20160233 Ver 1_Mitigation As-Built Plans_20190215

ID#* 20160233 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review 02/18/2019
Completed Date
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/18/2019
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * r Yes t: No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Lindsay Crocker [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing 20160233 Existing 1
(DWR) (nunbersonly ...nodash) Version: (nun-bersonly)
I D#: *
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Tar River
County: Person
Document Information
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* lindsay
Signature:*
./k le�leljllw

Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site
Person County NC -- Tar -Pamlico River HUC# 03020101-0102
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
NC -DEQ Division of Mitigation Services: DMS Project # 97071
Data Collected: February 2017 Final Report: April 2017
K�� :;i
En vironm err tal
Qualify
Submitted To:
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Ctr, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
DMS Project Manager: Lindsay Crocker
DEQ -DMS Contract # 006749
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.
P.O. Box 690429 Charlotte, NC 28227
[phone] RichAMogMit.com
[phone] GPotternCa)RJGAcarolina.com
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101
1
kl'�IVIII
MQGENSEN MITIGATION, INC
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

Mitigation Services
ENV I RONMENTAL QUALITY
March 28, 2017
Via email: [e-mail]
Richard K. Mogensen, President
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC.
PO Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL REGAN
Secretary
Subject: Draft MYO Review
Tar River Headwaters Project ID #97071, DMS Contract #0006746
Dear Rich,
Please make the following revisions to the Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site MYO
report:
• 1 will re -iterate the need to reread your contracted deliverables before submitting. The
As -Built Monitoring Report Template- Feb 2014 should have provided a template and
guideline for this As -Built report. Many of these required sections were absent, present
in the wrong formats; or the report contained extraneous information. This is the link to
your template: https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%201-ibrary/Guidance%20and
%20Template%2ODocuments/As-
built%20Base Iine%20Monitorina%20Reaort%20Temblate%20-%2OFeb%202014.Ddf
• Much of the text submitted was from the original mitigation plan or new, for which DMS
had multiple iterations of comments and changes. It is advisable that Mogenson use
previously approved text to describe conditions from the Mitigation Plan rather than re-
submit materials that were previously unacceptable. Furthermore, there are multiple
and regular inconsistencies between the verbiage between the Mitigation Plan and this
As -Built document. In the interest of staff time and effort, DMS urges Mogenson to
develop a QA/QC process that will eliminate multiple iterations of review and that there
is a better effort to review requirements in the contract and template documents.
• Please use examples from our project document pages to show what a typical As -built
product looks like. A good example of a similar project can be found here:
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%201-ibrary/Protects/BearBas
in 95362 MYO 2015.Ddf
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center 1217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000 I Raleigh, NC 27609-1652
919 707 8976 T

• Provide As -built survey drawings consistent with the contract, to include red -line
topographic contours in the areas of fill in the proposed wetland areas overlaid on the
original survey. See the appendix of the project above. The survey submitted does not
contain information on the filled areas and their elevation tie-ins. Remove labels of
"filled in areas."
• Provide digital files of the as -built survey consistent with the contract, to include full
Auto Cad (.dwg) files
• Provide digital files that include ArcMap GIS shape files of vegetation plots, credit areas,
conservation easement, and point files of the monitoring gauges and soil temperature
locations. Please see attached 'digital drawing Guidelines' for information.
• Submit excel file that contains tables with standard formats per contract. Use these
excel tables to paste and replace all tables in the document. Here is a link to all our
template documents, and an excel example sheet is also attached:
http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-vendors/rfp-forms-
templates and the excel document template for this RFP can be found here:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?p I id=60409&folderld=2650974
8&name=DLFE-118739.xls (or use the one attached to your email)
• Provide CVS access file with vegetation information for all plots (including riparian
buffer plots).
Sectionl.l and 1.2
• Replace section 1.1 and 1.2 with the first four paragraphs in the previously approved
Mitigation Plan.
Section 1.3
• Remove the first part of the paragraph and start that section with the sentence,
"Specific Project Goals..."
• Add section regarding performance standards (can paste from Mitigation Plan, page 20,
section 7.2).
Section 1.4
Remove sentence "The remaining 1.27 acres... credits."
Remove reference to (MMI. 2016), you can just say that the assets match the Mitigation
Plan without using a formal citation.
Section 1.5
• Remove last sentence as it is N/A to report.
• Describe how groundwater gauges were installed ("per mitigation plan review
suggestions", "as transects", etc.)
• Describe how vegetation plots were installed (i.e. "installed randomly" or "at
representative locations to show planting densities").
• Describe type of fence installed.

