20120946 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20140808

Rti' R � j J awcn
- o 94
Annual Monitoring Report YEAR #3
Morgan Creek Floodplain (at Mason Farm)
Orange /Durham Counties, North Carolina
EEP Project #258
Contract # 16- 005217
y. air' N 7
MY — 03 Monitoring Report
Data Collected: October 2013
Submitted: December 2013
D
FUG 8 2014
ER ouauTY I
El aaffenent
PROGRAM
RECEIVED
JAN 242013
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PFD GRAM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones St. Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603

Annual Monitoring Report YEAR #3
Morgan Creek Floodplain (at Mason Farm)
Orange /Durham Counties, North Carolina
Project #258
Contract • 11
7V
MY — 03 Monitoring Report
Data Collected: October 2013
Submitted: December 2013
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones St. Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
�. Prepared by:
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P.O. Box 690429 1VM
�,} Charlotte, NC 28227
Ei RaiILI,ie nt MOGENSEN MITIGATION. INC
YNO<i MGM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Executive Summary 1
IIe, Methodology 4
III References 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map & Background
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 7
Tables la Project Components 8
Tables lib Component Summations _ 8
Table 2 Project Activity & Reporting History 9
Table 3 Project Contact Table 10
Table 4 Project Attributes Table I 1
Appendix B Visual.Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View 13
Table ,5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table , , 14
Photo's (Veg Plots & Berm Openings) 16
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Criterion Attainment 23
Table 7 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata 24 -
Table 8 CV,S Stem Count Total & Planted 25
Appendix D Hydrologic Data
Table 9 Verification of Bankfull Events 27
Table 10 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment 28
Groundwater Gauge Charts 29

I. Executive Summary
The Morgan Creek Floodplain Site (Site) is located on the Mason Farm Biological Reserve
(MFBR), and is owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and'was constructed
for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement- Program (EEP) The design was done by Ward
Consulting Engineers, P C and constructed by iverworks, Inc. The third' year monitoring was
done in October 2013 by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc (NMI). The monitoring was,done in
conformance with the NCEEP Monitoring Report Template_ Version 1.5 adopted 8 June 2012
and monitoring requirements issued by the NCIRT in November 7, 2011 and can be,found at
http / /portal ncdenr:orp,/c /document library/get file ?p 1 id= 1169848 &folderld = 2288101 &nam
e =DLFE -39234 pd f The Site is located on the MFBR immediately adjacent to A E. Finley Golf
Course and,down the road from the North Carolina Botanical Garden. The, Site is in the Morgan
Creek Local Watershed planning area and is in the Cape Fear River (Haw) 14 -digit HUC
03030002060080 The Site has been used for biological research for UNC — Chapel Hill
Restoration actions included the construction of berm openings to increase flood water access to
the floodplain behind the artificial berm along Morgan Creek The project involved 14 37 acres
of wetlands, the preservation of'5.61 acres of wetlands and preservation of 3200 linear feet of
riparian buffer along the south bank of Morgan Creek The Catena Group delineated the wetland
preservation area in 2005 and the reference wetland in February 2008, none of which were
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Goals
1 Facilitate regular flooding of the Morgan Creek floodplain behind the berm;
2 Promote attenuation- of sediment and nutrients on the flood plain;
3. Reduce downstream flooding by creating additional storm water detention,
4. Reduce erosion by limiting flooding shear stress on Morgan Creek banks ;
5 Restore more natural hydrology to 14 37 acres of impacted wetlands,
6 Preserve 5.61 acres of existing wetlands;
7 Re- establish a natural plant community through plantings and invasive species control,
8 Preserve 3200 linear feet of riparian buffer on the south bank of Morgan Creek
Objectives
1 Create five (5) stable openings in the existing artificial berm to allow flood waters to
access the conservation easement;
2 Successfully plant 14 37 acres of bottomland hardwood wetlands with native desirable
trees and shrubs;
3 Demonstrate jurisdictional hydrology in 14 67 restored wetland acres by way of
measuring groundwater through RDS continuous read monitoring gauges;
4 Preserve the entire Site through means of a conservation easement or deed restrictions in
perpetuity.
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 1 Morgan Creek Foodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Five vegetation plots were located, flagged and monitored using Version 4.2 of the CVS -EEP
Level 2 Vegetation Monitoring Protocol. The success criterion specified in the mitigation plan
requires a minimum survival rate of 320 stems per acre for MY 3. During MY 4 the success
criterion drops to 288 stems /per acre and then in MY 5 260 stems per acre are required.
All vegetation data was collected on September 30, 2013 and October 21, 2013. Based on the
overall vegetation count data for MY 3 there are 197 planted stems /acre surviving. There is a
combined total of 1206 planted and natural stems /acre. All five vegetation plots fell short of
meeting the 320 stems /per acre target by more than 10% this year. The overall low density of
surviving planted trees is supplemented with a good survival of desirable native volunteer
species except for Plot 5 which is overgrown with Japanese stiltgrass ( Microstegium vimineum)
and Johnson grass. All plots exhibited natural regeneration of woody species ranging from 324
to 1092. Natural species observed in plots include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red elm
(ulmus rubra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva), silky dogwood (cornus amomum), and
persimmon (Diospyrus virginiana). Data collected for all the plots are included in Appendix C.
Problem vegetation areas were observed and photographed. These areas were dominated by
microstegium, Japanese honesuckle (Lonicera japonica) and the invasive shrub buckthorn
(Rhamnus davurica). Other invasive species observed included kudzu (Pueraria Montana),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Chinese lespedeza (Les
pedeza sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiora) and porcelain berry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata). Japanese stilt grass is ubiquitous
throughout the site and is problematic but very difficult to treat. Johnson grass is located along
the path ways and in open areas within the conservation easement area. This species is
problematic
Significant Flood Events
MMI began monitoring the Morgan Creek
Floodplain in the late summer of 2013. No
significant flood events have taken place since the
data collection began this fall. Previous year's
monitoring reports note that there have been multiple
storm events which have successfully flooded the
conservation easement area through the berm
openings. MY 2 report prepared by Ward
Engineering, PC indicated that flood events that
reach 7.8 feet above normal water surface elevation
allows water to access the flood plain through the
berm openings. MMI has accessed the USGS Stream Gauge #02097517 and according to this
data flood stage reached 8 feet above normal water surface once (two consecutive days) in 2013
although none of those events occurred during the MMI monitoring time frame.
MMI has re- installed manual crest stage gauges (CSG) at each berm opening and we plan to
check these after each significant flood event that might produce flooding through the berm
openings. Each significant storm event crest elevation will be noted using the CSGs and
comparing it to the USGS stream gauge and precipitation data. The flow volume, frequency and
duration of flooding through the berm openings will be extrapolated by using the CSG's flooding
elevation data, USGS stream gauge data and on a detailed topography map. This will allow for a
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. 2 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

