The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181271 Ver 1_HoneyMill_100083_MY2_2022_20230224ID#* 20181271 Version* 1 Select Reviewer: Ryan Hamilton Initial Review Completed Date 04/17/2023 Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/24/2023 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No Type of Mitigation Project:* Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name: * Email Address: Kelly Phillips kelly.phillips@ncdenr.gov 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_MY2_2022.pdf 17.04MB Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted... Signature Print Name:* Kelly Phillips Signature: * ,�e% PhllPs MONITORING YEAR 2 ANNUAL REPORT FINAL HONEY MILL MITIGATION SITE Surry County, NC DEQ Contract No. 7619 DMS Project No. 100083 Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01789 NCDEQ DWR#: 18-1271 RFP #: 16-00746 RFP Issuance Date: December 7, 2017 Data Collection Period: January 2022 – October 2022 FINAL Submission Date: February, 2022 PREPARED FOR: NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 February 2, 2023 Mr. Kelly Phillips Project Manager NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 RE: FINAL: Year 2 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 Final Year 2 Monitoring Report for the Honey Mill Mitigation Site that were received on January 20, 2023. The report has been updated to reflect those comments. The Final MY2 Report is included. DMS’ comments are listed below in bold. Wildlands’ responses to DMS’ comments are noted in italics. DMS’ comment: Report Cover: Thank you for including the data collection dates. Wildlands’ response: Noted. DMS’ comment: Executive Summary: Thank you for providing concise status updates on each project action item and referencing the 8/16/22 Credit Release Site Walk. Wildlands’ response: You’re welcome. DMS’ comment: Executive Summary: During the boundary walk to identify potential encroachment, was the easement boundary marking also assessed and determined to be within specification? Any deficiencies would need to be resolved and detailed in the MY3 report. Wildlands’ response: Yes, the easement boundary marking was checked during MY2. No deficiencies were identified. DMS’ comment: 1.4.4 Areas of Concern and Management Activity - Easement Encroachments: Cross- reference the 0.04-acre encroachment shown on Table 5 with the easement exception described in this section. Wildlands’ response: The area has been cross-referenced with the additional text added to the report “The areas of encroachment total to 0.04 AC (0.2% of the easement) and are exception areas documented at baseline and included in Table 5 (Appendix A).” DMS’ comment: 1.4.4 Areas of Concern and Management Activity - Shaded Supplemental Planting: Include brief discussion of sub-canopy and shrub species planted in the shaded area. Wildlands’ response: The addition discussion text was added to the report “The subcanopy bare roots planted in the shaded area were Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Red Mulberry (Morus rubra), Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida), Sourwood (Ozydendron arboreum), and American Holly (Ilex opaca). The shrub bare roots planted include American Strawberry Bush (Eunoymus americanus), Sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus), and Spicebush (Lindera benzoin).” Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 Updated Bankfull Information: After the draft report was submitted Wildlands recorded a bankfull event in Winter 2022 and the report text has been updated with the additional bankfull documentation for the Final report. Digital Support File Comments: DMS’ comment: Include upstream and downstream views for each set of photographs documenting crossing areas. Wildlands’ response: A culvert and crossing photo folder was added to the digital support file. 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 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, Kristi Suggs Senior Environmental Scientist ksuggs@wildlandseng.com PREPARED BY: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: 704.332.7754 Fax: 704.332.3306 Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL iii 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 and the surrounding watershed have 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. In Monitoring Year 2 (MY2), the Site has met the required stream success criteria. The average planted stem density is 471 stems per acre with 13/14 vegetation plots on track to meet the MY3 density criteria. Supplemental planting in wetland areas (approximately 2.5 acres) and shaded areas (7.0 acres) was completed on Site in March 2022 prior to the onset of the growing season. To better capture floodplain access in future monitoring years a manual crest gage was added, and the automated crest gage was moved further downstream on Venable Creek Reach 3. Since moving the crest gage to a more representative cross- section, one bankfull event was documented on the Venable Creek Reach 3 in MY2. The Site is on track to meet the MY7 bankfull flow requirements. No stream areas of instability were documented in MY2. Areas noted during the 8/16/2022 MY1 Credit Release Site Walk will continue to be monitored. All fencing repairs have been completed and the boundary was walked with no encroachments present in October 2022. Invasive species areas will continue to be monitored and adaptive management measures will be implemented as necessary to benefit the ecological health of the Site. Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL iv HONEY MILL MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1-2 Section 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-1 Section 3: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................3-1 Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-1 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 FIGURES Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View (Key) Figures 1a-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 Supplemental Photographs MY2 Fencing Repairs/ Installation Photographs Permanent and Mobile Vegetation Plot Photographs Shaded Vegetation Transect Photographs Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data Table 6 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Table 7a-b Vegetation Plot Data Table 7c Vegetation Transect 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 Event Plots Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info Table 12 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 13 Project Contact Table Appendix F Correspondence Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Credit Release Site Walk 8/16/22 DMS Technical Workgroup Memo (10/19/2021) Pebble Count Data Requirements (11/18/2021 email) Appendix E Supplemental Planting March 2022 IRT Approved Planted Supplemental Stems: Species and Quantities Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-2 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 Project Stream Mitigation Plan Footage1, 2, 3 As-Built Footage Mitigation Category Restoration Level Mitigation Ratio (X:1) Credits Venable Creek Reach 1 91 91.000 Cool EII 2.500 36.386 Venable Creek Reach 2 211 211.000 Cool EI 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 EII 2.500 783.042 UT1 273 273.000 Cool R 1.000 272.885 UT2 Reach 1 742 742.000 Cool EII 4.000 185.462 UT2 Reach 2 342 332.000 Cool R 1.000 342.364 UT2A 893 893.000 Cool EII 4.000 223.310 UT2B 70 70.000 Cool N/A 0.000 0.000 UT3 Reach 1 784 784.000 Cool EII 3.000 261.279 Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-3 Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits Project Components Project Stream Mitigation Plan Footage1, 2, 3 As-Built Footage Mitigation Category Restoration Level Mitigation Ratio (X:1) Credits UT3 Reach 2 306 306.000 Cool R 1.000 306.172 UT4 440 440.000 Cool EII 3.000 146.780 UT5 518 518.000 Cool EII 3.000 172.553 UT6 Reach 1 214 213.000 Cool EII 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 BMPS. 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 Restoration Level Stream 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 Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-4 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements Goal Objective/Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results Exclude livestock from stream channels. Install livestock fencing on all or portions of the Site and/or permanently remove livestock from all or portions of the Site to exclude livestock from stream channels and riparian areas. Reduced agricultural runoff and cattle trampling in streams. There is no required performance standard for this metric. Visually monitor fenced portions of Site to ensure no cattle are entering the easement. No cattle observed in easement. Improve stability of stream channels. Construct stream channels that will maintain stable cross- sections, patterns, and profiles over time. Reduction in sediment inputs from bank erosion, reduction of shear stress, and improved overall hydraulic function. Bank height ratios remain below 1.2 over the monitoring period. Visual assessments showing progression towards stability. 11 cross- section surveys in MY1, 2, 3, 5, & 7. All cross sections have a BHR <1.2. Channels are stable have maintained the constructed riffle and pool sequence. Reconnect channels with floodplains. Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull dimensions and depth relative to the existing floodplain. Dispersion of high flows on the floodplain. Four bankfull events, occurring in separate years during the monitoring period. Venable Creek Reach 3- 1 Manual Crest Gage and 1 automated Crest Gage. In MY2, one bankfull event was recorded on the Venable Creek Reach 3 Crest Gage. Improve instream habitat. Install habitat features such as constructed riffles, cover logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced streams. Add woody materials to channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth. Increase and diversify available habitats for macroinvertebrates, fish, and amphibians leading to colonization and increase in biodiversity over time. There is no required performance standard for this metric. N/A N/A Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation. Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zones and plant appropriate species on streambanks. Reduction in floodplain sediment inputs from runoff, increased bank stability, increased LWD and organic material in streams In open planting areas a survival rate of 320 stems per acre at MY3, 260 planted stems per acre at MY5, and 210 stems per acre at MY7. Height requirement is 6 feet at MY5 and 8 feet at MY7. 9 permanent vegetation plots, 5 mobile vegetation plots in MY1, 2, 3, 5, & 7. 13/14 (93%) vegetation plots are on track to meet MY3 success criteria of 320 stems per acre. Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-5 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements Goal Objective/Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results Treat concentrated agricultural runoff Install agricultural BMPS in areas of concentrated agricultural runoff. Treatment of runoff before it enters the stream channel. There is no required performance standard for this metric. N/A N/A Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish conservation easements on the Site. Protect Site from encroachment on the riparian corridor and direct impact to streams and wetlands. Prevent easement encroachment. Visually inspect the perimeter of the Site to ensure no easement encroachment is occurring. No new easement encroachments were observed in MY2. 0.04 acres of easement exceptions were noted in MY0. The fence was repaired throughout. 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 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 Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Yadkin River Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-6 Table 3: Project Attributes USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3040101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14- digit 03040101110020 Project Watershed Summary Information DWR Sub-basin 03-07-03 2011 NLCD Land Use Classification Forest (65%), Cultivated (21%), Shrubland (5%), Urban (9%), Open Water (0%) Project Drainage Area (acres) 705 Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 0.8% Reach Summary Information Parameters Venable Creek UT1 UT2 UT2A UT2B UT3 UT4 UT5 UT6 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 Length of reach (linear feet) - Post- Restoration 91 211 1,647 1,958 273 742 332 893 80 784 306 440 518 213 205 Valley confinement Unconfined to Confined Drainage area (acres) 183 519 599 705 334 21 43 21 9 15 18 9 12 8 10 Perennial (P), Intermittent (I), Ephemeral (E) P P P P P I/ P P P P P P P I/ P P P NCDWR Water Quality Classification Class C Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre-Restoration 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 Morphological Description (stream type) - Post- Restoration N/A B4 C4 N/A C4b N/A B4 N/A N/A N/A C4b N/A N/A N/A A4 Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration 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 Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Action ID #SAW-2018-01789 Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes DWR# 18-1271 Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control) Yes Yes NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCG010000 Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-7 Table 3: Project Attributes Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan Regulatory Considerations Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A N/A FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A 1.4 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment Annual monitoring for MY2 was conducted between January and October 2022. 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 Please see the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps for permanent vegetation plot locations, MY2 mobile plot locations, and the wetland and shaded supplemental planting areas. Vegetation plot and vegetation transect photographs are located in Appendix A. All vegetation summary data for plots and transects are in Appendix B. Please note Table 6 summarizes only the Mitigation Performance Standard stem densities. However, IRT has approved supplemental wetland and riparian species that were added to the site as documented in the MY1 Annual Monitoring Report (Wildlands, 2021). Please see IRT approved planted supplemental stems species and quantities in Appendix G. To account for the IRT approved supplemental species please refer to Table 7 “Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard” densities discussed in the results below. The MY2 permanent plot planted stem density using the “Post Mitigation Plan” performance standard ranged from 324 to 526 stems per acre. In MY2, 8/9 permanent plots are projected to meet the MY3 criteria of 320 stems per acre. The only permanent plot not on track to meet the MY3 criteria is vegetation plot 6 with a stem density of 283 stems per acre, however, it is still on track to meet the MY5 density criteria. The fixed plots with supplemental stems (permanent plots 3, 4, 5, and 9) have all improved in density from MY1 ranging from a 25%- 54% increase. The overall MY2 “Post Mitigation Plan” planted density for the random mobile vegetation plots ranged from 324 to 729 stems per acre and all 5 mobile plots are projected to meet MY3 criteria. The mobile plots are distributed across the Site to provide representative data of the open planting riparian corridor. As requested at the 8/16/22 MY1 Credit Release Site Walk, two forested woody vegetation transects were added to monitor the survivorship of the shaded supplemental planting. Forested transect 1 was Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-8 established on UT2 R1 and had a total stem count of 14 planted stems. Forested transect 2 was established on UT4 and had a total stem count of 11 stems. These transects will be evaluated to monitor survivorship of these stems under the canopy through MY7 and are not held to the density or height requirements. Meeting minutes from the 8/16/22 IRT Site walk are located in Appendix F. Overall, 93% (13/14) vegetation plots are on track to meet the MY3 density criteria. The average stem height was 2.8 feet, increasing from MY1 to MY2. Additionally, the overall planted density for the Site in MY2 was 471 stems per acre, increasing 25% from MY1 due to the 2022 supplemental planting discussed further in Section 1.4.4. The species diversity has increased to an average of 7 species per plot. Therefore, the riparian vegetation on Site is performing well and diverse, native, herbaceous species are establishing in the easement. The woody stem density is projected to exceed requirement of 320 stems per acre in MY3. 1.4.2 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 MY2 were conducted in June 2022. Cross-section survey results indicate that channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed on all restoration reaches with minimal adjustments from MY1 to MY2. Minor decreases in cross-sectional area, max depth, and bank height ratio within riffles XS8 and XS11 first observed in MY1, have since stabilized in MY2. Pebble counts were conducted in March of 2021 during the MY0 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 11/18/21 from the DMS project manager for the Site, 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. 1.4.3 Stream Hydrology Assessment An automated pressure transducer is being used to monitor for bankfull flow events. 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 was one bankfull event recorded on 11/6/22 by the crest gage on Venable Creek Reach 3 and is on track to meet the performance criteria of four bankfull events occurring in separate years during the monitoring period. The 30th and 70th percentile data were collected from the Mount Airy 2 W, WETS station for years 1971-2020. The average rainfall in MY2 exceeded the amount recorded in MY1 at 46.89 inches, which is classified as an average amount of precipitation for a given year. CG1 was originally installed on Venable Creek Reach 3 at XS7 to document bankfull events. However, little interaction with the floodplain at XS7 was documented based on the crest gage data collected from 3/4/2021 - 8/16/2022. On 5/25/22, Wildlands installed a manual crest gage to supplement the automated crest gage data at XS7 and the recoding interval for the automated gage was increased from 3 hours to 1 hour to increase the likelihood of capturing bankfull events. Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-9 The lack of bankfull documentation at crest gage location was discussed in the field at the 8/16/22 MY1 Credit Release Site Walk, and it was acknowledged XS7 is not representative of the overall floodplain conditions. The IRT approved relocation of the crest gage further downstream on Venable Creek, with the condition that the manual crest gage remain installed at XS7. CG1 was moved below the UT3 confluence along Venable Creek Reach 3 on 8/17/22. The manual crest gage and automatic crest gage locations have been updated on all MY2 CCPV figures. Based on the re-location of CG1, one bankfull events has been documented within the remaining monitoring period, and will likely document bankfull events in future monitoring years. Please refer to Appendix D for hydrology summary data and gage plots, and Appendix F for the 8/16/22 MY1 Credit Release Site Meeting Minutes. 