20130814 Ver 1_TRHSMB.MY0.AsBuilt.17Jan2018_20180117

www. www.MogMit.com
MMI - MMI - Charlotte [phone]
MMI - Raleigh [phone]
MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING

Environmental Field Studies ■ Wetland & Stream Delineation ■ 404-401 Permits ■ Mitigation Plans & Banking
January 16, 2018

US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District – Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attention: Mr. Todd Tugwell/Ms. Andrea Hughes
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

NCDWR Central Office
Attention: Mr. Mac Haupt
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

RE: Final As-Built Submittal and First Credit Release Remainder Request for the Tar River
Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank, Action ID No. SAW-2012-02073

Dear Mr. Tugwell, Ms. Hughes & Mr. Haupt:
This Final As-Built Report submittal is a follow-up to our Draft As-Built submitted in summer 2017
and the subsequent IRT site visit on October 4th, 2017 for the above referenced mitigation bank.
Based on the site visit and your directions, we prepared an Adaptive Management Plan (AMP)
which was approved and implemented at the end of 2017. The resultant conditions, based on the
AMP, are reflected in the attached Final As-Built Report. We did receive the partial first stream
credit release (332.7 stream credits) in letter from you dated October 30, 2017. We understand
the IRT withheld the remainder of the first credit release until the restoration reach AMP was
successfully implemented. That has now been completed.

For your convenience we provide the following responses to the issues raised in the October 30 th
letter:

a. Structures located in the restoration portion of the project (UT 2 Reach 1) appear to be
installed improperly. RESPONSE: Wherever practicable, structures located in the
restoration reach have been adjusted to more natural elevation, shape and material size.
Larger rock material has been removed, distinct thalwag low flow channels have been
installed and elevations have been adjusted in all riffles. The rock cross-vane could not be
adjusted but upstream and downstream work has improved the stream flows through that
area.
b. Several areas of bank erosion are located along UT 2 Reach 1. RESPONSE: All areas of
erosion and rilling in UT 2 Reach 1 have been stabilized with soil and rock. These areas have
been seeded and jute matting has been installed.
MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC.

www.MogMit.com Page | 2
c. No improvements have been made to the channel bed in the Enhancement I area (UT 2
Reach 2) and the post-construction report does not include a longitudinal profile for this
reach. According to the mitigation plan, the construction designs for this reach include
grade control structures, grading of banks, and installation of benches. RESPONSE: The
Enhancement 1 area has two constructed riffles installed, undergone some stream bank
benching and channel bed elevation adjustments as well as substantial plantings. The Final
As-Built Report includes a longitudinal profile of this reach and a detailed description of
how the Adaptive Management Plan addressed these issues.
d. UT 2 Reach 2 exhibits several high points resulting in a back water effect over the lower
riffles and structures in the restoration reach. RESPONSE: As noted above this reach was
excavated to remove the sediment hump in the UT 2 Reach 2 which will alleviate the back
water ponding.
e. The lower portion of UT 1 stream reach is overgrown with herbaceous vegetation.
Excessive vegetation growth may cause sediment and debris accumulation that could
result in the loss of stream channel features. RESPONSE: We will monitor this reach
closely and, if necessary, will treat in-channel vegetation with an approved aquatic
herbicide.

In addition to the attached Final As-Built Report, we previously submitted:

1. Recorded Conservation Easement Plat;
2. Recorded Conservation Easement Document;
3. Assignment of Conservation Easement to the Tar River Lands Conservancy acting as the
long-term lands steward;
4. Title Insurance Policy;
5. Adaptive Management Plan.

Based on the successful implementation of the AMP, we are requesting the remainder of the first
stream credit release. Per the terms of the credit release schedule (copy available in the MBI), we
request the remainder of the first two stream credits releases totaling 30% (15% pre-release + 15%
completion of physical and biological improvements) minus the amount already released (332.7).
Based on the attached Final As-Built Report, the total stream credits for this project are 1965 warm
water stream credits. Therefore, we are requesting 256.8 stream credits (1965 x 0.3 = 589.5 – 332.7
= 256.8) to be released.

Please let me know if you concur with this request at your earliest convenience or if you
would like to schedule a site visit to see the AMP work.

Sincerely,

Richard K. Mogensen, President
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-Dec 2017 Revised Report: January 2018

Prepared By: 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
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.
P.O. Box 690429 Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone] [e-mail]
[phone] [e-mail]

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 1 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.0. Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................................. 3
2.0. Pre-Construction Site Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4
3.0. Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 5
4.0. Mitigation Components and Assets .................................................................................................. 5
5.0. Monitoring Plan and Success Criteria .............................................................................................. 6
6.0. Construction History and As-Built Monitoring Features ................................................................. 7
7.0. As-Built Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 8
7.1. Stream As-Built Conditions .................................................................................................. 8
7.2. Vegetation and Easement As-Built Conditions .................................................................. 10
8.0. References ....................................................................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX A. Background Tables and Figures ................................................................................... 12
Table 1. Project Components & Stream Mitigation Credits ...................................................... 12
Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History .......................................................................... 12
Table 3. Project Contacts Table .................................................................................................. 13
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2. Service Area Map ....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. Soil Survey Map ......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4. Stream Credit Assets Map .......................................................................................... 17

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment & Geomorphic Data ...................................................................... 18
Figure 5. Current Conditions Plan View ................................................................................... 19
Figure 6. Longitudinal Profile Survey Data Plot ...................................................................... 22
Figure 7. Cross-Section Survey Data Plot, Restoration Reach .................................................. 23
Figure 8. Substrate Pebble Count Data Plot, Restoration Reach .............................................. 27
Table 4A. Stream Monitoring Data: Stream Reach Data Summary ......................................... 29
Table 4B. Stream Monitoring Data: Cross-Section Dimensions .............................................. 30

APPENDIX C. Planting List & Vegetation Plot Data .......................................................................... 31
Table 5. Tree Planting List, 2015 and 2017: ............................................................................. 32
Table 6. Planted and Volunteer Stem Counts by Species and Plot. .......................................... 33
Table 7. Planted Stem Density Success Summary by Plot. ....................................................... 35

APPENDIX D. Photographs: Vegetation Plots, Cross-Sections, Photo-Points, Post-AMP Repair

APPENDIX E. As-Built Survey Sheets

APPENDIX F. Adaptive Management Plan

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 2 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Executive Summary

The Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank (TRHSMB) is located in eastern Person County, NC, in
HUC #03020101-0102 (Figure 1). The project includes 595 linear feet of Priority-II stream restoration and
3,128 linear feet of stream enhancement (Levels 1 and 2) along two unnamed headwater tributaries of the
Tar River. This project shares a conservation easement (18.56 acres) with the Tar River Headwaters
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank (TRHRNO) project on a 228-acre cattle farm owned
by Roy and Joyce Huff, located at 333 Bunnie Huff Road, Oxford, NC 27565. A gravel farm road crosses
the easement and provides access into the mitigation site at latitude 36.3909, longitude -78.8168.

Fencing was installed in October 2015 and the easement was treated for invasives, seeded, and planted with
bare-root tree seedlings in November 2015. No trees were planted along the uppermost 1,000 feet until
after the initial stream restoration work was finished in May 2017. Construction deficiencies were
identified during an Inter-agency Review Team (IRT) field meeting in October 2017, and follow-up
channel modifications and repairs were implemented in early December 2017 in accordance with an
approved Adaptive Management Plan (AMP). Deviations from the Final Mitigation Plan (January 2017)
and Construction Drawings are summarized below and explained further in Sections 6 and 7.

Note: Stationing in this as-built report (and future monitoring reports) begins at 0+00 at the upstream
boundary, whereas stationing in the mitigation plan and construction plan sheets begins at 10+00.
References to mitigation plan sheet stationing below have been adjusted to the as-built stationing.

