sites:An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2020. Vegetation Data Entry Tool and
Vegetation Plot Data Table. Raleigh, NC. https://ncdms.shinvapps.io/Veg Table Tool/
NCDMS. 2017. DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance.
June 2017, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018.
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2021.
Pebble Count Data Requirements. Raleigh, NC.
NCDMS. 2009. Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2015. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications.
Phillips, K. 2021. Email correspondence, pebble counts MY1-MY7. 18 November 2021.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)., October 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE,
NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation District (NRCS), 2020.
WETS Station, Mount Airy 2 W, Surry County, NC.
https://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/climate/navigate wets.html.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc(Wildlands), 2020. Honey Mill Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS,
Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc(Wildlands), 2021. Honey Mill Mitigation Site As-built Baseline
Monitoring Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
NSF Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report—FINAL 3-1

________—, -I
-1 Conservation Easement ---• Bankfull 1 :
•
QProject Parcels Stream Restoration I Figure 1d i 1 ; --
, .. / (
Sheet Boundary Stream Enhancement I ,Z .11111111k � -
Vi Existing Wetlands Stream Enhancement II �'•
.
! Internal Crossing No Credit @MAU s -
nPropsed Wetland Supplemental Planting Non-Project Streams __ Q�r�
Easement Encroachment --Alignment Deviation 1 /• —x =�•-• y�, �r�.• ' 1 i
- 10 ft.Farm Path Encroachment X — Fence Line 1`-� O '�, /
®Crossing Encroachment --Overhead Utility 1N ~ yf"
Vegetation Plots-Permanent Cross Sections �" ri` J
OM Meets Criteria + Crest Gage ' ----
I I. Did Not Meet Criteria + Barotroll '� �•
Vegetation Plots-Mobile 0 Photo Points II , 1
' 1
_ Q Meets Criteria Q Reach Breaks i
+ I }
• Did Not Meet Criteria rf
Vegetation Areas Of Concern , _' I )•
/i.
Multiflora Rose,Japanese Barrberry,Chinese Privet f 1
'
),:.1, Chinese Privet X1 4 '
' 1 •'
li
r ,
+ �X I ' x•
4 1 # '-. ( ( 1 / .
i _ c i 4'
-. •. . , Id)
'! - - ' - r- ... '
F '__ r -i
t i 5 !r J /� I
_,.,• i . . , toeitcolitte.. /
•
r,4 - X'/�=- •-
.--- --I S I
•
++i
• f I 1 .t
.,• X l
Xr r l .'N,
r J
afr X I *` '4_.....".
'---'---'---'---'---'---'- -'---'- -'---'---i
1 I l
6 isAori12 2i02l6 31N',
,..•. \L4,
.0 c �/, t Figure 1b
I
P ti p!L��y. ► -1
. + ♦\': I/
scg 1 / A +b X - 1
+/_�- _ _ Crossing Encroachment 1
.. ..... , , .
. • •t. _- a _- A
1. {�, . .
•r. X X �Y_ X 2L-X-
�� _ 1
' i ,ir - .- - ...k-4...... „lib. lel ....„,..„.../ , .. . _ ..:
----.....„.......>„......."„..\
1 T2q. �(-`. 1
l ,'; - 10 ft. Farm Path Encroachment
-` _ �c 1
X; ' ` I • • . — . _
-' I . V 1
1 i
��'1-. ' Xi 91 I
1 c i
14
$'( ` „.. \\It-. "i X�
`\ ,'- 4;.
,cI 1
1
\ 1
►I ,' ,4 F' i3 I ;:
' e3 i
r • a. id9 ,�� �w il.i.' :
1 Figur- a m
t 4,
2018 Aerial Photography • ._ . -
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key
OWILDLANDS 0 250 500 Feet Honey Mill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I DMS Project No. 100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Surry County, NC

X k`, 1 Gl l@ ,
X X— X' 1 i
X ,
.*
A
X� X- X k` ; e., d/ . f1
x x ,' .' 1'4. -.c,.r,.x=Y Barotroll .,s,
si
/ Ir1rL9 '
i Al
1 / • , ) 7/
i / - // 41
x i ', k i Crossing Encroachment
k i . / r
\-1'\ / I k i
1I, �\ k
/l \ x / •'
/ i.41_ 1 •'.
/ i
Xi ' I.'.';x J 110 ft. Farm Path Encroachment
1 ':
I/I
r k
it.
xi
/, xis '\
xi
- .' - I i
'1 \
xl % x�
i! ,1 //
xi . 1 x'
I
,
' -.ice.
xi 'N ;), k I
I! .;
x, ; x
x! ►
11 !
x1
I I
-
xi � :;,, svi
xi PP4 ' 1 ,x
I x ',
xi i
I! I
11 �---,_ II f
I '
7_ x,
.__• Conservation Easement li , (,,
' _ _ -
xi k - _ L.
`_ Existing Wetlands , - 1.-1 I! _-• - ,, '
/ r 1 ' ,,
/ Internal Crossing
-L,
P �`
EL Propsed Wetland Supplemental Planting r _ .. r r Q
Easement Encroachment / Iiol IiI
- 10 ft. Farm Path Encroachment l ill /
rg(), Crossing Encroachment Vegetation Plots Permanent \. /1
/'
11 Meets Criteria ,
Vegetation Plots-Mobile f+* k 1 Si0.
'
CD
Meets Criteria ,'Jl;� '\ Reach g
- Did Not Meet Criteria k `, ',
Stream Restoration k *, ,' Ii ` �'
Stream Enhancement Isk o' !
Stream Enhancement II A: i
A, •
No Credit `��;
Non Project Streams \\,
---- Bankfull ,4' _' ` 0 Reach 9
x — x Fence Line 1 ; .,,
.11. -- Overhead Utility ,(
Structures
.r,— �` x x n
` Cross Sections 1 _ __ ._- - M
* Barotroll ___ ___ M• � F� c� .1
Photo Points
ice- ----' - R AIR
100.- 7„
0Reach Breaks l W
Figure la. Current Condition Plan View
OPIZWI L D L A N D S Honey Mill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 80 160 Feet DMS Project No. 100083
I I I I I I I I I Monitoring Year 1-2021
Surry County, NC

4Vrt -411t \ T, *- rittiNiMEMPit,9• •iglki Tr f-1 ' ' A -'-4 N \ --1-lie§.a.g.i.rt:i, •. A.
%' 4P I\PP19 1 Conservation Easement Stream Restoration X # r. ",A'.i I
XF. e.00'k ,, ,•‘ :_, _-,.'A Existing Wetlands Stream Enhancement II
+ k )' Internal Crossing No Credit
IX '�;W {
N ; 1 .
t �- ti Propsed Wetland Supplemental Planting Non Project Streams
Yyr f Easement Encroachment ---- Bankfull
x •
+ f ini `1 - 1_ I - 10 ft. Farm Path Encroachment x — x Fence Line
i~� ,:• XS1p -`, `1 Crossing Encroachment Structures
,�.
r I 5+;,'-• �1 �: ; x; ' r Vegetation Plots-Permanent Cross Sections
• V
4 -x Meets Criteria Crest Gage
- + PP18 x
- Did Not Meet Criteria Barotroll
;•.� ; ,® Sg I Vegetation Plots-Mobile 0 Photo Points
i.
,'P x
` I O Meets Criteria QQ Reach Breaks
9-E__� ��+ `''`,, -� - Did Not Meet Criteria
I Vegetation Areas Of Concern
��.•��' [; p , ¢� ► �> Multiflora Rose,Japanese Barrberry,Chinese Privet
1'' i CGS' ,i�` �� . • i + r r.*
e3 Reach 1 .• • ,--.,7,- • :. 4`. • .
�r l r' t �I `S6 • \ , 1 ", . CI, - • f y`\ ••y• ti ` 1 {. �q;r'
I ', , PP14 Crossing Encroachment 'As"- :122‘6211:0:5........11...'+....motiec,..
(' ,t , a1 _ i : . ±• ' ' , �c
. ' ,r
- :
•
,4\ , .„\
...
,, „.. .,
.0 , --.,. , ;,-_?,
�t • �. ``` `` ` -I" �x_�x•_x�X_X max•_x_�X._x�X �X ` ' ; ' ' • .
: # ,• A , � •
10
..:7:11.1143:2
k • -Hs.^ / ��j+ / PP10\{ A��p�111q�1 X — x =-X _.+
k / .' ,'� '-Y...,„ Barotroll A' /+,- 11 f Ilh:-
lf:
.�-.�x�. . �+ '. �-.� 306+00 n11a�i�rill ---:R ,x�"". ��� �� • ;x �,�X ,'- '- S . • ��r, 11111111111�111111111111111111 PP9p11111, -
1111111 I Vx"` ; �X / +-'Ort\\* f' 3p30 V4�1 / PP6 AN,. 0 • - 4 s PP8�' X 14` , N� II • I1 k/ ��+` moo.. ` r/x•— x--X=. =X=X_X=•X=XI
i i ) // Ns X \ jX\+ 1 / \+ - — 406+pp 00 •:�•
k/ x
\`= •
. - - �. ytJO'+/ •ice
lI X i X=`x— X= `X- x= x — x_ x x
1 , r / ' - -. • ' - _ _ -x'—X-- -;x= ,0 —• — - _
� • x _ _ _
li 1 /♦ .+ 10 ft. Farm Path Encroachment - s. .� - X='X�X 3x�
x! „' 7/ itig-rott .
x ., pi , rtit.),•14., v .- / r _ . , •-•F'•
// , t �`` I ,.� x— X—
-_. Xx— X— x="x=X'J
Figure lb. Current Condition Plan View
ktoW I L D L A N D S Honey Mill Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 90 180 Feet DMS Project No. 100083
I I I I I Monitoring Year 1-2021
Surry County, NC

- ' `+.
I '
a 1
WM.
1.__i Conservation Easement `�' `` + ``- �,�uo {
Existing Wetlands ,_ N+ ��; �,F1
Propsed Wetland Supplemental Planting + 1--! !
l 4:
'4� k 2
�� -1--
Vegetation Plots Permanent r r_- ,
Meets Criteria k: x 1
- Did Not Meet Criteria ,r x ' L \\" 1
1 ` • I I a)
Vegetation Plots-Mobile I !
11 1 1 • J �..)
OMeets Criteria 1 .i ` I i'�
!
Vegetation Areas Of Concern I ..+ 1
x .'S: - • , , I ca
. .,s
r Chinese Privet I I :
x 1 •
_
Stream Restoration I
c• Stream Enhancement II i
I /Ili
No Credit /+ 1
---- Bankfull /++ ! /x — xFence Line / II
x i
`• Overhead Utility I 1�/
Structures i
I
1
Cross Sections - - x I I
I I ►
0 Photo Points x 1 1
I i ►
0 Reach Breaks . , x I i
I 1 1
►
x ��: ►
I I
I
�i' i
-i' 1
--. '�� _- --
' �PP20 i'i I
+.�� '�'.. I ►
I + • �-' I !
. + ��� 1
• ' ♦/ - �O, �.' Reach() i 1
\ of .I 1 ' ►
'Sik ' 4 ,,. • 114 ,( \ . I ,-' i
1
-,s \ \
I. X 1
A: .i-42 ,.. _ "F x —
1
x— x— x— x ► ►
o.
y X ► �.``,`PP19�`+
1
1
1r' ` --- MT1-
;17:It,: . L.L\''\%-i-..-
01 1, xS9
At- :1 - 1.: :----
x XS10 `'t ' '
Nr- t I 1+ ` r ,
/ ( Q
/ PP18
+
'_
NI, +/±/±/ . ,4,
*lig +/ j % Reach a ♦I
+ ' +/ / ,' / 1
/ '• i' ►
7 VW'''''*. + . �' 'lot
/ �.
/ • W
•
Reach 9 _ //' E3 %. it
01
��i ,� ./ /X x_ x_ x x
Ilt
1�� 1 -��*‘' .� �y � ems ..+00 '. _ ,-1-,
� / X f
111
k`kk�k— x— x— X— X x— X X x— X X— X— x— x x : ; •
x_
x
A erial ' oti5grap y - 4. x
Figure lc. Current Condition Plan View
„,,..._:
W I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 Feet Honey Mill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I \e;� " DMS Project No. 100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Surry County, NC

