20190865 Ver 1_LaurelSprings_100122_MY1_2022_20230303

ID#* 20190865 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 04/19/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/3/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: * Email Address:
Paul Wiesner [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20190865 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Laurel Springs Mitigation Site
County: Avery
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: LaurelSprings_100122_MY1_2022.pdf 8.13MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature: *

FINAL
MY1 (2022) MONITORING REPORT

LAUREL SPRINGS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Avery County, North Carolina
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010108

DMS Project No. 100122
Full Delivery Contract No. 7890
DMS RFP No. 16-007725 (issued 11/13/18)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835
DWR Project No. 2019-0865

Data Collection: October 2021-November 2022
Submission: February 2023

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
Response to DMS Comments – Monitoring Year 1 (2022)
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Avery County, North Carolina, French Broad River Basin: Cataloging Unit 06010108
DMS Project No. 100122, Full Delivery Contract No. 7890
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835, DWR Project No. 2019-0865

Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)

General:
1. DMS plans to conduct a property boundary assessment on the site in 2023. The property boundary assessment
will be conducted prior to the 2023 credit release meeting.
Response: Understood.

Report
2. Table C. Monitoring Summary: Please include the three (3) temporary vegetation plots in the monitoring
summary.
Response: The three temporary plots were added to Table C.

3. Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data: Please provide an additional single page georeferenced “Asset Map” in
the appendix that clearly identifies the project reaches, approaches and creditable wetland areas as specified
in Table 1. Please only include the creditable reaches and wetlands in the project asset map.
Response: Figure 2 “Asset Map” was added to Appendix A. This map depicts only creditable stream reaches and
wetland areas.

4. Table 4 & Table 5 – Visual Assessment Tables: Please include the dates assessed at the top of the tables. This
has been a recent IRT request.
Response: The survey date (November 8, 2022) was added to Tables 4 and 5.

5. Table 5 - Visual Vegetation Assessment: Please confirm that the invasives reported in the project monitoring
summary are minimal and below the 0.10-acre mapping threshold. If above the mapping threshold, they should
be reported in the table and CCPV sheets.
Response: Invasive treatments were limited to small populations below the 0.10-acre mapping threshold and
do not pose a risk to planted vegetation or existing forests.

6. Laurel Springs MY-01 (2022) Photo Log: In the photo captions, please provide dates that the photos were taken.
DMS recommends including the photo locations on the CCPV map or a separate map in Appendix G.
Response: Dates were added to all photos in the photo log. Only 5 of the 20 photos are permanent photo points.
These photos have been moved to the front of the photo log and are depicted on the CCPV. The additional
photos in the photo log were meant to provide a general overview of site stream, vegetation, and easement
boundary conditions. The quantity and location of additional photos will likely change from year to year, and
therefore, their locations were not added to the CCPV.

7. Table 8 – Vegetation Plot Data: Vegetation Plots 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, T1, and T3 did not meet the interim
success criteria of 320 stems per acre. Stems/ acre cells should also be color coded to note vegetation plots that
met the interim success criteria (green) and did not meet the interim success criteria (orange).
Response: The rows in Table 8 indicating stems per acre have been color coded based on the MY3 success
criteria.

Page 2 of 2

8. Appendix D - Hydrologic Data: Are the stream crest gauges manual or automated? If automated, please provide
the graph for the three bankfull events reported. Please report the bankfull events for each gauge separately in
Table 11-Verification of Bankfull Events and include a column that indicates the applicable monitoring year.
Response: Fork Creek has an automated crest gauge installed. A graph with this crest gauge data has been
included in Appendix D. The gauge on UT-2 is being used to monitor continuous stream flow, and no bankfull
events were captured with it during MY1. Table 11 has been revised to clarify.

9. Appendix D - Hydrologic Data: Please discuss the UT2 stream flow results in the report summary and report text.
Response: A brief discussion of UT 2 stream flow results was added to the report summary and Section 3.1
Stream Assessment.

10. Table 11. Project Timeline: Please include all maintenance activities (invasive treatment, beaver removal, etc.)
in the table.
Response: Invasives treatment and encroachment maintenance work was added to the project timeline table.

Digital Support File Comments:
11. Please submit the missing low stem density spatial data file in the revised digital support files; the visual
vegetation table indicates 2.67 aces of low stem density.
Response: The low stem density shapefile was added to digital submittal.

12. The spatial data is consistent with the groundwater well locations depicted in the MY1 map. Once gauges 6, 9,
11, and 12 are moved into creditable wetland reestablishment areas, and gauge 1 is moved into the nearby
wetland enhancement area, please revise the file in the MY2 (2023) digital submittal.
Response: This shapefile will be updated and resubmitted with the MY2 (2023) digital submittal.

MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Executive Summary
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Laurel Springs -- Year 1 (2022) Monitoring Summary

General Notes
• Two areas of encroachment were documented and addressed during Year 1. Along UT3, RS worked
with the adjacent landowner to remove the shed from the easement, clear the area of debris, and
mark the easement boundary with 6-inch treated wood fence posts. The areas will be replanted in
early 2023, per the IRT review adaptive management plan, Appendix F.
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., heavy deer browsing, beaver, etc.) was observed.

Streams
• All stream restoration reaches were stable and exhibited no signs of erosion, and all structures
were stable (Appendix C).
• Three bankfull events were documented during the year 1 (2022) monitoring period (Table 11,
Appendix D).
• UT 2 showed evidence of channel formation during the year 1 (2022) monitoring period, with the
stream flow gauge capturing 166 consecutive days of flow (Table 13, Appendix D).

Vegetation
• Measurements of all 16 permanent plots and three (3) temporary plots resulted in an average of
300 planted stems/acre. Additionally, 9 of the 19 individual plots met success criteria during year
1 (Appendix B).
• Several areas of low stem density were observed during year 1 (2022), predominantly along the
upland slope (Acidic Cove Forest) areas. RS plans to supplementally plant 2.67 acres of the Site
with 1800 bare-root stems during the dormant season 2022/2023. The area includes the 0.107-
acre area of encroachment. Species and quantities of stems to be planted are summarized in the
table below. The complete plan is provided in Appendix F, along with IRT correspondence.

2023 Remedial Planting – Species and Quantities
Species Indicator Status Number of Stems
American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600
White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 600
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 600
Total 1,800

• Additional planted stem mortality will be monitored during year 2 (2022), and if needed,
additional planting will be proposed. Per communications with the IRT in 2022, additional
diversity planting maybe required – RS will coordinate with WRC and DWR on this effort if needed.

Wetlands
• Eleven of the thirteen groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2022) monitoring
period (Table 12, Appendix D). Rainfall data from an on-site gauge shows below average rainfall
for the entire year until November when compared with the 30-year 30-70th percentile data at a
nearby WETS station (Figure D1, Appendix D).

MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Executive Summary
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
• Based on communications with the IRT in 2022, RS plans to move gauges 6, 9, 11, and 12 into
creditable wetland reestablishment areas during the 2022/2023 dormant season. Also, gauge 1
will be moved into the wetland enhancement area, as depicted in Figure 9 of the approved
Mitigation Plan.

Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Gauge
12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved - Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 7
(2028)
1* Yes - 45 days (19.1%)
2 No - 2 days (0.9%)
3 No - 17 days (7.2%)
4 Yes - 167 days (71.1%)
5 Yes - 46 days (19.6%)
6* Yes - 236 days (100%)
7 Yes - 236 days (100%)
8 Yes - 119 days (50.6)
9* Yes – 236 days (100%)
10 Yes – 65 days (27.7%)
11* Yes – 45 days (19.1%)
12* Yes – 236 days (100%)
13 Yes – 236 days (100%)
*During the MY0 review, the IRT requested that gauges be moved into creditable wetland areas to more accurately
represent what was presented in the detailed mitigation plan (Appendix F). During the 2022/2023 dormant season,
gauges 6, 9, 11, ad 12 will be moved into creditable wetland reestablishment areas, and gauge 1 will be moved into
the nearby wetland enhancement area.

Site Maintenance Report (2022)

Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
09/14/2022:
Japanese Knotweed, Chinese Bittersweet, Multiflora
rose, Autumn Olive, Callery Pear, Japanese barberry,
Cattail
- Treatments were made to small patches of invasive
species, and there are no areas of significant
concern regarding planted vegetation and
competition from invasive species.
- Multiple treatments (spring, summer, and fall) are
planned for 2023
10/19 – 10/21/2022:
- Removal of a small shed and associated debris near
the utility easement break of UT3.
- A new shed was constructed 15 feet from the
easement.
- Additional easement boundary monuments (6-inch
treated posts) were installed with additional
signage throughout the project.

FINAL
MY1 (2022) MONITORING REPORT

LAUREL SPRINGS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Avery County, North Carolina
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010108

DMS Project No. 100122
Full Delivery Contract No. 7890
DMS RFP No. 16-007725 (issued 11/13/18)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835
DWR Project No. 2019-0865

Data Collection: October 2021-February 2022
Submission: February 2023

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Prepared by:

And

Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Raymond Holz Contact: Grant Lewis
919-755-9490 (phone) 919-215-1693 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Table of Contents
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure ..................................................................... 1
1.2 Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 5
2 METHODS ...............................................................................................................................5
2.1 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 6
3 MONITORING YEAR 1 – DATA ASSESSMENT .............................................................................7
3.1 Stream Assessment ................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Wetland Assessment ................................................................................................................. 7
3.3 Vegetative Assessment ............................................................................................................. 7
3.4 Monitoring Year 1 Summary ..................................................................................................... 8
4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................8

LIST OF REPORT TABLES
Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits....................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results ................................................................................... 3
Table 3. Project Attribute Table .................................................................................................................... 4

Table A. Success Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 5
Table B. Monitoring Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 5
Table C. Monitoring Summary ...................................................................................................................... 6

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Visual Assessment Data
- Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
- Figure 2. Asset Map
- Table 4A-E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment Table
- Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table
- Vegetation Plot Photographs
- Site Photo Log

Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Data
- Table 6A. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation
- Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix
- Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
- Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from
Vegetation Data Entry Tool

Appendix C. Stream Geomorphology Data
- Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
- Table 9A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables
- Table 10A-B. Cross-Section Morphology
Monitoring Summary

Appendix D. Hydrologic Data
- Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
- Fork Creek Crest Gauge Graph
- Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology data
- Groundwater Gauge Graphs
- Table 13. Channel Evidence
- UT 2 Surface Water Gauge Graph
- Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
- Soil Temperature Graph

Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Info
- Table 14. Project Timeline
- Table 15. Project Contacts

Appendix F. IRT Correspondence
- Responses to IRT MY0 Comments
- Mitigation Plan Modification Request
- Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023)
- 12/9/22 IRT Concurrence Email from Kim
Isenhour

MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 1
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
1 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site). The Site is on one contiguous parcel along the
cold-water Fork Creek and unnamed tributaries to Fork Creek in the Southern Crystalline Ridge and
Mountains Ecoregion of North Carolina. Located in the French Broad River Basin, cataloging unit
06010108, the Site is in the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 06010108010020 and North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin number 04-03-06. The Site is not located in a Local Watershed
Plan (LWP), Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), or Targeted Resource Area (TRA). Site watersheds range from
approximately 0.02 of a square mile (12 acres) on UT2 to 1.32 square miles (847 acres) at the Site’s outfall.

