HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200018 Ver 1_100140_Laurel Valley_MY1_FINAL_2023_20240112
MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
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: June 2023 – December 2023
Submittal Date: January 4, 2024
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652
PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167‐B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone: 828.774.5547
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report ‐ FINAL i
LAUREL VALLEY MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 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: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment ................................................................................ 2‐7
2.1 Vegetative Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2‐7
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity .......................................................... 2‐7
2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2‐7
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity ................................................................. 2‐7
2.5 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2‐8
2.6 Adaptive Management Plan....................................................................................................... 2‐8
2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2‐8
Section 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 3‐9
Section 4: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 4‐10
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
IRT Requested Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Tree Survival Photographs
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
Table 8a‐b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross‐Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report ‐ FINAL ii
Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Recorded Bankfull Events Plots
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 12 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 13 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Correspondence
MY0 IRT Comments and Responses
MY1‐DRAFT DMS Comments and Responses
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 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 1 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 1 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 MY1, eleven
(11) of 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. In
riffle cross‐
sections, ERs
are over 2.2
and BHRs are
below 1.2.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 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.
No crest gages
subject to
performance
criteria
recorded
bankfull events
during 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 1 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
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 1‐6
Table 3: Project Attributes
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 Categorical Exclusion
in Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2022) Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
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
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐7
Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during monitoring year (MY) 1 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 assessments are located in Section 1.2 Table 2. Methodology for annual monitoring is
presented in the As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Reports (Wildlands, 2022).
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in August 2023. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem
density range from 283 to 729 planted stems per acre. Average stem density was 553 planted stems per
acre. All 10 permanent and 1 of the 2 mobile vegetation plots are meeting the MY3 interim success
criteria of 320 stems per acre and all plots are on track to meet MY7 success criteria of 210 stems per
acre. Mobile vegetation plot (MVP) 2 did not meet the MY3 interim stem density requirement due to
the plot containing 62% sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Mature trees within the Site that were saved
during construction are continuing to survive. 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.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Vegetation management including herbicide applications were implemented during MY1 to prevent the
spread of invasive species that could compete with planted native species. In July and August 2023,
approximately 50 linear feet of UT2 and 50 linear feet of East Prong Hunting Creek were chemically
treated for marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak). It is expected as riparian vegetation continues to
become established and shade the channel, in‐stream vegetation densities will decrease. Invasive
species will continue to be monitored, mapped, and controlled across the Site as necessary throughout
the monitoring period.
Additional signage was installed within the utility easement marking the conservation easement to
prevent vegetation management from occurring within the Site. All other items from the DMS boundary
inspection have been resolved. In September 2023, the entire conservation easement was inspected to
verify proper markings and intact fencing. A small portion of the boundary near East Prong Hunting
Creek Reach 1 was subject to potential encroachment by mowing beyond the easement boundary. Well‐
marked t‐posts and horse tape were installed to prevent future encroachments and establish a mow
line.
2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in June 2023. 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.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Inspection of stream structures and banks did not identify any stream areas of concern, indicating that
the stream is performing as designed. The mid‐channel bar on East Prong Hunting Creek Sta.101+00 is
still present (see photo point 19 in Appendix A). It is still anticipated that the restored portion of the
stream will process the upstream sediment with multiple out of bank events. Some sediment is present
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 2‐8
within the culvert on the upstream portion of UT1 Reach 1 near Photo Point #1. The sediment load is
minimal and is not impeding flow or animal passage. This is expected to flush through the system during
rain events. The Site will continue to be monitored and any issues will be mapped and reported
throughout the monitoring period.
2.5 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 bankfull events were recorded on
East Prong Hunting Creek, UT1, or UT2 during MY1. From February to August of 2023, the off‐site crest
gage (CG4) recorded 16 bankfull events and 240 days of consecutive flow. 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. Precipitation data was collected from the Morganton weather station
located approximately 2.5 miles from the Site. The trail camera located on UT1 Sta. 219+75 was not able
to detect any hydrological connectivity between the stream and adjacent wetland; however, the
wetland continues to be wet. The camera will continue to be used and will be adjusted as needed.
