20181029 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report 2022_FINAL_20221025

ID#* 20181029
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/31/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/25/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
ID#:* 20181029
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Monkey Wall Mitigation Site
County: Mitchell
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: MonkeyWall_100069_MYO_2022_FINAL.pdf 22.28MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature: *
/y ta"m;�

As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
FINAL
MONKEY WALL PROJECT
NCDMS Project #100069 (Contract #7536)
USACE Action ID: 2018-01162
DWR Project #20181029
MitchellCounty, North Carolina
French BroadRiver Basin
HUC 06010108
Provided by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Provided for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
October2022

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 W Loop S #300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location and Description.........................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Success Criteria.........................................................................................................2
Stream Restoration Success Criteria...........................................................................................2
Vegetation Success Criteria..........................................................................................................3
1.4 Project Components...............................................................................................................5
1.5 Stream Design/Approach......................................................................................................5
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions.................................................................................7
1.7 Baseline Monitoring Performance (MY0)...........................................................................7
Vegetation......................................................................................................................................7
Stream Geomorphology...............................................................................................................8
Stream Hydrology.........................................................................................................................8
Wetland Hydrology.......................................................................................................................8
2.0 Methods................................................................................................................................................8
3.0 References............................................................................................................................................9
Appendix A:Background Tables
Table 1.Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2.Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results
Table 3.Project Background Information
Table 4.Project Timeline and Contacts Table
Figure 1.Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual AssessmentData
Figure 2.Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6.Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
Appendix C:Vegetation PlotData
Table 7.Planted Species Summary
Table 8.Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D:Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11.Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Cross Section Overlay Plots
Appendix E: Record Drawings

1.0 Project Summary
1.1Project Location and Description
The Monkey Wall Project (“Project”) is located within a rural watershed in Mitchell County, North
Carolina approximately two miles northwest of Bakersville, NC. Water quality stressors affecting
the Project included livestock production, agricultural practices, and lack of riparian buffer. The
Project presents stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation generating 4,115.930 Cold
Stream Mitigation Units (SMU).

The Project’s total easement area is 25.28 acres within the overall drainage area of 87 acres.
Grazing livestock historically had complete access to both the stream reaches, resulting in bank
erosion, sediment deposition, and channel incision. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-
rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics contributed to the degradation of stream
banks and surrounding floodplain area.

The stream design approach for the Project was to combine the analog method of natural channel
design with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel
and floodplain. The analog method involved the use of a reference reach, or “template” stream,
adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same location as the design reach. The template
parameters of the analog reach were replicated to create the features of the design reach. The
analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar between the
design and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods to
identify the design discharge. The wetland approach was closely tied to the stream restoration in
that wetland hydrology and vegetation have been re-established as a product of restoring the
natural stream system and riparian area along with other hydrologic improvement activities.

The Project has been constructed and planted and will be monitored on a regular basis
throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until performance standards
are met. The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve
as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct
periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an
endowment is established.
1.2Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the
Project. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming
that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 French Broad River RBRP. These
goals and objectives reflect those stated in the Monkey Wall Project Final Mitigation Plan.

The Project goals are:
Monkey Wall Project1As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a
stable channel;
Improve flood flow attenuation on-site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows
and connection to the floodplain;
Restore native floodplain and riparian vegetation; and
Improve instream habitat;
Reduce sediment, nutrient, and fecal coliform inputs into stream system;
Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 French Broad RBRP to improve water quality and
to reduce sediment and nutrient loads, especially in the Big Rock Creek watershed.

The Project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:

Designed and reconstructed the stream channel to convey bankfull flows while
maintaining stable dimension, profile, and planform;
Added in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect the restored
stream;
Installed habitat features such as brush toes, woody materials, and pools of varying depths
to the restored stream;
Removed the 268-linear foot rock wall located on the most upstream portion of G2 which
daylighted the existing stream and restored the natural profile of the channel;
Increased forested riparian buffers to at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel along
the Project reach with a hardwood riparian plant community;
Treated exotic invasive species; and
Established a permanent conservation easement on the Project that excludes future
livestock from the stream channel and its associated buffers and prevent future land-use
changes.

Functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function
Based Framework, are outlined in the Final Mitigation Plan.
1.3Project Success Criteria

The success criteria for the Project follows the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Monkey Wall Project Final Mitigation Plan, and
subsequent agency guidance. Cross section and vegetation plot monitoring takes place in Years
0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology and visual monitoring takes place annually. Specific success
criteria components are presented below.

Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
four bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
Monkey Wall Project2As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example
down-cutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream
type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be above 2.2 within
restored riffle cross sections. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of
four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.

Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures.
Longitudinal images should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an
excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or
continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.

Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project is the survival of
at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 trees per acre with an
average height of six feet at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria is 210 trees
per acre with an average height of eight feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees are counted,
identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but are not included in the
success criteria of total planted stems until they are present in the plot for greater than two
seasons. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required
number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in
the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success.
Monkey Wall Project3As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

Level Treatment Objective Monitoring Metric Performance Standard
Percent Project

Convert the land-use of To transport water
drainage area
streams and their from the
converted to
watersheds watershed to the NA
1
riparian forest
from pasture to riparian channel in a
(indirect
Hydrology
forest non-erosive manner
measurement)
Pressure transducer
Reduce bank height
flow and bankfull
Four bankfull events occurring in
Improve flood bank

ratios and increase
separate years
monitoring gauge:
connectivity by
entrenchment ratios by
reducing bank
Inspected quarterly
reconstructing the
2
height ratios and
Entrenchment ratio shall be above 2.2
channel to mimic
Cross sections:
Hydraulic
increasing
within the restored reach
reference reach
Surveyed in
entrenchment ratios
conditions
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2
As-built stream
NA
profile
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
Cross sections:
Establish a riparian Reduce erosion rates
less than 2.2 within restored the
Surveyed in

buffer to reduce erosion and channel stability
reach
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
and sediment transport to reference reach
Bank height ratio shall not exceed

into the project stream. conditions Improve
1.2
Establish stable banks bedform diversity
3
Identify and document significant
with livestakes, erosion (pool spacing, percent
Visual monitoring:
stream problem areas; i.e.
control matting, and riffles, etc.) Increase
Performed at least
Geomorphology
erosion, degradation,
other in stream buffer width to a
semiannually
aggradation, etc.
structures. minimum 30 feet
Vegetation plots: MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
Surveyed in MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft tall)
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft tall)
Unmeasurable Vegetation plots:
Objective/Expected MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
Surveyed in
Benefit
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft tall)
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Establish native
(indirect MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft tall)
hardwood riparian
measurement)

buffer and exclude
Exclude livestock from livestock.
riparian areas with
exclusion fence or To achieve appropriate
Visual assessment of
4
conservation easement, levels for water
established fencing
Inspect fencing and signage.
and plant a riparian temperature, dissolved
and conservation
Identify and document any
buffer oxygen concentration,
Physicochemical signage: Performed
damaged or missing fencing
and other important
at least semiannually
and/or signs
nutrients including but
(indirect
not limited to nitrogen
measurement)
and Phosphorus
through buffer
planting
Monkey Wall Project4As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

1.4Project Components

The Project area is comprised of a contiguous 25.28-acre easement involving two unnamed
tributaries (G1 and G2) totaling 3,384 existing linear feet (LF), which drain into Big Rock Creek, a
tributary of the French Broad River. There are also three existing wetlands within the easement
area: Wetland A, Wetland B, and Wetland C (WA, WB, and WC, respectively); no wetland mitigation
work was completed at the Monkey Wall site.

The Project presents 3,227 LF of stream restoration, 120 LF of stream enhancement, and 278 LF of
stream preservation, generating 4,115.930 Cold SMUs. To account for areas of more or less than
minimum 30-foot buffer widths, credits were adjusted using the USACE Wilmington District
Stream Buffer Credit Calculator. The stream mitigation components are summarized below.
Mitigation credits are based on the Mitigation Plan Addendum.

Stream Mitigation
Reach Treatment Linear Feet Ratio Cold SMU
G1-APreservation 278 1027.800
G1-B Enhancement II 120 5 24.000
G1-C Restoration 1,517 1 1,517.000
G2 Restoration 1,710 1 1,710.000
Total - 3,625 - 3,278.800
Non-standard Buffer Width Adjustment 837.130*
Total Adjusted SMUs 4,115.930
* Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream
Buffer Credit Calculator issued by the USACE in January 2018.
1.5StreamDesign/Approach

The stream component of the Project included a combination of priority I and priority II
restoration, enhancement II, and preservation. Stream restoration incorporated the design of a
single-thread, high gradient, cascade and step-pool channel system, with parameters based on
cascade and step-pool morphology and reference conditions along the representative reaches
within the Monkey Wall site. A combination of analog, empirical, and analytical design techniques
were used to determine the design discharge and to verify design stability.

Reaches G1 and G2 were designed specific to cascade and step-pool systems for treatment
mitigation goals for the site and include a series of cascades and pools connected by riffles and/or
boulder and log steps that restore floodplain connectivity to the site. The riffles, steps, and pools
provide grade control, energy dissipation and bedform diversity to restore high gradient systems.