1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure
Located approximately 8 miles southwest of Linville and 7 miles northeast of Spruce Pine in southern
Avery County, the Site encompasses 29.19 acres. Mitigation work within the Site included 1) stream
restoration, 2) stream enhancement (Level I), 3) stream enhancement (Level II), 4) stream preservation,
5) wetland reestablishment, 6) wetland rehabilitation, 7) wetland enhancement, 8) wetland preservation,
and 9) vegetation planting. The Site is expected to provide 4231.827 cold water stream credits and 3.688
riparian wetland credits by closeout (Table 1, Page 2). A conservation easement was granted to the State
of North Carolina and recorded at the Avery County Register of Deeds on October 19, 2020.

Before construction, land use at the Site was characterized by disturbed forest, cow pasture, and hay
fields. Site design was completed in February 2021. Construction started July 12, 2021, and ended with a
final walkthrough on October 15, 2021. The Site was planted on January 12-13, 2022. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, and project contacts are summarized in Tables 14-15
(Appendix E).

Space Purposefully Left Blank

Table 1. Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (ID‐100122) Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Original
Mitigation Original Original Original
Plan As‐Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation
Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments
Stream
Fork Cr ‐ A 91 92 Cold EI 1.50000 60.667
Fork Cr ‐ B 2250 2242 Cold R 1.00000 2,250.000
UT 1 234 233 Cold R 1.00000 234.000
UT 2A 25 25 Cold P 10.00000 2.500
UT 2 ‐ A 184 184 Cold P 10.00000 18.400
UT 2 ‐ B 198 199 Cold EII 2.50000 79.200
UT 2 ‐ C 467 463 Cold R 1.00000 467.000
UT 3A 103 103 Cold P 10.00000 10.300
UT 3 ‐ A 265 265 Cold P 10.00000 26.500
UT 3 ‐ B 248 250 Cold EII 5.00000 49.600
UT 3 – C 183 183 Cold EI 1.50000 122.000
UT 3 ‐ D 233 223 Cold R 1.00000 233.000
UT 4 ‐ A 541 541 Cold P 10.00000 54.100
UT 4 ‐ B 112 110 Cold R 1.00000 112.000
UT 5 ‐ A 60 60 Cold P 10.00000 6.000
UT 5 ‐ B 67 67 Cold P 10.00000 6.700
Total: 3,731.967
Wetland
Wetland Reestablish 7.656 7.656 R REE 1.00000 7.656
Wetland Rehabilitation 1.845 1.845 R RH NA* 0.000
Wetland Enhancement 0.148 0.148 R E NA* 0.000
Wetland Preservation 0.198 0.198 R P NA* 0.000
Total: 7.656
*Wetland Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Preservation acreage are not being included in credit calculations. These areas are being utilized by the wider buffer tool to generate additional stream credit 
Project Credits
Riparian Non‐Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration 3,296.000
Re‐establishment 3.688**
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I 182.667
Enhancement II 128.800
Creation
Preservation 124.500
Wider Buffer Tool 499.860
Totals 0.000 0.000 4,231.827 3.688 0.000 0.000
Total Stream Credit 4,231.827
Total Wetland Credit 3.688
Restoration Level
Stream
** DMS contract is for 3.688 WMUs; therefore, excess wetland credit has been used for wider buffer tool calculations.
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) page 3
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results
Goals Objectives Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
Minimize downstream
flooding to the maximum
extent possible.
Construct a new channel at historic
floodplain elevation to restore overbank
flows
Remove drain tiles and agriculture ditches
Plant woody riparian buffer
Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce
compaction and increase soil surface
roughness
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual
conservation easement
BHR not to exceed 1.2
Document four overbank events in separate
monitoring years
Livestock excluded from the easement
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Conservation Easement recorded
Increase stream stability
within the Site so that
channels are neither
aggrading nor degrading.
Construct channels with the proper
pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile
Remove livestock from the property
Construct stable channels with the
appropriate substrate
Upgrade piped channel crossings
Plant woody riparian buffer
Stabilize stream banks
Cross-section measurements indicate a stable
channel with the appropriate substrate
Visual documentation of stable channels and
structures
BHR not to exceed 1.2
< 10% change in BHR in any given year
Livestock excluded from the easement
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY
Remove direct nutrient and
pollutant inputs from the
Site and reduce
contributions to
downstream waters.
Remove agricultural livestock and reduce
agricultural land/inputs
Install marsh treatment areas
Plant woody riparian buffer
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands
adjacent to Site streams
Provide surface roughness and reduce
compaction through deep ripping/plowing.
Restore overbank flooding by constructing
channels at historic floodplain elevation.
Livestock excluded from the easement
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) HABITAT
Improve instream and
streamside habitat.
Construct stable channels with the
appropriate substrate
Plant woody riparian buffer to provide
organic matter and shade
Construct a new channel at historic
floodplain elevation to restore overbank
flows
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual
conservation easement
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands
adjacent to Site streams
Stabilize stream banks
Install in-stream structures
Cross-section measurements indicate a stable
channel with the appropriate substrate
Visual documentation of stable channels and in-
stream structures
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Conservation Easement recorded

Table 3.  Project Attributes
Parameters Fork Cr UT 2 UT3 UT 4
Pre‐Project Length (linear feet)2401 926 1002 685
Post‐Project Length (linear feet)2334 870 1024 650
Valley Classification & Confinement Alluvial, moderately 
confined Alluvial, confined Alluvial, confined Alluvial, confined
Drainage Area (acres)847 12 23 13
NCDWR Stream ID Score ‐‐25.5 22.5 33.5
Perennial/Perennial/
Intermittent Intermittent
Thermal Regime Cold Cold Cold Cold
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996) Cg 4Bg 5/6 Bg 5B 4
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996)Ce 3/4 B 3/4 B 3/4 B 4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986) II/III IV II I/II
Underlying Mapped Soils
Nikwasi loam, 
Reddies fine sandy 
loam, 
Chandler‐Micaville 
complex Chandler‐Micaville complex Chandler‐Micaville complex
Drainage Class poorly, moderately 
well somewhat excessively somewhat excessively somewhat excessively
Hydric Soil Status
hydric, nonhydric 
(may contain hydric 
inclusions)
nonhydric nonhydric nonhydric
Parameters Fork Cr UT 2 UT3 UT 4
Valley Slope 0.0271 0.1047 0.0992 0.0992
FEMA Classification NA NA NA NA
Native Vegetation Community
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Reference 
Channel)
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation 
Regulation Resolved?Supporting 
Documentation
Waters of the United States‐Section 401 Yes JD Package (Mitigation 
Plan, App D)
Waters of the United States‐Section 404 Yes JD Package (Mitigation 
Plan, App D)
Endangered Species Act Yes CE Document 
(Mitigation Plan, App E)
Historic Preservation Act Yes CE Document 
(Mitigation Plan, App E)
Coastal Zone Management Act ‐‐NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes CE Document 
(Mitigation Plan, App E)
Essential Fisheries Habitat ‐‐CE Document 
(Mitigation Plan, App E)
Project Information
Project Name Laurel Springs Site 
Wetland Summary Information
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial
Cold
WS‐IV, Tr
Eg 4
Ce 3/4
II/III
Project County Avery County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)29.19
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)35.9913, ‐81.9837
Planted Area (acres)16.2
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Blue Ridge
Project River Basin French Broad
USGS HUC for Project (14‐digit)6010108010020
NCDWR Sub‐basin for Project 04‐03‐06
Nikwasi loam
233
poorly
hydric
Project Drainage Area (acres)846.7
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious <2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover & Hardwood Swamps
Reach Summary Information
UT 1
234
Alluvial, moderately 
confined
193
‐‐
Parameters Wetlands
Wetland acreage 8.3 acre drained & 2.61 acres degraded
Wetland Type Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series Nikwasi
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock, 
ditches, drain tile
Native Vegetation Community Montane Alluvial Forest and Swamp Forest‐Bog 
Complex
% Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
Restoration Method Hydrologic, vegetative, livestock
Enhancement Method Vegetative, livestock
No
UT 1
0.0291
NA
Montane Alluvial Forest and Swamp Forest‐Bog Complex
87% forest, 11% agricultural land, <2% low density residential/impervious surface
95% forest, 3% agricultural land, <2% low density residential/impervious surface
<5%
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regulatory Considerations
Applicable?
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) page 5
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
1.2 Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives identified
from on-site NC SAM and NC WAM data collection. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
summarizes Site success criteria.

Table A. Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented in intermittent reaches each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• BHR at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition during any
given monitoring period.
• The stream shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate bankfull
events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
• Intermittent streams will demonstrate at least 30-days consecutive flow.
Wetland Hydrology
• Annual saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of
the growing season during average climatic conditions.
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of
260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 6 feet in height at year 5 and 8 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the Site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis.
• Areas of herbaceous vegetation establishment will have a minimum of four species present.

2 METHODS
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data collected
will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each monitoring year
data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.

Table B. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams X X X X X
Wetlands X X X X X X X
Vegetation X X X X X
Visual Assessment X X X X X X X
Report Submittal X X X X X X X

MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) page 6
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.

Table C. Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Stream
Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built (unless
otherwise required)
All restored stream
channels Graphic and tabular data.
Stream
Dimension Cross-sections Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and
7
Total of 16 cross-
sections on
restored channels
Graphic and tabular data.
Channel
Stability
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream
channels
Areas of concern will be
depicted on a plan view figure
with a written assessment and
photograph of the area included
in the report.
Additional Cross-sections Yearly
Only if instability is
documented
during monitoring
Graphic and tabular data.
Bankfull
Events
Continuous monitoring of
surface water gauges
and/or trail camera
Continuous
recording through
the monitoring
period
One surface water
gauge on UT2
Surface water data for each
monitoring period
Visual/Physical Evidence
Continuous through
the monitoring
period
One crest gauge on
Fork Creek
Visual evidence, photo
documentation, and/or rain
data.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Wetland Re-
establishment Groundwater gauges
Yearly with the
growing season
defined as March 1-
October 22
13 gauges spread
throughout
restored wetlands
Soil temperature at the
beginning of each monitoring
period to verify the start of the
growing season, groundwater
and rain data for each
monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Vegetation
establishment
and vigor
Permanent vegetation plots
0.0247 acres (100 square
meters) in size; CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee
et al. 2008)
As-built, Years 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7
16 permanent plots
and 3 temporary
plots spread across
the Site
Species, height, planted vs.
volunteer, stems/acre
Note: Volunteer species on the approved planting list must be established for 2 years to count towards
success and will be subject to height standards.
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 7
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
3 MONITORING YEAR 1 – DATA ASSESSMENT
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted between February 2022 and November 2022 to assess
the condition of the project. Stream, wetland, and vegetation criteria for the Site follow the approved
success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan and summarized in Section 1.2; monitoring methods are
detailed in Section 2.0.

3.1 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted on September 14, 2022, and no stream areas of concern
were identified. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed, with minimal changes
from MY0 measurements. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table and Stream Photographs. Refer to Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data. Additionally, the
UT2 stream gauge captured 166 consecutive days of stream flow (Table 13, Appendix D).

3.2 Wetland Assessment
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date
Bud Burst Documented
Monitoring Period Used for
Determining Success
12 % of the
Monitoring Period
2022 (Year 1) March 1, 2022* March 1-October 22 (236 days) 28 days
*Based on observed/documented bud burst on the Site on March 1, 2022, and soil temperature of 44.20o F
documented March 1, 2022, and not dropping below 43.19o F thereafter.

Eleven of the thirteen groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2022) monitoring period
(Table 12, Appendix D). Rainfall data from an on-site gauge shows below-average rainfall for the entire
year until November compared with the 30-year 30-70th percentile data at a nearby WETS station (Figure
D1, Appendix D).