-�. . .t.. +
1 _J Conservation Easement ---- Bankfull `��•� *� :�: 'u• �'� '} + ,+ �, E� = Z
Existing Wetlands Stream Restoration 's ,' "*ACV �Otvai `t ^.• ' .h - .c;w 1`
Internal Crossing Stream Enhancement II r, ,•ti, ' '1i. f''-' •^' - •%, ._ ... ' ,.•�! 'z• , i. ; •.:41"
Propsed Wetland Supplemental PlantingNo Credit , S - Li •ti
Vegetation Plots-Permanent Non-Project Streams . ' •',, k ^,,f 'rf, -„
nMeets Criteria -- Alignment Deviation "s w i '.4t' ` 7 ' ` • x' , ,
YRl 4,,�
- Did Not Meet Criteria x — x Fence Line a+•'.• • j0'1 ` , ' _6. • }
Vegetation Plots-Mobile -- Overhead Utility '.'-i ,t.-. -. Z
CDMeets Criteria Structures _• �+ 4�4
Vegetation Areas Of Concern Cross Sections I''b � "� • `; ,'. -s 'LZk•
,
Privet 0 Photo Points •�� f V� �" o' + ti- "� �:'V. k
• Reach Breaks '° ''
. .
Reach 9 +
t 'e' \,\ y \'' .�`+ ly\
.1
.x ' x '
-am � Reach •' .•d
_ 4rio �
` •
,, ,..d ° _ f � }
�
- Q'= `■ `tom t
` w
X'�� .may •`•`• 44.
�Y�
X`'X_ •
�`_ - _ 1 Jam.+
_.:,,__,,
Sc,'X u , PP26^ X
� GM X
� ,
I
I 4
' f
X
A 1
I '
I 4
I
II
it
,
w '
. I
- I
ii I i
4
II A25
xI I
II
xi
x! I1
11
x 1
i x I, ll
�+ X � __X X 1\\J
x' 1
+/+ `X �X X II '
I `
+/+ X _X�l 1 `
f
,
`, �' 1
,
+ 1 0 �`
+ ► �-x-..
\+ ` . `
\ ► MP4I ', . PP24 e3
+ 1 ,
\ ► ! _ r( 3
\ / ---_.
/ + i -.-� _ X
_�' � ' / '
�1
,
' _ , ,
/ , -, i
I ; i
/
1111L—
. . ..
2i 1 8 Aerial Photography ►
I i', I,
Figure 1d. Current Condition Plan View
IPW I L D L A N D S 0 90 180 Feet Honey Mill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I DMS Project No. 100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Surry County, NC

APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data

Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Date of visual assessment:December 7,2021
Venable Creek R2
Number Total Amount of %Stable,
Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing As-built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 141
Assessed Bank Length 282
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 5 5 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 1 1 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Date of visual assessment:December 7,2021
Venable Creek R3
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 1,647
Assessed Bank Length 3,294
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 15 15 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 18 18 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.

Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Date of visual assessment:December 7,2021
UT1
Number Total Amount of %Stable,
Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing As-built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 273
Assessed Bank Length 546
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 6 6 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 4 4 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Date of visual assessment:December 7,2021
UT2 R2
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 342
Assessed Bank Length 1,014
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 15 15 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 1 1 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.

Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Date of visual assessment:December 7,2021
UT3 R2
Number Total Amount of %Stable,
Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing As-built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 306
Assessed Bank Length 612
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 11 11 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 5 5 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Date of visual assessment:December 7,2021
UT6 R2
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 205
Assessed Bank Length 410
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 6 6 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of N/A N/A N/A
influence does not exceed 15%.

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Date of visual assessment:December 7,2021
Planted Acreage 4.97
Mapping
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Combined of Planted
Acreage Acreage
(ac)
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0%
Low Stem Density Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
0.10 0 0%
Areas criteria.
Total 0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 0 0%
Rates
Cumulative Total 0.0 0%
Date of visual assessment:December 7,2021
Easement Acrea•e 20.20
Mapping %of
Combined
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Easement
Acreage
(ac) Acreage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage.Include species with the
Invasive Areas of
potential to directly outcompete native,young,woody stems in the short-term or 0.10 0.42 2%
Concern
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point,line,or polygon.Encroachment to be mapped consists of
Easement any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common o
none 0.04 ac(0.2/c)
Encroachment Areas' encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.
'The listed encroachment areas were documented at baseline conditions.See section 1.4.2.No new areaas of encroachment were documented in MY1.

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

` arit l ' c : ... a \y n 's `i I . 3t
i -- - i'- " ° ,� 5• r -xd i` l t ', �`-` 'I • "
Itt
frzra .' ` - € `_ s ark • • . :
W Via+ # ;.k`
a1r!{�IA z qS.; F " f y ?� f".r J .I '3 ws-. d _. fir. '.!� k ! ' .:,3 �y'�3'a b .?.
# gA +� jlb 1. 'k 8
- !- . l�' �F}- i1�-'}'a .. ,:.,-.:_:.,3',." r £7 • . p.•
- " q fir'
$.rn ' 'F..• ill„- - 4 x' r � �% `.►,`
- _ram& �' ,}' ' �-" ,� �` -z_ r w.. ff .5•`�, �. ..
•
a _ - '"� `' may- °f 4�r • t o '`� ;,,:- .* t` _ . , ,.
4+ • ".lad da t- - _ s s a'.y_ � '2+V '. '-t- �,
N.
•
• -. - '''' »-' ' -' - ,- 4-.„-.,,,,,.‘:'..104-1.-, i`-31.,14-'-',?-.- --„,-,-*.1„fr$4.„0.... -. .
•
•
PHOTO POINT 1 Venable Creek Rl-upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 1 Venable Creek Ri-downstream(12/7/2021)
• a �_ r '
+ �" ' -v+° xa ''''r }a rr,� .•a+.wt.,4'�,ra. 4 '° t1' ,� ,`ty�; -
, t. t- :r a h+• :. p r: F .�i a �/�' •
a x� �'x prvx'6 d� •di' �' t � • "� �4 '.?.A1. . • -
�t. y. ����nn f, r x � z :t ,+'cam . su r # ."
Y x h�'r . 's ,,$ �y�' .Vk,., �^ "'' t.,... k`r „.. M," 4.' A t u' '+ -'�a NUS.'*'' ! <,
• .f- > '! S,'` ,rJ ..o� 4-4 s N5»'t r t 'i,, i ow�r r� 1 , y �a•,`-y; ,ae - a+ tt % { `$�` ' n' -�1.
: 3k7','. •C3n ,h ,. "' a. a 1t• 'r< ' 'si..r d, � : '+�i.. "G - , > - •
`
?" ' ^Aiz er r z fif. •_ i
r �a �Y , ygs. t
r
d •
• pf: 3 -
PHOTO POINT 2 UT1-upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 2 UT1-downstream(12/7/2021)
,,,--,1:,.'- 1,-y r.il• ?t�61iL lo' -Tip , •
•
'Wi'
. ,•„"`i �$ Yam' lRK ,r f•
'EA' b'j.4A J -lk " fi fiY�
,,•
•
f
r •y } i " ,- - -,t GIs t " i ��-, � .r� 1' ' ; �,a g at ..s•,*,.'T.a t4" r" r. .;rv.
�� : x is t t 5 5 -irt* •
- Y� '2bz'"�x -..::_:',..1.'::,
Y fY i x,!� �'-- F 1 _
� '! ...-;iA ✓: - �" � ". �4... _c ..: r#x%•-` ....4.v`r f:x a,t.
PHOTO POINT 3 Venable Creek R2-upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 3 Venable Creek R2-downstream (12/7/2021)

x aRa
ry t aF � E�
•
Vt.-
6-AC
y .-•,�f _ � '�P tr -h`F•'° „! - '"3'..�1w, xe. r n � ,,i .
• 2. 404• Y g" .. 4,�..a fi -z iSr r 2 .,'. ws �'x* / f a 3yw i
•
.�: �, _ - _ _ '�• TT ,31 -- " f a5� A�� 'W +"��v tit ,� +_ '
PHOTO POINT 4 Venable Creek R3-upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 4 Venable Creek R3-downstream(12/7/2021)
M %� tea' az
& I
' 4vse t. ,1, a t , 4i
44001
rJ - '�' .vZ4 'i^6 �i d: Ott F _ .. 4
v u �xe .c
•
1 T K� IMF-- "Ii s r c a .. s t -
P : Y. C j �h.. „y 1. E .
t' .i , 26 r �'��:?¢� s'i- fie, } ` -,=e9� "..
-,i F >� ,'`F � stYt ia ry
PHOTO POINT 5 Venable Creek R3-upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 5 Venable Creek R3-downstream(12/7/2021)
_. . . . -,-,-.,,''1--.,''- - . : - 001*, ,
a
'N- It �Ni axe T ''.+. ,` k1)L:%k - �h„'
;G.: !,:ic*f.,,,:cr,•'-f':',7::_-,, ''.- . . ...,e,..-,,1,-,,,,,.:41,.:(-.--'• -.'.-5..-i_•,;:vp,w4t,..,•.,.. ...,.::,,,,,,,-.•:.i.:;:,,,,,:,..,.. ..,..4., . . , . 4 --,--•.
i• e �. -,„ ,.:„ -: y.- •..... � pis'
S -- s -- „, 4 'f'
_44w - _ T -- /
'4'S .- ' r j
a
._,:',"..,:.:,,i''.:-..030.4.,.e.7"..:.....,'-‘.i.Kiitr'lq:,,.,44..i4,,,•?.:vci.,,,41.i.,-,,,.,.,,,,,,5...ii.l..,,
1:1(.:,,,li,,,:i.i,,I.,!",i
�gL?'
PHOTO POINT 6 Venable Creek R3-upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 6 Venable Creek R3-downstream (12/7/2021)