1.4.4 Areas of Concern and Management Activity Stream Stability The streams appear stable and functioning with vegetation developing on the channel banks. No areas of instability were noted during the MY2 visual assessment that took place between 8/16/22- 8/17/22. Stream areas discussed during the 8/16/22 MY1 Credit Release Site Walk are detailed below. The spring wetland seep in the right floodplain of Venable Creek Reach 3 provides important floodplain storage, and the pour point to the channel is stable. Wildlands will continue to monitor the seep in future monitoring years. UT2B (not for credit) was dry during the visual assessment on 8/16/22 but has remained stable. During dry times of the year, UT3 flows subsurface to the Venable Creek Reach 3 confluence. However, the UT3 confluence has remained stable, and a marker was installed to monitor vertical incision. The meander bend above the UT3 confluence has scoured slightly at the brushtoe, although willows have filled in and are armoring the bank. This bend was not mapped as an area of concern because there is no evidence of active erosion, and it is a small area while the brushtoe along the rest of the meander remains largely intact. Wildlands will live stake the area before the start of the 2023 growing season and continue to monitor this area. Please refer to Appendix A for the supplemental photolog. All culverts, crossing areas, and BMPS have remained stable with riparian vegetation filling in nicely in the surrounding riparian corridor. Photo point 29 was added to document the ford crossing on Venable Creek Reach 4 each year and has been added to the annual monitoring stream photolog as requested in the 8/16/22 MY1 Credit Release Site Meeting Minutes. The visual assessment tables and Supplemental BMP photographs are located in Appendix A. Easement Exception and Fencing There are three areas of easement exceptions that were documented at baseline conditions and will remain on the CCPV maps throughout the seven-year monitoring period per IRT request. The areas of encroachment total to 0.04 AC (0.2% of the easement) and are exception areas documented at baseline and included in Table 5 (Appendix A). The additional fencing detailed below is also present on the MY2 CCPV maps. All fencing additional installation and repairs were completed in September 2022. Approximately 910 LF of fencing was added on the eastern side of Venable Creek Reach 3 outside of the easement boundary, as cattle are being returned to the adjacent pasture. Any breaks in fencing were also repaired at the same time and a full boundary inspection was completed. All fence on the Site is intact and no encroachments were present as of October 2022. The fencing repair areas are documented in the supplemental photographs in Appendix A. Wetland Supplemental Planting Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-10 During the MY1 vegetation survey and visual assessment of the Site, Wildlands noted 12% (2.5 acres) of restored floodplain were trending wetter than anticipated. In March 2022, Wildlands proactively added supplemental woody wetland stems to establish a well-vegetated riparian buffer early in the monitoring period. Three wetland species that were not originally included in the Honey Mill Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020) planting list were Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata). These species were approved by the IRT on January 3, 2022, as documented in the MY1 Annual Monitoring Report (Wildlands, 2021) and were thus entered into the NCDMS Vegetation Data Entry Tool as “Approved Post Mitigation Plan.” The approved supplemental wetland species have been included in the MY2 vegetative survey and factored into the density and species composition for all vegetation data analysis. Please refer to the IRT approved planted supplemental stems species and quantities in Appendix G. Shaded Supplemental Planting In March 2022, Wildlands planted additional stems in the enhancement II reaches with existing forest (approximately 7 acres) with previously approved riparian species. The only substitution from the Honey Mill Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020) was Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra) for Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) due to availability at time of planting. The substitution was approved by the IRT on January 3, 2022, as documented in the MY1 Annual Monitoring Report (Wildlands, 2021). The subcanopy bare roots planted in the shaded area were Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Red Mulberry (Morus rubra), Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida), Sourwood (Ozydendron arboreum), and American Holly (Ilex opaca). The shrub bare roots planted include American Strawberry Bush (Eunoymus americanus), Sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus), and Spicebush (Lindera benzoin). As requested at the 8/16/22 MY1 Credit Release Site Walk, two forested woody vegetation transects were added to monitor the survivorship of the shaded supplemental planting. Meeting minutes from the 8/16/22 IRT Site walk are located in Appendix F. Please see IRT approved planted supplemental stems species and quantities in Appendix G. Invasive Species Management There were four established wooded areas with understory invasive species within the project area. These areas occupy less than 2% of the easement and are located within the existing forests along UT2, UT2A, UT3, and UT6, as shown on CCPV Figures 1a - 1d. The invasives were treated in March 2022 before the onset of the growing season and will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary in MY3. The open planting areas have established native herbaceous vegetation and are largely free of invasive species. See the vegetation condition assessment Table 5 in Appendix A. 1.5 Monitoring Year 2 Summary Overall, the Site has met the required stream success criteria for MY2. The average planted stem density was 471 stems per acre with 13/14 vegetation plots on track to meet the MY3 density requirement of 320 stems per acre. Wetland and shaded supplemental planting took place in March 2022 prior to the onset of the growing season. There has been a 25% increase in average stem density from MY1 due to the supplemental planting efforts that took place in MY2. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross- section bankfull dimensions closely match the baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and streams are functioning as intended. A manual crest gage was added, and the automated crest gage was moved further downstream on Venable Creek to better capture floodplain access in future monitoring years. Since moving the crest gage in MY2, one bankfull event was documented on the Venable Creek Reach 3. The Site is on track to meet the MY7 bankfull flow requirements. The MY2 visual assessment identified a few invasive vegetation areas of concern in wooded enhancement II reaches that were Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 1-11 treated before the onset of the growing season in March 2022 and are continuing to be monitored and treated as necessary. The open planting areas have established native herbaceous vegetation and are largely free of invasive species. No stream areas of instability were documented, and areas of channel adjustment noted during the 8/16/2022 MY1 Credit Release Site Walk will continue to be monitored per IRT request. All fencing repairs were completed, and the boundary monitored in October 2022. Wildlands will continue to monitor the site and adaptive management measures will be implemented as necessary to benefit the ecological health of the Site. Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report – FINAL 2-1 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 2 Annual Report – FINAL 3-1 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.shinyapps.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), 2022. WETS Station, Mount Airy 2 W, Surry County, NC. https://www.wcc.nrcs.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. Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2021. Honey Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC. [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [[ [ [ [[[ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ !A !A !A !5 !5 !5 !5!5 !5 !5!5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GFGFGF GF GF GF GF GFGFGF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF !P !P !P !P !P !P [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ GF GF GF GF Ve n a b l e C r e e k UT4 UT3 Reach 1 UT 1 UT2 UT2A Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 4 UT5 Reach 1 Reach 2 UT2B Ve n a b l e C r e e k 10 ft. Farm Path Exception Crossing Exception Figure 1d Figu r e 1 c Figure 1b Figure 1a Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Surry County, NC ¹0 250 500125 Feet 2018 Aerial Photography BMP Photo PointsGF Photo PointsGF Barotroll!A Reach Breaks!P Automatic Crest Gage (Moved in August 2022)!A Manual Crest Gage!A Overhead Utility New Fence Line Installed 2022[ Fence Line Bankfull [ Cross Sections Non-Project Streams Design to As-Built Alignment Deviation No Stream Credit Stream Enhancement II Stream Enhancement I Stream Restoration Crossing Exception 10 ft. Farm Path Exception Easement Exception (MY0) Chinese Privet Multiflora Rose, Japanese Barrberry, Chinese Privet Vegetation Areas of Concern (MY2) Meets Criteria Mobile Vegetation Plots (MY2) Does Not Meet Criteria Meets Criteria Vegetation Plots - Permanent (MY2) Shaded Planting Vegetation Transects Shaded Supplemental Planting (7.0 Acres, March 2022) Wetland Supplemental Planting (2.5 Acres, March 2022) Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing Project Parcels Conservation Easement [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !A !A !