The engineer determined that the proposed rock cross-vane at the upper end of the project (station
0+20) was unnecessary. It was replaced with a riffle as indicated in the feature table on sheet PSH-05.

The rock cross-vane at the lower end of the restoration reach was constructed at station 5+71, 41 feet
farther downstream than shown on plan sheets PSH-05 and PSH-07b. The transition between stream
restoration and E1 enhancement reach is thus shifted downstream to station 5+95.

Stream restoration length was increased by 45 ft, Level-1 stream enhancement was decreased by 11 ft,
and Level-2 stream enhancement was decreased by 29 ft relative to the estimated lengths in the
mitigation plan. The total stream mitigation credits was increased from 1,902 to 1,965 (Table 1).

Constructed riffles included some material larger than specified and installed at excessive elevations in
certain areas. During the AMP repairs in December, MMI redistributed the rock and removed much of
the larger rock to reduce bank-toe erosion potential and improve riffle structure and elevation profile.

The proposed excavated pools near stations 1+00 and 3+00 (plan sheet PSH-07b) were not constructed,
as several existing wet depressions and an existing excavated pond within the easement currently
provide similar habitat for amphibians and other floodplain pool wildlife.

Stream bank grading in the E1 enhancement reach was less extensive than proposed in the mitigation
plan due to natural stabilization by native shrubs and saplings after cattle exclusion. Similarly, the E2
enhancement reaches required minimal bank grading due to natural woody growth.

The conservation easement boundary was revised in a few places and the fence re-installed to ensure a
50-ft minimum buffer from top-of-bank along the entire project length.

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 3 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Two permanent riffle cross-section and two pool cross-section were installed, with one pair in the
restoration reach (x-sec 1 and 2), and the second pair in the E1 enhancement reach (x-sec 3 and 4). Two
manual crest gauges (granular cork type) were installed along the upper portion of the restoration reach and
the lower portion of the E1 enhancement reach. These gauges recorded peak stage elevations 10 to 12
inches above bankfull during May and June.

The initial as-built survey of the restoration and E1 enhancement reaches in May 2017 confirmed that
channel dimensions, features, and elevations in the restoration reach were generally consistent with the
plans (Section 6 and Appendix B). After construction it was noted that the two riffles near stations 5+00
and 7+00 were submerged at low flow conditions due to backwater from a hump in the stream bed near
station 9+00. This hump was removed in December as part of the AMP repair work, thus lowering the
water elevation at the two submerged riffles and rock vane. Bank erosion repair and supplemental planting,
seeding and live-staking along damaged banks (due to the May-June storms) was also conducted.

Eight CVS vegetation plots were installed within the 50 foot riparian buffers; five are located in the upper
half of the easement (northeast of the farm road crossing), and three are in the lower half (southwest of the
crossing). All eight plots had 400 or more planted trees per acre (10 or more trees per plot) during the
MY0 monitoring in May 2017, plus native volunteer seedlings in several plots (Table 5). Herbaceous
vegetation is dense throughout most of the easement, except in a few areas where grading occurred.

1.0. Project Location and Setting

The Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank (TRHSMB) is located 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 project includes 595 feet of Priority-2 perennial stream restoration, 444 feet of
Level-1 stream enhancement, and 2,684 feet of Level-2 stream enhancement along two unnamed headwater
tributaries of the Tar River in HUC #03020101-0102. This 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, located on a 228-acre cattle farm owned by Roy and Joyce Huff at 333 Bunnie
Huff Road, Oxford, NC 27565. A gravel road heads northwest off the paved road 0.3 mile to the mitigation
site gate access at latitude 36.3909, longitude -78.8168. 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.

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 DMS full-delivery projects and mitigation bank projects on the Huff family farm were planned

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 4 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
and implemented by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc (MMI), with design and technical assistance from
Ecological Engineering, Inc.

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).

2.0. Pre-Construction Site Conditions

The TRHSMB site was cleared for pasture in the 1940s and used for grazing cattle until the conservation
easement fence was installed in October 2015. A review of historical aerial photos 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 channel straightening along the uppermost 700 ft portion of the project area about 20
years ago. The site is far from municipal water and sewer service (Roxboro), and watershed land use is
unlikely to change significantly during the next decade.

A gravel farm road splits the project into upper (northeast) and lower (southwest) halves. The main stream
(UT2) flows southwestward through the conservation easement, and an eastern tributary (UT1) flows
northwestward, joining UT2 about 180 ft upstream of the farm road crossing near the middle of the
easement (Figures 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 straightened and had minimal 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.

Drainage basin areas are 1.1 sq. mi on UT2 at the northern easement boundary, 0.2. sq. mi on UT1 at the
eastern boundary, and 1.6 sq. mi at the downstream end of the project, which includes drainage from the
wetland mitigation site to the north. The project’s watershed is roughly 75% forested and 25% pasture and
crop lands; less than 0.5% of the watershed is developed.

Land elevations within the project easement range from approximately 575 feet (NAVD-88) at the northern
boundary to 558 feet at the southern boundary. The main stream thalweg elevation drops from 567 ft to
557 feet, with an average channel slope of 0.0031 (3,243 ft channel length) and average valley slope of
0.0034 (valley length 2,900 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 a few spots along the lower half of UT2.
Stream bedform diversity 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).

Chewacla and Wehadkee loam (ChA) is the predominant soil mapping unit 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 (USDA WebSoilSurvey (Figure 3). Several natural wetland depressions and one
excavated pond are located within the ChA-mapped areas. No wetlands are located in the project
construction areas. Large trees remain on the stream banks in some areas, mainly along the lower half of
UT2; stream banks in the upper half have little woody vegetation and recent bank slumping in some areas.

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 5 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
The pre-fencing groundcover is predominantly fescue and other pasture grasses mixed with Juncus, Diodia,
Ranunculus, Polygonum, Solidago, and other typical pasture “weed” species.

3.0. Mitigation Goals and Objectives

The DEQ Tar River Basin Restoration Priority (TRBRP) report (2010) 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”. 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:

Goal Objectives Desired Outcome
Conserve the site in
perpetuity
Place conservation easement and fence
17.92 acres from cattle access
On-going agricultural use will be stopped,
development potential will be removed,
and the Site will connect to another
conservation area.
Reduce sediment
inputs
Stabilize stream banks in upper 500 LF
and restrict cattle access
Banks will develop stable geometry and
on-site sediment inputs will be reduced.
Reduce nutrient
inputs
Establish a forested riparian buffer,
eliminate fertilizer application within 50-
100 ft of the stream, and restrict cattle
access to the stream and adjacent
floodplain.
Direct fertilizer inputs will be halted,
natural filtration from surrounding
landscape will occur through a forested
buffer, and cattle manure will be restricted
to outside the conservation area.
Improve floodplain
access
Resize and realign the upper 500 LF of
stream in a new channel.
Stream will have regular access to the
floodplain for filtration and habitat.
Improve aquatic and
semi-aquatic habitat
Install grade control, plant native
bottomland hardwoods and shrubs along
stream and in floodplain.
Increase habitat for native species in
streams and floodplains.

4.0. Mitigation Components and Assets

The final as-built project easement (18.56 acre) contains 3,723 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. (Remaining
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 1,965 stream mitigation credits (SMC) from a
combination of stream restoration (Priority II) and enhancement (Levels 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 Final Mitigation Plan. The PII/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.

