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.