20130184 Ver 1_AsBuilt Report-Stream Bank_20170926

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report: MY -0 (2017)
Person County NC: Tar -Pamlico River HUC# 03020101-0102
US -ACE Action ID # SAW -2012-02073
Data Collected: Apr -May 2017 Draft Report: August 2017
Prepared By:
NM
MOGENSEN WrIGATION, INC
ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.
P.O. Box 690429 Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone] Richna,MogMit.com
[phone] gpotterngrjgacarolina.com
Submitted To: NC -IRT
US -ACE Raleigh Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
US -ACE Project Manager: Andrea Hughes
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NC-DWR Project Manager: Mac Haupt

Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................................2
1.0.
Project Location and Setting.............................................................................................................3
2.0.
Pre -Construction Site Conditions.....................................................................................................3
3.0.
Mitigation Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................4
4.0.
Mitigation Components and Assets.................................................................................................. 5
5.0.
Monitoring Plan and Success Criteria..............................................................................................6
6.0.
As -Built Conditions.......................................................................................................................... 7
7.0.
References.........................................................................................................................................9
APPENDIX A. Background Tables and Figures...................................................................................10
Table 1. Project Components & Stream Mitigation Credits......................................................10
Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History..........................................................................10
Table 3. Project Contacts Table.................................................................................................. l l
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map..................................................................................................12
Figure 2. Service Area Map.......................................................................................................13
Figure3. Soil Survey Map.........................................................................................................14
Figure 4. Stream Credit Assets Map..........................................................................................15
APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment & Geomorphic Data......................................................................16
Figure 5. Current Conditions Plan View...................................................................................17
Figure 6. Longitudinal Profile Survey Data Plot.......................................................................20
Figure 7. Cross -Section Survey Data Plots................................................................................21
Figure 8. Substrate Pebble Count Data Plots............................................................................25
APPENDIX C. Planting List & Vegetation Plot Data..........................................................................27
Table 4. Tree Planting List, 2015 and 2017..............................................................................28
Table 5. Planted and Volunteer Stem Counts by Species and Plot...........................................29
Table 6. Planted Stem Density Success Summary by Plot........................................................31
APPENDIX D. Photographs.................................................................................................................32
Vegetation Plot Photographs............................................................................ 33
Cross -Section Photos...................................................................................... 35
StreamPhoto Points....................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX E. As -Built Survey Sheets .......................
Sheet 1: Easement Boundary & Riparian Zones
Sheet 2: Overview Map, Key to Insets
Sheet 3: Inset Upper Reach
Sheet 4: Inset Middle Reach
Sheet 5: Inset Lower Reach
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017
....................................................................... 39
Page 1 of 40
Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Executive Summary
The Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank (TRHSMB) is located on a cattle farm in eastern
Person County, between Roxboro and Oxford, North Carolina, within the Piedmont physiographic province
(Figure 1). The 228 -acre farm property is owned by Roy and Joyce Huff, located at 333 Bunnie Huff
Road, Oxford, NC 27565, in USGS 12 -digit HUC #03020101-0102. This stream mitigation project and the
previously established Tar River Headwaters Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank
(TRHRNO) project share the same 18.56 -acre conservation easement. A farm road crossing provides
access at the middle of the easement (Lat = 36.3909, Lon = -78.8168), and splits it into upper (northeast)
and lower (southwest) halves.
The TRHSMB includes 595 feet of perennial stream restoration (as -built length), 444 feet of Level -1
stream enhancement, and 2,678 feet of Level -2 stream enhancement along two unnamed headwater
tributaries. The as -built project follows the Mitigation Plan except for minor deviations in the locations and
lengths of some channel features and reach endpoints; less extensive bank grading in the enhancement
reach; substitutions in the planted tree species mix; and the conservation easement boundary and fence
location. Reasons for these plan deviations are discussed in Section 6. Applying the appropriate credit
ratios for each mitigation approach, the stream mitigation credit total was increased from 1,902 credits in
the Mitigation Plan to 1,962 as -built credits.
Easement fencing was installed in October 2015 and the majority of the 50 -foot riparian zone was treated,
seeded, and planted at an average 10 -foot spacing (430 trees per acre) in November 2015. The uppermost
reach proposed for stream restoration and bank grading was treated and seeded at that time, but no trees
were planted in that area until after stream construction and grading work were finished in May 2017.
Planting in the disturbed areas was completed during May -June 2017, and the conservation easement
boundary and fence were adjusted to meet the minimum 50 -ft riparian buffer width. Also, previously
planted areas showing low tree survival received supplemental planting during Feb -May 2017. Some areas
along the middle and southern enhancement reaches with existing canopy trees required fewer planted
trees.
As -built monitoring in May 2017 documented 10 to 13 planted trees in each of the eight CVS monitoring
plots (10 x 10 meters), meeting design criteria. Some plots also have native volunteer seedlings (Table 5).
Herbaceous vegetation is dense throughout the non -graded areas, with a diverse mix of native volunteer
groundcover species in addition to those seeded in Nov 2015, and Fescue is no longer a dominant
component. The northernmost two acres where grading occurred along the stream has sparse groundcover
and dense clay soil; this area will be monitored closely to assess whether future soil amendments, re-
seeding, or supplemental planting may be needed. Invasive species occurrences are minor, with scattered
patches of exotic shrubs and vines mainly along the easement perimeter fence and along the wooded stream
bank south of the road crossing. Many of these were sprayed in 2015-2016, and treatment will continue as
needed. No issues with stream instability, easement integrity, encroachment or wildlife damage are evident
at this time.
Mitigation monitoring features include four channel cross-sections and two granulated -cork crest gauges in
the restoration reach and E1 enhancement reach, eight CVS vegetation plots, and eight fixed photo-
documentation points. These features plus a longitudinal profile survey of the restored reach will be
monitored and annual reports submitted during monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, as specified in the
Mitigation Plan.
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 2 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