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 6 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Table 1. Project Components & Stream Mitigation Credits: Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Reach ID Pre-Const
Length, ft
Mitigation
Approach
Mitigation
Plan Station
As-Built
Station As-Built
length, ft
Mitig
Ratio
Credits
SMC
start end start end

UT2-R1 498 Restoration PII 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
UT1-trib 530 Enhancement E2 1000 1540 000 530 530 2.5 : 1 212
Total 3626 Restor + Enhance 3723 1965

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
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 for monitoring channel dimensions
and substrate; b) two granular cork crest gauges for recording over-bank flow events; c) eight CVS
vegetation plots in the riparian zone for monitoring woody stem density; and d) eight fixed photo 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, 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: A pair of cross-sections (one riffle and
one pool) in the restoration reach (UT2-R1) and a similar pair in the enhancement E1 reach (UT2-R2) will
be monitored to assess geomorphic stability of the channel. Only the restoration reach cross-sections are
used in the geomorphic data analysis (Table 4). Cross-section data will be collected in monitoring years 1,
2, 3, 5 and 7. Horizontal bank pins may be installed to quantify bank erosion if any erosion areas of
concern are observed; none are currently installed.

Riffle cross-sections on the restoration 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. 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) will be conducted during the baseline monitoring for the as-built (MY0) document and also in

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 7 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
the monitoring year 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 reports. The E1 enhancement reach (444 linear feet) will also be
surveyed for the first three years, after which IRT will determine if additional years of monitoring are
warranted, as per the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP). If evidence of headcutting, or vertical or lateral
instability greater than 10% is noted, MMI will consult with the IRT to determined whether appropriate
remedial action needs to be taken. Changes in pool depth do not necessarily indicate vertical instability.

Channel Substrate Monitoring and Performance Standards: Channel substrate materials will be
sampled at the two cross-sections along the restoration reach UT2-R1. Wolmann pebble counts will be
conducted to document shifts in the size distribution of the bed material and determine if it is consistent
with the design parameters. There will be no assessment of substrate for the enhancement reaches.

Bankfull Flow Monitoring and Performance Standards: Two bankfull flow events must be documented
in separate monitoring years on the restoration and E1 enhancement reaches. These will be measured using
two crest stage gauges 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 bankfull events
in separate years have been met.

Riparian Vegetation Monitoring and Performance Standards: Eight vegetation monitoring plots (10 x
10 meter each) are installed in representative locations along the 50-foot wide riparian corridors on both
sides of the streams. 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 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 TRHRNO bank, 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. Construction History and As-Built Monitoring Features

The easement perimeter fencing installed in October 2015 uses 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 400-ft 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 the wooden post and/or trees, and green fiberglass bollards
near each easement corner pin.

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 8 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
The majority of the easement (excluding stream channels and natural wetlands) was treated with a broad-
spectrum herbicide to control fescue and other invasive plants, seeded with a mix of annual and native
perennial groundcover, and planted with bare-root tree seedlings (average 10-ft spacing) in November
2015. No trees were planted in the streamside zone along the uppermost 1,000 feet (UT-R1 and UT2-R2)
until after the initial stream restoration and bank grading work were finished. Stream restoration and
enhancement construction work was scheduled for early 2017 but delayed due to wet conditions, and was
completed in May 2017. Areas with significant die-off of the 2015 planted stems received supplemental
planting with 1-gallon and tubeling trees during February to May 2017.

Monitoring features were installed in May 2017. A pair of permanent cross-sections (one riffle and one
pool) was installed in the restoration reach (xsec 1 and 2), and a second pair was installed in the E1
enhancement reach (xsec 3 and 4). Two manual crest gauges (granular cork type) were installed on the
restored floodplain just above bankfull elevation; one along the upper portion of the restoration reach and
one along the lower portion of the E1 enhancement reach. Eight CVS vegetation plots were installed
within the 50 foot riparian buffers; five are located in the upper half of the easement (northeast of the farm
road crossing), and three are in the lower half (southwest of the crossing). The easement boundary and
fence were adjusted in certain areas and resurveyed to ensure a 50-ft minimum distance from the stream
banks.

The initial as-built survey including longitudinal and cross-section surveys, pebble counts, and baseline
vegetation plot monitoring and photos were completed in May 2017, and a Draft MY0 Baseline Monitoring
Report was submitted in August 2017. An Inter-agency Review Team (IRT) field meeting was held in
October 2017, and problem areas and inconsistencies with the Final Mitigation Plan (January 2017) and
Final Construction Drawings (April 2017) were identified and discussed. MMI and the engineer prepared
an Adaptive Management Plan (AMP, Appendix F) to address these concerns, and implemented the
prescribed follow-up channel modifications and repairs in early December 2017. A new longitudinal
profile survey was then conducted on selected channel segments where the stream bed topography was
altered (mainly along riffles), and new photographs of the modified and repaired areas were taken. The as-
built conditions described herein reflect the post-AMP conditions in December 2017.

7.0. As-Built Conditions

7.1. Stream As-Built Conditions

The restoration reach (UT2-R1) contains four constructed riffles, three pools, and one rock cross-vane
(Figures 5 and 6). The May 2017 as-built survey of this reach confirmed that riffle locations, channel
widths, depths, elevations, and cross-sectional parameters at riffles and pools in the restored reach (UT2-
R1) were generally consistent with the Final Mitigation Plan and Construction Drawings (Appendix B,
Table 4). The pool cross-section was about one foot shallower than the designed pool maximum depth.
This may be due to two factors: 1) sedimentation during heavy rainfall a few days after construction (prior
to the as-built survey), and 2) the actual maximum pool depth is about 10 feet downstream from the cross-
section. Subsequent monitoring will determine if depths and cross-sectional areas are meeting design
criteria. Substrate samples at the restoration reach cross-sections are consistent with the design plan
(Figure 8). Other deviations from the Final Mitigation Plan (January 2017) and Final Construction
Drawings (April 2017) are discussed below, along with their corresponding AMP adjustments and repairs
(Appendix F).

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 9 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
1) The proposed rock cross-vane at the upper end of the project (station 0+20, plan sheets PSH-05 and
PSH-07b) was determined to be structurally unnecessary by the design engineer due to low gradient and
existing rock, and was not constructed. Instead, it was replaced by a 50-ft long riffle as indicated in the
feature table on sheet PSH-05.

2) The rock cross-vane at the lower end of the restoration reach (for grade control) was constructed at
station 5+71, 41 feet farther downstream than shown on plan sheets PSH-05 and PSH-07b. This plan
change was recommended by the design engineer during construction to retain the full length of the fourth
constructed riffle, based on field conditions. The transition between stream restoration and E1
enhancement reach is thus shifted downstream to station 5+95.

3) Compared with estimated lengths in the Final Mitigation Plan, the as-built restoration reach was
increased by 45 ft, the E1 enhancement reach was decreased by 11 ft, and the total of E2 stream
enhancement reaches was decreased by 29 ft. The total of all stream mitigation credits was increased from
1,902 to 1,965 as-built (Table 1).

4) The conservation easement boundary was revised in a few places and the fence re-installed to ensure a
50-ft minimum buffer from top-of-bank along the entire project length. The as-built survey plan sheets in
Appendix E reflect the final easement boundary area (18.56 acre), which is 0.64 acre larger than proposed
in the Final Mitigation Plan.

5) Rock used for riffle construction included some material larger than specified in the Final Mitigation
Plan, and was initially installed with excessive rock along the banks in some areas, abrupt transitions at
heads and toes of riffles, and no distinct thalweg for low-flow conditions. During the AMP repairs in
December, MMI redistributed the installed rock in a more appropriate configuration and removed much of
the larger rock to improve riffle structure, reduce bank-toe erosion potential, create a thalweg, and blend the
riffle heads and toes into smooth transitions with upstream glides and downstream runs. The rock
dissipater pad near station 1+75 (at mouth of a tributary draining a wetland) was also modified to reduce
erosion potential and blend into the stream at a more natural angle.

