20200018 Ver 1_Laurel Valley_100140_MY0_2023_20230605

MONITORING YEAR 0 
ANNUAL REPORT 
FINAL 

May 2023 

LAUREL VALLEY MITIGATION SITE  
Burke County, NC 
Catawba River Basin 
HUC 03050101 

DMS Project No. 100140 
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875‐02 
DMS RFP No. 16‐007875 (Issued: May 6, 2019) 
USACE Action ID No. SAW‐2020‐00053 
DWR Project No. 20200018 
Data Collection Dates: November 2022 – January 2023 

PREPARED FOR: 

NC Department of Environmental Quality 
Division of Mitigation Services 
1652 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652 

MITIGATION PLAN 
Addendum 
Revised Draft for IRT Review 

March 2022 

LAUREL VALLEY MITIGATION SITE 
Burke County, NC 
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875‐02 
DMS ID No. 100140 

Catawba River Basin 
HUC 03050101 

USACE Action ID No. SAW‐2020‐00053 
RFP #: 16‐007875 (Issued 5/6/2019) 
DWR#: 20200018 

PREPARED FOR: 

NC Department of Environmental Quality 
Division of Mitigation Services 
1652 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652 

PREPARED BY: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 
Charlotte, NC 28203 
Phone: (704) 332‐7754 

This mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following: 
 Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) 
through (c)(14). 
 NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In‐Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010. 
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory 
mitigation. 
Contributing Staff: 
Eric Neuhaus, PE, Project Manager 
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge 
Win Taylor, PWS, Wetland Delineation 
Emily Reinicker, PE Quality Assurance  

Jacob Wiseman, PE, CFM, Assistant Project Manager   
Jeff Keaton, PE Quality Assurance 
Noyes Harrigan, EI, CFM, Field Assessment

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4 
11.0 Determination of Credits .............................................................................................................. 5 
1.1 Determination of Credits Overview .............................................................................................. 5 
1.2 Credit Calculations for Non‐Standard Buffer Widths ................................................................... 5 

TABLES 
Revised Table 21: Project Asset Table .......................................................................................................... 6 
APPENDICES 
Revised Appendix 12 Buffer Width Credit Adjustment  

Executive Summary 
Wildlands Engineering was contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 
to provide stream and wetland credits in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050101. Restoration and 
preservation of Site streams was approved to provide 4,836.307 stream credits within the final 
approved mitigation plan dated March 2022. Approved mitigation plan crediting included a credit loss of 
‐256.640 for lack of buffers and a credit gain of 361.480 for additional buffers, resulting in a net change 
in credits of +104.840. All crediting adjustments were developed using the Non‐Standard Buffer Width 
Calculation tool provided by the Wilmington District USACE included within the approved mitigation 
plan Appendix 12.  

Based on site conditions during construction, slight adjustments to UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 bankfull 
alignments were made to preserve trees and/or conform the proposed streams to the existing valleys. 
Additionally, detail and attention were paid to areas of limited buffer, and top of bank locations were 
adjusted slightly to ensure the full required 30‐feet. The typical sections were still maintained within 
these areas and overall design intent was maintained. All areas of deviation from design are shown in 
the included Mitigation Site Record Drawings and outlined in the baseline monitoring report.  

Wildlands completed grading and earthwork construction in October 2022 and a‐built surveys were 
completed in January 2023. The survey included developing an as‐built topographic surface; as well as 
surveying the as‐built channel centerlines and top of banks. Upon receipt of the as‐built data, surveyed 
stream top of bank locations were used to determine credit employing the Non‐Standard Buffer Width 
Calculation tool provided by the Wilmington District USACE. Identical versions of the tool were used for 
the approved mitigation plan and as‐built/baseline reports. Results from the tool indicated that small 
changes made during construction reduced credit loss to ‐234.350 while increasing credit gain to 
367.080. The as‐built net change in credits totaled +132.730. Baseline crediting approved within the 
mitigation plan was held consistent within the buffer tool calculation. Total as‐built crediting at the Site 
was determined as 4,864.197, which is 27.890 credits beyond the approved mitigation plan crediting. To 
acquire these additional assets, Wildlands has included this mitigation plan addendum, including a 
revised Section 11.0 – Determination of credits and a revised Table 21 – Project Asset Table. Revised 
crediting, including the Buffer Calculation Summary sheet and associated Figure are included in 
Appendix F.  

11.0 Determination of Credits 
1.1 Determination of Credits Overview 
Mitigation credits presented in Table 21 are projections based upon the proposed design.  
The credit ratios proposed for the Site have been developed in consultation with the NCIRT as 
summarized in the included meeting minutes (Appendix 6 of the approved Mitigation Plan).  
1. The requested stream restoration credit ratio is 1:1 for mitigation activities that include 
reconstruction of the channels to a stable form and connection of the channels to the adjacent 
floodplain. This level of effort will occur on East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 and Reach 2, UT1 
Reach 2, and UT2. 
2. UT1 Reach 1 is proposed for preservation credit at a 15:1 ratio. Proposed work along this reach 
includes establishing the conservation easement and invasive species removal.  
The credit release schedule is provided in Appendix 11 of the approved Mitigation Plan.   
1.2 Credit Calculations for Non‐Standard Buffer Widths 
To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the latest published version of the Wilmington District 
Stream Buffer Credit Calculator from the USACE was utilized. To perform this calculation, GIS analysis 
was performed to determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones 
around the Project stream. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of bank (30 
feet in the mountain county of Burke). The ideal buffers are the maximum potential size (in square feet) 
of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas 
outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, 
excluding non‐forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement 
exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. The stream 
lengths, mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual buffer are all entered into the calculator. This data is 
processed, and the resulting credit amounts are totaled for the whole project. Based on the credit 
analysis, the Buffer Credit Calculator computed a net gain of +132.730 credits; therefore, the total 
adjusted SMUs for the Project is 4,864.197. Revised Appendix 12 contains details of the Non‐Standard 
Buffer width calculation including the credit calculator spreadsheet result and buffer credit calculation 
figure.  

Revised Table 1: Project Asset Table  
Project Components 
Project 
Component or 
Reach ID 
Existing 
Footage/ 
Acreage 
Approved 
Mitigation 
Plan 
Footage/ 
Acreage1 
As‐Built 
Footage/ 
Acreage1 Mitigation 
Category 
Restoration
Level 
Priority 
Level 
Mitigation 
Ratio 
Approved 
Mitigation 
Plan  
Crediting 
Addendum/
MY) 
Mitigation 
Plan  
Crediting 
East Prong 
Hunting Creek 
Reach 1 
416 498 498.000 Warm R P1, P2 1 498.000 498.000 
East Prong 
Hunting Creek 
Reach 2 
912 686 686.000 Warm R P1, P2 1 686.000 686.000 
UT1 Reach 1 457 457 457.000 Warm P N/A 15 30.467 30.467 
UT1 Reach 2 1,633 1,975 1987.360 Warm R P1, P2 1 1,975.000 1975.000 
UT2 1,470 1,542 1546.450 Warm R P1, P2 1 1,542.000 1542.000 
Total Stream 4,888 5158 5174.810   

As Built Project Crediting 
Restoration 
Level 
Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Rip Coastal 
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non‐Riv Wetland Marsh 
Restoration 4,701.000       
Re‐
establishment        
Rehabilitation        
Enhancement        
Enhancement I        
Enhancement II        
Creation        
Preservation 30.467       
Totals 4,731.467       

Project Credit Adjustments2 
Type SMUs 
Total Base SMU 4,731.467 
Credit Loss in Required Buffer ‐234.350 
Credit Gain in Required Buffer 367.080 
Net Change in Credit Buffers 132.730 
Total Adjusted SMUs 4864.197 
Notes: 1.     Crossing lengths have been removed from restoration footage.  
2. Credit adjustment for Non‐standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit 
Calculator issued by USACE 9/4/2020. See attached documentation and exhibit for more information.  

REVISED APPENDIX 12 
Buffer Width Credit Adjustment 

Site Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
Number of Exempt Terminal Stream Ends1:4
County:Burke
Minimum Required Buffer Width2:30
Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio 
Multiplier3
Creditable Stream 
Length4
Include in Buffer 
Calculations Baseline Stream Credit Buffered Stream 
Length
Credit From Buffered 
Streams
Restoration (1:1)1 4701 Yes 4701.00 4701.00 4701.00
Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5
Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.5
Preservation (5:1)5 No
Other (7.5:1)7.5
Other (10:1)10
Custom Ratio 1 15 457 Yes 30.47 457.00 30.47
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals 5158.00 4731.47 5158.00 4731.47
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)5 156153 52679 52993 53307 216368 260255 260569 260883 277525
Ideal Buffer (square feet)6 156460.58 51739.93 51389.37 51092.30 199706.07 243537.35 240983.45 240780.08 241724.72
Actual Buffer (square feet)7 148723.19 48664.92 47996.47 47167.21 117037.33 41610.33 25479.01 21819.61 16148.24
Zone Multiplier 50% 20% 15% 15% 9% 7% 6% 5% 3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2365.73 946.29 709.72 709.72 425.83 331.20 283.89 236.57 141.94
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95% 95% 95% 94% 59% 17% 11% 9% 7%
Credit Adjustment ‐106.79 ‐46.69 ‐37.62 ‐43.26 249.56 56.59 30.02 21.44 9.48
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required 
Buffer
Credit Gain for 
Additional Buffer
Net Change in
Credit from Buffers Total Credit
4731.47 ‐234.35 367.08 132.73 4864.19
1Number of terminal stream ends, including all points where streams enter or exit parcel boundaries.  This does not include internal crossings.  The District/NCIRT must approve the number of allowable/exempt terminal ends.
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Laurel Valley
5This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width and no internal crossings.  This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
 Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
7Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non‐forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are more 
than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement.  Non‐creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
6Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement.  The inner zone (0‐15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known.  Non‐creditable stream reaches 
within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
3Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non‐standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet‐to‐credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
2Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
4Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type.  If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
Buffer Credit Calculations
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Burke County, NC
¹0 250 500 Feet
Ideal Buffer (Distance from TOB in Feet)
0'-50'
50'-75'
75'-100'
100'-125'
125'-150'
Conservation Easement
Ineligible Areas
As-Built TOB
Project Parcel
Parcels
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
No Credit
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contour (2')
2022 Aerial Photography

May 5, 2023

Kristi Suggs, Senior Environmental Scientist
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Subject: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Task 6 - Draft Baseline (MY0) Report and As Built Drawings
Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101
DMS Project ID #100140
USACE ACTION ID SAW-2020-00053
DWR # 20200018

Dear Kristi,

Baseline Report and Drawings
The NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) has reviewed the Draft Baseline (MY0) Report and As Built
Drawings for the Laurel Valley Site. Following are DMS’s comments on this deliverable:

Please include the Mitigation Plan Addendum request in the Mitigation Plan, either as an Appendix or
before the main body of the report (up front).

Table 1 (Project Quantities and Credits) – Add existing LF and Priority Levels columns; please omit any
unneeded colors. It would be preferable if you could just use the MP addendum version of this table
here; the additional buffer credits gain/ loss, and net result all need to be in this table as your MP
addendum table shows.

Table 2 (Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements) – Please add re-verification of
wetlands at MY7 per IRT review letter dated 10/27/2021 (K. Browning comment).

Table 2 (Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements) and CCPV – Please add a gauge or
trail camera in Mitigation Plan Wetland F (left bank UT1 around 218+00-220+00) per IRT review letter
dated 10/27/2021 (E. Davis comment), to demonstrate a sustained hydrological connection.

Section 2.1 (bulleted changes below) –
• STA: 217+57 – STA: 217+92 – Alignment altered to save adjacent mature trees. Length of
alignment deviation is 33.36 linear feet (LF).
• STA: 308+60 – STA: 309+12 – Alignment adjusted to preserve existing trees. Length of alignment
deviation is 45.40 LF.
• STA: 310+48 – STA: 310+88 – Alignment altered to protect existing mature trees. Length of
alignment deviation is 37.05 LF.

These are the 3 segments where alignment changed; in addition to the lengths of ‘alignment deviations’,
please list the net change in lengths realized by these changes, for each segment.

Section 2.1.7 Fencing Plan – Since recent land use removing cattle from project pasture areas has
dictated changes in the fencing needs (i.e., removal) for the project, can Wildlands briefly discuss what
land use changes are expected in the near term (hay, agriculture, etc.) and how Wildlands plans to
adjust their monitoring approach to ensuring the integrity of the easement? Assuming these fields will
be mowed or maintained in some way, without fencing, there is a legitimate risk of scalloping. Does
Wildlands plan to add any signage or non-livestock boundary fencing in these areas? If mowing or other
encroachments occur, how does Wildlands plan to remedy this? Please discuss in this section and clarify.

Photo Points – Please make sure during the monitoring period that photos of the culverts from both
sides are shown (PP3, PP4, and PP13), to show potential perching (typically at the outlet) and/or debris
jamming (typically at the inlet).

Vegetation Plot Data Tables – Can a lighter shade of green perhaps be used; the dark green does not
allow very good visibility of the text (either hard copy or PDF).

Mitigation Plan Addendum
• It is not entirely clear where the additional credits (+44.390) are originating; Wildlands mentions
the three minor realignments, and resurveying channel center lines and tops of banks, but it is
not clear precisely where on the project the additional credits come from. Please provide more
details or clarification.
• Please note that despite the additional credits being sought, Wildlands is not pursuing a contract
amendment with DMS.
• Credit Table / Project Credit Adjustments – Total Adjusted SMUs should be 4,880.697, not
4,880.690.

MY0 Boundary Inspection
The MY0 DMS boundary inspection was conducted on March 14, 2023. The inspection was conducted in
accordance with the DMS Property Checklist which included an office review and a site visit to
document site conditions. The entire easement boundary was inspected during the site visit to validate
easement integrity and identify any potential issues on the site. The report letter is attached to this
email and summarizes those inspection results. Site photos and locations are shown on the attached
kmz map.
Please respond to me regarding the action items in the letter; if more time is needed to address
anything please indicate a plan and timeline for resolution.

Digital Support Files
• Please remove the parking access symbols, or rename to “temporary parking location”, or similar
as these are unplatted areas outside the conservation easement. Access or long term permission
should not be implied.
• Please verify that the construction of the As-built fence located within the utility ROW and fencing
located outside of easement has been approved by landowner.
• Please re-submit x-section features, each cross section must have a unique identifier There are
currently 3 x-section 1’s included in the submission.

• The project streams as submitted do not currently reflect the proposed assets; resubmit these
features to reflect the project segment and linear feet as characterized in the quantities and
credits table.

Please submit two final hard copies, in addition to a flash drive or CD with a PDF of the report and all
digital support files (addressing any comments) in the correct file structure. Please include a copy of your
response letter, inserted inside the front cover of each hard copy report (and included in the final PDF).

If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or email me at
[e-mail].