1.0. Project Location and Setting
The Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank (TRHSMB) is located on a cattle farm in eastern
Person County, seven miles east of Roxboro, North Carolina, in the Carolina Slate Belt region of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province (Figure 1). The bank service area for mitigation credits is the Tar -
Pamlico River basin 8 -digit HUC #03020101, extending from the headwaters in Person County
downstream to Tarboro in Edgecombe County (Figure 2). The 18.56 -acre project site is located within the
uppermost sub -watershed, 12 -digit HUC #03020101-0102. The 228 -acre property containing the project
conservation easement is owned by Roy and Joyce Huff, located at 333 Bunnie Huff Road, Oxford, NC
27565. The project was planned, designed and constructed following the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) and Bank Parcel Development Plan (BPDP) approved in December 2016. Deviations from the
approved Mitigation Plan are itemized in Section 6.0 below.
This stream mitigation project and the previously established Tar River Headwaters Riparian Buffer and
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank (TRHRNO) project share the same 18.56 -acre conservation easement. A
gravel farm road extending west from Bunnie Huff Rd provides access near the middle of the project
easement (Lat = 36.3909, Lon = -78.8168), and splits the project into upper (northeast) and lower
(southwest) halves. An abutting conservation easement to the north contains NC Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) full -delivery wetland mitigation and nutrient buffer mitigation projects, all located on the
same parcel. This cluster of two DMS full -delivery projects and two mitigation bank projects on the Huff
family farm were planned and implemented by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI), with design and
technical assistance from Ecological Engineering, Inc.
Directions to the TRHSMB site from Raleigh are:
• Travel north on Glenwood Ave (US -70) to Creedmoor Rd (NC -50), continue north for 19.5 miles.
• Turn left (west) onto Lake Road in Creedmoor, go 0.5 mile, turn right onto Stem Rd Brogden Rd.
• Follow Brodgen Road north for 5.6 miles through Stem, then turn right onto SR-1004/Old NC -75.
• Go 1.0 mile on Old NC -75, turn left on Culbreth Rd, go 7.0 miles, turn left on US -158 in Berea.
• Follow US -158 west for 0.6 mile, turn right onto Old Roxboro Rd and continue NW for 5.6 miles.
• Old Roxboro Rd becomes Denny Store Rd at the Granville/Person County line.
• Continue on Denny Store Rd for 1.5 mile, turn right (north) on Bunnie Huff Road, go 0.4 mile.
• Turn left at the Huff Farm 2nd driveway, proceed through farm gate at west end of the driveway.
2.0. Pre -Construction Site Conditions
The TRHSMB site was cleared for pasture in the 1940s according to the landowner, and used for grazing
cattle until the conservation easement fence was installed in October 2015. A review of historical aerials
from 1950, 1977, and 1981 (included in the BPDP) and Google Earth images from 1992 to 2016 show
minimal land use change in the watershed over the past 65 years. Stream alignments appear to have shifted
little during this period, other than some additional straightening in the upper portion of the project area.
The site is at least six miles from municipal water and sewer service, and watershed land use is unlikely to
change significantly during the next decade.
The main stream (UT2) flows southwestward through the conservation easement, and an eastern tributary
(UTI) flows northwestward, joining UT2 about 180 ft upstream of the farm road crossing near the middle
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 3 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