6) Heavy rainfall in May and June (10 to 12 inches above bankfull, as recorded on the two crest gauges)
caused some rilling erosion along the streamside zone between stations 0+50 and 2+00, mainly on the
outside bend. The jute mesh and stakes held in place, but soil beneath the mesh and beyond the edge of the
mesh was lost, as was much of the groundcover seed applied during construction. During the AMP repairs
in December, MMI used excess rock from the riffle reconstruction, soil from adjacent areas, and additional
jute mesh and staples to fill in and stabilize the eroded segments. Annual rye grass seed was then applied
as temporary groundcover, and additional potted tree saplings and live stakes were installed as needed.
Roughly two-thirds of the black willow and silky dogwood live stakes installed along disturbed or poorly
vegetated banks in May are actively sprouting. Additional live stakes will be installed in spring 2018.

7) The Level-1 enhancement reach (UT2-R2) begins 24 feet below the rock vane, and contains two
constructed riffles and one pool. The Mitigation Plan did not specify stream bed grading or elevations for
this reach, and the longitudinal survey of E1 was not conducted until after the IRT meeting in October
2017. After construction we noted that the two riffles near stations 5+00 and 7+00 and the rock vane
between them were submerged at low flow conditions due to backwater from a hump in the bed near
station 9+00 above the lowermost constructed riffle. Based on discussions with the IRT and design
engineer, MMI excavated and graded this hump to create a gradual slope contiguous with the downstream
riffle. This required lowering the hump 0.8 ft, thus lowering the water elevation at the submerged riffles

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 10 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
and rock vane. The gradient is nearly flat through this reach between station 4+90 (head of 4th riffle) and
station 8+94 (head of down-graded hump), with an elevation drop of 0.2 ft over 400 horizontal feet.
Consequently, the two constructed riffles in this segment are essentially shallow rocky runs.

8) Bank grading and benching along the E1 enhancement reach was less extensive than proposed in the
Mitigation Plan due to natural stabilization by native saplings, shrubs, and deep-rooted herbs. The density
of woody plants along the banks in this reach was not readily evident until spring 2017, about 18 months
after cattle exclusion. Grading and benching were conducted where near-vertical banks, channel incision,
and/or recent bank slumping indicated the need, especially the reach from station 9+45 to 10+30 where
several concrete culvert pipes were removed.

9) The E2 enhancement reach (UT2-R3) on the main channel begins at station 10+39 and extends to the
downstream end of the project (station 32+43). The side tributary entering from the east (UT1-R1) is also
an E2 enhancement reach. The E2 enhancement reaches required minimal bank grading except in a few
areas with steep banks and lacking natural woody growth. Similar to the E1 reach, natural woody and
deep-rooted herbaceous plants on the E2 reach stream banks appeared more robust in May 2017, 18 months
after cattle exclusion.

10) The low-gradient area along the lower portion of tributary UT1-R1 near the confluence with the larger
stream developed a dense growth of Murdannia keisak during summer 2017. The IRT noted that this area
could transform from a stream into a wetland if continued vegetation growth in the channel disperses flows,
creating a diffuse braided system rather than a single discrete channel with a distinct Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM). No remedial action is warranted at this time, and occasional high flow events may be
adequate for maintaining stream conditions. MMI will monitor and photograph this area to assess whether
vegetation control or related stream maintenance activities are needed here.

7.2. Vegetation and Easement As-Built Conditions

The eight CVS plots within the 50-ft riparian buffers had 10 to 13 planted trees per plot (404 to 526 stems
per acre) during the MY0 monitoring in May 2017. Some plots also had a few native volunteer hardwood
seedlings, especially Fraxinus, Liquidambar, Acer, and Diospyros (Appendix C). Woody stem density
beyond the CVS plots also appears adequate in most areas at this time. Herbaceous groundcover vegetation
is dense throughout most of the project easement, with a diverse mix of native volunteer groundcover
species including Carex, Cyperus, Juncus, Diodia, Andropogon, Panicum, Asclepias, Polygonum, Rubus,
Solidago, Eupatorium, Verbesina, Vernonia, and Bidens in addition to those seeded in Nov 2015.

During the IRT visit in October 2017, we noted lower densities of groundcover vegetation along the
restoration reach where floodplain grading had disturbed much of the existing root mass and soil structure.
Heavy rains during May and June soon after channel construction apparently washed away much of the
groundcover seed applied along the restored stream banks in early May. Planted trees in the graded area
appeared less vigorous on average than those planted in ungraded areas. During the AMP repair work in
December 2017, annual ryegrass was re-seeded on the washout areas, and additional trees were planted in
areas of low density or low vigor. These areas will be monitored to assess whether future soil amendments
and/or supplemental planting may be needed.

Fescue and other exotic pasture grasses remain in patches but are no longer a predominant component in
the easement. Invasive species occurrences are minor, with scattered patches of Ligustrum sinense, Rosa

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 11 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
multiflora, and Lonicera japonica mainly along the easement perimeter fence and some wooded stream
bank areas south of the road crossing. Many of these were sprayed in 2015-2016, and treatment will
continue as needed.

Fallen branches and a few dead or dying trees on the fence were removed in October and December 2017.
The easement fence, metal conservation signs, and fiberglass bollards provided by Tar River Land
Conservancy were all intact as of December 2017. No issues with easement integrity, encroachment or
wildlife damage are evident at this time.

The proposed vernal pools near stations 1+00 and 3+00 (plan sheet PSH-07b) were not constructed, due in
part to an excess of excavated material from the floodplain benching. The existing excavated pond near
station 8+00 is transitioning into a wetland due to natural eutrophication, including sediment accumulation
and expanding wetland plant coverage. It is functioning as a vernal pool, with several species of breeding
amphibians and dragonflies.

8.0. 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 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.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 12 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 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
Reach ID

Pre-Constr
Length, ft
Mitigation
Approach
Mitigation Plan
Station
As-Built
Station As-Built
Length, ft
Mitig
Ratio
Credits
SMU
start end start end

UT2-R1 498 Restoration PII 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
UT1-trib 530 Enhancement E2 1000 1540 000 530 530 2.5 : 1 212
Total 3626 Restor + Enhan 3723 1965

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 & E1 Enhancement Reaches --- May 2017
Year 0 Baseline Monitoring (initial) May 2017 Jan 2018
Year 0 Baseline Monitoring Revised ** Dec 2017 Jan 2018
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring

** The initial as-built baseline data were collected in May 2017 following construction. An Adaptive
Management Plan (AMP) to correct deficiencies was submitted to the IRT in October, and the corrective
actions and new data collection were completed in December 2017.

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 13 of 48
MY0 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – January 2018 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank, US-ACE Action ID # SAW-2012-02073
Designer
Ecological Engineering, Raleigh NC
Heather Smith, Jenny Fleming & Lane Sauls: 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

BUNNIE
H
UFF
R
D
Legend
Project Boundary
Stream Centerline
0 2,500 5,0001,250
Feet
Sources: NC OneMap, National Wetland Inventory,
Open Mapping, Web Soil Survey and USGS
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P. O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone]
VICINITY MAP
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS
STREAM MITIGATION BANK
PERSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINAFigure 1Aug 2017As-Built (MY0)
PROJECT AREACharlotteDurhamRaleighCaryGreensboroFayettevilleWinston-SalemEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, Esri, HERE, DeLorme,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user communityμMogensen Mitigation, Inc.P.O. Box 690429Charlotte, NC 28227(704) 576-1111SERVICE AREA MAPTAR RIVER HEADWATERSSTREAM MITIGATION BANKPerson County, North CarolinaFIGURE 2Aug 2017As-Built (MY0)LegendCountyBoundaryTar Pam HUC 0302010105010015025Miles
ChA
ChA
LgB
IdA
TaD
TaD
IdA
HrC
LgB
TaDLgB
0 200 400 600 800100
Feet
Legend
Stream Centerline
Conservation Easement
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (ChA)
Herndon silt loam (HrC)
Iredell loam (IdA)
Lignum silt loam (LgB)
Tatum silt loam (TaD)
Sources: NC OneMap, National Wetland Inventory,
Open Mapping, Web Soil Survey and USGS
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P. O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone]
SOILS MAP
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS
STREAM MITIGATION BANK
PERSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINAFigure 3Aug 2017As-Built (MY0)
0300600900150
Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
0-50' Buffer
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
UT2-R1
UT2-R2
Sources: NC OneMap, National Wetland Inventory,
Open Mapping, Web Soil Survey and USGS
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P. O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone]
PROJECT ASSET MAP
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS
STREAM MITIGATION BANK
PERSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINAFigure 4Aug 2017As-Built (MY0)Mitigation As-Built Credits
Approach Length (ft) Generated (SMU)
UT2-R1 Restoration P2 595 595
UT2-R2 Enhancement E1 444 296
UT2-R3-n Enhancement E2 579 232
UT2-R3-s Enhancement E2 1575 630
UT1-trib Enhancement E2 524 209
Total 3717 1962
Reach ID
530 212
3723 1965

