HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160233 Ver 1_TarRiverHeadwaters_97071_MY7_2023_20240123Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site
Person County NC -- Tar-Pamlico River HUC# 03020101-0102
MY-7 (2023) 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: Jan-Dec 2023 Final Report: January 2024
Submitted To:
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Ctr, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMS Project Manager: Jeremiah Dow
DEQ-DMS Contract # 006746
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.
P.O. Box 690429 Charlotte, NC 28227
(704) 576-1111 Rich@MogMit.com
(919) 556-8845 Gerald@MogMit.com
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. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 7
5.0. References ............................................................................................................................................ 8
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 2. Current Conditions Plan View, Fall 2023
Table 5. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Figure 3. Vegetation Plot Photos
Figure 4. Photo Point Photos
Figure 5. Google Earth Aerial Photos, 2016 and 2023
APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Stem Density Success Summary
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Stem Counts and Stem Density
APPENDIX D. Hydrologic Data
Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Totals with Normal Percentiles
Figure 7. Groundwater Gauge and Rainfall Data Graphs
Table 8. Hydrologic Success Summary, Groundwater Gauges
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
2 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
1.0. Project Background Summary
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 MMI’s adjacent 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 reduced soil
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
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
3 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
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;
• Install fencing to exclude cattle and establish a conservation easement to provide permanent
protection on the site.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS and MONITORING:
GOAL OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE
STANDARD
MONITORING
APPROACH
Restore natural
hydro-period for
headwater forest
wetland.
Plug existing ditches and
create sheet flow throughout
the site. Aerate soils to reduce
compaction, improve
infiltration, and create micro-
topography to retain surface
flows.
Water must be on or
within 12 inches of the
surface for 10% of the
growing season.
Hydrographs will
indicate jurisdictional
hydrology.
Use 11 shallow
groundwater self-reading
gauges throughout the site
at a frequency of about one
per acre. Visual inspection
of ponding duration.
Restore forested
wetland habitat and
improve habitat
connectivity with
existing forests.
Preserve mature swamp white
oak trees for seed source. Plant
appropriate native hardwood
trees at 10-ft average spacing
(435 stems/ac) Treat invasive
species.
Survival of 320 stems
per acre at year 3, 260
stems per acre at year 5
and 210 stems per acre
at MY 7.
Monitor vegetation plots
annually and calculate
densities of surviving
planted & volunteer stems.
Buffer storm water
runoff from fecal and
other cattle-related
nutrient inputs.
Plant trees, fence perimeter
and establish a permanent
conservation easement.
Insure the integrity of
the cattle exclusion
fencing for the life of the
contract.
Visual inspection will note
fence condition through site
pictures. Observations will
be included in annual
monitoring reports.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
4 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
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 assets are
summarized in Table 1, matching the proposed assets in the Mitigation Plan.
2.0. Monitoring Methods
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 occurs 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.
Ten 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 2023 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.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
5 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
The conservation easement perimeter fence and ditch plug integrity have been monitored visually and
documented with photo points.
3.0. Current Conditions Summary
Groundwater gauge data were collected from January 1 through September 4, 2023, during several visits to
the site. The condition of the ditches, ditch plugs, and planted and volunteer trees were evaluated visually
during these visits. CVS vegetation plot data and photos were collected in late September. All nine CVS
plots had 6 or more surviving planted trees and exceeded the 210 stems per acre success criteria for MY-7
based on planted stems alone (Tables 6 and 7). The average density across all nine plots was 346 planted
stems per acre and 612 total stems (including volunteers of planted species) 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 groundcover.
A few isolated plants of Multiflora rose, Chinese privet, and Callery pear were treated.in 2020 to 2022, and
no “invasive exotic” problem areas were identified in September 2023. 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 2023.
Ten groundwater gauges (A through L) on the project site are arranged in four transects perpendicular to
the main ditch (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). Manual water table measurements were also collected at each well one or more times during
the year, and gauge data were calibrated to fit the actual measurements. The gauges measure the free water
table depth and do not account for capillary fringe saturation which can extend well above the free water
table in fine-textured soils (https://vernonjames.ces.ncsu.edu/eleventh-annual-on-site/soil-wetness/).