•
s� LP -'*111,� I.:1'? Irf' 13 yG 9 i � '�`_ s 19
ti pp 1l � -xL c-
4 'fi� . k' �. 7 yr ' -
. j P ! :1' a• ;ll i s1,.4 yt .1, a wl ,.
44 "- ;r.4..6 m dfx s c _ oF.r f, �> E � �i r
}
y�+�'9Yy°w•-, 7 �� a,W��T� �Y
b q/ s f.
�g
a - £ tz n, s" ' • ., $r d' 'A r-3 d, . AS. 'P'"'' ',lF4 ; ,t e
0
;II,'24,- -,<,,- ..1 iii,W3s1.4 '," t .*.„....,,,„,,,o,,,,„„: ..,.,,, ,..,_ , _._„. ,,,,
.. ,,_ ...,•,.. -- -,.,-- 't,,,-,..--,i.-..-.3-:.i,t,• '-- ' - 4-,i_<
f �::' � 7 k rill _
l:-1-4k4' 14,- 7 . .
. -nc.+6441. .,-,,,A., ::.,,-,.1;r A.I 4
- -6 , -,*.-__- .--.. w.0144;6-,,v-'---..:,',....f'.2.t,-.6t• .,.*:.„.'66, :s.6:. ,,,,,-..6 •.-- /
PHOTO POINT 7 Venable Creek R3-upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 7 Venable Creek R3-downstream(12/7/2021)
n w§ ,y��,Aw. 14 , y -;t Y ,. i, 4 t +1_ „. zrq g ▪ x 1
a ; I t : ya, 7 �
V. - ,N {t`Y ._ r, W
„,
'Yis :'4.1# ,T;.A br ,µ a'� ajYF`r ' a 1 F'� "74 x -w�
•
•
: ,4&?, - `e ad y 1, - I' '+� 'a_r°' . < r - at ax `' n , J a ', { -f
t'sa- '••- y:, 0.4 ~. . y .`i,.4% .„a'r'9 e�htV •Ye�' - - :. .'t s tip'.. ,ti rt i ?-•,'K.wri. v.<�. �Y"°^'.-,- - ' !,:61; �i - r i .r 4' ,e: __ -.aP."
S.� . � t Y I i, - +.I � fit � k ,! � ,.
f R 4 -r ? 6 l� fi 1 N1 µ u 4, - 'l- - 4 J l J j 4i .jj
�� #31, ._ j -.`�-_LLB _.lSa� �,_ " t _s ..:t - -'
,'^ '� w 1 ),4 �'' Y r ' ' r t w x
` 4° . a { �i
PHOTO POINT 8 UT2 R1 Headcut-upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 8 UT2 R1-downstream (12/7/2021)
1 ' '1, " _ v��^ `� 'I'�� r 'A t"',R F sr. r 1 - '.I ,,7 e r 1 + r '"
r, '. aSol? 1. '''' -'ii i ,�- rF f 14k .r - },.:: � 'f- I 1311 1r i . V 4�b
f, P � 4�y ��..''A "� � �� � ° } �13a s � if @�� � �1
-'At,
mi l' I {' 'a - -t3
'k ( ' t k t ✓ Tef � ..� � p�n'\, + - $'$C? r ,! �
kFI)
y �tl 4# F 3 r� - sib � +
SF' ` `,I\ 41.1 `a ;:7v.ls""� y i t ' -- ' -s -ri.
7 '-' 4 !^V 3 ♦ - . r : ”' ', - fie,
a yxw 7k"zt ...-->t� { 'e \.g ' as. '�g•s i, � •r
•,,„0:4 an4 s 1,3;�t r=' 1 - r,",r e,: k•; l t F` ' - „v "s- r▪ ip ,
E- � ,y" .r ak. sl"'q, ;, '�j i r:_ "�- r ,rrT ' l/- z- K t '.3>_• `4 na
x ,-. . �,i"�t -r..� ti£`i f f 'r ' ` ' r 4' ,y x '�i ,Ryy15'j _, n .4,i+,'�l K
*X. � x t 'S'. n b t l %. . I. v,l §,. a.:. T r cE , ,wri A sFi`.
PHOTO POINT 9 UT2 R1-upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 9 UT2 R1-downstream (12/7/2021) J

•
' -y-s o Y'tiY ', ri� ' l'' , • - _ . j •;;yip a = i},
-t- °" ,x .� }. -` x '" *:. • -2'2fit '`rr... '
Ra S .p,I -•
•
# -e,, `Ff �'" •!UWr
a"r`/ -- - i .q5'`_ g-''."t i , c.� , r 7ss`A a°" 3'• ,i- $�.S s �'� .,,r,•s� 0 ,
e. s j �� .'' ?•` '"� 5 .ewe. _,. '"✓.,�
� ,- k-�, _ ° f� - • '' �� phi �''' `.°'• � .
o ` ra is ' k. „ � & s .� ' -to -•.
' .' - ui\t,
, .. _ l ter!,'_ ,, •, 'T� # - - � r :. ., ,-a' '
Y v4 p„ s,, ..- I,y,4 Y M1 ,yel-,�� ` - .R 4 ' '4-.y .7' ,, r �r3 Y. - '
a
b - .� � .`+ - T k - "� - ��`, "r- `�.!' _ r -, -•cam-1' ^• --
ii...1
n w r ; • g :: y _ rot_
�+` ' r�. , ���4 � '�� k�.�. e o `.'t fan. ._ \y",?y�'
r.
PHOTO POINT 10 UT2 R1—upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 10 UT2 R1—downstream(12/7(2021)
•
� y . ` 2h 4:-. E -max . ' ... ' r �.
x '_`a art: ,r4.3 ,�` .� -
irl
'1 y'^' �' ` .e. .Y-s.-- i/ ,tom' $ i1..e
4.
'<,-,i. .,----. 1 ,,,,,1--....1. 1.... .44...4.. ,,,,,,.-„, ,,
tr
�r� �'�` j � V � 'VT
,1';�„'•a. � y�4?fi�t�1 I y rF'1•• i � �'.
. - � . Or/1 r,
,,,r: .ryti, 6 1: _ fir 'ir
14
�, >'Y M/ re$^ i { iv">,h,'F s ,.'. + fq 4 ,. :w
y .a'a .« ,>" 46 r V T .> �•��4r„
PHOTO POINT 11 UT2A—upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 11 UT2A—downstream(12/7/2021)
�.
y' •a 1 'i m f s I [1� • to
1 tro;\,f,;q1 ,yP f "G ••N • .
S'k `•. . v--- '..} - .. . trees-- 7 _
z
it
`-.-- ' • ••�,�aamc ` �{„ �' ! - - r .4 :.„ 2 �„' , L ; �' 4 Wig' Rr. � - .J t:- _� `, q'i•v .r a4. � M1 --Nv
T.t T.'k � t .�] ' I •-
•y
-. ' ?.€y a .' .
y
•
+�4 �i,4•`} s 9H ► Y0lfis tr _ 4. . e.r..+«{ r ,,,
PHOTO POINT 12 UT2A—upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 12 UT2A—downstream (12/7/2021)

� � � �f !'rt �r �"a.II`�i ��?1e • I I �i a �j t'�1 rt�'
s
• • �nu
. • v n F t f k ° �i �9 p
y YJ kf g��y''f3 L _
II its
PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 R2—upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 R2...—. downstream(12/7/20,21),
•
4 €.
'1 ,y?ate
If
i ��!y � a f , '�3yi i T " _
.C- • : • I }s
PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 R2—upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 R2—downstream(12/7/2021)
•-n _-.x _ F-' k IC^,1,, - :, -,
i ' '• L ya r ayM , e�
•
,'..f".. r a y. � � `F ., t
' nt , ryy
. •..•-., ... • .. .,. _. •, -,,,Nv:io-,,,,,--.'•-•,..i..4.4,-.----':-.:7,--•,- ,,,,,,,-:::.[.1,..**4",,,,,,J..-..,1.-.,,,i,,,,.„.,..-.4:1,-,...-...,:.-,
„a
- Y ftl- =k _ Yd Y�zo 4 �P° i.E�. - Y' ic. 4.-. -• "`. 1 - h
•
- _ !t s : sue- ' by- a _ � w!n.
�� �- �x � fir ; � � � &� � �� � >.
- ,'i'. • �'. �'{- i' Nt a -hi Mtn+tf �,�> .., .Gs .
PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 R2—upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 R2—downstream (12/7/2021)

•
ti l7«^ nr's:1 4G$.y�,� ,d; ,. 1 _ .� . rt1T
T•E ` E' 5� 1 4 gr .F.ax f'� 3
•
x> ',,' fy r kf ^ ' '',"'•4' , a c'4' h� A. ra, -.1. ' '' y,4' ,a Y'ry
._�"` •fit`' y- _ y i91d,- ii 'm '� - „111 ;P.'. 3.iP -'fi`'1." - .4,,,t.; ', ,..,-.,47 - 'a °J t �Y'c � '� £` .• -4 „ba- e . .
1 X ', ,) 4 9 aa, 4
' .Y� 1', ,�. .- Yy �y__,. 'a-,te:--'":5 '; ,! ''ti .*.�. -ems N. -l�� .+t' _°t' "' 3,a�'
"a'c YB. f- a ht �t 1. L e� t fi ff,• 4,"••.
•
. t y�e � �# `" --� t� � -err �'� -,� � �a,y � .. � Y
9f'� 'xm•k Y '"a d , '` 't, -- F s AN:. J '.. +°r ,.-:�'"rE ..,y�$f' Y �L a
, �. C • 1 i z�i s ' of .
:'tip � -` �,,3 �"�,�'`�,� �i :�+ `"d�'��"� Shy ' �`�� ��� � k�' �`�? �s � �. �
' CIF t° �" ti, F 9 4�� - a, - a�?>' :- -, rrs y r'. - ,,
! cS
.rk
` ,.,, j.i," < E .e. fs' "x r .• 1;•� ai':t. , '- - .v }" - K,�S<�,-...
‘16*
PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 Ri—upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 Ri—downstream(12/7/2021)
p ! , ,Li.ke" Y M 4 . .W,_ x \. -z 11 "1'•3 - �[.�S - ` -ty zsr y
I.
•
_ _ r, - '-'` �- -<a,. - "� - '; gam- r• 7
"'•j` ''e.cc., "v4, ,` r.F.•;* 8 �^ -t 3'`"^y,1 �, a
`— ' .,c�.., .i� .:_ ' EFL 73 _ -t �?•, - , 4 + - '-. f r -•`� `.,t
xk ; �� � - i- , Was
a� f r s+- ,,,erg
a
,�� � 4 � •'� ���<l ti, � - W.�' r l !�„' ',� dSa.n .w, 5 -� D. _�',_ c• - t ' E CYy F tiAl& tilit rt •f `-A S'_
� F `ems - ` • '1 fi kk , fl1,. r; ,-;* ,' , h-_ ry . +
1- • 'F a f- F y Zy' -1� is. s ,k 4 ry+j• _ 1�., '4' f� V
•
PHOTO POINT 17 UT3 R1—upstream (12(7/2021) PHOTO POINT 17 UT3 R1—downstream(12/7/2021)
,; ;.. ,,r . .'�-'�' �i'r'i� '_- ��!F L ' .sqt � ,;, � ,- ,sk,'' T w,h — , '.yF
7 ''•�" S d k ", 7• , t,,,'.f • :,.4.„ So d ` _ '• { 'L��', { 'r
•
,kj.� r $ t '$ R�""F ,# �'P�.'A' t r d��':cy -�" t� .,y j1 �. k' E'� ,,,d t- y•'` 'kn 0. 4� rt +x.
�' S, �' a'1 "" ., d'Na +.�' ,�;eF'!- s - n b�, r' t"Y M 'd tl' a . 1„- ' .
a - '4 r�{�'a-�„t�.r tF�a; ha if g 1 -H f ''s � E� y� i� > 4v t .r - •t: }�A 7
4.
9 c _ - i ,. € y- •°- :' �2:' ,§ i k- , g , r FA,' F'.,g • d„ dt ,, M. e €-
� c -a ' ti -.,-.'r-t ..'V f A ,� • - , +.G� s, 4 -� 4F`' - 3�F• �s " -t4 A, Y . '..'•
-Yi s -. ,r Yi yk'h '�` -r 1i . i.I 5�i v. ° i#` , -s.A �. ..R ,�i.�� tq,,Y,,,t'f 3 "�' .u-"4- -, , "..
p- £' ate a t '''
x u f L a+. „t i •i c4k r.„: F 41, ;r .4� .�sy,,, '; .,' p�-"`s ;''fi rc,y,., 'il F`' + r
1---;:,-,LJO riti, feliV01;.',,k;Ai
ant 9 " 6 'a k, "� � .t '� Pi
,+ � 'r A'"}# - r ;" -�A z24,as s i , t'k^ 7,.,, �c IS'' d'-i .' �'e ;° x'
., d jn 4t � F�r1�X �� _ �j Yb k y h4k•. ;Z �? & ���
S, y4 sue wry. 7 t, - 1�y� t. - ',- a - ; y ':J- ,S 'YSc•
�•. w .•r w x c4� '�, s Yy((�e'��� �` c ti y � A� f' s� +�1- r �'ti`t .�. ar-
yy�� ir, R+ �p„,:t 't'- 1 f ✓
#� r ';a ,�p.e P,;1#0 p • � s.r iii�..- „T .,.i err a`'�k„.. E � 5,,�' r`o'�i. .a: F y " '.. ?..„,g:
l J r.
: "r+ ,.e a;�? E - � 'e r1�ikhF �, .�I,.�►"x M. a,�s, •
ma`Ai, �. Hai
PHOTO POINT 18 UT3 R2—upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 18 UT3 R2—downstream (12/7/2021)