2.6 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.
2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Overall, the Site is performing as intended and is on track to meet success criteria. Except for mobile
vegetation plot 2, all vegetation plots exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per
acre. All streams within the Site are stable and meeting project goals. Herbaceous vegetation is
establishing itself across the site. Small areas of in‐stream vegetation were treated. All vegetative
species of concern will continue to be assessed and treated, as needed, throughout the seven‐year post‐
construction monitoring period. T‐posts and horse tape were installed in an area along the easement
boundary near East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 where mow lines were not established to prevent
encroachments.
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 1 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 3‐9
Section 3: 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 1 Annual Report ‐ FINAL 4‐10
Section 4: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
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.
Wildlands. 2023. Laurel Valley Mitigation Project. Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Figures 1a‐b
Current Condition Plan View Maps
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
2018 Aerial Photography
Monitoring Year 1 - 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
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
Permanent Vegetation Plots - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Plots - MY1
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Cross-sections
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
GF Trail Camera
GF Mature Tree Photo Points
2022 Aerial Photography
Figure 1a Current Condition Plan View
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Burke County, NC
¹
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[
[
[
!P
!5
!5
!5
!5
GF
GF
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
TC
MT1
2022 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
Permanent Vegetation Plots - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Plots - MY1
Criteria Met
Cross-sections
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
GF Trail Camera
GF Mature Tree Photo Points
Figure 1b Current Condition Plan View
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 - 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
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
PP13A
MT2
MT3
2022 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
Permanent Vegetation Plots - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Plots - MY1
Criteria Not Met
Cross-sections
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
GF Photo Points
GF Mature Tree Photo Points
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 Date Last Assessed: 9/22/2023
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: 9/22/2023
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 1 ‐ 2023
UT1 Reach 2 Date Last Assessed: 9/22/2023
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: 9/22/2023
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%
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As‐built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As‐built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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 September 22 , 2023.
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Total
Cumulative Total
0 Encroachments Noted
/ 0 ac
Visual assessment was completed September 22 , 2023.
Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 1
PP1 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 1 (8/29/2023) PP1 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 1 (8/29/2023)
PP2 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 1 (8/29/2023) PP2 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 1 (8/29/2023)
PP3 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 1 (8/29/2023) PP3 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 1 (8/29/2023)
PP4 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP4 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP5 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP5 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP6 – view North—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP6 – view South—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP6 – view East—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP6 – view West—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP7 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP7 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP8 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP8 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP9 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP9 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP10 – view North—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP10 – view South—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP10 – view East—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP10 – view West—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP11 – view upstream—Downstream of project (8/29/2023) PP11 – view downstream—Downstream of project (8/29/2023)
PP12 – view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023) PP12 – view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (8/29/2023)