reasonably accurate calculation of flooding volume and frequency We will estimate the duration
of each significant flood event for the remainder of 2013 and all of 2014 & 2015 This will be
included in the MY 4 and MY 5 monitoring report along with the flooding calculations described
above Berm openings #1, #2 & #3 all have varying degrees of erosion problems This is
expl'amed ,in more detail below
Wetland Hydrology
Nine RDS Groundwatergauges were installed according to the Technical Note Hy- lA -3 J
(USAGE 1993). The gauges record data every twelve hours and are downloaded,quarterly. Seven
wells are located within or immediately adjacent to the conservation easement area and one is a
reference gauge located off site. One gauge ( #8) was located in the Big Woods section of the
MFBR and is abandoned according to Perry Sugg (NCEEP PM), therefore, it is no longer
included in the annual monitoring reports Five gauges (1, 2, 4, 5 and 6) are in Wetland
Restoration Soil Unit 1 where groundwater is expected to be within 12" of the surface for at least
12 5 % of the growing season (27 consecutive days) Two gauges (3 and 9) are located Wetland
Restoration, Soil Unit 2 where the groundwater is expected to be within 12" of the surface for at
least 5% of the growing season (11 consecutive days) According to the NRCS -USDA the
growing season runs from March 27 to November 3 which is 221 days (0 125 x 221 = 27 days &
221 x 0 05 = 11 days) Gauge #7 was originally installed in the reference wetland but was moved
to a new location due to beaver activity and is now referred to as 410 This gauge but not= #7 will
be included in the subsequent,annual monitoring reports
Precipitation data was not collected from the onsite rain bucket gauge due to a malfunctioning
bucket Therefore onsite rainfall data was not available for most of the year We have
supplemented the site data with data from the NC Climate Office (Station name Chapel Hill —
Williams Airport A USGS stream gauge located 1500 feet upstream of the Site (Station ID
0209517) was used to correlate precipitation data and with groundwater gauge data and is shown
in the Groundwater Gauge Charts in Appendix E
The data from the RDS gauges indicates all wetlands have achieved jurisdictional '.hydrologic
success criteria` with the exception of Gauge #3 which was faulty and,did not record data in 2013
Gauge& #3 was replaced with a working RDS unit in October 2013 and that, data will be included
in the following years' monitoring reports Gauge #'s 1, 4, 5, 6 & 9 achieved jurisdictional
hydrology for more the 12 5% of the growing season with gauge #'s 1, 4, 5 & 6 exceeding 20%
Gauge #2 achieved jurisdictional hydrology for 10% of the growing season which exceeds the
5% minimum hydrology criteria Comparing the previous years' monitoring reports there is a
definite trend toward reaching jurisdictional hydrology in all the wetland areas being monitored
Gauge #10 is the reference gauge and recorded jurisdictional hydrology for 76% ofthe,growing
season. This indicates that the new gauge location is in an area with obvious jurisdictional
hydrology and can be used for future comparisons
Problem Areas
The following is a summary of other problem areas (other than vegetation survival and invasive
species) such as beaver encroachment„ status of berm openings and anthropomorphic impacts_
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 3 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