Nj 'r ` j S'lh. f'l �' tt , (1,;(#.11f.,:iien;c0.,
. •.
k
•
f,d ;' . 3�'' r " 0" •iii3O.-, 1,-'...,,'.*-.-.. ,w' !ø
r 5 •F •- rt i ti 4-
-� f_ `�� ' �, a «T i.'ry - ..'f...r .. ��f i4 a�,. "" _• , }" I-^' .rd�—
- r ,- M�ei..'. 4.,,, ' 1 ti:. §IA r +," ;f I.--.-. a''°36• ` '"4 i� 'si si
t
r 5ram. ',C � ',- � .t°tS''. - .` I '• �d it;y ,g T. .
›,tie y�r��,, a{'
amp �#FJu y '_ F �i ( a r ��
� �7F , ai gar e t 01's "` `4i�" �i V'4'' I' .J. f +y,j+• -�,.. 6 " -a,
•
PHOTO POINT 19 Venable Creek R3-upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 19 Venable Creek R3-downstream(12/7_/2021)
rI.
i
� f
I� �•J� < s;�y.�gy J L I
.. he s
•
s»
--J r 4T• Y -;- iIT ,
a �s c . a -.` M •
�_' 4P'� �s '�3�t � e.lei«.._-
.‘
PHOTO POINT 20 UT4-upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 20 UT4-downstream(12/7/2021)
'd ,p e,t `�."sY K.a E � -a, -', fr - , If'� _• ff ^ ' h _ '> a f tt,. i �t 1 -
e �4 s: a � J , ��.1 '„ d rye `3" !. ; :k. s,,: - t •• Y _ "�
. •_ 15's ' A "{ ' 4 Al a- J- * '#M ,, a' 'y dri k - .4 i �`,' \ ' 1 i ,r -x 7 m ' x;
;b� x',. �Sd'•.i8 n, y �'G 1-•`*d ;mo�r i rs+' r' i 2> .- -•-: v,, �'...t3 .d, e '.- .: n -F y`
�':!: t{� .W7 ice 1
I 1-44 �i!' s'' ''' Ian +ir ,"3vv'J� i w r S e '��°t- � .' 2�E �- r -`- � i
c.::..1 .....,....., _:!..„. .e.: .-:..4trl., - ,-,. -:';--3.-,..-..-';-.-:,-,-,-...,.......‘.' -. '--.,...."41:-;:-4.e.7,..-.-..C.-.;",-.,.." :.----::"-"--' ' ',-.
.... ,� -xa �. � k 'mac'' I_ r _ . .r,
T '- ,1 ''ti,iy.,, _ a ,fib- 1. "." k w> -
4 4 5. -Sr �' , w -
,� ,rCh 1..J ,. � in , r% _ ^.:`a� ry 1 .c Rx , 4 , - ,�P�`
•
�4'. '�'1. Yam, r-'r s • 4rlf • • "`� 'Y' „� !_'•-
f.
•
y 4 f 7x. ,jp`F , -'A ' :i '\r Y - 7 r S ?a;'r. , *-r
_-f .r.s- _ac t .� ,,'5-, 'i,-- 'fir r,.d s>, 's - M1 t -
.o •r.t �'x
PHOTO POINT 21 Venable Creek R4-upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 21 Venable Creek R4-downstream (12/7/2021)

iz'
�f - t
A.
•
• Y I $ L��•.7j w .I 1i � 3 y� r Y t Ic T '�t r Y I I r i rl `h€ i : ! h Ss i Z a Y - .E ''!R3 .l '' i .> ' ! 1 .R pfirm . h- ' :;P ,i t ' .- �jlu 11
•
ti- :f -- t 5^fy J9 - "Y4k + n '�x wd Y<-
S e z i k l '- " F •w ''r' � S� +N �� yn. q'' ;�
•
% x
"� , e-fy .�i �33' c k - _ t, yT,y�., , ¢ t' ly.. -..
., ��...'F--,a-- '3' �a i,iiM Jr--�ti� !"�r��,. eT . �.s;.k tN� ...:.l ;, -
PHOTO POINT 22 Venable Creek R4—upstream(12/7/.2021) PHOTO POINT 22 Venable Creek R4—downstream(12/7/2021)
iz,
14. t i a
� 94 i , `4, - r. Y, .cloy-ivt�' i I� Y��fl }�? - •'z�•IP -l�', fi!- � -�
•
,, s..,.
6.
4, .+,may ' � - s' i :t,R" .a- •,` ' ,}i' �.
�'!> dad t'�`' any ? �c ,r' + § _
R , . c 't;";'T�"di,"C y j--}( ► ' 4y s
, \ • 4. tc. .-4# k-,-.0'. ,-..
4.-itoCr .t.str..ti144.4§7.....",*-:;.."-...!', N. q. . - . . )
?SG,,.a e • , r' .r .i, \--1 --, a'.�' s
PHOTO POINT 23 UT5 Headcut—upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 23 UT5—downstream(12/7/2021)
•
sy ! ar 'r5 -
:.-.;/.}.'.''',,r 1 p,'v,,,,:','1.-,-',,,,-,`.',...-.;,,'',..r) ,. ,,. '-,'-'4,3e.t.‘..---- -,44;g4. ...,4;,2•;,ite '...iikii:N.'4:::•':•• --.--:- ---:-.- ''.-•-",P,.-:-.I.t.k.':'Y:4::-' , ,-- -,:,,N,r,.--ff.::-14:;,,--4.. -----
•
v f�'r i'a2r` . a „-- � . i- T' r r-- 'fi . ''c r.�
.,*
7 ``.e'-s a .5- x '°6 - c 7-i=3 i may,
v- �"• x a, asp# .t t,y, `-. _54'' -z= ,� `.,i, a',% 3 't _ s
--.%;,*.f.zu.:&-,,,. • .,-i,.'...--.,':),..,,,,--..$1....•,,z,%,-,...;.I
s' �.,�',yy'��c`.GFp^,i' x �vw� ��'j��Y' � �� -� -Z --`� kf- �--cII�.� -,t .. -,;yO- �- .-� sR�," ` �. ,,���,-
_' F_ t� ' .--�' Y^, I.;�.v'y-Y4 i,f '� -� S :-- -r ''e ; .tom
•
i _ "' '+.ti - a" -.� , 9. ^ '" 'fit - 4. .r" ` / 4• ,„.• ..i,
_ ' ��ywe4w r A Fy/ 1 iVk+r yixv1 ,
ill'', Y+iP �1 f '�� '� �'^� �..Y� � � lid• -t F,F
•
"`: ?; r .:? ..�L.e:—rL:_�: ,.. ."_.'� }!,fi ` r-'I`r. 0._..1`+ k-,�
PHOTO POINT 24 UT5—upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 24 UT5—downstream (12/7/2021)

' „� ty'. T V R''=e n
#'Y h , 3 'i .s` 'k' 4 ,, V �zv rnr y J„'�
•
j1 {- y�.4` s ' i% 's .1- 3 13 y-.{. Ir�' _,x T s Y�.1ti ` , x ,,,', .,,,,I,.. —
- Jl;& l4- t I n •
S h, -s?s - - sE.v. 'v -h2 'S +xs-.' try.x• ' ç
PHOTO POINT 25 Venable Creek R4—upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 25 Venable Creek R4—downstream(12/7/2021)
4 Y
,.a but O{ry
ins
.. am *;� i - - wiR �+- -
1.
C� V.
,: • 7«,�a8 -.-• -n, Cw - .'�� \ ! hn 'r" r �^'tS ` , .'iE•
r `+ x'"'.yi' 4 , • - +:•, fit'• a l "' ems,: .r. P` 3� +�
v
- -. i 9.f' f r ---'"t ?*d'i. d?xe�a 'ems•
:? Y .g I4 V .r.rfKat'� k�N j C'it "ih4 I�l�
�"\4,"R k 4`. Irr. v ., �b xti�- 4, -x�, -_ r` "II
` Fs� '.#fix a,; r" l
4.
PHOTO POINT 26 Venable Creek R4—upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 26 Venable Creek R4—downstream(12/7/2021)
rt rn ^`: ;;
a r•
" rf -.54, .:i ' 1 ';� �
1 ! ' rJ i' ,-W \�" L ! °°R' ,13Y "Y"�4 Y„y•
k' rl
`,* �'a.,a ,,, x ii r z , ,r sz §. a k�`s , ,tt , k '�, -• 1,' - �
•
}'" 7 - 14 T' ,`�"'.� '1F1R�'" '° 3' A. _',, " - r r4 .e ->r
_ nl `: 5^ p L $rft.'41' �1$a, ,d (^�^+�.,f! :a,t f7�
r�
.. a- F : '-A.r .-4, �i 7 t-. r�`y'h - ., l* S`r'y r -
1 .. � 'tiy. : r r r �., x to . - ti rRs` u J '. a - : ;,.
dtt � .r�, 4;' '',1i' <� $ , fPss�t 3i.-' s .r" ." ' P
p� , •
� � �� - - , r:�M t �tlb`$ '� �,r�`� r .�m nY'. `l/ .n x r,� 'f'� �W�g, �*
�Y..v }� 3 Rif
�i�'� y ��yy':k '� SAY gp I_pT AF1' 1' 11',':, h• �I- }' -
„, 'h: -r' i.Y, `x4`3( !1 Y5�"4"7,, 1 1 1 - /• k� I '' n
•
Ax^ ,� c i a 1
�" ..,i�y1 4 s, ra'.` '4.... kY '' sy-'7'' �I MT•) a' -- ' f' "K .
9 f� f ,4 ;� ee
1, t„r , r.. V.V 11-. c Ji b X.l R^ 11 r �" + a ! - ¢
4•�3I-r. . ti?`�,;�'p19�'0 .,; '.:r..q' Y • -{. ? .,d'':+. '"',m !`.:s�,,•
�.� "aiiSHinT'",. � �
PHOTO POINT 27 UT6 R2—upstream (12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 27 UT6 R2—downstream (12/7/2021)

•
rgzr, `_ N 7-•.N ;p ..y off! •.y; 4 "�°.�. f a .. 9
'�,_ ,!. sy„Js. i � �ti4-q.'i:',:i,;-',.',i.2!:.'1''''"
..1�a "+r"'`� �% ��� �+'-�^ A�•e'9Sa x.+`� '' n'� ,. '9 .V sa ,("�
�" I e rt .a• 'tom !' ;��Iq 01 �c � ou, �.� ."
,.•.. " > -{. * — �' fi ' zr ; .ski. �Q 4.r �"t �
41
�a P .'.-' .Se�. �"Z P �u� d � ,` - $� a'ai w Y eY ,�.U;, �`'h i ?
41
" • Y v' , 0 .•.r a s - " r _ a °r•
e„la {tiK °.7:,!::-':-.A .,---_,---..- ,'i :,,--.,'%,-.:st.'.-,==',._-:,.,,;‘,7,—,r, .LA,,,itta:4,1 ,7..tii, .4.:,1.1A,4.,;13.•,..7_4-- od-17,!..4,4:4,.,
-
a „',i<3"�i 4 sc d*,• \ l role er-.f_ R "�1k +Ar,�'•�- f �.
'''''''',.:'-`-:' ':''','"'-`,...-•'-::•:'.- '.•:.-- 40_'?"1-*-•"-.' •,- •IN.,-,-11- ' - i ----,-,
trpi• � "" Q 3 /Q : f ) :'. �, 1�Jq�4'�a. TR11wYj
PHOTO POINT 28 UT6 R1—upstream(12/7/2021) PHOTO POINT 28 UT6 R1—downstream(12/7/2021) 4