Rainfall in 2023, relative to the 30-year normal values (1981 to 2010), was high (70th percentile or greater)
during January, April, and September; low (30th percentile or less) during February, March, May, July,
August, October, and November; and “normal” (between 30th and 70th percentiles) during June. Despite
the low rainfall in February and March, 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 51 to 84 days (Table 8).
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
6 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
The soil temperature gauge and water temperatures recorded 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.
The easement perimeter fence is intact and is successfully excluding the cattle on the adjacent pasture
areas. There was one brief cattle encroachment episode in 2020 when a gate was inadvertently left open.
The gates are now kept locked. Conservation easement signs, rebar pin caps, and witness post signs are
presently being replaced or installed, and easement marking will be completed by January 2024.
4.0. Conclusions
The MY7 (2023) monitoring data demonstrate that the TRHWR site is meeting hydrologic and vegetation
success criteria, although a few small areas exhibit somewhat stunted tree growth. The TRHWR site is a
headwater flat wetland with low-porosity Iredell clay loam soil and a hardpan confining layer within a few
feet below the soil surface that supports a seasonal perched water table. Based on the adjacent surrounding
natural communities and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) community classification system, the
site was presumably a Piedmont mixed moisture hardpan forest (Schafale, 2012) prior to being cleared and
ditched for use as cattle pasture in the 1940s. The plant community was likely similar to the Denny Store
Gabbro Forest natural area described by LeGrand (2007) on the adjacent property to the north. A defining
characteristic of this community type is “alternately wet and dry, with water pooled on part of the ground
surface at times but dry most of the time” (Schafale, 2012).
During pre-restoration monitoring in 2016, only three groundwater gauges in the wettest areas of the
TRHWR site (farthest from drainage ditches) met the hydrologic success criteria with a least 25
consecutive days (10% of growing season) during which the water table was within 12 inches of the ground
surface. Hydrologic restoration work (plugging ditches) was completed in January 2017 and trees were
planted the following month. During MY1 (2017) seven of the 11 gauges met hydrologic success, and in
MY2 through MY7 (2018 to 2023) all gauges met success. By early to mid-May in most years, the water
table drops and remains below 16 inches (often below the gauge detection depth) through summer and fall
except for short periods after heavy rainfall events. This hydrology pattern is typical for Piedmont mixed
moisture hardpan forest communities.
The dense, low-porosity soil and hardpan presents a challenging environment for trees to get established in
hardpan forests. Rooting depth is often shallow and wind-throw is common, creating frequent gaps with a
relatively open forest canopy in this community type. Prolonged dry periods in summer and fall can also
reduce the survival and growth of trees. Many planted trees on the site showed leader die-back during
droughts, but most re-sprouted the following year. All of the nine vegetation plots currently meet the MY-
7 tree density criteria of 210 planted stems per acre (range = 243 to 486, average = 355), and the average
density across all plots is 616 trees per acre including volunteer stems of planted species (range = 526 to
891). A few areas on the site have a noticeable proportion of trees that are small for their age, particularly
in the northwest area near Well-J and east-central area near Well-F where the temporary strip plots were
sampled during 2020 to 2022, as seen in the 2023 Google Earth aerial imagery (Figure 7).
During the first few years after cattle were excluded a variety of groundcover plants typical of glades and
open woodlands re-sprouted on the site suggesting a sparse canopy historically. These include milkweeds
(Asclepias purpurascens and A. incarnata), mistflower (Conoclinum coelestinum), thoroughworts
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
7 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
(Eupatorium spp), sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale), Carolina rose (Rosa carolina), mountain mints
(Pycnanthemum spp), skullcap (Scutellaria spp), lobelia (Lobelia spp), monkey-flower (Mimulus alatus),
rose-pink (Sabatia angularis), black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia spp), and many others. Swamp white oak
(Quercus bicolor), a tree typical of midwest and northern open woodlands and rare in the Carolinas, also
occurs on the site. The slow growth rates of both planted and volunteer trees on some parts of this site is
likely a natural feature of the native soil and extreme hydrologic variability, from prolonged saturation
during winter and spring to extended dry conditions in summer and fall. For long-term management,
periodic controlled burning would be useful for maintaining the native plant community on this site.