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGFGFGF !P !P !P XS3 X S 2 X S 1 XS4 X S 5 1 0 0 + 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 0 1 0 2 + 0 0 1 0 3 + 0 0 1 0 4 + 0 0 10 5 + 0 0 10 6 + 0 0 10 7 + 0 0 108+0 0 1 0 9 + 0 0 110+0 0 1 1 1 + 0 0 11 2 + 0 0 113 + 0 0 1 1 4 + 0 0 30 9 + 0 0 310+00 200+00 201+00 20 2 + 0 0 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 PP6 PP13 Barotroll Reach 1 UT 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 10 ft. Farm Path Exception (MY0) Ve n a b l e C r e e k UT1 MP2 MP4 VP2 VP1 Figure 1a. Current Condition Plan View Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Surry County, NC ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing Wetland Supplemental Planting (2.5 Acres, March 2022) Vegetation Plots - Permanent (MY2) Meets Criteria Mobile Vegetation Plots (MY2) Meets Criteria Easement Exception (MY0) 10 ft. Farm Path Exception Crossing Exception Project Parcels Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Stream Credit Non-Project Streams Cross Sections Structures Bankfull [Fence Line Overhead Utility !5 Utility Poles !P Reach Breaks GF Photo Points 0 80 160 Feet 0 90 180 Feet [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !A !A !A GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF !P !P !P [[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ XS6 X S 7 XS8 1 0 9 + 0 0 110+0 0 1 1 1 + 0 0 11 2 + 0 0 113 + 0 0 1 1 4 + 0 0 115+ 0 0 11 6 + 0 0 117 + 0 0 118+0 0 119 + 0 0 300+00 301+ 0 0302+00 303+0030 4 + 0 0 305+00 306+00 307+ 0 0 308+ 0 0 30 9 + 0 0 310+00 3 1 1 + 0 0 400 + 0 0 401+0 0402+0 0 403 + 0 0 404+0 0 405+00 406+00 407 + 0 0 4 0 8 + 0 0 509+00 510+ 0 0 51 1 + 0 0 100+00 PP5 PP6 PP13 PP12 PP10 PP9 PP8 PP11 PP18 PP19 MT1 Manual CG Barotroll CG1 T-1 X S 9 XS10 UT2 UT2A Reach 3 Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 2 UT2B Figure 1b 10 ft. Farm Path Exception (MY0) Crossing Exception Ve n a b l e C r e e k MP1 MP2 VP3 VP2 VP4 VP5 Figure 1b. Current Condition Plan View Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Surry County, NC ¹ Conservation Easement Project Parcels Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Wetland Supplemental Planting (2.5 Acres, March 2022) Shaded Supplemental Planting (7.0 Acres, March 2022) Shaded Planting Vegetation Transects Vegetation Plots - Permanent (MY2) Meets Criteria Mobile Vegetation Plots (MY2) Meets Criteria Vegetation Areas of Concern (MY2) Multiflora Rose, Japanese Barrberry, Chinese Privet Easement Exception (MY0) 10 ft. Farm Path Exception Crossing Exception Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement II No Stream Credit Non-Project Streams Cross Sections Bankfull [Fence Line [New Fence Line Installed 2022 !P Reach Breaks !A Manual Crest Gage !A Automatic Crest Gage (Moved in August 2022) !A Barotroll GF Photo Points [ [ [ [ [[[[[[ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ !A !A !A GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !P !P [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ GF GF XS6 X S 7 11 7 + 0 0 118+00 11 9 + 0 0 120+00 12 1 + 0 0 12 2 + 0 0 1 2 3 + 0 0 1 2 4 + 0 0 12 5 + 0 0 126 + 0 0 1 2 7 + 0 0 12 8 + 0 0 12 9 + 0 0 500+0 0 501+00 502+00 503+00 504+00 505+0 0 506 + 0 0 507+ 0 0 508+0 0 509+ 0 0 510 + 0 0 51 1 + 0 0 600+0 0 601+ 0 0 602 + 0 0 603+00 604 + 0 0 100+00 PP17 PP16 PP18 PP19 PP20 PP21 PP22 MT2 CG1 XS9 XS10 T2 Ve n a b l e C r e e k UT4 UT3 Reach 3 Reach 1 Reach 2 Figure 1c MP1 MP3 VP4 VP6 VP5 Figure 1c. Current Condition Plan View Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Surry County, NC ¹0 100 200 Feet 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Project Parcels Existing Wetlands Wetland Supplemental Planting (2.5 Acres, March 2022) Shaded Supplemental Planting (7.0 Acres, March 2022) Shaded Planting Vegetation Transects Vegetation Plots - Permanent (MY2) Meets Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria Mobile Vegetation Plots (MY2) Meets Criteria Vegetation Areas of Concern (MY2) Chinese Privet Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement II No Stream Credit Cross Sections Bankfull [Fence Line [New Fence Line Installed 2022 !P Reach Breaks !A Automatic Crest Gage (Moved in August 2022) GF BMP Photo Points GF Photo Points [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !5 !5 !5!5 GF GF GFGF GF GFGF GF GF GF !P [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ GF Ve n a b l e C r e e k XS1 1 12 7 + 0 0 128 + 0 0 12 9 + 0 0 13 0 + 0 0 131 + 0 0 132+00 13 3 + 0 0 13 4 + 0 0 135 + 0 0 1 3 6 + 0 0 13 7 + 0 0 1 3 8 + 0 0 139+00 140+00 700+0 0 70 1 + 0 0 702+00 70 3 + 0 0 7 0 4 + 0 0 800+00 801+00 802+0 0 803+0 0 804+00 805+00 PP22 MT2 PP24 PP23 PP25 PP26PP27 PP28 PP29 UT6 UT5 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 4 MP5 VP7 VP8 VP9 Figure 1d. Current Condition Plan View Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Surry County, NC ¹0 90 180 Feet 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Project Parcels Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing Wetland Supplemental Planting (2.5 Acres, March 2022) Shaded Supplemental Planting (7.0 Acres, March 2022) Vegetation Plots - Permanent (MY2) Meets Criteria Vegetation Plots- Mobile (MY2) Meets Criteria Vegetation Areas of Concern (MY2) Chinese Privet Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement II No Stream Credit Design to As-Built Alignment Deviation Non-Project Streams Cross Sections Structures Bankfull [Fence Line [New Fence Line Installed 2022 Overhead Utility !5 Utility Poles !P Reach Breaks GF Photo Points GF BMP Photo Points APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Date of visual assessment: August 16 ‐ August 17, 2022 Venable Creek R2 141 282 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 5 5 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 1 1 100% Date of visual assessment: August 16 ‐ August 17, 2022 Venable Creek R3 1,647 3,294 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 15 15 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 18 18 100% Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐built Amount of Unstable Footage Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Date of visual assessment: August 16 ‐ August 17, 2022 UT1 273 546 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 6 6 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 4 4 100% Date of visual assessment: August 16 ‐ August 17, 2022 UT2 R2 342 1,014 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 15 15 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 1 1 100% % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐built Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Structure Totals: Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Date of visual assessment: August 16 ‐ August 17, 2022 UT3 R2 306 612 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 11 11 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 5 5 100% Date of visual assessment: August 16 ‐ August 17, 2022 UT6 R2 205 410 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 6 6 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. N/A N/A N/A Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐built Amount of Unstable Footage Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Date of visual assessment: August 16 - August 17, 2022 Planted Acreage 4.97 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (ac) Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 0 0% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.0.10 0 0% 0 0% Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.0.10 0 0% 0.0 0% Date of visual assessment: August 16 - August 17, 2022 & October 1, 2022 Easement Acreage 20.20 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (ac) Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage Invasive Areas of Concern 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 potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term or community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in summation above should be identified in report summary. 0.10 0.42 2% Easement Encroachment Areas1 Encroachment may be point,line,or polygon.Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement.Common encroachments are mowing,cattle access,vehicular access.Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area. none 1The listed easement exception areas were documented at baseline conditions. See section 1.4.2. No new areas of encroachment were documented since baseline. Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Total Cumulative Total 0.04 ac (0.2%) STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTO POINT 1 Venable Creek R1 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 1 Venable Creek R1 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 2 UT1 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 2 UT1 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 3 Venable Creek R2 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 3 Venable Creek R2 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 4 Venable Creek R3 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 4 Venable Creek R3 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 5 Venable Creek R3 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 5 Venable Creek R3 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 6 Venable Creek R3 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 6 Venable Creek R3 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 7 Venable Creek R3 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 7 Venable Creek R3 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 8 UT2 R1 Headcut – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 8 UT2 R1 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 9 UT2 R1 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 9 UT2 R1 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 10 UT2 R1 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 10 UT2 R1 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 11 UT2A – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 11 UT2A – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 12 UT2A – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 12 UT2A – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 R2 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 R2 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 R2 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 R2 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 R2 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 R2 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 R1 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 R1 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 17 UT3 R1 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 17 UT3 R1– downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 18 UT3 R2 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 18 UT3 R2 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 19 Venable Creek R3 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 19 Venable Creek R3 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 20 UT4 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 20 UT4 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 21 Venable Creek R4 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 21 Venable Creek R4 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 22 Venable Creek R4 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 22 Venable Creek R4 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 23 UT5 Headcut – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 23 UT5 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 24 UT5 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 24 UT5 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 25 Venable Creek R4 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 25 Venable Creek R4 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 26 Venable Creek R4 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 26 Venable Creek R4 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 27 UT6 R2 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 27 UT6 R2 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 28 UT6 R1 – upstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 28 UT6 R1 – downstream (04/14/2022) PHOTO POINT 29 Venable Creek R4 Ford Crossing – (08/16/2022) MATURE TREE PHOTOGRAPHS Mature Tree Photo Point 1 (Northeast) – Venable Creek Reach 3 (4/14/2022) Mature Tree Photo Point 2 (Northeast) – Venable Creek Reach 4 (4/14/2022) SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS- BMP’s UT3 BMP photo– upstream (08/16/2022) UT4 BMP photo– upstream (08/16/2022) UT6 BMP photo– upstream (08/16/2022) SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS- Site Walk Follow Up XS7 Manual Crest Gage– upstream (05/25/2022) New Automated Crest Gage Location (118+10) – downstream (08/17/2022) UT2B Dry Channel– upstream (08/16/2022) UT3 Subsurface Flow to Venable Creek– upstream (08/16/2022) VC R3- Meander Bend above UT3 confluence to be live staked before 2023 growing season on left bank (08/16/2022) VC R3- Wetland Seep to Main Channel on right floodplain (08/16/2022) MY2 FENCING REPAIRS/INSTALLATION PHOTOGRAPHS UT2 Fence Repair– (09/30/2022) UT2 R2 Crossing and Tree Removed– (09/30/2022) UT5 Fence Repair– (09/30/2022) UT5 Fence Repair– (09/30/2022) New Easement Fence Installed on Field Adjacent to Venable Creek R4– (09/30/2022) New Easement Fence Installed on Field Adjacent to Venable Creek R4– (09/30/2022) New Easement Fence Installed on Field Adjacent to Venable Creek R4– (09/30/2022) New Easement Fence Installed on Field Adjacent to Venable Creek R4– (09/30/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 1 (8/16/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 2 (8/16/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 3 (8/16/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 4 (8/16/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 5 (8/16/2022) PERMANET VEGETATION PLOT 6 (8/16/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 7 (8/17/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 8 (8/17/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 9 (8/17/2022) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 1 (8/16/2022) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 2 (8/16/2022) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 3 (8/16/2022) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 4 (8/16/2022) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 5 (8/17/2022) SHADED VEGETATION TRANSECT PHOTOGRAPHS SHADED VEGETATION TRANSECT 1 (8/16/2022) SHADED VEGETATION TRANSECT 2 (8/17/2022) APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data Table 6. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives 526 2 8 0 364 3 7 0 405*4 6 0 486 2 7 0 405 2 8 0 364 3 5 0 567 2 8 0 526 2 10 0 445 2 6 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives 324 3 5 0 405*2 8 0 283 3 6 0 202 2 4 0 324 2 7 0 324 2 6 0 567 2 9 0 364 2 8 0 607 2 10 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives 486 3 9 0 364 2 6 0 486*3 6 0 526 2 9 0 486 2 8 0 243 2 4 0 526 2 9 0 607 2 9 0 405 2 9 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives 324 5 4 0 607*4 5 0 405*2 5 0 81 2 2 0 445 2 10 0 405 2 5 0 445 2 7 0 567 2 11 0 445 2 8 0 Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives 445*2 7 0 729 2 10 0 405 2 4 0 607 2 8 0 567 2 10 0 688 2 8 0 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. *For stem densities in plots that inlcude post-mitigation plan approved species please refer to table 7 for the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" referenced in the text. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Veg Plot Group 1 R Veg Plot Group 2 R Veg Plot Group 3 R Veg Plot Group 4 R Veg Plot Group 5 R Table 7a. Vegetation Plot Data Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 5 2021-03-01 2022-03-21 2022-08-18 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 2 2 Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree FACU Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Fagus grandifolia American beech Tree FACU 1 1 Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ilex opaca American holly Tree FACU Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub UPL Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU 1 1 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 3 3 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 1 1 Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 Sum Performance Standard 13 13 9 9 10 10 8 8 10 10 7 7 12 12 9 9 11 12 Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL 2 2 1 1 1 1 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree 1 1 Sum Proposed Standard 13 13 9 9 12 12 8 8 12 12 7 7 12 12 9 9 12 13 13 9 10 8 10 7 12 9 12 526 364 405 324 405 283 486 364 486 8 7 6 5 8 6 9 6 6 23 22 25 25 17 29 17 33 23 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 9 12 8 12 7 12 9 13 526 364 486 324 486 283 486 364 526 8 7 7 5 10 6 9 6 7 23 22 25 25 17 29 17 33 23 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub Indicator Status Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre 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. Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Table 7b. Vegetation Plot Data Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 5 2021-03-01 2022-03-21 2022-08-18 0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Veg Plot 4 R Veg Plot 5 R Total Total Total Total Total Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 3 2 2 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1 Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree FACU 3 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 2 1 2 Fagus grandifolia American beech Tree FACU 4 Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU 2 Ilex opaca American holly Tree FACU 2 Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 3 1 1 2 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub UPL 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 3 7 3 3 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU 2 1 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2 1 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 1 2 Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC Sum Performance Standard 8 15 10 11 18 Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL 1 4 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC 2 Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree Sum Proposed Standard 8 16 11 15 18 8 15 10 11 18 324 607 405 445 729 4 5 5 7 10 38 44 36 24 17 5 4 21 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 16 11 15 18 324 648 445 607 729 4 6 6 8 10 38 44 36 24 17 5 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation Plan Species Current Year Stem Count Stems/AcreMitigation Plan Performance Standard Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Indicator Status Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub 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. Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Vegetation Plot Data DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Scientific Name Performance Standard Approval MY2 Stems Ilex opaca Approved Mit Plan 4 Lindera benzoin Approved Mit Plan 2 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan 3 Oxydendrum arboreum Approved Mit Plan 1 Liriodendron tulipifera Approved Mit Plan 3 Fagus grandifolia Approved Mit Plan 1 TOTAL STEM COUNT: 14 TOTAL SPECIES COUNT: 6 AVERAGE PLOT HEIGHT (Meters)0.5 Scientific Name Performance Standard Approval MY2 Stems Morus rubra Approved Mit Plan 1 Carpinus carolinana Approved Mit Plan 2 Cornus florida Approved Mit Plan 1 Ulmus americana Approved Mit Plan 1 Lindera benzoin Approved Mit Plan 1 Acer negundo Approved Mit Plan 2 Oxydendrum arboreum Approved Mit Plan 1 Platanus occidentalis Approved Mit Plan 1 Quercus rubra Approved Mit Plan 1 TOTAL STEM COUNT: 11 TOTAL SPECIES COUNT: 9 AVERAGE PLOT HEIGHT (Meters)0.6 Transect 1: UT2 Transect 2: UT4 *Transects represent understory planting and are not helpd to denisty or height requirements per MY1 IRT site walk comments (8/16/2022) in Appendix F. Table 7c. Vegetation Transect Table APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Parameter 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)1 10.5 10.8 2 1 1 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft)1 90 113 2 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1 1.6 1.7 2 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 2.2 2.3 2 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1 16.9 18.1 2 1 1 1 1 Width/Depth Ratio 1 6.1 6.9 2 1 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio1 1 8.6 10.5 2 1 1 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 1.3 1.6 2 1 1 1 1 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1 2 1 1 1 1 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)2 Parameter 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)1 1 1 1 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft)1 1 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1 1 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 1 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1 1 1 1 1 1 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 1 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)2 Parameter 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)1 14.6 15.8 3 1 1 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft)1 93 104 3 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1 1.1 1.2 3 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 1.8 2.0 3 1 1 1 1 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1 1 16.0 19.4 3 1 1 1 1 Width/Depth Ratio 1 12.8 14.2 3 1 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio1 1 6.0 6.7 3 1 1 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 3 1 1 1 1 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1 3 1 1 1 1 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs)78 100 3 Sinuosity Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)2 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 14.8 33 0.7 5.0 1.0 17.7 1.0 19.0 6.2 51 0.5 0.7 2.8 13.5 8.2 1.0 6.2 1.0 14.8 9.3 57 0.5 0.8 4.8 17.8 6.1 20.2 11.1 1.0 17.1 12.1 75 0.9 1.6 11.0 1.0 2.0+ 1.0-1.1 24.1 5 --- 1.4+ 1.0-1.1 8.5 11.2 5.6 11 0.5 --- 2.6 12.1 9.5 4.9 10 0.4 --- 1.9 12.3 2.0+ 1.0-1.1 3.1 1.0-1.1 --- 11.5 25 1.0 --- 11.1 11.8 2.2+ 1.0-1.1 16.4 13.8 1.0-1.1 --- 15.6 34 1.1 --- 17.3 14.1 8 1.1 3.7 2.6 8.5 15.0 6.4 1.5 3.1 1.4 30 1.1 --- 24.1 4.2 27 0.9 1.1 3.8 4.7 9.5 4.0 11 0.3 0.4 1.2 12.7 2.7 1.01.6 40.6 13.3 8.7 69 1.1 1.6 9.8 7.6 10.6 46 1.5 2.0 15.6 7.2 0.0245 B4 4.5 15.0 68 0.0152 0.0232 0.0440 0.0387 0.0869 1.03 1.31 1.20 1.05 1.05 1.05 142 54 24 12 19 C4 C4b B4 B4 A4 6.6 0.4 3.0 15.013.4 1.3 2.1 As-Built/ Baseline Venable Creek R2 Venable Creek R3 UT1 UT2 R2 UT3 R2 UT6 R2 0.0230 0.0140 0.0210 0.0380 0.0340 0.0822 1.08 1.29 1.14 1.02 1.02 1.00 75 83 52 10 6 4 B4 C4 C4b B4 B4 A4 0.0870 Pre-Existing Condition Venable Creek R2 E4 75 1.08 0.0190 Venable Creek R3 E/C4 83 1.14 0.0136 Design Venable Creek R2 Venable Creek R3 UT1 UT2 R2 UT3 R2 UT6 R2 1.01 2.1 UT1 UT2 R2 652 UT6 R2 A4 0.8 4 C4b UT3 R2 4.3 E4b 10 E4b 3.7 0.0212 0.0352 1.471.04 2.7 1.6 7.9 24.7 2.0+2.2+ 0.3 1.2 1.18 0.0369 Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section) Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 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-Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A 1039.2 1039.3 1039.3 1034.6 1034.7 1034.7 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Thalweg Elevation (ft)1037.6 1037.5 1037.6 1037.6 1037.7 1037.7 1032.5 1032.6 1032.6 LTOB2 Elevation (ft)1039.7 1039.7 1039.7 1039.2 1039.3 1039.3 1034.6 1034.7 1034.5 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.1 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.0 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)18.1 16.7 17.0 11.0 11.1 10.7 20.2 19.3 18.5 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-Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A 1024.1 1024.0 1024.1 N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation (ft)1021.4 1021.6 1021.3 1022.3 1022.2 1022.3 1013.1 1013.0 1013.1 LTOB2 Elevation (ft)1024.7 1024.8 1024.7 1024.1 1024.0 1024.1 1016.3 1016.3 1016.3 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)3.3 3.2 3.5 1.8 1.9 1.8 3.2 3.3 3.2 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)33.4 33.6 35.9 17.1 18.1 17.5 33.3 35.0 35.9 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-Bankfull1 Area 1015.9 1015.9 1015.9 1020.0 1020.4 1020.4 1011.6 1011.6 1011.6 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 Thalweg Elevation (ft)1013.9 1013.9 1013.8 1019.1 1019.4 1019.3 1009.8 1009.8 1009.9 LTOB2 Elevation (ft)1015.9 1015.9 1015.8 1020.0 1020.1 1020.1 1011.6 1011.7 1011.7 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.0 2.0 2.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)19.4 18.5 18.6 4.8 2.9 3.1 16.0 16.8 16.7 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-Bankfull1 Area 1011.9 1012.0 1012.0 998.6 998.7 998.7 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 Thalweg Elevation (ft)1011.2 1011.2 1011.2 997.9 998.1 998.0 LTOB2 Elevation (ft)1011.9 1011.9 1011.9 998.6 998.6 998.6 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.8 2.4 2.2 3.0 1.9 2.1 1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent year's bankfull elevation. UT6 R2 Cross-Section 11 Riffle Venable Creek R3 Cross-Section 4 Pool UT2 R2 Cross-Section 8 Riffle 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. Venable Creek R3 Cross Section 9 Riffle UT3 R2 Cross Section 10 Riffle UT1 Cross-Section 1 Pool UT1 Cross-Section 2 Riffle Venable Creek R3 Cross-Section 5 Riffle Venable Creek R3 Cross-Section 6 Pool Venable Creek R2 Cross-Section 3 Riffle Venable Creek R3 Cross-Section 7 Riffle Bankfull Dimensions 17.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 15.3 width (ft) 1.1 mean depth (ft) 2.1 max depth (ft) 16.4 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 13.8 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 1‐UT1 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1036 1038 1040 1042 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 200+77 Pool MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 10.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 12.4 width (ft) 0.9 mean depth (ft) 1.6 max depth (ft) 12.8 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.8 hydraulic radius (ft) 14.4 width‐depth ratio 75.1 W flood prone area (ft) 6.1 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 2‐UT1 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1036 1038 1040 1042 20 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 201+02 Riffle MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 18.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 14.7 width (ft) 1.3 mean depth (ft) 2.0 max depth (ft) 15.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.2 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.7 width‐depth ratio 67.2 W flood prone area (ft) 4.6 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 3‐Venable Creek R2 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1032 1034 1036 1038 20 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 102+85 Riffle MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 35.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 20.1 width (ft) 1.8 mean depth (ft) 3.5 max depth (ft) 21.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.7 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.2 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 4‐Venable Creek R3 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1020 1022 1024 1026 0 1020304050 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 107+61 Pool MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 17.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 15.8 width (ft) 1.1 mean depth (ft) 1.8 max depth (ft) 16.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.1 hydraulic radius (ft) 14.2 width‐depth ratio 13.7 W flood prone area (ft) 0.9 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 5‐Venable Creek R3 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1021 1023 1025 1027 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 107+94 Riffle MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 35.