During the MY0 review, the IRT expressed concern that several groundwater gauges were installed in
different credit areas than originally proposed and approved in the Site’s Mitigation Plan. Gauges 6, 9, 11,
ad 12 will be moved into creditable wetland reestablishment areas, and gauge 1 will be moved into the
nearby wetland enhancement area. MY0 IRT comments and responses are in Appendix F.

3.3 Vegetative Assessment
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed between September 14 and November 8, 2022. Measurements
of all 16 permanent plots and three (3) temporary plots resulted in an average of 300 planted stems/acre.
Additionally, 9 of the 19 individual plots met success criteria during MY1 (Appendix B). Several areas of
low stem density were observed during MY1, predominantly along upland slope (Acidic Cove Forest)
areas. RS plans to supplementally plant 2.67 acres of the site with 1800 bare-root stems during the
dormant season 2022/2023. The area includes the 0.107-acre area of encroachment. Species and
quantities of stems to be planted are summarized in the table below. The complete plan is provided in
Appendix F, along with IRT correspondence.

2023 Remedial Planting – Species and Quantities
Species Indicator Status Number of Stems
American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600
White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 600
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 600
Total 1,800
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 8
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Additional planted stem mortality will be assessed during MY2, and additional planting will be proposed
if needed.

During the MY0 review, RS requested a modification of the Site’s Mitigation Plan to include planted
tree/shrub species that were not included in the Site’s approved Mitigation Plan. The IRT agreed to
approve all planted species to count toward Site vegetation success. Documentation is provided in
Appendix F.

2022 IRT Approved – Non-Mitigation Plan Planted Stems for Success Criteria
Species Indicator Status
Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC
Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU
American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU
Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU

3.4 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
With the exception of planted bare-root vegetation, the Site is performing well. All stream reaches are
functioning as designed, and Site wetlands are trending toward success. The Site is meeting project goals.

The small encroachment area has been addressed, the easement remarked, and the adaptive
management planting is scheduled for Q1-2023. RS will provide a summary upon completing the remedial
planting to the IRT.

4 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2008. Lumber River Basin
Restoration Priorities (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Lumber_River_Basin/Lumber_R
BRP_2008_FINAL.pdf (January 9, 2018).

North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland
Assessment Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.

Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified
Tennessee Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.

MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data

Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 2. Asset Map
Table 4A-E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Site Photo Log

^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
#*
#*
!.
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
5
4
3
21
2
3
1
8
1
5
7
2
6 4
9
3
11
16
13
10
12
14
15
9
8
7
6
5
4
1
13 12
11
10
3
2
NCCGIA, NC 911 Board
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
PHP
FEB 2023
1:2000
19-006
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Avery County, NC
LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE
CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
1
Notes:
1. Background Imagery Source:
2022 aerial photography
provided by the NC OneMap
program (online, provided by
the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council)
0 300 600150Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level I)
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Stream Preservation
Stream Generating No Credit
Instream Structures
Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area
Wetland Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Preservation
Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements
Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements
Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement
Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement
^_Vegetation Plot Origins
!(Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria
!(Groundwater Gauges Not Meeting Success Criteria
!.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature
#*Stream Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
^_Permanent Photo Point Locations
Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas
Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas
³
XS-1XS-2
XS-3
XS-4
XS-
5XS-
6
XS-7
XS-
8
XS-9
XS-10
X
S
-
1
1
X
S
-
1
2
X
S
-
1
3
X
S
-
1
4
XS-15XS-16
UT-
4
UT
-
3
U
T
-
2
UT-1
Fork Cr
e
e
k
Rain Gauge
UT-
5
U
T
-
3
A
UT-2A
NCCGIA, NC 911 Board
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
FEB 2023
1:2000
19-006
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Avery County, NC
LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE
ASSET MAP
1
Notes:
1. Background Imagery Source:
2022 aerial photography
provided by the NC OneMap
program (online, provided by
the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council)
0 300 600150Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level I)
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Stream Preservation
Wetland Reestablishment
³
UT-
4
-
A
UT
-
3
-
A
U
T
-
2
-
A
UT-1
Fork Cr
e
e
k

-

B
ForkCreek-A
UT-5-A
U T -5 -B
UT-4-B
U
T
-
3
-
B
U
T
-
3
-
C
U
T
-
3
-
D
U
T
-
3
A
UT-2A
UT-2-B
U
T-2-C
U
T-2-C
ForkCreek-B
F
o
r
k
C
r
e
e
k
-
B
Table 4A.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach Fork Creek
Assessed Stream Length 2334
Assessed Bank Length 4668 Survey Date: November 8, 2022
Bank Surface Scour/Bare 
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 
the sill. 45 45 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 
guidance document) 
45 45 100%
% Stable, 
Performing as 
IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number 
in As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage

Totals  
Table 4B.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 1
Assessed Stream Length 233
Assessed Bank Length 466 Survey Date: November 8, 2022
Bank Surface Scour/Bare 
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 
the sill. 8 8 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 
guidance document) 
8 8 100%

Totals  
Major Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number 
in As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Table 4C.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 2
Assessed Stream Length 662
Assessed Bank Length 1324 Survey Date: November 8, 2022
Bank Surface Scour/Bare 
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 
the sill. 18 18 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 
guidance document) 
18 18 100%

Totals  
% Stable, 
Performing as 
IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number 
in As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
Table 4D.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 3
Assessed Stream Length 656
Assessed Bank Length 1312 Survey Date: November 8, 2022
Bank Surface Scour/Bare 
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 
the sill. 16 16 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 
guidance document) 
16 16 100%
Major Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number 
in As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended

Totals  
Table 4E.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 4
Assessed Stream Length 110
Assessed Bank Length 220 Survey Date: November 8, 2022
Bank Surface Scour/Bare 
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 
the sill. 3 3 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 
guidance document) 
3 3 100%

Totals  
Major Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number 
in As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Table 5.  Visual Vegetation Assessment
Planted acreage 16.2
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.0.10acres 2.67 16.5%
2.67 16.5%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
2.67 16.5%
Easement Acreage 29.19
Invasive Areas of Concern
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated 
against the total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native, 
young, woody stems in the short‐term or community structure for existing communities.  Species included 
in summation above should be identified in report summary.  
0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of
restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing, cattle access,
vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact
area. 
none
Survey Date: November 8, 2022
0 Encroachments noted
Combined 
Acreage
% of Easement 
AcreageVegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold
% of Planted 
Acreage
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Total
                                                                                                                                                                Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold
Combined 
Acreage
Laurel Springs Site
MY1 (2022) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 14 and October 9, 2022)
Laurel Springs Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
MY1 Monitoring Report –December 2022
Plot 7
Plot 1 Plot 2
Plot 3 Plot 4
Plot 5 Plot 6
Plot 8
Laurel Springs Site
MY1 (2022) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 14 and October 9, 2022)
Laurel Springs Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
MY1 Monitoring Report –December 2022
Plot 15
Plot 9 Plot 10
Plot 11 Plot 12
Plot 13 Plot 14
Plot 16
Permanent Photo Point 1: Fork Creek Bridge Crossing
Upstream End, Facing Downstream (Taken 11/8/22)
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Permanent Photo Point 2: Fork Creek Bridge Crossing
Downstream End, Facing Upstream (Taken 11/8/22)
Permanent Photo Point 3: UT-2 Piped Crossing
Upstream End, Facing Downstream (Taken 6/24/22)
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Permanent Photo Point 4: UT-2 Piped Crossing
Downstream End, Facing Upstream (Taken 6/24/22)
Photo 6: Easement Boundary Signage
(Taken 11/8/22)
Permanent Photo Point 5: Fork Creek Downstream
Piped Crossing (Taken 9/14/22)
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
Photo 7: Fork Creek Upper Reach Overview
(Taken 11/8/22)
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 8: Fork Creek Lower Reach Overview
(Taken 11/8/22)
Photo 9: Fork Creek Lower Reach
(Taken 6/24/22)
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 10: Fork Creek Upper Reach
(Taken 6/24/22)
Photo 11: UT-1
(Taken 6/24/22)
Photo 12: UT-1 Upper Pipe Outlet
(Taken 6/24/22)
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 13: UT-2 Upper Reach
(Taken 6/24/22)
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 14: UT-2 Lower Reach
(Taken 6/24/22)
Photo 15: UT-3
(Taken 6/24/22)
Photo 16: Wetland Area Adjacent to UT-3
(Taken 6/24/22)
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 17: Confluence of Fork Creek and UT-4
(Taken 6/24/22)
Photo 18: UT-4
(Taken 6/24/22)
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 19: Bud Burst of Carya sp.
Photo Taken 3/1/22
Photo 20: Bud Burst of Liriodendron tulipifera
Photo Taken 3/1/22
Laurel Springs
MY-01 (2022) Photo Log
MY1 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122)Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Appendix B: Vegetation Data

Table 6A. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation
Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 6A. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Laurel Springs Mitigation Site
Vegetation Association Montane Alluvial Forest* Acidic Cove Forest* Stream-side
Assemblage** TOTAL
Area (acres) 9.0 4.7 2.5 16.2
Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted
Cherry birch (Betula lenta) FACU 500 8% 600 18.75% 1500 15.96% 2600
Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) FACU 400 6.4% 600 18.75% -- -- 1000
Red oak (Quercus rubra) FACU 650 10.4% 650 20.31% -- -- 1300
White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 550 8.8% 550 5.85% 1100
White pine (Pinus strobus) FACU 600 9.6% -- -- 600
Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) FACU 200 3.2% 300 3.19% 500
Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) FAC 600 9.6% 500 15.63% -- -- 1100
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 450 7.2% 600 18.75% 1100 11.70% 2150
River birch (Betula nigra) FACW 500 8% -- -- 950 10.10% 1450
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 600 9.6% -- -- 1500 15.96% 2100
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW -- -- 600*** 6.38% 600
Black willow (Salix nigra) OBL -- -- 800*** 8.51% 800
Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 4.26% 400
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 4.26% 400
^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) FACW -- -- -- -- 300*** 3.19% 300
^Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC 400 6.4% 400 4.26% 800
^Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU 800 12.8% 800
^American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU 600 6.38% 600
^Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU 250 7.81% 250
TOTAL 6250 100% 3200 100% 9400 100% 18850
^Species added post-mitigation plan approval
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
*** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels – A total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare-root Stream-Side
Assemblage planting.

MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Scientific Name Common Name % Scientific Name Common Name %
Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed 0.3 Helianthus angustifolius Narrowleaf sunflower 0.8
Agrostis gigantea Redtop 16 Heliopsis helianthoides False sunflower 1.2
Agrostis hyemalis Winter bentgrass 4 Hibiscus moscheutos Swamp rose mallow 0.8
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass 4 Juncus effusus Soft rush 0.6
Carex lurida Shallow sedge 3.22 Lespedeza capitata Round-headed bush
clover 0.8
Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge 10 Lespedeza virginica Slender lespedeza 0.8
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge pea 1.6 Liatris spicata Dense blazing star 0.8
Chamaecrista nictitans Sensitive partridge pea 0.8 Mimulus ringens Allegheny
monkeyflower 0.06
Chrysanthemum
leucanthemum Oxeye daisy 4 Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot 0.2
Coreopsis lanceolata Lance-leaved coreopsis 4 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 4
Coreopsis tinctoria Plains coreopsis 4 Pycnanthemum
tenuifolium Slender mountain mint 0.2
Cosmos bipinnatus Garden cosmos 0.8 Rhexia virginica Handsome-Harry 0.06
Desmodium canadense Showy tick-trefoil 0.8 Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 4
Echinacea purpurea Purple coneflower 2.4 Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 0.06
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye 8.6 Silphium perfoliatum Cup plant 0.8
Eupatorium coelestinum Blue mistflower 0.4 Symphyotrichum puniceum Purplestem aster 0.1
Eupatorium perfoliatum Common boneset 2.5 Tridens flavus Purpletop tridens 16
Glyceria striata Fowl manna grass 0.1 Vernonia noveboracensis New York ironweed 0.2
Helenium autumnale Common sneezeweed 0.2 Verbena hastata Blue vervain 0.8
Total 100

MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met?
1 81 No
2 526 Yes
3 364 Yes
4 891 Yes
5 364 Yes
6 0 No
7 445 Yes
8 648 Yes
9 40 No
10 283 No
11 405 Yes
12 324 Yes
13 202 No
14 202 No
15 243 No
16 162 No
T1 81 No
T2 324 Yes
T3 121 No
Average Planted Stems/Acre 300 No
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
16.2
2022‐01‐13
NA 
NA 
2022‐11‐08
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 22 2211
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 22
Betula sp.11 22
liriodendron tulipifera
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1155441122 11
Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4433 11
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4411 1144
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 11
Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 11 11
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 11
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 2222
Quercus sp.88 33 332233
Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 2 2
Sum Performance Standard 1 1 14 14 9 9 17 17 550099161633
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 4433
Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 22
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 2 2 1111
Sum Proposed Standard 3 3 14 14 9 9 22 22 99001111161633
1 14 9 17 5 0 9 16 3
40 526 364 688 202 0 364 648 40
133840591
100 57 44 18 33 0 27 25 100
11111 111
00000 000
3 14 9 22 9 0 11 16 3
81 526 364 891 364 0 445 648 40
2331060691
67 57 44 18 33 0 27 25 100
21111 111
00000 000
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a 
mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Post Mitigation 
Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Indicator 
Status
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Mitigation Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Species 
Included in 
Approved 
Mitigation Plan
Post Mitigation 
Plan Species
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
% Invasives
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued)
16.2
2022‐01‐13
NA 
NA 
2022‐11‐08
0.0247
Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total
Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 2 2 2 2
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1111
Betula sp.22 1
liriodendron tulipifera 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 222211 21
Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 5 5 1133
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2
Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 3
Quercus sp.111122 11 11
Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU
Sum Performance Standard 33337777225555385
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 11
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 3 3 11 11 2211
Sum Proposed Standard 7 7 14 14 8877556655385
3377255385
121 121 283 202 81 202 162 81 324 121
3232143252
43 79 38 71 40 33 60 67 38 80
2122121111
0000000000
71487565385
283 405 324 202 202 243 162 81 324 121
5342353252
43 79 38 71 40 33 60 67 38 80
2212221111
0000000000
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a 
mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
% Invasives
Post Mitigation 
Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Species 
Included in 
Approved 
Mitigation Plan
Post Mitigation 
Plan Species
Mitigation Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 FVeg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 FIndicator 
Status
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data

Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 9A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 10A-B. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary

Station Elevation
0.0 2915.7 2915.1
2.8 2915.6 0.97
5.1 2915.4 2914.6
6.3 2915.1 2915.1
7.5 2915.1 0.5
8.5 2914.7 1.0
9.1 2914.6
9.9 2914.7
10.5 2915.0
11.0 2915.3
11.8 2915.6
13.5 2915.8
16.3 2916.1 E/C 5
17.8 2916.4
Stream Type
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT2, XS -1, Pool
2914
2915
2916
2917
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 2, XS - 1, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.6 2916.2 2916.1
4.8 2916.2 0.85
6.6 2915.7 2915.5
7.2 2915.7 2916.0
7.6 2915.7 0.5
8.2 2915.5 1.5
8.6 2915.6
9.3 2915.7
10.0 2915.8
10.4 2915.8
11.5 2916.0
12.7 2916.3
13.9 2916.4 E/C 5
15.8 2916.5
17.2 2916.6
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT2, XS -2, Riffle
2915
2916
2917
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 2, XS -2, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.2 2945.0 2944.8
3.3 2944.8 1.08
4.6 2944.4 2943.0
6.0 2943.9 2945.0
6.6 2943.3 2.0
7.4 2943.1 9.2
7.7 2943.0
8.1 2943.0
8.4 2943.1
8.8 2943.4
9.2 2943.6
10.7 2944.6
11.8 2945.1 E/C 5
14.3 2946.0
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT2, XS -3, Riffle
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 2, XS -3, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.0 2949.5 2948.6
3.8 2948.9 1.08
4.9 2949.0 2947.8
5.6 2948.7 2948.7
6.5 2948.0 0.9
7.1 2947.8 3.0
7.4 2947.8
7.9 2947.9
8.3 2947.9
8.7 2947.8
9.6 2948.1
11.0 2948.8
12.3 2949.2 E/C 5
14.7 2950.1
15.9 2950.7
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT2, XS -4, Pool
2946
2947
2949
2950
2951
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 2, XS - 4, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.3 2922.2 2922.1
5.1 2922.0 0.99
8.6 2922.1 2919.8
9.1 2921.9 2922.0
10.6 2921.6 2.2
11.8 2921.2 24.2
12.7 2920.9
13.6 2919.8
14.6 2919.8
15.2 2919.9
15.9 2920.0
17.0 2920.0
18.6 2920.1 E/C 5
19.9 2920.2
20.5 2920.3
21.4 2920.8
23.1 2921.0
26.4 2921.6
30.4 2922.0
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID Fork Creek, XS -5, Pool
2919
2920
2921
2923
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 5, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.4 2922.6 2922.6
5.1 2922.5 0.92
8.2 2922.0 2921.2
9.1 2922.0 2922.5
10.2 2921.7 1.3
10.8 2921.5 12.4
11.8 2921.4
12.7 2921.5
13.3 2921.3
13.9 2921.3
14.3 2921.2
15.1 2921.2
15.6 2921.4 E/C 5
16.2 2921.3
16.9 2921.4
18.1 2921.4
18.8 2922.0
20.2 2922.2
22.4 2922.6
25.1 2922.6
28.4 2922.98
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID Fork Creek, XS -6, Riffle
2920
2921
2923
2924
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS -6, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.4 2931.6 2931.6
2.9 2931.9 0.97
4.5 2931.5 2930.8
5.0 2931.3 2931.5
5.3 2931.1 0.7
6.0 2931.0 1.8
6.3 2931.0
6.5 2930.8
6.9 2930.9
7.3 2931.0
7.8 2931.2
8.5 2931.3
9.4 2931.5 E/C 5
10.9 2931.9
12.9 2931.6
14.4 2931.7
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT3, XS -7, Pool
2929
2931
2932
2933
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 3, XS - 7, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.0 2932.5 2932.5
2.6 2932.5 1.04
4.9 2932.7 2931.6
5.8 2932.5 2932.5
6.8 2932.2 0.9
7.3 2931.8 2.5
8.1 2931.8
8.3 2931.7
8.5 2931.6
8.8 2931.6
9.1 2931.8
9.4 2931.9
9.8 2932.0 E/C 5
10.4 2932.2
11.0 2932.5
13.0 2932.5
14.2 2932.4
15.6 2932.3
16.7 2932.2
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT3, XS -8, Riffle
2931
2932
2933
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 3, XS -8, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.3 2945.3 2944.1
3.0 2945.1 0.96
4.2 2944.7 2943.3
5.1 2944.4 2944.1
6.1 2943.8 0.7
6.7 2943.6 1.7
7.0 2943.5
7.6 2943.7
7.9 2943.4
8.2 2943.3
8.6 2943.5
8.9 2943.7
9.3 2943.9 E/C 5
10.2 2944.1
11.3 2944.5
12.3 2944.9
14.2 2945.3
15.4 2945.7
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT3, XS -9, Pool
2943
2944
2945
2946
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 3, XS - 9, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.4 2948.2 2946.1
3.1 2947.3 0.95
5.3 2946.7 2945.6
6.8 2946.2 2946.0
8.1 2946.0 0.5
8.7 2946.0 0.8
9.3 2945.8
10.0 2945.8
10.4 2945.7
10.9 2945.6
11.1 2945.7
11.3 2945.9
12.3 2946.2 E/C 5
13.3 2946.5
15.3 2946.7
18.0 2947.4
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT3, XS -10, Riffle
2945
2946
2947
2949
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 3, XS - 10, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
-0.3 2936.7 2936.8
4.3 2936.4 0.98
6.5 2935.8 2934.6
9.1 2936.1 2936.7
11.3 2935.9 2.1
12.1 2935.7 18.2
13.2 2935.7
14.3 2935.5
15.3 2935.2
16.2 2934.9
16.8 2934.8
17.2 2934.7
17.8 2934.7 E/C 5
18.2 2934.6
18.8 2935.3
19.7 2935.9
20.6 2936.3
22.4 2936.7
24.7 2936.5
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID Fork Creek, XS -11, Pool
2934
2935
2936
2937
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 11, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.0 2937.7 2937.8
3.1 2937.8 1.00
5.8 2937.8 2936.3
6.9 2937.6 2937.8
7.7 2937.1 1.5
8.4 2936.8 13.5
8.8 2936.5
9.2 2936.4
10.3 2936.3
11.2 2936.4
12.1 2936.3
13.4 2936.3
14.6 2936.5 E/C 5
15.5 2936.6
16.3 2937.1
18.4 2937.3
20.2 2937.6
22.1 2938.1
25.6 2938.0
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID Fork Creek, XS -12, Riffle
2935
2936
2937
2938
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.0 2943.4 2943.4
2.2 2943.4 1.03
4.6 2943.5 2942.2
6.0 2943.2 2943.4
6.8 2943.1 1.2
7.6 2942.7 6.6
8.3 2942.6
8.7 2942.2
9.4 2942.2
10.1 2942.2
10.9 2942.2
11.7 2942.3
12.1 2942.5 E/C 5
12.7 2942.8
13.3 2943.1
14.3 2943.4
15.9 2943.4
17.4 2943.3
20.0 2943.2
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT1, XS -13, Riffle
2942
2943
2944
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 1, XS - 13, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
0.0 2946.9 2945.6
2.5 2946.4 1.04
4.5 2946.0 2944.6
5.7 2945.6 2945.6
6.6 2945.4 1.1
7.3 2944.6 4.9
8.1 2944.6
8.8 2944.7
9.4 2944.6
10.0 2944.7
10.4 2944.8
10.8 2945.0
11.5 2945.4 E/C 5
12.9 2945.4
14.4 2945.6
16.5 2945.9
18.6 2945.9
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID UT1, XS -14, Pool
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, UT 1, XS - 14, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
-0.5 2955.0 2954.2
-0.3 2954.5 1.09
2.1 2954.6 2952.8
5.1 2954.0 2954.3
6.5 2954.0 1.5
7.5 2953.8 8.5
7.9 2953.7
8.4 2953.6
8.5 2953.3
9.0 2952.9
9.9 2952.8
10.4 2952.8
10.7 2953.0 E/C 5
11.5 2952.9
12.0 2953.0
12.5 2953.1
12.9 2953.6
13.3 2953.7
13.8 2953.7
14.4 2953.9
15.5 2953.91
16.6 2954.3
18.5 2954.3
20.6 2954.7
22.0 2954.9
23.7 2955.1
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID Fork Creek, XS -15, Riffle
2952
2953
2954
2955
-1 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 15, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Station Elevation
-0.3 2954.7 2955.0
2.1 2954.6 0.92
4.5 2954.7 2953.3
6.1 2954.9 2954.9
7.4 2954.9 1.6
8.0 2955.0 6.3
8.7 2954.9
9.0 2954.4
9.5 2954.0
10.3 2953.8
10.7 2953.9
11.6 2954.0
12.2 2953.7 E/C 5
12.7 2953.6
13.2 2953.6
13.7 2953.3
14.0 2953.3
14.4 2954.2
14.6 2954.5
15.1 2954.8
16.3 2954.70
17.3 2955.1
18.0 2955.3
19.1 2955.4
20.6 2955.4
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:9/14/2022
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams
Site Laurel Springs
Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108
XS ID Fork Creek, XS -16, Pool
2952
2953
2954
2955
2957
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 16, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 10/25/21
MY-01 09/14/22
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)11.7 17.2 25.1 15.1 17.4 12.3 19.7 3
Floodprone Width (ft)18 100 100 50 150 200 200 3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.8 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.3 0.6 0.9 3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.2 2.1 2.5 1.4 1.9 1.1 1.5 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)18.9 18.9 18.9 7.3 18.9 7.1 14.6 3
Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 15.9 31.4 12 16 15.5 26.6 3
Entrenchment Ratio 0.9 5.1 8.5 3.3 8.6 10.2 16.2 3
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.3 2.8 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
 Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)6.4 8.1 15.36 9.9 11.4 7.5 7.5 1
Floodprone Width (ft)16 100 100 50 150 100.0 100.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 1 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.4 2 2.4 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 6.2 6.2 1
Width/Depth Ratio 4.9 8.2 30.6 12 16 8.9 8.9 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2 8.8 15.6 5.1 13.2 13.4 13.4 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.5 2.1 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
 Other
0.0288 0.0253 0.0253
39.5 39.5 39.5
1.01 1.15 1.15
Eg Ce Ce
Table 9B.   Baseline Stream Data Summary 
Laurel Springs ‐ UT 1
Pre‐Existing Condition (applicaple) Design
Monitoring Baseline 
(MY0)
Pre‐Existing Condition (applicaple)
Monitoring Baseline 
(MY0)Design
Table 9A.  Baseline Stream Data Summary 
Laurel Springs ‐ Fork Creek
1.15
0.0258 0.0236 0.0236
1.05 1.15
9999 99
CeCg Ce
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)4.4 5.8 9.8 4.6 5.4 6.7 7.2 2
Floodprone Width (ft)11 17 22 20 30 75.0 75.0 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.1 2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.9 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)1.8 1..8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.1 7.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 11 17.4 49 12 16 7.7 21.3 2
Entrenchment Ratio 2 2.3 4.5 4.3 5.6 10.5 11.2 2
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.5 2 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
 Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)3 3.7 4.2 4.9 5.7 3.3 4.7 2
Floodprone Width (ft)5.5 6 50 20 30 7.0 75.0 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.8 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.8 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)2 2 2 2 2 0.9 2.3 2
Width/Depth Ratio 4.3 6.2 8.4 12 16 9.7 12.1 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 2 11.9 4.1 5.3 2.1 16.0 2
Bank Height Ratio 1.4 1.7 2.6 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
 Other
0.0954 0.0945 0.0945
8.7 8.7 8.7
1.04 1.05 1.05
Bg B Bc
 Table 9D.  Baseline Stream Data Summary 
Laurel Springs ‐ UT 3
Pre‐Existing Condition (applicaple) Design
Monitoring Baseline 
(MY0)
0.1026 0.0997 0.0997
7.7 7.7 7.7
1.02 1.05 1.05
Bg B Bc
Table 9C.   Baseline Stream Data Summary 
Laurel Springs ‐ UT 2
Pre‐Existing Condition (applicaple) Design
Monitoring Baseline 
(MY0)
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 2915.09 2915.14 2916.14 2916.10 2944.80 2944.85 2948.50 2948.59 2921.99 2922.06
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.08 1.00 0.99
Thalweg Elevation 2914.69 2914.61 2915.539 2915.49 2942.922 2943.00  2947.52 2947.78 2919.647 2919.81
LTOB2 Elevation 2915.09 2915.13 2916.136 2916.00 `2944.80 2945.00 2948.50 2948.66 2921.994 2922.04
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.40 0.51 0.60 0.51 1.88 2.00 0.99 0.87 2.35 2.24
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.1 1.03 2.1 1.53 7.7 9.20 2.7 3.05 24.5 24.16
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 2922.56 2922.64 2930.97 2931.56 2932.44 2932.46 2943.97 2944.09 2946.02 2946.07
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95
Thalweg Elevation 2921.22 2921.19 2930.078 2930.85 2931.64 2931.61 2943.12 2943.35 2945.65 2945.60
LTOB2 Elevation 2922.56 2922.52 2930.97 2931.54 2932.44 2932.49 2943.97 2944.07 2946.02 2946.05
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.34 1.34 0.89 0.69 0.81 0.88 0.85 0.72 0.37 0.45
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)14.4 12.43 1.9 1.80 2.3 2.46 1.8 1.68 0.9 0.81
0.53
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+1.80
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 2936.55 2936.76
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.98
Thalweg Elevation 2934.57 2934.58
LTOB2 Elevation 2936.55 2936.71
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.98 2.13
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)19.2 18.16
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 2937.72 2937.79 2943.24 2943.38 2945.11 2945.61 2954.23 2954.15 2954.72 2955.00
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.92
Thalweg Elevation 2936.23 2936.26 2942.061 2942.17 2943.881 2944.57  2953.12 2952.80 2953.19 2953.30
LTOB2 Elevation 2937.72 2937.79 2943.244 2943.42 `2945.11 2945.65 2954.23 2954.27 2954.72 2954.87
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.49 1.53 1.18 1.25 1.23 1.07 1.10 1.47 1.53 1.57
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.5 13.54 6.2 6.56 4.6 4.93 7.1 8.54 7.4 6.33
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
0.00
1.80
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
  Table 10A.  Monitoring Data ‐ Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Laurel Springs/ DMS:100122)
UT 2 ‐ Cross Section 1 (Pool)UT 2 ‐ Cross Section 2 (Riffle)UT 2 ‐ Cross Section 3 (Riffle)UT 2 ‐ Cross Section 4 (Pool)Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter‐annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases.  Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.      
Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 6 (Pool)UT 3 ‐ Cross Section 7 (Pool)UT 3 ‐ Cross Section 8 (Riffle)UT 3 ‐ Cross Section 9 (Pool)UT 3 ‐ Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 11 (Pool)
  Table 10B.  Monitoring Data ‐ Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Laurel Springs/ DMS:100122)
Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 12 (Riffle)UT 1 ‐ Cross Section 13 (Riffle)UT 1 ‐ Cross Section 14 (Pool)Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 15 (Riffle)Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 16 (Pool)
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter‐annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases.  Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.      
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners.  The outcome resulted in 
the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As‐built bankfull area and the cross 
sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank.  These are calculated as follows:
1 ‐Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As‐built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.  For example if the As‐built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation 
would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2.  The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the 
thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator.  This same process is then carried out in each successive year.
2  ‐LTOB Area and Max depth ‐These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).  Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for 
each year as above.  The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.       
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners.  The outcome resulted in 
the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As‐built bankfull area and the cross 
sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank.  These are calculated as follows:
1 ‐Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As‐built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.  For example if the As‐built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation 
would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2.  The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the 
thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator.  This same process is then carried out in each successive year.
2  ‐LTOB Area and Max depth ‐These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).  Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for 
each year as above.  The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.       
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Appendix D: Hydrologic Data

Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
Fork Creek Crest Gauge Graph
Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 13. Channel Evidence
UT 2 Surface Water Gauge Graph
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events

Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence Method Photo
(if available)
Monitoring
Year
May 23, 2022 May 23, 2022
A bankfull event was documented on the Fork
Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 1.13
inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge.
1 MY1
August 6, 2022 August 6, 2022
A bankfull event was documented on the Fork
Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 0.98
inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge.
2 MY1
September 5,
2022
September 5,
2022
A bankfull event was documented on the Fork
Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 1.45
inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge.
3 MY1
Photo 1: Fork Creek Swelling to Bankfull
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023

Photo 2: Bankfull Event Documented on Fork Creek
Photo 3: Bankfull Event Documented on Fork Creek
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐2
2
6
10
14
18
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Su
r
f
a
c
e
 Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Fork Creek Grest Gauge (2022 Data)
Erratic Readings
(No supporting
precip. data or 
May 23, 2022
Crest @ 6.89 in
August 6, 2022
Crest @ 7.63 in September 5, 2022
Crest @ 7.21 in
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Gauge
12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved - Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 7
(2028)
1* Yes - 45 days (19.1%)
2 No - 2 days (0.9%)
3 No - 17 days (7.2%)
4 Yes - 167 days (71.1%)
5 Yes - 46 days (19.6%)
6* Yes - 235 days (100%)
7 Yes - 235 days (100%)
8 Yes - 119 days (50.6)
9* Yes – 236 days (100%)
10 Yes – 65 days (27.7%)
11* Yes – 45 days (19.1%)
12* Yes – 236 days (100%)
13 Yes – 236 days (100%)
*During the MY0 review, the IRT requested that gauges be moved into creditable wetland areas to more accurately
represent what was presented in the detailed mitigation plan (Appendix F). During the 2022/2023 dormant season,
gauges 6, 9, 11, ad 12 will be moved into creditable wetland reestablishment areas, and gauge 1 will be moved into
the nearby wetland enhancement area.

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 1 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22Start Growing Season
March 1
45 Days ‐19.1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 2 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
2 Days ‐0.9%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 3 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season 
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
17 Days ‐7.2%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 4 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
167 Days ‐71.1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 5 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season 
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
46 Days ‐19.6%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 6 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
236 Days ‐100%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 7 (2022 Data)
Start Growing Season
March 1
End Growing Season
October 22
236 Days ‐100%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 8 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season 
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
119 Days ‐50.6%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 9 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
236 Days ‐100%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 10 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
65 Days ‐27.7%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 11 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
45 Days ‐19.1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 12 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
236 Days ‐100%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Su
r
f
a
c
e
 Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 13 (2022 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
236 Days ‐100%
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Table 13. UT-2 Channel Evidence
UT-1 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2022)
Max consecutive days channel flow 166
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
hydrophytes)
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at natural
topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
‐2
2
6
10
14
18
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Su
r
f
a
c
e
 Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Laurel Springs UT2 Stream Flow  (2022 Data)
166 Days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

A
m
o
u
n
t

i
n

I
n
c
h
e
s
Figure D1: Laurel Springs
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
30-70th percentile data from WETS Station: Banner Elk, NC
2022
2023
2024
2026
2028
30th Percentile
70th Percentile
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
1/
1
/
2
2
1/
1
1
/
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
2
1/
3
1
/
2
2
2/
1
0
/
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
2
3/
2
/
2
2
3/
1
2
/
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
2
4/
1
/
2
2
4/
1
1
/
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
1
/
2
2
5/
1
1
/
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
2
5/
3
1
/
2
2
6/
1
0
/
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
2
6/
3
0
/
2
2
7/
1
0
/
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
2
7/
3
0
/
2
2
8/
9
/
2
2
8/
1
9
/
2
2
8/
2
9
/
2
2
9/
8
/
2
2
9/
1
8
/
2
2
9/
2
8
/
2
2
10
/
8
/
2
2
10
/
1
8
/
2
2
10
/
2
8
/
2
2
11
/
7
/
2
2
11
/
1
7
/
2
2
11
/
2
7
/
2
2
12
/
7
/
2
2
12
/
1
7
/
2
2
12
/
2
7
/
2
2
So
i
l
 Te
m
p
 °F
Date
Laurel Springs Soil Temperature
(2022 Data)
Lowest temp. 
after March 1:
43.19°F
March 1:
44.2°F
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Info