Sincerely,

Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services

1

March 21, 2023

Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
NCDEQ-DMS
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
Cell: [phone]

Subject: Conservation Easement Inspection Report – MY0 Site
Laurel Valley - Burke County
DMS ID No. 100140

Harry,

The MY0 DMS boundary inspection was conducted on March 14, 2023. The inspection was conducted in
accordance with the DMS Property Checklist which included an office review and a site visit to document site
conditions. The entire easement boundary was inspected during the site visit to validate easement integrity and
identify any potential issues on the site. This report summarizes those inspection results. Site photos and locations
are shown on the attached kmz map.

Office Review:
• An approved utility corridor (non credit generating) is located in the northwest corner of the site. The overhead
wires are shown outside CE on the plat and As-built.

Field Inspection:
• The rebar at corner #2 was topped with a plastic surveyor cap and missing the stamped aluminum monument
cap.
• Corners 3, 4 & 5 were missing marker posts.
• In-line marker spacing met specification, but the adjacent fields are in hay production and lack an established
mow line.
• A fallen tree has damaged the fence near corner #30.
• Adjacent ditch construction is in-progress upgradient of corner #32.
• No encroachments were observed.

Action Items
• Install aluminum monument cap at corner #2.
• Install corner marker posts at corners #3, 4 & 5.
• The mow line is not well established along the adjacent fields. Coordinate with landowner and install any
supplemental marking necessary to prevent scallop mowing.
• Repair fence damaged by the fallen tree near corner #30.
• Coordinate with the landowner to ensure no encroachment occurs due to the active ditch construction near corner
#32.

2

Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,
Kelly Phillips
Property Specialist
NCDEQ-DMS
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Cell: [phone]

cc: R:\EEP PROJECT LIBRARY FILES\PROJECT DELIVERABLES(REPORTS)\FD PROJECTS\Laurel Valley
7875-02 (#100140)\4_Task 2_ConsEasement\DMS Easement Inspections\MY0

June 2, 2023 

ATTN: Harry Tsomides  
Project Manager 
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services  
Asheville Regional Office 
2090 U.S. 70 Highway 
Swannanoa, NC 28778‐8211  

RE: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
Task 6 ‐ Draft Baseline (MY0) Report and As Built Drawings 
 Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101 
 DMS Project ID #100140 
USACE ACTION ID SAW‐2020‐00053 
DWR # 20200018 

Dear Mr. Harry Tsomides, 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed Division of Mitigation Services’ (DMS) 
comments from the Draft Monitoring Year 0 (MY0) Report for the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site. 
The report has been updated to reflect those comments. Wildlands’ responses to DMSs’ 
comments are noted below.  
DMS Comments, Harry Tsomides: 
Baseline Report and Drawings: 
1. Please include the Mitigation Plan Addendum request in the Mitigation Plan, either as an 
Appendix or before the main body of the report (up front). 
Wildlands Response: The Mitigation Plan Addendum is now included before the main 
body of the report.  
2. Table 1 (Project Quantities and Credits) – Add existing LF and Priority Levels columns; please 
omit any unneeded colors. It would be preferable if you could just use the MP addendum 
version of this table here; the additional buffer credits gain/ loss, and net result all need to 
be in this table as your MP addendum table shows. 
Wildlands Response: Table 1 has been updated to reflect the MP addendum version.  
3. Table 2 (Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements) – Please add re‐
verification of wetlands at MY7 per IRT review letter dated 10/27/2021 (K. Browning 
comment).  
Wildlands Response:  Wetland re‐verification in MY7 has been added to Table 2 of the 
report.  

4. Table 2 (Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements) and CCPV – Please add 
a gauge or trail camera in Mitigation Plan Wetland F (left bank UT1 around 218+00‐220+00) 
per IRT review letter dated 10/27/2021 (E. Davis comment), to demonstrate a sustained 
hydrological connection.  
Wildlands Response: Table 2 has been revised to include the installation of a trail 
camera in Wetland F, near photo point 10 (PP10), during MY1 to show a sustained 
hydrologic connection throughout the monitoring years.  The location of the camera will 
be recorded with GPS and added to the CCPV map in the MY1 report. 
5. Section 2.1 (bulleted changes below) –  
 STA: 217+57 – STA: 217+92 – Alignment altered to save adjacent mature trees. 
Length of alignment deviation is 33.36 linear feet (LF). 
 STA: 308+60 – STA: 309+12 – Alignment adjusted to preserve existing trees. Length 
of alignment deviation is 45.40 LF. 
 STA: 310+48 – STA: 310+88 – Alignment altered to protect existing mature trees. 
Length of alignment deviation is 37.05 LF. 
There are the 3 segments where alignment changed; in addition to the lengths of ‘alignment 
deviations’, please list the net change in lengths realized by these changes, for each segment. 
Wildlands Response:  The bulleted changes above in Section 2.1 were updated to 
include the loss of LF for each alignment deviation. However, it should be noted that 
lengths recorded for UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 in the Site’s original Mitigation Plan were 
recorded incorrectly.  The Mitigation Plan’s lengths were recorded as 14 LF shorter than 
they should have been for each reach. This is why the as‐built lengths are recorded as 
longer than the Mitigation Plan even though there were linear footage losses on the 
reaches due to alignment deviations. Text describing this inconsistency was included in 
Section 2 of the Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report (2023). 
6. Section 2.1.7 Fencing Plan – Since recent land use removing cattle from project pasture 
areas has dictated changes in the fencing needs (i.e., removal) for the project, can Wildlands 
briefly discuss what land use changes are expected in the near term (hay, agriculture, etc.) 
and how Wildlands plans to adjust their monitoring approach to ensuring the integrity of the 
easement? Assuming these fields will be mowed or maintained in some way, without 
fencing, there is a legitimate risk of scalloping. Does Wildlands plan to add any signage or 
non‐livestock boundary fencing in these areas? If mowing or other encroachments occur, 
how does Wildlands plan to remedy this? Please discuss in this section and clarify. 
Wildlands Response: Language was added to Section 2.1.7 to address the change in 
agricultural land use at the Site, potential encroachments, and potential remediation as 
necessary.  
7. Photo Points – Please make sure during the monitoring period that photos of the culverts 
from both sides are shown (PP3, PP4, and PP13), to show potential perching (typically at the 
outlet) and/or debris jamming (typically at the inlet). 
Wildlands Response: PP3 and PP4 are the inlet and outlet, respectively, of the same 
culvert. In MY1, a photo point will be added at the inlet of the culvert of PP13.  A 

representative photo will be taken at this new photo point in future monitoring reports 
MY1 – MY7.  
8. Vegetation Plot Data Tables – Can a lighter shade of green perhaps be used; the dark green 
does not allow very good visibility of the text (either hard copy or PDF). 
Wildlands Response: The colors on the Vegetation Plot Tables are consistent with the 
Shiny App output. In past monitoring reports, Wildlands has been advised to leave 
colors as is produced by the Shiny App.  
Mitigation Plan Addendum: 
1. It is not entirely clear where the additional credits (+44.390) are originating; Wildlands 
mentions the three minor realignments, and resurveying channel center lines and tops of 
banks, but it is not clear precisely where on the project the additional credits come from. 
Please provide more details or clarification. 
Wildlands Response: To simplify additional crediting, Wildlands defaulted baseline 
crediting to the approved mitigation plan values. The additional crediting proposed 
within the addendum (+27.890) is the result of reducing the areas under the minimum 
buffer during project development and construction which reduced the overall negative 
crediting calculated within the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator from 
USACE. Differences in proposed and as‐built bankfull locations are shown in the record 
drawings (Appendix E).   
2. Please note that despite the additional credits being sought, Wildlands is not pursuing a 
contract amendment with DMS. 
Wildlands Response: Wildlands is not pursuing a contract amendment with DMS.  
3. Credit Table / Project Credit Adjustments – Total Adjusted SMUs should be 4,880.697, not 
4,880.690. 
Wildlands Response: Table 1 was updated with revised crediting.  
MY0 Boundary Inspection: 
The MY0 DMS boundary inspection was conducted on March 14, 2023.  The inspection was 
conducted in accordance with the DMS Property Checklist which included an office review and a 
site visit to document site conditions. The entire easement boundary was inspected during the 
site visit to validate easement integrity and identify any potential issues on the site. The report 
letter is attached to this email and summarizes those inspection results.  Site photos and 
locations are shown on the attached kmz map. 
1. Please respond to me regarding the action items in the letter; if more time is needed to 
address anything please indicate a plan and timeline for resolution. 
Wildlands Response: Wildlands has included our responses to the action items in the 
boundary inspection report after our Digital Support File responses below.  

Digital Support Files: 
1. Please remove the parking access symbols, or rename to “temporary parking location”, or 
similar as these are unplatted areas outside the conservation easement. Access or long‐term 
permission should not be implied. 
Wildlands Response: The parking access symbols have been removed from CCPV maps.  
2. Please verify that the construction of the As‐built fence located within the utility ROW and 
fencing located outside of easement has been approved by landowner.  
Wildlands Response: As‐built fence located within the utility ROW and outside the 
conservation easement was approved by the landowner. When the property was sold, 
Wildlands met and negotiated new closed loop sections of fence based on the new 
property owner’s agricultural needs.  
3. Please re‐submit x‐section features, each cross section must have a unique identifier. There 
are currently 3 x‐section 1’s included in the submission.  
Wildlands Response: On Thursday May 25, 2023, Kristi Suggs (Wildlands) contacted 
Melonie Allen (DMS) to inquire about this comment.  It seems that somehow two of the 
cross‐sections in the digital file that DMS’ GIS program was reading were missing a 
second digit in the cross‐sections’ name.   The correct name for the cross‐sections were 
XS10 and XS11.  During this conversation, Ms. Allen was able to correct the cross‐section 
name in the file that DMS’ had; therefore, no additional rectification is needed.  
4. The project streams as submitted do not currently reflect the proposed assets; resubmit 
these features to reflect the project segment and linear feet as characterized in the 
quantities and credits table. 
Wildlands Response: The project’s stream features have been updated to reflect the 
project segment, asset type, and linear footage that are characterized in the quantities 
and credits table. 
DMS Comments, Kelly Phillips: 
Conservation Easement Inspection Report Action Items: 
1. Install aluminum monument cap at corner #2. 
Wildlands Response: Corner #2 is a common property corner with DB 740, Pg1512, BD 
1891, PG719 (Tract 1) and DB1509, PG133. This property corner was either missing or 
damaged during boundary survey. The surveyor reset the property corner with a rebar 
and cap as described in the legend on the recorded plat and Exhibit A of the 
Conservation Easement Area A.  This corner would not have an aluminum State of NC 
conservation easement cap as all existing property corners will not have conservation 
easement caps.  
2. Install corner marker posts at corners #3, 4 & 5. 
Wildlands Response: Marking post signage has been set at corners 3, 4, and 5. Photos of 
the marker signage are included below. 

 Boundary Marker #3 Boundary Marker #4 Boundary Marker #5    
3. The mow line is not well established along the adjacent fields. Coordinate with landowner 
and install any supplemental marking necessary to prevent scallop mowing.   
Wildlands Response: Wildlands will work with the landowner to establish a mowing line 
to prevent encroachment. If needed, Wildlands will install additional posts, tape, and/or 
signage to prevent scallop mowing.  
4. Repair fence damaged by the fallen tree near corner #30. 
Wildlands Response: The fallen tree has been cleared from the fence. See the photo 
below.  A fencing repair is scheduled to be completed by August 1. No livestock or 
animals are contained within the area where the fence is currently damaged. Wildlands 
will provide photos in the MY1 report of the completed fence repair. 

5. Coordinate with the landowner to ensure no encroachment occurs due to the active ditch 
construction near corner #32.      
Wildlands Response: Wildlands spoke with the landowner.  A French drain is being 
installed along the driveway and stops outside the conservation easement.   The small, 
excavated ditch will be filled and revegetated as part of the French drain installation. 
Wildlands will provide photos in the MY1 report of the completed French drain. 
As requested, Wildlands has included two (2) hard copies, a .pdf copy of the final report, and a 
full final electronic submittal of the support files. A copy of the MY0 DMS boundary inspection 

report, the DMS comment letter for the draft Baseline (MY0) Report and Record Drawings, and 
our response letter have been included inside the front cover of each report’s hard copy, as 
well. Please let me know if you have any questions.  
Sincerely,  

Kristi Suggs 
Senior Environmental Scientist 
[e-mail] 

PREPARED BY: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
167‐B Haywood Road 
Asheville, NC 28806 

Phone: [phone] 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL i 
LAUREL VALLEY MITIGATION SITE 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 1‐1 
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits ................................................................................................... 1‐1 
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐2 
1.3 Project Attributes ....................................................................................................................... 1‐5 
Section 2: As‐Built Condition (Baseline) ........................................................................................... 2‐6 
2.1 As‐Built/Record Drawings .......................................................................................................... 2‐7 
2.1.1 East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 ..................................................................................... 2‐7 
2.1.2 East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2 ..................................................................................... 2‐7 
2.1.3 UT1 Reach 1 ....................................................................................................................... 2‐7 
2.1.4 UT1 Reach 2 ....................................................................................................................... 2‐7 
2.1.5 UT2 ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐8 
2.1.6 Vegetation Planting List & Plan .......................................................................................... 2‐8 
2.1.7 Fencing Plan ....................................................................................................................... 2‐9 
2.1.8 Monitoring Components .................................................................................................... 2‐9 
Section 3: Monitoring Year 0 Data Assessment ................................................................................ 3‐9 
3.1 Vegetative Assessment .............................................................................................................. 3‐9 
3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ..................................................................................................... 3‐9 
3.3 Encroachment .......................................................................................................................... 3‐10 
3.4 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................. 3‐10 
3.5 Stream Areas of Concern ......................................................................................................... 3‐10 
3.6 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................................................................. 3‐10 
3.7 Adaptive Management Plan..................................................................................................... 3‐10 
3.8 Monitoring Year 0 Summary .................................................................................................... 3‐10 
Section 4: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 4‐1 
Section 5: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 5‐1 

TABLES 
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits ..................................................................................................... 1‐1 
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements ...................................................... 1‐2 
Table 3: Project Attributes ......................................................................................................................... 1‐5 

FIGURES 
Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View (Key) 
Figures 1a‐1b Current Condition Plan View 

APPENDICES 
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data 
Table 4a‐b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 
 Stream Photographs 
Vegetation Plot Photographs 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL ii 
Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data 
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Data 
Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table 

Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data 
 Cross‐Section Plots 
 Longitudinal Profile 
Table 8a‐b Baseline Stream Data Summary 
Table 9 Cross‐Section Morphology Monitoring Summary 

Appendix D Project Timeline and Contact Information 
Table 10 Project Activity and Reporting History 
Table 11 Project Contact Table  

Appendix E Record Drawings and Sealed As‐built Survey  

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐1 
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site (Site) is in Burke County, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of 
Morganton. The Site is within the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Hunting Creek targeted local 
watershed Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101060050 and the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) 
Subbasin 03‐08‐31. The Site will provide stream mitigation units (SMUs) in the Catawba River Basin HUC 
03050101 (Catawba 01). Table 3 presents information related to the project attributes. 
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits 
Mitigation work within the Site included the restoration and preservation of approximately 5,175 linear 
feet (LF) of perennial stream channel and enhanced and preserved up to an additional 120 LF of riparian 
buffer in areas across the Site.  As outlined in the Laurel Valley Mitigation Plan Addendum (Wildlands, 
2023), this will generate 4,864.197 SMUs for the Catawba 01. Table 1 below shows stream credits by 
reach and the total amount of stream credits expected at closeout. 
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits  
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES 
Project 
Component  
Existing 
Footage 
/Acreage 
Approved 
Mitigation 
Plan Footage 
/Acreage* 