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 18 of 48
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment & Geomorphic Data

Figure 5A. Current Conditions Plan View: May 2017 (MY0) -- Key Map
Figure 5B. Current Conditions Plan View: May 2017 (MY0) -- Upper Half, Sta 0+00 to 18+00
Figure 5C. Current Conditions Plan View: May 2017 (MY0) -- 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

Table 4A. Stream Monitoring Data: Stream Reach Data Summary
Table 4B. Stream Monitoring Data: Cross-Section Dimensions

Figure 5b
Figure 5c
0 300 600 900 1,200150
Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Veg Plots
Nutrient Veg Plots
0-50' Buffer
Cross Sections
Stream Centerline
Inset Maps
Sources: NC OneMap, National Wetland Inventory,
Open Mapping, Web Soil Survey and USGS
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P. O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone]
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS
STREAM MITIGATION BANK
PERSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINAFigure 5aAug 2017As-Built (MY0)
PP 4
PP 5
0+00
5+00
10+00
15+00
5+00
MatchlineMatchline0+00
VP 1
VP 7
VP 4
VP 6
VP 9
PP 3
PP 2
PP 1
0 150 300 450 60075
Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Veg Plots
Nutrient Veg Plots
0-50' Buffer
Cross Sections
Stationing
UT2-R1
UT2-R2
UT2-R3
UT1-R1
Photo Points
Crest Gauges
Sources: NC OneMap, National Wetland Inventory,
Open Mapping, Web Soil Survey and USGS
XS-3
XS-4
XS-2
XS-1
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P. O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone]
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS
STREAM MITIGATION BANK
PERSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINAFigure 5bAug 2017As-Built (MY0)
PP 5
15+00
MatchlineMatchline20+00
25+00
30+00
VP 14
VP 17
VP 19
PP 8
PP 7
PP 6
0 150 300 450 60075
Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Veg Plots
Nutrient Veg Plots
0-50' Buffer
UT2-R3
Photo Points
Sources: NC OneMap, National Wetland Inventory,
Open Mapping, Web Soil Survey and USGS
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P. O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone]
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS
STREAM MITIGATION BANK
PERSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINAFigure 5cAug 2017As-Built (MY0)
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 22 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Figure 6. Longitudinal Profile Survey Data Plot -- May, Oct, and Dec 2017 5615625635645655665675685690 100 200 300 400 500 600Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Restoration Reach (UT2-R1) Longitudinal Profile THW Post-Construction (5/2017)THW Pre-AMP (10/2017)THW Post-AMP (12/2017)Rock VaneWater Surface (10/2017)Water Surface (5/2017)Top-of-Bank (5/2017)End R1 / Start E1Cross Section # 2 (Pool)Cross Section # 1 (Riffle)561562563564565566567568569550 650 750 850 950 1050 1150Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Enhancement Reach (UT2-E1) Longitudinal Profile THW Post-Construction (5/2017)THW Pre-AMP (10/2017)THW Post-AMP (12/2017)Rock VaneWater Surface (10/2017)Water Surface (5/2017)Top-of-Bank (5/2017)Cross Section # 4 (Riffle)Cross Section # 3 (Pool)End E1 / Start E2End R1 / Start E1
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 23 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Figure 7A. Cross-Section Survey Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS-1 Riffle 566.8424.619.1568.88100.001.292.0414.835.241.00Station Elevation Notes0.00 567.91 LPIN4.00 567.98 XS-1: Facing Upstream XS-1: Facing Downstream8.00 567.4911.00 567.1115.00 567.0419.00 566.9923.50 566.88 LTB25.20 566.4127.20 565.4130.10 565.3933.00 565.00 LEW34.40 564.80 THW35.40 564.9937.00 565.2239.70 565.4341.20 566.1842.60 566.84 RTB46.00 566.8550.00 567.1054.00 567.3762.00 567.6567.00 567.8271.60 567.93 RPINBank Height RatioFlood Prone Area Elevation (ft)Flood Prone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)W/D RatioEntrenchment RatioBankfull Width (ft)Project NameTRHSMBCross-Section IDXS-1 RiffleSurvey Date05/24/17SUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation (ft)Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)564.00564.50565.00565.50566.00566.50567.00567.50568.00568.50569.000.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Cross Section 1 - RiffleMY0 As-built (5/2017)MY0 BankfullMY0 Water Level
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 24 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Figure 7B. Cross-Section Survey Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS-2 Pool 565.5029.317.7568.90100.001.663.4010.695.651.00Station Elevation Notes0.00 567.79 LPIN3.00 567.70 XS-2: Facing Upstream XS-2: Facing Downstream8.00 567.4112.00 567.1115.00 566.8718.00 566.7022.00 566.4226.00 566.0929.00 565.8032.30 565.50 LTB33.80 564.73 LEW35.20 563.7337.80 562.8238.90 562.3541.80 562.10 THW42.80 563.1544.10 563.9945.50 563.9346.90 565.78 REW48.20 566.7850.00 566.85 RTB53.00 567.1557.00 567.5361.00 567.7665.00 567.8369.00 567.8473 567.8677.4 568.67 RPINBankfull Width (ft)Project NameTRHSMBCross-Section IDXS-2 PoolSurvey Date05/24/17SUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation (ft)Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)Bank Height RatioFlood Prone Area Elevation (ft)Flood Prone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)W/D RatioEntrenchment Ratio561.00562.00563.00564.00565.00566.00567.00568.00569.000.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Cross Section 2 -PoolMY0 As-built (5/2017)MY0 BankfullMY0 Water Level
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 25 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Figure 7C. Cross-Section Survey Data Plot, Enhancement Reach, XS-3 Pool 565.2617.316.7566.55100.001.041.2916.125.991.00Station Elevation Notes0.00 566.09LPIN5.00 566.129.00 566.3713.00 566.5918.00 566.6023.60 566.10TLB24.50 565.4226.10 564.7427.20 564.74LEW29.00 563.5931.60 563.4133.20 563.6834.30 563.7136.30 563.97THW37.50 564.3238.70 564.76REW40.30 565.26TRB44.00 565.6748.00 566.3755.00 566.8462.00 567.0968.00 567.5173.20 568.29RPINBankfull Width (ft)Project NameTRHSMBCross-Section IDXS-3 PoolSurvey Date05/24/17SUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation (ft)Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)Bank Height Ratio XS-3: Facing Upstream XS-3: Facing DownstreamFlood Prone Area Elevation (ft)Flood Prone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)W/D RatioEntrenchment Ratio562.50563.50564.50565.50566.50567.50568.500.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Cross Section 3 - PoolMY0 As-built (5/2017)MY0 BankfullMY0 Water Level
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 26 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Figure 7D. Cross-Section Survey Data Plot, Enhancement Reach, XS-4 Riffle 566.0426.322.6568.19100.001.162.1519.424.421.00Station Elevation Notes0.00 566.49 LPIN6.00 566.5210.00 566.4613.90 566.36 TLB16.40 565.5918.00 564.7820.80 564.4523.20 564.02 LEW24.60 563.89 THW26.30 564.01 REW27.70 564.3928.90 564.8331.80 565.0436.50 566.04 TRB41.30 566.4546.00 566.7051.90 566.80 RPINBankfull Width (ft)Project NameTRHSMBCross-Section IDXS-4 RiffleSurvey Date05/24/17SUMMARY DATABankfull Elevation (ft)Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)Bank Height Ratio XS-4: Facing Upstream XS-4: Facing DownstreamFlood Prone Area Elevation (ft)Flood Prone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)W/D RatioEntrenchment Ratio563.50564.50565.50566.50567.50568.500.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0Elevation (ft)Station (ft)Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Cross Section 4- RiffleMY0 As-built (5/2017)MY0 Water SurfaceMY0 Bankfull
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 27 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Figure 8A. Substrate Pebble Count Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS-1 Riffle DescriptionMaterialSize (mm)Total # Item % Cum %Silt/Claysilt/clay 0.06200% 0%very fine sand 0.12500% 0%fine sand 0.25066% 6%medium sand 0.5000% 6%coarse sand 1.001313% 19%very coarse sand 2.000% 19%very fine gravel 4.033% 22%fine gravel 5.700% 22%fine gravel 8.022% 24%medium gravel 11.322% 26%medium gravel 16.022% 28%course gravel 22.333% 31%course gravel 32.066% 37%very coarse gravel 4555% 42%very coarse gravel 642222% 64%small cobble 901212% 76%medium cobble 12800% 76%large cobble 1802121% 97%very large cobble 25633% 100%small boulder 36200% 100%small boulder 51200% 100%medium boulder 102400% 100%large boulder 204800% 100%Bedrockbedrock4009600% 100%- 100 100% 100%D50 64.0D84 180.0D95 180.0GravelCobbleBoulderTOTAL % of whole countSummary DataSandProject Name: Tar River Headwaters Stream Restoration SiteReach: UT2-R1Feature: Riffle (XS1) As-Built (MY0)-(5/2017)0%5%10%15%20%25%Individual Class PercentParticle Size (mm)Individual Class PercentAs-Built (MY0) (5/2017)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Cumulative PercentAs-Built (MY0) (5/2017)
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 28 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Figure 8B. Substrate Pebble Count Data Plot, Restoration Reach, XS-2 Pool DescriptionMaterialSize (mm)Total # Item % Cum %Silt/Claysilt/clay 0.06200% 0%very fine sand 0.12500% 0%fine sand 0.25066% 6%medium sand 0.5000% 6%coarse sand 1.001212% 18%very coarse sand 2.000% 18%very fine gravel 4.01616% 34%fine gravel 5.700% 34%fine gravel 8.01313% 47%medium gravel 11.31010% 57%medium gravel 16.01515% 72%course gravel 22.388% 80%course gravel 32.033% 83%very coarse gravel 4522% 85%very coarse gravel 6411% 86%small cobble 9099% 95%medium cobble 12822% 97%large cobble 18011% 98%very large cobble 25622% 100%small boulder 36200% 100%small boulder 51200% 100%medium boulder 102400% 100%large boulder 204800% 100%Bedrockbedrock4009600% 100%- 100 100% 100%D50 11.0D84 45.0D95 90.0GravelCobbleBoulderTOTAL % of whole countSummary DataSandProject Name: Tar River Headwaters Stream Restoration SiteReach: UT2- R1Feature: Pool (XS 2)As-Built (MY0)-(5/2017)0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%Individual Class PercentParticle Size (mm)Individual Class PercentAs-Built (MY0) (5/2017)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Cumulative PercentParticle Size (mm)Cumulative PercentAs-Built (MY0) (5/2017)

