20160233 Ver 1_TarRiverHeadwaters_97071_MY6_2022_20230104

ID#* 20160233
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 01/18/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/4/2023
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:*
Lindsay Crocker
Project Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
ID#:* 20160233 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Tar River Headwaters Wetland restoration
Site
County: Person
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: TarRiverHeadwaters_97071_MY6_2022.pdf 7.81 MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Lindsay Crocker
Signature: *

Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site
Person County NC -- Tar-Pamlico River HUC# 03020101-0102

MY-6 (2022) Annual Fall Monitoring Report
NC-DEQ Division of Mitigation Services: DMS Project # 97071
DEQ Contract #6746 DWR # 2016-0233 ACE #SAW-2016-01101
Data Collected: Sep-Nov 2022 Draft Report: December 2022

Submitted To:
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality

DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Ctr, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMS Project Manager: Lindsay Crocker
DEQ-DMS Contract # 006746

MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.

P.O. Box 690429 Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone] [e-mail]
[phone] [e-mail]

Table of Contents

1.0. Project Background Summary ............................................................................................................. 3
1.1. Project Location and Setting ..................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Pre-Restoration Conditions ....................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Mitigation Goals and Performance Criteria .............................................................................. 3
1.4. Mitigation Approach ................................................................................................................. 5
2.0. Monitoring Methods ............................................................................................................................ 5
3.0. Current Conditions Summary .............................................................................................................. 6
4.0. References ............................................................................................................................................ 7
APPENDIX A. Project Background Data
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes
APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2A. Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 2B. Temporary Strip Plots, May 2021
Table 5. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Figure 3. Vegetation Plot Photos
Figure 4. Photo Point Photos
APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Success Summary
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Stem Count Data
APPENDIX D. Hydrologic Data
Figure 5. Monthly Rainfall Plot with Percentiles
Figure 6. Groundwater Gauge and Rainfall Data
Table 8. Hydrologic Success Attainment

2
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

1.1. Project Location and Setting
The Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site (TRHWR) is a full-delivery wetland mitigation project
located in eastern Person County, between Roxboro and Oxford, North Carolina, within the Piedmont
Physiographic Province (Figure 1). The easement comprises 9.98 acres, most of which was drained and
degraded wetlands or former wetlands with hydric soil indicators. The remaining areas include non-hydric
soils, drainage ditches, and a 570-foot long riparian corridor along a ditch and intermittent stream
connecting the TRHWR site to the adjacent Tar River Headwaters Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Bank project. Both projects are implemented by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI), and are
located on a 228-acre farm owned by Roy and Joyce Huff, in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin 12-digit HUC #
03020101-0102. The Huff Farm property is located at 333 Bunnie Huff Road, Oxford NC 27565. The
access road into the TRHWR site is at Latitude = 36.3913, Longitude = -78.8171.
1.2. Pre-Restoration Conditions
The TRHWR site was cleared and ditched for pasture use in the 1940s according to the owner, and was
used for grazing cattle until January 2017 when the conservation easement fence was installed. The project
involved plugging drainage ditches to restore wetland hydrology, fencing to exclude livestock, and planting
native trees and shrubs to restore a Headwater Forest wetland ecosystem similar to what occurred prior to
site clearing and drainage. Remnant native trees left for shade, hydrophytic groundcover plants mixed
among the pasture grasses, and plant species recorded in adjacent natural forests (on the same soil mapping
unit) provided data for the planting plan.
The project will restore approximately 7.65 acres of headwater riparian wetland (6.53 acres reestablishment
plus 1.12 acres rehabilitation) and will generate an estimated 7.28 or more riparian wetland mitigation
credits. Approximately 1.27 acres with non-hydric soils in the southeast corner of the mitigation site will
also be reforested, and a 100-foot wide by 570-ft long riparian corridor (1.06 acre) extending southeastward
along the ditch will connect the TRHWR site to stream restoration and nutrient buffer bank
project to the south. Total acreage of the wetland mitigation site and riparian connector is 9.98 acres.
Restoration activities including tree planting, surface flow dispersal, and cattle exclusion has reducedsoil
erosion and nutrient-enriched runoff from adjacent pasture and cropland within its watershed, and helped
retain agricultural chemicals used on these lands. It is expected to improve water quality and habitat in the
receiving tributary and reduce fine sediment loading which will enhance the overall watershed, particularly
in the adjacent stream and nutrient mitigation bank and downstream.
1.3. Mitigation Goals and Performance Criteria
The subject watershed HUC #03020101-0102 is designated by NCDEQ as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) for water quality improvement projects, and the Tar River reach within and downstream of this
local HUC is recognized as a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) for its high diversity of aquatic
life including protected species of river mussels and fishes. The TRHWR project is intended to support