Table 14. Project Timeline
Table 15. Project Contacts
Table 14. Project Timeline
Data Collection Task Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Deliverable Submission
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16‐007725)Mar‐19 Mar‐19
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100122)NA 17‐May‐19
Mitigation Plan Jul‐20 11‐Feb‐21
Construction Plan (Grading) Completed NA 18‐Feb‐21
Planting Completed NA 13‐Jan‐22
As‐built Survey Completed 25‐Oct‐20 Jun‐22
MY‐0 Baseline Report Feb‐22 Nov‐22
Invasive Species Treatment ‐ Japanese Knotweed, Chinese Bittersweet, 
Multiflora rose, Autumn Olive, Callery Pear, Japanese barberry, Cattail NA 14‐Sep‐22
Encroachment (addressed during MY1)NA Oct‐22
MY1 Monitoring Report Nov‐22 Feb‐23

Table 15. Project Contacts
Provider Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mitigation Provider POC Worth Creech
919‐755‐9490
Designer Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
Primary project design POC Grant Lewis
919‐215‐1693
Construction Contractor Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Charles Hill
919‐639‐6132
Laurel Springs/100122
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023
Appendix F: IRT Correspondence

Responses to IRT MY0 Comments
Mitigation Plan Modification Request
Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023)
12/9/22 IRT Concurrence Email from Kim Isenhour
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
Response to IRT Comments – MY 0, Baseline Report
Laurel Springs Mitigation Site – Avery County
DMS Project ID No. 100122
Full Delivery Contract No. 7890
RFP No. 16-007725 (Issuance Date 11/13/2018)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835
DWR Project No. 2019-0865

Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)

Casey Haywood, USACE:
1. QAQC of the Vegetation tables need to be addressed in the report. Looking back at the Mitigation Plan, Table
18 Planting Plan does not match the listed species on the L5 Plan Sheet. It appears that some of the
discrepancies listed below are likely a result of this. Please ensure these tables reflect the same information in
future submittals.
You are correct. The final Mitigation Plan, submitted with the permit application(s), was updated based on IRT
comments, including updates to Table 18 – Planting Plan. However, the Planting Plan table within the
construction drawings (Sheet L5) was not updated. Steps were taken to ensure this oversight does not occur
in the future. Our sincere apologies for this lack of quality control.

a. Table A lists yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) as a species that was not planted; however, Table B shows
it was planted but had it listed as swamp birch (Betula alleghaniensis). Plan Sheet L5 also indicates it was
planted. Please clarify.
Response: Betula alleghaniensis was planted. The use of two different common names for Betula
alleghaniensis (yellow birch and swamp birch) resulted in it being listed in Table A as a non-planted
species. The row containing this species was deleted from Table A, and the common name listed in Table
B was updated to yellow birch.

b. Table A should reflect all species that were not planted to include elderberry and buttonbush as shown
on Table 18 of the Final Mitigation Plan.
Response: Elderberry and buttonbush were live-staked in the stream-side assemblage area. They have
been included in Table B as such.

c. Sheet L5 lists Scarlet Oak as an added species, however this is shown in Table B (and Table 18 in the
Mitigation Plan) as an approved species. Table B lists Red Spruce as an added species, whereas Sheet L5
has it listed as an approved species. Please update.
Response: Scarlett oak was planted and was included in the original mitigation plan planting plan;
however, the species was incorrectly listed in the mitigation plan as Quercus imbricaria. This has been
corrected in the redline Recording Drawings planting plan (Sheet L5) and is not considered a species
substitution. Red spruce was not included in the mitigation plan. The redline Recording Drawings planting
plan (Sheet L5) and Table F (As-Built Planted Species and Stems) of the Baseline Report were updated
accordingly.

d. Based on the information provided, it appears the modification request includes the addition of three
species: arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) and American
hazelnut (Corylus americana). Is this accurate? If so, I am okay with the inclusion of the replacement
species, however, please provide an updated redline planting table to reflect Plan Sheet L5 and Table 18
of the Final Mitigation Plan to include consistency between common species names and planting numbers.
Updating this table will be beneficial to use as a reference for potential replanting efforts in the future.
Response: The modification request includes the addition of four species: arrowwood viburnum
(Viburnum dentatum), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), American hazelnut (Corylus americana), and
Red Spruce (Picea rubens). Although no red spruce was counted during MY0 permanent vegetation plot
monitoring, the species was planted, and RS requests its consideration for inclusion in the event it is

Page 2 of 5

counted in temporary vegetation plots during the monitoring period. Additionally, common ninebark was
included in the stream-side assemblage but was planted via live stake. This species is not being proposed
for IRT consideration since live-stakes do not count toward planted stem success criteria. The redline
Recording Drawings planting plan (Sheet L5) and Table F (As-Built Planted Species and Stems) of the
Baseline Report were updated accordingly.

2. With the possibility of a replant in 2023, I concur with EPA's comment to include random vegetation plots and
would support the replacement of 3 permeant plots to random plots (recommend plots 3, 5, and 13).
Response: RS will continue monitoring all permanent vegetation plots and will add three additional plots within
the 2023 proposed replant areas. Three random temporary vegetation plots will be monitored for the
remainder of the monitoring period or until otherwise requested by the IRT.

3. When comparing the MY0 CCPV (Figure 1) to the updated Monitoring Map (Figure 9) provided on August 26,
2021, some of the veg plots and groundwater gauge locations appear to be flipped and are no longer located
in creditable wetland reestablishment areas (GWG 1, 6, & 9). While it's beneficial to have some groundwater
gauges located in non-credited wetlands, please ensure creditable wetland reestablishment areas have
adequate monitoring wells to document hydrologic uplift.
Response: During the 2022/2023 dormant season, RS plans to move gauges 6, 9, 11, and 12 into creditable
wetland reestablishment areas. Also, gauge 1 will be moved into the wetland enhancement area, as depicted
in Figure 9 of the approved Mitigation Plan. Please advise if the IRT would like additional changes to the
locations of monitoring features.

4. Appreciate the efforts made to work with the landowner to remove the shed located in the easement near
UT3. To help prevent future encroachments (such as mowing), were additional boundary markers or horse
tape added to this area when the surveyor visited the site on 9/2022? When the new shed is constructed,
please be sure to have the structure located far enough off the easement boundary to prevent any future
encroachments.
Response: Yes, 6-inch treated fence posts were used to delineate the easement boundary in this area. The new
shed was erected approximately 15 feet from the easement.

Andrea Leslie, WRC:
1. The as-built and final mitigation plan do not match when it comes to planting. The numbers/percentages of
what was planned (in black) to plant are not what is in the final plan. The planned percentages are also different
from the as-built (e.g., hemlock at 2-3% in final plan, but in the as-built as planned at 8% and actually planted
at 6%). The MY0 report does note that a number of species were not planted (but it is inaccurate, as it fails to
include a number of those that were in the final plan and includes Betula alleganiensis, which was planted).
Please include me in a discussion with RS; I'd like to have input on the supplemental planting.
Response: Based on species availability and surrounding natural communities, several substitutions were
made between the mitigation plan and the as-built planting. The addendum to the mitigation plan has been
updated to indicate that Betula alleghaniensis was planted.

RS has ordered trees to replant 2.67 acres at a density of 670 stems per acre within observed low stem density
areas, which includes the 0.107-acre area of encroachment. These areas are within the Acidic Cove Forest
Association. The following species and quantities were secured for Q1-2023 planting.

Targeted Vegetation Associations: Acidic Cove Forest
Area of Replant: 2.67 Acres
Species Indicator Status Number of Stems
American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600
White Oak (Quercus alba) FACU 600
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 600
Total 1,800

Page 3 of 5

These species were listed within the approved Mitigation Plan but were not planted within the Acidic Cove
vegetation association during initial planting. These three species will add to the six species planted during
initial planting for a total of nine species within the Acidic Cove vegetation association. A formal Remedial
Planting Plan letter is provided after RS's Mitigation Plan Modification Request (request to count replacement
tree species towards site success criteria) – immediately following these comment responses.

RS recognizes that additional "diversity plantings" may be desired by the IRT, and we welcome the opportunity
to discuss a diversity planting effort with the IRT. RS will plan to reach out to Andrea Leslie and Erin Davis in
Q1-2023 to discuss this effort.

Todd Bowers, EPA:
1. Table 8: Post Mitigation Plan dominant species composition needs to be recalculated for all plots.
Response: Post Mitigation Plan dominant species composition was recalculated.

2. Were there no random vegetation plots installed? If not, I recommend adding 3 random plots in place of fixed
plots for future vegetation monitoring.
Response: 3 random vegetation plots will be measured annually in addition to the 16 permanent plots.

3. Modifications and red line changes in As-Built plans such as floodplain culvert features, added rock sills and
log vanes, j-hooks, replacement of a box culvert with a bridge span, and the modified planting plan are all
noted with no comment.
Response: Noted.

4. Sheet L5.00: Recommend breaking down each species component (stem counts) into each vegetation
community.
Response: The revised redline planting table has broken down species stem counts by vegetation community.

5. I think the Corps (and IRT) should have been notified much earlier than concurrently with the MY0 Report of a
modification request with changes or modifications to the planting plan.
Response: Noted. Apologies for the lack of notice – RS has implemented new QA/QC procedures regarding
ordering bare-root species from nurseries to prevent this situation from occurring on future sites.

6. Table 5: 16.5% of the site's planted acreage has low stem density based on visual assessment. Recommend
placing some of the recommended random plots in areas of concern. If an adaptive management plan for
supplemental planted is anticipated, please submit to the IRT as soon as possible so that the site can be
replanted no later than March 2023.
Response: Temporary plots will be measured in this area during MY1 monitoring, although RS plans to replant
these areas in Q1-2023 – see WRC comment 1 response.

7. Overall, I am very satisfied with the report and the work that RS has completed at the site. Having not been
able to visit this location, I really appreciated the detailed ground-level and drone level wetland, vegetation
and stream feature photos to illustrate the grading, planting and features implemented.
Response: Noted.

Erin Davis, DWR:
1. DWR appreciated DMS' report review and site visit comments.
Response: Noted.

2. The inclusion of additional photos, particularly the drone images, were very helpful for this review. Thank you.
Response: Noted.

Page 4 of 5

3. I was confused about the addition of 29 rock sills that weren't engineered and installed to act as grade control.
In hindsight, is there a better term to depict adding cobble to support a constructed riffle as described in
Section 2.1?
Response: RS agrees that the label "Rock Sills" is not appropriate for what occurred. "Rock Sills" was used by
the surveyor and, in turn, by the Engineer of Record on the Recording Drawing Plan Set. We feel the description
provided in Section 2.1 of "large cobble" is more appropriate. In hindsight, within the Recorded Drawing Plan
Set, "Large Cobble Added" would have been more appropriate than "Rock Sill Added."

4. Once all straw wattles with plastic netting have been removed from the site, please add a note in the
corresponding monitoring report narrative.
Response: Will do. We expect all straw wattles to be removed during the spring/summer of 2023 and will
report their removal in the MY2 (2023) monitoring report.

5. The mowing and shed encroachment should be identified in Table 5.
Response: The two areas of encroachment have been depicted on the CCPV and are quantified in Table 5.

6. An additional five stormwater culverts were installed within project easement breaks. Throughout the
monitoring period, please pay particular attention to associated easement areas that receive discharge from
these structures for any evidence of wetland/floodplain instability or erosion.
Response: All easement areas receiving discharge from stormwater culverts will be monitored throughout the
monitoring period for erosion/instability.