As‐built 
Footage / 
Acreage* 
Mitigation 
Category 
Restoration 
Level 
Priority 
Level 
Mitigation 
Ratio (X:1) 
Approved 
Mitigation 
Plan 
Crediting 
Addendum / 
MY0 
Mitigation 
Plan Crediting 
Stream 
East Prong 
Hunting 
Creek R1 
416.000 498.000 498.000 Warm R P1, P2 1.0 498.000 498.000 
East Prong 
Hunting 
Creek R2 
912.000 686.000 686.000 Warm R P1, P2 1.0 686.000 686.000 
UT1 R1 457.000 457.000 457.000 Warm P N/A 15.0 30.467 30.467 
UT1 R2 1,633.000 1,975.000 1,987.360 Warm R P1, P2 1.0 1,975.000 1,975.000 
UT2 1,470.000 1,542.000 1,546.450 Warm R P1, P2 1.0 1,542.000 1,542.000 
Total 
Stream LF 4,888.000    5,158.000 5,174.810  
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits    
PROJECT CREDITS 
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Rip 
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non‐Riverine Wetland 
Restoration 4,701.000      
Re‐establishment       
Rehabilitation (1:1 & 1.5:1)       
Enhancement        

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐2 
*  Crossing lengths and utility easement have been removed from restoration and preservation footage.  
** Credit adjustment for Non‐standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator 
issued by the USACE in January 2018.      
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. Table 2 below describes expected 
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives.  
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements 
Goal Objective/ 
Treatment 
Likely Functional 
Uplift 
Performance 
Criteria Measurement 
Cumulative 
Monitoring 
Results 
Exclude 
livestock 
from stream 
channels. 
Install livestock 
fencing as needed 
to exclude livestock 
from stream 
channels, wetlands, 
and riparian areas, 
or remove livestock 
from adjacent fields. 
Reduce direct fecal 
coliform and nutrient 
inputs to the Site 
streams. Eliminate 
hoof shear on the 
stream bed and banks, 
which will reduce 
stream bank erosion 
and fine sediments in 
the stream channel.  
Eliminate cattle 
trampling of wetlands. 
Prevent 
easement 
encroachments. 
Semi‐annual visual 
inspections. 
No evidence of 
livestock with 
conservation 
easements. 
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits    
PROJECT CREDITS 
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Rip 
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non‐Riverine Wetland 
Enhancement I       
Enhancement II       
Creation        
Preservation 30.467      
Total 4,731.467      

Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits    
PROJECT CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS** 
Type SMUs 
Total Base SMU 4,731.467 
Credit Loss in Required Buffer ‐234.350 
Credit gain in Required Buffer 367.080 
Net Change in Credit Buffers 132.730 
Total Adjusted SMUs 4,864.197 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐3 
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements 
Goal Objective/ 
Treatment 
Likely Functional 
Uplift 
Performance 
Criteria Measurement 
Cumulative 
Monitoring 
Results 
Restore and 
enhance 
native 
floodplain 
vegetation. 
Convert active 
cattle pasture to 
forested riparian 
buffers along all Site 
streams, which will 
slow and treat 
sediment laden 
runoff from 
adjacent pastures 
before entering 
streams. Protect 
and enhance 
existing forested 
riparian buffers. 
Treat invasive 
species. 
Reduce sediment 
inputs from pasture 
runoff. Reduce 
floodplain velocities 
and increase retention 
of flood flows on the 
floodplain, decrease 
direct runoff, and 
increase storage and 
nutrient cycling. 
Increase shading of 
stream channels, 
which will increase 
dissolved oxygen. 
Provide a source of 
LWD and organic 
material to Site 
streams for continued 
habitat. Support all 
stream functions. 
320 stems per 
acre at MY3; 260 
planted stems 
per acre at MY5 
and a height of 7 
ft within riparian 
zones or 4 ft in 
wetland planting 
zones; 210 stems 
per acre at MY7 
with a height of 
10 ft in riparian 
zones or 7 ft in 
height in 
wetland planting 
zones.1,2 Woody 
shrub species 
are not subject 
to height 
requirements. 
Ten (10) 
permanent and 
two (2) mobile one 
hundred square 
meter vegetation 
plots are placed on 
2% of the planted 
area of the Site 
and monitored 
during MY1, MY2, 
MY3, MY5, and 
MY7. 
In MY0, all 
twelve (12) 
vegetation 
plots met 
interim MY3 
density 
requirements.  
No invasive 
species were 
observed 
within project 
area. 
Improve the 
stability of 
stream 
channels. 
Reconstruct stream 
channels slated for 
restoration with 
stable dimensions 
and appropriate 
depth relative to 
the existing 
floodplain and 
riparian wetland 
areas. Add bank 
revetments and 
instream structures 
to protect restored 
streams 
Reduce sediment 
inputs from bank 
erosion. Increase 
floodplain 
engagement, 
decreasing runoff and 
increasing infiltration. 
Decrease instream 
shear stresses. 
Diversify available 
habitats. 
ER over 1.4 for 
B‐type and 2.2 
for C‐type 
channels and 
BHR below 1.2 
with visual 
assessments 
showing 
progression 
towards 
stability.3 
Eleven (11) Cross‐
sections will be 
assessed during 
MY1, MY2, MY3, 
MY5, and MY7 and 
visual inspections 
will be assessed 
annually. 
All eleven (11) 
cross‐sections 
show streams 
are stable and 
functioning as 
designed. ERs 
are over 2.2 
and BHRs are 
below 1.2. 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐4 
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements 
Goal Objective/ 
Treatment 
Likely Functional 
Uplift 
Performance 
Criteria Measurement 
Cumulative 
Monitoring 
Results 
Improve 
instream 
habitat. 
Install habitat 
features such as 
constructed steps, 
cover logs, and 
brush toes on 
restored reaches. 
Added woody 
material/ LWD to 
channel beds. 
Construct pools of 
varying depth. 
Increase and diversify 
available habitats for 
macroinvertebrates, 
fish, and amphibians. 
Promote aquatic 
species migration and 
recolonization from 
refugia, leading to 
colonization and 
increase in 
biodiversity over time. 
Add complexity 
including LWD to the 
streams.3 
There is no 
required 
performance 
standard for this 
metric. 
Semi‐annual visual 
inspections. N/A 
Increase 
stream, 
floodplain, 
and riparian 
wetland 
hydrologic 
interaction. 
Reconstruct stream 
channels with 
designed bankfull 
dimensions and 
appropriate depth 
relative to the 
existing 
floodplain; thereby, 
restoring the 
hydrologic 
connectivity of the 
streams with the 
riparian floodplain 
and wetland areas. 
Reduce shear stress 
on channel; Hydrate 
adjacent wetland 
areas; Filter pollutants 
out of overbank flows. 
Four bankfull 
events in 
separate years 
within the 7‐year 
monitoring 
period for UT1, 
UT2, and East 
Prong Hunting 
Creek. There are 
no required 
performance 
criteria for the 
crest gage 
located 
downstream of 
the project Site’s 
boundary or for 
the trail camera 
that will be 
installed in 
Wetland F (in 
MY1). Wetlands 
will be re‐
verified at MY7. 
Four pressure 
transducers to 
record flow 
elevations and 
durations were 
installed. Only the 
three transducers 
located within the 
project Site are 
subject to 
performance 
criteria (CG1, CG2, 
CG3).  The 
measurement of 
CG4 is only to 
show that flow is 
continuing within 
the off‐site 
resource. A trail 
camera will also be 
installed within 
Wetland F to 
monitor wetland 
hydrologic 
connectivity. 
Reported in 
MY1 
Permanently 
protect the 
project Site 
from harmful 
uses. 
Establish a 
conservation 
easement on the 
Site. Exclude 
livestock from Site 
streams and remove 
pasture from the 
riparian buffer. 
Protect Site from 
encroachment on the 
riparian corridor and 
direct impact to 
streams and wetlands. 
Support all stream 
functions. 
Prevent 
easement 
encroachment. 
Visually inspect the 
perimeter of the 
Site to ensure no 
easement 
encroachment is 
occurring. 
No unapproved 
easement 
encroachments 
were observed. 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐5 
1 Increased inundaƟon will inhibit some woody species growth and some of these areas may have increased herbaceous and 
scrub/shrub vegetaƟon; therefore, a reduced vegetaƟon height performance standard has been applied. 
2 All volunteer stems and/or supplemental planƟngs must be present in the plot for 2 years before being counted towards 
vegetaƟon performance criteria.  
3 BHR = bank height ratio, ER = entrenchment ratio, and LWD = large woody debris 
1.3 Project Attributes 
The project Site is bordered by an active farm comprised of cattle pastures, barns, and a residence. 
Based on historic aerials from 1947 to 2016, East Prong Hunting Creek and UT2 have existed in their 
same approximate location and with the same pattern for over 72 years. Aerials show that UT1 
historically flowed into East Prong Hunting Creek within the project Site and was rerouted sometime 
between 1976 and 1984. Agricultural management of open pastures remained consistent between 1947 
and 2016, with a brief period between 1976 and 1984 when pastures were fallow. Table 3 below and 
Tables 8a – 8b in Appendix C present additional information on pre‐restoration conditions. 
Table 3: Project Attributes 
PROJECT INFORMATION 
Project Name Laurel Valley Mitigation 
Site  County Burke County 
Project Area (acres)  14 Project Coordinates  35.702772, ‐81.642614 
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION 
Physiographic Province Piedmont  River Basin                    Catawba River 
USGS HUC 8‐digit 03050101  USGS HUC 14‐digit 03050101060050 
DWR Sub‐basin 03‐08‐31  Land Use Classification Forested (62%), agriculture 
(17%), developed (16%) 
Project Drainage Area 
(acres) 1,274  Percentage of Impervious Area 2% 
RESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATION 
Parameters East Prong Hunting 
Creek UT1 UT2 
Pre‐project length (feet) 1,328 2,090 1,470 
Post‐project (feet) 1,184 2,444 1,546 
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately 
confined, unconfined) Unconfined Moderately confined Moderately confined 
Drainage area (acres) 1,274 136 155 
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial 
DWR Water Quality Classification WS‐IV WS‐IV WS‐IV 
Dominant Stream Classification (existing) C5, B5c B5c, G5c B4, B4c 
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) C4 C4 C4 
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable V. Aggradation and 
widening 
IV. Degradation and 
widening 
IV. Degradation and 
widening 
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting 
Documentation 
Water of the United States ‐ Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Action ID No. 
SAW‐2020‐00053 
Water of the United States ‐ Section 401 Yes Yes DWR # 2020‐0018 
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐6 
Table 3: Project Attributes 
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes 
Categorical Exclusion 
in Mitigation Plan 
(Wildlands, 2022) 
FEMA Floodplain Compliance  No N/A N/A 
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A 
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A 
Wetland Summary Information              
Parameters Wetland A Wetland B Wetland C Wetland D 
Pre‐project area 
(acres) 0.020 2.784 0.003 0.069 
Wetland Type  Riverine Riverine Riverine Riverine 
Mapped Soil Series Arkaqua Loam Arkaqua Loam Fairview Sandy Clam 
Loam Fairview Sandy Clay Loam 
Drainage Class Poorly drained Poorly drained Well drained Well drained 
Soil Hydric Status No No No No 
Source of 
Hydrology Groundwater/Overbank Groundwater/Overbank Groundwater Groundwater 
Restoration or 
enhancement 
method 
None None None None 
Parameters Wetland E Wetland F Wetland G  
Pre‐project area 
(acres) 0.948 0.701 0.095 
Wetland Type  Riverine Riverine Riverine  
Mapped Soil Series Arkaqua Loam, Fairview 
Sandy Clay Loam 
Colvard Sandy Loam, 
Fairview Sandy Clay 
Loam 
Colvard Sandy Loam 

Drainage Class Poorly drained, Well 
drained 
Well drained, Well 
drained Well drained 

Soil Hydric Status No No No  
Source of 
Hydrology Groundwater/Overbank Groundwater/Overbank Groundwater 

Restoration or 
enhancement 
method 
None None None 

Section 2: As‐Built Condition (Baseline) 
The Site construction was completed in October 2022, and as‐built surveys were completed in January 
2023. The survey included developing an as‐built topographic surface; as well as surveying the as‐built 
channel centerlines, top of banks, structures, and monitoring components. Monitoring device 
installation and vegetative data collection were completed in January 2023. However, the post‐
construction planting at the Site was completed in March 2023. 
Slight adjustments during the construction of UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 resulted in a loss of 1.640 LF and 
9.550 LF on the reaches, respectively.  However, the as‐built lengths for UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 are longer 
than the proposed lengths in the project’s original Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2022).  This is due to a 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐7 
discrepancy in the lengths recorded for UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 in the Project Asset Table (Table 21) in the 
Mitigation Plan (2022).  The lengths were recorded as follows: 
 UT1 Reach 2 was recorded as 1,975 LF, but it should have been 1,989 LF, which is a difference of 
14 LF.  
 UT2 was recorded as 1,542 LF, but it should have been 1,556 LF, which is also a difference of 14 
LF.  
Therefore, the total length that was recorded as part of the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2022) was 28 LF 
shorter than what was proposed in the design plans, so the loss of 11.190 LF from the alignment 
deviations still yields a net length of 16.810 LF at as‐built. 
2.1 As‐Built/Record Drawings 
A sealed half‐size set of the record drawing and as‐built survey are in Appendix E which includes the 
post‐construction survey, alignments, structures, and monitoring features. Field adjustments made 
during construction that differ from the design plans are shown as red lines on the record drawing. 
These adjustments were made during construction, where needed, based on field evaluations, and are 
listed below.  
2.1.1 East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 
 STA: 100+96 – STA: 101+02 – Boulder toe added for overland flow stabilization.  
 STA: 100+98 – STA: 102+22 – Plunge pool depth was not modified downstream of existing 
stream crossing. 
2.1.2 East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2 
 STA: 106+52 – STA: 106+73 – Cover log replaced brush toe for undercut bank, pool habitat.  
 STA: 109+50 – STA: 109+76 – Cover log replaced brush toe for undercut bank, pool habitat.  
 STA: 111+64 – As‐built outlet ditch stabilized with rock sill and rock outlet stabilization for 
additional grade control.  
2.1.3 UT1 Reach 1 
 54‐inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) inlet invert elevation of 1142.05 and an outlet invert 
elevation of 1141.93  
2.1.4 UT1 Reach 2 
 STA: 207+05 – STA: 206+59 – Brush toe added for stream bank stabilization at the existing 
culvert outlet.  
 STA: 206+96 – Rock sills added for additional stabilization.  
 STA: 207+02 – Boulder sill relocated to adjacent outlet to prevent overland flow erosion.  
 STA: 209+29 – Cover log replaced brush toe for undercut bank pool habitat.  
 STA: 209+69 – Two rock sills added to capture floodplain runoff.  
 STA: 209+90 – Cover log replaced brush toe for undercut bank pool habitat.  
 STA: 214+34 – STA: 214+54 – Boulder toe added for stream bank reinforcement.  
 STA: 216+47 – Cover log replaced brush toe for undercut bank pool habitat.  
 STA: 217+57 – STA: 217+92 – Alignment altered to save adjacent mature trees. Length of 
alignment deviation is 33.36 linear feet (LF); a loss of 1.64 LF.  
 STA: 218+94 and STA: 220+17 – Log sill added for bed stability.  
 STA: 224+05 – Stabilization added at existing wetland outlet.  