PP13A – view downstream—UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP13 – view upstream—UT2 (8/29/2023) PP13 – view downstream—UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP14 – view upstream—UT2 (8/29/2023) PP14 – view downstream—UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP15 – view upstream—UT2 (8/29/2023) PP15 – view downstream—UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP16 – view upstream—UT2 (8/29/2023) PP16 – view upstream of wetland—UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP16 – view downstream—UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP17 – view North—UT2 (8/29/2023) PP17 – view South— UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP17 – view East—UT2 (8/29/2023) PP17 – view West— UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP18 – view upstream—UT2 (8/29/2023) PP18 – view downstream—UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP19 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (8/29/2023) PP19 – view downstream— E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (8/29/2023)
PP20 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (8/29/2023) PP20 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (8/29/2023)
PP21 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R1 (8/29/2023) PP21 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (8/29/2023)
PP21 – view upstream—UT2 (8/29/2023)
PP22 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (8/29/2023) PP22 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (8/29/2023)
PP23 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (8/29/2023) PP23 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (8/29/2023)
PP24 – view upstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (8/29/2023) PP24 – view downstream—E. Prong Hunting CRK R2 (8/29/2023)
UT1 STA 219+75 – Trail camera (6/16/2023)
IRT Requested Photographs
Monitoring Year 1
UT1 STA 206+96 – rock stabilization (9/22/2023) UT1 STA 224+05 – rock stabilization (9/22/2023)
UT1 206+00 – French drain (8/29/2023) East Prong Hunting Creek R1 – Established mow line (9/22/2023)
UT1 – Fence repair (8/29/2023) Utility Easement– Conservation Easement signage (9/22/2023)
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Year 1
Permanent Vegetation Plot 1 (8/30/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 2 (8/30/2023)
Permanent Vegetation Plot 3 (8/30/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 4 (8/30/2023)
Permanent Vegetation Plot 5 (8/30/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 6 (8/30/2023)
Permanent Vegetation Plot 7 (8/30/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 8 (8/30/2023)
Permanent Vegetation Plot 9 (8/30/2023) Permanent Vegetation Plot 10 (8/30/2023)
Mobile Vegetation Plot 1 (8/30/2023) Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 (8/30/2023)
Tree Survival Photographs
Monitoring Year 1
MT1 – UT1 STA 217+75 (8/29/2023) MT2 – UT2 STA 309+00 (8/29/2023)
MT3 – UT2 STA 310+50 (8/29/2023)
Appendix B
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
13
2023‐01‐10
NA
NA
2023‐08‐30
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree FACW 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 22221111 11
Calycanthus floridus eastern sweetshrub Shrub FACU 11
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FAC 1 1 2222
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 2211 11
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW
Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree FACU 11
Euonymus americanus bursting‐heart Shrub FAC 1 1 11
Fagus grandifolia American beech Tree FACU 1122
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FACW 11111111
Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1122
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub FACU 22
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 333311333333
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 1 1122
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1111
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 3322 33
Salix sericea silky willow Shrub OBL 1111 11
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree 11 11
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC 2244 33
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC 1 1 2222
Sum Performance Standard 10 10 14 14 14 14 18 18 16 16 15 15
10 14 14 18 16 15
405 567 567 729 648 607
7 7 10 13 9 9
30 21 29 17 19 20
233222
000000
10 14 14 18 16 15
405 567 567 729 648 607
7 7 10 13 9 9
30 21 29 17 19 20
233222
000000% Invasives
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.
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.)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 FIndicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
13
2023‐01‐10
NA
NA
2023‐08‐30
0.0247
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree FACW
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW
Calycanthus floridus eastern sweetshrub Shrub FACU
Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FAC
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 FACW
Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU
Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Shrub FACU
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 FAC
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum Performance Standard
% 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.)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Indicator
Status
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total
11 1
2211 1
1
22223333
111111111
22111122
11 1
1
1144333345
333333221
11
11
11444444
15 15 17 17 15 15 15 15 8 8
15 17 15 15 8 8
607 688 607 607 324 283
10 8 6 654
20 24 27 27 50 62
232333
000000
15 17 15 15 8 8
607 688 607 607 324 283
10 8 6 654
20 24 27 27 50 62
232333
000000
Veg Plot 10 FVeg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 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.
Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
405 2 7 0 567 3 7 0 567 3 10 0
729 2 13 0 688 2 9 0 607 2 10 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
729 2 13 0 648 2 9 0 607 2 9 0
729 2 13 0 648 2 9 0 607 2 9 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
607 2 10 0 688 3 8 0 607 2 6 0
648 2 11 0 688 2 8 0 607 2 6 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
607 3 6 0 324 3 5 0 283 3 4 0
648 2 6 0 526 2 6 0 607 2 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.