3
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

these TLW and SNHA designations by improving water quality and habitat on the property and
downstream. Specific project goals and objectives as identified in the TRHWR Final Mitigation Plan
(December 2016) include:
GOALS:
Restore the natural jurisdictional wetland hydro-period to five or more acres of forested
wetland within a nine-acre site;
Restore forested wetland habitat and improve habitat connectivity between Denny Store
Gabbro Forest (NHP Natural Heritage Area) to the north and the Tar River tributaries;
Buffer storm water runoff from fecal and other cattle-related pollutants and fertilizer.

OBJECTIVES:
Plug existing ditches and create sheet flows throughout the site. Aerate soils to reduce
compaction, improve infiltration, and create micro-topography to retain surface flows;
Preserve the remnant mature Swamp White Oaks (a regionally rare species) for seed source.
Plant appropriate native hardwood trees at a sufficient frequency to establish a diverse
bottomland wetland forest. Treat and/or remove invasive species which may cause problems
for site restoration, including Chinese privet and multi-flora rose;
I nstall fencing to exclude cattle and establish a conservation easement to provide permanent
protection on the site.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS and MONITORING:
GOAL OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MONITORING
STANDARD APPROACH
Restore natural Plug existing ditches and Water must be on or Use 11 shallow
hydro-period for create sheet flow throughout within 12 inches of the groundwater self-reading
headwater forest the site. Aerate soils to reduce surface for 10% of the gauges throughout the site
wetland. compaction, improve growing season. at a frequency of about one
infiltration, and create micro-Hydrographs will per acre. Visual inspection
topography to retain surface indicate jurisdictional of ponding duration.
flows. hydrology.
Restore forested Preserve mature swamp white Survival of 320 stems Monitor vegetation plots
wetland habitat and oak trees for seed source. Plant per acre at year 3, 260 annually and calculate
improve habitat appropriate native hardwood stems per acre at year 5 densities of surviving
connectivity with trees at 10-ft average spacing and 210 stems per acre planted & volunteer stems.
existing forests. (435 stems/ac) Treat invasive at MY 7.
species.
Buffer storm water Plant trees, fence perimeter Insure the integrity of Visual inspection will note
runoff from fecal and and establish a permanent the cattle exclusion fence condition through site
other cattle-related conservation easement. fencing for the life of the pictures. Observations will
nutrient inputs. contract. be included in annual
monitoring reports.

4
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

1.4. Mitigation Approach
Prior to restoration, the TRHWR project area contained 6.53 acres of former riparian wetland (ditched and
drained, grazed pasture) with redoximorphic soil characteristics indicating hydric soils, but lacking
adequate wetland hydrology based on groundwater gauge data and field observations during 2015-2016.
Although the drainage ditches are shallow, they have effectively reduced water retention across much of
the site over the past 70 years due to the slow infiltration rate, rapid runoff, and shallow hardpan in these
soils. The project will re-establish jurisdictional wetlands in this area by plugging the drainage ditches to
increase rainfall retention and dispersal, fencing out livestock, controlling invasive species, and planting
suitable native tree species. These 6.53 acres of wetland restoration will generate riparian wetland credits
at 1:1 ratio, yielding 6.53 WMU.
Another 1.12 acres in the TRHWR project area has been less effectively drained by the ditches, and still
has sufficient hydrology to meet jurisdictional wetland criteria, based on groundwater gauge data and field
observations during 2015-2016. The project will rehabilitate these areas of degraded jurisdictional wetland
(grazed pasture with reduced hydrology) by plugging ditches to increase hydrology, fencing out livestock,
and planting suitable native tree species. These 1.12 acres of wetland rehabilitation will generate riparian
wetland credits at 1.5:1 ratio, yielding 0.75 WMU. TRHWR project components and mitigations assetsare
summarized in Table 1, matching the proposed assets in the Mitigation Plan.