of the easement (Figues 4 and 5). Both streams are perennial, as documented in the Mitigation Plan. The
upper half of UT2 and the entire length of UT1 were severely straightened and devoid of woody vegetation
along the banks prior to project implementation. The lower half of UT2 was partially straightened, but
retains moderate sinuosity and stabilizing woody root mass and canopy along some segments.
The contributing drainage basin area above UT2 at the upper easement boundary is 1.1 sq.mi, and the
drainage area above UTI at the eastern boundary is 0.2. sq.mi. The drainage area at the downstream end of
the project is 1.6 sq.mi, which includes drainage from the DMS full delivery wetland and buffer mitigation
sites to the north. The contributing watershed is roughly three-fourths forested and one-fourth pasture and
crop lands, based on the downstream endpoint. Less than 0.5% of the watershed consists of developed land
and impervious surfaces.
Land elevations within the project easement range from approximately 575 feet (NAVD-88) at the highest
point along the northwest easement boundary to 558 feet at the downstream boundary. The thalweg
elevation of the main stream is about 567 ft at the upper boundary, dropping to 557 feet at the lower
boundary, with an average valley slope of 0.0034 (valley length 2,900 ft) and average channel slope of
0.0031 (channel length 3,243 ft). The pre -construction stream type (Rosgen classification) is an incised E4
in the restoration reach and C5 along the remaining reaches. Pre -construction sinuosity is very low (1.05)
in the straightened northern half, and moderately low (1. 17) in the less altered southern half. The
predominant bed material is fine to medium sand over most of the project, with a few small areas of coarse
sand, gravel, and small cobble near the upper end of UT2 and in several short segments along the lower
half of UT2. Riffle/pool structure is weak throughout the upper half, and moderately developed in the
lower half. The natural forested segment of UT2 just upstream of the northern easement boundary is
moderately sinuous with a bed of mixed sand, gravel, and cobble. Pre -project geomorphology, sediment
transport, and improvement potential are discussed further in the Mitigation Plan (Dec 2016).
The predominant soil mapping unit on the project site is Chewacla and Wehadkee loam (ChA) on the
floodplain, with minor areas of Herndon silt loam (HrC), Iredell loam (IdA), Lignum silt loam (LgB),and
Tatum silt loam (TaD) along upland edges, as identified by the USDA Soil Survey of Person County
(1995) and USDA WebSoilSurvey (Figure 3). Several natural wetlands and one excavated depression that
served as a former watering hole for cattle are located within the ChA-mapped areas. No wetlands are
located in the project construction areas. Trees remain on the stream banks in a few areas, mainly along the
lower half south of the farm road crossing, but nearly all of the stream banks in the upper half are devoid of
trees and shrubs, and bank slumping is extensive. The pre -fencing groundcover is predominantly Fescue
and other pasture grasses mixed with Juncus, Diodia, Ranunculus, Polygonum, Solidago, and other typical
floodplain pasture species.
3.0. Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The DEQ Tar River Basin Restoration Priority (TRBRP) report (20 10) identifies nutrient and sediment
inputs and loss of riparian buffers in agricultural areas as significant stressors within the Tar River basin,
and recommends mitigating these impacts and connecting conservation lands as important goals. The
Upper Tar River Aquatic Habitat was identified in the 2005 NC Wildlife Resources Commission's
(NCWRC's) Wildlife Action Plan as a priority area for freshwater habitat protection and as having a "high
likelihood of restoration/conservation" (Shute et.al, 1997). Streams on the project site are also within the
public water supply watershed (DEQ classification WS -IV -NSW) for an intake in Granville County.
Specific project goals and objectives are listed below, as copied from the Mitigation Plan:
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 4 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Goal
Objectives
Desired Outcome
Mitig Plan
On-going agricultural use will be stopped,
Conserve the site in
Place conservation easement and fence
development potential will be removed,
perpetuity
17.92 acres from cattle access
and the Site will connect to another
Station
Station
conservation area.
Reduce sediment
Stabilize stream banks in upper 500 LF
Banks will develop stable geometry and
inputs
and restrict cattle access
on-site sediment inputs will be reduced.
Establish a forested riparian buffer,
Direct fertilizer inputs will be halted,
Reduce nutrient
eliminate fertilizer application within 50-
natural filtration from surrounding
inputs
100 ft of the stream, and restrict cattle
landscape will occur through a forested
1000
access to the stream and adjacent
buffer, and cattle manure will be restricted
595
floodplain.
to outside the conservation area.
Improve floodplain
Resize and realign the upper 500 LF of
Stream will have regular access to the
access
stream in a new channel.
floodplain for filtration and habitat.
Improve aquatic and
Install grade control, plant native
Increase habitat for native species in
semi -aquatic habitat
bottomland hardwoods and shrubs along
streams and floodplains.
579
stream and in floodplain.
2005
4.0. Mitigation Components and Assets
The final as -built project easement (18.56 acre) contains 3,717 feet of streams (as -built length) and 8.13
acres of riparian buffers within 50 ft from the stream banks (Figures 4 and 5). The restored and enhanced
buffers are at least 50 ft wide throughout the project as required for full stream credit. (The additional
easement lands more than 50 feet beyond the stream banks will provide nutrient offset credits for the
TRHRNO bank). The project will generate an estimated 1,962 stream mitigation credits (SMC) from a
combination of stream restoration (P2) and enhancement (E1 and E2) as summarized in Table 1 below.
Pre -construction lengths in the table are based on the as -built reach endpoints, not the proposed stationing
shown in the Mitigation Plan (Dec 2016). The P2/E1 and E1/E2 transition points were shifted downstream
relative to the Mitigation Plan. The as -built stationing begins at 0+00 at the head of each stream, rather
than 10+00 as used in the Mitigation Plan. Restoration and enhancement reach endpoints are indicated in
Figures 4 and 5.
Table 1. Project Components & Stream Mitigation Credits: Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Mitig Plan
As -Built
Reach ID
Pre -Const
Mitig Approach
Station
Station
As -Built
Mitig
Credits
start
end
start
end
Length, ft
length, ft
Ratio
SMC
UT2-R1
498
Restoration P2
1000
1550
000
595
595
1 : 1
595
UT2-R2
444
Enhancement E1
1550
2005
595
1039
444
1.5 : 1
296
UT2-R3-n
579
Enhancement E2
2005
2605
1039
1618
579
2.5 : 1
232
UT2-R3-s
1575
Enhancement E2
2659
4234
1668
3243
1575
2.5 : 1
630
UTI-trib
524
Enhancement E2
1000
1540
000
524
524
2.5 : 1
209
Total
3620
1
1
1
1
1
1 3717
1962
The project site comprises a portion of parcel PIN # 0956-00-32-9189, and will be protected in perpetuity
by a conservation easement recorded in the Person County tax office. MMI will maintain the site during
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 5 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