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
Veg Plot 4 F
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Monitoring Year 2
Veg Plot Group 2 R
Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Bankfull Dimensions
16.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.3 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
17.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 1‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
10.7 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
10.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
19.2 width‐depth ratio
57.5 W flood prone area (ft)
5.4 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 2‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1127
1129
1131
1133
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
209+53 Riffle
MY0 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
12.8 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.3 max depth (ft)
13.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.5 width‐depth ratio
56.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 3‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1117
1119
1121
1123
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
216+15 Riffle
MY0 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
16.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
14.7 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
3.1 max depth (ft)
17.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.4 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 4‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1115
1117
1119
1121
1123
1125
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
216+47 Pool
MY0 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
8.9 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
9.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.3 width‐depth ratio
56.5 W flood prone area (ft)
6.3 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 5‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
9.2 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
9.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
23.1 width‐depth ratio
42.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 6‐UT2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
15.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.1 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
16.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.0 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 7‐UT2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
1128
1130
1132
1134
1136
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
306+99 Pool
MY0 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
12.3 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
12.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
25.8 width‐depth ratio
44.4 W flood prone area (ft)
3.6 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 8‐UT2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
25.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
23.6 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
2.0 max depth (ft)
24.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
22.2 width‐depth ratio
79.1 W flood prone area (ft)
3.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 9‐East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
57.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
26.6 width (ft)
2.1 mean depth (ft)
4.6 max depth (ft)
29.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.4 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 10‐East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1108
1110
1112
1114
1116
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
106+94 Pool
MY0 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
29.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
23.6 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
24.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.7 width‐depth ratio
66.8 W flood prone area (ft)
2.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 11‐East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
1110
1112
1114
1116
1118
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
107+32 Riffle
MY0 (11/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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 (ft2)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 (ft2)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
2.0 ‐ 4.1
1.6 ‐ 2.0
20.1 ‐ 23.5
46.0
2.0 ‐ 4.1
29.1 ‐ 30.8
79.2
1.1
1.9
25.2
20.4
2.0
1.3 ‐ 1.5
225.0
1.3 ‐ 1.5
2.3
PRE‐EXISTING
CONDITIONS
C5/B5c C4
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1
DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
C
3.5
1.0
22.7
0.0090
116‐129
1.0 ‐ 1.1
0.0074
13.8 ‐ 18.0
‐‐> 2.00.95
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
71.4
C5/B5c
24.5
33.0
18.0
1.3
1.2
20.1 ‐ 23.5
29.1 ‐ 30.8
13.8 ‐ 18.0
1.6 ‐ 2.0
0.95
‐‐
2.1
18.7
2.8
1.0
> 2.0 ‐‐
1.2
0.0096
1.2
29.7
129.0 108.2
18.0
116‐129
1.0 ‐ 1.1
C4 C
‐‐
1.2
0.0060
24.5
1.2
23.6
‐‐
0.0058
1.2
‐‐ ‐‐
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
Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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
PRE‐EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
UT1 Reach 2
11.0
0.7
0.77
1.2
8.0
‐‐
15.0
1.0
1.2
22.0‐25.4
28.3‐29.9 33.0
23.5
1.0
8.0
UT2
1.3 ‐ 3.1
B4c
1.0 ‐ 1.1
C4
1.0
> 2.0
B5c/ G5c
29.0
C4
22.9‐34.9
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
‐‐ ‐‐
1.0 ‐ 1.1
0.0140
1.2
C
‐‐
1.2 1.2 1.2
20.5‐35.2
15.0
‐‐
C
‐‐
11.0
0.0088 0.0130
‐‐ ‐‐
3.80 > 2.0
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 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 N/A 1130.2 1130.2 1120.3 1120.3 1119.7 N/A
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 1127.8 1127.8 1129.1 1129.2 1119.1 1119.1 1116.6 1116.5
LTOB2 Elevation 1130.5 1130.4 1130.2 1130.2 1120.3 1120.4 1119.7 1119.6
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.7 2.7 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.3 3.1 3.1
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)19.2 16.0 6.7 5.9 8.2 8.9 19.4 16.1
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 1109.7 1134.3 1134.3 1131.7 N/A 1131.4 1131.4
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A 1.0 < 1.0
Thalweg Elevation 1108.7 1108.7 1133.4 1133.5 1129.5 1129.9 1130.4 1130.4
LTOB2 Elevation 1109.7 1109.7 1134.3 1134.2 1131.7 1131.7 1131.4 1131.3
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 2.1 1.8 1.1 1.0
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.4 5.2 3.9 3.7 18.6 15.3 6.8 5.8
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 1116.8 1114.8 N/A 1114.4 1114.4
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A 1.0 1.0
Thalweg Elevation 1114.8 1114.8 1109.9 1110.1 1112.3 1112.2
LTOB2 Elevation 1116.8 1116.8 1114.8 1114.7 1114.4 1114.4
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.9 2.0 4.9 4.6 2.1 2.3
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)25.2 25.0 67.3 57.0 29.7 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
Hydrology Data
Reach MY1 (2023) MY2 (2024) MY3 (2025) MY4 (2026) MY5 (2025) MY6 (2027) MY7 (2028)
UT1 Reach 2 0 ――――――
UT2 0 ――――――
East Prong
Hunting Creek
Reach 2
0 ――――――
MY1 (2021) MY2 (2022) MY3 (2023) MY4 (2024) MY5 (2025) MY6 (2026) MY7 (2027)
Annual Precip
Total 46.85*
WETS 30th
Percentile 35.18
WETS 70th
Percentile 64.50
Normal *
Station: Morganton (315838), Burke County, NC. 35.73083, ‐81.67167.