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 20.4 width (ft) 1.8 mean depth (ft) 3.2 max depth (ft) 22.2 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.6 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.6 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 6‐Venable Creek R3 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1012 1014 1016 1018 10 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 114+68 Pool MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 18.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 15.6 width (ft) 1.2 mean depth (ft) 2.1 max depth (ft) 16.4 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.1 hydraulic radius (ft) 13.2 width‐depth ratio 93.6 W flood prone area (ft) 6.0 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 7‐Venable Creek R3 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1013 1015 1017 1019 20 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 115+18 Riffle MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (6/2022)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 3.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 6.9 width (ft) 0.4 mean depth (ft) 0.8 max depth (ft) 7.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 15.7 width‐depth ratio 61.4 W flood prone area (ft) 8.9 entrenchment ratio 0.8 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 8‐UT2 R2 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1018 1020 1022 0 10203040 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 310+51 Riffle MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 16.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 14.9 width (ft) 1.1 mean depth (ft) 1.8 max depth (ft) 15.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.1 hydraulic radius (ft) 13.3 width‐depth ratio 102.0 W flood prone area (ft) 6.8 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 9‐Venable Creek R3 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1009 1011 1013 1015 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 117+20 Riffle MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 2.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 6.8 width (ft) 0.3 mean depth (ft) 0.6 max depth (ft) 6.9 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 21.0 width‐depth ratio 50.6 W flood prone area (ft) 7.5 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 10‐UT3 R2 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 1011 1013 10 20 30 40 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 510+87 Riffle MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 2.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 6.3 width (ft) 0.3 mean depth (ft) 0.6 max depth (ft) 6.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 18.9 width‐depth ratio 34.5 W flood prone area (ft) 5.4 entrenchment ratio 0.8 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2022 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross‐Section 11‐UT6 R2 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Cross‐Section Plots 997 998 999 1000 0 102030 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 803+64 Riffle MY0 (03/2021)MY1 (12/2021)MY2 (06/2022)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data Reach MY1 (2021)MY2 (2022)MY3 (2023)MY4 (2024)MY5 (2025)MY6 (2026)MY7 (2027) Venable Creek R3 None 11/6/2022 MY1 (2021)MY2 (2022)MY3 (2023)MY4 (2024)MY5 (2025)MY6 (2026)MY7 (2027) Annual Precip Total (Inches)35.67 46.89 WETS 30th Percentile (Inches)32.45 32.45 WETS 70th Percentile (Inches)58.85 58.85 Type of Year1 Average 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. Table 10. Bankfull Events Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Table 11. Rainfall Summary Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1013.0 1013.5 1014.0 1014.5 1015.0 1015.5 1016.0 1016.5 1017.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Monitoring Year 2 -2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total Honey Mill: Crest Gage #1 (Venable Creek XS7, Reach #3, 1/1/22 -8/17/22) Changed to manual crest gage only at XS7 on 8/17/22. Manual gage will continue to be monitored in MY2-MY7. Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1006.0 1006.5 1007.0 1007.5 1008.0 1008.5 1009.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Monitoring Year 2 -2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total Honey Mill: Crest Gage #1 (Venable Creek, Reach #3 below UT3 Confluence, 8/17/22-12/1/22) Crest gage moved below Venable Creek and UT3 Confluence on 8/17/22. Crest gage will continue to be monitored at this location for MY2-MY7. APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 Seed Mix Sources Bare Roots Live Stakes Herbaceous Plugs Fencing Installation/ Repair October 2022 N/A Mitigation Plan August 2019 - October 2020 October 2020 Final Design - Construction Plans September 2020 September 2020 Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2021 March 2021 Baseline Monitoring (Year 0) Stream Survey March - June 2021 June 2021 Vegetation Survey March 2021 Remediation Encroachment N/A N/A Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey Table 12. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery 404 Permit September 2020 October 2020 Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 February 2021 February 2021 Construction November 2020 - February 2021 February 2021 Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 February 2021 February 2021 June 2022 Vegetation Survey August 2022 Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Remediation December 2021 N/A September 2022 January 2022 Invasive Treatment Encroachment Encroachment March- October 2021 Year 4 Monitoring Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Remediation Remediation Year 6 Monitoring Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Remediation Encroachment Encroachment Vegetation Survey Remediation Remediation Encroachment Encroachment March 2022 704.332.7754 Construction Contractors Main Stream Earthworks, Inc. 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd Designers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Aaron Earley, PE, CFM 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Encroachment 1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed. Table 13. Project Contact Table Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey N/A N/A October 2021 Monitoring, POC Kristi Suggs (704) 332.7754 x.110 Green Resource LLC Nursery Stock Suppliers Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. Wetland Plants Inc. Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Fremont, NC 27830 Seeding Contractor Main Stream Earthworks, Inc. 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd Reidsville, NC 27320 Reidsville, NC 27320 Planting Contractor Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. PO Box 1197 APPENDIX F. Correspondence MEETING NOTES MEETING: MY1 Credit Release Site Walk HONEY MILL Mitigation Site Yadkin 03040101; Surry County, NC DEQ Contract No. 7619 DMS Project No. 100083 Wildlands Project No. 005-02178 DATE: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 LOCATION: Little Mountain Church Road Mt. Airy, NC Attendees Kim Browning, USACE Erin Davis, NCDWR Paul Wiesner, DMS Kelly Phillips, DMS Melonie Allen, DMS Ella Wickliff, Wildlands Sam Kirk, Wildlands Aaron Earley, Wildlands Meeting Notes The meeting began at 8:30AM. Attendees discussed the site conditions and issues noted in the MY1 reports as summarized in the Opening Remarks section below. From there, the group walked the farm road to UT2 crossing, along Venable Creek to the restoration/enhancement transition, and then on to the UT3 confluence and UT1. The meeting concluded at 10:00 AM. 1)Opening Remarks a)Erin asked that all in-stream vegetation treatment be called out in the MY reports. b)Kim asked if all the replanted were in JD wetlands. Ella replied that a portion of the replanted areas were wetlands. c)Kim asked if understory plantings are being monitored. Ella replied that mobile plots were moved to understory areas. Kim suggested that periodic transects be done as well. d)Regarding CG1, which hasn’t recorded a bankfull event: Erin remarked that they normally see them installed in pools and asked how often readings were taken. Ella responded every 3 hours. Ella said that a manual gage was added to XS7 near CG1. Kim suggested that CG1 be moved to a different location in the same reach and leave the manual gage at the current location. The addition of a manual gage and relocation of crest gage should be noted in the MY2 report. The new crest gage location is noted in the attached figure. e)Aaron said that the eastern landowner plan on returning cattle to his fields. The landowner knows that fencing must be repaired and installed prior to cattle returning. Aaron was meeting a fence crew after Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2 HONEY MILL Mitigation Site August 16, 2022 MY1 Credit Release Site Walk Meeting Notes the meeting to discuss repairs and installation. Paul asked that installation and repairs dates be included in the MY2 report. f) Paul asked that full easement boundary inspection and documentation be included in the MY2 report. g) When walking UT2, Erin noted that the aggradation noted in the MY1 report seems to have washed away and not be a problem any longer. h) Kim asked if livestock were present on the other side of Siloam Road at the upstream end of UT1. Aaron replied affirmatively. i) Paul and Aaron clarified that at the easement exception areas (farm road and UT2 