the monitoring period, and the Tar River Land Conservancy (TRLC) based in Louisburg NC will serve as
the easement holder for long-term stewardship.
5.0. Monitoring Plan and Success Criteria (Performance Standards)
Mitigation monitoring features include: a) four channel cross-sections (two in the restoration reach, two in
the E1 enhancement reach) for monitoring channel dimensions and substrate; b) two cork granulated -crest
gauges (one in the restoration reach, one in the E 1 reach) for monitoring over -bank flow events; c) eight
CVS vegetation plots (five along the upper half, three along the lower half) for monitoring riparian
vegetation survival and density within 50 feet of the streams; and d) eight fixed photo -documentation
points. These features plus a longitudinal profile survey of the restored reach will be monitored and
detailed annual reports submitted during monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, following USACE and NCDWR
Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Abbreviated monitoring reports will be prepared for monitoring years 4 and
6 containing information based on visual assessment only, as specified in the Mitigation Plan (Dec 2016).
Channel Dimension Monitoring and Performance Standards: Monitoring consists of one riffle and one
pool cross-section in the restoration reach (UT2-R1) and one riffle and one pool cross-section in the
enhancement E1 reach (UT2-R2). Cross-sections are marked with rebar pins and measurements taken will
include top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, thalweg, and other significant changes in slope. Horizontal
bank pins may be installed to quantify bank erosion if any erosion areas of concern are observed. Cross-
section data will be collected in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7.
Riffle cross-sections on the R and E1 reaches should be stable and should show little change in bankfull
area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. The bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channel to be considered stable. An entrenchment ratio
of 2.2 or greater is appropriate for C and E channels and would indicate stability if the channel evolves
from C to E. All riffle cross-sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the
appropriate designed stream type. If measurements indicate a shift of greater than 10% from the design
values, the channel will be assessed to determine whether there are signs of instability. Remedial action
will be taken if a stream is showing signs of instability.
Pattern and Profile Monitoring and Performance Standards: A longitudinal profile survey of the
restoration reach (UT2-R1) from the upper boundary fence to the head of the enhancement reach (595
linear feet) during the baseline monitoring for the as -built (MYO) document and in monitoring years 1, 2, 3,
5 and 7. No longitudinal profile survey data collected is planned along the enhancement reaches.
An increase by more than 10% of the cross-sectional area will be considered a potential sign of lateral
instability. In the event of a shift of greater than 10% of the cross-sectional area the site will be evaluated
further and determine whether appropriate action needs to be taken. The channel should not exhibit
evidence of headcutting. Signs of headcutting will indicate potential evidence of vertical instability;
however changes in pool depth will not indicate vertical instability.
Channel Substrate Monitoring and Performance Standards: Channel substrate materials will be
collected at the two cross-sections along the restoration reach UT2-R1. Wolmann pebble counts will be
conducted to determine whether there is a shift in the size or distribution of the bed material. The UT2-R1
restoration reach should indicate particle size consistent with the designed entrainment of 10-50 mm. There
will be no assessment of substrate for the enhancement reaches.
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 6 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Bankfull Flow Monitoring and Performance Standards: Two bankfull flow events must be documented
in separate monitoring years on the restoration and enhancement reaches. These will be measured using a
crest stage gauge and/or dated photo documentation of sediment deposition and wrack lines on the adjacent
floodplain. Stream bankfull monitoring will continue until success criteria of two bankf ill events in
separate years have been met.
Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Performance Standards: Eight vegetation monitoring plots (10 x
10 meter each) are located along the 50 -foot wide riparian corridors on both sides of the streams. These
plots comprise 2.4 percent of the 8.13 acre riparian area within 50 feet of the stream banks. Eleven
additional vegetation plots located more than 50 feet beyond the stream banks apply only to the nutrient
offset bank (TRHRNO), but are included in the CCPV (Figures 5b and 5c) to assist with visual orientation.
Each monitoring year, planted and volunteer woody stems will be counted and measured following the
CVS Level 2 sampling protocol. The final success criteria after seven years of monitoring will be 210
living, native hardwood stems/acre average density in the 50 -ft riparian zone. The interim measure of
vegetative success for the site will be 320 living, native, hardwood stems/acre at the end of monitoring year
three and 260 stems/acre after five years of monitoring.
Photo Documentation: Photographs will be taken annually at fixed points on all restoration and
enhancement reaches from locations established during the baseline documentation (Figure 5). Photos will
also be taken at each permanent cross-section, vegetation plot, and representative structures.
6.0. As -Built Conditions
Stream restoration and enhancement construction work was completed in May 2017. The as -built survey
includes 595 feet of perennial stream restoration (as -built length), 444 feet of E1 stream enhancement, and
2,678 feet of E2 stream enhancement along two unnamed headwater tributaries (Figure 4 and Appendix E).
The restoration reach (UT2-R1) contains four constructed riffles, three pools, and one cross -vane; the El
enhancement reach (UT2-R2) contains two constructed riffles and one pool. Bank grading and benching
along the E1 reach was conducted wherever steep slopes and/or active bank slumping indicated the need,
especially the reach from station 9+40 to 10+39 where several concrete culvert pipes were removed.
Previously eroded or slumped bank segments along E 1 that appear to have stabilized with native woody
and deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation were mostly left as is. The project follows the Mitigation Plan
except for the following modifications:
1) The proposed cross -vane near the head of the project was determined to be unnecessary by the design
engineer and was replaced with a constructed riffle.
2) The lower cross -vane (bottom of restoration reach) was shifted 45 feet farther downstream.
3) The enhancement level -1 reach (E-1) along the main channel was extended 34 feet farther downstream.
4) Stream bank grading in the E-1 reach was less extensive than proposed due to new growth of natural
stabilizing vegetation and lack of active erosion.
5) The planted tree species mix was revised slightly due to nursery stock availability.
6) The conservation easement boundary and fence were moved to ensure at least 50 feet of riparian buffer
throughout the project. The as -built project easement (18.56 acre) is 0.64 acre larger than proposed in the
Mitigation Plan.
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 7 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

7) Applying the appropriate credit ratios for each reach, the stream mitigation credit total was increased
from 1,902 in the Plan to 1,962 SMU in the as -built project.
The easement perimeter fence is 4 -ft high woven -wire field fence supported on 6 -inch diameter pressure -
treated wooden posts (10 -ft spacing) with single -strand barbed wire on top along all boundaries where
livestock access is possible. No new fence was installed along segments with an adequate pre-existing
fence, including the downstream (southern) boundary and the east side of the upper section. A short
segment of the easement boundary along the northeast side has no fence, as this area is bounded by natural
hardwood forest and no livestock have access to this area. The entire perimeter is marked with
conservation easement signs on posts or bollards.
Stream feature locations, lengths, and elevations generally match the Mitigation Plan, as shown in the
CCPV and longitudinal and cross-section profiles and tables provided in Appendix B (Figures 6 and 7) and
Appendix E (as -built plan sheets). One exception is the cross-sectional area at cross-section 2, due to the
fact that this cross-section is not located at the deepest part of the pool, which is 11 feet farther downstream
and 0.3 ft deeper. Also, rainfall during and immediately after construction, before the longitudinal profile
survey, may have resulted in temporary excess sediment deposition in the pools. Subsequent monitoring
will determine if pool depths and cross-sectional areas are meeting the design criteria.
Also, the lower portion of UT2-R1 and much of UT2-R2 has a naturally low gradient, and the water surface
in this segment is nearly flat (at low flow condition) from station 4+20 downstream to a natural riffle head
just below station 9+00. The two constructed riffles within this low -gradient reach (one at station 4+86 to
5+36 in the restoration reach; the other at station 6+97 to 7+25 in the enhancement reach) currently
function more like rocky runs than as riffles. Substrate samples at the riffle and pool cross-sections in the
restoration reach are consistent with the design plan (Figure 8).
The 50 -foot riparian zones along the E2 reaches (2,678 ft) were treated, seeded, and planted in November
2015. The P2 restoration and E1 enhancement reaches were treated and seeded at that time, but no trees
were planted in those areas to be disturbed until after construction work was completed in May 2017.
Native hardwood trees were planted at an average 10 -foot spacing (430 trees per acre) in the riparian
buffer, and previously planted areas showing low tree survival received supplemental planting to meet that
density during Feb -May 2017 (Table 4). Some areas along the middle and southern enhancement reaches
with existing canopy trees required fewer new planted trees. Some species proposed in the mitigation plan
were not available in sufficient numbers, and other suitable native Piedmont floodplain species were
substituted. Power augers and shovels were used to dig planting holes for gallon -size and tubeling trees,
and a tree fertilizer pellet was added to each planting hole. Live stakes of Black Willow and Silky
Dogwood were planted along all disturbed or bare stream banks.
Eight CVS monitoring plots (10 x 10 meters) are installed at representative locations throughout the 50 -ft
riparian buffer area. The two northernmost plots are in the graded area where trees were planted in May
2017 after stream construction, and the other six plots are in non -graded areas that were first planted in Nov
2015. Plot corners are marked with steel conduit pipe, and planted trees within each plot are mapped and
identified following the CVS Level 2 protocol (Lee et al, 2008). These eight plots yielded 10 to 13 planted
trees during the May 2017 as -built monitoring (Table 5). Most plots also have native volunteer seedlings,
especially Green Ash, Sweetgum, Red Maple, and Persimmon.
Herbaceous vegetation is dense throughout the non -graded areas, with a diverse mix of native volunteer
groundcover species in addition to those seeded in Nov 2015; Fescue is no longer a dominant component. The
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 8 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