• Replace "sprayed with Glyphosate," with the following, "Site preparation that occurred
on-site included soil aeration and chemical control for grasses and weeds."
• Reference planting table of species. Insert number of trees of each species planted.
• If you are going to describe ditch plugs by their number, then these numbers need to be
shown on a map.
• As an option, and instead of breaking out everything by section, you could just state,
"Construction methods included aeration, site preparation, planting, and fencing."
• In the last paragraph, why do you break out and describe the 1.27 -acre area as this
information contains nothing that relates to construction or mitigation design
approach? Please explain or remove.
• Merge section 1.5 with section 1.6. Change title to 'As -Built'
• Add information about the clay plugs ... how long were these typically, and what did the
fill material consist of? Did you meet plasticity specs?
Section 1.6
• Remove word "about" from description of tree density. The word "average" already
explains that the numbers are "about."
• Replace "invasive weed" with "invasive species." Do not speculate on what "might"
happen in the future as it does not pertain to an as -built report.
• Was there temporary and permanent seed applied, was the area limed and fertilized?
What were the species and rates? If not, then this is a deviation from the Mitigation
Plan and should be noted as to why.
Additional
• There should be an additional section that includes your Monitoring Plan. Can include
copy paste from section 7.1 of Page 19 of your Mitigation Plan.
Tables
• Replace all tables with standard excel file tables (see links above, and file included)
• Remove comment under Table 1 (***)
• Table 2. See excel table for standard timeline items. It is not necessary to reference
dates of JD, Technical Proposal, Mitigation Banking Instrument, or drafts. December
2016 is the date for the final mitigation plan for this.
• Table 4. Project area should be equal to the easement size.
• All of the regulatory considerations are N/A for this project. The JD is only relevant to
justify the rehabilitation.
• Table 5. Remove and replace with CVS export of three plots, and summary info
(examples in the link above).
• Include number of each of the trees planted in planting list, and common name. This
should be in a table format.
• It appears that there were at least 3 additions or substitutions of trees from those
described in the planting plan. Any deviations from planting should be noted in the As -
built report along with the reason.

CCPV: This should only include wetland project components. Can't distinguish between
credit and easement, etc and there are many things labeled on this map that are
unnecessary. Consult digital guidance and revise.
Pictures. Please indicate (in the text) which direction and which pipe that pictures were
taken for future contiguity. Photo points should be labeled on the CCPV and included in
your digital submission.
After these updates are made, please provide an updated digital draft for my consideration
(you can use WeTransfer). Due to the large number of required edits, please re -submit the
files, along with digital files for secondary review.
Thanks for your work,
r /Lt .
Lindsay Crocker, DMS

Table of Contents
1.0. Project Summary.............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1. Project Location and Setting............................................................................................................ 3
1.2. Pre -Construction Site Conditions..................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Mitigation Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Mitigation Components and Attributes............................................................................................ 5
1.5. Mitigation Design and As -Built Conditions.................................................................................... 5
1.6. Monitoring Plan and Performanace Standards................................................................................. 6
2.0. References....................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure1. Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX A. Background Tables and Figures................................................................................... 9
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits............................................................................ 9
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History................................................................................. 10
Table 3. Project Contacts Table........................................................................................................... 10
Table 4. Project Baseline Information................................................................................................. 11
APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data............................................................................................ 12
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View MYO Baseline...................................................................... 12
Photos: Vegetation Monitoring Plots and Other Photos, MYO Baseline ............................................... 13
APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data................................................................................................... 16
Table 5. Tree Species and Approximate Numbers Planted, Feb 2017 ................................................. 16
Table 6. CVS Plot Stem Counts and Density by Species.................................................................... 17
APPENDIX D. As -Built Survey Data................................................................................................. 19
As -Built Survey Plat by Michael T. Brandon, PLS, March 2017 ......................................................... 19
Figure 3. Topographic survey with red -line contours showing filled ditch plugs ............................... 20
Figure 4. Longitudinal Profile of Plugged Ditch with Relative Elevation Data .................................. 21
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101
2
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

1.0. Project Summary
1.1. Project Location and Setting
The Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site (TRHWR) is a full -delivery wetland mitigation project
located in eastern Person County, between Roxboro and Oxford, North Carolina, within the Piedmont
Physiographic Province (Figure 1). The easement comprises 9.98 acres, most of which is drained and
degraded wetlands or former wetlands with hydric soil indicators. The remaining areas include non -hydric
soils, drainage ditches, and a 570 -foot long riparian corridor along an intermittent stream connecting the
TRHWR site to the adjacent Tar River Headwaters Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank
project. Both projects are designed and implemented by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI), and are located
on a 228 -acre farm owned by Roy and Joyce Huff, in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin 12 -digit HUC #
03020101-0102. The Huff Farm property is located at 333 Bunnie Huff Road, Oxford NC 27565. The
access road into the TRHWR site is at Latitude = 36.3913, Longitude = -78.8171.
1.2. Pre -Construction Site Conditions
The TRHWR site was cleared and ditched for pasture use in the 1940s according to the owner, and was
until recently used for grazing cattle. The project involves plugging drainage ditches to restore wetland
hydrology, fencing to exclude livestock, and planting native trees and shrubs to restore a Headwater Forest
wetland ecosystem similar to what occurred prior to site clearing and drainage. The remnant mature trees
left for shade, hydrophytic groundcover plants mixed among the pasture grasses, and plant species recorded
in adjacent forests (on the same soil mapping unit) provide data for the planting plan.
The proposed work will restore approximately 7.65 acres of headwater riparian wetland (6.53 acres
reestablishment plus 1.12 acres rehabilitation) and will generate an estimated 7.28 or more riparian
wetland mitigation credits (RWMC), exceeding the 5.0 RWMC requested by the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) in RFP # 16-006476. Approximately 1.27 acres with non -hydric soils in
the southeast corner of the mitigation site will also be reforested, and a 100 -foot wide by 570 -ft long
riparian corridor (1.06 acre) extending southeastward along the ditch will connect the TRHWR site to
MMI's adjacent stream restoration and nutrient buffer bank project to the south. Total acreage of the
wetland mitigation site and riparian connector is 9.98 acres.
The proposed wetland restoration and cattle exclusion will reduce soil erosion and nutrient -enriched
runoff from adjacent pasture and cropland within its watershed, and help retain agricultural chemicals
used on these lands. Erosion will be significantly reduced by buffering with native tree plantings. It is
expected to improve water quality and habitat in the receiving tributary and reduce fine sediment
loading which will enhance the overall watershed particularly in the adjacent stream and nutrient
mitigation bank.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

