Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190865 Ver 1_Laurel Springs_100122_MY2_2023_20240226FINAL MY2 (2023) MONITORING REPORT LAUREL SPRINGS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Avery County, North Carolina French Broad River Basin Cataloging Unit 06010108 DMS Project No. 100122 Full Delivery Contract No. 7890 DMS RFP No. 16-007725 (issued 11/13/18) USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835 DWR Project No. 2019-0865 Data Collection: January 2023-November 2023 Submission: February 2024 Prepared for: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES 1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652 Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina Ph: (919) 755-9490 Fx: (919) 755-9492 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492 Response to DMS Comments – MY2 (2023) 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 Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text) General: 1. Please ensure that project monitoring equipment is checked prior to the start of the growing season and at least quarterly thereafter to confirm that it is functioning properly and collecting data through the full growing season/ monitoring year. In future monitoring years, please collect data for the entire growing season. MY2 (2023) data collection appears to have ended in September 2023. Response: Understood. Prior to each growing season and at least quarterly thereafter, all monitoring equipment will be inspected and repaired/replaced as necessary. Gauge data for the entire growing season will be reported in future submittals. 2. Please title the project summary ‘Executive Summary’ to match the footer or revise the footer. Response: The footer was revised to “Monitoring Summary”. Report: 1. Executive Summary: “No encroachment was observed during the year 2 (2023) monitoring period.” Encroachment was observed during the 10/18/23 DMS property boundary inspection. Please review and update the report accordingly. Response: The observed encroachment areas were added to the monitoring summary, CCPV, and Table 5. 2. Executive Summary: “The driveway culvert on UT-2 was installed as designed and is stable, however due to IRT concern expressed during the October site visit baffles will be added to enhance aquatic organism passage.” Please also provide a timeframe for the proposed culvert work to be completed. Response: The proposed timing of Q1 2024 was added to this statement. 3. Executive Summary: “Ten 5m x 2m temporary herbaceous plots were documented during MY2 (2023). All 10 plots recorded a species count of 4 or more different species within each plot (Appendix B).” Please discuss and note the IRT approved herbaceous plot success criteria. Response: The passage was revised to read: “Due to floodplain soils being of the Nikwasi series, scattered openings dominated by herbs and shrubs are likely to develop overtime. These areas are expected to be less than an acre in size and encompass less than 20% of the Site. As such, nine 5m x 2m temporary herbaceous plots were documented in herbaceous dominated areas during MY2 (2023). All 9 plots met the IRT established success criteria of 4 or more species present. See Table A for success criteria and Appendix B for herbaceous plot data.” 4. Executive Summary: In the Year 2 (2023) Monitoring Summary please indicate the Adaptive Management Plan was approved and give the date of approval; reference where the communications (IRT comments and RS’s responses) are in the Appendices. In the Wetlands section, please add the date of the 2023 IRT site visit; “During a 2023 IRT Site visit, it was noted…”. Response: A reference to the adaptive management plan date of approval (November 29, 2923) was added to the vegetation section, and the AMP and corresponding IRT communications in Appendix F were referenced. Additionally, the October 18, 2023 date of the IRT site visit was added to the passage in the Wetlands section. Page 2 of 5 5. Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results –DMS recommends updating the goals/performance table to reflect the current monitoring table guidance (October 2020), to reflect measurement method and cumulative monitoring results for each item; this is available on the DMS website at: https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/vendors/templates-guidelines-tools-projects Response: Table 2 was updated to conform to the 2020 monitoring table guidance. 6. Table C; Section 3.3 Vegetative Assessment; CCPV Maps: Herbaceous plot performance (Appendix B Table 9) should be discussed in the report text and included in Table C since it was part of the approved mitigation plan. Please discuss and note the IRT approved herbaceous plot success criteria. Only nine (9) herbaceous plots are shown on the CCPV map; however, ten (10) were reported. Please review and update the report accordingly. Response: Only 9 herbaceous plots were measured. Plots 9 and 10 were inadvertent duplicates. This has been resolved. Additionally, the 9 herbaceous plots have been added to the Vegetation Parameters section in Table C, and a brief discussion of the plots and success criteria was added to Section 3.3. 7. Table C: The table reports “16 permanent plots and 3 temporary plots spread across the Site”; however, 16 permanent plots; 10 temporary plots; and 10 herbaceous plots were reported in MY3 (2023). Please review and update the table accordingly. Response: No temporary vegetation plots were proposed in the approved mitigation plan. The 3 temporary plots in MY1 and 10 in MY2 were measured to assess the need for and success of supplemental planting efforts. A footnote was added to this table and Table 2 indicating, “Temporary vegetation plots may be measured as required by an adaptive management plan or requested by IRT.” 8. Section 3.1 Stream Assessment: “Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted on April 14, 2023, and no stream areas of concern were identified.” Please consider collecting morphological data later in the growing season so it represents the full monitoring year. If collected earlier, data collection dates should be consistent each year to allow a full year between surveys. Response: Understood. Stream morphological measurements will be collected at approximately the same time each year during ensuing monitoring years. 9. Section 3.4 Monitoring Year 2 Summary: “The small encroachment area observed during MY1 was addressed, and the easement was re-marked.” Please update as encroachment was observed in this same area during DMS’s 10/18/23 property boundary inspection. Response: A discussion of the 2023 encroachment was added to Section 3.4. 10. CCPV Map (Figure 1) and Asset Map (Figure 2): The CCPV & Asset maps are not georeferenced; please provide georeferenced maps with the revised deliverable. Response: Figures 1 and 2 were re-exported to include georeferenced properties. These have been included in the final digital submittal. 11. Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment & CCPV Maps: Please update the table and CCPV maps as encroachment was observed during DMS’s 10/18/23 property boundary inspection. Please confirm that the invasives reported in the project monitoring summary are minimal and below the 0.10-acre mapping threshold. If above the mapping threshold, they should be reported in the table and CCPV sheets. Response: Table 5 and the CCPV were updated to include encroachment observed during the 10/18/23 DMS boundary inspection. The invasives treatments that occurred on 6/28/23 and 9/19/23 were spot treatments of areas well below the 0.10-acre mapping threshold. 12. Laurel Springs MY2 (2023) Photo Logs (vegetation plots): Please provide dates that the photos were taken. Are the transect photos from the temporary vegetation plots or the herbaceous plots? Response: The date the plot photos were taken (September 21, 2023) was added to the plot photo log header. The transect photos are from the temporary (woody) vegetation plots. Page 3 of 5 13. Laurel Springs Fork Creek Crest Gauge (2023 Data): Please provide a graph legend and include the bankfull elevation line. Response: The bankfull elevation line was added to the crest gauge graph, and a legend was provided. 14. Appendix B Table 9 - Temporary Herbaceous Vegetation Plot Data: Please include the common names of the species identified and add a table footnote indicating the IRT approved success criteria for the herbaceous plots. Response: A column was added for common names, and a footnote was added indicating that success criteria require 4 species present per plot. 15. Appendix C – Crosse section UT3, XS - 7: In the report text, please briefly discuss XS-7 / UT3 and what the variation from as-built and source of the pool filling (approx. 1 foot) might be. At the 4/18/2023 IRT Credit Release Meeting, Cross Sections 4, 7, and 14 were pointed out by the IRT and should be reviewed and considered in the revised MY2(2023) report text. Response: The following discussion was added to Section 3.1 “Stream Assessment”: “Cross-sections 4, 7, and 14 were pointed out by the IRT at the April 18, 2023 credit release meeting due to varying degrees of aggradation since MY0. These are pool cross-sections in a highly dynamic mountain stream system. Shortly after Site construction, a great deal of streambed substrate transport was observed as the newly constructed stream settled and adapted to the high energy flows that characterize steep, high elevation streams. This sediment deposition does not reflect a greater sediment issue within the Site. It is a natural step in the early successional processes that occur after a stream has been restored. It is expected that substrate transport will continue to be observed in this system during the ensuing monitoring period, including potential scour in these pools as more high flow events occur onsite.” 16. Appendix D – Groundwater Gauge Graphs: Please include brackets in the graphs showing the start and end date for the maximum consecutive days reported. Response: Brackets were added to the maximum consecutive days for each gauge. 17. Appendix D - Figure D1: Please QAQC the rain data; Swamp Grape project was listed in the raw data files. Please make sure the rain data applicable to Laurel Springs is reported. Response: The rain data was confirmed to be from an onsite gauge at Laurel Springs. The reference to Swamp Grape was mistakenly carried over from an older template. It has been corrected. 18. Appendix F: IRT Correspondence: WRC (Andrea Leslie) provided additional guidance regarding the proposed culvert baffles on 1/2/2024 via email. Please include this additional correspondence in the Appendix (attached) and consider during installation. Response: This email is now included in Appendix F and will be considered during baffle installation. Space purposefully left blank Page 4 of 5 Field Inspection General: DMS Conducted a property boundary inspection on 10/18/23 and submitted the inspection report and .KMZ file to RS on 10/30/23. Inspection and action items noted include: 10/18/2023 Field Inspection: • The easement corners were monumented with stamped aluminum caps. • Signs on trees had steel fasteners presenting a chain saw safety concern. • Multiple signs and witness markers appear to conflict or are awkwardly placed. • Roads and trails were noted inside of the CE and were not located on the recorded survey plat. • Several areas within the CE area have active mowing/cutting encroachment. • Old fencing and construction related sediment control silt fencing t-posts noted inside of the CE area. • Corner and boundary line markings were not within the required specification. • Easement encroachments and deficiencies were observed. • Debris piles noted inside of the CE area. Action Items: 1. Monitor the site boundary and maintain compliance throughout the monitoring period. Response: Regular boundary monitoring will continue on a regular basis with compliance actions taken as necessary to ensure easement integrity and maintain standards relevant to Contract #7890 / RFP 16-007725; specifically, DMS guidance title “Survey Requirements for Full Delivery Projects Version 08/13/13” attached here for reference and accessed via the following link: https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/vendors/templates-guidelines-tools-projects and selecting “Project--> Historic Templates” which downloads a spreadsheet. With an original contract date of 5/17/2019, the contract standards are “CE Survey Specs” dated 8-13-2013. Please note that some DMS boundary comments submitted on 10/30/23 reference standards are not applicable to this contract. Through the actions taken in 2023 and planned work in Q1 2024 (detailed in comment responses below), RS believes that the site will meet the required contract standards for boundary marking. 2. Remove all agricultural debris located within the CE area. See KML for areas noted on the recent visit. Response: Debris is scheduled to be removed from the noted locations in Q1 2024 and will be detailed in the MY3 (2024) Monitoring Report. 3. Replace all tree sign fasteners with aluminum nails. Examples were provided at the time of our inspection. The 3 ½ inch by 0.177 inch by 11/32-inch head aluminum nails were purchased from Kaiser Aluminum 800-633- 3156. Response: RS appreciates the intent of this request; however, this standard is not part of Contract #7890 / RFP 16-007725 and does not apply to this site. RS believes that all current fasteners meet the contract requirements but will favor aluminum nails if any signs/fasteners require replacement during the monitoring period due to incidental damage or failure. 4. Old fencing inside of CE needs to be removed along with any sediment control silt fencing t-posts used during the project construction phase. See KML for specific areas noted on recent visit. Response: Fencing is scheduled to be removed from the noted locations in Q1 2024 and will be detailed in the MY3 (2024) Monitoring Report. 5. Missing witness posts need to be installed. The KML describes southwestern corner missing witness post and one other post was noted as being down on the ground. Response: The noted points are corner #48 and #43. Those witness posts will be corrected in Q1 2024 and will be detailed in the MY3 (2024) Monitoring Report with photographic documentation. In addition, RS will add high visibility witness posts along the roadside boundary where terrain and vegetation have obscured the original marking. These posts will be added at ~200’ intervals. Page 5 of 5 6. Where awkward signage is noted on the KML, clean up so that it is clear to the observer where the boundary is located. The boundary should be marked so that someone without a GPS and map can reasonably navigate the perimeter of the project during leaf off season. Response: Noted, see response to comment 5 for additional marking occurring in Q1 2024. Once the Q1 2024 work is completed, the boundary will be reviewed for compliance with contract standards and will be maintained to meet those standards. 7. Where encroachments are noted in the KML, a conversation with the adjacent landowner is required to inform them to cease the behavior causing the encroachment. This conversation needs to be summarized in an email and sent to the DMS Project Manager (Wiesner). Response: Noted. Landowner communications with Mr. Wise have been summarized in an email to DMS which is included immediately following this comment response letter. 8. Recommend the Provider (RS) watch this video before attempting to correct the signage https://youtu.be/7dE7edd3V5M. It is a five-minute video originally created during the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program era. It will help them visualize what our expectation looks like. Response: Noted. The boundary has been reviewed for compliance with contract standards and will be maintained to meet those standards. 9. The easement boundary should be marked no less than every 200 feet. Where marking falls short of this objective, additional signs should be added. Response: Noted, see response to comment 5 for additional marking occurring in Q1 2024. The boundary has been reviewed for compliance with contract standards and will be maintained to meet those standards. 10. The Provider (RS) should decommission and block all roads and trails located inside of the Conservation Easement to avoid any future use. The roads and trails noted inside of the Conservation Easement were not located on the recorded survey plat and should not be utilized in the future. Response: Noted. These trails are no longer in use and access points have been blocked. 1 Raymond Holz From:Matthew Harrell Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:28 PM To:Wiesner, Paul Cc:Raymond Holz; JD Hamby Subject:Laurel Springs_100122: Boundary inspection report- Action Item #7 Hi Paul, Action item #7 from the boundary inspection report indicated that we should send you a summary email of our correspondence with Mr. Wise regarding easement encroachments adjacent to his property. Here is that summary: 1. Soon after construction a boundary oversight by RS was found which consisted of a shed within the easement. RS coordinated with Mr. Wise to remove this shed and he was cooperative throughout the process. 2. During the 10-19-2022 site visit to conduct maintenance work, specifically to remove the shed and other debris from the easement near the adjacent landowner’s house, project manager JD Hamby presented a new map with updated aerial photography to the neighbor and explained how past maps with outdated imagery were confusing as to the location of the boundary due to the changes in vegetation and removal of a hedge row. It was explained to the neighbor that RS was adding new wooden posts to mark the corners of the easement more clearly, along with t-posts in between, in order to plainly mark where the easement boundary lay, and to protect the replant area from any more encroachments with a mower. The neighbor was understanding and agreeable. 3. During a March 2023 site visit additional boundary marking was added along the edge of Mr. Wise’s yard. He was present during a portion of this work and seemed to understand the easement boundary and the relevant restrictions. 4. During an October 2023 site visit additional mowing/scalloping in the easement along Mr. Wise’s yard was observed. JD Hamby conferred with Mr. Wise about this issue in person. It was decided that RS would add a physical barrier (ie rope or horse tape) along the boundary to make it clear to any contractor or other person mowing the yard that the easement area was off limits and no longer to be mowed. Mowing along the easement boundary was challenging due to the steep grade which limited equipment mobility and contributed to some scalloping. A continuous visual barrier was agreed upon as a viable solution. This visual/ physical barrier is to be installed in Q1 2024. Thank you, Matthew Harrell | Project Manager Davey Mitigation P: 252-299-1655 E: matthew.harrell@davey.com 13 August 2013 Survey Requirements for Full Delivery Projects Version 08/13/13 The full delivery provider (Provider) shall furnish one point of contact) as a central point of communication for easement acquisition. The easement boundary shall mimic the boundary provided within the technical proposal. The Provider shall contact the Project Manager at the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to discuss any variations in the easement boundary from the technical proposal prior to proceeding with the acquisition. The conservation easement template, Full Delivery Conservation Easement Version 08/13/13, is located at the following link: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/fd-forms-templates. Conservation Easement Boundary Design and Fencing Requirement 1) The configuration of any survey should simplify the project boundary and reduce the number of corners. Corners shall be no less than 200 feet apart without prior approval. A strong preference for fewer longer lines must prevail over many short lines when considering the placement of lines and corners. Wetland delineations and measurements from the top of bank should serve as tools to help draw the conservation easement boundary but should rarely be used as the boundary itself. 