northernmost two acres where construction grading occurred along the stream restoration reach has sparse
groundcover and dense clayey soil; this area will be monitored closely to assess whether future soil
amendments, re -seeding, or supplemental planting may be needed. Invasive species occurrences are minor;
scattered patches of Chinese Privet, Multiflora Rose, and Japanese Honeysuckle occur mainly along the
easement perimeter fence and in some of the wooded stream bank areas south of the road crossing. Many of
these were sprayed in 2015-2016, and treatment will continue as needed. No issues with stream instability,
easement integrity, encroachment or wildlife damage are evident at this time.
7.0. 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:
httD://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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program. (2014). NC-EEP Monitoring Report Template and Guidance
version 1.0, February 2014. 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.nres.usda.gov/app/
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 9 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

APPENDIX A. Background Tables and Figures
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: US -ACE Action ID # SAW -2012-02073
Table 1. Project Components & Stream Mitigation Credits
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank, US -ACE Action ID # SAW -2012-02073
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
As -Built
---
Dec 2016
Final Design — Construction Plans
Reach ID
Pre -Const
Mitig Approach
Mitig Plan Station
Station
As -Built
Mitig
Credits
start
end
start
end
Jun 2017
Length, ft
Year 1 Monitoring
Length, ft
Ratio
SMU
UT2-R1
498
Restoration P2
1000
1550
000
595
595
1 : 1
595
UT2-R2
444
Enhancement E1
1550
2005
595
1039
444
1.5 : 1
296
UT2-R3-n
579
Enhancement E2
2005
2605
1039
1618
579
2.5 : 1
232
UT2-R3-s
1575
Enhancement E2
2659
4234
1668
3243
1575
2.5 : 1
630
UTI-trib
524
Enhancement E2
1000
1540
000
524
524
2.5 : 1
209
Total
3620
1
1
1
1
1
1 3717
1962
Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank, US -ACE Action ID # SAW -2012-02073
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
---
Dec 2016
Final Design — Construction Plans
---
Jan 2017
Stream Construction
---
May 2017
Planting E2 Enhancement Reaches
---
Nov 2015
Planting Restoration & E 1 Enhancement Reaches
---
May 2017
Year 0 Baseline Monitoring
Jun 2017
Aug 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 10 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank, US -ACE Action ID # SAW -2012-02073
Ecological Engineering, Raleigh NC
Designer
Heather Smith & Lane Sauls: 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
Joame McLean: 919-742-1200
Mogensen Mitigation Inc, Charlotte NC
Monitoring Performers
Rich Mogensen: 704-576-1111; Gerald Pottern: 919-556-8845
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 11 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
*** portrait RYAN
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 12 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 2. Service Area Map
*** landscape RYAN
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 13 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 3. Soil Survey Map
*** portrait RYAN
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 14 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 4. Stream Credit Assets Map
*** portrait RYAN
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 15 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment & Geomorphic Data
Figure 5A. Current Conditions Plan View: May 2017 (MYO) -- Key Map
Figure 5B. Current Conditions Plan View: May 2017 (MYO) -- Upper Half, Sta 0+00 to 18+00
Figure 5C. Current Conditions Plan View: May 2017 (MYO) -- Lower Half, Sta 15+00 to 32+43
Figure 6. Longitudinal Profile Survey Data Plot, Restoration Reach
Figure 7A. Cross -Section Survey Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS -1 Riffle
Figure 7B. Cross -Section Survey Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS -2 Pool
Figure 7C. Cross -Section Survey Data Plot, Enhancement Reach, XS -3 Pool
Figure 7D. Cross -Section Survey Data Plot, Enhancement Reach, XS -4 Riffle
Figure 8A. Substrate Pebble Count Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS -1 Riffle
Figure 8B. Substrate Pebble Count Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS -2 Pool
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 16 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 5. Current Conditions Plan View
*** insert CCPV Figures 5A -5C -- RYAN portrait
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 17 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

5B ccpv
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 18 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