1.3. Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Specific project GOALS and corresponding OBJECTIVES include:
GOALS:
• Restore the natural jurisdictional wetland hydro -period to five or more acres of forested
wetland within a nine -acre site;
• Restore forested wetland habitat and improve habitat connectivity between Denny Store
Gabbro Forest (NHP Natural Heritage Area) to the north and the Tar River tributaries;
• Buffer storm water runoff from fecal and other cattle -related pollutants and fertilizer.
OBJECTIVES:
• Plug existing ditches and create sheet flows throughout the site. Aerate soils to reduce
compaction, improve infiltration, and create micro -topography to retain surface flows;
• Preserve the remnant mature Swamp White Oaks (a regionally rare species) for seed source.
Plant appropriate native hardwood trees at a sufficient frequency to establish a diverse
bottomland wetland forest. Treat and/or remove invasive species which may cause problems
for site restoration, including Chinese privet and multi -flora rose;
• Install fencing to exclude cattle and establish a conservation easement to provide permanent
protection on the site.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS and MONITORING:
GOAL
OBJECTIVE
PERFORMANCE
MONITORING
STANDARD
APPROACH
Restore natural
Plug existing ditches and
Water must be on or
Use 11 shallow
hydro -period for
create sheet flow throughout
within 12 inches of the
groundwater self -reading
headwater forest
the site. Aerate soils to reduce
surface for 10% of the
gauges throughout the site
wetland.
compaction, improve
growing season*
at a frequency of about one
infiltration, and create micro-
Hydrographs will
per acre. Visual inspection
topography to retain surface
indicate jurisdictional
of ponding duration.
flows.
hydrology.
Restore forested
Preserve mature swamp white
Survival of 320 stems
Monitor vegetation plots
wetland habitat and
oak trees for seed source. Plant
per acre at year 3, 260
annually and calculate
improve habitat
appropriate native hardwood
stems per acre at year 5
densities of surviving
connectivity with
trees at 10 -ft average spacing
and 210 stems per acre
planted stems.
existing forests.
(435 stems/ac) Treat invasive
at MY 7.
species.
Buffer storm water
Plant trees, fence perimeter
Insure the integrity of
Visual inspection will note
runoff from fecal and
and establish a permanent
the cattle exclusion
fence condition through site
other cattle -related
conservation easement.
fencing for the life of the
pictures. Observations will
nutrient inputs.
contract.
be included in annual
monitoring reports.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101
4
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