MATURE TREE PHOTOGRAPHS

'
4 }
i
x 11 / . r.
. w
i f r:: i
--- - ` = '•
I
x
Mature Tree Photo Point 1(Northeast)—Venable Creek Reach 3 Mature Tree Photo Point 2(Northeast)—Venable Creek Reach 4
(012/07/2021) (12/07/2021)

PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

f "
lF
a 1 +( , r s
; I:fi
<k0: 7 4� t 't - x 1 tf>'�k�d , :: r� a N :_ # i
ai �, x r, 4ke R' -q � f 3 -^a r y q ;,_
y iC °, -'. x 'g, F' A,; �. - l r f r !, .,1 fib" :
�¢ '� �� a e{�.� N"� �{' �`�d�} �" �'Y � y{'a �. gip. -� a^b"4G°� ,�c -�� '� ; ��f'
'. 4 Y r+ 4 ;'; 5 c/ i`F> _ s ! t r h ,w s yx f zm. +-''`ra<syx
s '# S ks + §t' s 1 „ - tar", a � ,' � z ;'' 4 '>
y§"'kk'�E ,,�1, �' ;fi rm`r�r s at -
•
4 r¢ •a +'.d r "k, �, ,,^°.,a. �i # i°7. 1 a .y„ yT `_ cf' _
Psi 'ti a�
} sL �� ,���.w � S �I �y e:tw'�` i�n�-'. 'fie +�4 7��" .k, �' '"� '':,� -
z w ,., x` aza Rp... µ 1 S, _: s s.-,+ aG,.�r,' f>i °�- _ _
a w
f fat a =:' - a r v• € £'
• • 2!y
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 1(10/25/2021) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 2(10/25/2021)
.„ ! ! :1.
k .1r V . aa.
I
. ..-....,:•,,,,,.., .-...:,.!„-:,..,•••-x-i,,p.„.„.••,...c .,:,...i.,L.„%-:-,-...-•,-..:---.--,-•'.-k---.,•,, sig.-.-xt-.:•:.4m.:Iiat•&•-,:•••,,e„.,,,...§.04- ..,--.4.41.,,.*4•-•.vg-„„4:•-
•
t x �?v C � a i �"
1 $"y
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 3(10/25/2021) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 4(10/25/2021)
I
-• e,:
i'Yyl 1 •
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 5(10/25/2021) PERMANET VEGETATION PLOT 6(10/25/2021)

• _1;044
•
• a {J `•I \\�•._fir if
kom
.R3
i f Y9 u ti 7 '' rI xi
5 . j
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 7(10/25/2021) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 8(10/25/2021)
•
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 9(10/25/2021)

MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

t t ip a #{ szf l> !
xi
i 7 d • s
1 �` f � � + �: A }�- 1 I V � ,y :may:
p ft ,.: i-.1. , `.. SJ. 1•
w : 19 fi �.� -."'I ;ldi "" ��y .. s,F
•
� �� � � �"t� �F� -�. �,4 ill.q� ^7 Yti�g#�uw sr-w.. m ^�'. >�x--j _ :It._ ar � tr-.
al
��4;J* ` s �# F°E Y � �., w" y a� ar !�. fi � �.� � qt 'st`p "Y��dT.�'1?'�`H��"
':' 4'ns .' t ^'a`..�if • 4 aq �, e • 4* a 9 ,y , t .
•
ID • .�.�- 44,a E � � ' . 4,`.R sA ' :?� {K.r ���Y d�y'fr7 C�e:• � r`n ��;� .�k�� �}� a_' `� s .r.
x ? .yy,, mil, it F s
iiie
�� tx,,
y'� Nt :fre rt j. �^'. _-$A! '�h • s, � yaa J+y�i<g' *¢45,tititt.•,4ktikey",,M.Vt:,,:Z
':.''� 6a" q S `ht5' s>•
•; .�.. t -47.4�'' y '� > d'nt�,' , K G, „t.zakSY r � 7�. lw. yo":. ky •, xi,.-
- H +' -. �5 i e- �`,➢� r' ,,'. -tn u 4`sa . • , ,ram 5' -
,�.,1,w,� a� '..a^ .vim•
r ,. t11I •• x z� t � '�."�,' a' t �.�r� Xa�'s '£ as
s,� - ' f,� fpN 9 r k4 ^try kW }� � E w.
i' aF-� kr.' `� I �I yt�- ,a �y F 3 Y '� -$ a ms
�'� t+ r _ e4 � fi s t`> -x �-#?§ s a �f Y^.'t#' T' "4 ?,. } k' '!' . '3 -t'1 R +.
rN �i t"�<. `R n'W + s ..,.�. ��°{�.y ... .Er•e •n �'_-tm�� �1''v2'r"dt,r maE lw,+., �< .. ._ Ea.
MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 1(10/25/2021J MOBILE VEGETA• TION PLOT 2(10/25/2021)
o
t •
N' 41-•,•'`.. :.,.47,-.44'Iltilti.-4:".''-
0 p ,
•
•
ryp Lid - f
9i � ,
R
x ; 2021.10.2E
•
MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 3(10/25/2021) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 4(10/25/2021J
•
'Ili
.
MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 5(10/25/2021)

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 486 2 0 405 2 8 0 364 3 5 0
Monitoring Year 0 567 2 0 526 2 L 10 0 445 2 0
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 202 2 324 2 0 324 2
Monitoring Year 0 567 2 364 2 0 607 2
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 526 2 486 2 243 2
Monitoring Year 0 526 2 607 2 405 2
Veg Plot Group 1 R Veg Plot Group 2 R Veg Plot Group 3 R
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 81 2 445 2 405 2 5
Monitoring Year 0 445 2 567 2 445 2 8
Veg Plot Group 4 R Veg Plot Group 5 R
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 405 2 607 2
Monitoring Year 0 567 2 688 2
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot"groups".Random plots are denoted with an R,and fixed plots with an F.

Table 7a.Vegetation Plot Data
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 5
Date of Initial Plant 2021-03-01
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s)Mowing
Date of Current Survey 2021-10-25
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/S Indicator Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Scientific Name Common Name
hrub Status Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 1 1
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 3 3 2 2 2 2
Fagus grandifolia American beech Tree FACU
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU 1 1
Species Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC
Included in
Approved Liriodendrontulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1
Mitigation Plan Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 3 3 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub UPL
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 2 2 1 1 1 1
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC 1 1 1 1
Sum Performance Standard 12 _2 10 _0 9 9 5 3
Current Year Stem Count 12 10 9 5
Stems/Acre 486 405 364 202
Mitigation Plan Species Count 77 8 5 4
Performance
Standard Dominant Species Composition(%) 25 20 33 40
Average Plot Height(ft.) 2 2 3 2
%Invasives 0 0 0 0
i ■
Current Year Stem Count 12 :3 9
Post Mitigation Stems/Acre 486 433 364 202
Plan Species Count 7 8 4
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 2 20 MI 40
Standard Average Plot Height(ft.) 2 2 3 2
%Invasives ` 0
1).Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section includes species
that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum(regular
font),and species that are not approved(italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard'section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard'includes data from mitigation
plan approved,post mitigation plan approved,and proposed stems.

Table 7b.Vegetation Plot Data
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 5
Date of Initial Plant 2021-03-01
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s)Mowing
Date of Current Survey 2021-10-25
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/S Indicator Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Scientific Name Common Name
hrub Status Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 1 1
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1
Diospyrosvirginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 2 2
Fagusgrandifolia American beech Tree FACU 1 1
Species Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 2 2
Included in Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC 1 1
Approved Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Mitigation Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
Plan Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 2 2 2 2
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub UPL
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2 2 2 2
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 3 3
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum Performance Standard 8 8 8 8 13 13 12 12 5 6
Current Year Stem Count 8 8 13 12 6
Mitigation Stems/Acre 324 324 526 486 243
Plan Species Count 7 6 9 9 4
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 25 25 15 17 33
Standard Average Plot Height(ft.) 2 2 2 2 2
Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 8 13 12
Post Stems/Acre 324 324 326 486 243
Mitigation Species Count 7 6 9 9 4
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 25 25 15 17 33
Standard Average Plot Height(ft.) 2 2 2 2 2
%Invasives n 0 . 0 0
1).Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section includes species
that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum(regular
font),and species that are not approved(italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"includes data from mitigation
plan approved,post mitigation plan approved,and proposed stems.

Table 7c.Vegetation Plot Data
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 5
Date of Initial Plant 2021-03-01
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s)Mowing
Date of Current Survey 2021-10-25
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/S Indicator Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Veg Plot 4 R Veg Plot 5 R
Scientific Name Common Name hrub Status Total Total Total Total Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC 1
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU
Diospyrosvirginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 2 2
Fagusgrandifolia American beech Tree FACU 1
Species Hamamelisvirginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU
Included in Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC 3 1
Approved Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1
Mitigation Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1
Plan Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub UPL 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4 2 3
Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU 1
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 1 2
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 2 5 4
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC 1 1
Sum Performance Standard 2 11 10 10 15
i - I
Current Year Stem Count 2 11 10 10 15
Mitigation Stems/Acre 81 445 405 405 607
il
Plan Species Count 2 5 4 8
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 50 40 50 27
Standard Average Plot Height(ft.) 2 2 2 2 2
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 2 11 10 10 15
Post Stems/Acre 81 445 403 405 607
Mitigation
Species Count 2 10 5 4
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) I 50 18 40 a ..8 ` a
Standard Average Plot Height(ft.) 2 2 2 2 2
%Invasives . 0 0 0 m-
1).Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section includes species
that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum(regular
font),and species that are not approved(italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"includes data from mitigation
plan approved,post mitigation plan approved,and proposed stems.