Vegetation plots are monitored annually in accordance with current DMS monitoring guidance (June
2017). The nine installed CVS vegetation plots, each 10 x 10 meters, represents 2.8 percent of the planted
mitigation area. Vegetation monitoring will occur between September and early November, prior to the
loss of leaves. The vegetation success criteria are specified in the Performance Standards above. If success
criteria are not met, site maintenance and monitoring will continue until the success criteria are met.
The twelve onsite groundwater monitoring gauges (RDS and Hobo) and one offsite reference wetland
gauge are downloaded and maintained at least quarterly. Gauge data in the mitigation credit areas are
plotted and evaluated for success based on the mitigation plan performance standard of continuous
saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for 10 percent of the growing season. Growing season
based on air temperature at a weather station east of Roxboro is from March 28 to November 3, which is
221 days (from USDA WETS table). MMI installed a Hobo dual-probe soil temperature logger near the
middle of the TRHWR site (beside GW-H) in late January 2017. Soil temperature on the site remained
above 41 F at both 10-inch and 20-inch depths throughout February and March 2017. The lowest
temperatures recorded were 42.7 F at 10 inches and 45.4 F at 20 inches. Based on soil temperatures
remaining above the USDA-designated temperature for plant physiological activity, March 1 is used as the
start of the growing season, based on field discussions with DMS and USACE. The revised growing
season length is thus 248 days, and the groundwater hydrology success criterion is 25 days. Subsequent
data from 2018 to 2021 confirm that soil temperature has remained above 42 F after the end of February
each year. These data along with late-February bud swelling on Acer, Betula, and Salix, plus new growth
of groundcover plants (Lamium, Cardamine, Lactuca, Allium, Bromus, Alopecurus, Ranunculus, Senecio,
Geranium, Plantago, Viola, and Persicaria) support the use of March 1 as the growing season start date.

5
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

The conservation easement perimeter fence and ditch plug integrity have been monitored visually and
documented with photo points.

Groundwater gauge data for 2022 were collected from January 1 through August 20 when several data
loggers were removed for shipment to the manufacturer for battery replacement. CVS vegetation plot data
and photos were collected in mid-September. MMI scientists made several visits to the TRHWR site
between February and September 2022 to collect gauge data and evaluate the condition of the ditches, ditch
plugs, and planted and volunteer trees. All nine CVS plots had 6 or more surviving planted trees and
exceeded the 210 stems per acre success criteria for MY-6 based on planted stems alone (Tables 6 and 7).
The average density across all nine plots was 355 planted stems per acre and 549 total stems (including
volunteers) per acre.
Outside of the CVS plots, planted stem survival is generally good throughout the site, with an estimated 20
percent mortality since the original planting. Leader die-back is common on many of the taller saplings,
especially on tulip poplar, river birch, and musclewood, but many of the trees exhibiting leader die-back
also have vigorous basal sprouts. Small unflagged trees outside of the CVS plots, especially resprouted
trees, remain difficult to see in summer and fall due to the dense native groundcover.
Two temporary strip plots (100 m2 each) were sampled in August 2022 in the areas identified in 2021 that
appeared to have low woody stem density. A measuring tape was extended to 108 feet and pinned to stakes
at each end, and live stems of planted woody species within 5 feet on each side the tape were counted
(Figure 2B). Both strip plots yielded 7 stems of planted tree species (283 stems per acre) and exceed the
MY6 stem density criterion for success. Consequently, there is no stem area mapped for
2022 in Figure 2A.
The dense, sticky Iredell clay loam soil on the site is challenging for trees to get established. Undisturbed
headwater flats with Iredell soil often support Piedmont prairie
relatively open tree canopy compared with other Piedmont natural forest communities. Several of the rare
plant communities with an open canopy recognized by the NC Natural Heritage Program occur on
headwater flats with Iredell soils. Natural plants on the project site that suggest a historic sparse canopy
include milkweeds (Asclepias purpurascens and A. incarnata), mistflower (Conoclinum coelestinum),
sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale), Carolina rose (Rosa carolina), mountain mint (Pycnanthemum spp),
skullcap (Scutellaria spp), Lobelia (Lobelia spp), and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). The slow
growth rates of planted trees on this project site is likely a natural feature of the native soil.
A few isolated plants of Multiflora rose, Chinese privet, and Callery pear were treated.in 2020 and 2021,
and no problem areas were identified in September 2022. Groundcover vegetation is
dense and diverse throughout the site, in both the treated areas (non-wetland and drained wetland) and non-
treated areas (existing wetland). Exotic grasses including fescue (Lolium) and carpet grass (Arthraxon) are
abundant in some areas, but have not been treated. All ditch plugs appear to be stable and performing as
designed. Survival of planted trees, live-stakes, and herbaceous cover on the plug slopes and tops appears
to be providing good protection; no erosion on the plugs was observed. Most of the ditches are now
obscured by vegetation. Ponding behind each ditch plug was evident in spring, but the ditches were mostly
dry during summer and fall 2022.