7. DWR is very disappointed with the planted species list. First, looking back at the final mitigation plan, DWR
reviewed and supported the Table 18 and Figure 8 plant list, which took into account the several IRT draft
mitigation plan comments. It appears that Table 18/Figure 8 was not correctly updated in the associated
construction plan sheets and that the draft mitigation plan plant list was used for construction planting.
Additionally, it does not appear that the IRT comments were reviewed when making plant quantity
adjustments as both WRC and DWR requested a cap for Eastern hemlock at 5 percent.
Response: RS sincerely apologizes for the planted species issue – it was not intentional. RS has implemented
new QA/QC procedures regarding the ordering of bare-root species from nurseries to prevent this situation
from occurring again. Please see WRC comment response 1 and the Remedial Planting Plan included with this
submittal. RS recognizes that additional "diversity plantings" may be desired by the IRT, and we welcome the
opportunity to discuss a diversity planting effort with the IRT. RS will contact Andrea Leslie and Erin Davis in
Q1-2023 to discuss this effort.

8. DWR understands that species availability is a common constraint during the construction phase. However,
had DWR been notified and engaged on this issue we could have discussed and agreed upon an adaptive
planning approach such as phased planting to ultimately ensure that appropriate species and appropriate
species quantities were planted across the project.
Response: Understood. We hope our new QA/QC procedures around bare-root species ordering will ensure
appropriate species are ordered. If species are unavailable, we will know early enough to allow for
collaboration with the DWR and other IRT members ahead of finalizing bare-root orders.

9. Please provide a supplemental list of species and quantities for the proposed supplemental planting effort. In
addition to the proposed 18 percent supplemental planting area (total 16.2 acres), DWR recommends sitewide
supplemental planting of understory/shrub species as specified in the approved Final Mitigation Plan Figure 8.
Response: Please see the response to WRC comment 1 regarding the Q1-2023 replanting effort. Regarding the
sitewide understory/shrub species planting, RS will reach out to DWR and WRC early in 2023 to discuss this
planting and additional "diversity" planting efforts.

10. DWR recommends conducting random plots/transects in proposed supplemental planting areas, with at least
one survey area within the UT3 decommissioned farm road footprint.
Response: 3 temporary vegetation plots were measured within the supplemental planting areas as part of our
response to these comments. Data is included in Table 8 of this submittal. RS plans to monitor 3 random

Page 5 of 5

temporary vegetation plots for the remainder of the monitoring period or until otherwise requested by the
IRT. Josh Merritt of RS walked the former soil path along UT3 and observed living planted stems. No mowing
or vehicular access occurred along the decommissioned soil path in 2022, and planted stems are establishing.
Josh oversaw the planting of two rows along the soil path during site planting. RS will continue to visually
monitor this area. If planted stems do not survive into year two (2023) monitoring, RS will propose replanting
the decommissioned road with potted trees/shrubs during the 2023/2024 dormant season.

11. Please provide wetland indicator status for proposed species additions to the approved plant list.
Response: Wetland indicator status has been provided in Tables A and B in the Mitigation Plan Addendum and
in the redline Recording Drawing planting plan on Sheet L5.

12. DWR respectfully disagrees with RS' response to DMS that there were no significant changes in monitoring
device locations from the approved mitigation plan. As noted in the August 2021 correspondence, DWR was
ok with relocating one groundwater gauge (#4) to a non-crediting area. However, the MY0 monitoring figure
shows several gauges have been shifted outside of wetland credit generating areas. In order to demonstrate
performance standard success there needs to be sufficient number and representative cover of monitoring
devices across proposed credit areas. If gauge locations remain as-is, DWR may request additional gauge
installation during the monitoring period.
Response: Understood. During the 2022/2023 dormant season, RS plans to move gauges 6, 9, 11, and 12 into
creditable wetland reestablishment areas. Also, gauge 1 will be moved into the wetland enhancement area,
as depicted in Figure 9 of the approved mitigation plan. Please advise if the IRT would like additional changes
to the locations of monitoring features.

MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 10 
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC 
Avery County, North Carolina November 2022 
Table F. As‐Built Planted Species and Stems 
Vegetation Association Montane Alluvial Forest* Acidic Cove Forest* Stream‐side 
Assemblage** TOTAL 
Area (acres) 9.0 4.7 2.5 16.2 
Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted 
Basswood (Tilia americana) FACU 100 2% 200 6%     300 
Cherry birch (Betula lenta) FACU 100 500 2% 8% 400 600 13% 18.75% 500 1500 7% 15.96% 1000 2600 
Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) FACU 100 400 2% 6.4% 100 600 3% 18.75% ‐‐ ‐‐ 200 1000 
Red oak (Quercus rubra)  FACU 500 650 10.4% 300 650 9% 20.31% ‐‐ ‐‐ 300 1300 
White ash (Fraxinus americana) FACU 100 2% 300 9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 
White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 100 550 2% 8.8% 400 13% 550 5.85% 500 1100 
White pine (Pinus strobus) FACU 300 600 2% 9.6% 400 13% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 600 
Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) FACU 100 200 2% 3.2% 300  9% 500 300 7% 3.19% 900 500 
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) FAC 600 10% 100 3% 500 7% 1200 
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)  FAC 200 3% 300 9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500  
Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea)  FAC 200 600 3% 9.6% 100 500 3% 15.63% ‐‐ ‐‐ 300 1100 
Shadbush (Amelanchier arborea) FAC 100 2% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 500 
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 600 450 10% 7.2% 200 600 6% 18.75% 500 1100 7% 11.70% 1300 2150 
American elm (Ulmus americana)  FACW 600 10% 100 3% 500 7% 1200 
Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)  FACW 600 10% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 7% 1100 
River birch (Betula nigra)  FACW 600 500 10% 8% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 950 7% 10.10% 1100 1450 
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) FACW 600 10% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 1000 
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)  FACW 600 10% 9.6% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 1500 7% 15.96% 1100 2100 
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) FACW 300 5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 700 
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW 200 3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 600*** 6% 6.38% 600  
Black willow (Salix nigra) OBL 300 5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 800*** 6% 8.51% 800 
Elderberry (Sambucus nigra)  OBL  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 400*** 6% 4.26% 400 
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 400*** 6% 4.26% 400 
^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) FACW  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 300*** 3.19% 300 
^Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC 400 6.4%    400 4.26% 800 
^Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU 800 12.8%        800 
^American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU        600 6.38% 600 
^Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU    250 7.81%    250 
TOTAL  6200 6250 100% 3200 100% 6800 9400 100% 16200 18850 
^Species Added  
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre. 
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre. 
*** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels – Total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare‐root Stream‐Side Assemblage planting. 
Table 5.  Visual Vegetation Assessment
Planted acreage 16.2
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.0.10acres 2.67 16.5%
2.67 16.5%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
2.67 16.5%
Easement Acreage 29.19
Invasive Areas of Concern
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated 
against the total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native, 
young, woody stems in the short‐term or community structure for existing communities.  Species included 
in summation above should be identified in report summary.  
0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of
restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing, cattle access,
vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact
area. 
none
Survey Date: February 1, 2022
2 Encroachments noted        
(0.107 acre)
Combined 
Acreage
% of Easement 
AcreageVegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold
% of Planted 
Acreage
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Total
                                                                                                                                                                Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold
Combined 
Acreage
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
#*
#*
!.2
3
1
8
1
5
7
2
6 4
9
3
11
16
13
10
12
14
15
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
13 12
11
10
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
PHP
NOV 2022
1:2000
19-006
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Avery County, NC
LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE
CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
1
Notes:
1. Background Imagery Source:
2018 aerial photography
provided by the NC OneMap
program (online, provided by
the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council)
0 300 600150Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level I)
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Stream Preservation
Stream Generating No Credit
Instream Structures
Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area
Wetland Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Preservation
Permanant Vegetation Plot
Temporary Vegetation Plot - 50m x 2m
^_Vegetation Plot Origins
!(Groundwater Gauge
!.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature
#*Stream Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas
Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas
³
XS-1XS-2
XS-3
XS-4
XS-
5XS-
6
XS-7
XS-
8
XS-9
XS-10
X
S
-
1
1
X
S
-
1
2
X
S
-
1
3
X
S
-
1
4
XS-15XS-16
UT-
4
UT
-
3
U
T
-
2
UT-1
Fork Cr
e
e
k
Rain Gauge
Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
16.2
2022‐01‐12
2022‐02‐01
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 11
Betula lenta sweet birch Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 11
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 10 10 3 3
Betula sp.11 222255774444
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 2244332222 88
Other 11 11
Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 114444 11
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 6611 115522
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 11 22
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 33
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU
Quercus sp.1212 223322114433
Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1122 44 22
Sum Performance Standard 13 13 19 19 9 9 22 22 13 13 7 7 12 12 20 20 18 18
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 445511
Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 77 11
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 3 3 11111111 11
Sum Proposed Standard 16 16 20 20 9 9 27 27 19 19 9 9 20 20 20 20 20 20
13 19 9 22 13 7 12 20 18
364 648 364 891 526 202 445 810 729
353862575
77 63 44 27 31 71 58 25 44
211112211
000000000
16 20 9 27 19 9 20 20 20
486 688 364 1093 769 283 769 810 810
4631084777
63 60 44 22 26 56 35 25 40
211111111
000000000
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan 
addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Mitigation Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Post Mitigation 
Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
% Invasives
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
% Invasives
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Species Count
Stems/Acre
Current Year Stem Count
Species 
Included in 
Approved 
Mitigation Plan
Post Mitigation 
Plan Species
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FIndicator 
Status
Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Veg Plot 1 F
Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued)
Acreage 16.2
Plant 2022‐01‐12
Supplemental 
Date(s) Mowing
Survey 2022‐02‐01
(ACRES)0.0247
Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total
Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC
Betula lenta sweet birch Tree FACU
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 113377
Betula sp.44 334433 33 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 5511224433 1
Other
Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 66221122
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2
Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 2
Quercus sp.332222221133 11
Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1122
Sum Performance Standard 10 10 2 2 10 10 13 13 10 10 13 13 15 15 3 5 1
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 4 4
Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 2233 222222
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 4 4 13 13 5511
Sum Proposed Standard 17 17 18 18 14 14 15 15 17 17 16 16 15 15 3 5 1
10 2 1013101315351
405 40 405 526 405 526 607 81 202 40
4 1 3 4 6 5 4241
40 100 50 46 30 31 47 67 40 100
1 1 1 1 2 1 2113
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
17 18 14 15 17 16 15 3 5 1
688 688 567 607 688 648 607 81 202 40
7 3 4 5 8 7 4241
12 72 36 40 29 25 47 67 40 100
2 2 1 1 2 1 2113
0 0 0 0 0 0 0000
Stems/Acre
Current Year Stem Count
Veg Plot 11 FScientific Name
Species 
Included in 
Approved 
Mitigation Plan
Post Mitigation 
Plan Species
Mitigation Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Post Mitigation 
Plan 
Performance 
Standard
% Invasives
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Species Count
Stems/Acre
Current Year Stem Count
% Invasives
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Species Count
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan 
addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Veg Plot 16 FVeg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Veg Plot 15 FCommon Name Tree/S
hrub
Indicator 
Status
November 30, 2022 Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]

1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
Kimberly Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Subject: Laurel Springs Mitigation Site - request to count replacement tree species towards site success criteria
DMS Project ID No. 100122
Full Delivery Contract No. 7890
RFP No. 16-007725 (Issuance Date 11/13/2018)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835
DWR Project No. 2019-0865

Mrs. Isenhour,

Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), Sponsor of the Laurel Springs Mitigation Site (Site), is requesting a modification of the
Site’s Mitigation Plan to include planted tree/shrub species that were not included in the Site’s approved Mitigation
Plan. A lack of availability from nurseries of approved Mitigation Plan tree/shrub species required RS to adjust the
number of stems planted for some approved species and include five additional species not included in the approved
Mitigation Plan – four bare-root and one live-stake species. Table A below is a list of tree/shrub species detailed in
the approved Mitigation Plan that were not planted at the Site due to lack of availability.