5.0. References
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, Michael P. (2012) Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
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/
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
8 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
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
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
9 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Mitigation Site and related mitigation projects at 333 Denny Store Rd, Roxboro,
Person County NC, Tar-Pamlico River HUC# 03020101-0102. The farm gate entrance into the mitigation site is at 36.3895, -78.8153.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
10 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits -- Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project # 97071
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Non-riparian Buffer Nutrient
Wetland Wetland Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Acres 7.650
Credits 7.270
TOTAL CREDITS 7.277
Project Components
Project Component Stationing/ Existing Approach Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
or Reach ID Location Footage or (PI, PII etc.)
Acreage
Drained Wetland -- 6.530 Restore Hydrology,
Fence & Plant R (Reestablish) 6.530 ac
Grazed Wetland -- 1.120 Fence & Plant R (Rehabilitate) 1.120 ac
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Buffer Upland
(acres) (lin. feet) (acres) Wetland (acres) (sq. feet)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Re-establishment (1: 1.0) 6.530 ac
Rehabilitation (1: 1.5) 1.120 ac
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
TOTAL feet or acres - - 7.650 ac
TOTAL WMU - - 7.277
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
11 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project# 97071
Activity or Report Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
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 Oct 2023 Dec 2023
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project # 97071
Designer Ecological Engineering, Raleigh NC
Heather Smith: 919-557-0929
Construction Contractor KBS Earthworks, Greensboro NC
Kory Strader & Brett Strader: 336-685-4339
Survey Contractor Michael T. Brandon, PLS, Roxboro NC
Michael Brandon: 336-597-8673
Fence Contractor Strader Fencing, Inc., Julian NC
Kenneth Strader: 336-314-2935
Herbicide and Seeding KBS Earthworks, Greensboro NC
Kory Strader & Brett Strader: 336-685-4339
Planting Contractor Mogensen Mitigation Inc, Charlotte NC
Rich Mogensen: 704-576-1111; Gerald Pottern: 919-556-8845
Nursery Stock Suppliers Mellowmarsh Farms, Siler City NC
Joanie McLean: 919-742-1200
Monitoring Performers Mogensen Mitigation Inc, Charlotte NC
Rich Mogensen: 704-576-1111; Gerald Pottern: 919-556-8845
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
12 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
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)
Parameters Wetland Area
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) Riparian non-riverine (Headwater)
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
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
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
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
13 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View, Fall 2023
Table 5. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Figure 3. Vegetation Plot Photos
Figure 4. Photo Point Photos
Figure 5. Google Earth Aerial Photos, 2016 and 2023
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
14 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View, Fall 2023, MY-7.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
15 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Table 5: Vegetation Condition Assessment Table -- MY-7 (2023)
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration #97071. Person County HUC #03020101-0102
Planted Acreage = 7.65
Vegetation Problem
Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
(acres)
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and
herbaceous material 0.10 N/A 0 0 0%
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target
levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
criteria.
0.10 N/A 0 0 0%
Total 0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates
or Vigor **
Areas with woody stems of a size class
that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.