*Annual precipitation total was collected up until 12/12/2023. Data will be updated in MY2.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Table 10. Bankfull Events
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1117.0
1117.5
1118.0
1118.5
1119.0
1119.5
1120.0
1120.5
1121.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Laurel Valley: CG1 (UT1 R2, XS3)
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1128.0
1128.5
1129.0
1129.5
1130.0
1130.5
1131.0
1131.5
1132.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Laurel Valley: CG2 (UT2, XS8)
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1111.0
1111.5
1112.0
1112.5
1113.0
1113.5
1114.0
1114.5
1115.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Laurel Valley: CG3 (East Prong Hunting Creek R2, XS11)
Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1106.5
1107.0
1107.5
1108.0
1108.5
1109.0
1109.5
1110.0
1110.5
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Laurel Valley: CG4 (Off‐Site)
Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 12. Project Activity and Reporting History
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
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
Invasive Treatment July & August 2023
Stream Survey June 2023
Vegetation Survey August 2023
Stream Survey 2024
Vegetation Survey 2024
Stream Survey 2025
Vegetation Survey 2025
2026 November 2026
Stream Survey 2027
Vegetation Survey 2027
2028 November 2028
Stream Survey 2029
Vegetation Survey 2029
Table 13. Project Contact Table
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100140
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
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 November 2024
Baseline Monitoring
Document (Year 0)May 2023
Year 1 Monitoring November 2023
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Wildlands Construction, Inc.
828.774.5547
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2025
Asheville, NC 28806
167‐B Haywood Rd
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Year 7 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
November 2029
November 2027
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Kristi Suggs
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Fremont, NC 27830
PO Box 1197
Appendix F
Correspondence
September 20, 2023
ATTN: Erin B. Davis
Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
RE: Notice of Mitigation Plan Addendum Approval & Initial Credit Release
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site – Burke County
Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101
DMS Project ID #100140
USACE ACTION ID SAW-2020-00053
DWR # 20200018
Dear Erin Davis,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Interagency Review Team’s (IRT)
comments from the Monitoring Year 0 (MY0) Report for the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site. The
IRT’s comments and Wildlands’ responses are noted below.
IRT Comments:
Mitigation Plan Addendum and Modification Request:
Maria Polizzi, DWR
1. I have no issues with the Mitigation Plan addendum.
Wildlands Response: Noted
Dave McHenry, WRC
1. No comments on the addendum.
Wildlands Response: Noted
Erin Davis, USACE
1. DMS’ questions/comments regarding the proposed Addendum and MY0 Report (comment
#5) provided clarity and transparency, which was helpful for this review and understanding
the modification request.
Wildlands Response: Noted
As-built Drawings and MY0 Report:
Maria Polizzi, DWR
1. As-built plans show numerous substitutions of brush toe for cover logs. Can you explain why
this change was needed?