Table A. Non-planted Species Specified in the Mitigation Plan
Species (Mitigation Plan) Wetland Indicator Mit. Plan Stems
Basswood (Tilia americana) FACU 300
White Ash (Fraxinus americana) FACU 400
Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) FAC 1,200
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 500
Shadbush (Amelanchier arborea) FAC 500
American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 1,200
Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) FACW 1,100
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) FACW 1,000
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) FACW 700
Total = 6,900

Species summarized in Table A, as with others in the approved Mitigation Plan, were selected based on Reference
Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, on-site observations, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) – Montane Alluvial and Acidic Cove Forests.

Of the 6,900 bare-root stems detailed in Table A, 2,450 were supplemented by four species not included in the
approved Mitigation Plan: Arrowwood viburnum, Bitternut hickory, American hazelnut, and Red spruce. RS selected
these species based on their availability and that they were observed in nearby forest communities. The additional
4,450 stems needed to complete the targeted planting density were comprised of Mitigation Plan approved species.
An extra 2,500 stems were live-staked in the stream-side assemblage area, including 300 stems of common ninebark,
a species not included in the approved Mitigation Plan. Since live-staked species primarily provide stream-bank
stability and do not count toward the stem density performance standard, RS is not proposing common ninebark to
be considered for IRT approval. Table B summarizes planted species and their individual quantities within each
planting zone and in total.

Table B. As-Built Planted Species and Stems
Vegetation Association Montane Alluvial Forest* Acidic Cove Forest* Stream-side
Assemblage** TOTAL
Area (acres) 9.0 4.7 2.5 16.2
Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted
Basswood (Tilia americana) FACU 100 2% 200 6% 300
Cherry birch (Betula lenta) FACU 100 500 2% 8% 400 600 13% 18.75% 500 1500 7% 15.96% 1000 2600
Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) FACU 100 400 2% 6.4% 100 600 3% 18.75% -- -- 200 1000
Red oak (Quercus rubra) FACU 500 650 10.4% 300 650 9% 20.31% -- -- 300 1300
White ash (Fraxinus americana) FACU 100 2% 300 9% -- -- 400
White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 100 550 2% 8.8% 400 13% 550 5.85% 500 1100
White pine (Pinus strobus) FACU 300 600 2% 9.6% 400 13% -- -- 500 600
Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) FACU 100 200 2% 3.2% 300 9% 500 300 7% 3.19% 900 500
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) FAC 600 10% 100 3% 500 7% 1200
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 200 3% 300 9% -- -- 500
Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) FAC 200 600 3% 9.6% 100 500 3% 15.63% -- -- 300 1100
Shadbush (Amelanchier arborea) FAC 100 2% -- -- 400 6% 500
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 600 450 10% 7.2% 200 600 6% 18.75% 500 1100 7% 11.70% 1300 2150
American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600 10% 100 3% 500 7% 1200
Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) FACW 600 10% -- -- 500 7% 1100
River birch (Betula nigra) FACW 600 500 10% 8% -- -- 500 950 7% 10.10% 1100 1450
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) FACW 600 10% -- -- 400 6% 1000
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 600 10% 9.6% -- -- 500 1500 7% 15.96% 1100 2100
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) FACW 300 5% -- -- 400 6% 700
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW 200 3% -- -- 400 600*** 6% 6.38% 600
Black willow (Salix nigra) OBL 300 5% -- -- 400 800*** 6% 8.51% 800
Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 6% 4.26% 400
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 6% 4.26% 400
^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) FACW -- -- -- -- 300*** 3.19% 300
^Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC 400 6.4% 400 4.26% 800
^Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU 800 12.8% 800
^American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU 600 6.38% 600
^Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU 250 7.81% 250
TOTAL 6200 6250 100% 3200 100% 6800 9400 100% 16200 18850
^Species Added
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
*** These species were live-staked and planted along the stream channels – A total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare-root Stream-Side
Assemblage planting.
November 30, 2022 Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]

1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
RS included all planted species in the data collection for the MY0 Monitoring Report. Table 8 within the MY0
Monitoring Report, the DMS vegetation tool, requires providers to select from five options regarding the species
status for inclusion in meeting performance standards, “Performance Standard Approval” column:
1. Approved Mit Plan
2. Approved Post Mit Plan
3. Proposed
4. Not Approved – Not Invasive or Exotic
5. Not Approved – Invasive or Exotic

The four additional bare-root species detailed in Table B (Arrowwood viburnum, Bitternut hickory, American
hazelnut, and Red spruce) were included in the MY 0 Report as “Proposed” species for inclusion in meeting
performance standards – Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool, MY 0 Report Table 8,
Appendix B.

RS requests the IRT allows these four species to be counted toward the Site’s success criteria.

If the IRT concurs that these species may be included to count toward the Site’s performance standards, RS will
update the four species as “Approved Post Mit Plan” in the MY1 (2022) report.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information.

Sincerely,

Raymond Holz
Operations Manager
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 30, 2022 Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]

1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
Kimberly Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Subject: Laurel Springs Mitigation Site – Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023)
DMS Project ID No. 100122; Full Delivery Contract No. 7890; RFP No. 16-007725 (Issuance Date 11/13/2018)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835; DWR Project No. 2019-0865

Mrs. Isenhour,

During the 2022 growing season, Restoration Systems (RS) has observed areas of low stem densities at the Laurel
Springs Mitigation Site (Site). Observed areas total 2.67 acres, which includes a 0.107-acre area of encroachment –
see attached remedial planting figure. The encroachment area was partially due to a storage shed left within the
easement used by the adjacent landowner. RS worked with the neighbor to remove the shed and cleared the area
of all debris. Additionally, 6-inch treated fence posts were used to delineate the easement boundary in this area.
A new shed was erected approximately 15 feet from the easement.

RS has ordered trees to replant the 2.67 acres at a density of 670 stems per acre. The replant areas are within the
Acidic Cove Forest Association. The following species and quantities were secured for Q1-2023 planting.

Targeted Vegetation Associations: Acidic Cove Forest
Area of Replant: 2.67 Acres
Species Indicator Status Number of Stems
American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600
White Oak (Quercus alba) FACU 600
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 600
Total 1,800

These species were listed within the approved mitigation plan but not planted within the Acidic Cove vegetation
association during initial planting. These three species will add to the six species planted during initial planting for
nine total species within the Acidic Cove vegetation association.

RS recognizes that additional "diversity plantings" may be desired by the IRT, and we welcome the opportunity to
discuss a diversity planting effort with the IRT. RS will contact Andrea Leslie and Erin Davis in Q1-2023 to discuss
this effort.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information.

Sincerely,
Raymond Holz
Operations Manager
Restoration Systems, LLC

Attachment – Remedial Planting Plan Figure
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
#*
#*
!.
XS-5
XS-
1
2
X
S
-
1
1
XS-15
XS-1
XS-16
XS-4
X
S
-
1
3
XS-9
XS-3
XS-10
X
S
-
1
4
XS-7
XS-
6
XS-2
XS-8
UT
4
UT1
U
T
3
U
T
3
A
N
A
UT
5
F
o
r
k

C
r
e
e
k
UT
2
T
2
T3
T1
8
1
5
7
2
6 4
9
3
11
16
13
14
10
12
15
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
13 12
11
10
Legend
Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres
!(Groundwater Gauge
!.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature
#*Stream Crest Gauge
Instream Structures
Cross Sections
2022-11 Temporary Vegetation Plot - 50m x 2m (3 Total)
Permanant Vegetation Plot
^_Vegetation Plot Origins
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level I)
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Stream Preservation
Stream Generating No Credit
Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area
Wetland Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Preservation
2023 Replant Areas: 2.67 Acres
FIGUREA
³
2018 NC One Map Imagery
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
2022/2023REMEDIAL PLANTINGPLAN
RJH
1:2,200
LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE
NOV. 2022
DMS ID: 100122
NC DEQ Division of Enviromental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Avery County, NC
0 300 600150
Feet
1
Ray Holz
From:Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, December 09, 2022 10:08 AM
To:Ray Holz
Cc:Wiesner, Paul; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As‐Built/ SAW‐2019‐00835/ Avery County
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Hi Ray, 
Thanks for the follow‐up. In general, the IRT does not have any concerns with the Remedial Planting Plan or counting the 
bare root species towards success. WRC and DWR request that you contact them if you plan to supplement 
understory/shrub species next year. They would like to encourage diversity out there. Andrea Leslie did mention that 
American Hazelnut is not a typical riparian species and is often found on hillslopes. This species may not do well in the 
riparian zone.  She would recommend Witch Hazel as an alternative. She also noted that Red Spruce is very elevation 
specific and survives in elevations in excess of 4,000 feet.  
Thanks, 
Kim 

Kim Isenhour 
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division   I  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  l   919.946.5107  

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:26 PM 
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul 
<[e-mail]> 
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY 
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; 
[e-mail]; Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' 
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Melonie Allen <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, 
Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; John Hamby 
<[e-mail]> 
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non‐DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs 
Mitigation Site As‐Built/ SAW‐2019‐00835/ Avery County 

To Kim and IRT Members ‐  

Firstly, my personal and sincere apologies for the lack of QA/QC on not only the Laurel Springs As‐Built/MY0 Baseline 
Report but also for the failure to appropriately updated all portions of the Mitigation Plan and with our ordering of non‐
approved bare‐root species and quantities. I wholeheartedly believe the IRT's mitigation plan review and comment 
process results in a superior product, and it is never our intent to dismiss or disregard IRT's comments.  

In this case, within the final/approved Mitigation Plan, RS failed to update the planting plan on Sheet L5.00 of the 
Construction Drawings; however, RS did apply the IRT's comments regarding the planting plan to Table 18 of the 
Mitigation Plan, which led to the discrepancy between the two.  

2

During the bare‐root tree ordering process, when species availability became an issue, RS staff charged with ordering 
trees did not notice or review the IRT's draft Mitigation Plan comments concerning the planting plan. Specifically, the 
IRT's request to cap the amount of Eastern hemlock planted. This mistake and the ordering of non‐approved species 
caused us to review our bare‐root tree ordering process in detail. We have established additional QA/QC measures as a 
result, which include: 

1.) a full review of the IRT's mitigation plan comments while ordering trees by both personnel charged with ordering 
trees and the project manager,  and  

2.) if non‐approved substitution species are required, or quantities of species change drastically due to a lack of 
availability, coordination with the IRT will occur immediately.  

With that said, I have attached, as a single .pdf, the following items:  

1. Response to IRT comments which includes revised MY0 Report and Recorded Drawing pages  
2. A revised Mitigation Plan Amendment Request to count bare‐root substitution species towards success criteria, 
and  
3. A Remedial planting plan for areas of observed low‐stem density within the Site's Acidic Cove Forest vegetation 
community  

After discussing with Paul Wisner at DMS, we believe it would be best to allow the IRT to review the attached 
information and provide comments before updating the MY0 Report and re‐posting the document.  

If there are any items you wish to discuss with me directly, please feel free to email or call me at 919‐604‐9314.  

Thank you for your time and patience.  

Sincerely,  

Raymond H.  

‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐  

Raymond J. Holz   |   Restoration Systems, LLC 

1101 Haynes St. Suite 211   |   Raleigh, NC 27604