No beaver activity was observed during the numerous site visits made this fall.
There is quite a bit of passive recreation by pedestrians but this is limited to walking on the
mowed paths so no problems exist at this time.
Several berm openings have erosion problems
especially Berm Opening #1 (see photo) which has
a significant pool that has eroded out. This should
be repaired as well as the other berm openings that
are experiencing erosion issues (Berm Opening's
#2 & #3). Berm Opening's #4 & #5 are in
reasonably good condition. Photos of all Berm
openings can be found in the Site Photo's in
Appendix B.
II. Methodology
All photos were taken with a Nikon digital camera and are available electronically. A Trimble
Hand Held GPS unit was used to locate veg. plot corners, groundwater gauges and problem
areas.
An RDS data collector was used to download the groundwater data from all gauges. All graphics
have been done using ArcGIS and are available electronically.
,•
A. Vegetation Methodologies
Five 10 x 10 square meter vegetation plots were monitored according to the CVS -EEP Level 2
Vegetation Monitoring Protocol for Recording Vegetation 4.2 (Lee et al 2008). The plot corners
are marked with 1" PVC pipe and marked with bright red flagging tape. All plots were easily
located except for Plot #5 which was dominated by Japanese stilt grass, Johnson grass and lacked
any surviving planted trees. After interviewing the previous years' monitoring company we
located and marked Plot #5 with PVC pipe. Data collected from each plot is included in
Appendix C. Monitoring plot locations are shown on the maps in Appendix A. Plant
identification was aided by the seminal publication Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia
and Surrounding Areas (Schaffle & Weakly).
B. Wetland Methodologies
Originally, nine (9) RDS GW Monitoring Gauges were installed and were downloaded this fall.
Gauge #8 is no longer being monitored and Gauge #7 has been replaced with Gauge Location
#10. Gauge #3 was faulty when we downloaded all the data. This gauge was removed and
replaced with a working gauge in October 2013 supplied by NCEEP. All gauges are
downloaded quarterly throughout the growing season to ensure that the gauges are functioning
properly. Gauges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10 will be monitored for the next two monitoring years.
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. 4 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Data is provided in an Excel spreadsheet and supplemented with data from the. State Climate
Office.
All raw data supporting the tables, figures and graphs in the appendices are available to NCEEP
upon request.
III. References
Lee, Michael T; Peet, Robert K, Roberts, Steven D; Wentworth, Thomas R. (2008). CVS -EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4 2
NRCS -USDA 2013 Climate Information for Orange County in the State of North Carolina
NCCO 2013 NC Climate Office Annual Precipitation Data (Station name Chapel Hill —
Williams Airport)
USGS 2013 USES Real -Time Water Data for North Carolina Stream Gauge Station ID
#02097517
Weakly, Alan (2011) Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia and the Surrounding Areas
MiIler, James H Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests A field guide for ident� cation
and Control. USDA Forest Service Southern Research station General Technical Report,SRS -62
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 5 Morgan Creek Floodplain
1\/fY -03 Monitoring Report —Final
December 2013

APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND DATA
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 6 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

.ti
d- &
*4p %
.APO
1c O WAC-Z FMCu CZOGLE E4 TO /u::rLSSED WAACH 7011
1 T7 Syr
r _ Irr'ti Carolira — ErD"err EnFnncerner-
tiS-'ti 4 II 'Ao►9vr : feaw no odP{atn
tt. - �, Orange /bjrharr LoinGev. NDrth -^atolna
*� Eft' IL' ?50
FIGURE 1
MORGAN CRFFK Fl OODPI AIN
(EEP # 258)
AERIAL VICINITY MAP
.�, Mogensen Mitigation, Inc -
P O. Box 6901429
. Charlmme. NC 28227
F704) 576 -1111
,•
.p-
1c O WAC-Z FMCu CZOGLE E4 TO /u::rLSSED WAACH 7011
1 T7 Syr
r _ Irr'ti Carolira — ErD"err EnFnncerner-
tiS-'ti 4 II 'Ao►9vr : feaw no odP{atn
tt. - �, Orange /bjrharr LoinGev. NDrth -^atolna
*� Eft' IL' ?50
FIGURE 1
MORGAN CRFFK Fl OODPI AIN
(EEP # 258)
AERIAL VICINITY MAP
.�, Mogensen Mitigation, Inc -
P O. Box 6901429
. Charlmme. NC 28227
F704) 576 -1111