Ten active groundwater gauges (A through L) on the project site are roughly arranged in four transects
perpendicular to the main ditch, as recommended by mitigation plan reviewers during field meetings
(Figure 2). Three gauges (A, H and J) are within existing wetland rehabilitation areas, and seven gauges
(D, E, F, G, I, L, and K) are within the drained wetland reestablishment areas. Two additional gauges (B
and C) are south of the lowermost ditch plug in an area that is not intended to generate wetland credits.
These two gauges were monitored from 2016 until 2021 but are no longer monitored as they do not pertain
to the project success criteria. Wetland hydrology success for the TRHWR site is based on saturation within
12 inches of the ground surface for 10% of the 248-day growing season (March 1 to November 3). The
gauges measure the free water table depth and do not account for capillary fringe saturation which can
extend above the free water table in fine-textured soils (https://vernonjames.ces.ncsu.edu/eleventh-annual-
on-site/soil-wetness/). Manual water table measurements were also collected at each well one or more
times during the year, and depth data were adjusted accordingly to fit the actual measurements.
th
Rainfall in 2022, relative to the 30-year normal values (1981 to 2010), was above the 70 percentile during
thth
January and May, below the 70 normal and
th
70 percentiles during all other months through October. All 11 gauges (ten in the mitigation credit area,
and one off-site reference gauge) exceeded the minimum of 25 consecutive days for hydrologic success
during the early part of the growing season, with consecutive day saturation periods ranging from 44to 93
days (Table 8).
The soil temperature gauge and temperatures in the groundwater monitoring wells all indicate that soil
temperatures remained above 41 F after February 28, 2022, which supports the accepted growing season
start date of March 1.

Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Roberts, Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. (2008). CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation version 4.2, October 2008. Retrieved September 2011, from:
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm
LeGrand, Harry E. Jr. (2007) Natural Areas Inventory of Person County, NC. NC Natural Heritage
Program, Raleigh NC.
NC Division of Mitigation Services. (2017). NC-DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance, June 2017. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/dbb-resources
Schafale, M.P., Weakley, A.S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Sink, Larry T. (1995). Soil Survey of Person County, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service
(Natural Resources Conservation Service), Raleigh, NC.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2016. Web Soil
Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

7
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

APPENDIX A. Project Background Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes

8
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

9
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

(acres)
Upland

Offset
Buffer
6.530 ac1.120 ac
ct # 97071
Nutrient(sq. feet)

Restoration Footage or Acreage
MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

lish)

Riparian
-
Buffer
Equivalent
Restoration
Non
Restoration or R (Reestab
R (Rehabilitate)
Wetland (acres)

RE

riparian
Riverine
-
-
7.277
6.530 ac1.120 ac
7.650 ac
Wetland
Approach

(PI, PII etc.)