2) Woven wire or barbed wire fences are required on sites with livestock access to areas adjacent to the conservation easement. Any fencing along the conservation easement boundary shall be installed on the conservation easement boundary and shall conform to Natural Resources Conservation Service specifications, except that metal posts must not be used for fencing. Woven Wire Fence and Barbed Wire Fence Specifications as of 02/14/12 can be found at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/fd- forms-templates. At least five strands of galvanized barbed wire must be used. Either a gate or a y-shaped opening at least three feet in width must be installed every one thousand feet on at least one side of the project. Woven wire or barbed wire fencing must be attached to pressure treated posts or other wood of equal life and strength. Fences shall not impede the future use of the parent tract, and must be located so as to provide for long-term maintenance of the fence by the Grantor without impacting the rest of the conservation easement area. The State is not responsible for maintenance of fencing. Maintenance zones shall extend into the Conservation Easement Area no more than ten feet from the conservation easement boundary. Survey pins and caps are required on each corner as described elsewhere in this document. Installation of the fence shall not disturb the survey pins or caps. The interior of the maintenance zone shall be marked with durable permanent markers, such as t-posts, at each corner. Fences, maintenance zones and fence openings shall be shown on the survey plat (plat). Please note that maintenance zones cannot count towards widths required for compensatory mitigation credit. 3) All existing easements or rights-of-way that affect the project must be shown on the plat. Please refer to this link for examples: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/fd-forms-templates. When pre-existing easements and rights-of-way run parallel to the outer edge of the conservation easement, make the boundaries contiguous and exclusive. Survey and Boundary Marking 1) All surveys shall meet the Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina as described in Title 21, Chapter 56 of the North Carolina Administrative Code. 2) The Provider shall show the existing property corners, nearby easements, dwellings, roadways, streams and creeks on the survey plat. The Provider shall also show all easements that are within 100 feet of proposed conservation easement boundary lines. Manholes and power poles shall also be shown on the plat. 3) The Provider shall set 5/8” rebar 30” in length with 3-1/4" aluminum caps on all easement corners. Caps shall meet EEP specifications (Berntsen RBD5325 imprinted with NC State Logo # B9087 or equivalent). After installation, caps shall be stamped with the corresponding number from the table of coordinates that is required in paragraph 6 below. 4) The Provider shall place a 6-foot tall durable witness post at each corner in the conservation easement boundary. Witness posts shall be placed within the conservation easement area. Posts shall be made of material that will last a minimum of 20 years. The Provider shall attach a conservation easement sign to each witness post and place additional signs at no more than 200-foot intervals on long boundary lines. When appropriate, the Provider shall mark existing trees with conservation easement signs and/or blaze property lines at approximate eye level. Please see EEP portal for examples at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/fd-forms-templates. 5) All surveys shall be tied to the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System NAD83 (NSRS2007) per the Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina, Title 21 NCAC 56.1602(g), regardless of whether the property is or is not within 2,000 feet of a geodetic monument and with application of 21-56.1607 GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM SURVEYS or 21-56.1603 CLASSIFICATION OF BOUNDARY SURVEYS. 6) The Provider shall send an Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) copy and an Arc GIS file of the preliminary plat to the EEP Project Manager and the State Property Agent by electronic mail. The title block shall read, “Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina, Ecosystem Enhancement Program”, survey sheet number, and shall contain the SPO parcel ID number, EEP project name and number. The title block shall contain the name of the landowner, location, date surveyed, scale of the drawing, name, address, registration number and seal of the surveyor. A table of coordinates (northing and easting) for all property corners must be included on the plat. All corners shall be numbered consecutively starting with number 1. If multiple parcels comprise a single project, assign a unique number to each property corner within the project. The text metes and bounds description for each tract of the surveyed areas shall be provided on standard letter sized paper and titled “Exhibit A”. 7) After written approval has been received from the SPO and EEP, the Provider shall record the final approved plat and obtain all necessary approvals from the county review officer. 8) The Provider shall send one copy of the recorded plat to Blane Rice, State Property Office, Mail Service Center 1321, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1321. The Provider shall also send one copy of the final recorded plat in the following formats: a legible Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) copy, digital files in CAD (.dwg) format and Arc GIS format to the EEP Project Manager and to the following at 13 August 2013 the State Property Office: Blane.Rice@doa.nc.gov and Jeff.Mulligan@doa.nc.gov. All files must be geo-referenced and projected in NC State Plane Coordinates, NAD83 (NSRS 2007), in US Survey Feet. The CAD and Arc GIS files must contain a closed polygon of the conservation easement shape and must contain a polygon layer in addition to the line work 9) For tips on creating GIS compatible CAD drawings, please see ESRI's Creating Compatible CAD Data for ArcGIS. 10) Digital files submitted to EEP shall follow the guidance document Format, Data Requirements and Content Guidance for Electronic Drawings Submitted to EEP. MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Monitoring Summary Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Laurel Springs -- Year 2 (2023) Monitoring Summary General Notes • During the October 18, 2023 DMS boundary inspection, three small areas of encroachment (0.008 total acres) were observed along the northern easement boundary near the easement break on UT 3. Additional boundary marking was added and the area will be replanted during the Q1 2024 AMP action. These areas are depicted on Figure 1 and are quantified in Table 5 (Appendix A). • No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., heavy deer browsing, beaver, etc.) was observed. • An offsite DOT culvert upstream of UT1 sustained storm damage and rock was added to stabilize the culvert and repair the perched condition. See Appendix A. • The driveway culvert on UT-2 was installed as designed and is stable, however due to IRT concern expressed during the October 18, 2023 site visit, baffles will be added Q1 2024 to enhance aquatic organism passage. See Appendix F. Streams • All stream restoration reaches were stable and exhibited no signs of erosion, and all structures were stable (Appendix C). • Three bankfull events were documented during the year 2 (2023) monitoring period for a total of 6 bankfull events during 2 monitoring years (Table 11, Appendix D). • UT 2 showed evidence of channel formation during the year 2 (2023) monitoring period, with the stream flow gauge capturing 94 consecutive days of flow (Table 13, Appendix D). Vegetation • Measurements of all 16 permanent plots and 10 temporary plots resulted in an average of 240 planted stems/acre. Additionally, 10 of the 26 individual plots met the MY3 stem density requirement during MY2 (Appendix B). • Due to continued stem-density issues reflected in the MY2 vegetation data, RS will implement a site-wide adaptive management plan during the 2023/2024 dormant season. The 2023 Adaptive Management Plan was approved November 29, 2023 and is detailed, along with corresponding IRT communications, in Appendix F. • Due to floodplain soils being of the Nikwasi series, scattered openings dominated by herbs and shrubs are likely to develop over time. These areas are expected to be less than an acre in size and encompass less than 20% of the Site. As such, nine 5m x 2m temporary herbaceous plots were documented in herbaceous dominated areas during MY2 (2023). All 9 plots met the IRT established success criteria of 4 or more species present. See Table A for success criteria and Appendix B for herbaceous plot data. MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Monitoring Summary Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Wetlands • Ten of the thirteen groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 2 (2023) monitoring period (Table 12, Appendix D). During the October 18, 2023 IRT Site visit, it was noted that the area surrounding gauges 2 and 3 are obvious wetlands and that a gauge malfunction is likely the cause of the lack of wetland hydrology at these gauges. Axiom confirmed a malfunction with the Site barometer, which caused somewhat erratic readings through the first half of the growing season on all gauges. The barometer was replaced on June 28, 2023 and has been functioning properly since. • Based on communications with the IRT in 2022, RS has moved gauges 6, 9, 11, and 12 into creditable wetland reestablishment areas during the 2022/2023 dormant season. Also, gauge 1 was moved into the wetland enhancement area, as depicted in Figure 9 of the approved Mitigation Plan. • Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year Gauge 12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved - Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) Year 1 (2022) Year 2 (2023) Year 3 (2024) Year 4 (2025) Year 5 (2026) Year 6 (2027) Year 7 (2028) 1* Yes 45 days (19.1%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 2 No 2 days (0.9%) No 3 days (1.3%) 3 No 17 days (7.2%) Yes 14 days (5.9%) 4 Yes 167 days (71.1%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 5 Yes 46 days (19.6%) Yes 75 days (31.8%) 6* Yes 236 days (100%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 7 Yes 236 days (100%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 8 Yes 119 days (50.6%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 9* Yes 236 days (100%) Yes 99 days (41.9%) 10 Yes 65 days (27.7%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 11* Yes 45 days (19.1%) Yes 44 days (18.6%) 12* Yes 236 days (100%) No 15 days (6.4%) 13 Yes 236 days (100%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) *During the MY0 review, the IRT requested that gauges be moved into creditable wetland areas to more accurately represent what was presented in the detailed mitigation plan (Appendix F). During the 2022/2023 dormant season, gauges 6, 9, 11, and 12 were moved into creditable wetland reestablishment areas, and gauge 1 was moved into the nearby wetland enhancement area. MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Monitoring Summary Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Site Maintenance Report (2023) Invasive Species Work Maintenance work 6/28/2023: Spot treatments: Japanese Knotweed, Multiflora rose, Ligustrum. 09/19/2023: Spot treatments: Japanese Knotweed, Bittersweet, Barberry, Multiflora rose. Week of 3/12/23: Supplemental planting, old fence removal, additional boundary marking. 7/12/23: Additional boundary marking. 8/8/23: Added rock at DOT culvert entering site at UT-1 where storm damage caused perching. FINAL MY2 (2023) MONITORING REPORT LAUREL SPRINGS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Avery County, North Carolina French Broad River Basin Cataloging Unit 06010108 DMS Project No. 100122 Full Delivery Contract No. 7890 DMS RFP No. 16-007725 (issued 11/13/18) USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835 DWR Project No. 2019-0865 Data Collection: January 2023-November 2023 Submission: February 2024 Prepared for: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES 1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652 Prepared by: And Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc. 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Contact: Raymond Holz Contact: Grant Lewis 919-755-9490 (phone) 919-215-1693 (phone) 919-755-9492 (fax) MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Table of Contents Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure ..................................................................... 1 1.2 Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 5 2 METHODS ...............................................................................................................................5 2.1 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 6 3 MONITORING YEAR 2 – DATA ASSESSMENT .............................................................................7 3.1 Stream Assessment ................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Wetland Assessment ................................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Vegetative Assessment ............................................................................................................. 8 3.4 Monitoring Year 2 Summary ..................................................................................................... 8 4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................9 LIST OF REPORT TABLES Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits....................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results ................................................................................... 3 Table 3. Project Attribute Table .................................................................................................................... 4 Table A. Success Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 5 Table B. Monitoring Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 5 Table C. Monitoring Summary ...................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDICES Appendix A. Visual Assessment Data - Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View - Figure 2. Asset Map - Table 4A-E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table - Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table - Vegetation Plot Photographs - Site Photo Log Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Data - Table 6A. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation - Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix - Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities - Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool - Table 9. Temporary Herbaceous Plot Data Appendix C. Stream Geomorphology Data - Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays - Table 10A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables - Table 11A-B. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Appendix D. Hydrologic Data - Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events - Fork Creek Crest Gauge Graph - Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology data - Groundwater Gauge Graphs - Table 14. Channel Evidence - UT 2 Surface Water Gauge Graph - Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall - Soil Temperature Graph Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Info - Table 15. Project Timeline - Table 16. Project Contacts Appendix F. IRT Correspondence - Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023) - 2023 Adaptive Management Plan - MY2 IRT Site Visit Notes and Comment Responses - 2023-2024 IRT Email Correspondence MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 1 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 1 PROJECT SUMMARY Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site). The Site is on one contiguous parcel along the cold-water Fork Creek and unnamed tributaries to Fork Creek in the Southern Crystalline Ridge and Mountains Ecoregion of North Carolina. Located in the French Broad River Basin, cataloging unit 06010108, the Site is in the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 06010108010020 and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin number 04-03-06. The Site is not located in a Local Watershed Plan (LWP), Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), or Targeted Resource Area (TRA). Site watersheds range from approximately 0.02 of a square mile (12 acres) on UT2 to 1.32 square miles (847 acres) at the Site’s outfall. 1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure Located approximately 8 miles southwest of Linville and 7 miles northeast of Spruce Pine in southern Avery County, the Site encompasses 29.19 acres. Mitigation work within the Site included 1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement (Level I), 3) stream enhancement (Level II), 4) stream preservation, 5) wetland reestablishment, 6) wetland rehabilitation, 7) wetland enhancement, 8) wetland preservation, and 9) vegetation planting. The Site is expected to provide 4231.827 cold water stream credits and 3.688 riparian wetland credits by closeout (Table 1, Page 2). A conservation easement was granted to the State of North Carolina and recorded at the Avery County Register of Deeds on October 19, 2020. Before construction, land use at the Site was characterized by disturbed forest, cow pasture, and hay fields. Site design was completed in February 2021. Construction started July 12, 2021, and ended with a final walkthrough on October 15, 2021. The Site was planted on January 12-13, 2022. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, and project contacts are summarized in Tables 1 4-15 (Appendix E). -Space intentionally left blank- Table 1. Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (ID‐100122) Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits Original Mitigation Original Original Original Plan As‐Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments Stream Fork Cr ‐ A 91 92 Cold EI 1.50000 60.667 Fork Cr ‐ B 2250 2242 Cold R 1.00000 2,250.000 UT 1 234 233 Cold R 1.00000 234.000 UT 2A 25 25 Cold P 10.00000 2.500 UT 2 ‐ A 184 184 Cold P 10.00000 18.400 UT 2 ‐ B 198 199 Cold EII 2.50000 79.200 UT 2 ‐ C 467 463 Cold R 1.00000 467.000 UT 3A 103 103 Cold P 10.00000 10.300 UT 3 ‐ A 265 265 Cold P 10.00000 26.500 UT 3 ‐ B 248 250 Cold EII 5.00000 49.600 UT 3 – C 183 183 Cold EI 1.50000 122.000 UT 3 ‐ D 233 223 Cold R 1.00000 233.000 UT 4 ‐ A 541 541 Cold P 10.00000 54.100 UT 4 ‐ B 112 110 Cold R 1.00000 112.000 UT 5 ‐ A 60 60 Cold P 10.00000 6.000 UT 5 ‐ B 67 67 Cold P 10.00000 6.700 Total: 3,731.967 Wetland Wetland Reestablish 7.656 7.656 R REE 1.00000 7.656 Wetland Rehabilitation 1.845 1.845 R RH NA* 0.000 Wetland Enhancement 0.148 0.148 R E NA* 0.000 Wetland Preservation 0.198 0.198 R P NA* 0.000 Total: 7.656 *Wetland Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Preservation acreage are not being included in credit calculations. These areas are being utilized by the wider buffer tool to generate additional stream credit  Project Credits Riparian Non‐Rip Coastal Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh Restoration 3,296.000 Re‐establishment 3.688** Rehabilitation Enhancement Enhancement I 182.667 Enhancement II 128.800 Creation Preservation 124.500 Wider Buffer Tool 499.860 Totals 0.000 0.000 4,231.827 3.688 0.000 0.000 Total Stream Credit 4,231.827 Total Wetland Credit 3.688 Restoration Level Stream ** DMS contract is for 3.688 WMUs; therefore, excess wetland credit has been used for wider buffer tool calculations. Objective/Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria%Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results • Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows • Remove drain tiles and agriculture ditches • Plant woody riparian buffer • Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface roughness • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement • Disperse high flows on the floodplain • Increase biogeochemical cycling within the system • Recharge riparian wetlands • BHR not to exceed 1.2 • Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years • Livestock excluded from the easement • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria • Conservation Easement recorded • 16 cross-section surveys • 16 perment vegetation plots with temporary plots as necessary* • 13 groundwater gauges • 1 crest gauge on Fork Creek • All XS met success criteria - 2022, 2023 • 11 of 13 gauges met - 2022, 10 of 13 gauges met -2023 • 9 of 26 plots met - 2022, 8 of 26 plots met - 2023 • 3 BF -2022, 3 BF 2023 • Construct channels with the proper pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile • Remove livestock from the property • Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate • Upgrade piped channel crossings • Plant woody riparian buffer • Stabilize stream banks • Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion • Reduce shear stress • Improve overall hydraulic function • Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with the appropriate substrate • Visual documentation of stable channels and structures • BHR not to exceed 1.2 • < 10% change in BHR in any given year • Livestock excluded from the easement • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria • 16 cross-section surveys • 16 perment vegetation plots with temporary plots as necessary* • All XS met success criteria - 2022, 2023 • 9 of 26 plots met - 2022, 8 of 26 plots met - 2023 • Remove agricultural livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs • Install marsh treatment areas • Plant woody riparian buffer • Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep ripping/plowing. • Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic floodplain elevation. • Reduce floodplain sediment inputs from runoff • Reduce nutrient inputs by permanently removing livestock • Increase bank stability • Livestock excluded from the easement • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria • 13 groundwater gauges • 16 perment vegetation plots with temporary plots as necessary* • 9 temporary herbaceous vegetation plots • 11 of 13 gauges met - 2022, 10 of 13 gauges met -2023 • 9 of 26 plots met - 2022, 8 of 26 plots met - 2023 • 9 of 9 herbaceous plots met - 2023 • Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate • Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade • Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement • Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Stabilize stream banks • Install in-stream structures • Decrease stream bed incision • Increase bank stability • Increase LWD and organic material in streams • Plant hardwood stems throughout riparian buffer area • Restore riparian wetlands within the adjacent floodplain. • Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with the appropriate substrate • Visual documentation of stable channels and in- stream structures • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria • Conservation Easement recorded • 16 cross-section surveys • 13 groundwater gauges • 16 perment vegetation plots with temporary plots as necessary* • 9 temporary herbaceous vegetation plots • 1 crest gauge on Fork Creek • All XS met success criteria - 2022, 2023 • 11 of 13 gauges met - 2022, 10 of 13 gauges met -2023 • 9 of 26 plots met (2022), 8 of 26 plots met - 2023 • 9 of 9 herbaceous plots met - 2023 • 3 BF -2022, 3 BF 2023 % Success criteria is detailed in Table A. * Temporary vegetation plots may be measured as required by an adaptive management plan or requested by IRT. Improve instream and streamside habitat. Table 2: Summary: Goals, Performance and Results Goal Minimize downstream flooding to the maximum extent possible. Increase stream stability within the Site so that channels are neither aggrading nor degrading. Remove direct nutrient and pollutant inputs from the Site and reduce contributions to downstream waters. Table 3.  Project Attributes Parameters Fork Cr UT 2 UT3 UT 4 Pre‐Project Length (linear feet)2401 926 1002 685 Post‐Project Length (linear feet)2334 870 1024 650 Valley Classification & Confinement Alluvial, moderately  confined Alluvial, confined Alluvial, confined Alluvial, confined Drainage Area (acres)847 12 23 13 NCDWR Stream ID Score ‐‐25.5 22.5 33.5 Perennial/Perennial/ Intermittent Intermittent Thermal Regime Cold Cold Cold Cold NCDWR Water Quality Classification Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996) Cg 4Bg 5/6 Bg 5B 4 Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996)Ce 3/4 B 3/4 B 3/4 B 4 Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986) II/III IV II I/II Underlying Mapped Soils Nikwasi loam,  Reddies fine sandy  loam,  Chandler‐Micaville  complex Chandler‐Micaville complex Chandler‐Micaville complex Drainage Class poorly, moderately  well somewhat excessively somewhat excessively somewhat excessively Hydric Soil Status hydric, nonhydric  (may contain hydric  inclusions) nonhydric nonhydric nonhydric Parameters Fork Cr UT 2 UT3 UT 4 Valley Slope 0.0271 0.1047 0.0992 0.0992 FEMA Classification NA NA NA NA Native Vegetation Community Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site) Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Reference  Channel) Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation  Regulation Resolved?Supporting  Documentation Waters of the United States‐Section 401 Yes JD Package (Mitigation  Plan, App D) Waters of the United States‐Section 404 Yes JD Package (Mitigation  Plan, App D) Endangered Species Act Yes CE Document  (Mitigation Plan, App E) Historic Preservation Act Yes CE Document  (Mitigation Plan, App E) Coastal Zone Management Act ‐‐NA FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes CE Document  (Mitigation Plan, App E) Essential Fisheries Habitat ‐‐CE Document  (Mitigation Plan, App E)No UT 1 0.0291 NA Montane Alluvial Forest and Swamp Forest‐Bog Complex 87% forest, 11% agricultural land, <2% low density residential/impervious surface 95% forest, 3% agricultural land, <2% low density residential/impervious surface <5% No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Regulatory Considerations Applicable? % Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5% Restoration Method Hydrologic, vegetative, livestock Enhancement Method Vegetative, livestock Source of Hydrology Groundwater, stream overbank Hydrologic Impairment Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock,  ditches, drain tile Native Vegetation Community Montane Alluvial Forest and Swamp Forest‐Bog  Complex Mapped Soil Series Nikwasi Drainage Class Poorly drained Hydric Soil Status Hydric Parameters Wetlands Wetland acreage 8.3 acre drained & 2.61 acres degraded Wetland Type Riparian riverine poorly hydric Project Drainage Area (acres)846.7 Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious <2% CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover & Hardwood Swamps Reach Summary Information UT 1 234 Alluvial, moderately  confined 193 ‐‐ USGS HUC for Project (14‐digit)6010108010020 NCDWR Sub‐basin for Project 04‐03‐06 Nikwasi loam 233 Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Blue Ridge Project River Basin French Broad 29.19 Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)35.9913, ‐81.9837 Planted Area (acres)16.2 Project Information Project Name Laurel Springs Site  Wetland Summary Information Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial Cold WS‐IV, Tr Eg 4 Ce 3/4 II/III Project County Avery County, North Carolina Project Area (acres) MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 5 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 1.2 Success Criteria Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives identified from on-site NC SAM and NC WAM data collection. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following summarizes Site success criteria. Table A. Success Criteria Streams • All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05. • Continuous surface flow must be documented in intermittent reaches each year for at least 30 consecutive days. • Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section. • BHR at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition during any given monitoring period. • The stream shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7. • Intermittent streams will demonstrate at least 30-days consecutive flow. Wetland Hydrology • Annual saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the growing season during average climatic conditions. Vegetation • Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 ste ms 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 fou r species present. 2 METHODS Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table. Table B. Monitoring Schedule Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Streams X X X X X Wetlands X X X X X X X Vegetation X X X X X Visual Assessment X X X X X X X Report Submittal X X X X X X X MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 6 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 2.1 Monitoring The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table. Table C. Monitoring Summary Stream Parameters Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built (unless otherwise required) All restored stream channels Graphic and tabular data. Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 Total of 16 cross- sections on restored channels Graphic and tabular data. Channel Stability Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels Areas of concern will be depicted on a plan view figure with a written assessment and photograph of the area included in the report. Additional Cross-sections Yearly Only if instability is documented during monitoring Graphic and tabular data. Bankfull Events Continuous monitoring of surface water gauges and/or trail camera Continuous recording through the monitoring period One surface water gauge on UT2 Surface water data for each monitoring period Visual/Physical Evidence Continuous through the monitoring period One crest gauge on Fork Creek Visual evidence, photo documentation, and/or rain data. Wetland Parameters Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported Wetland Re- establishment Groundwater gauges Yearly with the growing season defined as March 1- October 22 13 gauges spread throughout restored wetlands Soil temperature at the beginning of each monitoring period to verify the start of the growing season, groundwater and rain data for each monitoring period Vegetation Parameters Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported Vegetation establishment and vigor Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acres (100 square meters) in size; CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 16 permanent plots spread across the Site* Species, height, planted vs. volunteer, stems/acre Temporary 5m x 2m herbaceous vegetation plots Years 2, 3, 5, and 7, if necessary Temporary plots in areas observed to be dominated by herbs and shrubs& Species only Note: Volunteer species on the approved planting list must be established for 2 years to count towards success and will be subject to height standards. * Temporary vegetation plots may be measured as required by an adaptive management plan or requested by IRT. & Number of herbaceous plots will be determined by the approximate acreage of areas observed to be dominated by herbs and shrubs. MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 7 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 3 MONITORING YEAR 2 – DATA ASSESSMENT Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted between February 2023 and November 2023 to assess the condition of the project. Stream, wetland, and vegetation criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan and summarized in Section 1.2; monitoring methods are detailed in Section 2.0. 3.1 Stream Assessment Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted on April 14, 2023, and no stream areas of concern were identified. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed, with minimal changes from MY0 measurements. Cross-sections 4, 7, and 14 were pointed out by the IRT at the April 18, 2023 credit release meeting due to varying degrees of aggradation since MY0. These are pool cross-sections in a highly dynamic mountain stream system. Shortly after Site construction, a great deal of streambed substrate transport was observed as the newly constructed stream settled and adapted to the high energy flows that characterize steep, high elevation streams. This sediment deposition does not reflect a greater sediment issue within the Site. It is a natural step in the early successional processes that occur after a stream has been restored. It is expected that substrate transport will continue to be observed in this system during the ensuing monitoring period, including potential scour in these pools as more high flow events occur onsite. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and Stream Photographs. Refer to Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data. Additionally, the UT2 stream gauge captured 94 consecutive days of stream flow (Table 13, Appendix D). 3.2 Wetland Assessment Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst Documented Monitoring Period Used for Determining Success 12 Percent of the Monitoring Period 2022 (Year 1) March 1, 2022* March 1-October 22 (236 days) 28 days 2023 (Year 2) March 1, 2023** March 1-October 22 (236 days) 28 days *Based on observed/documented bud burst on the Site on March 1, 2022, and soil temperature of 44.20oF documented March 1, 2022, and not dropping below 43.19oF thereafter. **Based on observed/documented bud burst on the Site on March 7, 2023, and soil temperature of 4 6.20oF documented on March 1, 2023. Although the soil temperature dropped below 41oF for 3 days in mid-March (40.95oF, 40.18oF, and 40.26oF on March 16, 21, and 22, respectively), it climbed above 46 again within 3 days (March 25). Observed bud burst onsite indicates that the period of biological activity had already begun March 1, and this short drop in soil temperature did not likely affect the growing season start date. Ten of the thirteen groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 2 (2023) monitoring period (Table 12, Appendix D). During a 2023 IRT Site visit, it was noted that the area surrounding gauges 2 and 3 are obvious wetlands and that a gauge malfunction is likely the cause of the lack of wetland hydrology at these gauges. AXE confirmed a malfunction with the Site barometer, which caused somewhat erratic readings through the first half of the growing season on all gauges. The barometer was replaced on June 28, 2023 and has been functioning properly since. Rainfall data from an on-site gauge shows average rainfall for the year through September compared with the 30-year 30-70th percentile data at a nearby WETS station (Figure D1, Appendix D), and it is expected that all site wetlands would have met performance standards had the barometer functioned properly. MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 8 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 During the MY0 review, the IRT expressed concern that several groundwater gauges were installed in different credit areas than originally proposed and approved in the Site’s Mitigation Plan. Gauges 6, 9, 11, and 12 were moved into creditable wetland reestablishment areas, and gauge 1 was moved into the nearby wetland enhancement area. 3.3 Vegetative Assessment The MY2 (2023) vegetative survey was completed on September 21, 2023. Measurements of all 16 permanent plots and 10 temporary plots resulted in an average of 240 planted stems/acre. Additionally, 10 of the 26 individual plots met the MY3 stem density requirement during MY2 (Appendix B). Due to low stem density observed during MY1, RS supplementally planted 2.67 acres of the site, predominantly along upland slope (Acidic Cove Forest) areas including a 0.107-acre area of easement encroachment, with 1800 bare-root stems during the dormant season 2022/2023 (Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023), Appendix F). Due to continued stem-density issues reflected in the MY2 vegetation data, RS will implement a site-wide adaptive management plan during the 2023/2024 dormant season. The 2023 Adaptive Management Plan includes supplementally planting 13 acres of the Site at a density of 200 stems per acre. The plan was approved by the IRT on November 29, 2023, and is detailed in Appendix F. Areas proposed for supplemental planting are depicted on Figure 1 (Appendix A). Due to floodplain soils being of the Nikwasi series, scattered openings dominated by herbs and shrubs are likely to develop over time. These areas are expected to be less than an acre in size and encompass less than 20% of the Site. As such, nine 5m x 2m temporary herbaceous plots were documented in herbaceous dominated areas during MY2 (2023). All 9 plots met the IRT established success criteria of 4 or more species present. See Appendix B for herbaceous plot data. 3.4 Monitoring Year 2 Summary Except for planted bare-root vegetation, the Site is performing well. All stream reaches are functioning as designed, and Site wetlands are trending toward success. The Site is meeting project goals. The small encroachment area observed during MY1 was addressed, and the easement was re-marked, however, several new areas (0.008 total acres) of encroachment were observed in the same area during an October 18, 2023 DMS boundary inspection. Additional marking has been added and the area will be planted during the Q1 2024 AMP action. These areas are depicted on Figure 1 and are quantified in Table 5 (Appendix A). MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 9 Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 4 REFERENCES Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2008. Lumber River Basin Restoration Priorities (online). Available: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Lumber_River_Basin/Lumber_R BRP_2008_FINAL.pdf (January 9, 2018). North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1. North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167. MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View Figure 2. Asset Map Table 4A-E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Vegetation Plot Photographs Site Photo Log ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( #* #* !. ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ 4 1 2 6 9 7 3 8 5 4 7 9 8 1 10 2 3 6 5 5 4 3 21 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 10 14 12 15 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 13 11 10 3 2 12 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: PHP FEB 2024 1:2000 19-009 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW 1 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2022 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) overlain by July 2023 drone imagery 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Stream Generating No Credit Instream Structures Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area Wetland Reestablishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement MY2 Herbacous Transects ^_Vegetation Plot Origins !(Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria !(Groundwater Gauges Not Meeting Success Criteria !.