20190865 Ver 1_Laurel Springs_100122_AMP for IRT Review_2023_20230818

2023 Adaptive Management Plan
LAUREL SPRINGS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Avery County, North Carolina
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010108
DMS Project No. 100122
Full Delivery Contract No. 7890
DMS RFP No. 16-007725 (issued 11/13/18)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835
DWR Project No. 2019-0865
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Raymond Holz
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
2 PLANTING, MONITORING, AND MAINTENANCE TO DATE.........................................................2
2.1 MYO SUMMARY FOR VEGETATION..............................................................................................................2
2.2 MY1 SUMMARY FOR VEGETATION..............................................................................................................2
2.3 MY2 PRELIMINARY VEGETATION DATA........................................................................................................2
APPENDICES
A. MYO Data
B. MY1 Data
C. MY2 Preliminary Data
Final MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Table of Contents
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina August 2023

1 INTRODUCTION
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) is an NCDMS Full -Delivery site located in Avery
County at coordinates 35.9941,-81.9821. The project is currently in Year 2 of Monitoring. The final
mitigation plan is dated February 2021 and the Monitoring Year 1 was completed in 2022.
As noted in the Year 1 monitoring report and confirmed by a site visit in July, 2023, the Site is not currently
meeting vegetation success criteria for vegetation, with an average of 220 stems/acre. Success criteria
requires 320 stems/acre at year three (See Table A). Multiple factors are involved including areas of over-
abundant hydrology, dense herbaceous vegetation, and some upland areas of poor soil.
Table A. Success Criteria
Streams
•
All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
•
Continuous surface flow must be documented in intermittent reaches each year for at least 30 consec days.
•
Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
•
BHR at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%from baseline condition during
any given monitoring period.
•
The stream shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
•
Intermittent streams will demonstrate at least 30-days consecutive flow.
Wetland Hydrology
•
Annual saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent
of the growing season during average climatic conditions.
Vegetation
•
Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
•
Trees must average 6 feet in height at year 5 and 8 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
•
Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
Site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
•
Areas of herbaceous vegetation establishment will have a minimum of four species present.
Table B. Vegetation Success Criteria from Approved Mit. Plan (2021) and Approved Supplement (2022)
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data
Collected/Reported
Permanent veg plots
0.0247 acres (100
Vegetation
square meters) in
16 plots & three (3)
Species, height,
establishment
size; CVS-EEP
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3,
random transects
planted vs. volunteer,
and vigor
Protocolfor
5 and 7
spread across the
stems/acre
Recording
Site
Vegetation, Version
4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 1
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina August 2023

2 PLANTING, MONITORING, AND MAINTENANCE TO DATE
2.1 MYO Summary for Vegetation
The site was planted with 18,850 bare root stems plus 2,500 live stakes on January 13, 2022. The
streamside zone was planted at a density of 2,720 stems/acre while the rest of the site was planted at
680 stems/acre. This initial effort included nineteen species of bare root. Please note that during the MYO
review process the IRT approved four species not listed in the mitigation plan for inclusion in the planted
stem count.
The MYO vegetative survey was completed on February 1, 2022. Monitoring resulted in a sitewide stem
density average of 688 planted stems per acre, well above the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre
required at MY3. Additionally, all 16 fixed vegetation plots met the interim success criteria. See Appendix
A for complete MYO vegetation data.
2.2 MY1 Summary for Vegetation
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed between September 14 and November 8, 2022. Measurements
of all 16 permanent plots and three (3) temporary plots resulted in an average of 300 planted stems/acre.
Additionally, 9 of the 19 individual plots met success criteria during MY1. See Appendix B.
Maintenance included removal of a shed from within the easement, supplemental boundary marking, and
targeted invasive treatment of several species found as small patches or individual stems. A supplemental
planting was conducted on March 14, 2023 over 2.67 acres of the site with 1,800 bare -root stems. The
area included the 0.107-acre area of encroachment noted in the MY1 monitoring report.
2.3 MY2 Preliminary Vegetation Data
A preliminary vegetation survey was completed 6/28/2023 to assess vegetative conditions and allow the
development of an adaptive management plan based on the low stem counts observed in MY1. Sitewide
the average tree density was found to be 220 stems/acre. This survey included all permanent plots as well
as ten random transects and nine herbaceous diversity plots.
Tree density continues to be an issue, with only three of ten temporary transects meeting success criteria
and only eight of sixteen permanent plots meeting density requirements. However, all nine herbaceous
plots were found to be meeting success criteria for diversity (minimum four species) and coverage. As
indicated in the mitigation plan, up to 20% of the site was expected to be herbaceous dominated wetlands
lacking in tree cover. See Appendix C for complete data.
Maintenance in 2023 to date has included additional boundary marking and invasive treatments. There
are no significant areas where invasive species are a notable issue. There are also no notable issues from
other pests such as beavers or deer.
2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 2
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina August 2023