Non
Fence & PlantFence & Plant
Non
10

R Restore Hydrology,

(acres)

Mitigation Credits

Project Components

RE
ne
Component Summation
Riparian Wetland

--

7.2776.5301.120
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Proje

ExistingAcreage
WetlandRiveri
Riparian
Footage or
--
R
7.6507.270

RE

--
----
StreamStream

Location
(lin. feet)

Stationing/
R

Mitigation Credits

(1: 1.0)
(1: 1.5)
Wetland

ect Component
or Reach ID

Grazed Wetland
Drained

Restoration Level

Proj

establishment
-

Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
Table 1. Project Components and Type AcresCredits TOTAL CREDITS ReRehabilitation Enhancement I Enhancement II Creation Preservation High Quality Preservation TOTAL feet or acresTOTAL
WMU

Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project# 97071
Data Collection Actual Completion
Activity or Report
Complete or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Dec 2016
Final Construction Plans Dec 2016
Construction Jan 2017
Planting Feb 2017
Baseline Monitoring/Report Feb 2017 Apr 2017
Year 1 Monitoring Nov 2017 Dec 2017
Year 2 Monitoring Nov 2018 Dec 2018
Year 3 Monitoring Nov 2019 Jan 2020
Year 4 Monitoring Nov 2020 Dec 2020
Year 5 Monitoring Oct 2021 Nov 2021
Year 6 Monitoring Nov 2022 Dec 2022
Year 7 Monitoring
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project # 97071
Ecological Engineering, Raleigh NC
Designer
Heather Smith: 919-557-0929
KBS Earthworks, Greensboro NC
Construction Contractor
Kory Strader & Brett Strader: 336-685-4339
Michael T. Brandon, PLS, Roxboro NC
Survey Contractor
Michael Brandon: 336-597-8673
Strader Fencing, Inc., Julian NC
Fence Contractor
Kenneth Strader: 336-314-2935
KBS Earthworks, Greensboro NC
Herbicide and Seeding
Kory Strader & Brett Strader: 336-685-4339
Mogensen Mitigation Inc, Charlotte NC
Planting Contractor
Rich Mogensen: 704-576-1111; Gerald Pottern: 919-556-8845
Mellowmarsh Farms, Siler City NC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Joanie McLean: 919-742-1200
Mogensen Mitigation Inc, Charlotte NC
Monitoring Performers
Rich Mogensen: 704-576-1111; Gerald Pottern: 919-556-8845

11
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

Table 4. Project Attributes
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project # 97071

Project Name
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site
County
Person County
Project Area (acres)
9.9 acres (Wetland + Buffer Easement combined)
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
36.3895, -78.8153
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont, Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin
Tar-Pamlico River-01
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 12-digit:
03020101-0102
DWQ Sub-basin
Tar-Pam-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
60
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious Area
0%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Pasture, Crop, and Deciduous Forest
Wetland Summary Information (Post-Restoration)
Wetland Area
Parameters
Size of Wetland (acres) 1.12 ac existing + 6.53 ac drained = 7.65 ac
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian riverine or
Riparian non-riverine (Headwater)
riparian non-riverine)
Mapped Soil Series Iredell Loam (IrB)
Drainage class Iredell = moderately well; Hydric inclusions = poorly
Soil Hydric Status Drained Hydric
Source of Hydrology Shallow ponding; perched on shallow aquitard
Hydrologic Impairment Drainage ditches (1940s)
Native vegetation community Headwater depression wetland forest (prior to pasture conversion)
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation 20% Fescue (sprayed)

Regulatory Considerations
Supporting
Regulation Applicable? Resolved?
Documentation
Waters of the United States Section 404 Yes Yes Prelim JD
Waters of the United States Section 401 Yes Yes Prelim JD
Endangered Species Act No N/A US FWS Letter
Historic Preservation Act No N/A NC SHPO Letter
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
No N/A N/A
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A NC Floodmaps Data
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

12
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 2A. Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 2B. Temporary Strip Plots, May 2021
Table 5. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Figure 3. Vegetation Plot Photos
Figure 4. Photo Point Photos

13
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

14

.
6
-
, MY
2
t Conditions Plan View, Fall 202
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
Figure 2A. Curren

MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

15

.
August 2022
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
Figure 2B. Temporary Vegetation Strip Plots,