Table la. Project Components
Table 1a. Project Components
Morgan Creek Flood lain -'EEP #'258
Project
Footage
Component
Existing
Restoration
Approach
or
Stationing
Mitigation
Mitigation
BMP
Comment
or Reach
Feet/Acres
Level
Acreage
Ratio
Units
Elements'!
ID
Wetlands
1437
R
14137
1 1
1437
Wetlands
5 61
P
5 61
51
1 12
1 = BRu= Bioretention Cell, SF = Sand,Fllter, SW = Stormwater Wetland, WDP = Wet Detention Pond, DDP = Dry Detention Pond, FS =
Filter Strip, Grassed Swale = S, LS = Level Spreader, NI = Natural Infiltration Area, O = Other, CF = Cattle Fencing, WS = ,Watering
System CH = Livestock Housing
Table lb. Component Summations
Table 1 b. Component Summations
Morgan Creek Flood lain — EEP# 258
Non-
Restoration Stream Riparian Rlpar Upland Buffer
Level I Wetland Ac Ac Ac Ac BMP
�•_ Non -
Rlverine_ Rlvenne
Restoration 14 37
Enhancement
Enhancement
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation 5 61
Totals 19.98
(FeeVAcres)
MU Totals 15.49
Non- Applicable
i
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 8 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Morgan Creek Flood lain - EEP# 258
Activity or Deliverable
Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Conservation easement MOA
NA
_ Aug-05
Restoration Plan
Jul -06
Aug-06
Final Design — Construction Plans
Aug-06
Nov -08
Permanent Conservation Easement
NA
May-09
Construction
NA
Jul -10
Bare root, containerized planfings y
NA
Dec -10
Mitigation Plan / As -built ear 0, Monitoring —baseline)
Mar -11
Au -11'
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov -11 _
Dec -11
Year 2 Monitoring_
Oct -12
Nov -12
Year 3 Monitoring
Sep-1 3
Dec -13 _
Year 4 Monitoring
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non = bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project
Mogensen Mitigation,,Inc 9 Morgan Creek,Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Morgan Creek Floodplain -EEP# 258
Designer
Ward Consulting Engineers, P,C 8368 Six Forks Rd, Suite 104 Raleigh,
NC 27615 -5083
Primary project design POC
Becky Ward 919 - 870 -0526
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc 8000 Regency,Parkway, Suite 200 Cary,'NC 27518
Construction contractor POC
Will Pedersen 919 - 459 -9001
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC 3201 Glenndge Dr Raleigh, NC 27604
Survey contractor POC
Elisabeth Turner 919 - 875 -1378'
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc P O Box 1197 Fremont, NC 27930
Planting contractor POC
Charlie Bruton 919- 424 -6555
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518
Contractor point of contact
Will Pedersen 919 - 459 -9001
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource 336 - 855 -6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Core Nursery 919 - 542 -6186 Mellow Marsh Farm, Inc '919- 742 -1200
Dykes and Son Nursery 931 - 668 =8833 ArborGen (SuperTree
Seedlings) 800 - 222 -1290 NC Forestry Service`(Claridge Nursery) 919-
731 -7988
Monitoring Performers
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc,
Goldstein & Associates, Inc 1221
P O Box 690423 Charlotte, NC
Corporation, Pkwy, Raleigh, NC
28227
27610
Stream Monitoring POC
N/A
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Rich Mogensen (Mogensen Mitigation, Inc ) 704 - 576 -1111
Wetland Monitoring POC
Rich Mogensen (Mogensen Mitigation, Inc ) 704 -576 -1111
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 10 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Table 4. Project Attribute,Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Morgan Creek,Flo_odplam -EEP# 258
Project County
Orange /Durham
Physiographic Region
Piedmont (Triassic Basin)__
Ecoregion
Central Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear River,Basm
USES HUC for Project (14 digit)
3 03E +12
NCDWQSub -basin for Project
3/6/2006
_ Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
Haw River (Jordan Lake)
WRC Hab Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase?
No
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Site
Drainage area
N/A
Stream order
N/A
Restored length (feet)
N/A
Perennial or Intermittent
N/A
Watershed type (Rural, Urban „Developing etc)
N/A
Watershed LULC Distribution (e g)
N/A
Residential
N/A
Ag -Row Crop
N/A
Ag- Livestock
N/A
Forested
- N/A
Etc
N/A
Watershed impervious coven( %)
N/A
NCDWQAU /Index number
N/A
NCDWQ classification
WS- IV,NSW
303d listed?
Yes
Upstream of a 303d,listed segment?
Yes
Reasons,for 303&hsting or stressor
Standard Violation
Total acreage of easement
3154
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
1975
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
116
Rosgen classification of pre - existing
N/A
Rosgen classification of As -built
N/A
Valley type
_ N/A
Valley slope
N/A
Valleyside slope'range (e g,24%)
N/A
Valley toe slope range (e g 2 -3 %)
N/A
Cowardm classification
N/A
Trout waters designation
N/A
Species of concern, endangered etc ? (Y /N)
No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Chewacla
Series
Depth
_
Clay %'
-
K
-
T
Use N/A for items that may not apply Use ” -" for items that,are unavailable and "U" for items thatbare unknown
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 11 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

APPENDIX B: VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 12 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