Wildlands Response: Site clearing did not produce the anticipated amount of required
brush to construct the brush toes as designed. Rather than seeking brush outside the
site limits, logs generated on site were utilized as cover logs. Cover logs provide bank
stability, refuge habitat, and undercut banks, consistent with the goals of brush toe as
designed.
2. Based on Photo Point 3 the crossing at UT1-Reach 1 does not appear to be embedded per
plan.
Wildlands Response: Photo Point 3 is of the upstream side of the existing driveway
crossing. This crossing was not designed or installed by Wildlands and was approved to
remain as part of the mitigation plan. As much water as possible was backed up the pipe
via the next head of riffle grade to facilitate aquatic organism passage, while retaining
similar flow conditions of the crossings.
3. I like the layout of the longitudinal profiles; these are much easier to read than others I have
seen.
Wildlands Response: Noted
Dave McHenry, WRC
1. I don’t have appreciable comments on YR 0 report. But what stands out to me is the
apparently wide scour and/or excavated pools of culvert outlets at ~ sta. 101 and ~ sta.
206+40. I have seen this on a few projects lately, versus restoring a more natural channel
width, and I realize engineers may be trying to minimize the risk associated with existing
pipes that are retained. So, it’s probably just worth watching (as I am planning, as possible)
to gage that sediment deposition, lateral scour, and or pool outlet lowering don’t develop
over the years. The UT at 101 is small too. Fortunately, these culverts are backwatered.
Wildlands Response: The pools were already over widened at the site downstream of
the existing culverts that are referenced in the comments. Shallow fill on banks in a
plunge pool downstream of a culvert is an unstable scenario that will result in
downstream sediment inputs. Banks were stabilized with brush toes creating roughness,
and upstream sediments along with vegetation will adjust the pool width over time if
needed.
Erin Davis, USACE
1. Section 2 and Table 10 both state that the veg survey was completed in January 2023 and
that construction planting of the site was completed in March 2023. How was the veg survey
done before the completion of site planting?
Wildlands Response: The majority of the site, including all permanent and mobile
vegetation plots were planted prior to the January vegetation survey. A few small areas
were not planted until March due to a supply shortage of trees.
2. There were numerous bank treatment changes from brush toe to cover logs. On other
projects we have observed that cover logs can become displaced or eroded behind. Are these
concerns based on the number of substitutions and size of the stream reaches? Also, based
on the redline it appears that in some channel bends include a cover log sandwiched
between brush toe sections, is this accurate?
Wildlands Response: Site clearing did not produce the anticipated amount of required
brush to construct the brush toes as designed. Rather than seeking brush outside the
site limits, logs generated on site were utilized as cover logs. Cover logs provide bank
stability, refuge habitat, and undercut banks, consistent with the goals of brush toe as
designed. Wildlands has worked to improve the design and implementation of cover
logs as bank revetment based on previous failures. On larger channels with longer pool
arc lengths, brush toe was installed upstream and downstream of the cover log where
the log is keyed to the banks. Wildlands has found these short sections of bank are
vulnerable to instability and have implemented this on other similar projects with
success.
3. DWR made a mitigation plan comment (#25) about impacts and potential mortality of
existing trees proposed to remain along designed stream channels. Since the three sections
of channel realignment were done in order to save trees, please track mature tree survival in
these areas through monitoring.
Wildlands Response: Upstream and downstream mature tree photo points of the three
channel realignment areas will be included in the annual monitoring report photologs
throughout the monitoring period (MY1 – MY7). Each mature tree photo point will be
mapped using GPS and documented in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Maps
beginning in MY1.
4. DWR previously asked whether outlet stabilizations included rock placement and Wildlands
responded no except for the floodplain pool (comment/response #28). Were non-hardened
options considered for wetland/floodplain outlets along UT1 and UT2? Please include photos
of rock sills and rock outlet stabilizations added along UT1 (Sta. 206+96 & Sta. 224+05) in
MY1 report.