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐8 
2.1.5 UT2 
 STA: 300+00 – Log j‐hook added to protect left bank above culvert crossing.  
 STA: 300+58 – STA: 300+71 – Brush toe added to stabilize stream bank.  
 STA: 304+72 – Rock sill removed due to installation of angled log riffle with adequate grade 
control.  
 STA: 304+83 and STA: 307+45 – Cover log replaced brush toe for undercut bank pool habitat.  
 STA: 308+38 – Rock outlet stabilization added to capture floodplain runoff and rock sills added 
for additional stabilization.  
 STA: 308+60 – Log sill added to stabilize stream bed.  
 STA: 308+60 – STA: 309+12 – Alignment adjusted to preserve existing trees. Length of alignment 
deviation is 45.40 LF; a loss of 6.6 LF.  
 STA: 309+03 – Log sill relocated upstream to STA 308+60 based on field conditions.  
 STA: 310+48 – STA: 310+88 – Alignment altered to protect existing mature trees. Length of 
alignment deviation is 37.05 LF; a loss of 2.95 LF.  
 STA: 311+84 – J‐hook replaced by rock sill to allow for cover log installation.  
 STA: 312+07 – Cover log replaced brush toe for undercut bank pool habitat.  
2.1.6 Vegetation Planting List & Plan 
As‐built changes in species planted and densities were minimal when compared to design. Species 
replacements and planting density adjustments were made due to availability of the species at the time 
of planting. All species replacements were approved species or alternate species within the Final 
Mitigation Plan’s planting list (Wildlands, 2022), so no approval for the inclusion of the species is 
needed.   
Open Buffer Planting Zone 
Trees 
 Boxelder (Acer negundo) and cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata) were not planted. 
 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) density increased from 15% to 16%. 
 River birch (Betula nigra), red mulberry (Morus rubra), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) 
density increased from 5% to 6%. 
 American beech (Fagus grandifolia), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), white oak (Quercus 
alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) density increased from 
10% to 11%.  
Small Trees / Shrubs 
 Sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus) was added at a density of 1%.  
Wetland Planting Zone 
Trees 
 Boxelder was not planted.  
Small Trees/Shrubs 
 Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) was added at a density of 5%.   
Riparian Corridor Planting Zone 
 No deviations from design. 
Partially Vegetated Buffer Zone  
 No deviations from design. 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 3‐9 
Planting Plan 
 No deviations from design. 
2.1.7 Fencing Plan 
As‐built changes to the proposed fencing plan that was provided in the Site’s Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 
2022) were redesigned during construction based on a change in land use specifications from the new 
landowner when the property was sold. Cattle are no longer on‐site, and the new landowner’s horses 
are restricted from accessing the conservation easement by fencing installed during construction and 
existing fencing. In the locations where cattle were removed, fields will be used for hay. A mow line will 
be established with the property owner to prevent encroachment. Additional marking or non‐livestock 
fence will be considered if there is repeated encroachment. See Sheet 3.0 in the record drawings for the 
fence location.  
2.1.8 Monitoring Components 
Installed monitoring devices and plot locations closely mimic the locations of those proposed in the 
Site’s Mitigation Plan. Minor deviations from these locations were made when professional judgement 
deemed them necessary to better represent as‐built field conditions or when installation of the device in 
the proposed location was not physically feasible.   
Section 3: Monitoring Year 0 Data Assessment 
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY0 to assess the condition of the project. The 
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the 
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2022). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic 
assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional 
Improvements.  The first annual monitoring assessment (MY1) will be completed in the fall/winter of 
2023, at least 6 months after the MY0 assessment. The Site will be monitored for a total of seven years, 
with the final monitoring activities scheduled for 2029. 
3.1 Vegetative Assessment 
The MY0 vegetative survey was completed in January 2023. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem 
density range from 526 to 729 planted stems per acre which is well above the interim requirement of 
320 stems per acre required at MY3. Average stem density was 644 planted stems per acre. All 10 
permanent and 2 mobile vegetation plots met the MY3 interim success criteria and are on track to meet 
MY7 success criteria of 210 stems per acre. Herbaceous vegetation is establishing itself across the site. 
Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 
and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data.  
3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 
Vegetation management including herbicide applications were implemented prior and during 
construction to prevent the spread of invasive species that could compete with planted native species. 
In August 2022, approximately 50 linear feet of UT2 was chemically treated in‐stream for a small 
population of marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak), and fescue (Festuca sp.) was chemically treated 
during construction in areas outside the limits of disturbance.  
Preservation areas along UT1 Reach 1 were assessed for invasive species populations prior to 
construction and at baseline conditions. No substantial populations, mature species, or seed sources 
were observed; therefore, no treatment was conducted. Throughout the seven‐year monitoring period, 
Wildlands will continue to monitor for the presence of invasive species populations within the 

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 3‐10 
preservation area of UT1 Reach 1 and treat as needed. Invasive species will continue to be monitored, 
mapped, and controlled across the Site as necessary throughout the monitoring period.  
3.3 Encroachment 
As discussed, and approved in the Site’s Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2022), a utility easement, along the 
northwest side of the property, lies within the conservation easement.  No stream nor buffer credit is 
being sought for any part of the project that lies within the utility easement.  The utility easement 
supersedes the conservation easement and allows for utility and vegetation maintenance.  Since this 
easement overlap was approved, moving forward it will not be considered as an easement 
encroachment violation; therefore, no easement violations were noted during the as‐built review of the 
Site. 
3.4 Stream Assessment 
Morphological surveys for MY0 were conducted in November 2022. All streams within the Site are 
stable and functioning as designed. All 11 cross‐sections at the Site show little to no change from design 
in the bankfull area and width‐to‐depth ratio, and bank height ratios are less than 1.2. Refer to Appendix 
A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and Stream Photographs. Refer to 
Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data.  
3.5  Stream Areas of Concern 
Inspection of stream structures and banks did not identify any stream areas of concern, indicating that 
the stream is performing as designed. The Site will continue to be monitored and any issues will be 
mapped and reported throughout the monitoring period.   
3.6 Hydrology Assessment 
Crest gages (CG) were installed on East Prong Hunting Creek, UT1, and UT2 to monitor bankfull events. 
An off‐site automated transducer (CG4) was also installed on an adjacent parcel to monitor baseflow 
hydrology and large flow events of an off‐site hydrologic resource. No performance criteria are 
associated with CG4; however, the on‐site gages (CG1 – CG3) are required to meet the performance 
standards outlined in Table 2. Hydrologic data will be collected and reported during MY1.  
3.7 Adaptive Management Plan 
Site maintenance and adaptive measurement implementation will follow those outlined in the project’s 
Final Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2022). No adaptive management implementation is needed at this 
time.  
3.8 Monitoring Year 0 Summary 
Overall, the Site is performing as intended and is on track to meet success criteria. All vegetation plots 
are exceeding the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, and all streams within the 
Site are stable and meeting project goals. Herbaceous vegetation is establishing itself across the site. In‐
stream vegetation and fescue were treated prior to and during construction and the presence of 
invasive species is minimal. All vegetative species of concern will continue to be assessed and treated, as 
needed, throughout the seven‐year post‐construction monitoring period.  
Summary information and data related to the performance of various projects and monitoring elements 
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and 
figures are included in the digital submittal.

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 4‐1 
Section 4: METHODOLOGY 
Annual monitoring will consist of collecting morphologic, vegetative, and hydrologic data to assess 
project success based on the goals outlined in the Site’s Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2022). Monitoring 
requirements will follow guidelines outlined in the NC IRT Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance 
Update (2016). Installed monitoring devices and plot locations closely mimic the locations of those 
proposed in the Site’s Mitigation Plan. Deviations from these locations were made when professional 
judgement deemed them necessary to better represent as‐built field conditions or when installation of 
the device in the proposed location was not physically feasible.  
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:  
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration: A Natural 
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was collected by 
either a professional licensed surveyor or an Arrow 100® Submeter GNSS Receiver and processed using 
ArcPro. Crest gages, using automated pressure transducers, were installed in riffle cross‐sections to 
monitor stream hydrology throughout the year. Stream hydrology and vegetation monitoring protocols 
followed the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT, 2016). 
Vegetation installation data collection follow the Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et 
al., 2008); however, vegetation data processing follows the NC DMS Vegetation Data Entry Tool and 
Vegetation Plot Data Table (NCDMS, 2020).

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site 
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 5‐1 
Section 5:  REFERENCES 
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream 
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook. 
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording 
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐ 
5.pdf.   
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2020. Vegetation Data Entry Tool and 
Vegetation Plot Data Table. Raleigh, NC. https://ncdms.shinyapps.io/Veg_Table_Tool/ 
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities 
(RBRP). Raleigh, NC. 
NC DMS and Interagency Review Team (IRT) Technical Workgroup. 2018. Standard Measurement of the 
BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC. 
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications. 
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water‐resources/planning/classification‐standards/classifications  
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 2017. NCGS Publications. 
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy‐mineral‐land‐resources/north‐carolina‐geological‐
survey/interactive‐geologic‐maps  
North Carolina Geologic Survey (NCGS). 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina 
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale 
1:500,00, in color. 
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland 
Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw‐
reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington‐District‐Mitigation‐Update.pdf 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Burke County. 
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm  
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books  
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169‐199. 
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. 
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and 
Landforms 14(1):11‐26. 
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2018. Wilmington District Buffer Credit Calculator (Updated 
1/19/2018).  
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). 2023. Laurel Valley Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan 
Addendum. DMS, Raleigh, NC. 
Wildlands. 2022. Laurel Valley Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC. 

Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
2018 Aerial Photography
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Burke County, NC
¹0 110 220 Feet
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
!P
!P
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
Figure 1a Figure 1b
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
UT
1
UT
2
E
a
s
t

P
r
o
n
g
H
u
n
t
i
n
g

C
r
e
e
k
Conservation Easement
Sheet Boundary
Project Parcel
Structures
External
Internal
Existing Wetlands
Utility Easement
Existing Utility Line
No Credit
Preservation
Restoration
Deviation
Non-Project Streams
TOB
[Fence
Gate
!5 Existing Utility Poles
!P Reach Break
Monitoring Components
Criteria Met (Permanent Vegetation Plot)
Criteria Met (Mobile Vegetation Plot)
Cross-sections
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
2014 Aerial Photography
Figure 1a Current Condition Plan View
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Burke County, NC
¹
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[
[
[
!P
!5
!5
!5
!5
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
CG1
CG4
223+00
222+00
221+00
220+00
219+00
218+00
217+00
216+00
215+00
214+00
213+00
212+00
211+00
210+00
209+00
208+00
207+00
206+00
VP
1
VP2
VP3
MP1
PP2
PP3
PP4
PP9
PP1
PP7
PP5
PP6
PP8
PP11
PP10
X
S
2
X
S
3
XS
4
XS
1
Reach 1
Reach 2
UT
1
NCCGIA, NC911 Board
2014 Aerial Photography
0 60 120 Feet
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
Structures
External
Internal
Existing Wetlands
Utility Easement
Existing Utility Line
No Credit
Preservation
Restoration
Deviation
Non-Project Streams
TOB
[Fence
Gate
!5 Existing Utility Poles
!P Reach Break
Monitoring Components
Criteria Met (Permanent Vegetation Plot)
Criteria Met (Mobile Vegetation Plot)
Cross-sections
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
Figure 1b Current Condition Plan View
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 - 2023
Burke County, NC
¹
[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!P
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
!A
CG2
CG3
Barotroll
226+27
226+00
225+00
224+00
223+00
316+10
316+00
315+00
314+00
313+00
312+00
311+00
310+00
309+00
308+00
307+00
306+00
305+00
304+00
303+00
302+00
301+00
300+00
113+40
113+00
112+00
111+00
110+00
109+00
108+00
107+00
106+00
105+00
104+00
103+00
102+00
101+00 100+00
VP
4
VP5
VP6
VP7VP8
VP9
VP10
MP2
PP13
PP14
PP15
PP12
PP16
PP18
PP19
PP20
PP21
PP22
PP23
PP24
PP17
XS10
XS
5
X
S
6
XS7
XS8
XS
9
XS11
Reach 2
Reach 1
UT
2
NCCGIA, NC911 Board
2014 Aerial Photography
0 60 120 Feet
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
Structures
Internal
Existing Wetlands
Utility Easement
Existing Utility Line
No Credit
Restoration
Deviation
Non-Project Streams
TOB
[Fence
Gate
!5 Existing Utility Poles
!P Reach Break
Monitoring Components
Criteria Met (Permanent Vegetation Plot)
Criteria Met (Mobile Vegetation Plot)
Cross-sections
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points

Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Table 4a.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 Date Last Assessed: 2/20/2023
498
996
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure 
appears likely.  Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are providing 
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, 
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 
grade across the sill. 00 NA
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 
influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100%
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2 Date Last Assessed: 2/20/2023
686
1,372
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure 
appears likely.  Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are providing 
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, 
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 
grade across the sill. 4 4 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 
influence does not exceed 15%. 5 5 100%
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing 
as Intended
Total 
Number in 
As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank 
Totals:
Structure
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing 
as Intended
Total 
Number in 
As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank 
Totals:
Table 4b.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
UT1 Reach 2 Date Last Assessed: 2/20/2023
1,975
3,950
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure 
appears likely.  Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are providing 
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, 
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 
grade across the sill. 21 21 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 
influence does not exceed 15%. 13 13 100%
UT2 Date Last Assessed: 2/20/2023
1,542
3,084
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure 
appears likely.  Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are providing 
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, 
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 
grade across the sill. 21 21 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 
influence does not exceed 15%. 13 13 100%
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank 
Totals:
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing 
as Intended
Total 
Number in 
As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank 
Totals:
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing 
as Intended
Total 
Number in 
As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Planted Acreage 13.09
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold 
(ac)
Combined 
Acreage
% of Planted 
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0%
Low Stem Density 
Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count 
criteria.0.10 0 0%
00%
Areas of Poor Growth 
Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 0 0%
0.0 0%
Easement Acreage 14.16
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold 
(ac)
Combined 
Acreage
% of 
Easement 
Acreage
Invasive Areas of 
Concern
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will 
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the 
potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short‐term or 
community structure for existing communities.  Invasive species included in summation 
above should be identified in report summary.  
0.10 0 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
Visual assessment was completed February 20 , 2023. 
Table 5.  Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Total
Cumulative Total
0 Encroachments Noted
 / 0 ac
Visual assessment was completed February 20 , 2023. 