5C ccpv
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 19 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 6. Longitudinal Profile Survey Data Plot
569
568
567
566 ..'
.,.
565
c 564
563
W
562
561
0.0 100.0
Station (ft)
200.0
Restoration Reach (Rl) Longitudinal Profile
..................
�.
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
- - - - - THW MYO (5/2017) • Bankfull MYO (5/2017) A Grade Control Structures - - - - - Water Surface MYO
(Restoration Reach UT2-R1: Raw survey data provided in excel file on CD)
Constructed Riffle and Cross -vane Stations:
Riffle 1: Sta 0+05 to 0+57
Riffle 2: Sta 1+82 to 2+22
Riffle 3: Sta 3+82 to 4+15
Riffle 4: Sta 4+86 to 5+36
X -vane: Sta 5+71 to 5+94
Riffle 5: Sta 6+97 to 7+26 (beyond LongPro survey)
Riffle 6: Sta 9+44 to 9+89 (beyond LongPro survey)
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 20 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 7A. Cross -Section Survey Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS -1 Riffle
ProjectName Tar River Headwaters
r
�
Cross -Section ID XS -1 Riffle
SurvE Date 05/24/17
� 1
SUMMARYDATA
8.00
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
566.84
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fr)
24.6
Bankfull Width ft
19.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
568.77
Flood Prone Width (ft)
100.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.29
Bankfull Max Depth (fr)
1.93
W/DRatio
14.83
Entrenchment Ratio
5.24
Bank Height
568.50
Tar River He adwate rs: Cross Section 1 - Rimae
� 1
8.00
567.49
11.00
567.11
Ratio 1.00
Station Elevation Notes
0.00 567.91 LPIN
4.00 567.98
XS -1: Facing Upstream
XS -1: Facing Downstream
15.00 567.04
19.00 566.99
27.20 565.41
30.10 565.39
33.00 565.00 LEW 568.00
34.40 564.91 THW
35.40 564.99
Tar River He adwate rs: Cross Section 1 - Rimae
8.00
567.49
11.00
567.11
569.00
23.50 566.88 LTB
25.20 566.41 i68
567.50
37.00 565.22
39.70 565.43
41.20 566.18 567.00
42.60 566.84 RTB
46.00 566.85 566.50
50.00 567.10
54.00 567.37
62.00 567.65 566.00
67.00 567.82
71.60 567.93 RPIN
w
e 565.50
m
� 565.00
564.50
564.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
MYO As -built (5/2017) MYO Bankfull MYO Water Level
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 21 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
-August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Tar River He adwate rs: Cross Section 1 - Rimae
-August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 7B. Cross -Section Survey Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS -2 Pool
Project Name Tar River Headwaters
Cross -Section 111) XS -2 Pool
0.00
Surve Date 05/24/17
3.00
SUMMARY DATA
8.00
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
565.50
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
29.3
Bankfull Width ft
17.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
568.90
Flood Prone Width (ft)
100.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.66
Bankfull Max Depth ft
3.40
W/D Ratio
10.69
Entrenchment Ratio
5.65
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation Notes
0.00
567.79 LPIN
3.00
567.70
8.00
567.41
12.00
567.11
15.00
566.87
18.00
566.70
22.00
566.42
26.00
566.09
29.00
565.80
32.30
565.50 LTB
33.80
564.73 LEW
35.20
563.73
37.80
562.82
38.90
562.35
41.80
562.10 THW
42.80
563.15
44.10
563.99
45.50
563.93
46.90
565.78 REW
48.20
566.78
50.00
566.85 RTB
53.00
567.15
57.00
567.53
61.00
567.76
65.00
567.83
69.00
567.84
73
567.86
77.4
568.67 RPIN
XS -2: Facing Upstream
XS -2: Facing Downstream
Tar River Headwaters: Cross Section 2 -Pool
569.00
568.00
567.00
566.00
565.00
564.00
A
L
p 563.00
562.00
561.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Station (ft)
MYO As -built (5/2017) - MYO 11-kfull 1110 Water L -d
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 22 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report - August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 7C. Cross -Section Survey Data Plot, Enhancement Reach, XS -3 Pool
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 23 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report - August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Project NameTar River Headwaters
• '
d
Cross -Section ID XS -3 Pool
Surve Date 05/24/171
SUMMARYDATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
565.26
'
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
17.3
Bankfull Width ft
16.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
566.55
Flood Prone Width (ft)
100.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.04
Bankfull Max De ft
1.29
'
W/D Ratio
16.12
Entrenchment Ratio
5.99
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station Elevation Notes
1
0.00 566.09 LPIN
5.00 566.12
XS -3: Facing Upstream
XS -3: Facing DoNNustream
9.00 566.37
e
R
568.50
567.50
566.50
565.50
564.50
Tar River Headwaters: CrossSection3-Pool
13.00 566.59
18.00 566.60
23.60 566.10 TLB
24.50 565.42
26.10 564.74
27.20 564.74 LEW
29.00 563.59
31.60 563.41
33.20 563.68
34.30 563.71
36.30 563.97 THW
37.50 564.32
38.70 564.76 REW
40.30 565.26 TRB
44.00 565.67
48.00 566.37
55.00 566.84
62.00 567.09
68.00 567.51
73.20 568.29 RPIN
563.50
562.50
10.0
20.0 30.0 40.0
50.0 60.0
70.0
0.0
Station (1t)
MYO A. -built (5/2017) MYO Bankfull
- MYO Water Level
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 23 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report - August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 7D. Cross -Section Survey Data Plot, Enhancement Reach, XS -4 Riffle
Project Name Tar River Headwaters
Cross -Section ID JXS4 Riffle
0.00
Survey Date 05/24/17
6.00
SUMMARYDATA
10.00
Bankfull Flevation (ft)
566.04
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
26.3
Bankfull Width ft
22.6
Flood Prone Area Flevation (ft)
568.19
Flood Prone Width ft
100.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.16
Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.15
W/DRatio
19.42
F}ltrenchment Ratio
4.42
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Flevation Notes
0.00
566.49 LPIN
6.00
566.52
10.00
566.46
13.90
566.36 TLB
16.40
565.59
18.00
564.78
20.80
564.45
23.20
564.02 LEW
24.60
563.89 THW
26.30
564.01 REW
27.70
564.39
28.90
564.83
31.80
565.04
36.501
566.041 TRB
41.30
566.45
46.00
566.70
51.901
566.801 RPIN
XS -4: Facing Downstream
Tar River Headwaters: Cross Section 4- Riffle
568._50
567.50
566.50
565.50
0
564.50
563.50
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Station (ft)
MYO As -built (5120 17) MYO Bankfull
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 24 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report - August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 8A. Substrate Pebble Count Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS -1 Riffle
Project Name: Tar River Headwaters Stream Restoration Site
Cumulative Percent
1001Y0
90%
80%
70%
60%
a 50%
> 40%
30%
E
20%
10%
Reach: Back Creek
Feature: Pool (XS 1)
As -Built (MYO)-(6/2017)
Description
Size
Material mm Total # Item % Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay 0.062 0 0% 0%
very fine sand 0.125 0 0% 0%
fine sand 0.250 6 6% 6%
Sand
medium sand 0.50 0 0% 6%
coarse sand 1.00 12 12% 18%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0% 18%
very fine gravel 4.0 16 16% 34%
fine gravel 5.7 1 0 0% 34%
fine gravel 8.0 13 13% 47%
medium gravel 11.3 10 10% 57%
0%
ooti oti do yoo o�
Particle Size (mm) ti
—As -Built (MYO) (6/2017)
Individual Class Percent
1s%
16%
14%
L 1z/
v o
Gravel
medium gravel 16.0 15 15% 72%
course gravel 22.3 8 8% 80%
course gravel 32.0 3 3% 83%
very coarse gravel 45 2 2% 85%
very coarse gravel 64 1 1'%, 86%
small cobble 90 9 9% 95%
medium cobble 128 2 2% 97%
Cobble
large cobble 180 1 1% 98%
very large cobble 256 2 2% 100%
small boulder 362 0 0% 100%
small boulder 512 0 0% 100%
Boulder
medium boulder 1024 0 0% 100%
large boulder 2048 0 0% 100%
d 10%
Bedrock
bedrock 40096 0 0% 100%
N 8%
I
TOTAL % of whole count - 100 100% 100%
S mmary Data
D50 11.0
D84 45.0
D95 90.0
m 6%
3
4%
o
5
L,
2%
0%
ti5byo`•' ti ti
o ti o• y ti ti ti ti 3 �, o o c�
o• o• ti ti �o
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built (MYO) (6/2017)
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 25 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Figure 813. Substrate Pebble Count Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS -2 Pool
Project Name: Tar River Headwaters Stream Restoration Site
Reach:
Feature: Riffle
S 2
As -Built (MYO)-(6/2017)
Description
Material
Size
mm
Total #
Item %
Cum'%
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
0
0%
0%
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
0%
fine sand 0.250 6 6%
6%
Sand
medium sand
0.50
0
0%
6%
coarse sand
1.00
13
13%
19%
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
19%
very fine gravel
4.0
3
3%
22%
fine gravel
5.7
0
0%
22%
fine gravel
8.0
2
2%
24%
medium gravel
11.3
2
2%
26%
Gravel
medium gravel
16.0
2
2%
28%
course gravel
22.3
3
3%
31%
course gravel
32.0
6
6%
37%
very coarse gravel
45
5
5%
42%
very coarse gravel
64
22
22%
64%
small cobble
90
12
12%
76%
medium cobble
128
0
0%
76%
Cobble
large cobble
180
21
21%
97%
very large cobble
256
3
3%
100%
small boulder
362
0
0%
1000/0
small boulder 512 0 0%
1000/0
Boulder
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
-
100
100%
100%
S nunary Data
D50 64.0
D84 180.0
D95 180.0
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a 50%
> 40%
30%
E
c' 20%
10%
0%
25%
20%
wu 15%
a
10%
72
5%
r
0%
W
o<
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built (MYO) (6/2017)
Cumulative Percent
°ti 'y y° tio° ti101
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built (MYO) (6/2017)
Individual Class Percent
Page 26 of 40
Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