J
C3 r- In
z Tb T
N
R� `D
six
K IT
u Oo
.'1�.�yi v
ouCC,#rtr
S
8
MoRc
b � o /b l,•
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
I I [3o
r
IAN CfEEK FLOODPLAN
(EEP 4258) Muge -en Mitigation, Inc.
dT CONDTTTONS PLAN VIEW u N�II � O Box 690029
GE /DURHAM COUIRMS 1:..,' cnnoa157s iut2�
NORTH CAROLINA
13 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

C
a)
E
fn
h
a)
y
N
Q
C
O
c
O
U
C
O
Q)
Ln
d
t9
r
a
m
a)
U
Q
Q)
C
N
d
LO
LO
m
a)
O7
co
d
U
a
C
41
47
N
tC
W
C y
E m o
o
Y
O
o U) U O
(D
C
M m
o
O
o
O
o
d m
O
r--
r--
O
r—
V
O
M
M
O
M
O
U
\a
0
` C
O
� a)
m
O
M a
Z
M
O
O
v
V
v
V
O
O
v
V
E V
O
O
O
O
O
O Q
m
a):
n cn
U
CL N O
a) O
O
C
LO
H
0 N
O
U)
m
C
a)
m
70
O
C
a)
C
m
O
.cl tm
O
LO
U-)
O
LO
=
O
U
O
= a
z
f N
_
C
C
C
en m
c E
0 O
O. O
d •�
J
J
J
o
r N
C cm
0
(n CD
@
w _
Q O
cu
_
Q O
U a)
O
O
O0 O
o
N
`
0
m
m
m
tea`
d
C 4)
C�
C
O N 1
C
C U
w d
rn:2
cn
Q)
N
d O
_c O
O_
Q
a)
U (D
c0
a7
d
_
LO
L
O
N
U
>
m
a)
L
cu
(n T
'O
-
O U
a7
U C cm
co
T
-O
C
� 7
m
N O
O
O
fn E
>` U
cu O
3
En a)
O
U N
E
�
(n U')
� C
U >
>
cn
C
OO
OU
M
E
3 N
w-0
U)
O
.- O
E
in C
O
?
>
3 cn
C
— U
-0
�
00
T
m
-
.O
Q O
t
�T.
O
C
L L
O
d
U
co
E
ai
O
a
O
+°•
m
M
3
N�
0)
d
m
_5 to
a�i
Q O O
>
r
N Q
m 0
LO
LO
m
a)
O7
co
d
U
a
C
41
47
N
tC
W
C y
E m o
o
y (D O
O
o U) U O
(D
R Q
W
a) N
O
a)
O
E " O
O
O
O Q
U
O y
` C
O
c)
M a
O
O
M a
Z
C a)
C
N
C
U 0 0
0
0 m
m
a):
n cn
CL N O
a) O
O
C
LO
H
U)
m
c0
a)
m
70
C
a)
C
m
O
O
cu
co
E
E
U
O
O U
f N
_
'- Q
0) m
c E
en m
c E
0 O
O. O
O
C-
C
0 n
o
o
r N
C cm
(n CD
@
w _
Q O
cu
_
Q O
_
N
O0 O
N
`
0)) N
tea`
d
C 4)
E
O N 1
C
C U
w d
y N
O
OI C C
LU U
d O
C
>aU
uiW
=oot=�ao<
o w E
° E
m mo » ma orb
Z3
m S y m m -
m _ E m m c E
` m m m 5g m 3c
w m a
n o
m m o c w E
N o
o. m ° a
m w ` m
t9 E m n Q1 ( c E°
C C O E m pi
S C_
i'7 m o$
ti;
m tJ m .51
- "m°
&
>
s sum .�
Co
m 2 tO -15 d o E
m o mm E c
t Boa
v m m o m '? > o°
E
m y m m E m
� 'nita� =nmm
0
m a° °
5
v 10 W m o v a m m o
m
m °m5 �`o E" W n
L U O o C
Ng cayR
_ m $
a o
m g E m a E n
o 5 c c m m Ti E H Z
E
m y$ 1 i
"
42 m m m v o m m o y c3
Ei 'o m
'm
T.
E
m mss= rmmN� "°
E
m ° bZ o m m
a o
m m p z N
s n E a a m c
m `o m m m m o a t
vm
nm = =
L E o p, E L� j� 5 E ° 2 m
gE
m
m m i2 c c E
Z3 , m 8
vm >' E g o 'o � �o
E m m v y o c E
E o 5
w W b c o m m m m n c m
'm �v m n v 5 "v tO t m cg -•
C_
Q
O
O
LL-
v
2
u
C
rz
"I
V
a-i
C
C
O
OA
C
O
N
C
v
OD
O
� m
c
O `)
LL N
I i
O E
C-
a)
a) u
aA p
C
O
C
O
2
M
O
}