1.4. Mitigation Components and Attributes
The TRHWR project area contains 6.53 acres of former riparian wetland (ditched and drained, grazed
pasture) that has redoximorphic soil characteristics indicating hydric soils, but no longer has adequate
wetland hydrology based on groundwater gauge data and field observations during 2015-2016. The
drainage ditches were constructed in the 1940s, according to the owner. The project will re-establish
jurisdictional wetlands in this area by plugging the drainage ditches to restore wetland hydrology, fencing
out livestock, controlling invasive species, and planting suitable native tree species. These 6.53 acres of
wetland restoration will generate riparian wetland credits at 1:1 ratio, yielding 6.53 WMU.
Another 1.12 acres in the TRHWR project area has been less effectively drained by the ditches, and still
has sufficient hydrology to meet jurisdictional wetland criteria, based on groundwater gauge data and field
observations during 2015-2016. The project will rehabilitate these areas of degraded jurisdictional wetland
(grazed pasture with reduced hydrology) by plugging ditches to increase hydrology, fencing out livestock,
and planting suitable native tree species. These 1.12 acres of wetland rehabilitation will generate riparian
wetland credits at 1.5:1 ratio, yielding 0.75 WMU. TRHWR project components and mitigations assets are
summarized in Table 1, matching the proposed assets in the Mitigation Plan.
1.5. Construction and As -Built Conditions
Eleven groundwater gauges were installed throughout the site in Feb -Mar 2016 to collect hydrology data
for use in project design, easement boundary selection, water budgeting, and credit determination. A
reference wetland gauge was installed 1,500 ft northeast of the project easement, within the same soil
mapping unit on the Huff property. Some gauges were later relocated during project implementation to
provide better representation of expected hydrologic impacts of the project, and one additional gauge was
added. As -built gauge locations (Feb 2017) are roughly arranged in transects perpendicular to the main
ditch, as recommended by mitigation plan reviewers during field meetings (Figure 2). Ten gauges are
within the proposed creditable reestablishment and rehabilitation areas, and two gauges are down -gradient
from ditch plug #4 in the area of non -hydric soils, not expected to generate wetland credits.
A series of six ditch plugs were constructed to retain rainfall and disperse runoff on the site. Five plugs
along the main north -south ditch include four in the TRHWR area and one downstream in the connector
area in the southeastern portion of the easement (Figure 2). The sixth plug is on the eastern side ditch in
the TRHWR area. Ditch bed segments to be filled were excavated six inches to remove loose material and
plants, to ensure good contact between the fill material and underlying clay. Clay for the plugs was
excavated from the pasture area south of the easement fence, and mixed with sand to achieve liquid limit
and plasticity characteristics as recommended in the mitigation plan. To further enhance ditch plug
stability, the contractor increased the length of plugs on the main ditch, constructing five long plugs (each
plug 65 to 118 ft long) rather than the seven short plugs shown in the mitigation plan. The proposed cluster
of plugs where three ditches converge were merged into one large plug (plug #4). The centerline of each
plug is approximately 2 inches below the adjacent ground surface (old ditch banks), per the mitigation plan.
The elevation drop from the toe of each plug downstream to the crest of the next plug in the wetland
restoration area is 1 to 2 feet (Figures 3 and 4).
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

Type of Mitigation Project:* W Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or New C Yes C No
Site?
Project Contact Information
............ .............................................. ........
Contact Name:* Lindsay Crocker Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing 20160233 Existing 1
(DWR)ID#:* (runters-ly--rash) Version:* (nunbersonly)
Project Name:* Tar River
Project Type:* O DMS C Mitigation Bank
County-* Person
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: TRHW_97071_MYO_2017.pdf 6.02MB
Rease upload only one FDF of the corrplete file that needs to be sutxritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*
Date 02/15/2019

In the drained areas, soil aeration and herbicide application for pasture grasses and other invasive species
were conducted prior to planting. Soil amendments and seeding were applied as specified in the mitigation
plan. Existing wetlands, ditch banks, and areas surrounding large native trees were not sprayed. The
wetland rehabilitation and reestablishment areas were planted with eleven species of native trees selected
based on nearby headwater wetland forests, published natural community descriptions (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990; LeGrand, 2007), and recommendations from the plant nursery (Table 5). A few of the oak
species proposed in the mitigation plan were not available; water oak, willow oak, and persimmon were
substituted. Power augers and shovels were used to dig the planting holes for the gallon -size potted trees,
and a tree fertilizer pellet was added to each planting hole. Live -stakes of black willow and silky dogwood
were planted on the ditch plugs and adjacent ditch banks, along with rushes and other plants excavated
from the ditches prior to plugging.
The easement was fenced to exclude cattle using 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. Nine CVS
vegetation monitoring plots, each 10 x 10 meters, were installed at representative locations to show
planting densities in the mitigation areas, avoiding areas shaded by large trees (Figure 2). Plot corners were
marked with steel conduit pipe, and planted trees within each plot were mapped and identified following
the CVS protocol (Lee et al, 2008). A soil temperature data logger was installed near the middle of the site
as a supplement to climate data for assessing growing season length.
Construction, fencing, spraying and seeding were completed in January 2017. The ditch segments above
the plugs filled with water within the first few days after construction. The only deviation from the
mitigation plan was the contractor's decision to build the ditch plugs longer than depicted in the mitigation
plan, to ensure plug stability. Tree planting and vegetation plot set-up were completed in February 2017
(Tables 5 and 6). The site was relatively wet due to recent rains during planting, and many of the planting
holes had standing water. The average initial planting density based on the nine CVS plots in the wetland
rehabilitation and re-establishment areas is 409 trees per acre. No invasive species problem areas were
noted at this time. About a dozen mature trees remain in the restoration area; none of these are within the
vegetation monitoring plots.
1.6. Monitoring Plan and Performance Standards
To evaluate mitigation success on the TRHWR site, vegetation monitoring plots will be monitored annually
in accordance with the "Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines" (February 2014). The nine installed
vegetation plots, each 10 x 10 meters, represents 2.8 percent of the planted mitigation area. Vegetation
monitoring will occur between September and early November, prior to the loss of leaves. The vegetation
success criteria are specified in the Performance Standards above. If success criteria are not met, site
maintenance and monitoring will continue until the success criteria are met.
The groundwater monitoring gauges will be downloaded and maintained at least quarterly. Gauge data in
the mitigation credit areas (2 gauges in rehabilitation areas, 8 gauges in re-establishment areas) will be
plotted and evaluated for success based on the mitigation plan performance standard of saturation within
the upper 12 inches for at least 10% of the growing season. The growing season will be determined either
by soil temperature (41'F or greater at 20 inches below the soil surface) or from the USDA WETS Table
data for Person County based on moderate -freeze air temperature data (March 28 to Nov 3 = 220 days).
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