Stream Photographs 
Monitoring Year 0

PP1 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 1 (2/20/2023) PP1 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 1 (2/20/2023) 

PP2 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 1 (2/20/2023) PP2 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 1 (2/20/2023) 

PP3 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 1 (2/20/2023) PP3 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 1 (2/20/2023) 

PP4 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP4 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP5 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP5 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP6 – view North—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP6 – view South—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP6 – view East—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP6 – view West—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP7 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP7 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023)

PP8 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP8 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP9 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP9 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP10 – view North—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP10 – view South—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP10 – view East—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP10 – view West—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP11 – view upstream—Downstream of project (2/20/2023) PP11 – view downstream—Downstream of project (2/20/2023) 

PP12 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) PP12 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (2/20/2023) 

PP13 – view upstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) PP13 – view downstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP14 – view upstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) PP14 – view downstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP15 – view upstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) PP15 – view downstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP16 – view upstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) PP16 – view upstream of wetland—UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP16 – view downstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP17 – view North—UT2 (2/20/2023) PP17 – view South— UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP17 – view East—UT2 (2/20/2023) PP17 – view West— UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP18 – view upstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) PP18 – view downstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP19 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (2/20/2023) PP19 – view downstream— E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (2/20/2023) 

PP20 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (2/20/2023) PP20 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (2/20/2023) 

PP21 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (2/20/2023) PP21 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (2/20/2023) 

PP21 – view upstream—UT2 (2/20/2023) 

PP22 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (2/20/2023) PP22 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (2/20/2023) 

PP23 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (2/20/2023) PP23 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (2/20/2023) 

PP24 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (2/20/2023) PP24 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (2/20/2023) 

                                          Vegetation Plot Photographs 
                                                               Monitoring Year 0 

Permanent Vegetation Plot 1 (1/19/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 2 (1/19/2023) 

Permanent Vegetation Plot 3 (1/19/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 4 (1/19/2023) 

Permanent Vegetation Plot 5 (1/19/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 6 (1/19/2023) 

Permanent Vegetation Plot 7 (1/19/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 8 (1/19/2023) 

Permanent Vegetation Plot 9 (1/19/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 10 (1/19/2023) 

Mobile Vegetation Plot 1 (1/19/2023) Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 (1/19/2023) 

Appendix B
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6.  Vegetation Plot Data
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
13
2023‐01‐10
NA 
NA 
2023‐01‐19
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL 1 1 1 1
Amelanchier canadensis Canadian serviceberry Tree FAC 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 22221111 11
Calycanthus floridus eastern sweetshrub Shrub FACU 1 1 1 1
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 2222
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 3322 11
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1 1
Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Euonymus americanus bursting‐heart Shrub FAC 1 1 11
Fagus grandifolia American beech Tree FACU 1 1 1122
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC 11111111
Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1122
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub UPL 2 2 2 2
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 333311333333
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 1 1122
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 2 2 1111
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 3322 33
Salix sericea silky willow Shrub OBL 1111 11
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree 1111 11
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 2244 33
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC 1 1 2222
Sum Performance Standard 18 18 17 17 15 15 18 18 16 16 15 15
18 17 15 18 16 15
729 688 607 729 648 607
13 9 10 13 9 9
17 18 27 17 19 20
111111
000000
18 17 15 18 16 15
729 688 607 729 648 607
13 9 10 13 9 9
17 18 27 17 19 20
111111
000000
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Indicator 
Status
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
% Invasives
Species 
Included in 
Approved 
Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Post Mitigation 
Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
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.
4). Species listed as a "shrub" are not subject to height requirements.
Table 6.  Vegetation Plot Data
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
13
2023‐01‐10
NA 
NA 
2023‐01‐19
0.0247
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL
Amelanchier canadensis Canadian serviceberry Tree FAC
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW
Calycanthus floridus eastern sweetshrub Shrub FACU
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW
Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree FACU
Euonymus americanus bursting‐heart Shrub FAC
Fagus grandifolia American beech Tree FACU
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC
Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub UPL
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL
Salix sericea silky willow Shrub OBL
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum Performance Standard
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Indicator 
Status
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
% Invasives
Species 
Included in 
Approved 
Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Post Mitigation 
Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total
1111 1
2211
4
22223333
111111111
22111122
1
1
11 2
1144333344
2
33333333
11 1
11 2
1144444441
16 16 17 17 15 15 16 16 13 15
16 17 15 16 13 15
648 688 607 648 526 607
11 8 6 667
19 24 27 25 31 27
111110
000000
16 17 15 16 13 15
648 688 607 648 526 607
11 8 6 667
19 24 27 25 31 27
111110
000000
Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FVeg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 10 F
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.
4). Species listed as a "shrub" are not subject to height requirements.
Table 7.  Vegetation Plot Data
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
729 1 13 0 688 1 9 0 607 1 10 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
729 1 13 0 648 1 9 0 607 1 9 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
648 1 11 0 688 1 8 0 607 1 6 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
648 1 6 0 526 1 6 0 607 0 7 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F. 
Veg Plot Group 2 R
Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot Group 1 R
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1

Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Bankfull Dimensions
19.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.5 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
17.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 1‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
1125
1127
1129
1131
1133
1135
0 10203040
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
209+26 Pool
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
12.6 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
12.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
23.6 width‐depth ratio
57.6 W flood prone area (ft)
4.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 2‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
1127
1129
1131
1133
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
209+53 Riffle
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
12.1 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.3 max depth (ft)
12.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
17.8 width‐depth ratio
56.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 3‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
1117
1119
1121
1123
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
216+15 Riffle
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
19.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.1 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
3.1 max depth (ft)
17.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.8 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 4‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
1115
1117
1119
1121
1123
1125
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
216+47 Pool
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
8.9 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft) 
9.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5 width‐depth ratio
56.5 W flood prone area (ft)
6.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 5‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1106
1108
1110
1112
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
225+24 Riffle
MY0 (11/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
9.0 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
9.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
20.3 width‐depth ratio
43.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 6‐UT2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1132
1134
1136
1138
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
305+66 Riffle
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
18.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.2 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
16.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.4 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 7‐UT2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1128
1130
1132
1134
1136
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
306+99 Pool
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
12.4 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft) 
12.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
22.8 width‐depth ratio
50.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 8‐UT2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1128
1130
1132
1134
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
307+23 Riffle
MY0 (11/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
25.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
22.7 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
23.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
20.4 width‐depth ratio
79.2 W flood prone area (ft)
3.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 9‐East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1112
1114
1116
1118
1120
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
103+39 Riffle
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
67.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
27.2 width (ft)
2.5 mean depth (ft)
4.9 max depth (ft)
30.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.0 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 10‐East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
1108
1110
1112
1114
1116
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
106+94 Pool
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
29.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
23.6 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
24.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.7 width‐depth ratio
66.9 W flood prone area (ft)
2.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 11/2022
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 11‐East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site  
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
1110
1112
1114
1116
1118
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
107+32 Riffle
MY0 (12/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
UT1 Reach 2 (STA 206+38 to 226+27)
XS
 1
St
a
r
t
 ‐
Re
a
c
h
 2
XS
 2
1,124
1,126
1,128
1,130
1,132
1,134
1,136
1,138
20630 20680 20730 20780 20830 20880 20930 20980 21030 21080 21130
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
XS
 3
1,116
1,118
1,120
1,122
1,124
1,126
1,128
1,130
21130 21180 21230 21280 21330 21380 21430 21480 21530 21580 21630
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
UT1 Reach 2 (STA 206+38 to 226+27)
1,110
1,112
1,114
1,116
1,118
1,120
1,122
1,124
21630 21680 21730 21780 21830 21880 21930 21980 22030 22080 22130
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
En
d
 ‐
Re
a
c
h
 2
1,104
1,106
1,108
1,110
1,112
1,114
1,116
1,118
22130 22180 22230 22280 22330 22380 22430 22480 22530 22580 22630
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
XS
 4
XS
 5
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
UT2 (STA 300+54 to 316+10)
St
a
r
t
 ‐
UT
2
1,132
1,134
1,136
1,138
1,140
1,142
1,144
1,146
30050 30100 30150 30200 30250 30300 30350 30400 30450
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
XS
 6
XS
 7
XS
 8
1,124
1,126
1,128
1,130
1,132
1,134
1,136
1,138
30450 30500 30550 30600 30650 30700 30750 30800 30850
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
UT2 (STA 300+54 to 316+10)
1,116
1,118
1,120
1,122
1,124
1,126
1,128
1,130
30850 30900 30950 31000 31050 31100 31150 31200 31250
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
En
d
 ‐
UT
2
1,110
1,112
1,114
1,116
1,118
1,120
1,122
1,124
31250 31300 31350 31400 31450 31500 31550 31600 31650
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
East Prong Hunting Creek (STA 101+04 to 112+88)
XS
 9
St
a
r
t
 ‐
Re
a
c
h
 1
1,110
1,112
1,114
1,116
1,118
1,120
1,122
1,124
10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
XS
 10
St
a
r
t
 ‐
Re
a
c
h
 2
1,106
1,108
1,110
1,112
1,114
1,116
1,118
1,120
10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
East Prong Hunting Creek (STA 101+04 to 112+88)
Survey Date 11/2022
Survey Date 11/2022
XS
 11
1,104
1,106
1,108
1,110
1,112
1,114
1,116
1,118
10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950 11000
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
En
d
 ‐
Re
a
c
h
 2
1,102
1,104
1,106
1,108
1,110
1,112
1,114
1,116
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Thalweg
Water Surface
LTOB/LBKF
RTOB/RBKF
Structure
Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 54.0 123.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.6 2.0 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)1
Width/Depth Ratio 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 54.0 123.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.6 2.0 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)1
Width/Depth Ratio 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Other
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided, N/A:  Not Applicable
‐‐ ‐‐
116.0
‐‐
Note: Entrenchment Ratio for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming 
the width across the floodplain.
0.0074
2.0
33.0
66.9
1.3
C
‐‐
1.2
0.0060
24.5
1.2
23.6
‐‐
0.0058
1.2 1.2
0.0096
1.2
29.7
129.0 108.2
18.0
116‐129
1.0 ‐ 1.1
C4
0.95
‐‐
2.1
18.7
2.8
1.0
> 2.0
C5/B5c
24.5
33.0
18.0
1.3
1.2
0.0090
116‐129
1.0 ‐ 1.1
0.0074
13.8 ‐ 18.0
‐‐> 2.00.95
PRE‐EXISTING 
CONDITIONS
C5/B5c C4
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1
DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE 
(MY0)
C
3.5
1.0
22.7
79.2
1.1
1.9
25.2
20.4
2.0
1.3 ‐ 1.5
20.1 ‐ 23.5
225.0
1.3 ‐ 1.5
2.3
29.1 ‐ 30.8
13.8 ‐ 18.0
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
71.4
‐‐
1.6 ‐ 2.0
2.0 ‐ 4.1
1.6 ‐ 2.0
20.1 ‐ 23.5
46.0
2.0 ‐ 4.1
29.1 ‐ 30.8
Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.3 11.4 8.9 12.6 3
Floodprone Width (ft) 8.0 22.0 24.0 55.0 56.4 57.6 3
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.7 3
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.3 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.4 8.8 5.4 8.2
3
Width/Depth Ratio 6.7 14.3 14.5 23.6 3
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 2.0 2.2 5.0 4.6 6.4 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 1.9 3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.6 14.5 9.0 12.4 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 24.0 55.0 43.4 50.4 2
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.5 2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.3 1.6 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.9 8.4 3.9 6.8 2
Width/Depth Ratio 8.4 18.7 20.3 22.8 2
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 5.0 4.1 4.8 2
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 1.6 2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Other
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided, N/A:  Not Applicable
‐‐
C
‐‐
11.0
0.0088 0.0130
‐‐ ‐‐
1.0 ‐ 1.1
0.0140
1.2
C
‐‐
1.2 1.2 1.2
Note: Entrenchment Ratio for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming 
the width across the floodplain.
0.0180 0.0185 0.0193
‐‐ ‐‐
20.5‐35.2
15.0
3.80 > 2.0
1.3 ‐ 3.1
 B4c
1.0 ‐ 1.1
C4
1.0
> 2.0
B5c/ G5c
29.0
C4
28.3‐29.9 33.0
23.5
1.0
8.0
UT2
22.9‐34.9
0.77
1.2
8.0
‐‐
15.0
1.0
1.2
22.0‐25.4
PRE‐EXISTING 
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE 
(MY0)
UT1 Reach 2
11.0
0.7
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2023
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 1130.5 1130.2 1120.3 1119.7
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 ‐‐‐
Thalweg Elevation 1127.8 1129.1 1119.1 1116.6
LTOB2 Elevation 1130.5 1130.2 1120.3 1119.7
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.7 1.1 1.3 3.1
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)19.2 6.7 8.2 19.4
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 1109.7 1134.3 1131.7 1131.4
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.0 1.0 ‐‐‐1.0
Thalweg Elevation 1108.7 1133.4 1129.5 1130.4
LTOB2 Elevation 1109.7 1134.3 1131.7 1131.4
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.0 0.9 2.1 1.1
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.4 3.9 18.6 6.8
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 1116.8 1114.8 1114.4
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.0 ‐‐‐1.0
Thalweg Elevation 1114.8 1109.9 1112.3
LTOB2 Elevation 1116.8 1114.8 1114.4
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.9 4.9 2.1
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)25.2 67.3 29.7
1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As‐built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.  
Table 9.  Cross‐Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Cross‐Section 1 (Pool) Cross‐Section 2 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross‐Section 5 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 6 (Riffle)
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 2 
Cross‐Section 4 (Pool)
2LTOB Area and Max depth ‐ These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).  Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above.  The difference between the LTOB 
elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth. 
Cross‐Section 9 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 10 (Pool) Cross‐Section 11 (Riffle)
UT2
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
Cross‐Section 7 (Pool) Cross‐Section 8 (Riffle)

Appendix D 
Project Timeline and Contact Information 
Table 10.  Project Activity and Reporting History
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2022
Data Collection Complete Task Completion or 
Deliverable Submission
NA November 2019
NA March 2022
NA October 2022
NA March 2023
October 2022 January 2023
Stream Survey November 2022
Vegetation Survey January 2023
Stream Survey 2023
Vegetation Survey 2023
Stream Survey 2024
Vegetation Survey 2024
Stream Survey 2025
Vegetation Survey 2025
Stream Survey 2027
Vegetation Survey 2027
Stream Survey 2029
Vegetation Survey 2029
Table 11.  Project Contact Table
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 0 ‐ 2022
Designer
Eric Neuhaus, PE
Construction Contractor 
Planting Contractor
Monitoring Performers
Monitoring, POC
As‐Built Survey Completed
Planting Completed
Construction (Grading) Completed
Mitigation Plan Approved
Activity or Deliverable
Project Instituted
Year 2 Monitoring December 2024
Year 1 Monitoring December 2023
Baseline Monitoring 
Document (Year 0)May 2023
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Wildlands Construction, Inc.
828.774.5547
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
December 2025
Asheville, NC 28806
167‐B Haywood Rd
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Year 7 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
December 2029
December 2027
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Kristi Suggs
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Fremont, NC 27830
PO Box 1197