c - m
\
0
E [
\ ± ¥
tE°
/\
/ \
\
�
/
/
_G
k
c
$
\
«
&
2
E
k
/
[
-
CL
-
-
-
}
{
\ko
)/
2\
$
/\)]§j
\)
\§K/2/
�
(
�
-
\
g
k
f
2
2
®�
*
_\
®\
=
o
u
7
-
j
%
§
®
]
}l
« /
2
\
&
0
E
m
/
'u-e-2
�\
\
\>[f
z
/
E©
t
E&
2,
2¥!%
J
ƒ
\}
}
\}��k
}
/
\
§
\j
\
\}
,
w
r
k
t¥(
tƒ
k
k
\
/ol
0101
2a0u
9
-
-
-
-
7
®(
j
-
7,
2
E
2
,
2
{z)
t
CL
,2}
\.2
T
\\i)j\
}/
»
}0
�\
(\
�
±
*
*
a
e
0
_
;
\�
\\{
2
_
r
§
p|
Z=
a=
c - m
\
0
E [
\ ± ¥
tE°
/\
/ \
\
�
/
/
_G
k
c
$
\
«

eu
-rq � �
r '#
'a '
o�
��
�o
w ,�
��
�? r
a
O

- 1 �f•1\
M
=fit
btu
Q
;.d., �3
O
d M
O �
I �
w �
�a
V t%
7 pop,
O
i

C/
�y^
•r
o H
� O
� a
WW �
W�
U
C7
a
0
5
C 75 M
6 C �
O
Q LL- N
O aj
LL O E
Y N N
d
i CLO Q
U C
C �
O
LO Y
O C
c�
2
C
00
0
Y
ra
LIO
tw
.Y
C
C
C
a
O
i

kv
s
40
PO
tA
e4
C?
7
on

I
.; Vf
9
CIO
CLo 6.
pQ r►,
tv bA
CJ a
•r
Go ^'
� o
b
0
f i
a
�J
i�
M
=tk
�J A
CL
O O
k_q
el

All
1
d
d rs"
bA
R
60 bA
�.a
i
4 C
wW _
G4 �
�J 'q
aO
0
G4
I
C fD M
r6 C O '�
Q LL N
O
Lt-
C) a!
aJ U
aJ cu
oA C2,
�
C
O
no
CO C
C cO
C
M
O
N
V
C
C
O
OD
C
a1
N
C
a)
OD
O
rp

APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 22 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Vegetation Plot
ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
MY =03 Planted Stem
Density (stems /acre)
MY -03 Total Stem
Density (stems
/acre)
VP1
No
283
324
VP,2
No
202
1012
VP3
No
283
1093 _
VP4
No
243
931
VP5'
No
0
486
Total
1011
3846
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 23 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Table 7. CVS Metadata
'Report Prepared ^By Melissa Lanza
12/2/2013
Date Prepared 1328
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN
THIS DOCUMENT---- - - - - --
cvs-eep-entrytool-
database name
v2 3 11 mdb
database location
C \U'ers \Melissa \Downloads
computer name
MELISSAPC
file size
39919616
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN
THIS DOCUMENT---- - - - - --
PROJECT SUMMARY - - --
Project Code
Description of database file, the, report worksheets, and a summary
Metadata
of project(s) and project data
Each,prolect is listed with its PLANTED stems,per acre, for
Proj, planted
each year This excludes live stakes
River Basin
Each projecths listed with its TOTAL stems per acre„ for each year, This includes live stakes,
Proj, total stems
all planted stems, and alMatural /volunteer stems
stream -to -edge width (ft)
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live
Plots
stems, dead stems, missing, etc )
Required Plots (calculated)
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for
Vigor
stems for all plots
Frequency distribution of vigor classes
Vigor by Spp
listed by species
List of most,frequent damage classes witH number of occurrences and
Damage
percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage values tallied by type for
Damage by Spp
each species
Damage values tallied by type for
Damage by Plot
each plot
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
A matrix of the,count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
combined) for each plot, dead and missmg,stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY - - --
Project Code
258
project Name
Mason Farms
Wetland Enhancement and Restoration on Mason Farms Biological
Description
Reserve imOrange /Durham Counties
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
5
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 24 Morgan Creek Floodplaln
,MY -03 Monitoring,Report — Final
December 2013

un
�V
6�
G.
^O
C
0
c
0
F-'
c
0
0
U
E
U
00
a�
,a
ca
E-�
C M
-E,
Q LL
1
ot�
LL O
Y v N
� u
V C �
r O
bD
O O
O
rr�
}
Ln
N
�r
Id?
�aaa
E�oa
u
c
0
�o
o,o
CY
C
g
v
c
v
0
WE
ow
��1�1111111�1111��I
Iw
WN
�IIIII�RC�II�II
�VIII
III��II�■NIIIII■11111111�����
II�IBl�IBIiIII�$IIIio
�I
III
C M
-E,
Q LL
1
ot�
LL O
Y v N
� u
V C �
r O
bD
O O
O
rr�
}
Ln
N
�r
Id?
�aaa
E�oa
u
c
0
�o
o,o
CY
C
g
v
c
v
0
WE

APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGIC DATA
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 26 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Table 9. Bankfull Events Accessing Through Berm Openings
Table 9. Bankfull Events Accessing Through Berm Openings
Morgan Creek Floodplain -EEP # 258
Date of 'Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method_
Photo
#
17- Dec -10
n/a
Visual observation of wrack lines
MY=
01 #6
3- Jun -11
27- May -11
USGS Gauge height >11 0 feet, Visual observation of
overland flow /indicators
MY-
01 #7
1- Aug -11
31- Jul -11
USGS Gauge height >9 0 feet, Visual observation of overland
, flow /indicators
MY-
01 #8
7- Sep -11
7- Sep -11
USGS Gauge height >8 5 feet
n/a
23- May -12
23- May -12
USGS Gauge height >8 feet,
n/a
28- Jul -12
28- Jul -12
USGS Gauge height >9 7 feet
n/a
3- Sep -12
3- Sep -12
USGS Gauge height >9 3 feet
n/a
19- Sep -12
19- Sep -12
USGS Gauge height >10 1 feet, Visual observation of
overland flow /indicators
6
30- Jun -13
30- Jun -13
USGS,Gauge height >8 5 feet
n/a
1-Jul-'13
1- Jul -13
USGS Gauge height >8 5 feet
n/a
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 27 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

Table 10. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Table 10. Wetland Criteria Attainment
a - Data missing — ;groundwater level monitored.for -71� days of the growing season
b - Data missing= groundwater level monitored for 115 days of the growing season
c - Data missing — groundwater level monitored for 145 days of the growing season
d - Data missing groundwater level monitored for 141 days of the growing season
e - Data missing — groundwater level monitored for 131 days of the growing season
f - Data missing — „groundwater level monitored for 416 days of the growing season
g - Data missing — groundwater level monitored for 69 days of the growing season
Gauge 3 was replaced due to malfunction and did not yield viable data
Gauge 7 was removed prior to restoration activities
Gauge 8 data is unrelated to the success of the wetland restoration,project component
Hydrology Success Criteria Five gauges (1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) are in Wetland Restoration Soil Unit 1, where
groundwater is' expected to be within 12 inches of the surface for at least 12 5% of the growing season -
Two gauges `(3 and 9) are in Wetland Soil Unit,2 where the groundwater is expected to be within 12
inches of the surface for at least 5% of the growing season Growing Season March 23 to November 3
(source http / /www wcc nres usda gov /cgibin /state pl ?state =nc)
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 28 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
,Gauge #
Max #
Consecutive
Days
%
Growing
_Season
Success
Criteria
Attained
Max #
Consecutive
Days
%
Growing
Season
Success
Criteria
Attained
Max #
Consecutive
Days
%
Growing
Season
Success
Criteria
Attained
Max #
Consecutro
e,Days
%
Growing
Season
Success
Criteria
Attained
1
20
9
Yes
61
28
Yes
35
16
Yes
50
22
Yes,
2
53d
24
Yes
34
15
Yes
8
4
No
23
10
Yes
3
5d
2
No
5,
2
No
3g
1
No
-
-
4
3e
1
No
8a
4
No
23
10
Yes
48
21
Yes
5
24d
11
Yes
53
24
Yes
61
28
Yes
52
23
Yes
6
23d
10
Yes
51
23
Yes
55
25
Yes
51,
23
Yes
8
= _
9
0d
0
No
32
14
Yes
24
11
Yes
32
14
Yes
10 (Reference
Gauge)
0
No
61
28
Yes
93
42
Yes
169
76
Yes
a - Data missing — ;groundwater level monitored.for -71� days of the growing season
b - Data missing= groundwater level monitored for 115 days of the growing season
c - Data missing — groundwater level monitored for 145 days of the growing season
d - Data missing groundwater level monitored for 141 days of the growing season
e - Data missing — groundwater level monitored for 131 days of the growing season
f - Data missing — „groundwater level monitored for 416 days of the growing season
g - Data missing — groundwater level monitored for 69 days of the growing season
Gauge 3 was replaced due to malfunction and did not yield viable data
Gauge 7 was removed prior to restoration activities
Gauge 8 data is unrelated to the success of the wetland restoration,project component
Hydrology Success Criteria Five gauges (1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) are in Wetland Restoration Soil Unit 1, where
groundwater is' expected to be within 12 inches of the surface for at least 12 5% of the growing season -
Two gauges `(3 and 9) are in Wetland Soil Unit,2 where the groundwater is expected to be within 12
inches of the surface for at least 5% of the growing season Growing Season March 23 to November 3
(source http / /www wcc nres usda gov /cgibin /state pl ?state =nc)
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc 28 Morgan Creek Floodplain
MY -03 Monitoring Report — Final
December 2013