culvert crossing), the easement was not revised. The exceptions were documented in the baseline report. j) Erin asked if the UT2 and UT3 confluence headcuts were stable and being monitored. Ella and Aaron replied that the headcuts have not moved and photo points were added at the confluences. k) Ella asked for confirmation on mobile plot locations. Erin replied that they seem to be well distributed but to be sure to include invasive documentation in the monitoring report. l) Kim asked that the downed tree inside the easement on UT2 shole be moved out of the easement. m) Kim asked that vegetation be moved or cut back at photo points so the channel condition is obvious. She suggested that photo points at culvert crossings be taken upstream, downstream, and across the crossing. Ella replied that is how photos are typically taken at crossings and an additional photo point was added at the Ford Crossing. Photo points will be updated in the MY2 report. n) Kim requested that photo points be added at BMPs. The attached figure shows the additional BMP photo points. o) Kim asked that an eye be kept on the spring seep in the right floodplain of Venable Creek. p) Erin suggested that matting and live stakes be added to the Venable Creek meander bend just upstream of UT3 confluence. q) On UT2, Kim suggested that a transect be added upstream of the culvert crossing in the wooded area to monitoring understory planting. She said that understory planting will not be held to density or height requirements. Erin added that they are open to understory planting suggestions on materials/methods that produce the best results. The monitoring results will be evaluated to assess the viability and monitoring approach for future understory planting plans. The transect locations are shown in the attached figure. r) Paul asked that the minutes of this meeting be included as an appendix to the MY2 report. s) Kim confirmed that credits can be released as proposed. These meeting minutes were prepared by Aaron Earley August 25, 2022. and represent the authors’ interpretation of events. [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !A !A !A GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GFGFGF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GFGF GF GF GF !5 !5 !5 !5!5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !5 !P !P !P !P !P !P UT6 Ve n a b l e C r e e k UT4 UT3 Reach 1 UT 1 UT2 UT2A Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 4 UT5 Reach 1 Reach 2 UT2B Ve n a b l e C r e e k 10 ft. Farm Path Encroachment Crossing EncroachmentGF GF GF GF GF 1 3 2 4 7 6 5 8 9 MP5 MP2 MP1 MP3 MP4 MP3 MP1 MP2 MP4 MP5 Figure MY1 Credit Release Site Walk Meeting Notes Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 1 - 2021 Surry County, NC ¹0 250 500125 Feet 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Project Parcels Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing Vegetation Plots - Permanent (MY1) Meets Criteria Did Not Meet Criteria Vegetation Plots - Mobile MY1 MY2 (proposed) Vegetation Areas of Concern Multiflora Rose, Barrberry, Privet Privet MY1 Supplemental Planting Easement Encroachment 10 ft. Farm Path Encroachment Pipe Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit Alignment Deviation Bankfull Non-Project Streams [Fence Line Overhead Utility Cross Sections !A Manual Crest Gage at XS7 !A Automatic Crest Gage moved in MY2 !A Barotroll GF Photo Points !P Reach Breaks Additional Features from IRT site walk Woody Stem Supplemental Planting Vegetation Transects GF MY2 BMP and Ford Crossing Photos !A Manual Crest Gage at XS7 !A Automatic Crest Gage moved in MY2 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 (MY0‐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. 1 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 | Senior Environmental Scientist O: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 From: Phillips, Kelly D <Kelly.Phillips@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 3:56 PM To: Kristi Suggs <ksuggs@wildlandseng.com> Cc: Mimi Caddell <mcaddell@wildlandseng.com> 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 kelly.phillips@ncdenr.gov 610 East Center Avenue Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 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 <ksuggs@wildlandseng.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 1:26 PM To: Phillips, Kelly D <Kelly.Phillips@ncdenr.gov> 2 Cc: Mimi Caddell <mcaddell@wildlandseng.com> 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 (MY0 – 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 | Senior Environmental Scientist O: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 From: Jason Lorch <jlorch@wildlandseng.com> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 9:05 AM To: Kristi Suggs <ksuggs@wildlandseng.com> Subject: FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements FYI! Jason Lorch, GISP | Senior Environmental Scientist O: 919.851.9986 x107 M: 919.413.1214 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 From: Russell, Periann <periann.russell@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:05 AM To: King, Scott <Scott.King@mbakerintl.com>; Catherine Manner <catherine@waterlandsolutions.com>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; adam.spiller@kci.com; Brad Breslow <bbreslow@res.us>; Davis, Erin B <erin.davis@ncdenr.gov>; gginn@wolfcreekeng.com; grant lewis <glewis@axiomenvironmental.org>; Jeff Keaton <jkeaton@wildlandseng.com>; katie mckeithan <Katie.McKeithan@mbakerintl.com>; Kayne Van Stell <kayne@waterlandsolutions.com>; Kevin Tweedy <ktweedy@eprusa.net>; Reid, Matthew <matthew.reid@ncdenr.gov>; Ryan Smith <rsmith@lmgroup.net>; Melia, Gregory <gregory.melia@ncdenr.gov>; Allen, Melonie <melonie.allen@ncdenr.gov>; Famularo, Joseph T <Joseph.Famularo@ncdenr.gov>; Rich@mogmit.com; Bryan Dick <Bryan.Dick@freese.com>; Ryan Medric <rmedric@res.us>; Kim Browning <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil>; Kayne Van Stell <kayne@waterlandsolutions.com>; Worth Creech <worth@restorationsystems.com>; Jason Lorch <jlorch@wildlandseng.com> Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <Lindsay.Crocker@ncdenr.gov>; Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov>; Tsomides, Harry <harry.tsomides@ncdenr.gov>; Reid, Matthew <matthew.reid@ncdenr.gov>; Dow, Jeremiah J <jeremiah.dow@ncdenr.gov>; Horton, Jeffrey <jeffrey.horton@ncdenr.gov>; Ullman, Kirsten J 3 <Kirsten.Ullman@NCDENR.gov>; Ackerman, Anjie <anjie.ackerman@ncdenr.gov>; Blackwell, Jamie D <james.blackwell@ncdenr.gov>; Xu, Lin <lin.xu@ncdenr.gov>; Mir, Danielle <Danielle.Mir@ncdenr.gov>; Corson, Kristie <kristie.corson@ncdenr.gov>; Russell, Periann <periann.russell@ncdenr.gov>; Sparks, Kimberly L <Kim.sparks@ncdenr.gov> 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 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties APPENDIX G. Supplemental Planting March 2022 Honey Mill Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100083 Monitoring Year 2 ‐ 2022 Species Common Name Max Spacing (ft)Indiv. Spacning (ft)Min. Caliper Size Stratum Percentage Wetland Indicator Code Quantity Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Canopy 10% FACW 76 Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Canopy 5%FACU 38 Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Canopy 5%FAC 38 Carpinus caroliniana* Ironwood 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Subcanopy 5%FAC 38 Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Canopy 10%FAC 76 Morus rubra*Red Mulberry 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Subcanopy 5%FACU 38 Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Canopy 5%FAC 38 Eunoymus americanus*American Strawberry Bush 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Shrub 5%FAC 38 Calycanthus floridus* Sweetshrub 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Shrub 5%FACU 38 Hamamelis virginiana* Witch Hazel 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Subcanopy 5%FACU 38 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Canopy 5%FACU 38 Fagus grandifolia American Beech 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Canopy 7%FACU 53 Quercus alba White Oak 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Canopy 8%FACU 61 Lindera benzoin*Spicebush 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Shrub 5%FAC 38 Cornus florida*Flowering Dogwood 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Subcanopy 5%FACU 38 Ozydendron arboreum* Sourwood 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Subcanopy 5%UPL 38 Ilex opaca*American Holly 25 12‐25 0.25" ‐ 1.0" Subcanopy 5%FACU 38 100%Total 760 Species Common Name Max Spacing (ft)Indiv. Spacing (ft)Min. Caliper Stratum Percentage Wetland Indicator Code Quantity Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 12 6 x 12 0.25" Canopy 15% FACW 164 Ulmus americana American Elm 12 6 x 12 0.25" Canopy 10% FACW 109 Sambucus canadensis* Elderberry 12 6 x 12 0.25" Subconopy 10%FAC 109 Acer negundo Boxelder 12 6 x 12 0.25" Canopy 10%FAC 109 Cephalanthus occidentalis* Buttonbush 12 6 x 12 0.25" Shrub 5%OBL 54 Alnus serrulata*Tag Alder 12 6 x 12 0.25" Subconopy 10%OBL 109 60%Total 654 Live Stake Salix nigra Black Willow 12 6 x 12 0.5" cal. Canopy 20%OBL 218 Salix sericea*Silky Willow 12 6 x 12 0.5" cal. Subconopy 12%OBL 130 Cornus amomum*Silky dogwood 12 6 x 12 0.5" cal. Subconopy 8% FACW 88 40%Total 436 * Subcanopy or shrub species ‐ not held to monitoring height requirements Italicized species were approved post‐mitigation plan IRT Approved Planted Supplemental Stems: Species and Quantities Shaded Bare Roots (7.0 AC) Wetland Planting Zone (2.5 AC)