2.0. 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: hqp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

z
1,
CU
SLC—PC
AR
j
X
.
t— -
zq
C
t
CL
,1
J.
}
I
r�
I
Ik —
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101
8
C
o v
d O L
J -J
i O -0
Q N
O 3 O1
Q i.+J
L O
O
LL O
L h0
V;
+J O O
M
O � =
O U
U vv
z 'E 'o
U
o m v
U O O
— t;ra > L 3
tr0 C O
o
� a
v CO
c 00 +J
,7i UO UO
O1
O O
O +J
O
D d 7
� N O
C) z O L
oC p C +J
U
N O1
V) U
2 0
p u a
i N U C
O v if
3 O t N
13 U
ra o -O ra
Or» 0 0
o N =
� U
= p v
J
FE E
z
o ° na
E
_u
> a v T
U
a U p[ �5
- T LO O1
LJ C:-0 +�+
D x O
U o0C
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
o
t— -
C
t
,1
J.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101
8
C
o v
d O L
J -J
i O -0
Q N
O 3 O1
Q i.+J
L O
O
LL O
L h0
V;
+J O O
M
O � =
O U
U vv
z 'E 'o
U
o m v
U O O
— t;ra > L 3
tr0 C O
o
� a
v CO
c 00 +J
,7i UO UO
O1
O O
O +J
O
D d 7
� N O
C) z O L
oC p C +J
U
N O1
V) U
2 0
p u a
i N U C
O v if
3 O t N
13 U
ra o -O ra
Or» 0 0
o N =
� U
= p v
J
FE E
z
o ° na
E
_u
> a v T
U
a U p[ �5
- T LO O1
LJ C:-0 +�+
D x O
U o0C
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

APPENDIX A. Background Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project # 97071
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non -riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Acres
7.65
Credits
7.28
TOTAL CREDITS
7.28
Project Components
Project Component
or Reach ID
Stationing
/ Location
Existing
Footage or
Acreage
Approach
(PI, PH etc.)
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Drained Wetland
--
6.53
R (Reestablish)
6.53 ac
1 : 1
Grazed Wetland
--
1.12
R (Rehabilitate)
1.12 ac
1.5 : 1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(lin. feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -Riparian
Wetland (acres)
Buffer
(sq. feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
6.53 ac
Enhancement
1.12 ac
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Qual Preservation
TOTAL feet or acres
-
-
7.65 ac
TOTAL WMU
-
-
7.28
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071 MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101 Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project# 97071
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Decl6
Final Design — Construction Plans
Dec 16
Construction
Jan 17
Planting
Feb 17
Baseline Monitoring/Report
Feb 17
Apr 17
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 2 Monitoring
KBS Earthworks, Greensboro NC
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Mogensen Mitigation Inc, Charlotte NC
Year 5 Monitoring
Rich Mogensen: 704-576-1111; Gerald Pottern: 919-556-8845
Mellowmarsh Farms, Siler City NC
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project # 97071
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101
10
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI
Ecological Engineering, Raleigh NC
Designer
Heather Smith: 919-557-0929
KBS Earthworks, Greensboro NC
Construction Contractor
Kory Strader & Brett Strader: 336-685-4339
Michael T. Brandon, PLS, Roxboro NC
Survey Contractor
Michael Brandon: 336-597-8673
Strader Fencing, Inc., Julian NC
Fence Contractor
Kenneth Strader: 336-314-2935
KBS Earthworks, Greensboro NC
Herbicide and Seeding
Kory Strader & Brett Strader: 336-685-4339
Mogensen Mitigation Inc, Charlotte NC
Planting Contractor
Rich Mogensen: 704-576-1111; Gerald Pottern: 919-556-8845
Mellowmarsh Farms, Siler City NC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Joanie McLean: 919-742-1200
Mogensen Mitigation Inc, Charlotte NC
Monitoring Performers
Rich Mogensen: 704-576-1111; Gerald Pottern: 919-556-8845
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101
10
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

