20171045 Ver 1_KeyMill_100025_MY4_2023_20240212

MONITORING YEAR 4  
ANNUAL REPORT 

FINAL 

KEY MILL MITIGATION SITE  
Surry County, NC 
NCDEQ Contract No. 7180 
DMS Project No. 100025 
USACE Action ID No. SAW‐2017‐01504 
NCDEQ DWR Certification No. 17‐1045 
RFP #: 16‐006993 (September 16, 2016) 

Yadkin River Basin  
HUC 03040101 

Data Collection Period:  February 2023 – November 2023 
Submission: February 2024 

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 7, 2024 

Mr. Matthew Reid 
Project Manager 
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services 
2090 U.S. 70 Highway 
Swannanoa, NC 28778‐8211 

Subject: Draft Year 4 Monitoring Report Review 
  Key Mill Mitigation Site, Surry County 
  Yadkin River CU 03040101 
  DMS Project ID No. 100025 / DEQ Contract #7180 

Dear Mr. Reid: 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments 
from the Draft Year 4 Monitoring Report for the Key Mill Mitigation Site. The report and associated digital 
files have been updated to reflect those comments. The Final MY4 Report is included. DMS’ comments 
are listed below in bold.  Wildlands’ responses to DMS’ comments are noted in italics. 
DMS’ comment: Please ensure the Monitoring Phase Performance Bond has been updated and 
approved by Kristie Corson before invoicing for Task 10. 
Wildlands’ response: Wildlands has secured the monitoring bond for MY5, and it was approved by Kristie 
Corson on January 31, 2024. 
DMS’ comment: In an effort to identify and resolve property issues early during the monitoring period, 
please verify that the conservation easement boundary has been walked, marking and signage is up to 
spec, fencing is intact, and no encroachments have been identified. 
Wildlands’ response: Wildlands walked the boundary in October of 2023 to ensure that the conservation 
easement boundary was intact in regard to signage and fencing, as well as, free of encroachments. In early 
2024, Wildlands will walk the boundary to reverify the survey boundary monuments. 
DMS’ comment: Thanks for including the IRT requested supplemental mobile plot in the 2022 replant 
area. Please include the 2022 supplemental planting on Table 14. 
Wildlands’ response: Wildlands has included the 2022 supplemental planting date on Table 14. 
DMS’ comment: Murdannia was discussed at the 2023 IRT Credit Release Meeting and WEI was 
actively treating the species. Invasive species treatment occurred in May and November 2023 
targeting cattails, tree of heaven, privet, and multiflora rose according to the report. Can WEI provide 
an update on the site condition as it relates to murdannia? 
Wildlands’ response: Wildlands has now included in Section 2.2 of the report that, “In August of 2023, 
marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak) was chemically treated in some of the riffles along UT3C. The 
treatment was successful in removing the vegetation from the stream bed but will likely need 
retreatment in the future to suppress revegetation until the riparian canopy develops. All other areas 
were deemed non‐problematic by WEI staff.” This date has been included in Table 14. 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    phone 704‐332‐7754    fax 704‐332‐3306    1430 S. Mint Street, # 104    Charlotte, NC  28203 
DMS’ comment: A hand repair is planned for a j‐hook structure on Bull Creek Reach 2 in MY5 to 
address active erosion and minor piping. Please include an update in the MY5 report and include 
before/after photos of the work.  
Wildlands’ response: Noted.  
DMS’ comment: Thanks for documenting all the conservation easement encroachment issues that 
have occurred on site since construction. Recommend adding a column to the table for “Monitoring 
Year”. It would be helpful to easily see what monitoring year each encroachment occurred. Also, 
recommend revising the “MY4 Management Action” column to “Management Action” since many of 
the action activities did not occur in MY4. 
Wildlands’ response: Wildlands has added a “Monitoring Year” column and has revised the “MY4 
Management Action” column to say “Management Action” in the Conservation Easement Encroachment 
Issues Table that is included in Section 2.2 of the report. 
DMS’ comment: Numerous encroachments are documented and have been resolved. Please continue 
to be diligent in identifying new encroachments and working with the landowner to prevent future 
problems. DMS is planning to conduct a Boundary Inspection this year and will notify WEI to 
coordinate a site visit. 
Wildlands’ response: Noted. 
Digital Support File Comments: 
DMS’ comment: No comment for draft digital deliverables. Please provide updated digital deliverables 
with final submittal. 
Wildlands’ response: The digital deliverables have been updated as needed and are included in the Final 
MY4 Report digital submittal. 
As requested, Wildlands has included two hard copies of the Final Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report for 
the Key Mill Mitigation Site with a copy of our comment response letter inserted after the report’s cover 
page. In addition, a USB drive with the full final electronic copy of the report, our response letter, and all 
the electronic support files has been included and is named “KeyMill_100025_MY4_2023”. Please let 
me know if you have any questions. 
Sincerely,  

Kristi Suggs 
Senior Environmental Scientist 
[e-mail] 

PREPARED BY: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 
Charlotte, NC 28203 

Phone: [phone] 
Fax: [phone]

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL  ii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full‐delivery stream mitigation project at the Key 
Mill Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of 
Mitigation Services (DMS). The project restored, enhanced, and preserved a total of 7,437 linear feet 
(LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in Surry County, NC. The Site is located within the DMS 
targeted watershed for the Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101110040 and the NC 
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub‐basin 03‐07‐03. The project is providing 6,107.300 cool 
stream mitigation units (SMUs) for the Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101 (Yadkin 01).  
The Site has a long history of agricultural activity and most of the stressors to stream functions are 
related to this historic and current land use practices. The major stream stressors for the Site were 
concentrated agricultural runoff inputs, degraded instream habitat, active stream incision, lack of 
stabilizing streamside vegetation, bank erosion and failure, and the lack of bedform diversity. The effects 
of these stressors resulted in degraded water quality and habitat throughout the Site when compared to 
reference conditions. The project approach for the Site focused on evaluating the Site’s existing 
functional condition and evaluating its potential for recovery and need for intervention.     
The project goals defined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2019) were established with careful 
consideration of 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and 
objectives to address stressors identified in the watershed. The established project goals include: 
 Improve stream channel stability, 
 Stabilize eroding stream banks, 
 Exclude livestock from stream channels, 
 Reconnect channels with historic floodplains, 
 Improve instream habitat, 
 Reduce sediment and nutrient input from adjacent farm fields, 
 Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation, and 
 Permanently protect the project site from degradational impacts.  
Monitoring year (MY) 4 is a reduced monitoring year, so vegetation plot and cross‐section data were not 
collected. However, visual Site assessments, documentation of management practices and easement 
continuity, and hydrologic monitoring are conducted and included in this report. To preserve clarity and 
continuity of the reporting structure, this report maintains section and appendix numbering from 
previous monitoring reports. Omitted sections are denoted in the Table of Contents. 
Assessments and site visits were completed between February and October 2023 to assess the condition 
of the project. All sitewide measures that were implemented in late July of 2021 to address issues 
identified during the MY1 IRT Credit Release Site Walk on July 13, 2021, are still functioning as expected. 
Areas that were disturbed during the construction/implementation of these measures were replanted in 
2022, and the results from a mobile vegetive plot, specifically requested by the IRT to be conducted in a 
supplementally planted area in MY4, show that the replanted areas are becoming established and 
trending towards success.  
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY4, and is 
on track to meet MY5 and MY7 performance criteria. Herbaceous vegetation has become well 
established throughout the Site, and the MY4 visual assessment only identified one stream area of 
concern and no areas of low stem density or bare ground were identified. All monitored reaches 
received at least one bankfull event in MY4, except for UT3C. The in‐stream flow gage located on UT2 
recorded 283 days of consecutive baseflow in 2023 or 100% of the monitored period for MY4. Areas of 
invasive species have been treated throughout the Site and will continue to be monitored and treated as 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL  iii 
necessary. Encroachment issues have been resolved, and no other issues were observed during the Site 
assessment field walk in November 2023. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas throughout the 
seven‐year monitoring period. If necessary, adaptive maintenance measures will be implemented to 
benefit the ecological health of the Site.  

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL  iv 
KEY MILL MITIGATION SITE 
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 1‐1 
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 4 DATA ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 2‐1 
Section 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 3‐1 
Section 4: REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 4‐1 

TABLES 
Table 1:  Project Quantities and Credits ............................................................................................... 1‐1 
Table 2:  Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements ................................................. 1‐4 
Table 3:  Project Attributes ................................................................................................................... 1‐7 
FIGURES 
Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View Map (Key) 
Figures 1a‐1c         Current Condition Plan View Map 

APPENDICES 
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data 
Table 4a‐l Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 
 Stream Photographs 
 Repair Photographs 
 Area of Concern Photographs 

Appendix B* Vegetation Plot Data 
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment 
Table 7 CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata 
Table 8a‐c Planted and Total Stem Counts 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL  v 
Appendix C* Stream Geomorphology Data 
Table 9a‐b Baseline Stream Data Summary 
Table 10  Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section) 
Table 11a‐k Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary  
Cross‐Section Plots 

Appendix D Hydrology Data 
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events 
Table 13 Verification of 30 Days Consecutive Flow 
 Manual Crest Gage Bankfull Documentation 
 Recorded Bankfull Events Plots 
 Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot 
 Monthly Rainfall Data 

Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Information 
Table 14 Project Activity and Reporting History 
Table 15 Project Contact Table  

Appendix F Additional Documentation 
 Supplemental Vegetation Plot Stem Counts 
 Supplemental Vegetation Plot Photo 