APPENDIX C. Planting List & Vegetation Plot Data
Table 4. Tree Planting List, 2015-2017.
Table 5. Planted and Volunteer Stem Counts by Species and Plot.
Table 6. Planted Stem Density Success Summary by Plot.
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 27 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Table 4. Tree Planting List, 2015 and 2017:
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Site
Scientific Name
Common Name
Initial Planting
(Feb 2015)
Supplementary Planting
(Feb -May 2017)
Size
Quantity
Size
Quantity
Asimina triloba
Pawpaw
-
0
tubeling
14
Betula nigra
River Birch
bareroot
401
-
0
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
bareroot
114
gallon
70
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
-
0
tubeling
87
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
-
0
gallon
175
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
bareroot
401
-
0
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
bareroot
186
gallon
65
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
-
0
tubeling
10
Nyssa biflora
Tupelo Gum
-
0
gallon
30
Nyssa biflora
Tupelo Gum
-
0
tubeling
15
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
bareroot
422
-
0
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
bareroot
1006
gallon
84
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
-
0
tubeling
857
Quercus falcata
Southern Red Oak
bareroot
186
-
0
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
bareroot
348
-
0
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
bareroot
617
gallon
170
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
-
0
gallon
225
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
bareroot
150
tubeling
161
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
bareroot
811
gallon
361
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Ooak
bareroot
114
-
0
Qurcus bicolor
Swamp White Oak
-
0
tubeling
161
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
bareroot
617
-
0
Ulmus americana
American Elm
bareroot
617
-
0
Total # Riparian Planted Stems
5,990
2,485
Live Stakes on Stream Banks
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
-
0
live stake
75
Salix nigra
Black Willow
-
0
live stake
500
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 28 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Table 5. Planted and Volunteer Stem Counts by Species and Plot.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Growth
Type
Plot 01-S
Plot 04-5
Plot 06-5
Plot 07-5
Plntd Vol T Plntd Vol T Plntd Vol T Plntd Vol
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
0
9
9
1
1
0
Asimina triloba
Pawpaw
Tree
0
0
0
0
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
2
2
0
1
1
Carpinus carolina
American Hornbeam
Tree
0
0
0
0
Dios os vir iniana
Common Persimmon
Tree
1
1
0
0
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
0
1
4
5
Ilex vomitoria
Yau on Holly
Shrub
0
0
1
1
0
Li uidambar styraciflua
Sweetgurn
Tree
0
19
19
0
1
1
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuli tree
Tree
1
1
0
0
0
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
Tree
0
0
0
0
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Tree
1
1
2
2
4
4
7
7
Quercus spp
Oak unknown
Tree
0
0 1
0 1
0
Quercus bicolor
Swamp White Oak
Tree
1
1
0
0
0
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
2
2
1
1
4
4
0
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
3
3
0
0
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Tree
0
0
2
2
1
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
0
0
0
0
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
Tree
0
2
2
0
0
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
0
0
0
0
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
11 0
11
11
28
39
10 2
12
11 5
16
1 1 1 1
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
8
0
19 6 2 19 3 2 19 5
2
19
445
0
445 445 1133 1578 405 81 486 445
202
647
Color Codes for Planted Tree Densitv
Exceeds 320 trees/acre requirements by 10%
Exceeds 320 trees/acre requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet 320 trees/acre requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet 320 trees/acre requirements by more than 10%
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 29 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Scientific Name
Common Name
Growth
Type
Plot 09-5
Plot 14-S
Plot 17-5
As -Built (MYO)
Plot 19-S Total
Pint
Vol
T
Pint
Vol
T
Pint
Vol
T
Pint
Vol
T Pint
Vol
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
2
2
0
12
12
0 0
15
15
Asimina triloba
Pawpaw
Tree
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
4
4
2
1
3
4
4 19
1
20
Ca inns carolina
American
Hornbeam
Tree
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
Dios os vir iniana
Common
Persimmon
Tree
2
2
5
5
1
4
5
2
2 4
11
15
Fraxinus
enns lvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
4
1
25
26
0
3
23
26 9
73
82
Ilex vomitoria
Yau on Holly
Shrub
0
0
0
0 0
1
1
Liquidambar
st aciflua
Sweet um
Tree
3
3
0
3
3
0 0
26
26
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuli tree
Tree
1
1
0
0
0 2
0
2
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
Tree
1
1
0
0
0 1
0
1
Platanus occidentalis
American
Sycamore
Tree
2
1
3
2
2
3
1
4
3
3 24
2
26
Quercus spp
Oak unknown
Tree
0
1
1
0
0 1
0
1
Quercus bicolor
Swamp White Oak
Tree
3
3
0
0
0 4
0
4
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
0
0
0
0 7
0
7
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
3
3
1
1
0 8
0
8
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Tree
0
0
0
0 3
0
3
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
0
0
0
0 0
1
1
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cyprus
Tree
0
0
3
3
0 5
0
5
Ulmus americana
I American Elm
I Tree
0
1
1 0
1
1 3
1 4
1
1 0 1
3
4
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
13
10
23
11
30
41
11
1 24
35
12
23
35 88
133
221
1
1
1
1 8
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247 0.1976
7 5 19
5 2 19
6 6 19
4 1 19 19
19 19
2, _9 405 931
445 1214 1659
445 1 971 1416
486 931 1416 445
673 1118
Color Codes for Planted Tree Density
Exceeds 320 trees/acre requirements by 10%
Exceeds 320 trees/acre requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet 320 trees/acre requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet 320 trees/acre requirements by more than 10%
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 30 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Table 6. Planted Stem Density Success Summary by Plot.
CVS Vegetation Plot Stem Densities, As -Built (MYO): May 2017
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Stream/Wetland, Riparian Buffer, & Total Stem Densities
(stems per acre, As -Built (MYO): May 2017)
Plot ID
Stream/
Wetland
Stems,
Volunteer
Stems2
Total
Stems'
Success
Criteria
Met?
O1 -S
445
0
445
YES
04-5
445
1133
1578
YES
06-5
405
81
486
YES
07-5
445
202
647
YES
09-5
526
405
931
YES
14-5
445
1214
1659
YES
17-5
445
971
1416
YES
19-5
437
620
1056
YES
Project Avg
449
578
1027
YES
i Stream/Wetland Stems = Native planted trees and shrubs. Does NOT include live stakes or vines.
2 Volunteers = Native volunteer trees and shrubs. Does NOT include vines or planted stems.
3 Total = Planted + volunteer native woody stems, including live stakes. Excludes exotics & vines.
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 31 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