Table 4. Project Baseline Information
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS Project # 97071
Project Name
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site
County
Person County
Project Area (acres)
9.9 acres (Wetland + Buffer Easement combined)
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
36.3895, -78.8153
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont, Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin
Tar -Pamlico River -01
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
3020101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 12 -digit -0102
Tar -Pam -01
DWQ Sub -basin
Project Drainage Area (acres)
60
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Pasture, Crop, and Deciduous Forest
Wetland Summary Information (Post -Restoration)
Parameters
Wetland Area
Size of Wetland (acres)
1.12 ac existing + 6.53 ac drained = 7.65 ac
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-
riverine)
Riparian non-riverine (Headwater)
Mapped Soil Series
Iredell Loam (IrB)
Drainage class
Iredell = moderately well; Hydric inclusions = poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Drained Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Shallow ponding; perched on shallow aquitard
Hydrologic Impairment
Drainage ditches (1940s)
Native vegetation community
Headwater depression wetland forest (prior to pasture conversion)
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
20% Fescue (sprayed)
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Prelim JD
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Prelim JD
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
US FWS Letter
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
NC SHPO Letter
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
NC Floodmaps
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site #97071
Person County — Tar -Pam HUC 03020101
11
MY -0 (2017) As -Built Baseline Report
Mogensen Mitigation Inc. MMI

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data -- Current Conditions Plan View (MYO Baseline)
-,r= � red'• c�pr' x � x
K,r k1
2
S
12 25 F a
24
Ditch Plug
Ditch Plug 2 s r
Ditch Plug 3 ;
22 Ditch Plug 4 ` •.
26 g2 W
Y
1 N
a ❑
P
,,. 28 a
20 o � a
Z m Z
1 Go
CL
O 4
' u
.'' z a ❑ x
•r 21a� ds
.� r'" ►� 27G WN
OC
0 o a
>
y A 7 7
Ca
. t' 'i t r.� g �s ��' b.., 't ?k S"r. - •C �� /'k "' iii " .. .
Legend F Photo Paints
L _ Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
Fence
u •
Wetland Rehabilitation (1.12 Ac) Ditch Plugs
• Gauges i Feet?
Wetland Reestablishment (6.53 Ac) 0 50 100 200 300 400 Figure 2

W-T . . . . .
.
, w +
5
�1
�'r-.�-Ltfi73 £�}C�76Ei"'7C�7 �''-•.',CAa3f��S�kr'�'r;�s .K-'�:' u , ' 't�C':- xr.�:_ �7. _ �s
i r- { f�fflv
PAO

Appendix B. PHOTOS: CVS Vegetation Plots 24 to 27, MYO Baseline, February 2017. Tar Headwaters Wetland Restoration #97071.= ... - 4
fi
A& ft I'
ALL VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOS ARE TAKEN FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PLOT (0,0 ORIGIN) FACING NORTHEAST

Appendix B. PHOTOS: CVS Vegetation Plot 28 and Other Photos, MYO - Feb 2017. Tar Headwaters Wetland Restoration #97071.
ALL VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOS ARE TAKEN FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PLOT (0,0 ORIGIN) FACING NORTHEAST

APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS # 97071.
Monitoring Year 0 (Feb 2017) -- Person County NC. Tar -Pamlico HUC# 03020101-0102.
Table 5. Tree Species and Approximate Numbers Planted. Feb 2017.
Scientific Name
Common Name
approx #
planted
Betula nigra
River Birch
1200
Carpinus caroliniana
Musclewood
280
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
318
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
560
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Blackgum
31
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
222
Quercus bicolor
Swamp White Oak
173
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
454
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
164
Ulmus americana
American Elm
378
Total Planted Stems
All Species
3800

APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data, Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS # 97071. Monitoring Year 0 (Feb 2017).
Table 6a. CVS Plot Stem Counts and Density by Species.
Current Plot Data (MYO - Feb 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Growth
Type
97071-20
97071-21
97071-22
97071-23
97071-24
97071-25
Plant
FTotal
Plant
Total
Plant
Total
Plant
Total
Plant
Total
Plant
Total
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree (P)
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
Carpinus caroliniana
Musclewood
Tree (P)
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
Tree (P)
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree (P)
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree (P)
5
5
4
4
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Blackgum
Tree (P)
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree (P)
2
2
2
2
Quercus bicolor
Swamp White Oak
Tree (P)
2
2
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree (P)
2
2
3
3
7
7
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree (P)
4
4
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree (P)
4
4
Stem count
11
11
8
8
9
9
12
12
9
9
8
8
ares
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(P) = planted species
acres
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
Species count
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
Stems per ACRE
445
445
324
324
364
364
486
486
364
364
324
324
Plant = Planted Stems; Total = Planted + Volunteer Stems
Color codes for Plot Density & Success
Exceeds criteria by 10% or more
(352 or more)
Exceeds criteria by less than 10%
(320-351)
Fails criteria by less than 10%
(289-319)
Fails criteria by more than 10%
(288 or less)

Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS # 97071. Monitoring Year 0 (Feb 2017) -- Person County NC.
Table 6b. CVS Plot Stem Counts and Density by Species.
Current Plot Data (MYO - Feb 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Growth
Type
97071-26
97071-27
97071-28
MYO (2016)
Plant
Total
Plant
Total
Plant
Total
Plant
Total
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree (P)
7
7
2
2
23
23
Carpinus caroliniana
Musclewood
Tree (P)
2
2
4
4
6
6
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
Tree (P)
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree (P)
1
1
2
2
9
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree (P)
3
3
12
12
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Blackgum
Tree (P)
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree (P)
1
1
5
5
Quercus bicolor
Swamp White Oak
Tree (P)
3
3
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree (P)
2
2
14
14
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree (P)
2
2
6
6
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree (P)
6
6
10
10
Stem count
13
13
10
10
11
11
91
91
ares
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
(P) = planted species
acres
0.025
1 0.025
0.025
0.025
1 0.025
0.025
0.222
0.222
Species count
4
4
4
4
5
5
11
11
Stems per ACRE
526
526
405
405
445
445
409
409
Plant = Planted Stems; Total = Planted + Volunteer Stems
Color codes for Plot Density & Success
Exceeds criteria by 10% or more
(352 or more)
Exceeds criteria by less than 10%
(320-351)
Fails criteria by less than 10%
(289-319)
Fails criteria by more than 10%
(288 or less)

APPENDIX D. As -Built Survey Data
NC Oivi9ion of Mitigation Service Rrojeet 10 4' 97071
Tor River HeoOwater5 14e#IpnC Re!jWrotion Site; DN5 Contract; Ntjrnber #15749
Tur River Haadwatera Stream Mitigation Situ MAS CaMnxt Number #7016
4050 60
E€STING FENCE
FILLED AREA
,3
LLED AREA
FILLED .AREAED
u�
V-CINIrr MAP
NOT TO SCALr
LO
1� o•
a4b
13EARING
z�i
3r
A. JTkfF
_-
29'41'10”
E
84.8
L2
Cr
44'47 05
irAimw pirmrs rrwr;ms nee *0►51fiftiO+ .rr
7
N
N
CA.0- IFr(7i1ONt THS xfWry 118E ME dPlkfl ftmbrdd Qtr
OT14W ST R5CVUFrF.. on MATU W4 MATWE. "194 AS nrr�
iR x Li
WATERC]6E
L6
Ui
LIU pp- M
�E
ti maw& f. Mat -ft ii!WRNf r An F haS ftAr YW, dq,nrr
LOOEF Wir WFEWlRarr-"AWAMW3 W1EVA WE MDl7
G 8
S
N
i+FFLPER47F�'�1gEe�CE97RiPrIC p'F{r}AFD A'1 R"ME
J z
l
TENT ThEA04v+p +4rPLfrvE+�
PCr� .11 11TZ ae.,n, 12 �p� 1,11E+ = V(
err w
R
tare �ghgd�rar AlnaF xr,C xiho pr'ar�rb�xSGuoe�aYm
hwrnu lMYORKorr,+&GMFL,rY�ndrx
C
U]
L.10
de 41-M 94WEND
$8.�l�/�9.Ah1E40i57_ndfh1068A1!'OIBh„hil dar/1in19E
AEdd7M7M Lt A116£dAL nA
u.l
W
rlFl aiF Gr�pVEC+l�d-�F
�
mss�„,
17SE11
`
2
'- LW2
LO
1� o•
a4b
13EARING
3r
A. JTkfF
rrrpcs,vw i.,a w�rvc rpw wcp w�,�wy1FCv
29'41'10”
E-1
9.9a AC-
2
I El
cora cwtgEp N S 8` 15' 5 $ "
NAOffJ{2D r r) 341.17'
Nr 9$1824,71
F:2053�'5r0.4 r
Ful
,
0958-00-32-9f89
U8 30214T
FILLED AREA
CONT3a C � NFR
C3 MAD&r,I:sar993.�.�
E.-205 36sa.2J
V\'x1V y
LSF
Maganaen MitigaUan, Iric.
P,0- Bvx 690429, Charlo#te NC 28227
Phone: 70A-576-1111
(f'�NU
a AG iia 214
1' INCH = d4' FT.
LINE
13EARING
DISTANCE
L1
S
29'41'10”
E
84.8
L2
N
44'47 05
W 57.
L,3
L4
L5
N
N
62-'9'56"
62` a'S6
5' 14' 46
W 41.47
W 31.60
E 279.65
L6
5
25'1 3
�E
4-$
L7
LS
S
N
25' 13 2.3
76'34.5
E
E
T 76.-q
48.29
L9
N
42'53'24"
E
78.74
L.10
T
42'58 4-
W
103. fig
v
O(rYrhNilE ra1TA S TAffx FR751A A bPU irArC VS
Onfit'ATIDN r%FRF6 WO ON J/i{ 11L ANG MONJIbam
ILLEQTO THE PM IDFWr AMW 95F�ME [AR �+a "A° a3 II. n#
AREA COMM VaD
EF-GEND
Vagetatian Plot
Gauge
—� New Fe rice
b--. Existing Fence
Ditch Centedine