bn
Mp
lD
V Q M N O
£TOZ /Z /ZT
c o
N O
r4 N
ZTOZ /SZ /0T
0 0 0 0 0 c c
00 to N Q
t
c
0
a
U
cu
D-
I
C
O
qj
N
N
on
C
O
l7
Q/
u
7
O
N
3
0
a
m
w
ar
L
U
C
N
L
oD
Z
v
OU
7
0
U'
E
f0
Q1
N
N
I
C
L_
Q
N
v
is
3
'D
7
O
n
X
U
Y
c
0
m
m
0
cc
rr
(7
N
N
O
N
V
T C
m N
N N
Q
L N
E c
o 01
Z Y
o ?
0
r p1
N f0
L �
` N
m N
U
C
C U
O U
� 3
0
m`
0- -

w
Qi
Y
0
N
V C M N r O
£TOZ /Z /ZT
ZTOZ /SZ /OT
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 00 �o V N N V
N
CX7
Y
c
c o
is
o U)
io
n p
� c
a �
I �
0
N
N
O
O N
N
m
C
3
0
c.�
v
�a
3
0
v
.o
L
c
N
I
c
s
oq
v
co
�o
l7
'a
a
N
N
� U
I N C
>, II
ca �
N
N
C, C
C) a)
� fU
L_ L N
E c
d
O Ol
U) Z
p O
3 rn
� N N
� L �
O 2 N7
I � C
O U
L
N
o) Zz
o ii

Z-1
(1)
tLo
m
V
10
O
O
EIOZ /Z /ZI
O o 0 o O o 0
O o0 to C N
X
Y
c
O
C lC
C
O to
N �
O
d C
v m
T of
d Cl)
I o
N
N
O
C N
O
m
m
C
3
0
�l
I
u,
3
0
a
m
v
L
u
C
N
N
I
C
L
OD
X
6/
CO
7
m
LD
16
d
N
N
N U
N C
T 11
I ^ N
N N
d
� M �
L � N
CL E
m
v �
0 0 'a)
U
O
3 r op
-0 N f0
C t
0
0
I � C
O U
U
m 3
a
CD
`
o n
(7

J�
On
I
ro
At
0
o
£i0Z /Z /Zi
ZTOZ /8Z /Oi
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O W lD c't N N d'
N
c
0
Q
u
61
d
I
C
O
�v
UJ
N
h0
G
3
0
v
�a
3
0
v
m
v
L
v
C
N
C
L
b0
cu
N
7
m
m
LD
C
m
QD41
in
QD
N
C
O_
t]
v
�o
3
C
O
X
C7
Y
c
0
io
co
K
M
O
N
O
N
N C
[D N
l.
Cl.
�. Cl.
M �
N �
.D N
E c
O Of
Z
o
C
N f6
L �
U N
m �
U
G C
O U
U
m 3
m
ZZ
m
o
zs

Ze-
On
Ovej,
0
0
CD
£i0Z /Z /Zi
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 00 �o Q N
N '
c
0
.Q
u
d
a
I
C
O
�D
QI
N
OD
C
3
0
Y
v
�o
3
0
a
m
v
L
_C
N
C
t
cu
Z
w
bo
7
to
C7
E
m
FU
C7
I
C
L
Q
Q1
QJ
ca
3
C
0
B
X
Y
c
0
U)
io
iv
Q'
c+�
O
N
O
N
N C
�a a�
w
N-
M �
N �
� N
E c
0
O Ol
Z
O �
O
r OI
N C0
L �
` N
3
C C
O U
U
� 3
a�
m_
o n

�L
�
W�^
Mo
u
Ln a m N o
£TOZ /Z /ZT
ZTOZ /SZ /OT
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. N O 00 kD N N !}
A
0
w
C
C
O
a
u
v
a
I
C
O
�a
N
N
to
C
.3
0
t�
I
a
V
t0
N n
O
N
co
H
N
L
u
C
N
N
1
L
00
Z
N
00
7
m
U'
E
N
Q/
✓1
In
U
I
C
L
d
Q
m
3
a
C
O
Y
C
O
f6
R
O
c
c+�
0
N
N_
O
N
U
jA C
T 11
co d
l.
N C
cn y
r� N
C C
7
Z
O 0
cp
N Co
t y
i �y
ca
C
O c1
CA
COto
N
c
o a
0 :s

C
N
d.1
v
c
a
a�
O
l�A
cv
Mil
0
O
ETOZ /Z /ZT
ZTOZ /8Z /OT
00 W tDD oV O O O CD
X
C7
Y
c
0
S -
c (A
0
m is
•Q D
'V C
Q) f0
d
I c
O
N_
C O
O N
to
W
N
on
C
.3
0
t�
I
v
u
_m
N
3
0
ai
m
v
L
c
t
m
aj
x
a,
m
E
<v
v
N
N
� T C
I as a)
a �
l.
NCl.
C � �
L a N
n E c
� O
N Z ;
OI
'30 N N
a
7 U y
O
I C C
O U
m 3
m
c ,
o °-
0 ZEI
e