3 PROPOSED ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After receiving the preliminary data RS staff walked the site thoroughly to better identify the causes of
low tree survival. Overall the vegetation on the site looks great. The floodplain herbaceous vegetation is
lush and diverse, including both species from the seedbank and planted species. Some floodplain areas
are especially wet as expected. The upland areas are also supporting a diverse though less dense
herbaceous layer, and the areas of heavy cut/fill are continuing to fill in with herbaceous cover and
supporting some planted woody stems. There are also numerous volunteer tree stems around the uplands
and floodplain margins (mostly tulip poplar and white pine).
Unfortunately, the woody stem count is disappointingly low and does not meet success criteria. Even
surviving live stakes appear to be sparse, though stream banks are well stabilized by herbaceous cover.
Competition and shading are definitely an issue, particularly in the floodplain. However most planted
species can be found and are becoming established in suitable niches across the site. The upland areas
are more on track based on the reduced herbaceous competition and more abundant volunteer stems.
To bring the site back on track additional planting is needed. RS proposes to plant additional stock this
winter across the entire restoration area to ensure the density and vigor requirements are met.
3.1 SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS
A. BARE ROOTS: RS proposes to plant 2,600 additional bare root stems in winter 2023-2024. This
planting will focus on the floodplain and stream -side assemblage, but will also encompass the
lower portions of the adjacent slopes.
Total planted area will include
approximately 13 acres, adding an
additional 200 stems/acre to the
planted areas. While this exceeds the
necessary density it will provide
additional onsite diversity and allow a
reasonable buffer for tree mortality
as monitoring continues. Species
f h d I
rom t e approve mltlgatlon pan
will be used.
#
Species
Common
500
Alnus serrulata
Smooth alder
400
Betula lenta
Sweet birch
300
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
400
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
800
Nyssa sylvatica
Black gum
200
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
2,600
B. LIVE STAKES: RS proposes to plant 1,000 live stakes in winter 2023-2024. The live stakes will be
planted streamside and in areas of exceptional hydrology where herbaceous openings are
expected to persist and will consist primarily of shrubby species, including button bush,
elderberry, willow, ninebark, alder, and silky dogwood.
C. CONTAINERS: RS proposes to plant 150 one -gallon containerized trees, focusing the effort in
upland portions of the site with especially challenging soil conditions. These upland areas overlap
with the earlier replant, and while those plots are largely meeting success criteria today RS
anticipates additional challenges in tree growth and vigor in those areas compared to the rest of
the site. Species may include: Tilia americana (basswood), Amelanchier arborea(serviceberry),
Quercus rubra (red oak), Quercus alba (white oak), Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak), and other
species from the approved mitigation plan.
2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 3
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina August 2023

Appendix A
MYO Data
2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 4
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina August 2023