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Pre-Existing Condition
Parameter Venable Creek R2 Venable Creek R3 UT1 UT2 R2 UT3 R2 UT6 R2
Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 10.6 1 10.5 10.8 2 8.7 1 4.0 1 4.2 1 2.1 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 46 1 90 113 2 69 1 11 1 27 1 8 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.5 1 1.6 1.7 2 1.1 1 0.3 1 0.9 1 0.8 1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.0 1 2.2 2.3 2 1.6 1 0.4 1 1.1 1 1.1 1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft2) 15.6 1 16.9 18.1 2 9.8 1 1.2 1 3.8 1 1.6 1
Width/Depth Ratio 7.2 1 6.1 6.9 2 7.6 1 12.7 1 4.7 1 2.7 1
Entrenchment Ratio' 4.3 1 8.6 10.5 2 7.9 1 2.7 1 6.4 1 3.7 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 1 1.3 1.6 2 1.4 1 1.0 1 1.5 1 2.6 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 40.6 1 13.3 2 9.5 1 24.1 1 3.1 1 8.5 1
Rosgen Classification E4 E/C4 E4b C4b E4b A4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 75 83 52 10 6 4
Sinuosity 1.08 1.14 1.04 1.18 1.47 1.01
Bankfull/Channel Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0190 0.0136 0.0212 0.0352 0.0369 0.0870
Parameter Venable Creek R2 Venable Creek R3 UT1 UT2 R2 UT3 R2 UT6 R2
Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 15.0 1 15.6 1 11.5 1 5.6 1 4.9 1 3.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 30 1 34 1 25 1 11 1 10 1 5 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.1 1 1.1 1 1.0 1 0.5 1 0.4 1 0.3 1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- 1 --- 1 --- 1 --- 1 --- 1 --- 1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft2) 16.4 1 17.3 1 11.1 1 2.6 1 1.9 1 1.2 1
Width/Depth Ratio 13.8 1 14.1 1 11.8 1 12.1 1 12.3 1 11.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio' 2.0+ 1 2.2+ 1 2.2+ 1 2.0+ 1 2.0+ 1 1.4+ 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0-1.1 1 1.0-1.1 1 1.0-1.1 1 1.0-1.1 1 1.0-1.1 1 1.0-1.1 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --- 1 --- 1 9.5 1 24.1 1 3.1 1 8.5 1
Rosgen Classification B4 C4 C4b B4 B4 A4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 75 83 52 10 6 4
Sinuosity 1.08 1.29 1.14 1.02 1.02 1.00
Bankfull/Channel Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0230 0.0140 0.0210 0.0380 0.0340 0.0822
i i
Parameter Venable Creek R2 Venable Creek R3 UT1 UT2 R2 UT3 R2 UT6 R2
Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n Min Max n
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 15.0 1 14.6 15.8 3 12.1 1 9.3 1 6.2 1 6.6 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 68 1 93 104 3 75 1 57 1 51 1 33 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 3 0.9 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.4 1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.1 1 1.8 2.0 3 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.7 1 0.7 1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft2)1 20.2 1 16.0 19.4 3 11.0 1 4.8 1 2.8 1 3.0 1
Width/Depth Ratio 11.1 1 12.8 14.2 3 13.4 1 17.8 1 13.5 1 15.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio' 4.5 1 6.0 6.7 3 6.2 1 6.1 1 8.2 1 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1 1.0 3 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 17.1 1 24.7 3 14.8 1 19.0 1 14.8 1 17.7 1
Rosgen Classification B4 C4 C4b B4 B4 A4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 142 78 100 3 54 24 12 19
Sinuosity 1.03 1.31 1.20 1.05 1.05 1.05
Bankfull/Channel Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0245 0.0152 0.0232 0.0440 0.0387 0.0869
1.ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-sect
2.Channel slope is calculated from the surface of the channel bed rather than water surface.
(---): Data was not provided,N/A: Not Applicable

Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT1 Cross-Section 1 Pool UT1 Cross-Section 2 Riffle Venable Creek R2 Cross-Section 3 Riffle
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1039.7 1039.7 1039.2 1039.3 1034.6 1034.7
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Thalweg Elevation(ft) 1037.6 1037.5 1037.6 1037.7 1032.5 1032.6
LTOB2 Elevation(ft) 1039.7 1039.7 1039.2 1039.3 1034.6 1034.7
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.1
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 18.1 16.7 11.0 11.1 20.2 19.3
Venable Creek R3 Cross-Section 4 Pool Venable Creek R3 Cross-Section 5 Rifle Venable Creek R3 Cross-Section 6 Pool
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1024.7 1024.8 1024.1 1024.0 1016.3 1016.3
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation(ft) 1024.7 1021.6 1022.3 1022.2 1013.1 1013.0
LTOB2 Elevation(ft) 1021.4 1024.8 1024.1 1024.0 1016.3 1016.3
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 3.3 3.2 1.8 1.9 3.2 3.3
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 33.4 33.6 17.1 18.1 33.3 35.0
iill reek R3 Cross-Section 7 Riffle UT2 R2 Cross-Section 8 Riffle Wenable Creek R3 Cross Section 9 Riffle
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1015.9 1015.9 1020.0 1020.4 1011.6 1011.6
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0
Thalweg Elevation(ft) 1013.9 1013.9 1019.1 1019.4 1009.8 1009.8
LTOB2 Elevation(ft) 1015.9 1015.9 1020.0 1020.1 1011.6 1011.7
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 2.0 2.0 0.8 0.7 1.8 1.9
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 19.4 18.5 4.8 2.9 16.0 16.8
UT3 R2 Cross Section 10 Riffle UT6 R2 Cross-Section 11 Riffle
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 1011.9 1012.0 998.6 998.7
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8
Thalweg Elevation(ft) 1011.2 1011.2 997.9 998.1
LTOB2 Elevation(ft) 1011.9 1011.9 998.6 998.6
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.8 2.4 3.0 1.9
1Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent year's bankfull elevation.
2LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB
elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 1-UT1
200+77 Pool
1042 -
1040
1038
1036
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
-MYO(03/2021) +MY1(12/2021) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
'
16.7 x-section area(ft.sq.)
15.1 width(ft) :mum"• .:
1.1 mean depth(ft)
2.2 max depth(ft) Atiio x}g9'TJd'r '''•` ° ..'....
16.2 wetted perimeter(ft) r t.
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.6 width-depth ratio
j aL •�
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 2-UT1
201+02 Riffle
1042
1040
t 0/-
1038
1036 -
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
MYO(03/2021) MY1(12/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
11.1 x-section area(ft.sq.)
12.1 width(ft)
0.9 mean depth(ft) rrx' ,.
1.6 max depth(ft)
12.6 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.2 width-depth ratio
75.3 W flood prone area(ft)
6.2 entrenchment ratio - -
1.0 low bank height ratio ,
•
Survey Date: 12/2021 •
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ++�^• e.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 3-Venable Creek R2
102+85 Riffle
1038
1036
w 1034
w
1032
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
MYO(03/2021) MY1(12/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions '}
19.3 x-section area(ft.sq.)
14.5 width(ft) •
1.3 mean depth(ft)
2.1 max depth(ft)
15.4 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius(ft)
11.0 width-depth ratio
67.6 W flood prone area(ft) - 1
4.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio c'
Survey Date: 12/2021 •
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering •
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 4-Venable Creek R3
107+61 Pool
1026
1024
1022
1020
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
-MYO(03/2021) +MY1(12/2021) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
33.6 x-section area(ft.sq.)
21.4 width(ft)
1.6 mean depth(ft)
3.2 max depth(ft)
•
22.8 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.5 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.6 width-depth ratio
•
•
Survey Date: 12/2021 • .
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering K "j•'}_
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 5-Venable Creek R3
107+94 Riffle
1027
1025
wra
1023
1021
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
MYO(03/2021) MY1(12/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions ;.'
• '1 1
18.1 x-section area(ft.sq.) i
16.7 width(ft)
1.1 mean depth(ft)1.9 max depth(ft)
17.3 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft)
15.3 width-depth ratio
103.7 W flood prone area(ft)
6.2 entrenchment ratio .-i, "
1.0 low bank height ratio `:.
Jam. i: ?.:
Survey Date: 12/2021 f ;
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering 1
•
. . c ... :e• -•
•
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 6-Venable Creek R3
114+68 Pool
1018
1016
ww 1014
1012
10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
-MYO(03/2021) +MY1(12/2021) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions -)
35.0 x-section area(ft.sq.)
19.4 width(ft)
1.8 mean depth(ft) °
3.3 max depth(ft)
21.1 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.7 hydraulic radius(ft) ¢ ,
10.8 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering •
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 7-Venable Creek R3
115+18 Riffle
1019
1017
-- •
f0
1
1015
1013 -
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
MYO(03/2021) MY1(12/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions " }'
18.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) •T� '
15.5 width(ft)
1.2 mean depth(ft) _ ° c
2.0 max depth(ft)
16.2 wetted perimeter(ft) •Y,
1.1 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.0 width-depth ratio
93.6 W flood prone area(ft) ;,•r •
-
6.0 entrenchment ratio
La low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2021 of• . ;F .
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 8-UT2 R2
310+51 Riffle
1022
1021
c 1020
.s
1019
1018 -
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(03/2021) MY1(12/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) '_ i • •1`
•
6.0 width(ft) j
0.5 mean depth(ft) *. •
0.7 max depth(ft)
6.4 wetted perimeter(ft) {.
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) I : : •
•
12.7 width-depth ratio '' '
54.5 W flood prone area(ft) - ;,. r
9.0 entrenchment ratio 5
0.7 low bank height ratio r. Y`
_ 4
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering + r`
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 9-Venable Creek R3
117+20 Riffle
1015
1013
ma, 1011
1009 ,
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
MYO(03/2021) MY1(12/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions T• - ''.1.
16.8 x-section area(ft.sq.) 1 "
15.3 width(ft)
1.1 mean depth(ft)
1.9 max depth(ft) `''"-
15.8 wetted perimeter(ft) q
1.1 hydraulic radius(ft) `
13.9 width-depth ratio r' _ •• `:.:s iQ
101.8 W flood prone area(ft) .,,-:�J,' dI:, '' ,M1•.
6.7 entrenchment ratio ` + ,
•2 ':, k `:
1.0 low bank height ratio t':. 4 i.•! ('
III 111.
Survey Date: 12/2021viki',, ''';.L'
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering y ,
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 10-UT3 R2
510+87 Riffle
1013
c 1012
o
1011
10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MYO(03/2021) MY1(12/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions •
2.4 x-section area(ft.sq.)
6.4 width(ft)
0.4 mean depth(ft)
0.7 max depth(ft) !'
6.5 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) Y_
17.0 width-depth ratio
50.5 W flood prone area(ft)
7.9 entrenchment ratio
•
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering •
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 11-UT6 R2
803+64 Riffle
1000
999
•
998
997
0 10 20 30
Width(ft)
MYO(03/2021) MY1(12/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions ,c.
1.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) w "
6.5 width(ft) •
0.3 mean depth(ft) f` 10` - '. �-
0.5 max depth(ft) 'a f rr
6.6 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius(ft)
21.9 width-depth ratio
33.6 W flood prone area(ft)
5.2 entrenchment ratio
0.8 low bank height ratio r. _
Survey Date: 12/2021 t i3
•
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering .
� 1 .7r ; •
View Downstream

APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data

Table 10. Bankfull Events
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Reach MY1(2021) MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
Venable Creek R3 None
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
MY1(2021) MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
Annual Precip Total
35.67
(Inches)
WETS 30th
32.45
Percentile(Inches)
WETS 70th
58.85
Percentile(Inches)
Type of Year' Average
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS Station:MOUNT AIRY 2 W,NC for years 1971-2020
1 Type of year refers to amount of rainfall in the current year compared to the average percentiles i.e.Below Average,Average,Above Average.