%
%
0%00%0%0%
00%
% of % of
Planted
AcreageAcreage

Easement

000000
AcreageAcreage
Combined Combined

00 0 0000
of of
Number Number
PolygonsPolygons
MY-6 (2022) Annual Monitoring Report Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

Total
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
CCPV CCPV

Depiction Depiction
0102

-

Cumulative Total
0.100.100.25
(SF)
none
1000
(acres)
Mapping Mapping

Threshold Threshold

16
nitoring

)
2

(202

6

-

MY

--
DefinitionsDefinitions
points (if too small to render as

7.65 Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous materialWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.Areas with woody stems of a size
class that are obviously small given the moyear. 9.98 Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).Areas or polygons at map scale).

oncern

Headwaters Wetland Restoration #97071. Person County HUC #03020101
Poor Growth Rates or
m Density Areas

ed Acreage =
Vegetation Problem CategoryVegetation Problem Category

Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
Table 5: Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Tar River PlantBare AreasLow SteAreas of Vigor * Easement Acreage =Invasive Areas of CEasement Encroachment Areas

CVS VegPlot-20: MY-6 20 Aug 2022CVS VegPlot-21: MY-6 20 Aug 2022
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 Fall 2022
CVS VegPlot-20: MY-0 Spring 2017CVS VegPlot-21: MY-0 Spring 2017

CVS VegPlot-22: MY-6 20 Aug 2022CVS VegPlot-23: MY-6 20 Aug 2022
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 Fall 2022
CVS VegPlot-22: MY-0 Spring 2017CVS VegPlot-23: MY-0 Spring 2017

CVS VegPlot-25: MY-6 20 Aug 2022
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 Fall 2022
CVS VegPlot-24: MY-0 Spring 2017CVS VegPlot-25: MY-0 Spring 2017

CVS VegPlot-26: MY-6 20 Aug 2022CVS VegPlot-27: MY-6 20 Aug 2022
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 Fall 2022
CVS VegPlot-26: MY-0 Spring 2017CVS VegPlot-27: MY-0 Spring 2017

CVS VegPlot-28: MY-6 20 Aug 2022
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 Fall 2022
CVS VegPlot-28: MY-0 Spring 2017

Photo Point 1: MY-6 20 Aug 2022Photo Point 2: MY-6 20 Aug 2022
Figure 4. Photo Points: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 Fall 2022
Photo Point 1: MY-0 Spring 2017Photo Point 2: MY-0 Spring 2017

Photo Point 3-East: MY-6 20 Aug 2022
Photo Point 3-North: MY-6 20 Aug 2022
Figure 4. Photo Points: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 Fall 2022
Photo Point 3-East: MY-0 Spring 2017
Photo Point 3-North: MY-0 Spring 2017

APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Success Summary
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Stem Count Data

Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration (TRHWR) Project, DMS # 97071.
Monitoring Year 6 (Sept 2022) -- Person County NC. Tar-Pam HUC# 03020101

Table 6. CVS Plot Stem Density and Success Summary

Planted + Volunteer
Invasive Success
Wetland Planted Stems
Stems
CVS Plot # Woody Criteria
Stems Met?
per plot per acre per plot per acre
97071- 20 9 364 13 526 0 Yes
97071- 21 6 243 15 607 0 Yes
97071- 22 8 324 16 648 0 Yes
97071- 23 12 486 20 809 0 Yes
97071- 24 7 283 11 445 0 Yes
97071- 25 9 364 10 405 0 Yes
97071- 26 9 364 11 445 0 Yes
97071- 27 9 364 11 445 0 Yes
97071- 28 10 405 15 607 0 Yes
Total All Plots 79 122 0
Project Avg 8.8 355 13.6 549 0 Yes

Success Criteria = 320 planted + volunteer stems per acre at MY3, 260 planted + volunteer
stems at MY5, and 210 planted + volunteer stems per acre at MY7 (planted species only).