V.
_ _ f Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Prepared for:
•ry`. '6� _ - tom ` �„' ;• _ .°.-` - 7k •r• _
4 �� d. wry, . �7" / 1 1 _ • � _ ..� � Y•
Ir
Yp�' Y`;.ly o-.:.'.• -*- '•; { ' a�- r. ,.r rt Project:
�'w£ ` -, LAUREL SPRINGS
r 16 15 �-'� A - - r' r '."::�Ir�+ _ •+��' _ ^''' �- 7. Illlllllllllllllllljllllllllllllll MITIGATION SITE
�:` 3 -- �' ". z�'#� ,,fir •dr".- • �. , raC. - � - j.
...� 14 "rR'.,� .� w ��,r r_.1 . it Avery County, NC
Title:
e ,A� . � -MYO
x1y 13 / Ra-10 Gau 9 u Q.:� _ a. "� CURRENT
\ F XS-9 ` CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
X33 Notes:
Legend 12�'" 1. Background Imagery Source.
,W 2018 aerial photography
Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres 10 }y ` provided by the INC OneMap
Stream Restoration 1 2 program (online, provided by
the INC Geographic Information
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) ''4r ,� N 7 Coordination Council)
c �
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream Preservation
Stream Generating No Credit
Instream Structures ` 4 XS-2
® Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area
5 _
Wetland Reestablishment ` ��►.. Drawn by: PHP
•
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement +- 1 \ }y Date: NOV 2022
Wetland Preservation r t h Scale: 1:2000
Permanant Vegetation Plot w +. 1 Project No.: 19-006
Temporary Vegetation Plot - 50m x 2m
Vegetation Plot Origins
Groundwater Gauge FIGURE
Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature � ,_ •r •
vir � t
- Stream Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
-
_ d ,�
Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas
Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas - 0 150 300 600
,;�, Feet

Table F. As -Built Planted Species and Stems
Vegetation Association
Montane Alluvial Forest*
Acidic Cove Forest*
Stream -side *
Assemblage
TOTAL
Area (acres)
9.0
4.7
2.5
16.2
Species
Indicator Status
# planted*
% of total
# planted*
% of total
# planted**
% of total
# planted
Basswood (T44,. ,.\
FACU I
I-88
2°%
2-09
Fr%
-
-
399
Cherry birch (Betula lenta)
FACU
I-00 500
3°6 8%
400 600
I30A 18.75%
500 1500
7-OA 15.96%
1000 2600
Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
FACU
499 400
2-OA 6.4%
4-00 600
8°618.75%
--
--
2991000
Red oak (Quercus rubra)
FACU
500 650
10.4%
300 650
910A 20.31%
--
-
4901300
ash (FFaXi
FACU
4-80
3-i%
300
910A
—
490
White oak (Quercus alba)
FACU
499 550
3% 8.8%
400
4-3-OA
550
5.85%
5001100
White pine (Pinus strobus)
FACU
390 600
2-OA 9.6%
400
4"0
--
--
500 600
Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis)
FACU
490 200
34 3.2%
390
9-%
500 300
74 3.19%
900 500
(gum (Nyssa s..I.,-,+k-,\
47AC
6W
1"o
490
30A
500
7%
i280
Persimmon (D.esp F -4
47AC
2-90
3_0A
300
9_0A
—
—
500
Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea)
FAC
299 600
30A 9.6%
499 500
340A 15.63%
--
-
4901100
chadhw„-h lA.. elandhi.,r-..beff,-.\
€,46
490
3°6
—
—
400
"
500
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
FAC
6W 450
4"0 7.2%
299 600
5018.75%
500 1100
W-OA 11.70%
1300 2150
A,, P F 0 .-,A .,I v
4A
e
0
3%
599
704
4290
berry (Cel+is I-,.,.,L.ata4
FACW
600
4"0
—
—
500
704
ii98
River birch (Betula nigra)
FACW
600 500
48% 8%
--
--
500 950
7% 10.10%
11001450
c,.,-,..-,p chestnut
FACW
68
1"o
—
—
400
"0
igg8
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
FACW
600
49°� 9.6%
--
--
500 1500
7% 15.96%
1190 2100
Tag -.I.J.,r (AIRUS�-.\
COY
300
3%
—
—
400
&OA
_08
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
FACW
299
3_0A
--
--
499 600***
9°6 6.38%
600
Black willow (Salix nigra)
OBL
300
510A
--
--
499 800***
50 8.51%
800
Elderberry (Sambucus nigra)
OBL
--
--
-
--
400***
50 4.26%
400
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
OBL
--
--
--
--
400***
"4.26%
400
^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius)
FACW
--
--
--
--
300***
3.19%
300
AArrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum)
FAC
400
6.4%
400
4.26%
800
ABitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis)
FACU
800
12.8%
800
^American hazelnut (Corylus americans)
FACU
600
6.38%
600
ARed spruce (Picea rubens)
FACU
250
7.81%
1
250
TOTAL
6200 6250
100%
3200
100%
C890-9400
1 100%
1630018850
ASpecies Added
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
*** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels —Total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare -root Stream -Side Assemblage planting.
MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 10
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina November 2022

Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre
Success Criteria Met?
1
648
Yes
2
810
Yes
3
364
Yes
4
1093
Yes
5
769
Yes
6
364
Yes
7
810
Yes
8
810
Yes
9
810
Yes
10
688
Yes
11
729
Yes
12
567
Yes
13
607
Yes
14
688
Yes
15
648
Yes
16
607
Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre
688
Yes
MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina December 2022

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry
Tool
Planted Acreage
11.2
Date of Initial Plant
2022-01-12
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(,)
Date(,) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
2022-02-01
Plot sire (ACRES)
0.029]
®
���mmmmoo®mmmoommm
mm
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved, and .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 m the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species' section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan
addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry
Tool(conti noed)
Acreage
16.2
Plant
2022-01-12
Supplemental
Date(,) Mowing
Survey
2022-02-01
(ACRES)
0.024]
®
��_
�mmmmmm®®mmmmmm©©o
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are no[ approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included m 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 pr for mon ltori ng 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 m the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Appendix B
MY1 Data
2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 5
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina August 2023

e- T
' 16� 15Q
- 1411
13
Ra'n Gauge
r�
2
Fork
1�
12
Legend
OConservation Easement = 29.18 acres
- Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
- Stream Preservation
- Stream Generating No Credit
t
- Instream Structures
® Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area
_ Wetland Reestablishment
_ Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
_ Wetland Preservation
Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements
0 Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements
Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement
Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement
�( Vegetation Plot Origins
® Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria
® Groundwater Gauges Not Meeting Success Criteria
ORain Gauge/Soil Temperature
- Stream Crest Gauge
Cross Sections
Permanent Photo Point Locations
Observed Low Stem Density -2023 Replant Areas
Shed/Mowing Encroachment-2023 Replant Areas
AMP-
rl:� �' - :Y'RS�;I,?ire i• _� t q �. w` 'i�
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Prepared for:
_ _ � \I � RES'TQitATIOIV
- ,p� SYSTEMS I LLC
4
rJti ' x
0 150 300
LAUREL SPRINGS
MITIGATION SITE
Avery County, NC
Title:
MY1
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Notes:
1. Background Imagery Source:
` 2022 aerial photography
provided by the NC One Map
2 program (online, provided by
the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council)
Drawn by: PHP
5
Date: FEB 2023
N Scale: 1:2000
7
.. Project No.: 19-006
FIGURE
1
+ 7
600
Feet

Table 6A. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Laurel Springs Mitigation Site
Vegetation Association
Montane Alluvial Forest*
Acidic Cove Forest*
Stream -side *
Assemblage
TOTAL
Area (acres)
9.0
4.7
2.5
16.2
Species
Indicator Status
# planted*
% of total
# planted*
% of total
# planted**
% of total
# planted
Cherry birch (Betula lenta)
FACU
500
8%
600
18.75%
1500
15.96%
1 2600
Eastern hemlock (Tsugo canodensis)
FACU
400
6.4%
600
18.75%
1000
Red oak (Quercus rubra)
FACU
650
10.4%
650
20.31%
1300
White oak (Quercus alba)
FACU
550
8.80
550
5.85%
1100
White pine (Pinus strobus)
FACU
600
9.6%
600
Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis)
FACU
200
3.2%
300
3.19%
500
Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea)
FAC
600
9.6%
500
15.63%
1100
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
FAC
450
7.2%
600
18.75%
1100
11.70%
2150
River birch (Betula nigra)
FACW
500
8%
950
10.10%
1450
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
FACW
600
9.6%
1500
15.96%
2100
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
FACW
600***
6.38%
600
Black willow (Salix nigra)
OBL
800***
8.51%
800
Elderberry (Sambucus nigra)
OBL
400***
4.26%
400
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
OBL
400***
4.26%
400
^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius)
FACW
300***
3.19%
300
AArrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum)
FAC
400
6.4%
400
4.26%
800
ABitternut hickory (Corya cordiformis)
FACU
800
12.8%
800
AAmerican hazelnut (Corylus americona)
FACU
600
6.38%
600
ARed spruce (Picea rubens)
FACU
250
7.81%
250
TOTAL
6250
100%
3200
100%
9400
100%
18850
ASpecies added post -mitigation plan approval
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
*** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels — A total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare -root Stream -Side
Assemblage planting.
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023

Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre
Success Criteria Met?
1
81
No
2
526
Yes
3
364
Yes
4
891
Yes
5
364
Yes
6
0
No
7
445
Yes
8
648
Yes
9
40
No
10
283
No
11
405
Yes
12
324
Yes
13
202
No
14
202
No
15
243
No
16
162
No
T1
81
No
T2
324
Yes
T3
121
No
Average Planted Stems/Acre
300
No
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Planted Acreage
16.2
Date of Initial Plant
2022-01-13
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
NA
Date(s) Mowing
NA
Date of Current Survey
2022-11-08
Plot size (ACRES)
0.0247
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
Veg Plot 5 F
Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 8 F
Veg Plot 9 F
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Betula alleghaniensis
yellow birch
Tree
FAC
2
2
2
2
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
2
2
Betula sp.
1
1
2
2
liriodendron tulipifera
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
1
1
5
5
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
Species
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
FACU
4
4
3
3
1
1
Included in
Approved
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
Mitigation Plan
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
FACU
1
1
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
FAC
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
FACU
1
1
2
2
2
2
Quercus sp.
8
8
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Tsuga canadensis
eastern hemlock
Tree
FACU
1
1
1
1
2
2
Sum
Performance Standard
1
1
14
14
9
9
17
17
5
5
0
0
9
9
16
16
3
3
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
FACU
4
4
3
3
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Corylus americana
American hazelnut
Shrub
FACU
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Tree
FAC
2
2
1
1
1
1
Sum
Proposed Standard
3
3
14
14
9
9
22
22
9
9
0
0
11
11
16
16
3
3
Current Year Stem Count
1
14
9
17
5
0
9
16
3
Stems/Acre
40
526
364
688
202
0
364
648
40
Mitigation Plan
Species Count
1
3
3
8
4
0
5
9
1
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
100
57
44
18
33
0
27
25
100
Average Plot Height (ft.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Current Year Stem Count
3
14
9
22
9
0
11
16
3
Post Mitigation
Stems/Acre
81
526
364
891
364
0
445
648
40
Plan
Species Count
2
3
3
10
6
0
6
9
1
Performance
Dominant Species Composition (%)
67
57
44
18
33
0
27
25
100
Standard
Average Plot Height (ft.)
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
% Invasives
0
0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a
mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued)
Planted Acreage
16.2
Date of Initial Plant
2022-01-13
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
NA
Date(s) Mowing
NA
Date of Current Survey
2022-11-08
Plot size (ACRES)
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 10 F
Veg Plot 11 F
Veg Plot 12 F
Veg Plot 13 F
Veg Plot 14 F
Veg Plot 15 F
Veg Plot 16 F
Veg Plot 1 R
Veg Plot 2 R
Veg Plot 3 R
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Total
Total
Total
Betula alleghaniensis
yellow birch
Tree
FAC
2
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
1
1
1
1
Betula sp.
2
2
1
liriodendron tulipifera
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
Species
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
FACU
4
Included in
Approved
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
1
1
5
5
1
1
3
3
Mitigation Plan
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
FACU
2
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
FAC
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
FACU
3
Quercus sp.
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
Tsuga canadensis
eastern hemlock
Tree
FACU
Sum
Performance Standard
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
7
2
2
5
5
5
5
3
8
5
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
FACU
1
1
1
1
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Corylus americana
American hazelnut
Shrub
FACU
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Tree
FAC
3
3
11
11
2
2
1
1
Sum
Proposed Standard
7
7
14
14
8
8
7
7
5
5
6
6
5
5
3
8
5
Current Year Stem Count
3
3
7
7
2
5
5
3
8
5
Stems/Acre
121
121
283
202
81
202
162
81
324
121
Mitigation Plan
Species Count
3
2
3
2
1
4
3
2
5
2
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition N
43
79
38
71
40
33
60
67
38
80
Average Plot Height (ft.)
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Current Year Stem Count
7
14
8
7
5
6
5
3
8
5
Post Mitigation
Stems/Acre
283
405
324
202
202
243
162
81
324
121
Plan
Species Count
5
3
4
2
3
5
3
2
5
2
Performance
Dominant Species Composition (%)
43
79
38
71
40
33
60
67
38
80
Standard
Average Plot Height (ft.)
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Invasives
0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a
mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