*Content not required for Monitoring Year 4 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 
Best Management Practice (BMP) 
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)  
Cross‐section (XS) 
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)  
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 
Interagency Review Team (IRT) 
Monitoring Year (MY) 
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 
Stream Mitigation Unit (SMU)  
Step Pool Stormwater Conveyance (SPSC) 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 
Unnamed Tributary (UT) 
Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Priorities (RBRP) 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐1 
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits 
The Key Mill Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Surry County approximately 7.2 miles south of City of 
Mount Airy, NC in the Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101110040 and NCDWR Sub‐basin 03‐07‐03. 
Located in the Smith River Allochthon of the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS, 1985), the project 
watershed is predominately forested land with some areas of agriculture including the Site.  
The Site is located on one parcel, bisected by Key Road creating a western side and an eastern side 
(herein referenced as the West side and the East side) to the project. Bull Creek is the primary stream, 
which flows southeast through the center of the Site. There are five unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, 
UT2A‐C, UT3, and UT3A‐C) that join Bull Creek within the Site limits. The West side of the project 
contains the upstream portion of Bull Creek (Reaches 1A, 1B, and 2), as well as UT1A, UT1B, and UT1C. 
UT1C joins Bull Creek Reach 2 near the bottom of the West Side of the Site and flows through a culvert 
under Key Road into the eastern side of the Site. The East Side of the site contains the downstream 
portion of Bull Creek (Reach 3 and 4), as well as UT2, UT2A‐C, UT3, UT3A‐C.  
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in October of 2018 and the IRT in January 
of 2019. Construction activities were completed in April 2020 by Carolina Environmental Contracting, 
Inc. Kee Mapping & Surveying, PLLC. completed the as‐built survey in June 2020. Planting was 
completed following construction in April 2020 by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. A conservation 
easement (CE) has been recorded and is in place on 20.8 acres.  
Please refer to Table 1 for the project’s stream credits and the credit summary table. 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 
Reach 
Mitigation 
Plan 
Footage 
As‐Built 
Footage 
Mitigation 
Category 
Restoration 
Level 
Mitigation 
Ratio 
(X:1) 
Notes/Comments 
Bull Creek 
Reach 1A 444 421 Cool R 1.000 Priority 1 channel restoration, 
fence installation for cattle 
exclusion, invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity.  
Bull Creek 
Reach 1B 722 722 Cool  R 1.000 
Bull Creek 
Reach 2 418 418 Cool R 1.000 
Priority 1 channel restoration with 
priority 2 restoration used when 
transitioning the restored channel 
to the existing channel bed 
elevation, fence installation for 
cattle exclusion, invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity. 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐2 
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits 
Project 
Reach 
Mitigation 
Plan 
Footage 
As‐Built 
Footage 
Mitigation 
Category 
Restoration 
Level 
Mitigation 
Ratio 
(X:1) 
Notes/Comments 
Bull Creek 
Reach 3 1,674 1,676 Cool R 1.000 
Priority 2 restoration, fence 
installation for cattle exclusion, 
invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity. 
Bull Creek 
Reach 4 683 683 Cool P 10.000 
The implementation of a 
conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity. 
UT1A 829 832 Cool EII 2.500 
Enhancement II implementation 
included isolated pockets of bank 
grading, fence installation for 
cattle exclusion, replacement of a 
collapsed culvert with an 
appropriately sized culverted 
crossing, profile adjustments 
where needed, invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity. 
UT1B 212 212 Cool R 1.000 
Priority 2 restoration, fence 
installation for cattle exclusion, 
invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity. 
UT1C 257 257 Cool R 1.000 
UT2 42 42 Cool R 1.000 Priority 2 restoration, fence 
installation for cattle exclusion, 
invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity.  
UT2A 315 315 Cool R 1.000 
UT2B 263 263 Cool R 1.000 
UT2C 469 469 Cool R 1.000 
UT3 18 18 Cool EII 2.500 
Enhancement II implementation 
included isolated pockets of bank 
grading, fence installation for 
cattle exclusion, profile 
adjustments where needed, 
invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity. 
UT3A 413 390 Cool EII 2.500 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐3 
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits 
Project 
Reach 
Mitigation 
Plan 
Footage 
As‐Built 
Footage 
Mitigation 
Category 
Restoration 
Level 
Mitigation 
Ratio 
(X:1) 
Notes/Comments 
UT3B 307 307 Cool R 1.000 
Priority 2 restoration, fence 
installation for cattle exclusion, 
invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity. 
UT3C 412 412 Cool R 1.000 
Priority 1 channel restoration with 
priority 2 restoration used when 
transitioning the restored channel 
to the existing channel bed 
elevation, fence installation for 
cattle exclusion, invasive species 
removal/treatment, riparian 
plantings, and the implementation 
of a conservation easement for 
protection in perpetuity. 
Credit Summary Table 
Restoration Level Stream 
Warm Cool Cold 
Restoration N/A 5,535.000 N/A 
Enhancement I N/A N/A N/A 
Enhancement II N/A 504.000 N/A 
Preservation N/A 68.300 N/A 
Total Stream Credit 6,107.300 
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 
The Site is providing numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin Valley Basin. The project goals were 
established with careful consideration to address stressors that were identified in the RBRP (EEP, 2009). 
The project has improved stream functions through stream restoration and the conversion of 
maintained agricultural fields into riparian buffer within the Yadkin Valley River Basin, while creating a 
functional riparian corridor at the Site. 
The following project specific goals and objectives outlined in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019) 
include: 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 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 
Improve the 
stability of 
stream 
channels. 
Construct stream 
channels that will 
maintain stable 
cross‐sections, 
patterns, and 
profiles over time. 
Reduce 
sediment 
inputs from 
bank erosion. 
Reduce shear 
stress on 
channel 
boundary. 
BHR to remain 
below 1.2 and 
entrenchment 
ratio (ER) to 
remain above 
2.2 for C/E type 
channels over 
the monitoring 
period with 
visual 
assessments 
showing 
progression 
towards 
stability. 
15 Cross‐
sections will 
be assessed 
during MY1, 
MY2, MY3, 
MY5, and MY7 
and visual 
inspections 
will be 
assessed 
annually. 
Cross‐section 
monitoring is not 
required in MY4. 
Visual assessments 
revealed that 
project streams are 
stable and have 
maintained the 
constructed riffle 
and pool sequence 
as designed. Cross‐
sections will be 
monitored again in 
MY5. 
Reconnect 
channels with 
historic 
floodplains. 
Reconstruct 
stream channels 
with designed 
bankfull 
dimensions and 
depth based on 
reference reach 
data.  
Allow more 
frequent 
flood flows to 
disperse on 
the 
floodplain. 
Four bankfull 
events in 
separate years 
within the 7‐
year monitoring 
period. 
Continuous 
baseflow must 
occur every 
year for at least 
30 days of 
consecutive 
days during the 
monitoring 
year. This 30‐
day period can 
occur at any 
point during 
the year. 
6 automated 
crest gages, 1 
manual crest 
gage, and 1 
automated 
stream gage 
were installed 
on restoration 
reaches and 
will record 
flow 
elevations and 
durations. 
In MY4, at least one 
bankfull event was 
recorded on every 
monitored reach, 
except for reach 
UT3C. As of MY4 
reaches UT1C 
(CG#2) and UT2C 
(CG#3) have met 
their hydrologic 
performance 
criteria, but they 
will continue to be 
monitored 
throughout the 
remainder of the 
monitoring period, 
along with the other 
reaches. The stream 
gage on UT2 
recorded 283 days 
of consecutive flow 
or 100% of the 
monitoring period. 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 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 
Restore and 
enhance 
native 
floodplain 
and 
streambank 
vegetation. 
Plant native tree 
and understory 
species in riparian 
zones and plant 
native shrub and 
herbaceous 
species on 
streambanks. 
Reduce 
sediment 
inputs from 
bank erosion 
and runoff. 
Increase 
nutrient 
cycling and 
storage in 
floodplain. 
Provide 
riparian 
habitat. Add 
a source of 
LWD and 
organic 
material to 
stream. 
Survival rate of 
320 stems per 
acre at MY3, 
260 planted 
stems per acre 
at MY5, and 
210 stems per 
acre at MY7. 
Additionally, 
trees in each 
plot must 
average 7 feet 
in 
height by MY5 
and 10 feet 
by MY7. 
Eight (8) 
permanent 
and Five (5) 
mobile one 
hundred 
square meter 
vegetation 
plots are 
monitored 
during MY1, 
MY2, MY3, 
MY5, and 
MY7. During 
the MY3 
Credit Release 
Meeting, the 
IRT requested 
that a mobile 
plot be 
monitored in a 
supplemental 
planting area 
in MY4 to 
document the 
survivability of 
the 
supplemental 
planted stems. 
Vegetation plot 
monitoring is not 
required in MY4. 
Monitoring will 
resume in MY5. 
Visual assessments 
reveal that 
herbaceous cover is 
becoming well 
established and 
planted bare roots 
and live stakes 
appear healthy. The 
Site is still on track 
to meet the MY5 
requirement of 260 
stems per acre. 
Results from the 
plot in the 
supplemental 
planting area during 
MY4 show the 
survival of 647 
planted stems per 
acre. 
Improve 
instream 
habitat. 
Remove man‐
made 
impoundments 
and culvert 
crossings within 
easement. 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 
macroinverte
brates, fish, 
and 
amphibians 
leading to 
colonization 
and increase 
in 
biodiversity 
over time. 
There is no 
required 
performance 
standard for 
this metric. 
Visual 
assessment. N/A 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐6 
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements  
Goal Objective/ 
Treatment 
Likely 
Functional 
Uplift 
Performance 
Criteria Measurement Cumulative 
Monitoring Results 
Diffuse 
concentrated 
agricultural 
runoff. 
Install stormwater 
BMPs in areas of 
concentrated 
agricultural runoff 
to diffuse and 
provide vegetated 
infiltration for 
runoff before it 
enters the stream 
channel. 
Reduce 
agricultural 
and sediment 
inputs to the 
project, 
which will 
reduce 
likelihood of 
accumulated 
fines and 
excessive 
algal blooms 
from 
nutrients. 
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 
encroachmen
t 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 easement 
encroachments 
observed. 
Exclude 
livestock from 
stream 
channels. 
Install livestock 
fencing and 
watering systems 
as needed 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 the 
site to ensure 
no cattle are 
entering the 
easement. 
Cattle have been 
observed in 
easement; however, 
they were swiftly 
removed and little 
to no damage 
occurred. 
Stabilize 
eroding 
stream banks. 
Reconstruct 
stream channels 
slated for 
restoration with 
stable dimensions. 
Add bank 
revetments and in‐
stream structures 
to reaches to 
protect 
restored/enhanced 
streams. 
Reduce 
sedimentatio
n, improve 
instream 
habitat, and 
bedform 
diversity. 
Cross‐sections 
should be 
stable and 
show little 
change in 
bankfull area, 
and 
width‐to‐depth 
ratio. 
Cross‐section 
monitoring 
and visual 
assessment. 
 Overall, all channels 
are stable and bank 
erosion is minimal.  
Reaches have 
maintained the 
constructed riffle 
and pool sequence. 
1.3 Project Attributes 
Prior to construction, the Site had been primarily used for agriculture. Lands upstream and downstream 
of the Site are predominantly forested though there are some areas of agricultural lands and small 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐7 
residential areas within the watershed.  Agricultural activities within the Site had led to streams in 
various stages of impairment.  Most of the streams on the Site were impaired from limited to non‐
existent buffers, concentrated agricultural runoff inputs, degraded instream habitat, active stream 
incision, bank erosion and failure, and the lack of bedform diversity. Pre‐construction conditions are 
outlined in Table 3 below and in Table 9 of Appendix C in the MY3 Report.  
The Site drains approximately 2.15 square miles of rural land, predominantly actively grazed pasture 
with the downstream extent of the Site forested. Valleys throughout the West side have moderately 
steep walls with alluvial bottoms, whereas valleys along the upstream extents of the project’s East side 
tributaries are narrow with colluvial bottoms. Downstream of the Site, Bull Creek continues southeast to 
join the Ararat River near the Cedar Hill community.  
Table 3: Project Attributes 
Project Information 
Project Name Key Mill Mitigation Site County Surry County  
Project Area 
(acres) 20.8 Project 
Coordinates  
36° 23' 57.4794"N   
‐80° 36' 11.88"W 
Planted Acreage  9.8 acres (full planting) plus supplemental planting 
Project Watershed Summary Information 
Physiographic 
Province Piedmont  River Basin Yadkin River  
USGS Hydrologic 
Unit 8‐digit 3040101 USGS Hydrologic 
Unit    14‐digit 3040101110040 
Project Watershed Summary Information 
DWR Sub‐basin 03‐07‐03 
Project Drainage 
Area Percentage 
of Impervious 
Area  
1% 
Project Drainage 
Area (acres) 
Bull Creek Reach 1A, 1B, & 
2: (1,146); 
Bull Creek Reach 3 & 4: 
(1,293); 
UT1A‐C: (102); 
UT2A‐C: (32); 
UT2: (6); 
UT3 & UT3‐C: (45) 
2011 NLCD Land 
Use Classification 
Bull Creek‐ Forest (58%), Cultivated 
(33%), Urban (9%) 
UT1A‐C ‐ Forest (70%), Cultivated (21%), 
Urban (9%) 
UT2A‐C ‐ Forest (32%), Cultivated (49%), 
Urban (19%)                            
UT2 ‐ Forest (55%), Cultivated (45%),  
Urban (0%) 
UT3/UT3A‐C ‐ Forest (22%),  
Cultivated (74%), Urban (4%) 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐8 
Table 3: Project Attributes 
Reach Summary Information 
Parameters 
Bull 
Creek 
Reach 1A 
Bull 
Creek 
Reach 1B 
Bull 
Creek 
Reach 2 
Bull 
Creek 
Reach 
3 
Bull 
Creek 
Reach 
4 
UT1A UT1B UT1C 
Length of reach (linear feet) ‐ 
Post‐Restoration 421 722 418 1,676 683 832 212 257 
Valley confinement (Confined, 
moderately confined, 
unconfined) 
Confined to Moderately Confined Moderately 
Confined Confined 
Drainage area (acres) 1,146 1,293 102 
Perennial, Intermittent, 
Ephemeral P P P P P P P P 
NCDWR Water Quality 
Classification C 
Morphological Description 
(stream type) ‐ Pre‐Restoration F3 F3/G3c  ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐ G4c G4 
Morphological Description 
(stream type) ‐ Post‐
Restoration 
C3 C3b C3  ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐ B4 B4a 
Evolutionary trend (Simon's 
Model) ‐ Pre‐Restoration IV/V VI III/IV 
Parameters UT2 UT2A UT2B UT2C UT3 UT3A UT3B UT3C 
Length of reach (linear feet) ‐ 
Post‐Restoration 42 315 263 469 18 390 307 412 
Valley confinement (Confined, 
moderately confined, 
unconfined) 
Confined Moderately 
Confined Confined Moderately 
Confined 
Drainage area (acres) 6 32 45 
Perennial, Intermittent, 
Ephemeral I P P P I I/P P P 
NCDWR Water Quality 
Classification C 
Morphological Description 
(stream type) ‐ Pre‐Restoration G4 G5 G5c G5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ G5 G5c 
Morphological Description 
(stream type) ‐ Post‐
Restoration 
B4 B4 C4b C4  ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐ B4 C4 
Evolutionary trend (Simon's 
Model) ‐ Pre‐ Restoration III/IV 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐9 
Table 3: Project Attributes 
Regulatory Considerations 
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation 
Waters of the United States ‐ 
Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Action ID# SAW‐2017‐
01504 
Waters of the United States ‐ 
Section 401 Yes Yes DWR# 17‐1045 
Division of Land Quality 
(Erosion and Sediment Control) Yes Yes 
NPDES Construction 
Stormwater General Permit 
NCG010000 
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion 
Document in Mitigation Plan 
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 Yes N/A Not located in a Special Flood 
Hazard Area 
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐1 
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 4 DATA ASSESSMENT 
Annual monitoring for MY4 was conducted between February and October 2023 to assess the condition 
of the project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved 
success criteria presented in the Key Mill Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019). Monitoring features and 
locations are shown in Figures 1 – 1c. Refer to Table 14 for the project’s activity and reporting history. 
All areas that were successfully re‐planted in early 2022 have continued to do well throughout 2023. 
Wildlands will continue assessing these areas throughout the seven‐year monitoring period for the 
project.  
2.1 Vegetation Assessment 
Detailed vegetation inventory and analysis is not required during MY4. However, a visual assessment 
was conducted and indicated that vegetation on the Site is performing well and will attain the interim 
success criteria of 260 stems per acre, with an average height of 7‐ft, at the end of MY5. 
In December 2022, Wildlands supplementally planted and added soil amendments to an area of low 
stem density that was mapped along Bull Creek reach 1B. During the MY3 Credit Release Meeting, the 
IRT requested that Wildlands add a plot (SPV1) in this area in MY4 to document the survivability of the 
supplementally planted stems. Data from SPV1 was collected in September of 2023, and results show 
that the area is performing well with an average stem density of 647 planted stems per acre and an 
average height of 2.2 ft. Additionally, there were 9 species within the plot with no single species making 
up more than 50% of the plot, and no invasive species were observed. 
Please refer to Appendix F for the Supplemental Vegetation Plot recorded data, field sheet, and the plot 
photo. 
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity 
Overall, herbaceous ground cover is well established and planted stems throughout the Site are thriving. 
An effort was put in this year in May and then in November of 2023 to treat scattered patches of 
invasives that were found along existing woody buffers throughout Lower Bull Creek, UT1A, UT1B and 
Bull Creek Reach 1B, but had overall encompassed a small percentage of the total easement acreage. 
Targeted invasive species treatments including mechanical removal and herbicide applications occurred 
in May and November of 2023, effectively treating the following species: cattails (Typha latifolia) tree of 
heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). In 
August of 2023, marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak) was chemically treated in some of the riffles along 
UT3C. The treatment was successful in removing the vegetation from the stream bed but will likely need 
retreatment in the future to suppress revegetation until the riparian canopy develops. All other areas 
were deemed non – problematic by WEI staff. Wildlands will continue to monitor for resprouts and treat 
them as necessary. See the vegetation condition assessment in Table 5 of Appendix A. 
Conservation Easement 
As discussed in the MY3 report, multiple encroachments of cattle inside the easement fence have been 
documented throughout the first three years of monitoring. At the DMS Credit Release Meeting for Key 
Mill (MY3), the IRT requested detailed encroachment information and status updates in MY4 (2023) 
report with resolutions proposed and implemented. A chronological list, including any encroachments 
documented in MY4 (2023), their description, management action, and status are described below. 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐2 