APPENDIX D. Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Cross -Section Photos
Stream Photo Points
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 32 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: CVS Vegetation Plots MYO (May 2017)

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Monitoring Cross Sections - MYO (June 2017)
TRHSMB Cross -Section 2: Pool sta 4+52 facing UPST
TRHSMB Cross -Section 2: Pool sta 4+52 facing DNST

'u4 '`.y "�F' '.�. •� 3 - "P '%. 1
44
41w, V 6tlr �'g w
'� ti, '� '. a „ � d. ,(' �' :�,,, � �.�., �e+- „ ire'•
t
r
tr
M—�Rl
n
40
g y..
�!2 y �9yt, •, .
CIA
.3 1

Tar River HeadwatersStream Mitigation Bank Photo Points - MYO June 2017
TRHSMB Photo Point 1: Stream sta 1+00 facing NE
TRHSMB Photo Point 2: Fence W of sta 2+00 facinE
TRHSMB Photo Point 3: Stream sta 6+00 facing NNE TRHSMB Photo Point 4: Stream sta 9+30 facing SW

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Photo Points - MYO June 2017
TRHSMB Photo Point 7: Fence E of sta 24+00 facing SW
TRHHSMB Photo Point 6: Fence W of sta 20+00 facin S
4
TRHSMB Photo Point 8: Fence W of sta 40+60 facing NE

APPENDIX E. As -Built Survey Sheets
Sheet 1: Easement Boundary & Riparian Zones
Sheet 2: Overview Map, Key to Insets
Sheet 3: Inset Upper Reach
Sheet 4: Inset Middle Reach
Sheet 5: Inset Lower Reach
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 39 of 40
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report — August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.