The following stream treatment was performed on the Project reaches:

Monkey Wall Project5As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

Reach G1-A
A Preservation approach was used for this reach, due to its high quality, wide riparian buffers, and
terrain. Preservation activities included:
Minimal buffer planting on the right bank, to increase riparian buffer beyond 75
feet;
Livestock exclusion; and
Establishing a conservation easement to be protected in perpetuity.

Reach G1-B
An Enhancement II approach was used for the reach to address eroding banks and channel
entrenchment. Enhancement activities included:
Livestock exclusion; and
Riparian buffer planting to 150-feet.

Reach G1-C
A combination of Priority I and Priority II restoration was used for this reach to address eroding
banks, channel incision, bed degradation and floodplain connectivity.
Restoration activities included:
Constructing a new single thread channel and floodplain benches in the existing
floodplain;
Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control with drops no greater
than 1.25 feet;
Establishing a cascade, step-pool or riffle-pool sequence throughout the reach;
Filling the existing channel;
Creating floodplain to reduce shear stresses at higher flows;
Livestock exclusion; and
Riparian buffer planting to a minimum of 30-feet at the downstream end and out
to 150-feet everywhere else
Reach G2
A combination of Priority I and Priority II restoration was used for this reach to address eroding
banks, channel incision, bed degradation, and floodplain connectivity.
Restoration activities included:
Removing the culvert and associated road at the upstream portion of the reach
and tying the channel into a seep located above the culvert;
Removing the rock wall, and daylighting the channel, present on the upper portion
of the reach;
Constructing a new single thread channel and floodplain benches in the existing
floodplain;
Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control with drops no greater
than 1.25 feet;
Establishing a cascade, step-pool or riffle-pool sequence throughout the reach;
Filling the existing channel;
Creating floodplain to reduce shear stresses at higher flows;
Livestock exclusion; and
Monkey Wall Project6As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

Riparian buffer planting to 150-feet on both sides of the stream.

One wetland gauge was installed on the right floodplain of G1-C in WA to monitor wetland
hydrology. This data will be reported in yearly monitoring reports. No wetland credits are to be
generated on WA; thus, wetland success criteria will not need to be met during the monitoring
period.
1.6Construction and As-Built Conditions
Stream construction was completed in October 2021 and planting was completed on March 10,
2022. The Monkey Wall Project was built to design plans and guidelines. The as-built stream
length was exactly the same as proposed in the mitigation plan plus the stream length that was
originally removed under the utility lines; however, the total SMUs for the project increased from
3,874.469 SMUs to 4,115.930 SMUs. This change was due to the relocation of utility lines that were
previously within the conservation easement.French Broad Electric relocated the powerline in
April 2022 and Country Cable (Zito Media) moved the fiberoptic cable line in October 2022. RES
also removed the old utility poles in October 2022. More information regarding this is included in
the attached Mitigation Plan Addendum. Swales were added to address small erosional areas that
formed as a result of stormwater runoff and seeps encountered during construction. Swale
locations are shown on the record drawings included in Appendix E.

Minor monitoring device location changes were made during as-built installation; however, the
quantities remained as proposed in the Final Mitigation Plan. The original installation of two fixed
vegetation plots, 6 and 7, interfered with the relocated powerline easement and were therefore
shifted outside of the right-of-way on May 3, 2022. There were no changes made to the planting
plan.
1.7Baseline Monitoring Performance(MY0)
The Monkey Wall baseline monitoring activities were performed in March and May 2022. All
baseline monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Project is on track to meet
interim success criteria.

Vegetation
Setup and monitoring of 13 fixed vegetation plots and three random vegetation plots was
completed after planting and stream construction on March 24, 2022. The original installation of
two plots, 6 and 7, interfered with the relocated powerline easement and were therefore shifted
outside of the right-of-way on May 3, 2022. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos
are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MY0 monitoring data indicates that all
plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem
densities ranged from 405 to 809 planted stems per acre with an average of 599 planted stems
per acre across all plots. A total of 11 species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species
were not noted at baseline monitoring but are expected to establish in upcoming years. The
average stem height in the plots was 1.5 feet.
Monkey Wall Project7As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous
vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project.
Stream Geomorphology
A total of 12 cross sections were installed and geomorphology data collection for MY0 was
conducted on March 24, 2022. Summary tables and cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall
the baseline cross sections and profile relatively match the proposed design. The as-built
conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for the restoration reaches.
The reaches were designed as a natural mountain cobble-bed channel and remain classified as a
mountain cobble-bed channel post-construction.

Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as
eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting
sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.