MY1 (2020) ‐ MY4 (2023) Conservation Easement Encroachment Issues  
Issue Location Issue Description Management Action MY# Current 
Status 
Eastern side of the  
project 
Cattle was observed within the  
easement due to power failure  
to high tensile fence in June  
2020. 
Cattle was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI. Phoned the  
landowner about fence line power  
failure. Fence line issue was repaired,  
and power was returned to fence (June  
2020). 
MY1 Resolved 
UT3 
Cattle was observed within the  
easement due to loose fencing  
in July 2020. 
Cattle was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI. Phoned the  
landowner about the loose fence. The  
fence line was tightened/repaired to  
prevent cattle access. (July 2020). 
MY1 Resolved 
Eastern side of the  
project 
Cattle was observed within the  
easement due to power failure  
to high tensile fence in July  
2020. 
Cattle was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI. Phoned the  
landowner about fence line power  
failure. Sent a follow‐up text to  
landowner about multiple incidents of  
cattle encroachment due to reoccurring  
fencing issues. Fence line issue was  
repaired, and power was returned to  
fence (July/Aug 2020). 
MY1 Resolved 
Eastern side of the  
project 
Cattle was observed within the  
easement due to power failure  
to high tensile fence in early  
September 2020. 
Cattle was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI.  Phoned the  
landowner about fence line power  
failure. Fence line issue was repaired,  
and power was returned to fence (early  
September 2020). 
MY1 Resolved 
Eastern side of the  
project 
Cattle was observed within the  
easement due to power failure  
to high tensile fence in late  
September 2020. 
Cattle was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI. Met with the  
landowner on‐site to discuss  
reoccurring fencing issues and fence line  
power failure. Sent a follow‐up letter to  
landowner to reiterate and reconfirm  
action on items discussed during field  
meeting. Fence line issue was repaired,  
and power was returned to fence (mid‐ 
October 2020). 
MY1 Resolved 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐3 
MY1 (2020) ‐ MY4 (2023) Conservation Easement Encroachment Issues  
Issue Location Issue Description Management Action MY# Current 
Status 
Western side of 
the  
project (Bull Creek  
Reach 1A) 
Cattle was observed within the  
easement due to cattle  
physically pushing through the  
fence line in early November  
2020. 
Cattle was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI. Phoned the  
landowner about cattle access into the  
easement. Sent a follow‐up email to  
landowner about the incident. Fence  
line issue was repaired (early November  
2020). 
MY1 Resolved 
UT3 
A single calf was observed  
within the easement by  
crawling under fence in  
February 2022. 
The calf was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI. Phoned the  
landowner about the calf accessing the  
easement. The bottom fence wire was  
tightened/repaired to prevent access.  
(February 2022). 
MY3 Resolved 
Bull Creek Reach 3 
A single calf was observed  
within the easement by  
crawling under fence in  
April 2022. 
The calf was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI. Phoned the  
landowner about the calf accessing the  
easement. The bottom fence wire was  
tightened/repaired to prevent access.  
(April 2022). 
MY3 Resolved 
Bull Creek Reach 
1A  
& 2B 
Cattle was observed within the  
easement due to cattle  
physically squeezing through  
the fence line where damage  
was present and caused a  
power failure in June 2022. 
Cattle was immediately removed from  
easement by WEI. Emailed the  
landowner about cattle access into the  
easement. The fence line was repaired  
(early July 2022). 
MY3 Resolved 
UT3 
Evidence observed from cattle  
accessing but not currently in  
the easement due to a  
tree down on the fence in late 
July 2022. 
The tree was removed, and the fence  
was repaired (late July 2022). MY3 Resolved 
Eastern side of  
project and UT1 
Evidence observed from cattle  
accessing but not currently in  
the easement due to a tree  
down on the fence when cattle  
pasture rotation was  
conducted in early March  
2023. 
Cattle was removed from easement by  
landowner and repaired the fence. No  
landowner contact was needed (early  
March 2023). 
MY4 Resolved 
Eastern side of  
project 
Cattle was observed within the  
easement due to a tree down  
on the fence in late March  
2023. 
The landowner was contacted, and the  
cattle were swiftly removed from the  
easement by the landowner. WEI  
repaired the fence and added horse  
tape to deter cattle access (late March  
2023). 
MY4 Resolved 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐4 
Due to the reoccurrence of cattle encroachments in 2022, after none were observed in 2021, a more 
focused effort was implemented by Wildlands in 2023 to maintain and repair fencing as swiftly as 
possible. Therefore, when cattle were observed again within the easement in March 2023, the 
landowner was promptly contacted, and the cattle were swiftly removed with minimal damage to 
planted stems. Wildlands repaired the fence and added horse tape to prevent further easement 
violations. In addition, Wildlands identified the crossing between BCR2 and BCR3 as a potential cattle 
access point to the easement. After repairs were conducted along this fence line, the issue of cattle 
within the easement was resolved.  
Since March of 2023, there have been multiple site visits by Wildlands Stewardship and Monitoring 
Teams, and no additional cattle encroachments nor any evidence of cattle accessing the easement have 
been observed. It appears that the fence is being operated and maintained properly. Wildlands will 
continue to closely monitor the easement and fencing throughout the monitoring period and continue 
to take a proactive approach to mitigate potential fencing issues before an encroachment is observed. 
Wildlands walked the boundary in October of 2023 to ensure that the conservation easement boundary 
was intact in regard to signage and fencing, as well as, free of encroachments. In early 2024, Wildlands 
will plan to walk the boundary to reverify the survey boundary monuments. Even though there have 
been multiple cattle encroachments at the Site, the vegetation continues to thrive and no areas inside 
the easement have been severely impacted. Management activities and vegetation areas of concern are 
depicted on the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) figures.  
2.3 Stream Assessment 
MY4 is a reduced monitoring year and detailed geomorphologic cross‐section surveys are not required. 
However, based on field observations during site assessments, site maintenance, and the 
implementation of land stewardship activities, most project reaches within the Site continue to remain 
stable and function as designed. Areas where current and/or former instability or stream functional 
issues have been noted are discussed in Section 2.4, outlined in Tables 4a‐4l, and depicted in Figures 1 – 
1c. 
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity 
The MY4 visual assessment revealed that the majority of the project reaches, bed and banks are stable 
with only minor instances of scour and localized structure issues, neither of which compromise the 
channel or structure integrity. However, on Bull Creek Reach 2, there is active erosion and minor piping 
occurring behind a j‐hook structure at station 115+30 caused by continuous storm events. Wildlands will 
conduct hand repairs in MY5 by re‐grading and re‐stabilizing the left bank. Repair activities will also 
include re‐seeding, adding herbaceous plugs and live stake fascines to stabilize the banks and prevent 
excess sediment from entering the stream. Wildlands will continue to monitor all areas of concern and 
document repairs and management activities in the MY5 report. Refer to CCPV Figures 1 – 1c and 
Appendix A for stream stability tables, AOC photographs. 
As discussed in the MY3 report, repairs were implemented in April of 2023 on the downstream extent of 
Bull Creek Reach 3 at station 164+00 to address displaced and piping lunker logs. Wildlands reset one 
structure by keying it back into the bed and bank and added stabilizing rock material to both banks for 
bank revetment and structure stability. For the second structure, since the log was not acting as a grade 
control measure, Wildlands notched a sizable portion in the center of the log to allow water to pass 
freely over the log to prevent any further piping beneath and erosion around the structure. Additionally, 
two areas of localized aggradation (Bull Creek Reach 1A and UT3C), have remained consistent in scale 
over the past few years and no longer pose a threat to channel stability; therefore, they have been 
removed as an AOC from the CCPV maps and from Table 4. Wildlands will continue to monitor these 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐5 
structures and stream areas to ensure that they are performing as intended. Refer to Appendix A for 
Repair Photographs and Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table. 
2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment 
Five automated pressure transducers were installed in MY0 to document stream hydrology throughout 
the seven‐year monitoring period. At the end of the seven‐year monitoring period, four or more bankfull 
flow events must have occurred in separate years on each of the restoration reaches and intermittent 
channels have maintained 30 consecutive days of baseflow in each monitoring year. Pressure 
transducers are programmed to record data every 2 hours and have captured many high flow events 
since monitoring commenced in MY1. Each gage was checked for accuracy at the beginning of MY4. 
Generally, average rainfall in MY4 fell within the normal range when compared to the 30‐year normal 
between 1993 and 2023 (NRCS, 2023; USGS 2023). Automated crest gages (CG), as well as manual crest 
gage 1, recorded at least one bankfull event on each of the restoration reaches, except UT3C, in MY4. 
Though UT3C did not record a bankfull event in MY4, it came close in June, and had previously recorded 
at least one bankfull event in each of the past three years. Additionally, UT2, which is monitored to 
confirm the continuation of intermittent baseflow conditions on the restored channel, recorded 283 
days of consecutive flow, exceeding the 30‐day consecutive flow requirement. Please refer to Figures 1 – 
1c for gage locations and Appendix D for hydrology summary data and gage plots.  
2.6 MY4 Summary 
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, hydrology, and vegetation success criteria for MY4. 
Herbaceous ground cover is well established throughout the Site. At least one bankfull event was 
documented on each of the monitored reaches in MY4 except for reach UT3C, and UT2’s baseflow 
exceeded the 30‐day requirement for intermittent streams, with a total of 283 days of consecutive flow. 
The MY4 visual assessment identified one small area of concern on Bull Creek Reach 2, which is slotted 
to be repaired in MY5. A log roller riffle on Bull Creek Reach 3 that was documented in MY3 was 
repaired and is functioning as intended. No ongoing areas of encroachment were noted during the MY4 
site walk. The invasive species populations noted in MY3 were treated in May and November 2023 of 
MY4, leaving the site with a good outlook on invasive control going into MY5. Supplemental planting 
areas are doing well and are trending towards success. Wildlands will continue to monitor the Site, and 
adaptive maintenance measures will be implemented as necessary throughout the seven‐year 
monitoring period to benefit the ecological health and geomorphic stability of the Site. 