Recorded Bankfull Events
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Honey Mill:Crest Gage#1(Venable Creek,Reach#3)
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1018 — - 10
- 9
TI,
1017 - 8
- 7
w 1016 Gage Installed — •• — •• — •• -�,• _ - - I 6 c
0 3/4/2021 J ` °-
� 5 }o
> I a
>
u+ 1015 4 Iv
A:
I. ` }' 3
/
1014 �) 2
11 L_r - 1
il
1013 I I 1 . I ll 11I1 1 0 4 + u h ILl 1 ' I I. �I . I 0
> c m a
wro LL Q 5 - Q vii O Z o
Daily Precipitation Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info

Table 12. Project Activity and Reporting History
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Activity or Report ' Data Collection Complete I Completion or Delivery
404 Permit September 2020 October 2020
Mitigation Plan August 2019-October 2020 October 2020
Final Design-Construction Plans September 2020 September 2020
Construction November 2020-February 2021 February 2021
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal February 2021 February 2021
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segmentsl February 2021 February 2021
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2021 March 2021
Stream Survey March-June 2021 June 2021
Baseline Monitoring(Year 0) Vegetation Survey March 2021
Remediation N/A N/A
Encroachment March-October 2021 October 2021
Stream Survey December 2021 January2022
Year 1 Monitoring Vegetation Survey
Remediation N/A N/A
Encroachment
Stream Survey
Year 2 Monitoring Vegetation Survey
Remediation
Encroachment
Stream Survey
Year 3 Monitoring Vegetation Survey
Remediation
Encroachment
Stream Survey
Year4 Monitoring Vegetation Survey
Remediation
Encroachment
Stream Survey
Year 5 Monitoring Vegetation Survey
Remediation
Encroachment
Stream Survey
Year 6 Monitoring Vegetation Survey
Remediation
Encroachment
Stream Survey
Year 7 Monitoring Vegetation Survey
Remediation
Encroachment
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 13. Project Contact Table
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Designers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Aaron Earley,PE,CFM 1430 South Mint Street,Suite 104
Charlotte,NC 28203
704.332.7754
Construction Contractors Main Stream Earthworks,Inc.
631 Camp Dan Valley Rd
Reidsville,NC 27320
Planting Contractor Bruton Natural Systems,Inc.
PO Box 1197
Fremont,NC 27830
Main Stream Earthworks,Inc.
Seeding Contractor 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd
Reidsville,NC 27320
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Bruton Natural Systems,Inc.
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs Wetland Plants Inc.
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Monitoring,POC Kristi Suggs
[phone] x.110

APPENDIX F. Supplemental Planting Documentation

Kristi Suggs
From: Aaron Earley
Sent: Monday,January 3, 2022 2:06 PM
To: Joe Lovenshimer; Sam Kirk; Kristi Suggs
Subject: Fw: Notice of Initial Credit Release/NCDMS Honey Mill Mitigation Site/SAW-2018-01789/Surry County
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Completed
See below for plant list approval.
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday,January 3, 2022 1:20 PM
To:Aaron Earley<[e-mail]>
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<[e-mail]>;Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Notice of Initial Credit Release/NCDMS Honey Mill Mitigation Site/SAW-2018-01789/Surry County
Aaron,
Thanks for following up on this.This list looks fine.
Happy New Year,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Original Message
From:Aaron Earley<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 10:40 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D<[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>
Cc:Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; 'Wilson,Travis W. ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>;
1

[e-mail]; 'Bowers,Todd ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie<[e-mail]>; Youngman, Holland J
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Allen, Melonie ([e-mail]) <[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]>; Kristi Suggs <[e-mail]>;Joe Lovenshimer<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Honey Mill Mitigation Site/SAW-2018-01789/Surry County
Attached is a pdf that contains proposed planting lists for shaded and wetland areas at Honey Mill.The shaded supplemental planting list is the same as the
approved mitigation plan with the exception of substituting slippery elm for tulip poplar.There was not a separate wetland planting list in the approved
mitigation. The list contains species that we propose to plant in wet areas on the project site. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We will
be ordering the plants soon in order to get them on the ground this planting season.
Happy holidays!
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
From:Aaron Earley
Sent:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 2:08 PM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D<[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>
Cc:Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; 'Wilson,Travis W. ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; 'Bowers,Todd ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie<[e-mail]>; Youngman, Holland J
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Allen, Melonie ([e-mail]) <[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]>; Kristi Suggs <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Notice of Initial Credit Release/ NCDMS Honey Mill Mitigation Site/SAW-2018-01789/Surry County
2

Revised Shaded Supplemental Planting List
Max Spacing Indiv.Spacing Min.Caliper Percenta Wetland Indicator
Species Common Name Stratum
(ft) (ft) Size ge Code
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 25 12-25 0.25" -1.0" Canopy 12% FACW
Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Canopy 7% FACU
Liriodendron tulipifcra Tulip Poplar 12 25 0.25" 1.0" Canopy 7_96 FACU
Carpinus caroliniana* Ironwood 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Subcanopy 5% FAC
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 25 12-25 0.25" -1.0" Canopy 11% FAC
Morus rubra* Red Mulberry 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Subcanopy 7% FACU
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum 25 12-25 0.25" -1.0" Canopy 7% FAC
Eunoymus americanus* American Strawberry Bush 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Shrub 0% FAC
Calycanthus floridus* Sweetshrub 25 12-25 0.25" -1.0" Shrub 0% FACU
Hamamelis virginiana* Witch Hazel 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Subcanopy 9% FACU
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Canopy 11% FACU
Fagus grandifolia American Beech 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Canopy 7% FACU
Quercus alba White Oak 25 12-25 0.25" -1.0" Canopy 7% FACU
Lindera benzoin* Spicebush 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Subcanopy 6% FAC
Cornus florida* Flowering Dogwood 25 12-25 0.25" -1.0" Subcanopy 4% FACU
Ozydendron arboreum* Sourwood 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Subcanopy 0% UPL
Ilex opaca* American Holly 25 12-25 0.25" -1.0" Subcanopy 0% FACU
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm 25 12-25 0.25" - 1.0" Subcanopy 100% FACU
* Subcanopy species-not held to monitoring height requirements
Proposed Wetland Planting List
Max Spacing Indiv.Spacing Percenta Wetland Indicator
Species Common Name (ft) (ft) Min.Caliper Stratum ge Code
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 12 6-12 0.25" Canopy 15% FACW
U/mus americana American Elm 12 6-12 0.25" Canopy 10% FACW
Sambucus canadensis* Elderberry 12 6-12 0.25" Subconopy 10% FAC
Acer negundo Boxelder 12 6-12 0.25" Canopy 10% FAC
Cephalanthus occidentalis* Buttonbush 12 6-12 0.25" Shrub 5% OBL
Alnus serrulata* Tag Alder 12 6-12 0.25" Subconopy 10% OBL
Live Stake
Salixnigra Black Willow 12 6-12 0.5" cal. Canopy 20% OBL
Salixsericea* Silky Willow 12 6-12 0.5" cal. Subconopy 12% OBL
Cornus amomum* Silky dogwood 12 6-12 0.5" cal. Subconopy 8% FACW
* Subcanopy or shrub species-not held to monitoring height requirements

Table 14. Proposed Wetland Supplemental Planting
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100083
Wetland Planting Zone
Max Indiv. Approved in Wetland
Min.
Species Common Name Spacing Spacing Stratum Percentage Mitigation Indicator
Caliper
(ft) (ft) Plan?(Y/N) Code
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 12 6-12 0.25" Canopy 15% Y FACW
Ulmus americana American Elm 12 6-12 0.25" Canopy 10% N FACW
Sambucus canadensis* Elderberry 12 6-12 0.25" Subconopy 10% Y FAC
Acer negundo Boxelder 12 6-12 0.25" Canopy 10% Y FAC
Cephalanthus occidentalis* Buttonbush 12 6-12 0.25" Shrub 5% N OBL
Alnus serrulata* Tag Alder 12 6-12 0.25" Subconopy 10% N OBL
Live Stakes
Salix nigra Black Willow 12 6-12 0.5"cal. Canopy 20% Y OBL
Salix sericea* Silky Willow 12 6-12 0.5"cal. Subconopy 12% Y OBL
Cornus amomum* Silky dogwood 12 6-12 0.5"cal. Subconopy 8% Y FACW
*Subcanopy or shrub species-not held to monitoring height requirements

4117:
L _—_I Conservation Easement '.r R� ,, - -. - --
r' Y E ,i :� ,� r: i
if
Project Parcels . •"� + ', ,' s r f" ' .� '� (
•
I"//O/I Existing Wetlands .r;! P. :,.+• ,.;r • • '4- r , N
z Internal Crossing . r, I. 0 Zraiil 9 _ __� - At air., 'v. 's'] ^:. ,, .
in Vegetation Plot Meets Criteria ' `�' .^
:x %
Vegetation Plot Does Not Meet Criteria ..._ ..� ^� % Y `` , ..a.-
•
CVegetation Plot Meets Criteria �---- - ' 3
OVegetation Plot Does Not Meet Criteria i
Propsed Wetland Supplemental Planting t
r F,E, ,
Non-Project Streams ±
. K i , j
r '
1
-- Restoration
,
1 R �
FII
Enhancement I ' dlt
I Ir
;
• i , i
I Enhancement II -; A , t
Pk
No Credit ; -1 I
P
i t 5
)�. S r f I
Bankfull :'%+. .' + ._ / •t
1 \ ' • ., a - .
-—— Alignment Deviation -' • I O N.-•_ _
1. --- Overhead Utility - I.10
'�� j ��' . e3 o
I Topographical Contour(20') `k � ! '; --4' , 'a I `�'�
-•L i
..,. .,
.......,, . ,._.
t ', i /
' Cross Sections "• / '
► f
4 Crest Gage I
Barotroll '� rr■ / '
�" /
0 Photo Points / '
��r/
Q Reach Breaks _ _�_,_�� _j ,
.....,„„.....
7_ , r� �. 1
• . 1' j Goa •
*Itillilfr A.: s, I NE13
I
`00 AO III - i
'•. ,W• \''''' L.. 4 All'
�,: � -�� - . �_... -- 1 GAB
r"
14\ / ''•• - . F ...
L ' '�,r 'i UT2 }:
Gi� B J r
Wit' ,. ; ---� _n ..
i ' I
`� , r �.
i �.
.
�a
- : "'`.-- I *t . .
f' ~� I j
f
� . i l ��
r .
I4
,4�, n . _
- � L G 9
rN - 4,- u
2018 Aerial Photography - ',,. • 4.
Figure 2.0 Proposed Wetland Supplemental Planting
OW I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Honey Mill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I DMS Project No. 100083
Surry County, NC

Table 15. Proposed Shaded Supplemental Planting
Honey Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100083
Shaded Bare Roots
Approved in Wetland
Indio.
Species Common Name Max Spacing(ft) Min.Caliper Size Stratum Percentage Mitigation Plan? Indicator
Spacning(ft)
(Y/N) Code
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Canopy 10% Y FACW
Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Canopy 5% Y FACU
Ulmus rubra** Slippery Elm 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Canopy 5% N FAC
Carpinus caroliniana* Ironwood 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Subcanopy 5% Y FAC
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Canopy 10% Y FAC
Morus rubra* Red Mulberry 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Subcanopy 5% Y FACU
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Canopy 5% Y FAC
Eunoymus americanus* American Strawberry Bush 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Shrub 5% Y FAC
Calycanthus floridus* Sweetshrub 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Shrub 5% Y FACU
Hamamelis virginiana* Witch Hazel 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Subcanopy 5% Y FACU
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Canopy 5% Y FACU
Fagus grandifolia American Beech 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Canopy 7% Y FACU
Quercus alba White Oak 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Canopy 8% Y FACU
Lindera benzoin* Spicebush 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Shrub 5% Y FAC
Corpus florida* Flowering Dogwood 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Subcanopy 5% Y FACU
Ozydendron arboreum* Sourwood 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Subcanopy 5% Y UPL
Ilex opaca* American Holly 25 12-25 0.25"-1.0" Subcanopy 5% Y FACU
*Subcanopy species-not held to monitoring height requirements
**The only change from the as-built planting list is Slippery Elm is being substituted for Tulip Poplar.