V
N
400'60 ft
Fxi sting, V&ta� nth;
..._- Plug
#3
V
om_� � Faet
p4n
'
Plug
JJj�++�►
+
• • • • • • . . a . a . a a . . . . F
'
Fxi sting, V&ta� nth;
..._- Plug
#3
V
om_� � Faet
p4n

Figure 4. Longitudinal Profile of Plugged Ditch with Relative Elevation Data.
Tar River Headwaters Wetland Restoration Site, DMS # 97071
ditch upper end @ fence
ditch @ upst toe Plug -1
Plug -1 top upper
Plug -1 top middle
Plug -1 top lower
ditch @ dnst toe Plug -1
ditch midway P1 -P2
ditch @ upst toe Plug -2
Plug -2 top upper
Plug -2 top middle
Plug -2 top lower
ditch @ dnst toe Plug -2
ditch midway P2 -P3
ditch @ upst toe Plug -3
Plug -3 top upper
Plug -3 top middle
Plug -3 top lower
ditch @ dnst toe Plug -3
ditch midway P3 -P4
ditch @ upst toe Plug -4
Plug -4 top upper
Plug -4 top middle
Plug -4 top lower
ditch @ dnst toe Plug -4
ditch 1/3 way P4 -P5
ditch 2/3 way P4 -P5
ditch 3/4 way P4 -P5
ditch @ upst toe Plug -5
Plug -5 top upper
Plug -5 top middle
Plug -5 top lower
ditch @ dnst toe Plug -5
ditch @ fence crossing
Longit
Sta, ft
0.0
84.3
94.0
125.2
157.6
166.4
225.5
278.0
283.8
310.2
336.8
341.8
402.6
456.3
463.6
489.4
518.3
526.7
598.5
666.1
675.4
725.2
773.6
783.3
910.8
1041.4
1102.2
1163.0
1171.8
1200.6
1225.9
1232.2
1253.8
Elevation
feet
97.51
96.73
97.34
96.95
96.26
95.07
94.29
93.83
94.41
94.16
93.91
92.98
92.45
92.01
92.30
91.80
91.19
90.51
88.86
88.11
89.12
88.77
88.41
86.34
85.17
83.58
82.78
83.49
84.11
83.81
83.14
81.53
81.55
Station 0.0 = North boundary (easement) fence
Station 1253.8 = Fence above road crossing

03SIA3a
ddf1H AOI AS 03NMO 91w:03M3Mv
L6-ZOE SO NI 039I2JOS30 SV All GdO2Id 91W:Ae —M I] woo,slduopuejglaegolw,n
e S0ONOZ 103f0ad ZCt999£-6L6 3NOHd
L WZ HMJVW 03W2)Od2l3d N'dOM (1131d 6M-Zf- 960 :Nld
VNIl02AVO Hi2ION "00 NOS213d `dMl 3111ASN311V 1 MJI 3 S>10 a°eLM
as Aalva sNooae �sr�
ONI `NOIldJI11W N�SN3JOW VIVO l30aVd ZZWIWAMuns 4NVl lVN01SS3d0ad
eLSLZ'oN'oaoexoa NOONV�I8 '113VHOIN !
WJ A3A2ins llln8-sv 6LB%09'0'd
ddnanoa
:ss3aaara3Nmo
auumN,,,
LL-
.............
L
...• .......
H
w
2
N
rn
= z w
O
C) CN U LnW
C Ln
J u w
(Z
c):: O O ¢ O
W CD = 0
U J u w o
W CDCD
0 3 J
u
CD U U Q
w to
Q � U �
o g
LL
Zi
I �
r Q
L
moo s g
W N
O _
O
00
II
CN —
I
�CN
r
\� =O\ o
210
O Lo
O o �p
co � rn
C
4:f
`�
('4
rq tam
V 0
U aLo°
L adao
i Q _
Q (D 0(n O '`o0
Q 4--+ t]Q () 0 U O a o 0
z 0 Q `�
w4-J Q- O o ca) o 0
WN N S C o m C00N .0
J m N O o L 0 v._ v
LU u Q O 4� m°� o00
Z O `i o 0 ° 3
Q +_+ }, O O 4O a a U o
iro N N 0 p OY= au°
QJ E � �I .e r-
L � C -0 � °
J 2 N C N (n 0 0 u s 0 ° .� o
D Q i O N j o� L. m 1 a a
m �% W — 0p �i (n p Q) U-v N r-C
Q O�E O
0 v C) Q0 z �cL
❑ z o 3°370_0 000 E:c
5Ev
a� o 0 o 6L
O22 U— VOA ;O0°a
i %' -p C) 0, u,
> : 21) O 0 c n °
0' O_ 0 U 0_ 00 °- ° -0
❑ O O_ I � w N (91oZ/40)
° — SAW
U 0 0 i) 0 Q) " o a �� LLOZ/£9 OVN
z1odvv mosir—