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 3‐1 
Section 3: METHODOLOGY 
Geomorphic data was 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 ArcGIS. Crest gages, stream 
gages, and groundwater gages are monitored quarterly. Monitoring instrument installation and 
methods are in accordance with the 2016 NC IRT Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update 
and NC DMS Annual Monitoring and Closeout Template (2015). Vegetation monitoring protocols 
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

 Key Mill Mitigation Site  
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 4‐1 
Section 4: 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. 
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording 
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐
2.pdf.  
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. WETS Table. Station ID Mt Airy 2 W, NC. Accessed 
October 31, 2023. https://agacis.rcc‐acis.org/?fips=37171 
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). February 2009. Upper Yadkin Pee‐Dee River 
Basin Restoration Priorities. 
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). October 2015. DMS Stream and Wetland 
Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance. 
North Carolina DMS, April 2015. DMS Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Template. 
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications. 
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water‐ resources/planning/classification‐standards. 
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina 
Survey, General Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy‐
mineral‐land‐ resources/north‐carolina‐geological‐survey/ncgs‐maps/1985‐geologic‐map‐of‐nc4. 
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169‐199. 
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. 
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. National Water Information System. Station ID USGS 
362416080334345 Ararat, NC. Accessed October 31, 2023. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring‐
location/362416080334345/ 
USACE. 2016. Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. USACE, NCDENR‐DWQ, 
USEPA, NCWRC. 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2019. Key Mill Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC. 
Wildlands, 2020. Key Mill Mitigation Site As‐built Baseline Monitoring Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC. 
Wildlands, 2020. Key Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC. 
Wildlands, 2021. Key Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.  
Wildlands, 2022. Key Mill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC. 

FIGURES

[
[[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[[[[[
[
[[[[[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[
[
[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Reach 1A
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
UT1A
UT3
UT2
UT2A
UT2B
Reach 3
UT2C
UT3A
UT3B
UT3C
UT1B
UT1C
Reach 1B
B
u
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
B
u
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
Bu
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
Sheet 3.1
Sheet 3.2
Sheet 3.3
!(
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View Map (Key)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Surry County, NC
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
Internal Crossings
Existing Wetlands
Restoraton
Enhancement II
Preservation
Not for Credit
Alignment Deviation
Non Project Streams
Bankfull
[Fence line
Structures
Topographic Contours (4')
Cross-Sections
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
!A Stream Gage
!A Manual Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
!P Reach Breaks
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY4
Not Monitored
Supplemental Vegetation Plot (SVP)
Woody Replanted Areas - 2022
Woody Vegetation
Stream Problem Area - MY4
!(Structure Issue
¹
2022 Aerial Imagery
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Reach 1A
Reach 2
Reach 3
UT1A
UT3
UT2B
UT2C
UT3A
UT3B
UT3C
UT1B
UT1C
Reach 1B
B
u
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
MP4
MP1
MP2
MP5
CG6
1
0
1
+
1
6
10
2
+
0
0
103+00
1
0
5
+
0
0
106
+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
306+00
30
7
+
0
0
308
+
0
0
30
9
+
0
0
3
1
0
+
0
0
3
1
0
+
8
2
404
+
7
1
405+00
4
0
6
+
0
0
407+00
408+00
409+00
410+00
411+0
0
412
+
0
0
40
2
+
0
0
403+00
404+00
11
6
+
7
9
1
0
1
+
0
0
102+00
10
3
+
0
0
104+00
1
0
5
+
0
0
106
+
0
0
1
0
7
+
0
0
10
8
+
0
0
10
9
+
0
0
11
0
+
0
0
111+
0
0
1
1
2
+
0
0
113+00
114+0
0
11
5
+
0
0
11
6
+
0
0
21
3
+
9
3
20
9
+
0
0
210+
0
0
211
+
0
0
21
2
+
0
0
21
3
+
0
0
15
0
+
0
0
151
+
0
0
15
2
+
0
0
15
3
+
0
0
154
+
0
0
1
5
5
+
0
0
1
5
6
+
0
0
11
6
+
7
9
1
1
7
+
0
0
11
8
+
0
0
11
8
+
4
0
20
0
+
0
0
20
1
+
0
0
20
2
+
0
0
203
+
0
0
20
4
+
0
0
205
+
0
0
206
+
0
0
20
7
+
0
0
20
8
+
0
0
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
CG3
CG4
CG1
CG2
12
13
14
19
20
21
22
25
5
6
23
24
2
15
4
3
1
12A
14A
14B
4A
4B
4C
4D
22A
X
S
1
0
X
S
9
XS1
5
XS4
XS1
3
X
S
1
2
XS
1
4
X
S
1
XS3
XS2
XS
5
X
S
6
!(
2
1
5
6
7
8
S
V
P
1
0 130 260 Feet
Figure 1a. Current Condition Plan View Map
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Surry County, NC
¹
2022 Aerial Imagery
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
Internal Crossings
Existing Wetlands
Restoraton
Enhancement II
Not for Credit
Alignment Deviation
Non Project Streams
Bankfull
[Fence line
Structures
Topographic Contours (4')
Cross-Sections
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
!P Reach Breaks
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY4
Not Monitored
Supplemental Vegetation Plot (SVP)
Woody Replanted Areas - 2022
Woody Vegetation
Stream Problem Area - MY4
!(Structure Issue
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[
[[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
Reach 2
Reach 3
UT3
UT2 UT2A
UT2B
UT2C
UT3A
UT3B
UT3C
UT1C
B
u
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
MP4
MP1
MP2
MP3
MCG1
300+
0
0
301+00 302+00
303+00 304
+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
306+00
30
7
+
0
0
308
+
0
0
30
9
+
0
0
3
1
0
+
0
0
3
1
0
+
8
2
404
+
7
1
405+00
4
0
6
+
0
0
407+00
408+00
409+00
410+00
411+0
0
412
+
0
0
400
+
0
0
4
0
1
+
0
0
40
2
+
0
0
403+00
404+00
3
5
0
+
4
2
11
6
+
7
9
11
5
+
0
0
11
6
+
0
0
21
3
+
9
3
21
3
+
0
0
15
0
+
0
0
151
+
0
0
15
2
+
0
0
15
3
+
0
0
154
+
0
0
1
5
5
+
0
0
1
5
6
+
0
0
15
7
+
0
0
1
5
8
+
0
0
15
9
+
0
0
1
6
0
+
0
0
11
6
+
7
9
1
1
7
+
0
0
118
+
0
0
11
8
+
4
0
4
5
0
+
5
7
450+0
0
CG3
CG4
CG2
Barotroll
SG1
16
17
19
20
21
22
25
5
7
8
6
18
23
24
15
4A
4B
4C
4D
22A
X
S
1
0
XS
1
1
XS1
5
XS4
XS1
3
X
S
1
2
XS
1
4
XS
5
X
S
6
2
3
7
8
0 125 250 Feet
Figure 1b. Current Conditions Plan View Map
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Surry County, NC
¹
2022 Aerial Imagery
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
Internal Crossings
Existing Wetlands
Restoraton
Enhancement II
Not for Credit
Alignment Deviation
Non Project Streams
Bankfull
[Fence line
Structures
Topographic Contours (4')
Cross-Sections
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
!A Stream Gage
!A Manual Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
!P Reach Breaks
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY4
Not Monitored
Replanting Areas 2022
Woody Vegetation
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!P
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
412
+
0
0
16
7
+
5
6
1
5
6
+
0
0
15
7
+
0
0
1
5
8
+
0
0
15
9
+
0
0
1
6
0
+
0
0
161
+
0
0
1
6
2
+
0
0
1
6
3
+
0
0
164
+
0
0
1
6
5
+
0
0
16
6
+
0
0
167+
0
0
174
+
3
9
16
7
+
5
6
1
6
8
+
0
0
1
6
9
+
0
0
1
7
0
+
0
0
1
7
1
+
0
0
1
7
2
+
0
0
1
7
3
+
0
0
174
+
0
0
CG5
7
8
10
11
9 X
S
7
XS8
Reach 4
Reach 3
B
u
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
Bu
l
l

C
r
e
e
k
MP3
MCG1
3
4
0 100 200 Feet
Figure 1c. Current Conditions Plan View Map
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Surry County, NC
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
Internal Crossings
Restoration
Preservation
Not for Credit
Non Project Streams
Bankfull
[Fence line
Structures
Cross-Sections
!A Crest Gage
!A Manual Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
!P Reach Breaks
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY4
Not Monitored
¹
2022 Aerial Imagery

APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data

Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: Bull Creek Reach 1A
Assessed Length: 421
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 3 3 100%
Depth Sufficient 2 2 100%
Length Appropriate 2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)2 2 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.3 3 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
2 2 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
5 5 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: Bull Creek Reach 1B
Assessed Length: 722
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 7 7 100%
Depth Sufficient 8 8 100%
Length Appropriate 8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)8 8 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 6 6 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.6 6 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
5 5 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
12 12 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: Bull Creek Reach 2
Assessed Length: 418
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 6 6 100%
Depth Sufficient 5 5 100%
Length Appropriate 5 5 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)5 5 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)5 5 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.10 10 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 5 5 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.4 5 80%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
5 5 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
10 10 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: Bull Creek Reach 3
Assessed Length: 1,676
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 15 15 100%
Depth Sufficient 16 16 100%
Length Appropriate 16 16 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)15 15 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)16 16 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.28 28 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 11 11 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.11 11 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
17 17 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
28 28 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: UT1B
Assessed Length: 212
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 9 9 100%
Depth Sufficient 9 9 100%
Length Appropriate 9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)9 9 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.8 8 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
0 0 N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
8 8 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: UT1C
Assessed Length: 257
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 9 9 100%
Depth Sufficient 10 10 100%
Length Appropriate 10 10 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)10 10 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.11 11 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
11 11 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: UT2
Assessed Length: 42
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 3 3 100%
Depth Sufficient 2 2 100%
Length Appropriate 2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)2 2 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.2 2 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 2 2 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.2 2 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
0 0 N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
2 2 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: UT2A
Assessed Length: 315
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 11 11 100%
Depth Sufficient 11 11 100%
Length Appropriate 11 11 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)10 10 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)11 11 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 10 10 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.10 10 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
2 2 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
12 12 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: UT2B
Assessed Length: 263
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 8 8 100%
Depth Sufficient 8 8 100%
Length Appropriate 8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)8 8 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
4 4 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
12 12 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: UT2C
Assessed Length: 469
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 12 12 100%
Depth Sufficient 11 11 100%
Length Appropriate 11 11 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)11 11 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)11 11 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.13 13 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 2 2 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.2 2 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
11 11 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
13 13 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4k. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: UT3B
Assessed Length: 307
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 12 12 100%
Depth Sufficient 11 11 100%
Length Appropriate 11 11 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)11 11 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.16 16 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 11 11 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.11 11 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
5 5 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
16 16 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 4l. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Reach: UT3C
Assessed Length: 412
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 10 10 100%
Depth Sufficient 9 9 100%
Length Appropriate 9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)9 9 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.15 15 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
7 7 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
15 15 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in Section 1.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of visual assessment: September 13, 2023
Planted Acreage 9.8
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 5, or 7 stem
count criteria.0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
0 0.0 0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
0 0.0 0.0%
Easement Acreage 20.8
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern1 Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1,000 0 0.0 0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 0 0.0 0.0%
1Invasive species treatment effective as of November 2023 and verified by Stewardship.
Total
Cumulative Total

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Bull Creek Reach 1A – Reach 4
Monitoring Year 4

Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 1 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 2 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 2 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Photo Point 3 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 3 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 4 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 4 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 4A – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 4A – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 4B – looking north (03/08/2023) Photo Point 4C – looking west (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 4D – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 4D – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 5 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 5 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 6 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 6 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 7 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 7 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 8 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 8 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 9 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 9 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 10 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 10 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 11 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 11 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1A – UT1C
Monitoring Year 4

Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 12 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 12 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 12A – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 12A – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 13 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 13 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 14 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 14 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 14A – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 14A – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 14B – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 14B – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 15 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 15 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT2 – UT2C
Monitoring Year 4

Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 16 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 16 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 17 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 17 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 18 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 18 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 19 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 19 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 20 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 20 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT3A – UT3C
Monitoring Year 4

Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 21 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 21 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 22 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 22 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 22A – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 22A – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 23 – wetland looking north (03/08/2023) Photo Point 23 – wetland looking east (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 23 – wetland looking south (03/08/2023) Photo Point 23 – wetland looking west (03/08/2023)

Photo Point 24 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 24 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Stream Photographs

Photo Point 25 – looking upstream (03/08/2023) Photo Point 25 – looking downstream (03/08/2023)

REPAIR PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 4

Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Area of Concern Photographs

Bull Creek Reach 3: Log roller riffle at station 164+00 with piping
under one of the structure’s logs (09/19/2022)
Bull Creek Reach 3: Log cut at station 164+00, water is able to
flow freely (09/06/23)

Bull Creek Reach 3: Log roller riffle at station 164+00 with one of
its header logs dislocated from its footer log (09/19/2022)
Bull Creek Reach 3: Filter Fabric added and secured to log roller
at station 164+00, water is no longer piping (04/25/23)

AREA OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 4

Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Area of Concern Photographs

Bull Creek Reach 2: J-hook structure at station 115+30 with piping starting to occur from bank erosion (09/13/2023)

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation assessment and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 4
Data Included from Monitoring Year 3

Table 6.  Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Permanent Vegetation Plot MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1Y
2N
3Y
4Y
5N
6Y
7Y
8Y
Mobile Vegetation Plot MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1Y
2Y
3Y
4Y
5Y
100%
Tract Mean (MY3 ‐ 2022)
75%
85%
Table 7.  CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Report Prepared By Freddy Ortega
Date Prepared 9/2/2022 11:11
Database Name cvs‐eep‐entrytool‐v2.5.0 Key Mill MY3.mdb
Database Location C:\Users\fortega\OneDrive ‐ Wildlands Engineering Inc\Desktop\Microsoft Access Veg Data ‐ Work in this folder & return to original location when finished\Key Mill MY3 Veg
Computer Name FREDDY2022
File Size 74149888
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.  This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year.  This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
Project Code 100025
Project Name Key Mill Mitigation Site
Description Full delivery mitigation project in Surry County, NC.
Sampled Plots 13
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
PROJECT SUMMARY‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
22 2 334
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
10
Acer saccharinum Silver Maple, Soft Maple Tree
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw, Indian‐banana Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree
44 4 333666223
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree
11 1 222
Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Ilex opaca American Holly, Christmas Holly Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 4
Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree
111
Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge Tree 4 4 5
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 115111173321222
Quercus falcata Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak Tree
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree
33 3
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
Viburnum dentatum Arrow‐wood Shrub Tree 11 1 111 222
15 15 69 7 7 23 13 13 42 10 10 12
88 9 444334555
607 607 2,792   283 283 931 526 526 1,700 405 405 486
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo 4 Boxelder Tree
111
Acer rubrum 5 Red Maple Tree
37 4 13
Acer saccharinum 2,5 Silver Maple, Soft Maple Tree
111222
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw, Indian‐banana Shrub Tree
Betula nigra 4 River Birch, Red Birch Tree
22 2 222 222
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana 3 American Persimmon Tree
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 111
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1,2 Green Ash, Red Ash Tree
111333222
Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree 111
Ilex opaca American Holly, Christmas Holly Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1
Morus rubra 3 Red Mulberry Tree
111
Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge Tree 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 3413444111116
Quercus falcata Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak Tree 111222
Quercus rubra 1 Northern Red Oak Tree
333111111
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
Viburnum dentatum Arrow‐wood Shrub Tree 11 2 111
6 7 55 12 12 16 9 9 22 12 12 17
33 5 667667999
243 283 2,226 486 486 647 364 364 890 486 486 688
1In Permanent Plot 6, a planted stem previously mislabeled as Fraxinus pennsylvanica  was identified as Quercus rubra  in MY3.
2In Permanent Plot 7, a planted stem previously mislabeled as Acer saccharinum  was identified as Fraxinus pennsylvanica  in MY3.
3In Permanent Plot 8, a planted stem previously mislabeled as Diospyros virginiana  was identified as Morus rubra  in MY3.
4In Permanent Plot 8, a planted stem previously mislabeled as Betula nigra  was identified as Acer negundo  in MY3.
5In Permanent Plot 8, two planted stems previously mislabeled as Acer rubrum were identified as Acer saccharinum  in MY3.
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes and the planted stems over the 50% rule.
Exceeds requirements by 10%P‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakes and the planted stems over the 50% rule.
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T: Total stems (All planted stems, live stakes, and volunteers)
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Permanent Plot 83,4,5
size (ares)
Table 8a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Stem count
Permanent Plot 2
1
Permanent Plot 1 Permanent Plot 4
111
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY3 2022)
Permanent Plot 3
111
0.0247
Species count
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
1
Stem count
Permanent Plot 5 Permanent Plot 61
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
Species count
Stems per ACRE
0.0247
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY3 2022)
Permanent Plot 72
0.0247
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)0.0247 0.0247
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 66 7 555
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 64 2 2 13 30
Acer saccharinum Silver Maple, Soft Maple Tree 33 3 222222222
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree 2
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw, Indian‐banana Shrub Tree 111555
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 21 21 22 22 22 22 19 19 23 16 16 16
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree 11 1 111111444
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 111
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 11 1 111222444
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12
Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree 33 3 333
Ilex opaca American Holly, Christmas Holly Shrub Tree 111666
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 549
Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree 22 2 222
Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge Tree 55 6 555888666
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 16 17 115 17 17 137 13 13 120 16 16 16
Quercus falcata Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak Tree 33 3 333555777
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 8 8 8 8 8 8 11 11 11 16 16 16
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 1
Viburnum dentatum Arrow‐wood Shrub Tree 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15
84 85 256 87 87 224 78 78 229 109 109 109
13 13 15 15 15 17 12 12 15 12 12 12
425 430 1,295   440 440 1,133 395 395 1,158 551 551 551
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes and the planted stems over the 50% rule.
Exceeds requirements by 10%P‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakes and the planted stems over the 50% rule.
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems (All planted stems, live stakes, and volunteers)
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
MY0 (4/2020)
Permanent Vegetation Plot Annual Mean
MY3 (08/2022)
8
0.1977 0.1977
8
Species count
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
MY1 (10/2020)
8
0.1977
Table 8b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Stem count
0.1977
MY2 (08/2021)
8
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 MY3 (08/2022) MY2 (08/2021) MY1 (10/2020) MY0 (4/2020)
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 1 1 4
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 4
Acer saccharinum Silver Maple, Soft Maple Tree 2 4 6 3 1
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw, Indian‐banana Shrub Tree 314
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 3 1 1 2 7 11 14 15
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree 2 2 5
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 3
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 25145 17 5 6 7
Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree
Ilex opaca American Holly, Christmas Holly Shrub Tree 4
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree 3 3 1
Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge Tree 1 1 6 4
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 53234 17 18 19 4
Quercus falcata Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak Tree 51
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 5 1 6 7 9 16
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 4
Viburnum dentatum Arrow‐wood Shrub Tree 1 1 2 1 5
12 13 14 10 13 62 61 63 70
11111 5555
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
0.1236 0.1236 0.1236 0.1236
44745 10 11 8 12
486 526 567 405 526 502 494 510 567
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY3 
(08/2022)
MY2 
(08/2021)
MY1 
(10/2020)
MY0 
(4/2020)
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 7 9
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 6
Acer saccharinum Silver Maple, Soft Maple Tree 9253
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw, Indian‐banana Shrub Tree 329
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 28333331
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree3119
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 4
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 1128
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 26141519
Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree 3 3
Ilex opaca American Holly, Christmas Holly Shrub Tree 1 10
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree 5 3
Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge Tree 6 5 14 10
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 33 35 32 20
Quercus falcata Spanish Oak, Southern Red OakTree 3 3108
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 14152032
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 4
Viburnum dentatum Arrow‐wood Shrub Tree87620
146 148 141 179
13 13 13 13
0.3212 0.3212 0.3212 0.3212
13 17 12 12
454 461 439 557
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes and the planted stems over the 50% rule.
Exceeds requirements by 10% P‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakes and the planted stems over the 50% rule.
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T: Total stems (All planted stems, live stakes, and volunteers)
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Annual Means
Overall Site Annual Mean
Current Mobile Vegetation Plot (MP) Data (MY3 2022)
Table 8c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Stem count
size (ares)
Species count
size (ACRES)
Stems per ACRE
Stem count

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data
Stream assessment and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 4
Data Included from Monitoring Year 3