November 30, 2022
Kimberly Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Subject: Laurel Springs Mitigation Site — Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023)
DMS Project ID No. 100122; Full Delivery Contract No. 7890; RFP No. 16-007725 (Issuance Date 11/13/2018)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835; DWR Project No. 2019-0865
Mrs. Isenhour,
During the 2022 growing season, Restoration Systems (RS) has observed areas of low stem densities at the Laurel
Springs Mitigation Site (Site). Observed areas total 2.67 acres, which includes a 0.107-acre area of encroachment —
see attached remedial planting figure. The encroachment area was partially due to a storage shed left within the
easement used by the adjacent landowner. RS worked with the neighbor to remove the shed and cleared the area
of all debris. Additionally, 6-inch treated fence posts were used to delineate the easement boundary in this area.
A new shed was erected approximately 15 feet from the easement.
RS has ordered trees to replant the 2.67 acres at a density of 670 stems per acre. The replant areas are within the
Acidic Cove Forest Association. The following species and quantities were secured for Q1-2023 planting.
Targeted Vegetation Associations: Acidic Cove Forest
Area of Replant: 2.67 Acres
Species
Indicator Status
Number of Stems
American elm (Ulmus americana)
FACW
600
White Oak (Quercus alba)
FACU
600
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
FAC
600
Total
1,800
These species were listed within the approved mitigation plan but not planted within the Acidic Cove vegetation
association during initial planting. These three species will add to the six species planted during initial planting for
nine total species within the Acidic Cove vegetation association.
RS recognizes that additional "diversity plantings" may be desired by the IRT, and we welcome the opportunity to
discuss a diversity planting effort with the IRT. RS will contact Andrea Leslie and Erin Davis in Q1-2023 to discuss
this effort.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
Raymond Holz
Operations Manager
Restoration Systems, LLC
Attachment — Remedial Planting Plan Figure
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Ray Holz
From:
Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Friday, December 09, 2022 10:08 AM
To:
Ray Holz
Cc:
Wiesner, Paul; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:
RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As -Built/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery County
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
Hi Ray,
Thanks for the follow-up. In general, the IRT does not have any concerns with the Remedial Planting Plan or counting the
bare root species towards success. WRC and DWR request that you contact them if you plan to supplement
understory/shrub species next year. They would like to encourage diversity out there. Andrea Leslie did mention that
American Hazelnut is not a typical riparian species and is often found on hillslopes. This species may not do well in the
riparian zone. She would recommend Witch Hazel as an alternative. She also noted that Red Spruce is very elevation
specific and survives in elevations in excess of 4,000 feet.
Thanks,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107
-----Original Message -----
From: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:26 PM
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <Casey. M. Haywood@ usace.army. mil>; '[e-mail]'<[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Youngman, Holland J <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Melonie Allen <[e-mail]>; Crumbley,
Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; John Hamby
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs
Mitigation Site As -Built/ SAW-2019-00835/ Avery County
To Kim and IRT Members -
Firstly, my personal and sincere apologies for the lack of QA/QC on not only the Laurel Springs As-Built/MYO Baseline
Report but also for the failure to appropriately updated all portions of the Mitigation Plan and with our ordering of non -
approved bare -root species and quantities. I wholeheartedly believe the IRT's mitigation plan review and comment
process results in a superior product, and it is never our intent to dismiss or disregard IRT's comments.
In this case, within the final/approved Mitigation Plan, IRS failed to update the planting plan on Sheet L5.00 of the
Construction Drawings; however, IRS did apply the IRT's comments regarding the planting plan to Table 18 of the
Mitigation Plan, which led to the discrepancy between the two.