Stream Hydrology
Two stage recorders and two flow gauges were installed on March 24, 2022 and will document
bankfull events and flow days, respectively. Stream hydrology will be recorded at a frequency of
once per hour and data will be included in the Monitoring Year 1 Report in this section and in the
appendices. The gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix B.

Wetland Hydrology
One groundwater well was installed on the right floodplain of G1-C in WA to monitor wetland
hydrology and will record water table depths at a frequency of twice per day. This data will be
reported in yearly monitoring reports in this section and in the appendices. No wetland credits
are to be generated on WA; thus, there is no hydroperiod success criteria for this groundwater
well.
2.0 Methods
Stream cross section monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-
dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83
State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data were collected at eight cross-sections. Survey data
were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The
stage recorders include an automatic pressure transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool at the
downstream end of each reach. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage recorder
are used to detect bankfull events. The flow gauges also include an automatic pressure transducer
placed in a PVC casing in a pool, at the upstream end of each reach. The elevations of the bed,
water surface, and immediate downstream riffle are used to determine stream flow.

Monkey Wall Project8As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

Vegetation success is being monitored at 13 fixed monitoring plots and three random monitoring
plots. Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted
species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each
plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners.
Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year. The random plots are
to be collected in locations where there are no permanent vegetation plots. Random plots will
most likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects with variable dimensions.
Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects will be mapped
and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years.

Wetland hydrology is monitored to track the hydrology of the jurisdictional wetland (WA) on site
post-stream construction. This is accomplished with one automatic pressure transducer gauge
(located in the groundwater well) that will record daily groundwater levels. One automatic
pressure transducer is installed above ground for use as a barometric reference. The gauge is
downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiod is calculated during the growing season. Gauge
installation followed current regulatory guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary
wetland hydrology indicators are also recorded during quarterly site visits.
3.0 References
Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. (2002). Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina,
(color Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston,
Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2

Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274

Resource Environmental Solutions (2020). Monkey Wall Project Final Mitigation Plan.

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR,
Raleigh, NC.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. NC: Interagency Review Team (IRT).
Monkey Wall Project9As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project #100069October2022

Monkey Wall Project
Legend
Proposed Easement
TLW - 06010108060010
Service Area - HUC 06010108
Federal Land
Pisgah National Forest
36.0569, -82.2062
Date: 2/27/2020
Figure 1 -
Drawn by: EJU
Monkey Wall Mitigation
©
Checked by: MDE
Project
01,0002,000
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Feet
Mitchell County, North Carolina

dxm.0YM - llaW yeknoM - VPCC - 2 erugiF\\0YM\\gnirotinoM_7\\DXM\\llaW_yeknoM_819001\\stcejorP\\sigtne\\sigseR\\:R :htaP tnemucoD

Visual Stream Stability Assessment

Visual Stream Stability Assessment

Vegetation Plot 2Vegetation Plot 4

March 2022

–

Vegetation Plot 1Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
MY0

Monkey Wall

8
(5/3/2022)

6
Vegetation Plot
Vegetation Plot

5
(5/3/2022)

7
Vegetation Plot
Vegetation Plot

1012
Vegetation Plot Vegetation Plot

9
11
Vegetation Plot
Vegetation Plot

3

Random Vegetation Plot 1Random Vegetation Plot

2

3

Vegetation Plot 1
Random Vegetation Plot

2

G

G2
Flow Gauge
Stage Recorder

March 2022

C
–
-

C
-
s
G1

Photo

Flow Gauge G1
Stage Recorder
Monitoring Device

Monkey Wall

Groundwater Well 1

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Planted Species Summary
Common NameScientific Name Mitigation Plan %As-Built %Total Stems Planted
River Birch Betula nigra 15152,300
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 15152,300
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 15152,300
Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata 10101,500
White Oak Quercus alba 10101,500
Chestnut Oak Quercus montana 10101,500
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 55800
Red Mulberry Morus rubra 55800
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis 55800
Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida 55800
Tag Alder Alnus serrulata 55800
Total 15,400
Planted Area 19.85
As-built Planted Stems/Acre 776

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Average
Success
Planted Volunteer Total Planted
Plot #Criteria
Stems/AcreStems/AcreStems/AcreStem
Met?
Height (ft)
1 6470647Yes1.6
2 5670567Yes1.4
3 4860486Yes1.1
4 6070607Yes1.5
5 6470647Yes1.3
6 4860486Yes1.2
7 4050405Yes1.2
8 5260526Yes1.6
9 6880688Yes1.6
10 7690769Yes1.7
11 6070607Yes1.4
12 6470647Yes1.6
13 6070607Yes1.4
R1 6070607Yes1.8
R2 4860486Yes1.6
R3 8090809Yes1.6
Project Avg5990599Yes1.5