Table 9a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)16.2 19.1 16.2 19.1 16.2 19.1 18.0 25.4 5.6 7.0 5.6 7.0 19.6 21.2
Floodprone Width2 (ft)21 25 21 25 21 25 27 53 14 17 14 17 42.9 97.5 38.5 87.5 35.2 80.0 46.2 105.0 12.0 19.0 12.0 18.0 94.0 99.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.1 2.1 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.6 1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.6 2.7 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.8 1.7 2.4 1.4 1.9 1.8 2.4 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.1 2.7 3.0
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)18.7 21.6 18.7 21.6 18.7 21.6 26.2 39.5 3.9 6.8 3.9 6.8 33.5 36.0
Width/Depth Ratio 14.1 16.8 14.1 16.8 14.1 16.2 8.5 22.5 7.3 8.1 7.3 8.1 10.7 13.4
Entrenchment Ratio2 1.3 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 4.6 6.3 7.8 2.8 3.3 2.7 2.9 4.3 4.7
Bank Height Ratio 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.1 1.9 2.8 5.0 7.9 5.0 7.9 1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)91.6 96.6 91.6 96.6 25.8 37.2 17.7 24.2 17.7 24.2 56.4 56.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0100 0.0148 0.0162 0.0203 0.0172 0.0318 0.0103 0.0171 0.0314 0.0801 0.0080 0.0526 0.0050 0.0140 0.0133 0.0258 0.0274 0.0377 0.0037 0.0197 0.0285 0.0604 0.0108 0.0527
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.5 2.3 4.0 5.6 3.5 4.8 3.9 6.5 1.3 1.8 4.3 5.0 3.1 4.6 3.3 4.2 3.0 5.4 0.9 2.0 1.2 2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)48.0 262.0 48.0 262.0 96.0 111.0 80.0 101.0 74.6 76.7 55.8 149.0 20.0 54.0 20.0 27.0 76.6 110.1 59.3 99.2 60.8 187.8 19.9 63.0 18.2 51.5
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)68.8 89.4 53.4 81.3 45.0 69.2 39.0 108.4 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 68.8 89.4 53.4 81.3 45.0 69.2 39.0 108.4 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1
Radius of Curvature (ft)35.0 50.0 32.0 50.0 30.0 50.5 36.0 85.6 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 35.0 50.0 32.0 50.0 30.0 50.5 36.0 85.6 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1
Rc/Bankfull Width 1.8 2.6 1.8 2.9 1.9 3.2 1.7 4.1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 1.8 2.6 1.8 2.9 1.9 3.2 1.7 4.1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1
Meander Length (ft)192.2 207.2 179.2 199.8 149.3 171.4 177.0 312.4 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 192.2 207.2 179.2 199.8 149.3 171.4 177.0 312.4 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1
Meander Width Ratio 3.5 4.6 3.1 4.6 2.8 4.3 1.9 5.2 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 3.5 4.6 3.1 4.6 2.8 4.3 1.9 5.2 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 42.0 47.0
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)4.8 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.2 4.3 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 4.7 5.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)157 184
Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr)
Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr)
Max Q‐Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)0.0076 0.0114
1. Pattern data is not applicable for A‐type and B‐type channels  
2. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
418
C3b
‐‐‐
1.79
166
1.3
N/A
82.2
‐‐‐
2.6
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Bull Creek R3 Bull Creek R1A Bull Creek R2Bull Creek R2
1.3
17.3
67.6
16.0
1.2 1.7
Bull Creek 
R1A
Bull Creek 
R1B Bull Creek R1BBull Creek R1A Bull Creek R1B
19.5
1.6 1.3
21.017.5
12.6 13.2 14.2
1.0
8.5 8.3 16.4
0.6
N/A 31.123.230.2
1.5
13.3
1.1 1.1 1.1
1.3
N/A
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
N/A
‐‐‐
4.9
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
N/A
0.2/0.5/19.0/ 
96.0/146.7/  
362.0
89.0
0.64 0.98
1.79 2.02
0.1/5.6/20.7/ 
113.8/171.4/ 
362.0
0.1/5.6/28.5/ 
151.8/256.0/ 
362.0
1.02 0.66 1.32
49 29.0
1.681.68
1%1%
C3C3
1.79 2.02
N/A
1.63 1.68
0.0130 0.0090
0.0120
90.0 90.0
F3 F3
116.0
F3/G3c
90.0 90.0 116.0
C3bC3
3.2 3.8 4.1
130
C3
3.9 5.2
99.0
C3 C3
119
1.2
0.0086 0.0150 0.0118
N/A
‐‐‐
418
‐‐‐0.0295
0.0069 0.0123
722 1,674
0.01240.0071
257
0.03160.0160 0.0190
1.31.31.2 1.2 1.2
0.0140 0.0440 0.0242
1.3
722
1.2
212
1%
F3
1.2 1.2
444
0.3/2.8/34.3/167.3/287.3/
>2048
0.0270 0.0080
2.17
1.63
SC/0.3/11.0/ 
222.4/346.7/ 
512.0
922
0.0100
5.6
107
3.83.9
1.63
140
Bull Creek R2 Bull Creek R3
2.8
28.2
13.4
3.6
1.0
19.3
1.76
5.3
‐‐‐
0.0092
2.9
29.7
10.1
3.9
1.0
0.0249
1.2
6.6
Pre‐Restoration Condition Design As‐Built/Baseline
UT1B UT1C UT1B UT1C UT1B UT1CBull Creek R3
6.8 6.9
55.7 23.6 34.0
19.4
70.1
0.6 1.41.5 0.6 0.8
2.5 0.9 1.3
4.8 22.9 3.9 5.7
13.8 14.5 11.8 11.7 8.3
>2.2 >2.2 3.4 3.5 4.9
1.0 1.0 1.0
64.0 135.9 33.9 56.2107.3
2.6 3.2 1.7
52.0 52.0 52.0
4.94.9
230.4
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
0.5/9.2/13.7/
100.0/180.0/
362.0
0.5/3.4/13.3/
109.5/166.9/
256.0
0.3/8.0/13.5/33.6/75.9/
180.0
0.3/6.4/12.8/45.0
/101.2/ 256.0
0.3/1.8/8.9/ 
87.3/137.0/ 
1024.0
1.19 1.50 1.31 2.030.92
94 119 53.0 94.060.08077
0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.162.02
<1%<1%<1%
G4c G4 B4 B4a B4 B4a
4.4 6.2
99.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.00 17 35151
111 20 20
1,484 1,159
0.0240 0.0370 0.0335 0.0458 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
1.1
435 876 403 2,291 188 332 1,676421
1.2
0.0425 0.0349 0.0407
212 257
1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft) 3.9 5.7 3.9 5.7
Floodprone Width 2 (ft)84 112 84 112 84 112 84 112 9 14 9 14 5.0 8.0 8.0 13.0 13.0 30.0 15.0 34.0 10.0 15.0 16.5 37.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)5.7 7.4 5.7 7.4 5.7 7.4 5.7 7.4 2.8 4.1 2.8 4.1
Width/Depth Ratio 3.7 4.8 3.7 4.8 3.7 4.8 3.7 4.8 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.8
Entrenchment Ratio 2 16.0 21.2 16.0 21.2 16.0 21.2 16.0 21.2 1.6 3.5 1.6 3.5 1.4 2.2 2.8 5.7 5.0 7.5 5.1 6.6 3.1 6.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.9 2.7 3.8 2.7 3.8
D50 (mm)SC 0.1 SC 1.1 SC 2.1 SC 3.1 3.6 6.4 3.6 6.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0457 0.0681 0.0287 0.0414 0.0135 0.0409 0.0135 0.0449 0.0385 0.0488 0.0198 0.0266 0.0046 0.0347 0.0054 0.0371 0.0132 0.0510 0.0113 0.0530 0.0081 0.0249
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.4 2.2 1.6 2.2 1.4 2.1 0.9 2.6 1.8 2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)22.0 33.0 23.0 44.0 30.0 47.0 24.0 29.0 31.0 58.0 18.6 39.9 20.5 44.1 26.1 55.9 19.5 30.4 17.4 79.9
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 19.0 26.0 23.0 34.0 N/A1 N/A1 17.2 44.8 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 19.0 26 23.0 34.0 N/A1 N/A1 17.2 44.8
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 12.0 15.0 13.0 17.0 N/A1 N/A1 12.0 22.0 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 12.0 15.0 13.0 17.0 N/A1 N/A1 12.0 22.0
Rc/Bankfull Width N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 2.0 2.5 1.9 2.5 N/A1 N/A1 1.6 2.9 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 2.0 2.5 1.9 2.5 N/A1 N/A1 1.6 2.9
Meander Length (ft)N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 56.0 76.0 73.0 90.0 N/A1 N/A1 65.2 118.0 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 56.0 76.0 73.0 90.0 N/A1 N/A1 65.2 118.0
Meander Width Ratio N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 3.2 4.3 3.3 4.9 N/A1 N/A1 2.2 6.0 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 3.2 4.3 3.3 4.9 N/A1 N/A1 2.2 6.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft 2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr)
Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr)
Max Q‐Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope  (ft/ft)0.0229 0.0387 0.0304 0.0363 0.0121 0.0146
1. Pattern data is not applicable for A‐type and B‐type channels  
2. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
‐‐‐
0.5
0.0731
5.3 5.3 5.3
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
3
‐‐‐
UT2A
2.7
UT2
5.3
UT3B
0.7
UT3C
3.5
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
13.3
0.0580
42 315
0.0272
N/A 1.1
N/A
B4 B4
3.0 2.7
9
3.0 7.0
2.4 2.2
1.06 1.05
84 83
0.01 0.04
0.52 0.38
0.7
14.2
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐
Table 9b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
Pre‐Restoration Condition
N/A
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
SC/0.1/0.2/8.4/12.5/32.0 SC/0.5/5.9/21.0/100.0/256.0
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
N/A
N/A
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
N/A
N/A
‐‐‐
61
0.05 0.05
7.03.0
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
G5
349
0.0310
G4 G5c
7.0 7.0
1.1
299
0.0360 0.0160
223
G5
0.05
G5c
1.1
0.0290 0.0190
G5
0.07
1.2
0.0170
296414
12.0
0.0200
1.2
12.0
0.02300.0470 0.0220
0.0640
1.5
0.0170
1.1
Design As‐Built/Baseline
UT2 UT2A UT2B UT2C UT2B UT2C UT3B UT3C UT2 UT2A UT2B UT2C UT3B UT3C
6.0 6.8 7.0 7.5 N/A6.0 6.8 8.1 7.8 6.9 8.8
N/A 30.3 32.0 48.2 21.4 55.8
0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 N/A 0.5 0.6 0.7
N/A
0.5 0.8
N/A 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.3
13.3 12.9 13.7 12.0
0.9 2.6 3.2 3.6 4.7
11.3
3.4 4.8 5.8 3.5 6.8
4.4 3.5 6.2 3.1
N/A 13.9 11.7 10.5 13.4
6.3
1.0 N/A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
>2.2 N/A
N/A 58.6 69.3 49.0 21.1 28.2
N/A
‐‐‐1.6 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 N/A1.3
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐21.0 N/A
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
N/A SC/0.1/0.8/ 64.0/ 
85.4/128.0
SC/0.1/1.3/ 
85.4/137.0/256.0
SC/0.1/8.9/92.5/
124.6/256.0
0.8/4.2/9.4/ 
64.0/165.3/362.0
0.1/0.3/4.0/73.4/
148.1/256.0
1.13 0.55 N/A 0.74 0.69 0.59 0.99 0.66
40 29 89 42 N/A 36.0 35.0 28.0 50.0 28.0
N/A
0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.01
C4b C4 B4 C4
0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07
<1%<1%<1%
0.01 0.07
B4 B4 C4b C4 B4 C4
3.3 2.4 N/A 3.6 3.7 3.3 4.2 3.4
7.0 7.0 12.0 12.0 N/A 12 18 19 15 23
11
62 102
0.0234 0.0179 0.0329 0.0153 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
263 469 307 412 42 315 263 469 307 412
1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 N/A 1.1
0.0200 0.0135 N/A 0.0237 0.0184 0.0134 0.0317 0.0132
1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2
Table 10.  Morphology and Hydraulic  Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section)
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 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 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation1 1106.41 1106.62 1106.65 1106.62 1099.36 1099.30 1099.26 1099.37 1098.70 1098.92 1098.83 1098.85 1088.01 1087.72 1087.70 1087.78
Low Bank Elevation 1106.41 1106.54 1106.31 1106.23 1099.36 1099.16 1099.24 1099.06 1098.70 1098.92 1098.83 1098.85 1088.01 1088.08 1087.60 1087.90
Bankfull Width (ft) 19.4 20.6 16.1 15.4 17.3 17.2 18.4 16.3 24.4 30.4 30.1 30.4 16.4 17.9 15.6 16.3
Floodprone Width (ft)2 70.1 70.0 69.5 69.5 67.6 67.6 66.2 67.5 ‐‐‐‐55.7 55.6 55.6 55.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.7 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 5.3 6.0 5.9 5.7 2.5 2.9 2.3 2.6
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)28.2 26.7 22.6 22.0 29.7 27.3 29.3 24.4 56.8 84.5 79.9 83.0 22.9 29.0 21.3 25.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.4 16.0 11.5 10.8 10.1 10.8 11.6 11.0 10.5 10.9 11.3 11.2 11.8 11.0 11.4 10.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio3 3.6 3.4 4.3 4.5 3.9 3.9 3.6 4.1 ‐‐‐‐3.4 3.1 3.6 3.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 ‐‐‐‐1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
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 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation1 1079.64 1079.57 1079.48 1079.60 1079.35 1079.51 1079.46 1079.53 1073.27 1072.90 1072.76 1072.88 1068.53 1068.20 1067.99 1067.45
Low Bank Elevation 1079.64 1079.57 1079.48 1079.60 1079.35 1079.42 1079.33 1079.42 1073.27 1072.62 1072.37 1072.36 1068.53 1068.20 1067.99 1067.45
Bankfull Width (ft) 27.0 26.2 26.7 27.5 21.2 21.4 20.9 21.0 19.6 23.5 21.3 18.4 29.3 32.2 22.2 20.1
Floodprone Width (ft)2 ‐‐‐‐99.0 99.0 98.9 98.6 84.0 84.0 84.0 83.9 ‐‐‐‐
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.7 4.8 4.8 5.0 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.4 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.3 4.3 3.8 3.9 3.2
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)49.0 50.3 48.8 51.3 33.5 31.7 30.7 31.1 36.0 29.2 27.7 25.8 55.1 45.7 42.3 30.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.9 13.6 14.6 14.8 13.4 14.5 14.3 14.2 10.7 18.9 16.5 13.1 15.6 22.7 11.6 13.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio3 ‐‐‐‐4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.3 3.6 3.9 4.6 ‐‐‐‐
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ‐‐‐‐1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 ‐‐‐‐
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 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation1 1101.94 1102.09 1102.13 1102.01 1089.27 1088.91 1088.90 1088.97 1096.25 1096.44 1096.48 1096.43 1088.43 1088.53 1088.49 1088.51
Low Bank Elevation 1101.94 1102.05 1101.93 1102.29 1089.27 1089.29 1089.21 1089.27 1096.25 1096.40 1096.43 1096.36 1088.43 1088.57 1088.45 1088.46
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.8 6.3 5.8 7.4 6.9 6.4 7.3 6.6 6.8 7.3 8.2 7.3 8.1 8.8 8.5 7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)2 23.6 26.9 18.8 33.7 34.0 35.4 34.9 35.2 30.3 31.4 30.0 29.0 32.0 30.9 28.0 29.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)3.9 3.7 2.6 5.8 5.7 8.0 7.7 7.5 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 4.8 4.5 3.9 3.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.7 10.8 12.8 9.5 8.3 5.2 6.9 5.8 13.9 17.3 22.5 18.6 13.4 17.1 18.6 15.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio3 3.5 4.3 3.2 4.6 4.9 5.5 4.8 5.3 4.4 4.3 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
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 Elevation1 1081.59 1081.67 1081.59 1081.67 1084.57 1084.34 1084.52 1084.68 1081.13 1081.26 1081.24 1081.33
Low Bank Elevation 1081.59 1081.68 1081.48 1081.61 1084.57 1084.80 1084.74 1084.73 1081.13 1081.21 1081.07 1081.20
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.8 8.2 7.7 7.8 6.9 7.4 6.9 6.8 8.8 8.4 7.9 8.0
Floodprone Width (ft)2 48.2 50.0 46.1 48.4 21.4 61.3 43.6 29.7 55.8 55.8 55.4 55.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)5.8 5.8 5.0 5.3 3.5 6.1 4.8 3.8 6.8 6.4 5.4 5.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 10.5 11.6 12.0 11.5 13.4 8.9 9.9 12.1 11.3 11.1 11.5 11.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio3 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.2 3.1 8.3 6.3 4.4 6.3 6.6 7.0 7.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
1Bankfull elevation for riffles are based on the MY0 cross‐sectional area. MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement
  of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
2Floodprone width is calculated from the width of cross‐section but valley width may extend further. 
3ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
4Repairs conducted during MY1 resulted in a slight shift in the cross‐section alignment between the MY0 and MY1 cross‐section pin locations; therefore the plot was adjusted so that cross‐sections lined up for easier comparison.
UT1B Cross‐Section 9, Riffle UT1C Cross‐Section 10, Riffle UT2A Cross‐Section 11, Riffle UT2B Cross‐Section 12, Riffle
UT2C Cross‐Section 13, Riffle UT3B Cross‐Section 14, Riffle UT3C Cross‐Section 15, Riffle
Bull Creek Reach 1A Cross‐Section 1, Riffle Bull Creek Reach 1B Cross‐Section 2, Riffle4 Bull Creek Reach 1B Cross‐Section 3, Pool Bull Creek Reach 2 Cross‐Section 4, Riffle
Bull Creek Reach 3 Cross‐Section 5, Pool Bull Creek Reach 3 Cross‐Section 6, Riffle Bull Creek Reach 3 Cross‐Section 7, Riffle Bull Creek Reach 3 Cross‐Section 8, Pool
Table 11a. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Bull Creek Reach 1A
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.014
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft) 4.3 5.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 68.8 89.4
Radius of Curvature (ft) 35.0 50.0
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.8 2.6
Meander Length (ft) 192.2 207.2
Meander Width Ratio 3.5 4.6
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
1.20
‐‐‐
0.0071
421
1.63
1MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters 
were calculated based on the current low bank height.
1%
C3
0.66
29.0
0.1/0.2/11.0/120.1/174.0
/512.0
SC/0.2/1.0/114.7/171.4/
362.0
0.1/5.6/20.7/113.8/171.4
/362.0
230.4
0.91.0
107.0
3.4 4.3 4.5
3.8
16.0 11.5 10.8
26.7 22.6 22.0
0.91.0
1.4
107.3
2.6
1.3 1.4
2.8
28.2
13.4
3.6
1.5
70
2.8 2.5
70 70 70
MY7
20.6 16.1 15.4
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
19.4
MY6
Table 11b. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Bull Creek Reach 1B
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.013 0.026
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)3.1 4.6
Pool Spacing (ft)76.6 110.1
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)53.4 81.3
Radius of Curvature (ft)32.0 50.0
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.8 2.9
Meander Length (ft)179.2 199.8
Meander Width Ratio 3.1 4.6
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
2Repairs conducted during MY1 resulted in a slight shift in the cross‐section alignment between the cross‐section pins; therefore the plot was adjusted so that cross‐sectional areas lined up for easier comparison.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
3.9
17.2
68
1.6
2.7
27.3
10.8
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7As‐Built/Baseline MY12
66 68
18.4 16.3
1.6 1.5
3.0 2.6
29.3 24.4
11.6 11.0
1.0 0.9
3.6 4.1
82.2
3.9
1.22
166
5.6
17.3
68
1.7
2.9
29.7
10.1
60.0
0.1/0.4/2.0/148.1/234.4/
512.0
1.32
0.1/0.3/37.9/168.1/304.4
/512.0
1.68
C3
1MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were 
calculated based on the current low bank height.
‐‐‐
0.0124
722
1%
1.0
0.1/5.6/28.5/ 
151.8/256.0/ 362.0
1.0
Table 11c. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Bull Creek Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.027 0.038
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)3.3 4.2
Pool Spacing (ft)59.3 99.2
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)45.0 69.2
Radius of Curvature (ft)30.0 50.5
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.9 3.2
Meander Length (ft)149.3 171.4
Meander Width Ratio 2.8 4.3
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
1.1
15.6
56
1.4
2.3
21.3
11.4
3.6
1.0
17.9
56
1.6
2.9
29.0
11.0
16.4
56
1.4
2.5
22.9
11.8
3.4
135.9
3.1
MY6 MY7
16.3
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2
56
MY3 MY4 MY5
1.5
2.6
1.0
10.6
25.1
3.4
SC/0.4/32.0/118.0/256.0
/1024.0
418
1.0
SC/0.3/11.0/ 
222.4/346.7/ 512.0
1MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension 
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
151
1%
0.1/0.5/1.8/222.4/326.3
/1024.0
0.0249
1.22
‐‐‐
2.17
89.0
C3b
6.6
1.79
Table 11d. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Bull Creek Reach 3
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)19.6 21.2 21.4 23.5 20.9 21.3 18.4 21.0
Floodprone Width (ft)94 99 84 99 84 99 84 99
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.6 1.8 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.7 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.4
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)33.5 36.0
29.2 31.7 27.7 30.7 25.8 31.1
Width/Depth Ratio 10.7 13.4 14.5 18.9 14.3 16.5 13.1 14.2
Entrenchment Ratio 4.3 4.7 3.6 4.6 3.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0
D50 (mm)56.4 56.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.004 0.020
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)3.0 5.4
Pool Spacing (ft)60.8 187.8
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)39.0 108.4
Radius of Curvature (ft)36.0 85.6
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.7 4.1
Meander Length (ft)177.0 312.4
Meander Width Ratio 1.9 5.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 42.0 47.0
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)4.7 5.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)157 184
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
MY7As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
C3
1MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension 
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
1.28
0.1/0.2/22.6/143.4/
256.0/512.0
0.2/0.5/26.9/125.2/180.0
/362.0
0.0092
1%
0.2/0.5/19.0/ 
96.0/146.7/  362.0
0.92
2.02
1,676
‐‐‐
Table 11e. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
UT1B
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.029 0.060
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.9 2.0
Pool Spacing (ft)19.9 63.0
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)N/A1 N/A1
Meander Length (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Meander Width Ratio N/A1 N/A1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A‐type and B‐type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
19
0.5
0.9
2.6
12.8
3.2
27
0.6
1.2
3.7
10.8
4.3
0.0349
2MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters 
were calculated based on the current low bank height.
6.8
24
0.6
0.9
3.9
11.7
3.5
33.9
0.16
<1%
B4
4.4
17
‐‐‐
212
1.10
1.31
53.0
0.3/6.4/12.8/45.0/101.2
/ 256.0
0.3/8.0/22.6/69.0/113.8
/180.0
0.4/1.7/16.7/65.7/87.7/
256.0
1.0 1.21.0 0.8
9.5
4.6
1.5
5.8
34
0.8
MY6 MY7
7.46.3 5.8
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 11f. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
UT1C
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.011 0.053
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.2 2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)18.2 51.5
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)N/A1 N/A1
Meander Length (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Meander Width Ratio N/A1 N/A1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A‐type and B‐type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
35
1.1
1.9
7.7
6.9
4.8
35
1.2
1.9
8.0
5.2
5.5
0.0407
2MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters 
were calculated based on the current low bank height.
6.9
34
0.8
1.3
5.7
8.3
4.9
56.2
0.16
<1%
B4a
6.2
35
‐‐‐
257
1.10
2.03
94.0
0.3/1.8/8.9/ 
87.3/137.0/ 1024.0
0.3/2.0/17.7/83.2/128.0
/180.0
0.1/1.8/14.4/84.1/137.0/
362.0
1.0 1.21.3 1.2
5.8
5.3
1.9
7.5
35
1.1
MY6 MY7
6.66.4 7.3
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 11g. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
UT2A
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.035
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.4 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft) 18.6 39.9
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)N/A1 N/A1
Meander Length (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Meander Width Ratio N/A1 N/A1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A‐type and B‐type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
30
0.4
0.6
3.0
22.5
3.6
31
0.4
0.7
3.1
17.3
4.3
0.0237
2MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters 
were calculated based on the current low bank height.
6.8
30
0.5
0.8
3.4
13.9
4.4
58.6
0.04
<1%
B4
3.6
12
‐‐‐
315
1.10
0.74
36.0
SC/0.1/0.8/ 64.0/ 
85.4/128.0
0.2/0.4/11.0/62.0/111.2
/180.0
SC/0.2/8.0/94.6/124.8/
180.0
1.0 0.90.9 0.9
18.6
4.0
0.7
2.9
29
0.4
MY6 MY7
7.37.3 8.2
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 11h. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
UT2B
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.037
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.6 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft) 20.5 44.1
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 19.0 26.0
Radius of Curvature (ft) 12.0 15.0
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 2.0 2.5
Meander Length (ft) 56.0 76.0
Meander Width Ratio 3.2 4.3
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
28
0.5
0.9
3.9
18.6
3.3
31
0.5
1.0
4.5
17.1
3.5
0.0184
1MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension 
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
8.1
32
0.6
1.1
4.8
11.7
3.5
69.3
0.05
<1%
C4b
3.7
18
‐‐‐
263
1.20
0.69
35.0
SC/0.1/1.3/ 
85.4/137.0/256.0
SC/0.1/0.4/77.1/121.7/
180.0
SC/1.1/4.7/59.6/137.0/
256.0
1.0 1.01.0 1.0
15.8
3.8
1.0
3.8
30
0.5
MY6 MY7
7.88.8 8.5
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 11i. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
UT2C
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.013 0.051
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.4 2.1
Pool Spacing (ft) 26.1 55.9
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 23.0 34.0
Radius of Curvature (ft) 13.0 17.0
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.9 2.5
Meander Length (ft) 73.0 90.0
Meander Width Ratio 3.3 4.9
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
46
0.6
1.1
5.0
12.0
6.0
50
0.7
1.2
5.8
11.6
6.1
0.0134
1MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension 
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
7.8
48
0.7
1.1
5.8
10.5
6.2
49.0
0.05
<1%
C4
3.3
19
‐‐‐
469
1.30
0.59
28.0
SC/0.1/8.9/92.5/124.6/
256.0
SC/11.0/24.2/79.2/
119.3/256.0
SC/0.2/12.1/75.9/115.2/
180.0
1.0 1.01.0 0.9
11.5
6.2
1.1
5.3
48
0.7
MY6 MY7
7.88.2 7.7
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 11j. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
UT3B
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.011 0.053
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft) 0.9 2.6
Pool Spacing (ft) 19.5 30.4
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Radius of Curvature (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)N/A1 N/A1
Meander Length (ft)N/A1 N/A1
Meander Width Ratio N/A1 N/A1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A‐type and B‐type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
61
0.8
1.7
6.1
8.9
8.3
44
0.7
1.3
4.8
9.9
6.3
0.0317
2MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension 
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
6.9
21
0.5
0.8
3.5
13.4
3.1
21.1
0.07
<1%
B4
4.2
15
‐‐‐
307
1.10
0.99
50.0
0.8/4.2/9.4/ 
64.0/165.3/362.0
0.7/13.3/27.3/81.3/
146.7/256.0
SC/1.8/22.6/124.3/202.4
/362.0
1.0 1.01.21.4
12.1
4.4
1.0
3.8
30
0.6
MY6 MY7
6.86.97.4
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 11k. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
UT3C
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.008 0.025
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.8 2.5
Pool Spacing (ft) 17.4 79.9
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 17.2 44.8
Radius of Curvature (ft) 12.0 22.0
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.6 2.9
Meander Length (ft) 65.2 118.0
Meander Width Ratio 2.2 6.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
55
0.7
1.3
5.4
11.5
7.0
56
0.8
1.4
6.4
11.1
6.6
0.0132
1MY1‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension 
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
8.8
56
0.8
1.3
6.8
11.3
6.3
28.2
0.07
<1%
C4
3.4
23
‐‐‐
412
1.20
0.66
28.0
0.1/0.3/4.0/73.4/148.1
/256.0
0.1/0.5/19.5/84.6/151.8
/1024.0
SC/0.3/0.5/72.7/128.0/
180.0
1.0 0.91.0 0.9
11.1
7.0
1.4
5.7
56
0.7
MY6 MY7
8.08.4 7.9
As‐Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Bankfull Dimensions
22.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.4 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft) 
16.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.8 width‐depth ratio
69.5 W flood prone area (ft)
4.5 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 1‐Bull Creek Reach 1A
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1102
1104
1106
1108
1110
10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
102+89 Riffle
MY0 (10/2019)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
24.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
16.3 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft) 
17.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.0 width‐depth ratio
67.5 W flood prone area (ft)
4.1 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 2‐Bull Creek Reach 1B
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1096
1098
1100
1102
1104
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
110+04 Riffle
MY0 (07/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
*Repairs conducted during MY1 resulted in a slight shift in
the cross‐section alignment between the MY0 and MY1
cross‐section pin locations; therefore the plot was adjusted
so that the cross‐sections lined up for easier comparison.
Bankfull Dimensions
83.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
30.4 width (ft)
2.7 mean depth (ft)
5.7 max depth (ft) 
33.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.2 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
06/2022
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 3‐Bull Creek Reach 1B
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1093
1095
1097
1099
1101
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
110+48 Pool
MY0 (07/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)Bankfull
*Repairs were conducted on the left bank of XS3 during MY1
prior to the collection of the MY1 cross‐section data and
photos.  The MY1 plot line shows the repaired cross
‐sectional profile.  Also the station number for XS3 was
incorrectly reported on the MY0 cross‐section plot, it
should have been reported as Station 110+48 as shown in
the above plot.
Bankfull Dimensions
25.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
16.3 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft) 
17.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.6 width‐depth ratio
55.6 W flood prone area (ft)
3.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 4‐Bull Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1084
1086
1088
1090
1092
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
115+88 Riffle
MY0 (07/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
*Repairs were conducted on the right bank of XS4 during MY1 prior to
the collection of the MY1 cross‐section data and photos. The MY1 plot
line shows the repaired cross‐sectional profile. Also the station number
for XS4 was incorrectly reported on the MY0 cross‐section plot, it should
have been reported as Station 115+88 as shown in the above plot.
Bankfull Dimensions
51.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
27.5 width (ft)
1.9 mean depth (ft)
5.0 max depth (ft) 
30.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.8 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 5‐Bull Creek Reach 3
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1074
1076
1078
1080
1082
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
152+97 Pool
MY0 (06/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
31.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
21.0 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.4 max depth (ft) 
21.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.2 width‐depth ratio
98.6 W flood prone area (ft)
4.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 6‐Bull Creek Reach 3
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1076
1078
1080
1082
1084
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
153+52 Riffle
MY0 (06/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
25.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
18.4 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft) 
19.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.1 width‐depth ratio
83.9 W flood prone area (ft)
4.6 entrenchment ratio
0.8 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 7‐Bull Creek Reach 3
1068
1070
1072
1074
1076
1078
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
161+14 Riffle
MY0 (07/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
30.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
20.1 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
3.2 max depth (ft) 
22.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 8‐Bull Creek Reach 3
1062
1064
1066
1068
1070
1072
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
164+78 Pool
MY0 (06/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
7.4 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft) 
8.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.5 width‐depth ratio
33.7 W flood prone area (ft)
4.6 entrenchment ratio
1.2 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 9‐UT1B
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
209+24 Riffle
MY0 (07/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
*The station number for XS9 was incorrectly reported
on the MY0 cross‐section plot, it should have been
reported as Station 209+24 as shown in the above plot.
Bankfull Dimensions
7.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
6.6 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft) 
8.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
5.8 width‐depth ratio
35.2 W flood prone area (ft)
5.3 entrenchment ratio
1.2 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 10‐UT1C
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
0 102030
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
213+12 Riffle
MY0 (07/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
7.3 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft) 
7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.6 width‐depth ratio
29.0 W flood prone area (ft)
4.0 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 11‐UT2A
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1095
1096
1097
1098
5 15253545
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
300+77 Riffle
MY0 (06/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
7.8 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft) 
8.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.8 width‐depth ratio
29.8 W flood prone area (ft)
3.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 12‐UT2B
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
8 1828384858
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
304+78 Riffle
MY0 (06/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
7.8 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft) 
8.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.5 width‐depth ratio
48.4 W flood prone area (ft)
6.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 13‐UT2C
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
309+26 Riffle
MY0 (06/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
6.8 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft) 
7.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.1 width‐depth ratio
29.7 W flood prone area (ft)
4.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 14‐UT3B
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
15 25 35 45 55 65
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
406+50 Riffle
MY0 (06/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
8.0 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft) 
8.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.1 width‐depth ratio
55.6 W flood prone area (ft)
7.0 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100025
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 15‐UT3C
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
408+51 Riffle
MY0 (06/2020)MY1 (12/2020)MY2 (08/2021)MY3 (06/2022)
Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area

APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Reach Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence Method
5/28/2020
8/5/2020
11/12/2020
12/26-27/2020
MY2 ---
---
MY3 7/9/2022 Automated Crest Gage
6/19/2023
9/9/2023
8/5/2020
8/15/2020
10/29/2020
11/11-12/2020
12/3/2020
12/19/2020
12/25-27/2020
MY2 9/21-22/2021 Automated Crest Gage
MY3 6/19/2022 Automated Crest Gage
3/3/2023
6/19/2023
8/15/2020
10/29/2020
11/12/2020
12/30/2020
MY2 9/21-22/2021 Automated Crest Gage
1/16/2022
2/5/2022
2/7/2022
MY4 6/19/2023 Automated Crest Gage
8/5/2020
8/15/2020
8/21/2020
10/29/2020
12/25-26/2020
MY2 9/21-22/2021 Automated Crest Gage
MY3 7/9/2022 Automated Crest Gage
MY4 ------
5/28/2020
8/5/2020
8/15/2020
11/12/2020
MY2 ------
MY3 ------
MY4 6/19/2023 Automated Crest Gage
MY3 5/25/2022 - 9/19/2022 Manual Crest Gage
MY4 Observed on 7/31/2023 Manual Crest Gage
MY3 7/9/2022 Automated Crest Gage
4/28/2023
6/19/2023
9/9/2023
*Manual Crest Gage #1 was installed in MY3 on 5/25/2022.
**Crest Gage #6 was installed in MY3 on 4/14/2022
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4* MY5 MY6 MY7
UT2 SG#1 Yes/256 days
(100%)
Yes/351 days
(100%)
Yes/261 days
(100%)
Yes/283 days
(100%)
*End of Data Collection: 10/11/2023
Bull Creek Reach 2
(Crest Gage #1)
Bull Creek Reach 1B
(Crest Gage #6)**
Bull Creek Reach 3
(Manual Crest Gage #1)*
Bull Creek Reach 3
(Crest Gage #5)
UT3C
(Crest Gage #4)
UT2C
(Crest Gage #3)
Automated Crest Gage
Automated Crest Gage
Automated Crest GageMY3
Automated Crest GageMY1
MY4
MY4 Automated Crest Gage
MY1
MY1
MY1
MY1
Automated Crest Gage
Automated Crest Gage
UT1C
(Crest Gage #2)
Automated Crest Gage
Automated Crest Gage
Summary of In-Stream Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Gage Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days (Percentage)
Table 13. Verification of 30 Days Consecutive Flow
MY4
Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix D: Hydrology Data – Manual Crest Gage Bankfull Documentation