0.25 N/A 0 0 0%
Cumulative Total 0 0 0%
Easement Acreage = 9.98
Vegetation Problem
Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as
polygons at map scale). 1000 N/A 0 0 0%
Easement Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as
polygons at map scale). none N/A 0 0 0%
** There are two areas on the site of approximately 0.25 acre each where planted trees have remained relatively small: (1) the northwest corner
of the site near Well J and VP-21, and (2) the east-central side of the site near Well F and VP-24. These areas were mapped as low density or
low-vigor areas in previous years, but strip test plots during 2020 to 2022 revealed adequate stem density. The slow growth rates appear to be a
natural condition of Piedmont hardpan forest vegetation communities, as explained in Section 4.0. This allows prairie plant species including
the regionally-rare purple milkweed to persist. These areas are not mapped as Low Vigor in the current monitoring report.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
16 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
CVS VegPlot-20: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-20: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
CVS VegPlot-21: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-21: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-7 Fall 2023
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
17 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
CVS VegPlot-22: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-22: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
CVS VegPlot-23: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-23: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-7 Fall 2023
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
18 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
CVS VegPlot-24: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-24: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
CVS VegPlot-25: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-25: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-7 Fall 2023
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
19 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
CVS VegPlot-26: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-26: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
CVS VegPlot-27: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-27: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-7 Fall 2023
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
20 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
CVS VegPlot-28: MY-0 Spring 2017 CVS VegPlot-28: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Figure 3. Vegetation Plots: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-7 Fall 2023
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
21 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Photo Point 1: MY-0 Spring 2017 Photo Point 1: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Photo Point 2: MY-0 Spring 2017 Photo Point 2: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Figure 4. Photo Points: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-7 Fall 2023
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
22 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Photo Point 3-East: MY-0 Spring 2017 Photo Point 3-East: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Photo Point 3-North: MY-0 Spring 2017 Photo Point 3-North: MY-7 30 Sep 2023
Figure 4. Photo Points: Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY-6 Fall 2022
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
23 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Figure 5A. Google Earth 2016 aerial photo of Tar River Headwaters Wetland Mitigation Site.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
24 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Figure 5B. Google Earth 2023 aerial photo of Tar River Headwaters Wetland Mitigation Site.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
25 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Stem Density Success Summary
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Stem Counts and Stem Density
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
26 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Table 6. CVS Plot Stem Density Success Summary, MY-7 (Sept 2023)
CVS Plot #
Wetland Planted
Stems
Planted +
Volunteer Stems Invasive
Woody
Stems
Success
Criteria
Met?
per plot
per
acre per plot
per
acre
97071- 20 9 364 15 607 0 Yes
97071- 21 6 243 13 526 0 Yes
97071- 22 8 324 20 809 0 Yes
97071- 23 12 486 22 890 0 Yes
97071- 24 8 324 13 526 0 Yes
97071- 25 10 405 14 567 0 Yes
97071- 26 9 364 13 526 0 Yes
97071- 27 7 283 12 486 0 Yes
97071- 28 10 405 15 607 0 Yes
Plots 20-28 79 137 0
Project Avg 8.8 355 15.2 616 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)
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
27 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 2 1 1
Baccharis halimifolia Groundsel-tree Shrub 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree (P) 4 4 3 3 1 1 4 4 7 7 2 2
Carpinus caroliniana Musclewood Tree (P)2 2 4 4
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Shrub (P) 1 1
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree (P) 2 3 2 1 2 4 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree (P)2 1 5 3 12 2 10 1 4 4 2 5 2 6
Ilex vomitoria Yaupon holly Shrub (P)2 2 1 1
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Tree 1 9 3 5 1 3 3 2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree (P)1 1
Pinus taeda Loblolly pine Tree 2 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree (P) 2 2 2 2 1 1
Quercus bicolor * Swamp White Oak Tree (P)1 1
Quercus michauxi * Swp Chestnut Oak Tree (P)2 2
Quercus phellos * Willow Oak Tree (P)1 1 1 4 4 2 2 8 8 2 2 2 2
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 3
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree (P)2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 4
Planted & Total Stem count 9 15 6 13 8 20 12 22 8 13 10 14 9 13 7 12 10 15
(P) = planted species ares 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
acres 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
Creditable Species count 4 7 4 5 5 6 4 5 5 5 3 5 2 3 4 4 4 5
Plot Stems per ACRE 364 607 243 526 324 810 486 891 324 526 405 567 364 526 283 486 405 607
97071-25 97071-27 97071-2897071-26
Monitoring Year 7 (Sept 2023) -- Person County NC. Tar-Pamlico HUC# 03020101-0102.
Scientific Name Common Name
Growth
Type
97071-20 97071-21 97071-22 97071-23 97071-24
Current Year Stem Counts by Plot Data (MY7 - Sept 30, 2023)
Table 7. CVS Plot Stem Counts and Density by Species -- Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration (TRHWR) Project, DMS # 97071.
Plant = Planted Stems; Total = Planted + Volunteer Stems of planted species only.
Red = volunteer non-planted species, NOT counted in totals or density.
Blue highlight = Totals that include 1 or more volunteer stems of planted species.
* Quercus seedlings misidentified in 2017 were corrected in 2018-2019.