Color codes for Success MY6 to MY7

Exceeds criteria by 10% or more (232 or more)

Exceeds criteria by less than 10% (210 - 231)

Fails criteria by less than 10% (189 - 209)

Fails criteria by more than 10% (188 or less)

APPENDIX D. Hydrologic Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5. Monthly Rainfall Plot with Percentiles
Figure 6. Groundwater Gauge and Rainfall Data
Table 8. Hydrologic Success Attainment

thth
Figure 5. Monthly Rainfall Totals in 2022,with 30, 50, and 70th normal percentiles.
30-year historical data (1981-2010) at ROXBORO 7 ESE Gauge # 317516 from NC State Climate Office
30-year Climate Normal precipitation

Month 2022 Precip 30th % 50th % 70th %

4.93
Jan-22 2.45 3.81 4.46

2.95
Feb-22 2.58 3.33 3.82

4.40
Mar-22 2.99 4.45 5.32

Apr-22 2.71 2.18 3.34 4.21

May-22 5.34 2.51 3.35 4.04

Jun-22 1.13 2.15 3.84 4.45

July-22 4.78 3.38 4.57 5.44

Aug-22 4.50 2.57 3.89 4.90

Sep-22 0.84 1.94 3.91 4.85

Oct-22 4.19 2.65 3.72 4.72

Nov-22 1.89 3.46 4.42

Dec-22 2.56 3.71 4.52

Annual Ave 45.38

TRH Wetland Restoration Site
2022 Monthly Rainfall and 30-yr Percentiles
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
Precipitation (Inches)
1.00
0.00
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Rainfall 2022
Rainfall 202030th Percentile70th Percentile

Table 8. Hydrologic Success Attainment 2016 - 2022, Groundwater Wells
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Mitigation Site # 97071.
Maximum Consecutive Days in Growing Season with Water Table above -12.0 inches
2016 MY02017 MY12018 MY22019 MY3
WELL startenddays% GSstartenddays% GSstartenddays% GSstartenddays% GS
A 4/275/2731124/235/1624103/15/465263/14/33414
B *4/285/91254/235/1624103/16/799403/15/16225
C *6/237/111984/235/2129123/15/1475303/14/245522
D 4/275/162083/134/1130123/15/1273293/14/306125
E 4/236/241174/245/1724103/15/364263/14/306125
F 3/13/202083/314/101143/15/364263/14/255623
G 4/275/151983/314/131463/15/970283/14/285924
H 3/14/738154/235/1725103/16/9101413/15/46526
I 4/225/122184/235/2028113/15/364263/14/245522
J 4/285/161985/226/21253/15/1273293/15/16225
K 4/275/111563/314/101143/15/263253/14/255623
L nananana3/16/10102413/16/15107433/15/16225
Ref 4/16/1475303/16/9101413/15/1475303/15/147530
Groundwater Gauges -- Maximum Consecutive Days in Growing Season with Water Table above -12.0 inches
2020 MY42021 MY52022 MY62023 MY7
WELL startenddays% GSstartenddays% GSstartenddays% GSstartenddays% GS
A 3/15/1172293/14/2051213/14/154619
B *3/15/1475303/14/184920NA---------NA---------
C *3/15/1273293/14/174819NA---------NA---------
D 3/15/1273293/14/1849203/15/97028
E 3/15/1374303/14/2051213/16/29438
F 3/15/1071293/14/1546193/15/107129
G 3/15/0970283/14/1647193/14/144518
H 3/15/1778313/14/2960243/15/117229
I 3/15/0970283/14/1647193/14/174819
J 3/15/1273293/14/1849203/15/97028
K 3/14/0536153/14/1647193/15/86928
L 3/14/3061253/14/1748193/14/144518
Ref 3/15/1576313/14/2051213/15/76827
Adjusted Growing Season based on on-site soil temperature > 41° F is Mar 1 to Nov 3 (248 Days).
Mitigation Plan success criterion is 10% of growing season (25 consecutive days WT < 12" below surface).
Blue =Gauge meets hydrologic success. Brown =Gauge does not meet hydrologic success
* Gauges B and C are in non-credit areas and do not contribute to project success evaluation.
Yellow = Gauge failure; actual end of hydroperiod may have been later.
.
Percent of 2021 Growing Season with consecutive days of WT at -12 inches or higher.