Bull Creek Reach 3: Manual Crest Gage #1 Bankfull Documentation observed on 7/31/2023

1.10 Feet
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Key Mill Mitigation Bank
DMS Project No. 100025
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull
Key Mill: Crest Gauge #1 (Bull Creek Reach 2)
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Key Mill Mitigation Bank
DMS Project No. 100025
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull
Key Mill: Crest Gauge #2 (UT1C, XS10)
Gage Malfunction
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Key Mill Mitigation Bank
DMS Project No. 100025
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull
Key Mill: Crest Gauge #3 (UT2C, XS13)
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Key Mill Mitigation Bank
DMS Project No. 100025
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull
Key Mill: Crest Gauge #4 (UT3C, XS15)
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Key Mill Mitigation Bank
DMS Project No. 100025
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull
Key Mill: Crest Gauge #5 (Bull Creek Reach 3, XS7)
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Key Mill Mitigation Bank
DMS Project No. 100025
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull
Key Mill: Crest Gauge #6 (Bull Creek Reach 1B)
Data Lost from gage dislodging during
large storm event: 6/20 at 2am until
Monday 7/31 at 1pm
Recorded In-stream Flow Events Plot
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Key Mill Mitigation Bank
DMS Project No. 100025
283 days of consecutive stream flow
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1097
1098
1098
1099
1099
1100
1100
1101
1101
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 4 - 2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull
Key Mill: Stream Gage #1 (UT2)
Monthly Rainfall Data
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Annual Rainfall collected from: USGS 362416080334345 RAINGAGE AT ARARAT RIVER AT ARARAT, NC
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS Station: MOUNT AIRY 2 W, NC (315890); percentiles based on 30-yr climate normal (1993-2023)
Key Mill Mitigation Bank
DMS Project No. 100025
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Month
Key Mill 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2023
2023 Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile

APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Information

Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Construction
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Wetland Plants, Inc.
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Mt Airy, NC 27030
Implementation of the IRT Credit Release Site Action Plan
Vegetation Survey
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Table 15. Project Contact Table
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
July 2021 August 2021
Live Stake Install
August 2022
Year 4 Monitoring
July 2020 October 2020
December 2020
Invasive Treatments (Sitewide)June 2021 November 2021
November 2021
July 2022 - October 2022 October 2022
August 2020
February 2021
Soil Amendments
Supplemental Plantings
November 2020
Invasive Treatments (Sitewide)
Stream Survey
Soil Amendments (Restoration portions: Bull Creek R3 & UT3)
October 2020
Stream Repairs (West Side)November 2020
March 2021 March 2021
August 2021
Stream Repairs (East Side)
Table 14. Project Activity and Reporting History
May 2019 May 2019
April 2020 April 2020
May 2019 May 2019
June 2019 - April 2020 April 2020
June 2019 - April 2020 April 2020
April 2020 April 2020
January 2017 - January 2019
404 Permit
January 2019Mitigation Plan
Final Design - Construction Plans
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
Monitoring, POC Kristi Suggs
[phone] x.110
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream SurveyYear 7 Monitoring
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Charlotte, NC 28203
Seed Mix Sources Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Seeding Contractor
Mt Airy, NC 27030
Designers
Vegetation Survey
August 2022
Year 6 Monitoring
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Rd
Stream SurveyYear 5 Monitoring
150 Pine Ridge Rd
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Construction Contractors
Planting Contractor
Fence Repairs
Vegetation Survey (SVP1 Only)September 2023 September 2023
March 2023March 2023
Structure Repairs April 2023 & August 2023 August 2023
N/A N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Supplemental Plantings November 2022 November 2022
Year 1 Monitoring
Invasive Treatment
February 2021
August 2020
Year 2 Monitoring
Seeding (Sitewide)
June 2022 June 2022
February 2021
In-Stream Invasive Treatment August 2023 August 2023
704.332.7754
Invasive Treatment May 2023 & November 2023 November 2023

APPENDIX F. Additional Documentation

SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION PLOT 1 DATA
Monitoring Year 4
Key Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100025
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type SVP1
PnoLS
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 1
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Acer saccharinum Silver Maple, Soft Maple Tree
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder Shrub Tree 1
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw, Indian-banana Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 3
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel Shrub Tree
Ilex opaca American Holly, Christmas Holly Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree 1
Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane-tree Tree 6
Quercus falcata Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak Tree 1
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 1
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood Shrub Tree
16
1
0.0247
9
647
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes and the planted stems over the 50% rule.
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes and the planted stems over the 50% rule.
T: Total stems (All planted stems, live stakes, and volunteers)
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Table 16. Supplemental Planting Vegetation Plot Planted Stem Counts
Supplemental Planting Vegetation Plot (SVP1) Data (MY4 2023)
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)

SUPPLEMENTAL VEGETATION PLOT PHOTO
Monitoring Year 4

Key Mill Mitigation Site
Appendix F: Additional Documentation – Supplemental Vegetation Plot Photo

Supplemental Vegetation Plot 1 (09/13/2023)