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 29 of 48
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Table 4A. Stream Monitoring Data: Stream Reach Data Summary

Parameter
Cross Sectional
Dimension- Riffle
Value or
Range n Value or
Range n Value or
Range n Value or
Range n Value or
Range n Value or
Range n Value or
Range n
Bankfull Width (ft) 19.0
1 19.1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)>100 1 >100 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.3 1 1.3 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.8 1 2.0 1
Bankfull X-Sec Area (ft2)24.2 1 24.6 1
Width/Depth Ratio 14.6 1 14.8 1
Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 1 5.24 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1 1.0 1
Riffle Length (ft)30 1 33.6 1
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)-0.002 1 -0.002 1
Pool Length (ft)47 1 63 1
Pool Max depth (ft)3.25 1 3.4 1
Pool Spacing (ft)70-80 3 68-83 2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)28.0-76.0 1 28.0-76.0 1
Radius of Curvature (ft)40.0-80.0 1 40.0-80.0 1
Meander Length Ratio 7.0-9.0 1 7.0-9.0 1
Meander Length (ft)171.0 1 171.0 1
Meander Width Ratio 3.5-4.0 1 3.5-4.0 1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope
(Channel) (ft/ft)
Avg. velocity (ft/s)
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
Valley slope (ft/ft)
Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Tar River Headwaters Stream Restoration Site -Reach: UT2-R1
MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5Design
C5
Longitudinal Profile
1.2
C5
595
Baseline
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data,
dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts from
baseline.
550
1.2
0.0041
0.0049
3.8
1.1
0.0041
0.0049
3.8
1.1

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 30 of 48
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Table 4B. Stream Monitoring Data: Cross-Section Dimensions

Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary - Cross Sections
Tar River Headwaters Stream Restoration Site - Reach UT2-R1
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull
elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 566.8 566.8 566.8 566.8 566.8 566.8 565.5 565.5 565.5 565.5 565.5 565.5
Bankfull Width (ft) 19.1 17.7
Floodprone Width (ft) 100.0 100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.3 1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.0 3.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 24.6 29.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.8 10.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 5.2 5.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0
Xsec Area between end pins (ft2) 96.0 136.5
Substrate d50 (mm) 64.0 11.0

1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional
development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the
performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP.

If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if
the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values. Additional data from a
prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent
datum if determined to be necessary.”

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 31 of 48
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

APPENDIX C. Planting List & Vegetation Plot Data

Table 5. Tree Planting List, 2015-2017.
Table 6. Planted and Volunteer Stem Counts by Species and Plot.
Table 7. Planted Stem Density Success Summary by Plot.

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Page 32 of 48
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Table 5. 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 33 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Table 6. Planted and Volunteer Stem Counts by Species and Plot. Scientific Name Common Name Growth Type Plot 01-S Plot 04-S Plot 06-S Plot 07-S 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 Diospyros virginiana Common Persimmon Tree 1 1 0 0 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1 1 1 0 1 4 5 Ilex vomitoria Yaupon Holly Shrub 0 0 1 1 0 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Tree 0 19 19 0 1 1 Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree Tree 1 1 0 0 0 Nyssa sylvatica 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 0 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 11 0 11 11 28 39 10 2 12 11 5 16 size (ares) 1 1 1 1 size (ACRES) 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 Species count 8 0 19 6 2 19 3 2 19 5 2 19 Stems per ACRE 445 0 445 445 1133 1578 405 81 486 445 202 647 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 34 of 48 As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. Scientific Name Common Name Growth Type Plot 09-S Plot 14-S Plot 17-S Plot 19-S As-Built (MY0) Total Plnt Vol T Plnt Vol T Plnt Vol T Plnt Vol T Plnt 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 Carpinus carolina American Hornbeam Tree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diospyros virginiana Common Persimmon Tree 2 2 5 5 1 4 5 2 2 4 11 15 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 4 1 25 26 0 3 23 26 9 73 82 Ilex vomitoria Yaupon Holly Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Tree 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 26 26 Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree Tree 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 Nyssa sylvatica 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 American Elm Tree 0 0 1 3 4 0 1 3 4 Stem count 13 10 23 11 30 41 11 24 35 12 23 35 88 133 221 size (ares) 1 1 1 1 8 size (ACRES) 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.1976 Species count 7 5 19 5 2 19 6 6 19 4 1 19 19 19 19 Stems per ACRE 526 405 931 445 1214 1659 445 971 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 35 of 48
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Table 7. Planted Stem Density Success Summary by Plot.