Wildlands Response: Non-hardened options were considered but there were field
concerns about head cuts at the outlets based on slope and flow. Rock sills were
installed in lieu of using rip rap or similar rock cover to provide grade control while
continuing to enhance wet weather drainage habitat. As requested, a photo will be
taken of the rock sills along the drainage swale on UT1 at STA 206+96 and the outlet
stabilization at STA 224+05 and included in the MY1 report.
5. Why was the plunge pool depth not modified downstream of the existing crossing at Sta.
101 along East Prong Hunting Creek? Is the mid channel bar in this area shown in PP19 a
concern?
Wildlands Response: The plunge pool downstream of the crossing was not modified
because it’s existing depth and length were reasonably within the proposed plan
(1113.8’ proposed vs 1113.4’ in field). The material/elevation lacking on the glide will be
provided via upstream sediments. Grade control was provided at the head of riffle at
station 102+22, providing a depositional area behind it. The mid-channel bar is a result
of upstream sediments from a very actively eroding section of channel off property. The
restored section of East Prong Hunting Creek is intended to process these sediments out
onto the floodplain, but it may take multiple out of bank events. Wildlands will continue
to monitor the mid-channel bar as the project moves into monitoring.
6. Please include a photo of the new French drain installed along CE and driveway boundary in
the MY1 report.
Wildlands Response: Photos of the French drain will be included in the MY1 report.
7. The project fencing is shown in the middle of the utility corridor where the easements
overlap. Has the extent of veg maintenance area been clearly marked inside the fence line?
Per Wildlands response to USACE mitigation plan comment #34, CE signs were to be
installed.
Wildlands Response: Conservation easement signs have been placed along the utility
easement boundary and photos will be included in the MY1 report.
A copy of these NCIRT comments and our response letter will be included in the MY1 report.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Eric Neuhaus, PE
Project Manager
eneuhaus@wildlandseng.com
December 12, 2023
ATTN: Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Service
RE: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Task 7 – Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Report
Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101
DMS Project ID #100140
USACE ACTION ID SAW‐2020‐00053
DWR # 20200018
Dear Harry Tsomides,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the NC Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) comments from the Draft Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Report for the Laurel Valley
Mitigation Site. The DMS’s comments and Wildlands’ responses are noted below.
DMS Comments:
During the 2023 baseline MY0 site visit with Wildlands there were some sections where in
stream vegetation was becoming established along UT2 and UT1 Reach 2, near wetland
areas; thank you for conducting the Murdannia treatments, and please continue to keep an
eye on these reaches.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas and will conduct
treatments if deemed necessary.
Thank you for addressing the boundary inspection items sent to you on 3/15/2023; also
thanks for providing Appendix responses to the IRT comments on the As‐built Drawings and
MY0 Report.
Wildlands Response: Noted
Photo Point #1 (UT1 Reach 1 culvert) shows some sediments in the culvert (it looks like 30‐
40%); photo dated 8/29/23. Compared to the MY0 photo (2/20/2023) this has worsened.
Please continue to photograph, and please add a brief discussion in this report. If possible,
for the culvert photos please include a photo from each side of the culvert, looking at the
culvert from each direction, especially where there is a potential issue (sedimentation, debris
jam, perching, etc).
Wildlands Response: Wildlands will continue to photograph and monitor this area and
will include culvert photographs of both sides in future monitoring reports. A brief
discussion will be included in the final report. Photographs taken on 12/12/23 at Photo
Point #1 are shown below.
Photo Point #1 ‐ view upstream (12/12/2023)
Upstream of Photo Point #1 – view downstream (12/12/2023)
The French drain and fence repairs look great, thank you.
Wildlands Response: Noted
Digital Support Files
Please note for future submission that any areas of concern or remediation (such as invasive
species treatment locations) indicated on the CCPV or referenced in the report should be
included in the spatial digital submission. No need for resubmission of MY1 data.
Wildlands Response: Noted
A copy of these DMS comments and our response letter will be included inside the front cover
of the MY1 report as well as in the digital support files. Please note that the final report
includes additional hydrological data that was collected after the draft submittal. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Eric Neuhaus, PE
Project Manager
eneuhaus@wildlandseng.com