Color codes for Plot Density & Success MY1 to MY3 MY4 to MY5 MY6 to MY7
Exceeds criteria by 10% or more (352 or more)(287 or more)(232 or more)
Exceeds criteria by less than 10%(320 - 351)(260 - 286)(210 - 231)
Fails criteria by less than 10%(289 - 319)(234 - 259)(189 - 209)
Fails criteria by more than 10%(288 or less)(233 or less)(188 or less)
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
28 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Table 7, continued
Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total Plant Total
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 2 4
Baccharis halimifolia Groundsel-tree Shrub 2 3 3 2
Betula nigra River Birch Tree (P)23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21
Carpinus caroliniana Musclewood Tree (P)6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Shrub (P) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree (P)2 2 1 3 1 4 1 13 4 12 4 13 4 12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree (P)9 9 10 10 10 17 10 23 10 32 11 37 11 34 11 48
Ilex vomitoria Yaupon holly Shrub (P)1 2 2 2 2 3 3
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Tree 3 4 12 14 24 27
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree (P)12 12 6 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Pinus taeda Loblolly pine Tree 3 1 3 2 2 3
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree (P)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Quercus bicolor *Swamp White Oak Tree (P)3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Quercus michauxi *Swp Chestnut Oak Tree (P)2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus phellos *Willow Oak Tree (P)20 20 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 18 19 20
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 3
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree (P)10 10 11 14 5 18 8 18 6 17 7 18 7 18 5 17
Planted & Total Stem count 90 90 82 85 72 97 77 104 76 122 81 126 79 122 79 137
(P) = planted species ares 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
acres 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222
Creditable Species count 9 9 11 11 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Mean Stems per ACRE 405 405 369 382 324 436 346 468 342 549 364 567 355 549 355 616
Plant = Planted Stems; Total = Planted + Volunteer Stems of planted species only.
Red = volunteer non-planted species, non-creditable, NOT counted in totals or density.
Blue highlight = Totals that include 1 or more volunteer stems of planted species.
* Quercus seedlings misidentified in 2017 were corrected in 2018-2019.
Color codes for Plot Density & Success MY1 to MY3 MY4 to MY5 MY6 to MY7
Exceeds criteria by 10% or more (352 or more)(287 or more)(232 or more)
Exceeds criteria by less than 10%(320 - 351)(260 - 286)(210 - 231)
Fails criteria by less than 10%(289 - 319)(234 - 259)(189 - 209)
Fails criteria by more than 10%(288 or less)(233 or less)(188 or less)
MY3 (2019)MY6 (2022)MY7 (2023)
Annual Stem Count Totals and Mean Density Across ALL Plots 2017 - 2023
MY5 (2021)MY4 (2020)
Scientific Name Common Name
Growth
Type
MY2 (2018)MY0 (2017)MY1 (2017)
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
29 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
APPENDIX D. Hydrologic Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Totals with Normal Percentiles
Figure 7. Groundwater Gauge and Rainfall Data Graphs
Table 8. Hydrologic Success Summary, Groundwater Gauges
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