CVS Vegetation Plot Stem Densities, As-Built (MY0): May 2017
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank

Stream/Wetland, Riparian Buffer, & Total Stem Densities
(stems per acre, As-Built (MY0): May 2017)
Plot ID
Stream/
Wetland
Stems1
Volunteer
Stems2
Total
Stems3
Success
Criteria
Met?
01-S 445 0 445 YES
04-S 445 1133 1578 YES
06-S 405 81 486 YES
07-S 445 202 647 YES
09-S 526 405 931 YES
14-S 445 1214 1659 YES
17-S 445 971 1416 YES
19-S 437 620 1056 YES
Project Avg 449 578 1027 YES

1 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 36 of 48
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report – August 2017 Mogensen Mitigation Inc.

APPENDIX D. Photographs

Vegetation Plot Photographs
Cross-Section Photos
Stream Photo Points
Post-AMP Repair Photos

TRHSMB CVS Vegetation Plot 01 - facing N TRHSMB CVS Vegetation Plot 04 - facing NETRHSMB CVS Vegetation Plot 06 - facing E TRHSMB CVS Vegetation Plot 07 - facing ETar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: CVS Vegetation Plots MY0 (May 2017)
TRHSMB CVS Vegetation Plot 09 - facing E TRHSMB CVS Vegetation Plot 14 - facing NETRHSMB CVS Vegetation Plot 17 - facing NNE TRHSMB CVS Vegetation Plot 19 - facing NTar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: CVS Vegetation Plots MY0 (May 2017)
TRHSMB Cross-Section 1: Riffle sta 4+16 facing UPST TRHSMB Cross-Section 1: Riffle sta 4+16 facing DNSTTRHSMB Cross-Section 2: Pool sta 4+52 facing UPST TRHSMB Cross-Section 2: Pool sta 4+52 facing DNSTTar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Monitoring Cross Sections - MY0 (June 2017)
TRHSMB Cross-Section 3: Pool sta 8+58 facing UPST TRHSMB Cross-Section 3: Pool sta 8+58 facing DNSTTRHSMB Cross-Section 4: Riffle sta 9+47 facing UPST TRHSMB Cross-Section 4: Riffle sta 9+47 facing DNSTTar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Monitoring Cross Sections - MY0 (June 2017)
Tar River HeadwatersStream Mitigation Bank Photo Points - MY0 (June 2017) TRHSMB Photo Point 1: Stream sta 1+00 facing NE TRHSMB Photo Point 2: Fence W of sta 2+00 facing E 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 - MY0 (June 2017) TRHSMB Photo Point 5: Fence E of sta 17+70 facing SW TRHHSMB Photo Point 6: Fence W of sta 20+00 facing S TRHSMB Photo Point 7: Fence E of sta 24+00 facing SW TRHSMB Photo Point 8: Fence W of sta 40+60 facing NE
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Post Adaptive Management Plan Repairs - MY0 (December 2017) TRHSMB: Post-AMP Riffle-1 facing upstream TRHSMB: Post-AMP Pool below Riffle-1 facing upstream TRHSMB: Post-AMP Repairing Bank Erosion near Riffle-1 TRHSMB: Post-AMP Riffle-2 facing upstream
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Post Adaptive Management Plan Repairs - MY0 (December 2017) TRHSMB: Post-AMP Riffle-2 facing downstream TRHSMB: Post-AMP Riffle-3 facing upstream TRHSMB: Post-AMP Riffle-3 facing downstream TRHSMB: Post-AMP Riffle-4 facing upstream
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank: Post Adaptive Management Plan Repairs - MY0 (December 2017) TRHSMB: Post-AMP Riffle-4 facing downstream TRHSMB: Post-AMP grading above Riffle-6 facing upstream TRHSMB: Upper Crest Gauge near VP-1, 11-inches, Oct 2017 TRHSMB: Wrack on Floodplain, E1 Reach near VP-6, Oct 2017

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

APPENDIX F. Adaptive Management Plan

Adaptive Management Plan
Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Person County, North Carolina
Tar River Basin -- HUC 03020101

USACE Action ID No. SAW 2012-02073

October 2017

Prepared by: Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (Bank Sponsor)
With Assistance from: Ecological Engineering

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

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Page | i
Adaptive Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION & SCOPE ..................................................................................................1
2.0 PROBLEM & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .............................................................................1
2.1 Constructed Riffles
2.2 Stream Bed Enhancement I Reach
2.3 Stream Terrace
2.4 UT-1 Vegetation
3.0 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL MONITORING .......................................................................4
4.0 CREDIT RELEASE .................................................................................................................4

FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Longitudinal Profiles
Figure 3. Photographs

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Page | 1
Adaptive Management Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION & SCOPE
The Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank Site (TRHSMB or Site) is a stream restoration and
enhancement project located on a cattle farm approximately 10 miles east of Roxboro in Person County,
NC (Figure 1). The gravel entrance road into the site is located at 333 Bunnie Huff Rd, Oxford NC (Lat.
= 36.3882, Long. = -78.8134). The Site is within the Tar River Basin HUC 03020101 and the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub-basin 03-03-01. Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
(MMI) completed construction of the TRHSMB in May 2017 and submitted the As-Built Report in
August 2017.

An Interagency Review Team (IRT) meeting was held on-site in October 2017 to review the current
conditions of the project. Water levels were extremely low during the time of the site visit with water
found only in pools along the stream – these conditions provided a detailed view of the stream bed and
features. The IRT raised several issues regarding specific stream features and requested a written plan
describing proposed corrective actions and supplemental monitoring to be implemented. In response to
this request, we have prepared the following Adaptive Management Plan that defines the problem areas
identified by the IRT and describes the corrective actions that will be taken to ensure a satisfactory
project delivery.

2.0 PROBLEM AREAS & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
During the October 2017 site visit with representatives of MMI and Ecological Engineering, the IRT
noted several problem areas requiring corrective actions. As requested, MMI completed a new
longitudinal survey of the stream centerline from the head of the restoration reach to the E1/E2 transition
point (approximately 1,039 feet) immediately following the IRT meeting. Elevations were measured at
each notable slope change, or at 10-ft intervals where the slope showed negligible change. We used
these updated elevation data to develop geomorphically appropriate modifications as discussed in the
responses below. MMI will complete all actions described here before the end of 2017 (MY1).

2.1 Restoration Reach Constructed Riffles

Issue #1
The restoration reach riffles have abrupt changes from the bed elevation to the head and toe of
the riffle. The rock placement in the constructed riffles does not provide a natural transition
from the glide to the riffle head nor from the toe of the riffle to the run. (Figure 3, Photo 1).
Corrective Action:
The rock along the head and the toe of the riffles will be re-distributed to provide a more
gradual elevation transition from the bed elevation to the riffle elevation. This will be
accomplished using hand tools and/or using a small backhoe to redistribute rock from the riffle
at the head and toe. The rock can then be pressed into the stream bed to create the gradual
elevation changes.