Appendix E 
Record Drawings and Sealed As‐Built Survey 
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Record Drawing
Record Drawing
Burke County, North Carolina
Catawba River Basin 03050101
for
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
Title Sheet 0.1
Project Overview 0.2
General Notes and Symbols 0.3
Stream Plan and Profile
East Prong Hunting Creek 1.1.1 - 1.1.3
UT1 1.2.1 - 1.2.6
UT2 1.3.1 - 1.3.4
Planting Plan
Planting Tables 2.1
Planting Plan 2.2 - 2.5
Fencing Plan 3.0
Owner:
NCDEQ
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Harry Tsomides
[phone]
DMS Project No. 100140
NCDEQ Contract No. 7575-02
USACE Action ID
No. SAW-2020-00053
NC DWR No. 20200018
RECORD DRAWINGS
ISSUED: APRIL 4, 2023
N
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

C
o
v
e
r
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
0.
1
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ti
t
l
e

S
h
e
e
t
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Eric Neuhaus, Project Engineer
Surveying:
Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA
P.O. Box 2566
Asheville, NC 28802
Phillip B. Kee, PLS
828-575-9021
SITE
Sheet Index
Project Directory
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
DU
C
K
W
O
R
T
H

A
V
E
OLD COLONY RD
EN
O
L
A

R
D
SA
W

M
I
L
L

R
D
HA
W
K
I
N
S

D
R
OL
D

N
C

1
8
M
E
T
C
A
L
F

D
R
HILL DR
N
C

1
8

S
MOUNT HOME
CHURCH RD
M
O
U
N
T

H
O
M
E
C
H
U
R
C
H

A
V
E
AD
V
E
N
T

S
T
L
A
U
R
E
L
W
O
O
D

R
D
Stream Origins
Stream Latitude Longitude
EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK N35° 42' 08.00"W81° 38' 29.62"
UT1 N35° 41' 57.58"W81° 38' 48.12"
UT2 N35° 41' 57.72"W81° 38' 37.66"
CE-IX
CE-IX
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
X
X
XXX
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FRANK REEP DUCKWORTH,
TRUSTEE OF THE
FRANK REEP DUCKWORTH
REVOCABLE TRUST
PIN: 2712-41-9916
DB: 2369 PG: 727
PB: 3 PG: 47 (LOT 9)
ROBERT THOMAS THEIMER
AND WIFE
MICHELLE N THEIMER,
& GERHARD K THEIMER
PIN: 2712-41-5644
DB: 2579 PG: 218
PB: 3 PG: 47 (LOT 8)
LEHREN NICOLE MULL AND
NED GARLAND PERKINS JR.
PIN: 2712-30-4419
DB: 2436 PG: 572 (TRACT 1)
PB: 33 PG: 265 (TRACT 1)
MARK TODDMAN KIRBY
AND WIFE
VIRGINIA CATHERINE KING-KIRBY
PIN: 2712-40-9543
DB: 2624 PG: 476
JAMES WARSTLER
AND WIFE
SANDRA WARSTLER
PIN: 2712-60-2007
DB: 2608 PG: 628
JAMES WARSTLER
AND WIFE
SANDRA WARSTLER
PIN: 2712-60-5243
DB: 2608 PG: 628
JIMMY O. MULL, II
AND WIFE,
DONNA SMITH MULL
PIN: 2712-70-0630
DB: 568 PG: 39
DELORES HILDEBRAND STROUPE
PIN: 2712-61-5228
DB: 290 PG: 335
PB: 4 PG: 160
JOHN W. JOHNSON & WIFE
MARTHA W. JOHNSON (LIFE ESTATE)
JONATHAN DAVID JOHNSON &
JASON ESPER JOHNSON (REMAINDER)
PIN: 2712-51-8570
DB: 1712 PG: 329
PB: 4 PG: 160
DONNA M. BURNETTE
PIN: 2712-51-6596
DB: 941 PG: 396
BACK REF. DB: 171 PG: 402
CONNIE JO GRADY
PIN: 2712-51-5884
DB: 1509 PG: 133
BACK REF. DB: 171 PG: 402
L
A
U
R
E
L
W
O
O
D

R
O
A
D
HAW
K
I
N
S
DRIV
E
DRIVEW
A
Y
STA: 205+90
START EXTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
STA: 206+38
END EXTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
END UT1 REACH 1 - PRESERVATION
START UT1 REACH 2 - RESTORATION
STA: 101+04
START EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK REACH 1
- RESTORATION
STA: 300+54
END INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
START UT2 - RESTORATION
STA: 300+00
START INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT.
USE CAUTION WHEN WORKING
AROUND OVERHEAD UTILITIES
CROSSING 2
CROSSING 3
S
H
E
E
T

1.
1
.
1
S
H
E
E
T

1
.
1
.
2
S
H
E
E
T

1
.
1
.
3
DAVID BRIAN CARSWELL AND WIFE,
WENDY M. CARSWELL
PIN: 2712-51-2945
DB: 1891 PG: 719 (TRACT 1)
PB: 6 PG: 84
STA: 112+45
CONFLUENCE EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK AND UT1
STA: 226+27
END UT1 REACH 2 - RESTORATION
STA: 112+88
END EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK REACH 2 - RESTORATION
SH
E
E
T

1.
2
.
1
SH
E
E
T

1.2
.
2
SH
E
E
T

1.2
.
3
SH
E
E
T

1.2
.
4
SHEE
T

1.2.5
SHE
E
T

1.2.
6
SH
E
E
T

1.3
.
1
SH
E
E
T

1.
3
.
2
SH
E
E
T

1.3
.
3
SH
E
E
T

1.3
.
4
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT1
UT
2
STA: 201+33
END INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
START UT1 REACH 1 - PRESERVATION
STA: 200+51
START INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
STA: 106+02
CONFLUENCE EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK AND UT2
END EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK REACH 1 - RESTORATION
START EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK REACH 2 - RESTORATION
STA: 316+10
END UT2 - RESTORATION
20
6
+
0
0
2
0
8
+
0
0
21
0
+
0
0
212+00
21
4
+
0
0
216+00
2
1
8
+
0
0
220+00
22
2
+
0
0
224+00
22
6
+
0
0
226
+
2
7
100
+
0
0
1
0
2
+
0
0
1
0
4
+
0
0
106+00
1
0
8
+
0
0
11
0
+
0
0
112
+
0
0
11
3
+
4
0
3
0
0
+
0
0
3
0
2
+
0
0
3
0
4
+
0
0
3
0
6
+
0
0
3
0
8
+
0
0
31
0
+
0
0
312
+
0
0
31
4
+
0
0
3
1
6
+
0
0
3
1
6
+
1
0
0'100'200'300'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
0.
2
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN
WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

C
o
v
e
r
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
0.
3
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

N
o
t
e
s

a
n
d

S
y
m
b
o
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
Existing Property Line
Existing Features
Existing Thalweg
Existing FenceXXXX
Existing Power Line
Existing Power Line EasementEEEE
Existing Tree Line
Existing Wetlands
Existing Road
As-Built Pipe
Existing Soil Road
Existing Power Pole
Existing Tree
Designed Features and Structures
Designed Bankfull
Designed Major Contour
Designed Minor Contour
Designed Fence with Gate
100
or
Designed Constructed Riffle
Designed Brushtoe
Designed Log Sill
Designed Rock Sill
Designed Log J-hook
Designed Floodplain Pool
Designed Cover Log
Designed Outlet Stabilization
Recorded Conservation EasementCECECECE
Recorded Internal Conservation
Easement CrossingCE-IX CE-IX CE-IX
As-Built Features and Structures
As-Built Bankfull
As-Built Major Contour
As-Built Minor Contour
As-Built Fence with Gate
or
As-Built Constructed Riffle
As-Built Brushtoe
As-Built Log Sill
As-Built Rock Sill
As-Built Log J-hook
As-Built Cover Log
540
PP ##
BAROTROLL
CG
Cross Section>>XS#
Photo Point
Barotroll
Crest Gauge
VE
G
VEG
VE
G
VEG
Vegetation PlotVP #
Designed Alignemrnt
NOTE:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN
WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
As-Built Alignment
As-Built Limits of DisturbanceLODLODLOD
As-Built Boulder Toe
As-Built Gravel Road
As-Built Rock Stablization
Survey Reference:
1.Survey Dates:
-Existing Conditions Survey: 09/2020
-Boundary Survey: 01/2021
-As-Built Survey: 10/31/2022 - 1/9/2023
2.Easement Reference: "Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina, Division of Mitigation Services, Project
Name: "Laurel Valley Site", SPO File No. 12-EL, DMS Site ID No. 100140", dated 8/30/31, Prepared By Kee Mapping Mapping and
Surveying, Recorded in the Burke County North Carolina Register of Deeds on 09/15/2021 in Deed Book 2570, Page 123 and Plat
Book 57, Page 69.
3.Map Reference: "An As-Built Survey for Wildlands Engineering, Inc., The State Of North Carolina NCDEQ Department of
Mitigation Services "Laurel Valley Site", Burke County, North Carolina", surveyed between the dates of 10/31/2022-01/09/2023
and prepared by Kee Mapping and Surveying on February 23, 2023.
Existing Top of BankTBTB
Designed Culvert
1110
1115
1120
1125
1110
1115
1120
1125
100+00 100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+20
EXISTING 54" RCP
INV IN: 1115.59'
INV OUT: 1115.54'
DESIGNED BACKWATER SURFACE
FOR AQUATIC ORGANISM
PASSAGE
AS-BUILT GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
CO
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
ST
A

=

1
0
1
+
0
4
PRE-CONSTRUCTION GRADE
LA
U
R
E
L
W
O
O
D

R
O
A
D
EL
E
V

=

1
1
2
2
.
6
7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
C
E
AL
R
CR
C
R
CE
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LODLODLOD
LODLOD
LODLOD
LODLODLOD
LOD
LO
D
LODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
V
E
G
V
E
G
VEG
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LODLOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
EXISTING PIPE AND CROSSING.
L
A
U
R
E
L
W
O
O
D

R
O
A
D
STA: 101+04
START
EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
REACH 1 - RESTORATION
10
0
+
0
0
101
+
0
0
102+0
0
103+00
104+
0
0
1120
1118
1117
>
>
>
X
S
9
1120
1
1
2
0
1118
VP6
PP20
PP19
BAROTROLL
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
0
4
+
2
0
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
1
.
1
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ea
s
t

P
r
o
n
g

H
u
n
t
i
n
g

C
r
e
e
k
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
STA 100+96 - STA 101+02:
BOULDER TOE ADDED FOR
OVERLAND FLOW STABILIZATION.
STA 100+98 - STA 102+22:
PLUNGE POOL DEPTH NOT MODIFIED
DOWNSTREAM OF EXISTING STREAM CROSSING.
1105
1110
1115
1120
1105
1110
1115
1120
104+20 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50 108+80
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
R
CR
C
R
CH
CR
C
R
CR
CE
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
V
E
G
VEG
V
E
G
VEG
V
E
G
VE
G
VEG
VE
G
VEG
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
UT2
31
5
+
0
0
316+00
104+00
10
5
+
0
0
106
+
0
0
10
7
+
0
0
108+00
109
+
0
0
EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEKSTA: 106+ 02
CONFLUENCE OF EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK AND UT2
END EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK REACH 1 - RESTORATION
START EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK REACH 2 - RESTORATION
STA: 316+ 10
END UT2 - RESTORATION
11
1
3
1117
1
1
1
5
11
1
6
>
>
>
>
>
>
XS
1
0
XS1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
111
7
11
1
6
11
1
3
1113
VP8
VP7
PP21
CG3
PP22
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
0
4
+
2
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
0
8
+
8
0
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
1
.
2
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ea
s
t

P
r
o
n
g

H
u
n
t
i
n
g

C
r
e
e
k
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.AS-BUILT INFORMATION FOR UT2 IS
ADDRESSED ON SHEETS 1.3.1 THROUGH 1.3.4.
STA 106+52 - STA 106+73:
COVER LOG REPLACED BRUSH
TOE FOR UNDERCUT BANK
POOL HABITAT.
1100
1105
1110
1115
1100
1105
1110
1115
108+80 109+00 109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+50 112+00 112+50 113+00 113+40
AS-BUILT GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
CO
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
ST
A

=

1
1
3
+
0
3
UT
I
L
I
T
Y

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
ST
A

=

1
1
2
+
8
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CH
A
L
R
CR
CR
CR
CR
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLOD
LOD
LOD
LODLOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
VE
G
VEG
VE
G
VEG
VEG
V
E
G
V
E
G
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
UT1
109
+
0
0
1
1
0
+
0
0
111+00
112+
0
0
1
1
3
+
0
0
113+4
0
STA: 112+88
END EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
REACH 2 - RESTORATION
STA. 112+45
CONFLUENCE OF EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
AND UT1 - RESTORATION
STA. 226+27
END UT1 - RESTORATION
22
6
+
0
0
2
2
6
+
2
7
11
1
3
11
1
2
1
1
0
9
1109
1109
1110
1
1
1
0
>
XS5
11
1
3
1113
1110
1
1
1
0
1110
111
2
11
0
9
1109
VP10
VP9
PP24
PP23
PP22
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
0
8
+
8
0
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
1
.
3
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ea
s
t

P
r
o
n
g

H
u
n
t
i
n
g

C
r
e
e
k
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.AS-BUILT INFORMATION FOR UT1 IS
ADDRESSED ON SHEETS 1.2.1 THROUGH 1.2.6.STA 109+50 - STA 109+76:
COVER LOG REPLACED BRUSH
TOE FOR UNDERCUT BANK
POOL HABITAT.
STA 111+64:
AS-BUILT OUTLET DITCH
STABILIZED WITH A ROCK SILL AND
ROCK OUTLET STABILIZATION FOR
ADDITIONAL GRADE CONTROL.
NATIVE ROCK MATERIAL ADDED FOR OUTLET STABILIZATION
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
B
TB
T B
T B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB T B
TB
T B
TB T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBT
B
TB
TB
TB
X
X
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CEC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
LODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
5
+
9
0
STA: 200+51
START INTERNAL
EASEMENT CROSSING
STA: 201+33
END INTERNAL EASEMENT CROSSING
START UT1 REACH 1 - PRESERVATION
STA: 205+90
START EXTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
1155
115
0
115
0
11
3
5
1137
PP4
PP3
PP1
PP2
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
2
.
1
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
1
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
AS-BUILT 54" CMP
INV: 1142.05
AS-BUILT 54" CMP
INV: 1141.93
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
205+80 206+00 206+50 207+00 207+50 208+00 208+50 209+00 209+50 210+00 210+20
DESIGNED BACKWATER
SURFACE FOR AQUATIC
ORGANISM PASSAGE
EXISTING 48" CPP
INV IN: 1133.21'
INV OUT: 1131.23'
CO
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
9
0
CO
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
3
8
PRE-CONSTRUCTION
GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
EL
E
V
=