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature #*Stream Crest Gauge Cross Sections ^_Permanent Photo Point Locations 2023 Encroachment Areas 2023 Low Stem Density - Q1 2024 Replant Area - Bare Root 2023 Low Stem Density - Q1 2024 Replant Area - Potted Winter 2022/2023 Replant Areas 2022 Shed/Mowing Encroachment Area - Replanted Winter 2022/2023 ³ XS-1XS-2 XS-3XS-4 XS- 5 XS- 6 XS-7XS- 8 XS-9 XS-10 X S - 1 1 X S - 1 2 X S - 1 3 X S - 1 4 XS-15 XS-16 UT- 4 UT - 3 U T - 2 UT-1 Fork Cr e e k Rain Gauge UT- 5 U T - 3 A UT-2A NCCGIA, NC 911 Board FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: KRJ FEB 2023 1:2000 19-006 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE ASSET MAP 2 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2022 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Wetland Reestablishment ³ UT- 4 - A UT - 3 - A U T - 2 - A UT-1 Fork Cr e e k - B ForkCreek-A UT-5-A U T -5 -B UT-4-B U T - 3 - B U T - 3 - C U T - 3 - D U T - 3 A UT-2A UT-2-B U T-2-C U T-2-C ForkCreek-B F o r k C r e e k - B Table 4A.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach Fork Creek Assessed Stream Length 2334 Assessed Bank Length 4668 Survey Date: September 25, 2023 Bank Surface Scour/Bare  Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth  and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.   Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable  and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across  the sill. 45 45 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not  exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring  guidance document)  45 45 100% % Stable,  Performing as  IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric Number Stable,  Performing as  Intended Total Number  in As‐built Amount of  Unstable  Footage                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Totals   Table 4B.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 1 Assessed Stream Length 233 Assessed Bank Length 466 Survey Date: September 25, 2023 Bank Surface Scour/Bare  Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth  and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.   Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable  and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across  the sill. 8 8 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not  exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring  guidance document)  8 8 100% Number Stable,  Performing as  Intended Total Number  in As‐built Amount of  Unstable  Footage % Stable,  Performing as  Intended                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Totals   Major Channel Category Metric Table 4C.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 2 Assessed Stream Length 662 Assessed Bank Length 1324 Survey Date: September 25, 2023 Bank Surface Scour/Bare  Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth  and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.   Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable  and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across  the sill. 18 18 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not  exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring  guidance document)  18 18 100% % Stable,  Performing as  IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric Number Stable,  Performing as  Intended Total Number  in As‐built Amount of  Unstable  Footage                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Totals   Table 4D.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 3 Assessed Stream Length 656 Assessed Bank Length 1312 Survey Date: September 25, 2023 Bank Surface Scour/Bare  Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth  and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.   Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable  and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across  the sill. 16 16 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not  exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring  guidance document)  16 16 100% % Stable,  Performing as  Intended                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Totals   Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable,  Performing as  Intended Total Number  in As‐built Amount of  Unstable  Footage Table 4E.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment Reach UT 4 Assessed Stream Length 110 Assessed Bank Length 220 Survey Date: September 25, 2023 Bank Surface Scour/Bare  Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth  and/or surface scour 0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.   Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable  and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100% 0 100% Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across  the sill. 3 3 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not  exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring  guidance document)  3 3 100% % Stable,  Performing as  Intended                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Totals   Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable,  Performing as  Intended Total Number  in As‐built Amount of  Unstable  Footage Table 5.  Visual Vegetation Assessment Planted acreage 16.2 Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.0.10acres 13.00 80.2% 13.00 80.2% Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0% 13.00 80.2% Easement Acreage 29.19 Invasive Areas of Concern Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated  against the total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native,  young, woody stems in the short‐term or community structure for existing communities.  Species included  in summation above should be identified in report summary.   0.10 acres 0.00 0.0% Easement Encroachment Areas Three small areas of encroachment observed in/near areas of previous landowner encroachment.none Survey Date: October 18, 2023 3 Encroachments noted (0.008 ac) Combined  Acreage % of Easement  AcreageVegetation Category Definitions Mapping  Threshold % of Planted  Acreage                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Total                                                                                                                                                                 Cumulative Total Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping  Threshold Combined  Acreage Laurel Springs Site MY2 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 21, 2023) Laurel Springs Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data MY2 Monitoring Report – February 2024 Plot 7 Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 8 Laurel Springs Site MY2 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 21, 2023) Laurel Springs Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data MY2 Monitoring Report – February 2024 Plot 15 Plot 9 Plot 10 Plot 11 Plot 12 Plot 13 Plot 14 Plot 16 Laurel Springs Site MY2 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 21, 2023) Laurel Springs Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data MY2 Monitoring Report – February 2024 Transect 7 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect 4 Transect 5 Transect 6 Transect 8 Laurel Springs Site MY2 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September 21, 2023) Laurel Springs Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data MY2 Monitoring Report – February 2024 Transect 9 Transect 10 Permanent Photo Point 1: Fork Creek Bridge Crossing Upstream End, Facing Downstream (Taken 6/28/23) Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Permanent Photo Point 2: Fork Creek Bridge Crossing Downstream End, Facing Upstream (Taken 6/28/23) Permanent Photo Point 3: UT-2 Piped Crossing Upstream End, Facing Downstream (Taken 2/19/23) Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log Permanent Photo Point 4: UT-2 Piped Crossing Downstream End, Facing Upstream (Taken 2/19/23) MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 6: Easement Boundary Signage (Taken 9/25/23) Permanent Photo Point 5: Fork Creek Downstream Piped Crossing (Taken 2/23/23) Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log Photo 7: Fork Creek Upstream (Taken 6/28/23) Photo 8: Fork Creek Lower Reach Overview (Taken 9/25/23) MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 9: Fork Creek Lower Reach (Taken 2/20/23) Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log Photo 10: Fork Creek Upper Reach (Taken 9/25/23) MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 11: UT-1 (Taken 6/28/23) Photo 12: UT-1 Wetlands (Taken 6/28/23) Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 13: UT-2 Upper Reach (Taken 6/28/23) Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log Photo 14: UT-2 Lower Reach (Taken 6/28/23) MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 15: UT-3 (Taken 6/28/23) Photo 16: Wetland Area Adjacent to UT-3 (Taken 6/28/23) Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 17: Upper Reach of Fork Creek and UT-4 (Taken 9/25/23) Photo 18: UT-4 (Taken 6/28/23) Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Photo 19: Bud Burst of Hamamelis virginiana. Photo Taken 3/7/23 Photo 20: Bud Burst of Liriodendron tulipifera Photo Taken 3/7/23 Laurel Springs MY-02 (2023) Photo Log MY2 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix B: Vegetation Data Table 6A. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool Table 9. Temporary Herbaceous Vegetation Plot Data MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 6A. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation Laurel Springs Mitigation Site Vegetation Association Montane Alluvial Forest* Acidic Cove Forest* Stream-side Assemblage** TOTAL Area (acres) 9.0 4.7 2.5 16.2 Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted Cherry birch (Betula lenta) FACU 500 8% 600 18.75% 1500 15.96% 2600 Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) FACU 400 6.4% 600 18.75% -- -- 1000 Red oak (Quercus rubra) FACU 650 10.4% 650 20.31% -- -- 1300 White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 550 8.8% 550 5.85% 1100 White pine (Pinus strobus) FACU 600 9.6% -- -- 600 Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) FACU 200 3.2% 300 3.19% 500 Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) FAC 600 9.6% 500 15.63% -- -- 1100 Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 450 7.2% 600 18.75% 1100 11.70% 2150 River birch (Betula nigra) FACW 500 8% -- -- 950 10.10% 1450 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 600 9.6% -- -- 1500 15.96% 2100 Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW -- -- 600*** 6.38% 600 Black willow (Salix nigra) OBL -- -- 800*** 8.51% 800 Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 4.26% 400 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 4.26% 400 ^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) FACW -- -- -- -- 300*** 3.19% 300 ^Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC 400 6.4% 400 4.26% 800 ^Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU 800 12.8% 800 ^American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU 600 6.38% 600 ^Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU 250 7.81% 250 TOTAL 6250 100% 3200 100% 9400 100% 18850 ^Species added post-mitigation plan approval * Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre. ** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre. *** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels – A total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare-root Stream-Side Assemblage planting. MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Scientific Name Common Name % Scientific Name Common Name % Asclepias incarnata Swamp milkweed 0.3 Helianthus angustifolius Narrowleaf sunflower 0.8 Agrostis gigantea Redtop 16 Heliopsis helianthoides False sunflower 1.2 Agrostis hyemalis Winter bentgrass 4 Hibiscus moscheutos Swamp rose mallow 0.8 Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass 4 Juncus effusus Soft rush 0.6 Carex lurida Shallow sedge 3.22 Lespedeza capitata Round-headed bush clover 0.8 Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge 10 Lespedeza virginica Slender lespedeza 0.8 Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge pea 1.6 Liatris spicata Dense blazing star 0.8 Chamaecrista nictitans Sensitive partridge pea 0.8 Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower 0.06 Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye daisy 4 Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot 0.2 Coreopsis lanceolata Lance-leaved coreopsis 4 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 4 Coreopsis tinctoria Plains coreopsis 4 Pycnanthemum tenuifolium Slender mountain mint 0.2 Cosmos bipinnatus Garden cosmos 0.8 Rhexia virginica Handsome-Harry 0.06 Desmodium canadense Showy tick-trefoil 0.8 Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 4 Echinacea purpurea Purple coneflower 2.4 Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 0.06 Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye 8.6 Silphium perfoliatum Cup plant 0.8 Eupatorium coelestinum Blue mistflower 0.4 Symphyotrichum puniceum Purplestem aster 0.1 Eupatorium perfoliatum Common boneset 2.5 Tridens flavus Purpletop tridens 16 Glyceria striata Fowl manna grass 0.1 Vernonia noveboracensis New York ironweed 0.2 Helenium autumnale Common sneezeweed 0.2 Verbena hastata Blue vervain 0.8 Total 100 MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 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 4 607 Yes 5 486 Yes 6 0 No 7 202 No 8 526 Yes 9 40 No 10 162 No 11 324 Yes 12 243 No 13 202 No 14 81 No 15 243 No 16 121 No T1 40 No T2 486 Yes T3 486 Yes 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 240 No Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool 16.2 2022‐01‐13 2023‐02‐01 NA 2023‐09‐21 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 22 11 1111 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW Betula sp.11 22 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1133661111 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4433 11 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 22 33 11 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 33 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 44 11 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 3333 Quercus sp.77 4422 2233 11 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW Sum Performance Standard 1 1 11 11 11 11 15 15 9900441313332222 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 33 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 11 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 4 11 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 2 2 3 3 10 10 Sum Proposed Standard 3 3 11 11 11 11 15 15 12 12 0055131333551212 111111590413322 40 364 405 607 364 0 162 526 40 81 81 13365027122 67 64 55 21 25 0 50 21 100 60 83 21211 21121 00000 00000 3 11111512 0 5 13 3 5 12 81 364 405 607 486 0 202 526 40 162 324 23366037133 67 64 55 21 25 0 50 21 100 60 83 21211 11122 00000 00000 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are  not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Post  Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count 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 % Invasives Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation  Plan Post  Mitigation  Plan Species Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 FVeg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 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/Shrub Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued) 16.2 2022‐01‐13 2023‐02‐01 NA 2023‐09‐21 0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Veg Plot 4 R Veg Plot 5 R Veg Plot 6 R Veg Plot 7 R Veg Plot 8 R Veg Plot 9 R Veg Plot 10 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 2 2 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 11 2 2 Betula sp.22 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 2 2 224411167722 11 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 5 5 1133 264 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 12 1 2 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 41 Quercus sp.11 11 2 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 1 Sum Performance Standard 55772277441121391170211 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 1 1 13 Sum Proposed Standard 66773377441121391183211 572741121391170211 202 202 40 243 121 40 486 486 243 405 283 0 40 40 40 321421442430111 33 71 67 57 75 100 50 54 78 55 50 100 100 100 100 12212112212 212 00000000000 000 673741121391183211 243 202 81 243 121 40 486 486 243 405 324 40 40 40 40 422421442441111 33 71 67 57 75 100 50 54 78 55 50 100 100 100 100 122121122122212 000000000000000 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are  not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Post  Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/Shrub Indicator  Status Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation  Plan Post  Mitigation  Plan Species Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 FVeg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Plot # Species Count*Success  Criteria Met?Taxa Identified Common Name Juncus effusus Soft Rush Cyperus sp.Nutsedge Carex sp.Sedge Vernonia noveboracensis New York Ironweed Carex sp.Sedge Juncus effuses Soft Rush Pycnanthemum sp Mountain Mint Trifolium repens White Clover Carex sp.Sedge Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset Juncus effusus Soft Rush Peltandra virginica Green Arrow Arum Pycnanthemum sp Mountain Mint Juncus effusus Soft Rush Carex sp.Sedge Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset Ranunculus sp.Buttercup Trifolium repens White Clover Vernonia noveboracensis New York Ironweed Carex sp.Sedge Cicuta maculata Spotted Water Hemlock Juncus effuses Soft Rush Pycnanthemum sp Mountain Mint Vernonia noveboracensis New York Ironweed Carex sp.Sedge Juncus effusus Soft Rush Peltandra virginica Green Arrow Arum Vernonia noveboracensis New York Ironweed Carex sp.Sedge Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset Ranunculus sp.Buttercup Trifolium repens White Clover Carex sp.Sedge Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset Packera aurea Golden Ragwort Ranunculus sp.Buttercup Trifolium repens White Clover Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed Carex sp.Sedge Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset Juncus effusus Soft Rush * Success criteria require a minimum of 4 species present per plot.   Table 9. Temporary Herbaceous Vegetation Plot Data 3 5 Yes 1 4 Yes 2 4 Yes 4 6 Yes 5 5 Yes 9 4 Yes 4 Yes6 7 4 Yes 8 5 Yes MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays Table 10A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables Table 11A-B. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Station Elevation 0.0 2915.7 2915.2 4.2 2915.6 0.77 5.7 2915.3 2914.9 6.3 2915.1 2915.1 7.0 2915.1 0.3 7.9 2914.9 0.8 8.9 2914.9 10.3 2914.9 11.1 2915.4 12.7 2915.7 17.5 2916.4 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT2, XS -1, Pool Feature Pool Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: Stream Type LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: SUMMARY DATA 2914 2915 2916 2917 0 10 20 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 2, XS - 1, Pool Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.6 2916.2 2916.2 4.8 2916.2 0.99 6.2 2916.0 2915.7 7.1 2915.8 2916.2 7.9 2915.8 0.6 8.8 2915.7 2.0 9.3 2915.7 9.9 2915.9 10.5 2916.0 11.2 2916.1 12.3 2916.3 13.5 2916.5 17.6 2916.8 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT2, XS -2, Riffle Feature Riffle Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2915 2916 2917 0 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 2, XS -2, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.2 2945.0 2944.7 3.6 2944.7 0.93 5.3 2944.1 2942.8 6.5 2943.5 2944.6 7.1 2943.0 1.7 7.8 2942.9 6.8 8.2 2942.8 8.8 2943.0 9.3 2943.2 9.9 2943.6 11.1 2944.6 12.3 2945.2 14.8 2946.0 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT2, XS -3, Riffle Feature Riffle Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 0 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 2, XS -3, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.0 2949.6 2948.5 3.3 2949.0 0.93 3.3 2949.0 2947.6 5.3 2948.9 2948.4 5.8 2948.7 0.9 6.4 2948.1 2.5 6.7 2947.6 7.4 2947.6 8.0 2947.7 8.5 2947.7 9.0 2947.7 9.6 2948.0 10.1 2948.4 E/C 5 11.4 2948.7 14.0 2949.7 16.4 2950.6 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT2, XS -4, Pool Feature Pool Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2946 2947 2949 2950 2951 0 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 2, XS - 4, Pool Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 30.4 2922.0 2922.1 0.3 2922.2 0.95 6.6 2922.2 2920.0 8.9 2922.0 2922.0 10.9 2921.5 2.0 12.5 2921.1 22.5 13.1 2920.6 13.5 2920.0 14.6 2920.2 16.6 2920.1 18.1 2920.1 19.4 2920.2 20.5 2920.4 E/C 5 21.4 2920.7 22.6 2920.9 27.1 2921.7 30.7 2922.2 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID Fork Creek, XS -5, Pool Feature Pool Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2919 2920 2921 2923 0 10 20 30 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 5, Pool Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.4 2922.6 2922.4 4.9 2922.3 0.92 8.3 2921.8 2921.0 10.3 2921.5 2922.3 11.1 2921.4 1.3 12.0 2921.2 12.4 13.7 2921.0 15.0 2921.2 16.3 2921.2 17.8 2921.2 18.4 2921.2 19.1 2921.9 22.5 2922.3 E/C 5 28.6 2922.7 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID Fork Creek, XS -6, Riffle Feature Riffle Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2920 2921 2923 2924 0 10 20 30 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS -6, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.4 2931.6 2931.6 3.7 2931.8 1.02 4.6 2931.5 2931.0 5.7 2931.1 2931.6 6.5 2931.0 0.6 7.0 2931.0 2.0 7.9 2931.3 8.8 2931.4 10.0 2931.7 14.3 2931.7 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT3, XS -7, Pool Feature Pool Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2929 2931 2932 2933 0 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 3, XS - 7, Pool Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.0 2932.5 2932.5 4.5 2932.6 0.84 6.5 2932.3 2931.7 7.3 2931.8 2932.4 8.0 2931.8 0.6 8.3 2931.7 1.7 8.8 2931.8 9.4 2932.0 10.7 2932.4 13.1 2932.6 16.6 2932.3 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT3, XS -8, Riffle Feature Riffle Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2931 2932 2933 0 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 3, XS -8, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.3 2945.3 2944.1 3.3 2944.8 1.50 5.0 2944.4 2943.4 6.4 2943.7 2944.4 7.5 2943.4 1.0 8.1 2943.4 3.6 8.8 2943.6 9.4 2943.7 11.1 2944.4 13.3 2945.1 15.1 2945.5 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT3, XS -9, Pool Feature Pool Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2943 2944 2945 2946 0 10 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 3, XS - 9, Pool Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.0 2948.4 2946.1 4.0 2947.2 1.31 7.0 2946.2 2945.6 9.4 2945.9 2946.2 9.9 2945.7 0.6 10.6 2945.6 1.6 11.3 2945.8 12.0 2946.0 12.8 2946.2 17.8 2947.3 E/C 5 Elevated bank height ratio is due to natural substrate movement within a very small channel. This is not an area of concern. Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT3, XS -10, Riffle Feature Riffle Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2945 2946 2947 2949 0 10 20 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 3, XS - 10, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation -0.3 2936.7 2936.9 5.0 2936.4 0.77 10.1 2936.0 2934.6 12.9 2935.8 2936.4 14.8 2935.7 1.8 15.9 2935.3 10.4 16.7 2935.1 17.5 2934.8 18.2 2934.7 18.6 2934.6 19.0 2935.2 19.8 2935.9 20.8 2936.1 E/C 5 22.2 2936.7 25.0 2936.7 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID Fork Creek, XS -11, Pool Feature Pool Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2934 2935 2936 2937 0 10 20 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 11, Pool Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.0 2937.7 2937.8 5.0 2937.9 0.91 7.5 2937.3 2936.2 8.1 2936.9 2937.6 8.7 2936.3 1.4 9.6 2936.2 11.5 11.0 2936.2 12.5 2936.2 13.2 2936.5 14.6 2936.5 15.2 2936.6 16.0 2937.0 17.1 2937.1 E/C 5 19.8 2937.6 23.0 2938.0 25.8 2937.9 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID Fork Creek, XS -12, Riffle Feature Riffle Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2935 2936 2937 2938 0 10 20 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 12, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.0 2943.4 2943.4 5.4 2943.4 1.00 7.0 2943.0 2942.1 8.1 2942.5 2943.4 8.4 2942.1 1.3 9.2 2942.3 6.4 10.2 2942.3 11.0 2942.3 11.6 2942.3 12.4 2942.8 13.5 2943.1 19.6 2943.3 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT1, XS -13, Riffle Feature Riffle Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2942 2943 2944 0 10 20 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 1, XS - 13, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.0 2946.9 2945.8 3.9 2946.4 0.86 6.8 2945.4 2944.8 7.4 2944.8 2945.6 8.5 2944.9 0.9 9.8 2944.8 3.5 10.5 2945.1 11.4 2945.4 13.5 2945.6 15.5 2945.9 18.1 2945.8 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID UT1, XS -14, Pool Feature Pool Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 0 10 20 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, UT 1, XS - 14, Pool Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation 0.0 2946.9 2954.3 3.9 2946.4 0.97 6.8 2945.4 2953.0 7.4 2944.8 2954.3 8.5 2944.9 1.3 9.8 2944.8 6.7 10.5 2945.1 11.4 2945.4 13.5 2945.6 15.5 2945.9 18.1 2945.8 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID Fork Creek, XS -15, Riffle Feature Riffle Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2952 2953 2954 2955 -1 10 20 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 15, Riffle Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Station Elevation -0.3 2954.7 2955.1 5.7 2954.9 0.97 7.8 2955.0 2953.2 8.6 2954.7 2955.1 9.5 2954.0 1.8 10.5 2953.9 6.9 11.5 2954.0 12.4 2953.9 13.6 2953.2 14.1 2954.5 14.8 2954.7 17.7 2955.3 20.3 2955.6 E/C 5 Site Laurel Springs Watershed:French Broad River Basin, 06010108 XS ID Fork Creek, XS -16, Pool Feature Pool Date:3/20/2023 Field Crew:Smith, Perkinson Bankfull Elevation: Bank Hieght Ratio: Thalweg Elevation: LTOB Elevation: LTOB Max Depth: LTOB Cross Sectional Area: Stream Type SUMMARY DATA 2952 2953 2954 2955 2957 0 10 20 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Station (feet) Laurel Springs, Fork Creek, XS - 16, Pool Bankfull MY-00 10/25/21 MY-01 09/14/22 MY-02 3/20/2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)11.7 17.2 25.1 15.1 17.4 12.3 19.7 3 Floodprone Width (ft)18 100 100 50 150 200 200 3 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.8 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.3 0.6 0.9 3 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.2 2.1 2.5 1.4 1.9 1.1 1.5 3 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)18.9 18.9 18.9 7.3 18.9 7.1 14.6 3 Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 15.9 31.4 12 16 15.5 26.6 3 Entrenchment Ratio 0.9 5.1 8.5 3.3 8.6 10.2 16.2 3 Bank Height Ratio 1 1.3 2.8 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 3 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)6.4 8.1 15.36 9.9 11.4 7.5 7.5 1 Floodprone Width (ft)16 100 100 50 150 100.0 100.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 1 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.4 2 2.4 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 6.2 6.2 1 Width/Depth Ratio 4.9 8.2 30.6 12 16 8.9 8.9 1 Entrenchment Ratio 2 8.8 15.6 5.1 13.2 13.4 13.4 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 1.5 2.1 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other 0.0288 0.0253 0.0253 39.5 39.5 39.5 1.01 1.15 1.15 Eg Ce Ce Table 10B. Baseline Stream Data Summary Laurel Springs - UT 1 Pre-Existing Condition (applicaple)Design Monitoring Baseline (MY0) Pre-Existing Condition (applicaple) Monitoring Baseline (MY0)Design Table 10A. Baseline Stream Data Summary Laurel Springs - Fork Creek 1.15 0.0258 0.0236 0.0236 1.05 1.15 999999 CeCgCe Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)4.4 5.8 9.8 4.6 5.4 6.7 7.2 2 Floodprone Width (ft)11 17 22 20 30 75.0 75.0 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.1 2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.9 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.8 1..8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.1 7.7 2 Width/Depth Ratio 11 17.4 49 12 16 7.7 21.3 2 Entrenchment Ratio 2 2.3 4.5 4.3 5.6 10.5 11.2 2 Bank Height Ratio 1 1.5 2 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)3 3.7 4.2 4.9 5.7 3.3 4.7 2 Floodprone Width (ft)5.5 6 50 20 30 7.0 75.0 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.8 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.8 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2 2 2 2 0.9 2.3 2 Width/Depth Ratio 4.3 6.2 8.4 12 16 9.7 12.1 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 2 11.9 4.1 5.3 2.1 16.0 2 Bank Height Ratio 1.4 1.7 2.6 1 1.2 1.0 1.0 2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) Other 0.0954 0.0945 0.0945 8.7 8.7 8.7 1.04 1.05 1.05 Bg B Bc Table 10D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Laurel Springs - UT 3 Pre-Existing Condition (applicaple)Design Monitoring Baseline (MY0) 0.1026 0.0997 0.0997 7.7 7.7 7.7 1.02 1.05 1.05 Bg B Bc Table 10C. Baseline Stream Data Summary Laurel Springs - UT 2 Pre-Existing Condition (applicaple)Design Monitoring Baseline (MY0) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 2915.09 2915.14 2915.21 2916.14 2916.10 2916.22 2944.80 2944.85 2944.69 2948.50 2948.59 2948.48 2921.99 2922.06 2922.11 Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.97 0.77 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.08 0.93 1.00 1.08 0.93 1.00 0.99 0.95 Thalweg Elevation 2914.69 2914.61 2914.86 2915.539 2915.49 2915.65 2942.922 2943.00 2942.83 2947.52 2947.78 2947.57 2919.647 2919.81 2919.98 LTOB2 Elevation 2915.09 2915.13 2915.13 2916.136 2916.00 2916.22 `2944.80 2945.00 2944.57 2948.50 2948.66 2948.42 2921.994 2922.04 2922.02 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.40 0.51 0.27 0.60 0.51 0.56 1.88 2.00 1.74 0.99 0.87 0.85 2.35 2.24 2.03 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.1 1.03 0.75 2.1 1.53 2.03 7.7 9.20 6.79 2.7 3.05 2.47 24.5 24.16 22.53 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 2922.56 2922.64 2922.42 2930.97 2931.56 2931.59 2932.44 2932.46 2932.48 2943.97 2944.09 2944.06 2946.02 2946.07 2946.06 Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.97 1.02 1.00 1.04 0.84 1.00 0.96 1.50 1.00 0.95 1.31 Thalweg Elevation 2921.22 2921.19 2921.02 2930.078 2930.85 2931.00 2931.64 2931.61 2931.73 2943.12 2943.35 2943.41 2945.65 2945.60 2945.64 LTOB2 Elevation 2922.56 2922.52 2922.30 2930.97 2931.54 2931.60 2932.44 2932.49 2932.36 2943.97 2944.07 2944.38 2946.02 2946.05 2946.19 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.34 1.34 1.28 0.89 0.69 0.60 0.81 0.88 0.63 0.85 0.72 0.98 0.37 0.45 0.55 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)14.4 12.43 12.35 1.9 1.80 2.02 2.3 2.46 1.70 1.8 1.68 3.55 0.9 0.81 1.55 0.53 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+1.80 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 2936.55 2936.76 2936.93 Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.98 0.77 Thalweg Elevation 2934.57 2934.58 2934.62 LTOB2 Elevation 2936.55 2936.71 2936.39 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.98 2.13 1.77 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)19.2 18.16 10.35 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 2937.72 2937.79 2937.75 2943.24 2943.38 2943.36 2945.11 2945.61 2945.77 2954.23 2954.15 2954.31 2954.72 2955.00 2955.10 Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.04 0.86 1.00 1.09 0.97 1.00 0.92 0.97 Thalweg Elevation 2936.23 2936.26 2936.16 2942.061 2942.17 2942.08 2943.881 2944.57 2944.75 2953.12 2952.80 2952.97 2953.19 2953.30 2953.21 LTOB2 Elevation 2937.72 2937.79 2937.61 2943.244 2943.42 2943.36 `2945.11 2945.65 2945.63 2954.23 2954.27 2954.28 2954.72 2954.87 2955.05 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.49 1.53 1.45 1.18 1.25 1.29 1.23 1.07 0.88 1.10 1.47 1.30 1.53 1.57 1.84 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)13.5 13.54 11.52 6.2 6.56 6.44 4.6 4.93 3.49 7.1 8.54 6.65 7.4 6.33 6.93 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area Thalweg Elevation LTOB2 Elevation LTOB2 Max Depth (ft) LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 0.00 1.80 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area Thalweg Elevation LTOB2 Elevation LTOB2 Max Depth (ft) LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)   Table 11A.  Monitoring Data ‐ Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary (Laurel Springs/ DMS:100122) UT 2 ‐ Cross Section 1 (Pool)UT 2 ‐ Cross Section 2 (Riffle)UT 2 ‐ Cross Section 3 (Riffle)UT 2 ‐ Cross Section 4 (Pool)Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 5 (Pool) Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter‐annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases.  Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.       Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 6 (Pool)UT 3 ‐ Cross Section 7 (Pool)UT 3 ‐ Cross Section 8 (Riffle)UT 3 ‐ Cross Section 9 (Pool)UT 3 ‐ Cross Section 10 (Riffle) Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 11 (Pool)   Table 11B.  Monitoring Data ‐ Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary (Laurel Springs/ DMS:100122) Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 12 (Riffle)UT 1 ‐ Cross Section 13 (Riffle)UT 1 ‐ Cross Section 14 (Pool)Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 15 (Riffle)Fork Cr ‐ Cross Section 16 (Pool) Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter‐annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases.  Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.       The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners.  The outcome resulted in the focus  on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As‐built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max  depth based on each years low top of bank.  These are calculated as follows: 1 ‐Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As‐built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.  For example if the As‐built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be  adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2.  The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation  for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator.  This same process is then carried out in each successive year. 2  ‐LTOB Area and Max depth ‐These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).  Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each  year as above.  The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.        The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners.  The outcome resulted in the focus  on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As‐built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max  depth based on each years low top of bank.  These are calculated as follows: 1 ‐Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As‐built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.  For example if the As‐built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be  adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2.  The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation  for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator.  This same process is then carried out in each successive year. 2  ‐LTOB Area and Max depth ‐These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).  Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each  year as above.  The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.        MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix D: Hydrologic Data Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events Fork Creek Crest Gauge Graph Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology data Groundwater Gauge Graphs Table 14. Channel Evidence UT 2 Surface Water Gauge Graph Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall Soil Temperature Graph MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo (if available) Monitoring Year May 23, 2022 May 23, 2022 A bankfull event was documented on the Fork Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 1.13 inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge. 1 MY1 August 6, 2022 August 6, 2022 A bankfull event was documented on the Fork Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 0.98 inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge. 2 MY1 September 5, 2022 September 5, 2022 A bankfull event was documented on the Fork Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 1.45 inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge. 3 MY1 September 25, 2023 May 28, 2023 A bankfull event was documented on the Fork Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 1.71 inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge. 4 MY2 September 25, 2023 June 20, 2023 A bankfull event was documented on the Fork Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 2.56 inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge. 5 MY2 September 25, 2023 August 8, 2023 A bankfull event was documented on the Fork Creek trail camera and stream gauge after 2.95 inches of rain fell per the on-site rain gauge. 6 MY2 Photo 1: Fork Creek Swelling to Bankfull MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Photo 2: Bankfull Event Documented on Fork Creek Photo 3: Bankfull Event Documented on Fork Creek MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Photo 4: Bankfull Event Documented on Fork Creek Photo 5: Bankfull Event Documented on Fork Creek MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Photo 6: Bankfull Event Documented on Fork Creek 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐2 2 6 10 14 18 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Su r f a c e  Wa t e r  Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Fork Creek Crest Gauge (2023 Data) Rainfall Amounts Water Level (inches) Bankfull Elevation Bankfull Event Bankfull Event Bankfull Event MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 13. Groundwater Hydrology Data Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year Gauge 12% Hydroperiod Success Criteria Achieved - Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) Year 1 (2022) Year 2 (2023) Year 3 (2024) Year 4 (2025) Year 5 (2026) Year 6 (2027) Year 7 (2028) 1* Yes 45 days (19.1%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 2 No 2 days (0.9%) No 3 days (1.3%) 3 No 17 days (7.2%) No 14 days (5.9%) 4 Yes 167 days (71.1%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 5 Yes 46 days (19.6%) Yes 75 days (31.8%) 6* Yes 236 days (100%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 7 Yes 236 days (100%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 8 Yes 119 days (50.6%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 9* Yes 236 days (100%) Yes 99 days (41.9%) 10 Yes 65 days (27.7%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) 11* Yes 45 days (19.1%) Yes 44 days (18.6%) 12* Yes 236 days (100%) No 15 days (6.4%) 13 Yes 236 days (100%) Yes 209 days (88.6%) *During the MY0 review, the IRT requested that gauges be moved into creditable wetland areas to more accurately represent what was presented in the detailed mitigation plan (Appendix F). During the 2022/2023 dormant season, gauges 6, 9, 11, and 12 were moved into creditable wetland reestablishment areas, and gauge 1 was moved into the nearby wetland enhancement area. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 1 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 Gauge moved 2/19/23 into adjacent wetland  enhancement credit area. 209 Days ‐88.6% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s   (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 2 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 3 Days ‐1.3% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s   (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 3 (2023 Data) End Growing Season  October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 14 Days ‐5.9% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s   (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 4 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 209 Days ‐88.6% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 5 (2023 Data) End Growing Season  October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 75 Days ‐31.8% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 6 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 209 Days ‐88.6% Gauge moved 2/19/23 into creditable wetland area. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s   (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 7 (2023 Data) Start Growing Season March 1 End Growing Season October 22 209 Days ‐88.6% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 8 (2023 Data) End Growing Season  October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 209 Days ‐88.6% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 9 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 99 Days ‐41.9% Gauge moved 2/19/23 into creditable wetland area. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s   (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 10 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 209 Days ‐88.6% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 11 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 44 Days ‐18.6% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s   (i n ) Gr o u n d w a t e r   Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 12 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 15 Days ‐6.4% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐40 ‐38 ‐36 ‐34 ‐32 ‐30 ‐28 ‐26 ‐24 ‐22 ‐20 ‐18 ‐16 ‐14 ‐12 ‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Su r f a c e  Wa t e r  Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs Groundwater Gauge 13 (2023 Data) End Growing Season October 22 Start Growing Season March 1 209 Days ‐88.6% MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Table 14. UT-2 Channel Evidence UT-1 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2022) Year 2 (2023) Max consecutive days channel flow 166 94 Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, in cluding hydrophytes) Yes Yes Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems Yes Yes Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No Other: 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ‐2 2 6 10 14 18 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Su r f a c e  Wa t e r  Le v e l  (i n ) Laurel Springs UT2 Stream Flow (2023 Data) 94 Days Total Cumulative Flow ‐ 239 Days 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t  in  In c h e s Figure D1: Laurel Springs 30‐70 Percentile  Graph for Rainfall  30‐70th percentile data from WETS Station: Banner Elk, NC 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 30th Percentile 70th Percentile 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 1/ 1 / 2 3 1/ 1 1 / 2 3 1/ 2 1 / 2 3 1/ 3 1 / 2 3 2/ 1 0 / 2 3 2/ 2 0 / 2 3 3/ 2 / 2 3 3/ 1 2 / 2 3 3/ 2 2 / 2 3 4/ 1 / 2 3 4/ 1 1 / 2 3 4/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 / 2 3 5/ 1 1 / 2 3 5/ 2 1 / 2 3 5/ 3 1 / 2 3 6/ 1 0 / 2 3 6/ 2 0 / 2 3 6/ 3 0 / 2 3 7/ 1 0 / 2 3 7/ 2 0 / 2 3 7/ 3 0 / 2 3 8/ 9 / 2 3 8/ 1 9 / 2 3 8/ 2 9 / 2 3 9/ 8 / 2 3 9/ 1 8 / 2 3 9/ 2 8 / 2 3 10 / 8 / 2 3 10 / 1 8 / 2 3 10 / 2 8 / 2 3 11 / 7 / 2 3 11 / 1 7 / 2 3 11 / 2 7 / 2 3 12 / 7 / 2 3 12 / 1 7 / 2 3 12 / 2 7 / 2 3 So i l  Te m p  °F Date Laurel Springs Soil Temperature (2023 Data) Lowest temp.  after March 1: 40.18°F March 1: 46.2°F MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Info Table 15. Project Timeline Table 16. Project Contacts Table 15. Project Timeline Data Collection Task Completion or Activity or Deliverable Complete Deliverable Submission Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16‐007725)Mar‐19 Mar‐19 Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100122)NA 17‐May‐19 Mitigation Plan Jul‐20 11‐Feb‐21 Construction Plan (Grading) Completed NA 18‐Feb‐21 Planting Completed NA 13‐Jan‐22 As‐built Survey Completed 25‐Oct‐20 Jun‐22 MY‐0 Baseline Report Feb‐22 Nov‐22 Invasive Species Treatment ‐ Japanese Knotweed, Chinese Bittersweet,  Multiflora rose, Autumn Olive, Callery Pear, Japanese barberry, Cattail NA 14‐Sep‐22 Encroachment (addressed during MY1)NA Oct‐22 MY1 Monitoring Report Nov‐22 Feb‐23 Supplemental planting and old fence removal NA 12‐Mar‐23 Spot invasive treatments: Japanese Knotweed, Multiflora rose,  Ligustrum NA 28‐Jun‐23 Added rock at DOT culvert entering site at UT‐1 where storm damage  caused perching NA 8‐Aug‐23 Spot invasive treatments: Japanese Knotweed, Bittersweet, Barberry,  Multiflora rose NA 19‐Sep‐23 MY2 Monitoring Report Nov‐23 Feb‐24 Table 16. Project Contacts Provider Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 27604 Mitigation Provider POC Worth Creech 919‐755‐9490 Designer Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Ave Raleigh, NC 27603 Primary project design POC Grant Lewis 919‐215‐1693 Construction Contractor Land Mechanics Designs, Inc. 126 Circle G Lane Willow Spring, NC 27592 Charles Hill 919‐639‐6132 Laurel Springs/100122 MY2 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2024 Appendix F: IRT Correspondence Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023) 2023 Adaptive Management Plan MY2 IRT Site Visit Notes and Comment Responses 2023-2024 IRT Email Correspondence November 30, 2022 Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina Ph: (919) 755-9490 Fx: (919) 755-9492 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492 Kimberly Isenhour Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Subject: Laurel Springs Mitigation Site – Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023) DMS Project ID No. 100122; Full Delivery Contract No. 7890; RFP No. 16-007725 (Issuance Date 11/13/2018) USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835; DWR Project No. 2019-0865 Mrs. Isenhour, During the 2022 growing season, Restoration Systems (RS) has observed areas of low stem densities at the Laurel Springs Mitigation Site (Site). Observed areas total 2.67 acres, which includes a 0.107-acre area of encroachment – see attached remedial planting figure. The encroachment area was partially due to a storage shed left within the easement used by the adjacent landowner. RS worked with the neighbor to remove the shed and cleared the area of all debris. Additionally, 6-inch treated fence posts were used to delineate the easement boundary in this area. A new shed was erected approximately 15 feet from the easement. RS has ordered trees to replant the 2.67 acres at a density of 670 stems per acre. The replant areas are within the Acidic Cove Forest Association. The following species and quantities were secured for Q1-2023 planting. Targeted Vegetation Associations: Acidic Cove Forest Area of Replant: 2.67 Acres Species Indicator Status Number of Stems American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600 White Oak (Quercus alba) FACU 600 Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 600 Total 1,800 These species were listed within the approved mitigation plan but not planted within the Acidic Cove vegetation association during initial planting. These three species will add to the six species planted during initial planting for nine total species within the Acidic Cove vegetation association. RS recognizes that additional "diversity plantings" may be desired by the IRT, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss a diversity planting effort with the IRT. RS will contact Andrea Leslie and Erin Davis in Q1-2023 to discuss this effort. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Raymond Holz Operations Manager Restoration Systems, LLC Attachment – Remedial Planting Plan Figure ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( #* #* !. XS-5 XS- 1 2 X S - 1 1 XS-15 XS-1 XS-16 XS-4 X S - 1 3 XS-9 XS-3 XS-10 X S - 1 4 XS-7 XS- 6 XS-2 XS-8 UT 4 UT1 U T 3 U T 3 A N A UT 5 F o r k C r e e k UT 2 T 2 T3 T1 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 14 10 12 15 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13 12 11 10 Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres !(Groundwater Gauge !.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature #*Stream Crest Gauge Instream Structures Cross Sections 2022-11 Temporary Vegetation Plot - 50m x 2m (3 Total) Permanant Vegetation Plot ^_Vegetation Plot Origins Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Stream Generating No Credit Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area Wetland Reestablishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation 2023 Replant Areas: 2.67 Acres FIGUREA ³ 2018 NC One Map Imagery Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: Title: Project: Prepared for: 2022/2023REMEDIAL PLANTINGPLAN RJH 1:2,200 LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE NOV. 2022 DMS ID: 100122 NC DEQ Division of Enviromental Quality Division of Mitigation Services Avery County, NC 0 300 600150 Feet 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) Final MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Table of Contents Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina August 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 2 PLANTING, MONITORING, AND MAINTENANCE TO DATE .........................................................2 2.1 MY0 SUMMARY FOR VEGETATION .............................................................................................................. 2 2.2 MY1 SUMMARY FOR VEGETATION .............................................................................................................. 2 2.3 MY2 PRELIMINARY VEGETATION DATA ........................................................................................................ 2 APPENDICES A. MY0 Data B. MY1 Data C. MY2 Preliminary Data 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 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 Vegetation establishment and vigor Permanent veg plots 0.0247 acres (100 square meters) in size; CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 16 plots & three (3) random transects spread across the Site Species, height, planted vs. volunteer, stems/acre 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 2 PLANTING, MONITORING, AND MAINTENANCE TO DATE 2.1 MY0 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 MY0 review process the IRT approved four species not listed in the mitigation plan for inclusion in the planted stem count. The MY0 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 MY0 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 3 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 from the approved mitigation plan will be used. 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. # 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 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 Appendix A MY0 Data ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( #* #* !.2 3 1 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 10 12 14 15 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13 12 11 10 NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: PHP NOV 2022 1:2000 19-006 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE MY0CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW 1 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2018 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Stream Generating No Credit Instream Structures Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area Wetland Reestablishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation Permanant Vegetation Plot Temporary Vegetation Plot - 50m x 2m ^_Vegetation Plot Origins !(Groundwater Gauge !.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature #*Stream Crest Gauge Cross Sections Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas ³ XS-1XS-2 XS-3 XS-4 XS- 5XS- 6 XS-7 XS- 8 XS-9 XS-10 X S - 1 1 X S - 1 2 X S - 1 3 X S - 1 4 XS-15XS-16 UT- 4 UT - 3 U T - 2 UT-1 Fork Cr e e k Rain Gauge MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Page 10  Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC  Avery County, North Carolina November 2022  Table F. As‐Built Planted Species and Stems  Vegetation Association Montane Alluvial Forest* Acidic Cove Forest* Stream‐side  Assemblage** TOTAL  Area (acres) 9.0 4.7 2.5 16.2  Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted  Basswood (Tilia americana) FACU 100 2% 200 6% 300  Cherry birch (Betula lenta) FACU 100 500 2% 8% 400 600 13% 18.75% 500 1500 7% 15.96% 1000 2600  Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) FACU 100 400 2% 6.4% 100 600 3% 18.75% ‐‐ ‐‐ 200 1000  Red oak (Quercus rubra)  FACU 500 650 10.4% 300 650 9% 20.31% ‐‐ ‐‐ 300 1300  White ash (Fraxinus americana) FACU 100 2% 300 9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400  White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 100 550 2% 8.8% 400 13% 550 5.85% 500 1100  White pine (Pinus strobus) FACU 300 600 2% 9.6% 400 13% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 600  Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) FACU 100 200 2% 3.2% 300  9% 500 300 7% 3.19% 900 500  Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) FAC 600 10% 100 3% 500 7% 1200  Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)  FAC 200 3% 300 9% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500   Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea)  FAC 200 600 3% 9.6% 100 500 3% 15.63% ‐‐ ‐‐ 300 1100  Shadbush (Amelanchier arborea) FAC 100 2% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 500  Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 600 450 10% 7.2% 200 600 6% 18.75% 500 1100 7% 11.70% 1300 2150  American elm (Ulmus americana)  FACW 600 10% 100 3% 500 7% 1200  Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)  FACW 600 10% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 7% 1100  River birch (Betula nigra)  FACW 600 500 10% 8% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 950 7% 10.10% 1100 1450  Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) FACW 600 10% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 1000  Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)  FACW 600 10% 9.6% ‐‐ ‐‐ 500 1500 7% 15.96% 1100 2100  Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) FACW 300 5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 6% 700  Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW 200 3% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 600*** 6% 6.38% 600   Black willow (Salix nigra) OBL 300 5% ‐‐ ‐‐ 400 800*** 6% 8.51% 800  Elderberry (Sambucus nigra)  OBL  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 400*** 6% 4.26% 400  Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 400*** 6% 4.26% 400  ^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) FACW  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 300*** 3.19% 300  ^Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC 400 6.4%400 4.26% 800  ^Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU 800 12.8%800  ^American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU 600 6.38% 600  ^Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU 250 7.81%250  TOTAL 6200 6250 100% 3200 100% 6800 9400 100% 16200 18850  ^Species Added   *Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.  ** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.  *** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels – Total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare‐root Stream‐Side Assemblage planting. MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina December 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 Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool 16.2 2022‐01‐12 2022‐02‐01 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 11 Betula lenta sweet birch Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 11 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 10 10 3 3 Betula sp.11 222255774444 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 2244332222 88 Other 11 11 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 114444 11 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 6611 115522 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 11 22 Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 33 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU Quercus sp.1212 223322114433 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1122 44 22 Sum Performance Standard 13 13 19 19 9 9 22 22 13 13 7 7 12 12 20 20 18 18 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 445511 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 77 11 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 3 3 11111111 11 Sum Proposed Standard 16 16 20 20 9 9 27 27 19 19 9 9 20 20 20 20 20 20 13 19 9 22 13 7 12 20 18 364 648 364 891 526 202 445 810 729 353862575 77 63 44 27 31 71 58 25 44 211112211 000000000 16 20 9 27 19 9 20 20 20 486 688 364 1093 769 283 769 810 810 4631084777 63 60 44 22 26 56 35 25 40 211111111 000000000 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan  addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Mitigation Plan  Performance  Standard Post Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count % Invasives Average Plot Height (ft.) Dominant Species Composition (%) % Invasives Average Plot Height (ft.) Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Count Stems/Acre Current Year Stem Count Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation  Plan Species Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FIndicator  Status Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Veg Plot 1 F Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued) Acreage 16.2 Plant 2022‐01‐12 Supplemental  Date(s) Mowing Survey 2022‐02‐01 (ACRES)0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC Betula lenta sweet birch Tree FACU Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 113377 Betula sp.44 334433 33 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 5511224433 1 Other Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 66221122 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 2 Quercus sp.332222221133 11 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1122 Sum Performance Standard 10 10 2 2 10 10 13 13 10 10 13 13 15 15 3 5 1 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 4 4 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 2233 222222 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 4 4 13 13 5511 Sum Proposed Standard 17 17 18 18 14 14 15 15 17 17 16 16 15 15 3 5 1 10 2 1013101315351 405 40 405 526 405 526 607 81 202 40 4 1 3 4 6 5 4241 40 100 50 46 30 31 47 67 40 100 1 1 1 1 2 1 2113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 17 18 14 15 17 16 15 3 5 1 688 688 567 607 688 648 607 81 202 40 7 3 4 5 8 7 4241 12 72 36 40 29 25 47 67 40 100 2 2 1 1 2 1 2113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 Stems/Acre Current Year Stem Count Veg Plot 11 FScientific Name Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation  Plan Species Mitigation Plan  Performance  Standard Post Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard % Invasives Average Plot Height (ft.) Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Count Stems/Acre Current Year Stem Count % Invasives Average Plot Height (ft.) Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Count 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan  addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Veg Plot 16 FVeg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Veg Plot 15 FCommon Name Tree/S hrub Indicator  Status 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 Appendix B MY1 Data ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( #* #* !. ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ 5 4 3 21 2 3 1 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 10 12 14 15 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 13 12 11 10 3 2 NCCGIA, NC 911 Board FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: PHP FEB 2023 1:2000 19-006 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE MY1CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW 1 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2022 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Stream Generating No Credit Instream Structures Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area Wetland Reestablishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirement ^_Vegetation Plot Origins !(Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria !(Groundwater Gauges Not Meeting Success Criteria !.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature #*Stream Crest Gauge Cross Sections ^_Permanent Photo Point Locations Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas ³ XS-1XS-2 XS-3 XS-4 XS- 5XS- 6 XS-7 XS- 8 XS-9 XS-10 X S - 1 1 X S - 1 2 X S - 1 3 X S - 1 4 XS-15XS-16 UT- 4 UT - 3 U T - 2 UT-1 Fork Cr e e k Rain Gauge UT- 5 U T - 3 A UT-2A MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2023 Table 6A. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation Laurel Springs Mitigation Site Vegetation Association Montane Alluvial Forest* Acidic Cove Forest* Stream-side Assemblage** TOTAL Area (acres) 9.0 4.7 2.5 16.2 Species Indicator Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted Cherry birch (Betula lenta) FACU 500 8% 600 18.75% 1500 15.96% 2600 Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) FACU 400 6.4% 600 18.75% -- -- 1000 Red oak (Quercus rubra) FACU 650 10.4% 650 20.31% -- -- 1300 White oak (Quercus alba) FACU 550 8.8% 550 5.85% 1100 White pine (Pinus strobus) FACU 600 9.6% -- -- 600 Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) FACU 200 3.2% 300 3.19% 500 Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) FAC 600 9.6% 500 15.63% -- -- 1100 Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FAC 450 7.2% 600 18.75% 1100 11.70% 2150 River birch (Betula nigra) FACW 500 8% -- -- 950 10.10% 1450 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 600 9.6% -- -- 1500 15.96% 2100 Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW -- -- 600*** 6.38% 600 Black willow (Salix nigra) OBL -- -- 800*** 8.51% 800 Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 4.26% 400 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL -- -- -- -- 400*** 4.26% 400 ^Common ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) FACW -- -- -- -- 300*** 3.19% 300 ^Arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum) FAC 400 6.4% 400 4.26% 800 ^Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) FACU 800 12.8% 800 ^American hazelnut (Corylus americana) FACU 600 6.38% 600 ^Red spruce (Picea rubens) FACU 250 7.81% 250 TOTAL 6250 100% 3200 100% 9400 100% 18850 ^Species added post-mitigation plan approval * Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre. ** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre. *** These species were live staked and planted along the stream channels – A total of 2500 live stakes were planted in addition to the 6900 bare-root Stream-Side Assemblage planting. MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100122) Appendices Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC Avery County, North Carolina February 2023 Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals Laurel Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met? 1 81 No 2 526 Yes 3 364 Yes 4 891 Yes 5 364 Yes 6 0 No 7 445 Yes 8 648 Yes 9 40 No 10 283 No 11 405 Yes 12 324 Yes 13 202 No 14 202 No 15 243 No 16 162 No T1 81 No T2 324 Yes T3 121 No Average Planted Stems/Acre 300 No Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool 16.2 2022‐01‐13 NA  NA  2022‐11‐08 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 22 2211 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 22 Betula sp.11 22 liriodendron tulipifera Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1155441122 11 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4433 11 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4411 1144 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 11 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 11 11 Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 11 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 2222 Quercus sp.88 33 332233 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 2 2 Sum Performance Standard 1 1 14 14 9 9 17 17 550099161633 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 4433 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 22 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 2 2 1111 Sum Proposed Standard 3 3 14 14 9 9 22 22 99001111161633 1 14 9 17 5 0 9 16 3 40 526 364 688 202 0 364 648 40 133840591 100 57 44 18 33 0 27 25 100 11111 111 00000 000 3 14 9 22 9 0 11 16 3 81 526 364 891 364 0 445 648 40 2331060691 67 57 44 18 33 0 27 25 100 21111 111 00000 000 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a  mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. Post Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Indicator  Status Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Mitigation Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation  Plan Species Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub % Invasives Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued) 16.2 2022‐01‐13 NA  NA  2022‐11‐08 0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 2 2 2 2 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1111 Betula sp.22 1 liriodendron tulipifera 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 222211 21 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 5 5 1133 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 3 Quercus sp.111122 11 11 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU Sum Performance Standard 33337777225555385 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 11 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 3 3 11 11 2211 Sum Proposed Standard 7 7 14 14 8877556655385 3377255385 121 121 283 202 81 202 162 81 324 121 3232143252 43 79 38 71 40 33 60 67 38 80 2122121111 0000000000 71487565385 283 405 324 202 202 243 162 81 324 121 5342353252 43 79 38 71 40 33 60 67 38 80 2212221111 0000000000 1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved. 2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a  mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized). 3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems. % Invasives Post Mitigation  Plan  Performance  Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date(s) Mowing Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S hrub Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation  Plan Species Mitigation Plan  Performance  Standard Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 FVeg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 FIndicator  Status November 30, 2022 Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina Ph: (919) 755-9490 Fx: (919) 755-9492 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492 Kimberly Isenhour Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Subject: Laurel Springs Mitigation Site – Remedial Planting Plan (Q1-2023) DMS Project ID No. 100122; Full Delivery Contract No. 7890; RFP No. 16-007725 (Issuance Date 11/13/2018) USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835; DWR Project No. 2019-0865 Mrs. Isenhour, During the 2022 growing season, Restoration Systems (RS) has observed areas of low stem densities at the Laurel Springs Mitigation Site (Site). Observed areas total 2.67 acres, which includes a 0.107-acre area of encroachment – see attached remedial planting figure. The encroachment area was partially due to a storage shed left within the easement used by the adjacent landowner. RS worked with the neighbor to remove the shed and cleared the area of all debris. Additionally, 6-inch treated fence posts were used to delineate the easement boundary in this area. A new shed was erected approximately 15 feet from the easement. RS has ordered trees to replant the 2.67 acres at a density of 670 stems per acre. The replant areas are within the Acidic Cove Forest Association. The following species and quantities were secured for Q1-2023 planting. Targeted Vegetation Associations: Acidic Cove Forest Area of Replant: 2.67 Acres Species Indicator Status Number of Stems American elm (Ulmus americana) FACW 600 White Oak (Quercus alba) FACU 600 Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC 600 Total 1,800 These species were listed within the approved mitigation plan but not planted within the Acidic Cove vegetation association during initial planting. These three species will add to the six species planted during initial planting for nine total species within the Acidic Cove vegetation association. RS recognizes that additional "diversity plantings" may be desired by the IRT, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss a diversity planting effort with the IRT. RS will contact Andrea Leslie and Erin Davis in Q1-2023 to discuss this effort. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Raymond Holz Operations Manager Restoration Systems, LLC Attachment – Remedial Planting Plan Figure 1 Ray Holz From:Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil> Sent:Friday, December 09, 2022 10:08 AM To:Ray Holz Cc:Wiesner, Paul; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) Subject:RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs Mitigation Site As‐Built/ SAW‐2019‐00835/ Avery County Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Ray,  Thanks for the follow‐up. In general, the IRT does not have any concerns with the Remedial Planting Plan or counting the  bare root species towards success. WRC and DWR request that you contact them if you plan to supplement  understory/shrub species next year. They would like to encourage diversity out there. Andrea Leslie did mention that  American Hazelnut is not a typical riparian species and is often found on hillslopes. This species may not do well in the  riparian zone.  She would recommend Witch Hazel as an alternative. She also noted that Red Spruce is very elevation  specific and survives in elevations in excess of 4,000 feet.   Thanks,  Kim  Kim Isenhour  Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division   I  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  l   919.946.5107   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Ray Holz <rholz@restorationsystems.com>   Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:26 PM  To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil>; Wiesner, Paul  <paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov>  Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY  CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil>; 'erin.davis@ncdenr.gov' <erin.davis@ncdenr.gov>;  bowers.todd@epa.gov; Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov>; 'travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org'  <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org>; andrea.leslie@ncwildlife.org; Melonie Allen <melonie.allen@ncdenr.gov>; Crumbley,  Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Tyler.A.Crumbley2@usace.army.mil>; John Hamby  <jhamby@restorationsystems.com>  Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non‐DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information/ NCDMS Laurel Springs  Mitigation Site As‐Built/ SAW‐2019‐00835/ Avery County  To Kim and IRT Members ‐  Firstly, my personal and sincere apologies for the lack of QA/QC on not only the Laurel Springs As‐Built/MY0 Baseline  Report but also for the failure to appropriately updated all portions of the Mitigation Plan and with our ordering of non‐ approved bare‐root species and quantities. I wholeheartedly believe the IRT's mitigation plan review and comment  process results in a superior product, and it is never our intent to dismiss or disregard IRT's comments.   In this case, within the final/approved Mitigation Plan, RS failed to update the planting plan on Sheet L5.00 of the  Construction Drawings; however, RS did apply the IRT's comments regarding the planting plan to Table 18 of the  Mitigation Plan, which led to the discrepancy between the two.   2 During the bare‐root tree ordering process, when species availability became an issue, RS staff charged with ordering  trees did not notice or review the IRT's draft Mitigation Plan comments concerning the planting plan. Specifically, the  IRT's request to cap the amount of Eastern hemlock planted. This mistake and the ordering of non‐approved species  caused us to review our bare‐root tree ordering process in detail. We have established additional QA/QC measures as a  result, which include:  1.) a full review of the IRT's mitigation plan comments while ordering trees by both personnel charged with ordering  trees and the project manager,  and   2.) if non‐approved substitution species are required, or quantities of species change drastically due to a lack of  availability, coordination with the IRT will occur immediately.   With that said, I have attached, as a single .pdf, the following items:   1.Response to IRT comments which includes revised MY0 Report and Recorded Drawing pages 2.A revised Mitigation Plan Amendment Request to count bare‐root substitution species towards success criteria, and 3.A Remedial planting plan for areas of observed low‐stem density within the Site's Acidic Cove Forest vegetation community After discussing with Paul Wisner at DMS, we believe it would be best to allow the IRT to review the attached  information and provide comments before updating the MY0 Report and re‐posting the document.   If there are any items you wish to discuss with me directly, please feel free to email or call me at 919‐604‐9314.   Thank you for your time and patience.   Sincerely,   Raymond H.   ‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐   Raymond J. Holz   |   Restoration Systems, LLC  1101 Haynes St. Suite 211   |   Raleigh, NC 27604  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 Appendix C MY2 Preliminary Data ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( #* #* !. ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ 9 8 7 1 2 5 4 3 6 2 3 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 10 5 4 3 21 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 14 10 12 15 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 13 12 11 10 3 2 NCCGIA, NC 911 Board FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: PHP JUNE 2023 1:2000 19-009 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE MY2 EARLY CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW 1 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2022 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement (Level I) Stream Enhancement (Level II) Stream Preservation Stream Generating No Credit Instream Structures Creditable Wetland Reestablishment Area Wetland Reestablishment Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Enhancement Wetland Preservation Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY2 Stem Density Requirement Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY2 Stem Density Requirement MY2 Herbacous Transects ^_Vegetation Plot Origins !(Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria !(Groundwater Gauges Not Meeting Success Criteria !.Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature #*Stream Crest Gauge Cross Sections ^_Permanent Photo Point Locations Observed Low Stem Density - 2023 Replant Areas Shed/Mowing Encroachment - 2023 Replant Areas ³ XS-1XS-2 XS-3XS-4 XS- 5XS- 6 XS-7 XS- 8 XS-9 XS-10 X S - 1 1 X S - 1 2 X S - 1 3 X S - 1 4 XS-15XS-16 UT- 4 UT - 3 U T - 2 UT-1 Fork Cr e e k Rain Gauge UT- 5 U T - 3 A UT-2A   MY2 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  2 364 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  16.2 2022‐01‐13 NA  2023‐06‐28  2023‐06‐28 0.0247 Veg Plot 1 R Veg Plot 2 R Veg Plot 3 R Veg Plot 4 R Veg Plot 5 R Veg Plot 6 R Veg Plot 7 R Veg Plot 8 R Veg Plot 9 R Veg Plot 10 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 11 2 2 Betula sp.11 22 22 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 6 6 1 1 1 1 22 224411167722 1 1 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 4 4 1 1 1 1 Pinus strobus eastern white pine Tree FACU 4 4 3 3 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 3 3 1 1 5 5 1 1 3 3 2 6 4 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 3 3 12 1 2 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak Tree 4 4 1 1 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 3 3 41 Quercus sp.77 4422 2233 1111 11 2 Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 1 Sum Performance Standard 1 1 11 11 11 11 19 19 9 9 0 0 5 5 14 14 3 3 2 2 2 2 5 5 7 7 2 2 7 7 4 4 1 12 13 9 11 7021 1 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory Tree FACU 3 3 11 Corylus americana American hazelnut Shrub FACU 11 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Tree FAC 2 2 3 3 10 10 1 1 13 Sum Proposed Standard 3 3 11 11 11 11 19 19 12 12 0 0 6 6 14 14 3 3 5 5 12 12 6 6 7 7 3 3 7 7 4 4 1 12 13 9 11 8321 1 1 1111199051432257274112139117021 1 40 364 405 769 364 0 202 567 40 81 81 202 202 40 243 121 40 486 486 243 405 283 0 40 40 40 1 337503812232142144243011 1 67 64 55 21 25 0 50 21 100 60 83 33 71 67 57 75 100 50 54 78 55 50 100 100 100 100 2 1211 2212112212112212 21 2 0 0000 0000000000000000 00 0 3 111119120614351267374112139118321 1 81 364 405 769 486 0 243 567 40 162 324 243 202 81 243 121 40 486 486 243 405 324 40 40 40 40 2 337604813342242144244111 1 67 64 55 21 25 0 50 21 100 60 83 33 71 67 57 75 100 50 54 78 55 50 100 100 100 100 2 1211 1212212212112212221 2 0 0000 0000000000000000000 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. 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 % Invasives Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 F Species  Included in  Approved  Mitigation Plan Post Mitigation  Plan Species Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 FVeg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 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 June 2023 Herbaceous Diversity Assessment Plot # Species Count Success Criteria Met? Taxa Identified Common H1 4 Yes Juncus effusus Cyperus sp. Carex sp. Vernonia noveboracensis Soft rush Nutsedge sp. Sedge sp. Ironweed H2 4 Yes Carex sp. Juncus effuses Pycnanthemum sp Trifolium repens Sedge sp. Soft rush Mountain mint White clover H3 5 Yes Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Juncus effusus Peltandra virginica Pycnanthemum sp Sedge sp. Boneset Soft rush Green arrow arum Mountain mint H4 6 Yes Juncus effusus Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Ranunculus sp. Trifolium repens Vernonia noveboracensis Soft rush Sedge sp. Boneset Buttercup White clover Ironweed H5 5 Yes Carex sp. Cicuta maculata Juncus effuses Pycnanthemum sp Vernonia noveboracensis Sedge sp. Water hemlock Soft rush Mountain mint Ironweed H6 4 Yes Carex sp. Juncus effusus Peltandra virginica Vernonia noveboracensis Sedge sp. Soft rush Green arrow arum Ironweed H7 4 Yes Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Ranunculus sp. Trifolium repens Sedge sp. Boneset Buttercup White clover H8 5 Yes Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Packera aurea Ranunculus sp. Trifolium repens Sege sp. Boneset Ragwort Buttercup White clover H9 4 Yes Asclepias incarnata Carex sp. Eupatorium perfoliatum Juncus effusus Swamp milkweed Sedge sp. Boneset Soft rush Laurel Springs Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 IRT Site Visit Date: 10-18-2023 NC DMS Contract # 7890 RFP # 16-007725 DMS/Project # 100122 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835 DWR Project No. 2019-0865 1 of 2 Task 1 a.) Inter-Agency Post Contract Site Visit: Site Visit Notes Below is a list of attendees and general site visit notes. Attendees: USACE: • Todd Tugwell • Steve Kichefski NC WRC: • Andrea Leslie NC DMS: • Paul Wiesner • Matthew Reid • Harry Tsomides NC DWR: • Mac Haupt • Maria Polizzi Restoration Systems: • JD Hamby Axiom Environmental • Grant Lewis General Site Visit Notes: • Vegetation adaptive management plan discussion:  Do not include sycamores in the 2024 replanting effort.  