During the bare -root tree ordering process, when species availability became an issue, IRS staff charged with ordering
trees did not notice or review the IRT's draft Mitigation Plan comments concerning the planting plan. Specifically, the
IRT's request to cap the amount of Eastern hemlock planted. This mistake and the ordering of non -approved species
caused us to review our bare -root tree ordering process in detail. We have established additional QA/QC measures as a
result, which include:
1.) a full review of the IRT's mitigation plan comments while ordering trees by both personnel charged with ordering
trees and the project manager, and
2.) if non -approved substitution species are required, or quantities of species change drastically due to a lack of
availability, coordination with the IRT will occur immediately.
With that said, I have attached, as a single .pdf, the following items:
Response to IRT comments which includes revised MYO Report and Recorded Drawing pages
A revised Mitigation Plan Amendment Request to count bare -root substitution species towards success criteria,
and
3. A Remedial planting plan for areas of observed low -stem density within the Site's Acidic Cove Forest vegetation
community
After discussing with Paul Wisner at DMS, we believe it would be best to allow the IRT to review the attached
information and provide comments before updating the MYO Report and re -posting the document.
If there are any items you wish to discuss with me directly, please feel free to email or call me at 919-604-9314.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Sincerely,
Raymond H.
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604

Appendix C
MY2 Preliminary Data
2023 Adaptive Management Plan (Project No. 100122) page 6
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina August 2023

Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre
Success Criteria Met?
1
81
No
2
364
Yes
3
405
Yes
4
769
Yes
5
486
Yes
6
0
No
7
202
No
8
567
Yes
9
40
No
10
60
No
11
83
No
12
243
No
13
202
No
14
202
No
15
243
No
16
121
No
T1
81
No
T2
324
Yes
T3
121
No
T4
243
No
T5
405
Yes
T6
324
Yes
T7
40
No
T8
40
No
T9
40
No
T10
40
No
Average Planted Stems/Acre
220
No
MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices
Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Avery County, North Carolina February 2023

Planted Acreage
16.2
Date of Initial Plant
2022-01-13
Dates) of Supplemental Plants)
NA
Dates) Mowing
2023-06-28
Date of Current Survey
2023-06-28
Plot size (ACRES)
0.0247
Species
Included in
Clbiit�����
®
���®®mmmmmmmmoo
a©mm©©a©mmaoaoa©a0000®®®®oa®00
r. .- - ....
���m�m�m�®�m�o�m�m�
•r
�m�
,�m�m�m�®gym
•r
mmm®m
r,
r,
r,
rr
Average Plot Heig��
. - .. -
, . . - - ....
���m�m�m�m�m�o�m�m�
• r
�m�m�m�m�m�m�m
r r
mmm®m
r r
r r
r r
r r
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.

June 2023 Herbaceous Diversity Assessment
Plot
Species
Success
Criteria Met?
Taxa Identified
Common
#
Count
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
Cyperus sp.
Nutsedge sp.
H1
4
Yes
Carex sp.
Sedge sp.
Vernonia noveboracensis
Ironweed
Carex sp.
Sedge sp.
Juncus effuses
Soft rush
H2
4
Yes
Pycnanthemum sp
Mountain mint
White clover
Trifolium repens
Carex sp.
Sedge sp.
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Boneset
H3
5
Yes
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
Green arrow arum
Peltandra virginica
Mountain mint
Pycnanthemum sp
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
Carex sp.
Sedge sp.
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Boneset
H4
6
Yes
Ranunculus sp.
Buttercup
Trifolium repens
White clover
Vernonia noveboracensis
Ironweed
Carex sp.
Sedge sp.
Cicuta maculata
Water hemlock
HS
5
Yes
Juncus effuses
Soft rush
Mountain mint
Pycnanthemum sp
Ironweed
Vernonia noveboracensis
Carex sp.
Sedge sp.
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
H6
4
Yes
Peltandra virginica
Green arrow arum
Ironweed
Vernonia noveboracensis
Carex sp.
Sedge sp.
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Boneset
H7
4
Yes
Ranunculus sp.
Buttercup
White clover
Trifolium repens
Carex sp.
Sege sp.
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Boneset
H8
5
Yes
Packera aurea
Ragwort
Buttercup
Ranunculus sp.
White clover
Trifolium repens
Asclepias incarnata
Swamp milkweed
Carex sp.
Sedge sp.
H9
4
Yes
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Boneset
Juncus effusus
Soft rush