1
1
4
0
.
0
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CE CE C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CR
CR
ALR
CH
CR
C
R
CH
A
L
R
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
VEG VEG
VEGVEG
VE
G
L
O
D
LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
L
O
D
UT1
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
113
0
11
2
8
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
1
0
+
1
0
206+00
20
7
+
0
0
208+
0
0
209+00
210+00
2
1
1
+
0
0
1135 1132
1135
113
0
OUTLET STABILIZATION FOR
OVERLAND FLOW AREA.
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
5
+
9
0
STA: 206+38
END EXTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
END UT1 REACH 1 - PRESERVATION
START UT1 REACH 2 - RESTORATION
STA: 205+90
START EXTERNAL
EASEMENT BREAK
>
>>
>
XS
1
XS2
1135 1135
1130
113
0
11
3
5
1137
VP4
PP5
PP4
PP3
EXISTING PIPE
AND CROSSING
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
2
.
2
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
1
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN
IN RED.
STA 207+05 - STA 206+59:
BRUSH TOE ADDED FOR
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
AT THE EXISTING CULVERT OUTLET
STA 207+02:
BOULDER SILL RELOCATED TO
ADJACENT OUTLET TO PREVENT
OVERLAND FLOW EROSION
STA 209+69: 2 ROCK SILLS
ADDED TO CAPTURE
FLOODPLAIN RUNOFF
STA 206+96:
ROCK SILLS ADDED FOR
ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION
STA 209+29:
COVER LOG REPLACED BRUSH TOE
FOR UNDERCUT BANK POOL HABITAT
STA 209+90:
COVER LOG REPLACED BRUSH TOE
FOR UNDERCUT BANK POOL HABITAT
1115
1120
1125
1130
1115
1120
1125
1130
210+10 210+50 211+00 211+50 212+00 212+50 213+00 213+50 214+00 214+50
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
TB
T B
T B
T B
TB
T B
CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CR
CH
A
L
R
CH
C
R
ALR
C
R
CR
C
R
LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
L
O
D
LODLODLOD
LODLOD
LOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
VEG
V
E
G
VEG
V
E
G
LOD
L
O
D
1130
1128
1128
1125
1125
1123
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
1
0
+
1
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
1
4
+
5
0
UT1
210+00
2
1
1
+
0
0
2
1
2
+
0
0
213
+
0
0
214+
0
0
2
1
5
+
0
0
113
0
11
2
3
>
>
XS2
1135
1130
1130
112
5
1122
1127
1
1
2
4
VP2
PP6
PP7
PP5
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
2
.
3
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
1
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
Lo
w
e
r
e
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

-

8
-
1
8
-
2
2
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
STA 209+90:
COVER LOG REPLACED BRUSH TOE
FOR UNDERCUT BANK POOL HABITAT
STA 214+34 - STA 214+54:
BOULDER TOE ADDED FOR
STREAM BANK REINFORCEMENT
1110
1115
1120
1125
1110
1115
1120
1125
214+50 215+00 215+50 216+00 216+50 217+00 217+50 218+00 218+50 218+90
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CR
C
R CR
C
R
ALR
C
H
CR
W
D
CR
W
D
LOD LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LO
D
LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD LOD
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LODLODLODLOD
LODLODLOD
LOD
LODLODLODLO
D
LOD
LODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
VEG
V
E
G
VEG
V
E
G
L
O
D
L
O
D
1123
1120
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
1
4
+
5
0
MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
1
8
+
9
0
UT1
214+
0
0
2
1
5
+
0
0
2
1
6
+
0
0
217+00
218
+
0
0
21
9
+
0
0
2
2
0
+
0
0
11
2
3
1118
>
>
>
>
>
XS3
XS
4
1122 1120
1120
1121 1118
1117
VP2
PP9
PP8
CG1
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
2
.
4
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
1
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
Lo
w
e
r
e
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

-

8
-
1
8
-
2
2
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
STA 214+34 - STA 214+54:
BOULDER TOE ADDED
FOR STREAM BANK
REINFORCEMENT
STA 216+47:
COVER LOG REPLACED BRUSH TOE
FOR UNDERCUT BANK POOL HABITAT
STA 217+57 - STA 217+92:
ALIGNMENT ALTERED TO SAVE
ADJACENT MATURE TREES.
LENGTH OF DEVIATION - 33.36'
1105
1110
1115
1120
1105
1110
1115
1120
218+80 219+00 219+50 220+00 220+50 221+00 221+50 222+00 222+50 223+00 223+30
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
WD
CR
W
D
CR
CR
CH
C
R
CH
C
R
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLODLODLOD
LODLODLOD
LO
D
VEG
V
E
G
VEG
V
E
G
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
UT1MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
1
8
+
9
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
2
3
+
3
0
219+00
2
2
0
+
0
0
221+00 22
2
+
0
0
223+00
2
2
4
+
0
0
1118
1
1
1
5
11
1
5
111
3
1112
1
1
1
5
11
1
5
11
1
3
1
1
1
3
111
2
11
1
2
VP3
PP9
PP10
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
2
.
5
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
1
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
Lo
w
e
r
e
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

-

8
-
1
8
-
2
2
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.STA 218+94 AND STA 220+17: LOG SILL
ADDED FOR BED STABILITY
SEE NOTE 2
SEE NOTE 2
1100
1105
1110
1115
1100
1105
1110
1115
223+30 223+50 224+00 224+50 225+00 225+50 226+00 226+50
DESIGN GRADE
AS-BUILT GRADE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
C
R
CR
C
R
CH
C
R CR C
R CR
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLODLODLODLOD
VEG
VE
G
VEG
VE
G
V
E
G
VEG
V
E
G
VEG
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
UT1
1112
11
1
+
0
0
1
1
2
+
0
0
113
+
0
0
STA: 112+88
END EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
REACH 2 - RESTORATION
STA. 112+45
CONFLUENCE OF EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
AND UT1 - RESTORATION
STA. 226+27
END UT1 - RESTORATION
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
2
3
+
3
0
223+00
2
2
4
+
0
0
225+
0
0
226
+
0
0
226+27
1109
11
0
9
11
0
9
11
1
0
111
3
111
2
1110
>
>
XS5
11
1
0
1110
1
1
1
0
11
1
2
110
9
11
0
9
111
2
11
1
2
VP10
VP9
PP24
PP12
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
2
.
6
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
1
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.AS-BUILT INFORMATION FOR EAST PRONG
HUNTING CREEK IS ADDRESSED ON SHEETS
1.1.1 THROUGH 1.1.3.
STA 224+05:
STABILIZATION ADDED AT
EXISTING WETLAND OUTLET
1133
1135
1140
1145
1150
1133
1135
1140
1145
1150
300+00 300+50 301+00 301+50 302+00 302+50 303+00 303+50 304+00 304+20
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L

C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
5
4
DESIGN GRADE AS-BUILT GRADE
CO
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
0
0
AS-BUILT ROAD CROSSING
ELEV: 1149.0
AS-BUILT
54" CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
AS-BUILT CULVERT
INV: 1142.50 AS-BUILT CULVERT
INV: 1142.12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CR
C
H
CR W
D ALR CH
CH
CR
LODLODLOD
LODLODLOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
VEG VEG
VEGVEG
VE
G
1140
1138
300+
0
0
301+
0
0
302+
0
0
303+
0
0
304+
0
0
UT2
STA: 300+54
END INTERNAL EASEMENT BREAK
START UT2 - RESTORATION
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
4
+
1
0
1138
1140
1145
1145
1145
1149
1
1
4
9
1148
11
4
0
1140
1138
AS-BUILT
CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
INV IN: 1142.50
INV OUT: 1142.12
STA. 300+00
BEGIN UT2
AT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
BEGIN INTERNAL CROSSING VP1
PP14
PP13
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
3
.
1
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
2
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.SEE SHT 3.0, FOR AS-BUILT FENCE
ALIGNMENT.
STA 300+00:
LOG J-HOOK ADDED TO
PROTECT LEFT BANK ABOVE
CULVERT CROSSING
STA 300+58 - STA 300+71:
BRUSH TOE ADDED TO
STABILIZE STREAM BANK
1124
1125
1130
1135
1124
1125
1130
1135
304+10 304+50 305+00 305+50 306+00 306+50 307+00 307+50 308+00 308+50
AS-BUILT GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
X
X
X
X
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CH CR ALR CR
CR AL
R
CH
C
R CR
WD
WD
CR
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLODLODLOD
L
O
D
LOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LODLODLODLOD
LODLODLODLODLOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
UT2
1138
1130
11
2
8
304+0
0
305+0
0
306+0
0
307+00 308+
0
0
309+00
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
4
+
1
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
8
+
5
0
STA: 308+44
START USE OF EXISTING ALIGNMENT
1138
>
>
>
>
>
>
1140
1138
1135
1135
113
0
1
1
3
0
11
2
9
XS6 XS
7
X
S
8
PP16
PP15 CG2
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
3
.
2
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
2
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.SEE SHT 3.0, FOR AS-BUILT FENCE
ALIGNMENT.
STA 304+72:
ROCK SILL REMOVED DUE TO
INSTALLATION OF ANGLED
LOG RIFFLE WITH ADEQUATE
GRADE CONTROL.
STA 304+83:
COVER LOG REPLACED BRUSH
TOE FOR UNDERCUT BANK
POOL HABITAT.STA 308+38:
ROCK OUTLET STABLIZATION
ADDED TO CAPTURE FLOODPLAIN
RUNOFF AND ROCK SILLS ADDED
FOR ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION
STA 307+45:
COVER LOG REPLACED
BRUSH TOE FOR UNDERCUT
BANK POOL HABITAT.
1115
1120
1125
1130
1115
1120
1125
1130
308+50 309+00 309+50 310+00 310+50 311+00 311+50 312+00 312+50 313+00
AS-BUILT GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECE
CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
R CR
WD
WD
CR
CR
CH
ALR
C
H
CR
A
L
R
CR
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LODLOD
LO
D
LO
D
LODLOD
LODLOD
LODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLODLOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
VEG
VE
GVEG
VE
G
LOD
LO
D
LOD
UT2
1130
11
2
8
308+
0
0
309+00
310+00
3
1
1
+
0
0
312+
0
0
313+00
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
8
+
5
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
1
3
+
0
0
STA: 309+18
END USE OF EXISTING ALIGNMENT
STA: 308+44
START USE OF EXISTING ALIGNMENT
1
1
2
3
113
0
1
1
3
0
1
1
2
5
1125
112
0
11
2
9
1122
VP5
PP18
PP16
PP17
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
3
.
3
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
2
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.SEE SHT 3.0, FOR AS-BUILT FENCE
ALIGNMENT.
STA 308+60 - STA 309+12:
ALIGNMENT ADJUSTED TO
PRESERVE EXISTING TREES.
LENGTH OF DEVIATION - 45.40'
STA 310+48 - STA 310+88:
ALIGNMENT ALTERED TO PROTECT
EXISTING MATURE TREES.
LENGTH OF DEVATION - 37.05'
STA 308+60:
LOG SILL ADDED TO
STABLIZE STREAM BED
STA 309+02.95':
LOG SILL RELOCATED UPSTREAM
TO STA 308+60 BASED ON FIELD
CONDITIONS.
STA 311+84:
J-HOOK REPLACED BY ROCK
SILL TO ALLOW FOR COVER
LOG INSTALLATION.
STA 312+07:
COVER LOG REPLACED BRUSH
TOE FOR UNDERCUT BANK
POOL HABITAT.
1108
1110
1115
1120
1108
1110
1115
1120
313+00 313+50 314+00 314+50 315+00 315+50 316+00 316+20
DESIGN GRADE AS-BUILT GRADE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CR
C
R
CR
A
L
R
CR
A
L
R
CH C
R
CR
CR
CE
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
VE
G
VEG
VE
G
VEG
VEG
VE
GVEG
VE
G
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
UT2
313+00
314+00
3
1
5
+
0
0
316+
0
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
1
3
+
0
0
104
+
0
0
105+00
1
0
6
+
0
0
107+00
108
+
0
0
STA: 106+ 02
CONFLUENCE OF EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK AND UT2
END EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK REACH 1 - RESTORATION
START EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK REACH 2 - RESTORATION
STA: 316+ 10
END UT2 - RESTORATION
EA
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
11
1
7
11
1
5
1
1
1
6
>
>
>
>
>
>
X
S
1
0
XS
1
1
1115
11
1
5
11
1
5
11
1
7
112
0
1122
1120
VP7
VP5
PP21
PP18
CG3
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
1.
3
.
4
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
Sheet Index
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
2
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
E
A
S
T

P
R
O
N
G

H
U
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
UT
2
UT
1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.AS-BUILT INFORMATION FOR EAST
PRONG HUNTING CREEK IS ADDRESSED
ON SHEETS 1.1.1 THROUGH 1.1.3.
Streambank Planting Zone
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Max Spacing Indiv.
Spacing
Min. Size Stratum Wetland
Indicator
% of Stems
Salix nigra Black Willow 8 ft.6-8 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Shrub OBL
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 8 ft.6-8 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Shrub FACW
Salix sericea Silky Willow 8 ft.6-8 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Shrub OBL
Cephalanthus
occidentalis Buttonbush 8 ft.6-8 ft.0.5"-1.5" cal.Shrub OBL 10%
Sambucus
canadensis Elderberry 8 ft.6-8 ft.0.5"-1.5" cal.Shrub FAC
Total 100%
Herbaceous Plugs
Juncus effusus Common Rush 5 ft.3-5 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb FACW 40%
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge 5 ft.3-5 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 10%
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge 5 ft.3-5 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 20%
Carex lupulina Hop Sedge 5 ft.3-5 ft.1.0"-2.0" plug Herb OBL 15%
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 5 ft 3-5 ft.1.0"-2.0" plug Herb FACW 15%
Total 100%
50%
45%
10%
13%
10%
21%
10%
11%
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
2.
1
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g