30 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Totals in 2023, with 30th and 70th normal percentiles.
2023 Monthly Rainfall Totals and 30-year Historical Monthly Rainfall at ROXBORO 7 ESE Gauge # 317516
30-year Climate Normal Precipitation (1981 - 2010)
Month 2023 inches 30th % 50th % 70th %
Jan-2023 4.49 2.45 3.81 4.46
Feb-2023 2.46 2.58 3.33 3.82
Mar-2023 2.68 2.99 4.45 5.32
Apr-2023 4.84 2.18 3.34 4.21
May-2023 1.38 2.51 3.35 4.04
Jun-2023 4.40 2.15 3.84 4.45
July-2023 2.84 3.38 4.57 5.44
Aug-2023 2.10 2.57 3.89 4.90
Sep-2023 5.20 1.94 3.91 4.85
Oct-2023 1.50 2.65 3.72 4.72
Nov-2023 1.90 1.89 3.46 4.42
Dec-2023 6.39 2.56 3.71 4.52
Annual Total 40.29 45.38
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County – Tar-Pam HUC 03020101
31 MY-7 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Figure 7. Groundwater Gauges A and D
Figure 7. Groundwater Gauges E and F
Figure 7. Groundwater Gauges G and H
Figure 7. Groundwater Gauges I and J
Figure 7. Groundwater Gauges K and L
Figure 7. Groundwater Gauge - Reference Well
Maximum Consecutive Days in Growing Season with Water Table above -12.0 inches
WELL start end days % GS start end days % GS start end days % GS start end days % GS
A 4/27 5/27 31 12 4/23 5/16 24 10 3/1 5/4 65 26 3/1 4/3 34 14
B *4/28 5/9 12 5 4/23 5/16 24 10 3/1 6/7 99 40 3/1 5/1 62 25
C *6/23 7/11 19 8 4/23 5/21 29 12 3/1 5/14 75 30 3/1 4/24 55 22
D 4/27 5/16 20 8 3/13 4/11 30 12 3/1 5/12 73 29 3/1 4/30 61 25
E 4/23 6/2 41 17 4/24 5/17 24 10 3/1 5/3 64 26 3/1 4/30 61 25
F 3/1 3/20 20 8 3/31 4/10 11 4 3/1 5/3 64 26 3/1 4/25 56 23
G 4/27 5/15 19 8 3/31 4/13 14 6 3/1 5/9 70 28 3/1 4/28 59 24
H 3/1 4/7 38 15 4/23 5/17 25 10 3/1 6/9 101 41 3/1 5/4 65 26
I 4/22 5/12 21 8 4/23 5/20 28 11 3/1 5/3 64 26 3/1 4/24 55 22
J 4/28 5/16 19 8 5/22 6/2 12 5 3/1 5/12 73 29 3/1 5/1 62 25
K 4/27 5/11 15 6 3/31 4/10 11 4 3/1 5/2 63 25 3/1 4/25 56 23
L na na na na 3/1 6/10 102 41 3/1 6/15 107 43 3/1 5/1 62 25
Ref 4/1 6/14 75 30 3/1 6/9 101 41 3/1 5/14 75 30 3/1 5/14 75 30
Maximum Consecutive Days in Growing Season with Water Table above -12.0 inches
WELL start end days % GS start end days % GS start end days % GS start end days % GS
A 3/1 5/11 72 29 3/1 4/20 51 21 3/1 4/15 46 19 3/1 5/6 67 27
B *3/1 5/14 75 30 3/1 4/18 49 20 NA --- --- ---NA --- --- ---
C *3/1 5/12 73 29 3/1 4/17 48 19 NA --- --- ---NA --- --- ---
D 3/1 5/12 73 29 3/1 4/18 49 20 3/1 5/9 70 28 3/1 5/11 72 29
E 3/1 5/13 74 30 3/1 4/20 51 21 3/1 6/2 94 38 3/1 5/23 84 34
F 3/1 5/10 71 29 3/1 4/15 46 19 3/1 5/10 71 29 3/1 5/10 71 29
G 3/1 5/09 70 28 3/1 4/16 47 19 3/1 4/14 45 18 3/1 4/20 51 21
H 3/1 5/17 78 31 3/1 4/29 60 24 3/1 5/11 72 29 3/1 5/9 70 28
I 3/1 5/09 70 28 3/1 4/16 47 19 3/1 4/17 48 19 3/1 4/21 52 21
J 3/1 5/12 73 29 3/1 4/18 49 20 3/1 5/9 70 28 3/1 4/22 53 21
K 3/1 4/05 36 15 3/1 4/16 47 19 3/1 5/8 69 28 3/1 5/6 67 27
L 3/1 4/30 61 25 3/1 4/17 48 19 3/1 4/14 45 18 3/1 4/21 52 21
Ref 3/1 5/15 76 31 3/1 4/20 51 21 3/1 5/7 68 27 3/1 5/9 70 28
Growing Season = Mar 1 to Nov 3 (248 Days) based on soil temperature > 41° F.
Success criteria = 25 consecutive days WT < 12" below surface. Blue = Meets Criteria. Brown = Fails Criteria
* Gauges B and C are in non-credit areas and do not contribute to project success evaluation.
= Gauge failure; actual end of hydroperiod may have been later.
2018 MY2 2019 MY3
2022 MY6 2023 MY7
Yellow
2016 MY0 2017 MY1
2020 MY4 2021 MY5
Table 8. Hydrologic Success Attainment 2016 - 2023, Groundwater Wells
Percent of 2023 Growing
Season with consecutive
days of WT above -12 inches.