Issue #2
The four riffles within the restoration reach, beginning at Stations 20, 175, 370, and 487 have
excessive rock along the stream banks. In some cases, the rock is placed in such a way that
bank erosion may occur from water piping between the rock and the bank wall (Figure 3, Photo

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Page | 2
Adaptive Management Plan
2). The riffle at Station 175 has a dissipater pad along the left bank to prevent a headcut from
discharges from Wetland L (Figure 3, Photo 3).
Corrective Action:
The excess rock toward the edges of the channel bed and along the stream banks will be
removed, leaving more area for vegetative cover at the channel edges. This will occur along
both banks for the riffles beginning at Station 20, 175, and 487. The rock at riffle Station 370
will have the rock removed along the left bank only (Figure 3, Photo 3). The dissipater pad at
riffle Station 175 is required to prevent headcutting from drainage from Wetland L and will
remain. Larger rock will be removed from the constructed riffle.

Issue #3
The restoration reach riffles at Stations 20 and 175 have a constant elevation laterally across the
stream bed. A thalweg for low-flow conditions is absent in these two constructed riffles.
Corrective Action:
Some of the rock will be removed from the center of the riffles at Stations 20 and 175 to create
a thalweg. The elevation of the thalweg will not be lower than the head of the next downstream
riffle. A smooth transition between the constructed riffle and the natural stream bed will be
smoothed out to eliminate abrupt transition.

Issue #4
The fourth riffle, Station 487, is currently ponded during normal water levels. The elevation is
the same as the head of the rock vane, 564.43’
Corrective Action:
A portion of the removed rock from the upstream riffles will be placed along the riffle at Station
487. During the placement of this rock a thalweg will be created and the rock will not extend
past the ordinary high water mark. The target elevation for this riffle is 564.60.

2.2 Enhancement I Reach Elevations and Slope

Issue #5
There are two high elevation bed areas within the EI reach near stations 700 and 900 that are
higher than the cross-vane sill (Figure 2). These create a significant backwater effect, creating a
long pool from Station 420 downstream to Station 900 that submerges the cross-vane and two
riffles during most flow conditions (although not during the extreme low flow observed during
the IRT meeting). The first hump near Station 700 is a constructed riffle with an elevation of
564.56 ft. which is 0.13 ft. above the rock vane sill. The second hump near Station 900 is an
existing bed feature with an elevation of 564.98 ft., an additional 0.42 ft. higher than the first
hump. The backwater effect of this second hump impairs the biological function of the two
submerged riffles at Station 487 and Station 700.
Corrective Action:
The engineer recommends minor grading between Stations 894 and 936. Elevations facing
downstream should begin at 564.17' sloping down to 563.97' along this 42 ft. reach, merging
with the constructed riffle at Station 936. The proposed grading will reduce ponding and
improve the functions of Riffle 4 (Station 487) and Riffle 5 (Station 694) while preserving the
long pool from Station 726 to Station 894. The engineer determined that no corrective action is

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Page | 3
Adaptive Management Plan
needed near Station 700, as this very small backwater effect is unlikely to impair riffle function,
and it may degrade naturally after the downstream barrier is lowered. We will reevaluate
Riffles 4 and 5 over the coming year and determine if they are functioning adequately and
whether any further channel re-grading may be needed.

2.3 Stream Terrace in Restoration Reach

Issue #6
The right bank between Stations 70 and 160 is experiencing rilling. The rilling was eroding
from the floodplain beneath the coir matting towards the stream bed. This area has sparse
herbaceous vegetation; areas with established herbaceous vegetation did not exhibit the same
erosion issues.
Corrective Action:
Areas showing signs of rilling will be raked and seeded. The areas will be covered in jute
matting, and coir fiber (coconut) logs placed parallel to the stream bank to help slow erosion in
these areas. This procedure will also be used for any additional areas that are noted as rilling
during future monitoring. Additional live stakes will be installed along the outer bends of
riffles to supplement areas where initial plantings show low survivorship.

2.4 UT-1 Vegetation

Issue #7
The lower portion of UT-1 stream reach was overgrown with Murdannia and other exotic and
native herbs during the IRT field meeting. Excessive vegetation growth may cause sediment
and debris accumulation and the channel may become a wetland with multiple braided
channels, rather than a single-thread stream. Stream credits would be lost if the feature
becomes a wetland rather than a stream.
Corrective Action:
This reach will be watched closely and vegetation may be treated with herbicide approved for
aquatic uses if needed to prevent excessive vegetation and maintain flow in a single-thread
channel. The IRT visit was conducted at a time when herbaceous biomass is abundant and
stream flow was unusually low. As Murdannia is a shallow-rooted annual, normal and higher
flows during winter may correct the apparent “problem” without any intensive management
intervention. Photos of this area will be taken in spring and fall each year.

3.0 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL MONITORING

MMI proposes to complete longitudinal profile survey along the EI reach for monitoring years 1-3.
MMI will discuss with the IRT after MY 3 whether additional years of longitudinal profile are required
on the EI reach for the remaining years of monitoring.

Photos will be taken for the remaining years of monitoring in areas that are treated for rilling and
excessive vegetation in the channels to document the status of the erosional features.

Tar River Headwaters Stream Mitigation Bank
Page | 4
Adaptive Management Plan
4.0 CREDIT RELEASE
During an on-site debriefing of the IRT visit, it was explained that credits would be released for the E2
portion of the project. Subsequently, MMI requested the 1st credit release 30% of the EII credits (332.7
stream credits) via email on October 6th, 2017. These calculations are based on the approved Mitigation
Plan (Table 1, below) as the final As-Built values have not yet been approved. It is understood that the
remainder of the first credit release will be temporarily withheld, pending review of this Adaptive
Management Plan. The remaining amount of credits to be released will be calculated once the AMP has
been approved and implemented. The final amount of credits will be based on the As-Built Plan.

Table 1. Determination of Stream Credits

Stream Wetland
Type R RE R RE
Total 2,028 SMUs N/A N/A N/A
Reach
ID
Existing
Footage
(LF)
Restoration
Level
Restoration
(R) or
Restoration
Equivalent
(RE)
Restoration
Footage (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
(SMUs)
UT1 540 Enhancement II R 540 2.5:1 216
UT2-R1 449 Restoration/PII R 491* 1:1 491
UT2-R2 453 Enhancement I R 453 1.5:1 302
UT2-R3 2,234 Enhancement II R 2,234 2.5:1 893
Total 1,902

* Actual restoration linear footage will be determined based on final as -built plan.
Recommend minor grading between Stations 894 and 936. Elevations facing downstream should begin at 564.17' and slope to 563.97'. Elevation at Station 894 should be no less than 564.17' to ensure that upstream pool remains intact. Recommend no action be taken at the current time to lower thalweg at Station 700. This point is 0.13' (1.56") higher than the top of the rock vane. This area should be reassessed after several bankful events to determine the amount of aggradation or degradation through this portion of reach.Recommend that excess stone be removed from bank associated with riffle at or around Station 175.Recommend that excess stone along left bank only be removed associated with riffle at or around Station 370.Recommend that excess stone be placed along channel at existing riffle at or around Station 487. The material should not exceed an elevation of 564.60' at the head of the feature and tie into the existing bed at the tail of the feature.Recommend that excess stone be removed from bank associated with riffle at or around Station 40.
TAR RIVER HEADWATERS STREAM MITIGATION BANK
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PHOTO LOG

Photo #1 Abrupt Transition from Riffle Rock
to Natural Stream Bed – to be Redistributed
Photo #2 Sta. 20 Rock to be Redistributed
Photo #3 Sta. 175 Dissipater Pad to Left.
Rocks to be Redistributed
Photo #4 Sta. 370 Rock to be removed
from Left Bank

PHOTO LOG
P.2

Photo #5 & 6 Sta. 487 Rock to be
redistributed to establish low flow
Photo #7 Elevations downstream of
rockvane to be adjusted slightly.
Photo #8 Rilling along right bank to be
repaired with raking, seeding & jute matting