T
a
b
l
e
s
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
Open Buffer Planting Zone Trees
Bare Root
Species Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum Wetland
Indicator
# of Stems
Acer negundo Boxelder 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 5%
Platanus
occidentalis Sycamore 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FACW 15%
16%
Betula nigra River Birch 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FACW 5%
6%
Morus rubra Red Mullberry 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FACU 5%
6%
Oxydendrum
arboreum Sourwood 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy UPL 5%
6%
Fagus
grandifolia
American
Beech 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FACU 10%
11%
Carya
cordiformis
Bitternut
Hickory 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 10%
11%
Quercus alba White Oak 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 10%
11%
Quercus rubra Northern Red
Oak 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 10%
11%
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 10%
11%
Magnolia
acuminata Cucumber Tree 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 5%
Total 90%
89%
Riparian Seeding - Open Canopy
Pure Live Seed (20 lbs/ acre)
Approved Date Species Name Common Name Stratum Wetland
Indicator
Density
(lbs/acre)
All Year Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem Herb FACU 3.0
All Year Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Herb FAC 2.0
All Year Panicum rigidulum Redtop Panicgrass Herb FACW 1.0
All Year Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan Herb FACU 1.0
All Year Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf Coreopsis Herb FACU 1.0
All Year Panicum clandestinum Deertongue Herb FAC 2.0
All Year Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye Herb FACW 3.0
All Year Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass Herb FACU 3.0
All Year Bidens aristosa Bur-Marigold Herb FACW 1.0
All Year Helianthus angustifolia Narrowleaf Sunflower Herb FACW 1.0
All Year Coreopsis tinctoria Plains Corepsis Herb FAC 1.0
All Year Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Herb FACU 1.0
Notes:
(1) Permanent seeding was applied in all disturbed areas within Conservation Easement.
Notes:
(1) Substitute species: American Basswood and Sweetshrub
(2) Transplants from on-site may have been used at Designer's discretion for streambank
and floodplain planting.
(3) Percentages of each species may have been varied at Designer's discretion but did not
exceed 20% per each species.
(4) Designer may have substituted container plantings or other plantings for bare roots.
Open Area Buffer Planting
Riparian Corridor Planting
(Streambanks)
Note:
See live staking and herbaceous plugs detail.
Open Buffer Planting Zone Small Trees / Shrubs
Bare Root
Species Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum Wetland
Indicator
# of Stems
Euonymus
americanus
Strawberry
Bush 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FAC 2%
Hamamelis
virginiana Witch Hazel 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Sub-Canopy FACU 2%
Cornus florida Flowering
Dogwood 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Sub-Canopy FACU 2%
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Shrub FAC 2%
Amelanchier
arborea Serviceberry 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FAC 2%
Calycanthus
floridus sweetshrub 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"- 1.0"Shrub FACU 1%
Total 10%
11%
Permanent Seeding
Notes:
(1) Substitute species: Silky Dogwood and Carolina Silverbell
(2) Transplants from on-site may have been used at Designer's discretion for streambank and floodplain planting.
(3) Percentages of each species may have been varied at Designer's discretion but did not exceed 20% per each species.
(4) Designer may have substituted container plantings or other plantings for bare roots.
(5) Wetland Planting Zone Small Tree/Shrubs were used to plant the Utility Easement
Wetland Planting
Notes:
(1) Stabilization Seeding for grading outside Conservation
Easement, utility easements, and stream crossings was applied.
(2) Temporary seed and mulch with all permanent seed was
applied.
Stabilization Seeding
Pure Live Seed (32 lbs/ac)
Species Name Common Name lbs/acre
Festuca arundinacea Fescue (KY 31)20
Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass 12
Stabilization Seeding
Partially Vegetated Buffer Area Planting
Wetland Planting Zone Trees
Bare Root
Species Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum Wetland
Indicator
# of Stems
Platanus
occidentalis Sycamore 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FACW 15%
Betula nigra River Birch 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FACW 5%
Salix nigra Black Willow 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FAC 18%
Ulmus
americana American Elm 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 17%
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 15%
Total
Acer negundo Boxelder 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 5%
75%
70%
Wetland Planting Zone Small Trees/Shrubs
Bare Root
Species Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum Wetland
Indicator
# of Stems
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Sub-Canopy OBL 5%
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Shrub FAC 5%
Cephalanthus
occidentalis Buttonbush 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Sub-Canopy OBL 5%
Sambucus
canadensis Elderberry 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FAC 5%
Salix sericea Silky Willow 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Sub-Canopy OBL 5%
Cornus
amomum Silky Dogwood 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FACW 5%
Total 25%
30%
Wetland Seeding - Open Canopy
Pure Live Seed (20 lbs/ acre)
Approved Date Species Name Common Name Stratum Wetland
Indicator
Density
(lbs/acre)
All Year Coleataenia anceps Beaked Panicgrass Herb FAC 3.0
All Year Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge Herb OBL 2.0
All Year Carex frankii Frank's Sedge Herb OBL 2.0
All Year Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye Herb FACW 3.0
All Year Bidens aristosa Bur-Marigold Herb FACW 2.0
All Year Panicum cirgatum Switchgrass Herb FAC 2.0
All Year Juncus effusus Common Rush Herb OBL 2.0
All Year Panicum dichotomiflorum Smooth Panicgrass Herb FACW 2.0
All Year Tripsacum dactylodies Eastern Gamagrass Herb FACW 1.0
All Year Peltandra virginica Arrow Arum Herb OBL 1.0
TEMPORARY SEEDING
APPROVED DATE TYPE PLANTING
RATE (lbs/acre)
Jan 1 – May 1
Rye Grain (Secale Cereale)120
Ladino Clover (Trifolium Repens)5
Crimson Clover (Trifolium incarnatum)5
Straw Mulch 4,000
May 1 – Aug 15
German Millet (Setaria italica)40
Ladino Clover (Trifolium Repens)5
Crimson Clover (Trifolium incarnatum)5
Straw Mulch 4,000
Aug 15 – Dec 31
Rye Grain (Secale Cereale)120
Ladino Clover (Trifolium Repens)5
Crimson Clover (Trifolium incarnatum)5
Straw Mulch 4,000
Partially Vegetated Buffer Planting Zone Trees
Bare Root
Species Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum Wetland
Indicator
# of Stems
Carpinus
caroliniana
American
Hornbeam 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Sub-Canopy FAC 10%
Euonymus
americana
Strawberry
Bush 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Shrub FAC 10%
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Sub-Canopy FAC 10%
Fagus
grandifolia
American
Beech 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FACU 10%
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy FAC 10%
Hamamelis
virginiana Witchhazel 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Sub-Canopy FACU 10%
Calycanthus
floridus Sweetshrub 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FACU 10%
Cornus florida Flowering
Dogwood 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Sub-Canopy FACU 10%
Asimina triloba Pawpaw 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Sub-Canopy FAC 10%
Quercus rubra Northern Red
Oak 12 ft.6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 5%
Ilex opaca American Holly 12 ft 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Sub-Canopy FACU 5%
Total 100%
Note:
Rates of fertilizer and lime if necessary can be found in the site
preparation plan included in the specification documents.
Utility Easement Planting
Notes:
(1) Wetland Planting Zones Small Tree/Shrubs
were used to plant the Utility Easement
Temporary Seeding
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN
WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
XX
XXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
P
1
0
V
P
9
V
P
1
V
P
2
V
P
3
V
P
8
V
P
7
V
P
6
V
P
5
V
P
4
VP6
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
UT2
UT
1UT1206+
0
0
20
7
+
0
0
208+
0
0 209+0
0
210+00
2
1
1
+
0
0
2
1
2
+
0
0
213
+
0
0
214+
0
0
2
1
5
+
0
0
2
1
6
+
0
0
217+00
218
+
0
0
21
9
+
0
0
2
2
0
+
0
0
221+0
0
222+
0
0
223+0
0
2
2
4
+
0
0
2
2
5
+
0
0
226+0
0226+2
7
300
+
0
0
301
+
0
0
302
+
0
0
303
+
0
0 304
+
0
0
305
+
0
0
306
+
0
0
307+00 308
+
0
0
309+
0
0 310+00
311
+
0
0
312+00
313+
0
0
314+00
315
+
0
0
316
+
0
0
316
+
1
0
100+
0
0
1
0
1
+
0
0
10
2
+
0
0
10
3
+
0
0
104
+
0
0
105+
0
0
1
0
6
+
0
0
107+0
0
10
8
+
0
0
1
0
9
+
0
0
110+00
11
1
+
0
0
1
1
2
+
0
0
113+0
011
3
+
4
0
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CECECECECE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECE
CE
CE
C
E
LODLOD
LODLOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD LO
D
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LO
D LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LODLODLODLOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
DLOD
LOD
LODLOD
LOD
LODLODLODLOD
LODLODLOD
LODLO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LODLODLODLODLOD
LODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
LOD
LOD
LO
D LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
VP10
VP9
VP1
VP2
VP3
VP8
VP7
VP5
VP4
EA
S
T

P
R
O
N
G
HU
N
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
2.
2
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g

P
l
a
n

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
OPEN BUFFER PLANTING
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PLANTING
(STREAM BANKS)
WETLAND PLANTING
PARTIALLY VEGETATED BUFFER PLANTING
UTILITY EASEMENT PLANTING
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN
WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
0'75'150'225'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E E E E
VP1
0
VP9
VP3
VP8
VP7
VP6
VP5
VP6
U
T
2
UT
1
2
2
1
+
0
0
2
2
2
+
0
0
2
2
3
+
0
0
224+
0
0
22
5
+
0
0
2
2
6
+
0
0
2
2
6
+
2
7
3
1
0
+
0
0
31
1
+
0
0
3
1
2
+
0
0
31
3
+
0
0
3
1
4
+
0
0
31
5
+
0
0
316+0
0316+1
0
10
0
+
0
0
101
+
0
0
102+00
103+0
0
104+00
1
0
5
+
0
0
106
+
0
0
1
0
7
+
0
0
108+00
109
+
0
0
1
1
0
+
0
0
111+00
112+0
0
1
1
3
+
0
0
113+40
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LODLOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LODLOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD LO
D LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LODLOD
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
VEG
VEG
V
E
G
V
E
G
VEG
VEG VEG
VEG
V
E
G
V
E
G
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
VP10
VP9
VP3
VP8
VP7
VP5
EAST PRONG
HUNTING CREEK
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
2.
3
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ea
s
t

P
r
o
n
g

H
u
n
t
i
n
g

C
r
e
e
k

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
OPEN BUFFER PLANTING
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PLANTING
(STREAM BANKS)
WETLAND PLANTING
PARTIALLY VEGETATED BUFFER PLANTING
UTILITY EASEMENT PLANTING
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN
WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
0'40'80'120'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
VP
9
VP
1
VP
2
VP
3
VP
4
UT
2
U
T
1
UT1
206+00 207
+
0
0
208+00
209+00
210+00
2
1
1
+
0
0
2
1
2
+
0
0
213+0
0
214+00
2
1
5
+
0
0
2
1
6
+
0
0
217+00
218+00
2
1
9
+
0
0
22
0
+
0
0
2
2
1
+
0
0
222+00
2
2
3
+
0
0
22
4
+
0
0
2
2
5
+
0
0
226+00
2
2
6
+
2
7
302+00
303+00
304+00
305+00
306+00
307+00
308+00
309+00
310+0
0
3
1
1
+
0
0
110+0
0
111+
0
0
11
2
+
0
0
113+0011
3
+
4
0
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CECECECE
CE
CE
CE CE CE
C
E
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD LOD LOD LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD LOD
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
DLOD
L
O
D
LODLOD
LODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
DLOD
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
VEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
VE
G
VE
G
V
E
G
V
E
G
VEGVEG
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
VP9
VP1
VP2
VP3
VP4
EAS
T

P
R
O
N
G
HUN
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
2.
4
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
1

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
OPEN BUFFER PLANTING
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PLANTING
(STREAM BANKS)
WETLAND PLANTING
PARTIALLY VEGETATED BUFFER PLANTING
UTILITY EASEMENT PLANTING
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN
WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
0'60'120'180'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
VP
7
VP
6
VP
5
VP
4
VP6
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
UT
2
EAS
T

P
R
O
N
G
HUN
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
300+00
301+00
302+00
303+00
304+00
305+00
306+00
307+00
308+00
309+00
310+0
0
3
1
1
+
0
0
31
2
+
0
0
313+00
31
4
+
0
0
3
1
5
+
0
0
316+0
0316+1
0
10
1
+
0
0
102+
0
0
10
3
+
0
0
104+
0
0
105+00
10
6
+
0
0
107+00
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECE
CE
CE
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LODLOD
LODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LODLOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D LODLO
D
LO
D
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
VE
G
VE
G
VE
G
VE
G
VE
GVEG
VEG
VEG
VEG
LOD LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
VP8
VP7
VP5
VP4
EAS
T

P
R
O
N
G
HUN
T
I
N
G

C
R
E
E
K
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
2.
5
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
UT
2

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
OPEN BUFFER PLANTING
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PLANTING
(STREAM BANKS)
WETLAND PLANTING
PARTIALLY VEGETATED BUFFER PLANTING
UTILITY EASEMENT PLANTING
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN
WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
0'50'100'150'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
X
X
XXX
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CE-IX
CE-IX
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LODLOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LODLOD
AS-BUILT
8' GATE
AS-BUILT
8' GATE
AS-BUILT
16' GATE AS-BUILT
16' GATE
0'100'200'300'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
\\
E
g
n
y
t
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
w
i
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
8
7
_
L
a
u
r
e
l
_
V
a
l
l
e
y
\
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
A
s
-
B
u
i
l
t

S
e
t
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
8
7

-

F
a
r
m

P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
W0
2
1
8
7
CA
W
JK
EN
3.
0
Ap
r
i
l

4
,

2
0
2
3
La
u
r
e
l

V
a
l
l
e
y

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
Bu
r
k
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Fe
n
c
i
n
g

P
l
a
n
Fa
r
m

P
l
a
n
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
16
7
-
B

H
a
y
w
o
o
d

R
d
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e
,

N
C

2
8
8
0
6
Te
l
:

8
2
8
.
7
7
4
.
5
5
4
7
Li
c
e
n
s
e

N
o
.

F
-
0
8
3
1
N
O
R
T
H

CAROLIN A
PR
O
F
E
SSION A L
ENGIN
E
E
R
SE
A
L
E R IC P. NE
U
H
A
U
S
04
2
6
6
0
PROPOSED FENCE
PROPOSED GATE
AS-BUILT FENCE
AS-BUILT GATE
NOTES:
1.DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE
SHOWN IN RED.
2.PROPOSED FENCING PLAN PROVIDED WITH
MITIGATION PLAN REDESIGNED DURING
CONSTRUCTION BASED ON PROPERTY SALE,
NEW LANDOWNER, AND NEW ASSOCIATED
LAND-USE, INCLUDING CATTLE REMOVAL.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1EE3E49D1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B513FC3-9923-43EA-BB17-DAB1 EE3E49D1
1131 1131
1129
1129
1127
1127
„25
„25
1123
1, 23
„21
„21
1119
1119
1117
7
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE- UT2
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' FULL SIZE, 1" = 40' HALF SIZE
VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 2' FULL SIZE, 1" = 4' HALF SIZE
LEGEND
SEAL:
'q\ , CAR®�����o®
®
@sPAT." b oe
j °°°e 0965004A7 Q7o
NOTE: SEE SHEET 1 FOR
SURVEYOR'S NOTES, LEGEND &
STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION
ELEVATION DATUM: NAVD 88
CONTOUR INTERVAL: 1 FOOT
THIS IS A TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY FOR INFORMATIONAL
AND DESIGN PURPOSES
ONLY. IT SHOULD NOT BE
USED FOR CONVEYANCE OR
LEGAL PURPOSES.
AN AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING, INC
SPO FILE NO. 12-EL
DMS SITE ID NO. 100140
PROJECT:
LAUREL VALLEY
MITIGATION SITE
SHEET TITLE:
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE:
U T2
STA: 308+00-316+40
TOWNSHIP: COUNTY: STATE:
AORGANTON BURKE NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SURVEY BY:
NH NL/PBK/HJL KP, NH, MB
SCALE: SURVEY DATE:
AS SHOWN 02/23/23
JOB: SHEET SIZE:
#2210106—AB 11" X 17" (HALF SIZE)
# I DATE REVISIONS
SHEET:
19
OF
19
THALWEG P.O. Box 2566
Asheville, NC 28802
[phone]
www.keemap.com
License # C-3039