T V
rl-
1 Q 72.
II'' zr, :i
S� )az z
® N/F
�..,,. I
LU ANN VENABLE BROWNE °� °c , ,;-s"s•:•'•'AII•"-P•
�\ D.B.327,PG.641 ,,es::�o•;, ,440
/ / '� ;^
PIN:5928-50-7069 a a
y/ , .... .• o& o4,
NAB -,0a.
\ \_ LE FARM p \\ ,.G"' ,�,uruu,+ts�,
_ R�q� :�'g"♦-�e'�aovi��g``':` O OG ee••^• z\L¢5�1 GAR '$i
/ / 7 - _ ..,::tom'.• - V G�, Fe;` I 4„-oft
;kiE E i i' �' �. °G 64 3
\ 44�� E N/F �`s _�
o � e 001 _ MONTY K.VENABLE ET AL. �\ \\
�� � lµke. �+
. 0 1 »; I \ D.B.205,PG.495 0 4ry g, ��ti
N/F �)A / _ ;%°:•♦.s',r,;; - I PIN:5928-60-5518 it:it �F rrr'I lI t
i
.•,•a.� LCHARLESE.BROWNE& �„ b:� i • � ,•. 4
I LU ANN V.BROWN )D �t +: zs
D.B.525,PG.330 N/F 1�•��, sz�':e. °oF °F
P.I.N.5 27-49-7075 CHARLES E.BROWNE& ,: .''/ \ \
L'L, o
�'`• LU ANN VENABLE BROWN s,,; •', ( A I
I I 'Q D.B.1209,PG.520(TRACT 2) '!♦d�,,, :ti ` ;!,;' F
. ., P.I.N.5927-00-59-9301 ♦ :,• ;,. ,_�
IV `
(17:44:L11AFA.''''.-.V.,"4:e.r,;...:06";3-47*;itt,.r.,11 . .."4111"1";:::'....' .::"V 7
I\ \\ ,
\ \
..... ru.)
,„
, , \ -,, , Ir,1, V Vii, ;-.1 (.15
\\ \
Alik -..T
I 3 \NT •�? Ti
7
" j \\�/ ® '`a MONTY K.VENABLE ET AL. \ U
�2k s „♦- °' „, D.B.313,PG.722
® / �' • ;.,.„ '1��.,Y�i %O � PIN:5927-68-4669
\ 4' /� e /4 ui , N/F 4- O bA
1 i j;. :' /� + V LU ANN V.BROWN CJ) Z •
;, ,' • s40....
:! �� D.B.1209,PG.520(TRACT 1) o
T. �/��,. o<,i� I .. '+ I PIN: 5928 70-6435 O byrci
•� s
// i.. � � 7 N/F I b ++
o - ���p MONTY K.VENABLE ET AL. / / N
c ♦. �' �, j, / D.B.313,PG.722 bA ,,
/° l -/ i' ' ±• � � f PIN:5927-68-4669
/ i / P.'j40, -''''Z / /
S /Q o / a3' EEK El
/ / I ;~
!1 . 4 g E
.\` w ��\It'NPg� o•��,. N �� 2' cn
Q, s s
pGj '�� , % �: V�.lir S / CU
' UT1•/ /
LOD, ex
-
•• ,-' 2, MONTY K.VENABLE ET AL.
. C°o D.B.313,PG.722 /
Ala. / I PIN:5927-68-4669 I ' /'�j '\ A V V I I w G N
O
/ /
5 0 --57 ) ,, ° T 7 V V 7
o
_
no /
o�� - o �• ' 2•`' I
IV
a w
Lo-t- \‘\ 0?) V A / —S /
I o / T \ '= CA
itt \_,
— \ CA
I\\ ' / - (HORI
- - 0' 150' 300' 450' P s
tt
Y ZONT4L) y 'y s rt j �i
1 %\ / A.

APPENDIXG. Correspondence

‘111117V1111V
WILDLANDS
F N C I N F F R I N C
December 7, 2021
Ms. Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
United States Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
Subject: Monitoring Year 0 Report Comments
Honey Mill Mitigation Site, Surry County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101
DMS Project ID#100083
USACE#SAW-2018-01789
Dear Ms. Browning:
Thank you for your October 29, 2021 comment email for the Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year
0 report. We will make the necessary revisions to the documents and take action at the site as
described in our responses below. All revisions have been incorporated into the MY1 report.
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.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: During construction, several pockets of non-forested areas within the wooded
buffer were identified. Wildlands took the approach of redistributing the bare roots to focus on these
areas using denser spacing (12' vs. 25').The total number of bare roots planted matched the quantity in
the mitigation plan. While we understand that this is a modification to the approved mitigation plan, the
approach we took addressed several open areas within the established wooded buffer. Wildlands will
plant all areas initially identified in the IRT approved mitigation plan during the upcoming 2021/2022
dormant season.
2. The legend on Figure 3 shows the same symbols for permanent and mobile veg plots.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE:The legend on Figure 3 will be revised to differentiate the types of veg plots.
3. The 10-ft farm path should be shown on the figures in future monitoring reports.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE:The farm path will be shown on all 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.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

WILDLANDS RESPONSE:: While we understand that ideally the path should be outside the easement,
Wildlands agreed with DMS in this instance to leave the path in the easement as an exception.The
easement exemptions do allow for maintenance of the farm path.The landowner is aware of the limits
of the path within the easement.
The farm path located inside the conservation easement and the crossing that extends outside of the
internal crossing cutout were reviewed by DMS, NC DEQ Stewardship and NC SPO. Both areas were
added to the DEQ Stewardship GIS infrastructure geodatabase and were documented in the DEQ
Stewardship project file.The landowner will be able to maintain the crossing and farm path as
constructed. The landowner should notify DEQ Stewardship prior to conducting maintenance work
inside the conservation 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?
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Wildlands realizes the description of UT5 in section 1.3.2 is misleading and will
revise it for clarity.
2. Section 5.1.6—Please elaborate on the data point based alignment change for the upstream
portion of UT5(Enhancement II reach).
WILDLANDS RESPONSE:The alignment along the upstream portion of UT5 wasn't actually changed. It is
in the original location as mapped on the preliminary jurisdictional delineation (pJD). The alignment
shown in design plans was incorrect, but unfortunately this discrepancy wasn't caught until the record
drawings were being created. At the time, Wildlands redrew the alignment based on the pJD and
decided to show it as a red line because it deviated from the design plans.
3. 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.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Please refer to USACE comment 1 response.
4. Section 5.1.8—For the section of fence line removal, what was the adjacent land use changed
to?
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Cattle were removed from that parcel and land use is now open agricultural
field.The fence was not installed so that the landowner could timber outside the easement.The
landowner understands that if cattle are reintroduced in the future,fence must be installed.
Honey Mill Mitigation Site,Surry County Page 2 of 4
MYO IRT Comment Response

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?
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: A letter was mailed to the landowner explaining the allowable limits of culvert
maintenance. The farm path located inside the conservation easement and the crossing that extends
outside of the internal crossing cutout were reviewed by DMS, NC DEQ Stewardship and NC SPO. Both
areas were added to the DEQ Stewardship GIS infrastructure geodatabase and were documented in the
DEQ Stewardship project file. The landowner will be able to maintain the crossing and farm path as
constructed. The landowner should notify DEQ Stewardship prior to conducting maintenance work
inside the conservation easement.
6. Sheet 1.8—Please confirm that the pre-construction profile as shown resulted in no changes with
ford crossing installation.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Wildlands was on-site during construction and ensured that the ford was
installed at grade.
7. Table 9—It's very nice to see a good species diversity across all of the veg plots.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Noted.
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.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Wildlands does not normally show structure invert elevations or structure type
deviations on the record drawing profile. We do show significant changes in the profile as red in the
record drawings. Since the structures were installed within acceptable tolerances, no elevation
deviations were shown on the profile.
2. Figures 3.3, 3.4 and Sheet 1.5: What happened to the fence that seems to end around UT2B and
begins again around the top of UT5?It appears open ended but is this suitable even with the change in
land use(livestock removal)of the adjacent(former)pasture?
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Please refer to NCDWR comment 4 response.
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.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Noted.
4. Encroachment of CE due to requested landowner access road noted with no corrective action
needed.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Noted.
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.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Noted.
6. UT2B does not appear on the Planting Plan sheets 2.2 and 2.5.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: See response to USACE comment 1 above.
Honey Mill Mitigation Site,Surry County Page 3 of 4
MYO IRT Comment Response

7. All the photos of the streams, veg plots, and mature trees are excellent.
WILDLANDS RESPONSE: Noted.
Please contact me at 704-332-7754 extension 109 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Senior Water Resources Engineer
Honey Mill Mitigation Site,Surry County Page 4 of 4
MY0 IRT Comment Response

Environmental
QuQdtry
To: DMS Technical Workgroup, DMS operations staff
From: Periann Russell, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
RE: Pebble count data requirements
Date: October 19, 2021
The DMS Technical Work Group met September 29, 2021 to discuss Interagency Review Team (IRT) and
DMS requirements for collecting pebble count data as part of monitoring (MYO-MYx). Agreement was
reached between all attending parties that pebble count data will not be required during the monitoring
period for all future projects.
Sediment data and particle distribution will still be required for the mitigation plan as part of the
proposed design explanation and justification.
Pebble counts and/or particle distributions currently being conducted by providers for annual
monitoring may be discontinued at the discretion of the DMS project manager. If particle distribution
was listed as a performance standard in the project mitigation plan,the provider is required to
communicate the intent to cease data collection with the DMS project manager. The absence of pebble
count data in future monitoring reports where pebble count data was listed as part of monitoring in the
mitigation plan must be documented in the monitoring report. The September 29, 2021 Technical Work
Group meeting may be cited as the source of the new policy.
The IRT reserves the right to request pebble count data/particle distributions if deemed necessary
during the monitoring period.

Jeff Turner
From: Kristi Suggs
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:08 PM
To: Jeff Turner
Subject: FW: [External] FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements
Please see below.
Kristi Suggs I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
From: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, November 18, 2021 3:56 PM
To: Kristi Suggs<[e-mail]>
Cc: Mimi Caddell <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements
Kristi,
You may implement the new pebble count policy on any of the projects that I manage in accordance with the policy and
your own professional judgement. Please feel free to utilize pebble count data for any site that you determine would
benefit from the analysis. Some sites may have specific performance criteria or other factors where pebble counts could
be required.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
919-723-7565
[e-mail]
610 East Center Avenue
Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
DEC)
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Kristi Suggs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>
1

Cc: Mimi Caddell <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Kelly,
Jason Lorch in our Raleigh Office forwarded this meeting memo to me. It says that conducting pebble counts for DMS
monitoring (MYO—MY7) projects is no longer needed as long as it has been okayed by the DMS PM. Moving forward,
are you going to allow us to stop doing them on your projects? Please let me know. Thank you!
Kristi
Kristi Suggs I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
From:Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 9:05 AM
To: Kristi Suggs <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements
FYI!
Jason Lorch, GISP I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 x107 M: 919.413.1214
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Russell, Periann <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:05 AM
To: King, Scott<[e-mail]>; Catherine Manner<[e-mail]>;Tugwell, Todd J
CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Brad Breslow<[e-mail]>;
Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>;[e-mail]; grant lewis <[e-mail]>;Jeff
Keaton <[e-mail]>; katie mckeithan<[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell
<[e-mail]>; Kevin Tweedy<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew
<[e-mail]>; Ryan Smith <[e-mail]>; Melia, Gregory<[e-mail]>;Allen,
Melonie<[e-mail]>; Famularo,Joseph T<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Bryan
Dick<[e-mail]>; Ryan Medric<[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell <[e-mail]>; Worth Creech
<[e-mail]>;Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay<[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>;Tsomides, Harry
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew<[e-mail]>; Dow,Jeremiah J
<[e-mail]>; Horton,Jeffrey<[e-mail]>; Ullman, Kirsten J
2

<[e-mail]>;Ackerman, Anjie<[e-mail]>; Blackwell,Jamie D
<[e-mail]>; Xu, Lin <[e-mail]>; Mir, Danielle <[e-mail]>; Corson, Kristie
<[e-mail]>; Russell, Periann <[e-mail]>; Sparks, Kimberly L
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Pebble Count Data Requirements
Please review the attached memo documenting the agreed upon policy for pebble count data requirements.
Please reply(me only) to this email if accept that this memo represents (or misrepresents) our discussion on Sept 29.
Thank you.
Periann Russell
Geomorphologist
Division of Mitigation Services, Science and Analysis
NC Department of Environmental Quality
919 707 8306 office
919 208 1426 mobile
periann.russell©ncdenr.gov
Mailing: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Physical: 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603
• Pw'Nothing Cam'arcs
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
3