Include a map detailing the areas that will receive supplemental planting in 2024. Attached Below.  RS was cautioned against heavily using black willow live stakes along the channel to prevent black willows from spreading rapidly throughout the site. Wetland Notes: • Replace failed gauges number 2 and 3 at the bottom of the site during the winter, before the next growing season. Existing hydrology seemed to indicate the probability of collection failure, rather than reflecting a lack of soil inundation. It was also noted that RS has provided uplift to many more wetland acres than contracted due to using the with the wider buffer method calculation tool. UT-2 Notes: • The pipe installed in the crossing is not remaining 20% buried as is the goal. The steep nature of the channel due to site topography was determined to be the cause. RS proposed adding rock at the culvert outfall this winter and document the work with photos in the monitoring report. If this effort is unsuccessful, then rubber “flexy baffle” would be a possible remediation to provide cobble places to lodge in the lower reach of the pipe. Laurel Springs Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 IRT Site Visit Date: 10-18-2023 NC DMS Contract # 7890 RFP # 16-007725 DMS/Project # 100122 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00835 DWR Project No. 2019-0865 2 of 2 USACE Questions for October Site Visit: 1. Overall, I don’t see any issues with the AMP or proposed species. It is understood that all species proposed were part of the approved mitigation plan. RS also coordinated with WRC and Erin (USACE) on species. Noted 2. RS mentioned a dense herbaceous layer, and poor soil on upland areas as an ongoing issue for the site. Are there any plans to do ring sprays and/or conduct any soil amendments? Not at this time, larger, potted plants will be planted instead. 3. The term “exceptional hydrology” was used throughout the document, is this referring to inundation? Yes 4. Not part of the AMP, but 2 GWG failed (2 & 3). GWG 3 is the only gauge in the large wetland rehab area at the southern end of the project. Noted and discussed during site visit. 5. Visit the UT1 culvert and update IRT on recently added rocks to back water up within the pipe. Is it perched/buried? Discussed on site and noted in the meeting minutes. Draft AMP coordination/response: Andrea Leslie (NCDWR) - Erin and I have reviewed the AMP. We like the planting list for the most part, and we’re glad you’re bringing in species that were in the mit plan but not planted. We both think that leaving white pine out of the new plantings is a good idea – you have volunteers coming in of that species and it’s not the greatest riparian choice, anyway. Could you substitute persimmon instead? Persimmon will be substituted. Erin Davis (USACE) - I didn’t see any major red flags and am generally ok with their approach and plant selection. I guess I would question why they’re proposing more bareroot white pine when they note earlier numerous white pine volunteers. I would also ask that they not go crazy with willow live stakes. Black Willow live stakes will be limited and used only in select areas of the site. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 21 4 6 9 8 7 1 10 2 3 5 8 1 5 7 2 6 4 9 3 11 16 13 10 12 14 15 Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: PHP, MH NOV 2023 1:2000 19-009 Title: Project: Prepared for: Avery County, NC LAUREL SPRINGSMITIGATION SITE AMPPLANTING PLAN 2 Notes: 1. Background Imagery Source: 2022 aerial photography provided by the NC OneMap program (online, provided by the NC Geographic Information Coordination Council) 0 300 600150Feet Legend Conservation Easement = 29.18 acres AMP Proposed Planting: Pots +/- 1.5 acres AMP Proposed Planting: Bare Root +/- 13 acres Permanent Vegetation Plots Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Permanent Vegetation Plots Not Meeting MY3 Stem Density Requirements Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Meeting MY2 Stem Density Requirement Temporary Vegetation Plots (50m x 2m) Not Meeting MY2 Stem Density Requirement ³ UT- 4 UT - 3 U T - 2 UT-1 Fork Cr e e k UT- 5 U T - 3 A UT-2A From:Leslie, Andrea J To:Wiesner, Paul; Steve Kichefski; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Polizzi, Maria; Lewis, Grant; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd; Youngman, Holland J Cc:Hamby, JD; Holz, Raymond; Tsomides, Harry; Reid, Matthew; Harrell, Matthew Subject:RE: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Laurel Springs_DMS# 100122_USACE Action ID: SAW-2019-00835_DWR Project #: 2019-0865v1: IRT Site Visit Notes_Site Visit Date: Wednesday October 18, 2023 Date:Tuesday, January 2, 2024 3:57:50 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png Paul and Davey folks – I just wanted to provide a bit of input on how to install the baffles. I have seen baffles placed in straight series and also in alternate series (set to the right and left to allow a bit of sinuousity within the culvert). We think that given the size and slope of the stream, that the baffles should be placed in straight series (full width). Let me know if you would like to discuss anything further. Andrea _____________________________________________ Andrea Leslie Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator NC Wildlife Resources Commission 645 Fish Hatchery Rd., Building B Marion, NC 28752 828-803-6054 (office) 828-400-4223 (cell) www.ncwildlife.org Get NC Wildlife Update delivered to your inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 1:27 PM To: Steve Kichefski <Steven.l.kichefski@usace.army.mil>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Polizzi, Maria <maria.polizzi@deq.nc.gov>; Lewis, Grant <glewis@axiomenvironmental.org>; Leslie, Andrea J <andrea.leslie@ncwildlife.org>; Wilson, Travis W. <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org>; Bowers, Todd <bowers.todd@epa.gov>; Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov> Cc: Hamby, JD <John.Hamby@davey.com>; Holz, Raymond <Raymond.Holz@davey.com>; Tsomides, Harry <harry.tsomides@deq.nc.gov>; Reid, Matthew <matthew.reid@deq.nc.gov>; Harrell, Matthew <Matthew.Harrell@davey.com> Subject: RE: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Laurel Springs_DMS# 100122_USACE Action ID: SAW- 2019-00835_DWR Project #: 2019-0865v1: IRT Site Visit Notes_Site Visit Date: Wednesday October 18, 2023 Good afternoon, As requested, attached is Restoration System’s (RS) response to the additional IRT comment provided on 11/29/2023. This will also be documented in the final MY2 (2023) report: In an email dated 11/29/23 (See Appendix A), IRT concerns regarding the performance of the culvert in the easement break on UT-2 were highlighted, with the primary concern that the pipe was not holding a sediment bed which in turn impairs the potential passage of aquatic organisms. This culvert was installed according to the approved construction plans (see Appendix B) and has remained stable to date. No repairs have been needed or made. Based on IRT feedback and recommendation, RS plans to install Flexi-Baffles (see Appendix C) in Q1 2024. A total of 14 baffles will be installed to provide a continuous series of pools through the culvert. Please review the attached document for details and let us know if you any questions prior to RS completing the proposed work. Thanks Paul Wiesner Western Regional Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services Cell: (828) 273-1673 paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. 70 Highway Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211 From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 6:32 PM To: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Haupt, Mac <mac.haupt@deq.nc.gov>; Polizzi, Maria <maria.polizzi@deq.nc.gov>; Lewis, Grant <glewis@axiomenvironmental.org>; Leslie, Andrea J <andrea.leslie@ncwildlife.org>; Wilson, Travis W. <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org>; Bowers, Todd <bowers.todd@epa.gov>; Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov> Cc: Hamby, JD <John.Hamby@davey.com>; Holz, Raymond <Raymond.Holz@davey.com>; Tsomides, Harry <harry.tsomides@deq.nc.gov>; Reid, Matthew <matthew.reid@deq.nc.gov>; Harrell, Matthew <Matthew.Harrell@davey.com> Subject: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Laurel Springs_DMS# 100122_USACE Action ID: SAW- 2019-00835_DWR Project #: 2019-0865v1: IRT Site Visit Notes_Site Visit Date: Wednesday October 18, 2023 CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Good afternoon, Thank you for providing the meeting minutes from our October 18, 2023, IRT site visit, including the AMP Planting Plan Figure dated Nov 2023, and the responses to the IRT comments regarding the proposed Laurel Springs Adaptive Management Plan (AMP), received August 18, 2023. The IRT has reviewed and approved the NCDMS Laurel Spring AMP. Per Section 332.8(g)(2) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review followed the streamlined review process. Attached are both the AMP and the meeting minutes including IRT comment responses for reference. Please address all IRT comments as provided in my November 2, 2023 email and responded to in the meeting minutes. One additional comment separate from the approved vegetative AMP regarding the meeting minute note about the culvert on UT-2. The IRT was concerned that the pipe was not buried in accordance with permit conditions and discussed various options including resetting the pipe, building a step pool at the pipe outlet, adding a sill at the outlet and adding baffles within the pipe. The IRT also asked whether there was any verification or photos of it being initially constructed appropriately and then sediment washing out due to slope. Please update the IRT with that response. RS was also asked to evaluate these options and update the IRT with their proposed corrective action. The meeting minutes mention adding rock at the culvert outfall this winter, but I thought some rock had already been added to the pipe outlet unsuccessfully? Is your intention to create a step pool to back water up in the pipe? Please update the IRT before this work is implemented. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Regards, Steve Kichefski Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Mitigation Branch (828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234 (828)-933-8032 cell The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/ to complete the survey online. From: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:25 AM To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Haupt, Mac <mac.haupt@deq.nc.gov>; Polizzi, Maria <maria.polizzi@deq.nc.gov>; Lewis, Grant <glewis@axiomenvironmental.org>; Leslie, Andrea J <andrea.leslie@ncwildlife.org> Cc: Hamby, JD <John.Hamby@davey.com>; Holz, Raymond <Raymond.Holz@davey.com>; Tsomides, Harry <harry.tsomides@deq.nc.gov>; Reid, Matthew <matthew.reid@deq.nc.gov>; Harrell, Matthew <Matthew.Harrell@davey.com> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Laurel Springs_DMS# 100122_USACE Action ID: SAW-2019-00835_DWR Project #: 2019-0865v1: IRT Site Visit Notes_Site Visit Date: Wednesday October 18, 2023 Good morning, The October 18, 2023, IRT site visit meeting notes for the Laurel Springs mitigation site are attached for your review. The meeting notes address the IRT questions from the email below and include the requested supplemental planting map. Upon your review, we look forward to receiving the IRT’s formal Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) response and acceptance. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Thanks Paul Wiesner Western Regional Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services Cell: (828) 273-1673 paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. 70 Highway Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211 From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 2:35 PM To: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil> Cc: Hamby, JD <John.Hamby@davey.com>; Holz, Raymond <Raymond.Holz@davey.com> Subject: RE: [External] Notice of Adaptive Management Plan Review/ NCDMS Laurel Springs / SAW- 2019-00835 / Avery County CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Afternoon Paul, Thanks to all for a good visit on the 18th, I was glad to get more familiar with this site and the project discussion make more sense having seen it in person. All of the comments/questions we had for the AMP were discussed during the visit, but I included them below for reference. Due to timing of the visit and the need for ordering plants, Erin and Andrea had previously provided some feedback to Matthew Harrell and I have included that below as well. I am waiting for the site meeting minutes before I provide the formal AMP response because it would be good to have the new planting area map they are submitting as part of the AMP review/acceptance. The project discussion about the groundwater well performance and culvert concerns were not part of the AMP which was sent out to the IRT so maybe we resolve that separately with the meeting minute response and MY report. USACE Questions for October Site Visit: 1. Overall, I don’t see any issues with the AMP or proposed species. It is understood that all species proposed were part of the approved mitigation plan. RS also coordinated with WRC and Erin (USACE) on species. 2. RS mentioned a dense herbaceous layer, and poor soil on upland areas as an ongoing issue for the site. Are there any plans to do ring sprays and/or conduct any soil amendments? 3. The term “exceptional hydrology” was used throughout the document, is this referring to inundation? 4. Not part of the AMP, but 2 GWG failed (2 & 3). GWG 3 is the only gauge in the large wetland rehab area at the southern end of the project. 5. Visit the UT1 culvert and update IRT on recently added rocks to back water up within the pipe. Is it perched/buried? Draft AMP coordination/response: Andrea Leslie (NCDWR) - Erin and I have reviewed the AMP. We like the planting list for the most part, and we’re glad you’re bringing in species that were in the mit plan but not planted. We both think that leaving white pine out of the new plantings is a good idea – you have volunteers coming in of that species and it’s not the greatest riparian choice, anyway. Could you substitute persimmon instead? Erin Davis (USACE) - I didn’t see any major red flags and am generally ok with their approach and plant selection. I guess I would question why they’re proposing more bareroot white pine when they note earlier numerous white pine volunteers. I would also ask that they not go crazy with willow live stakes. Regards, Steve Kichefski Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Mitigation Branch (828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234 (828)-933-8032 cell The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/ to complete the survey online. From: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:19 AM To: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil>; Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil> Cc: Hamby, JD <John.Hamby@davey.com>; Holz, Raymond <Raymond.Holz@davey.com> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Notice of Adaptive Management Plan Review/ NCDMS Laurel Springs / SAW-2019-00835 / Avery County Good morning Steve and Casey, Thank you again for meeting us on October 18th at the Laurel Springs site. RS is working on meeting minutes for the site visit, but I also wanted to check in to see if the IRT had any comments from the formal Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) review. Thanks Paul Wiesner Western Regional Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services Cell: (828) 273-1673 paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. 70 Highway Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211 From: Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 12:05 PM To: Steve Kichefski <Steven.l.kichefski@usace.army.mil>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.T.Isenhour@usace.army.mil>; Davis, Erin B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Erin.B.Davis@usace.army.mil>; Polizzi, Maria <maria.polizzi@deq.nc.gov>; Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov>; Merritt, Katie <katie.merritt@deq.nc.gov>; Bowers, Todd <bowers.todd@epa.gov>; Leslie, Andrea J <andrea.leslie@ncwildlife.org>; Wilson, Travis W. <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org>; McHenry, David G <david.mchenry@ncwildlife.org>; Haupt, Mac <mac.haupt@deq.nc.gov> Cc: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov>; Holz, Raymond <Raymond.Holz@davey.com>; Harrell, Matthew <Matthew.Harrell@davey.com>; Hamby, JD <John.Hamby@davey.com> Subject: [External] Notice of Adaptive Management Plan Review/ NCDMS Laurel Springs / SAW- 2019-00835 / Avery County CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Good afternoon IRT, The below referenced Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) review has been requested by NCDMS. A copy of this AMP is attached. Per Section 332.8(g)(2) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review follows the streamlined review process, which requires an IRT review period of 30 calendar days. Please provide any comments by 5 PM on October 24, 2023. Comments provided after the 30-day comment deadline may not be considered. At the conclusion of this comment period, a copy of all comments will be provided to the NCIRT along with District Engineer's intent to approve or disapprove this AMP. 30 Day Comment Start: August 25, 2023 30-Day Comment Deadline: September 24, 2023 60-DE Decision: October 24, 2023 2023 is Monitoring Year 2 for this project. Upon IRT review and approval, the proposed AMP planting will be implemented in the winter of 2023/2024. Project information: Laurel Springs DMS Project # 100122 RFP# 16-007725 – Issued 11/13/18 Institution Date: 5/17/2019 – Full Delivery SAW-2019-00835 DWR# 2019-0865 v1 French Broad River Basin Cataloging Unit 06010108 Avery County, North Carolina Project Credits: 4,231.827 SMUs (Cold) 3.688 WMUs (Riparian) FD Provider: Restoration Systems (RS)– Contact: Raymond Holtz, raymond.holz@davey.com , Cell: 919-604-9314 NCDEQ - DMS PM: Paul Wiesner, paul.wiesner@deq.nc.gov , (828)-273-1673 USACE POCs: USACE Bank Manager: Steve Kichefski Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil USACE Mitigation Specialist: Casey Haywood Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil The AMP can be accessed directly on the RIBITS site here: https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:278:610475268221:::RP,278:P278_BANK_ID:5903 The AMP can be accessed directly on the DMS SharePoint site here: IRT-DMS SharePoint Page: https://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/IRT-DMS/SitePages/Home.aspx Laurel Springs_100122_AMP for IRT Review_2023 https://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/:b:/r/sites/IRT- DMS/Misc%20Documents/Laurel%20Springs%20(100122)/Laurel%20Springs_100122_AMP%20for% 20IRT%20Review_2023.pdf?csf=1&web=1&e=ZqhyXC Thank you, Casey Casey Haywood Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (919) 750-7397 work cell Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.