20120948 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20160523

MORGAN CREEK FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION: EEP/DMS #258
UNC -CH Mason Farm Biological Reserve — Orange & Durham Co.
SCO ID # 0050645601 -- Vendor Contract # 5714 -- 404-401 ID# (exempt)
CLOSE-OUT REPORT: Wetland Restoration & Preservation
Project Settinq & Classifications
Meeting XY Coord: LAT = 35.8923, LON = -79.0164
County:
Orange & Durham
General Location:
Chapel Hill, NC
Basin:
Cape Fear (Haw R)
Physiographic Region:
Piedmont
Ecoregion:
Central Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03030002-060080
NCDWQ Sub -basin:
03-06-06
Wetland Classification
Riparian
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Project Performers
Dec 2011
Source Agency:
EEP (DMS)
Designer:
Ward Consulting Eng
Monitoring Firm:
Catena Group (MYO-2),
Mogensen Mitig (MY3-5)
Berm Gap Construct:
River Works Inc
Planting, Weed Control:
Charles Bruton Natural
Systems
Transfer Stewardship:
Yes
Stewards:
UNC Chapel Hill
Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
Oct 2005
Restoration Plan & Design
July 2008
Easement Reallocation
May 2009
Project Permitted
NA (exempt)
Construction Completed
July 2010
Planting & Weed Treatment
Dec 2010
MY -0 Baseline Survey
Mar 2011
As -Built Monitoring Report
Aug 2011
MY -1 Monitoring Report
Dec 2011
MY -2 Monitoring Report
Nov 2012
Crest gauges installed
Fall 2013
MY -3 Monitoring Report
Dec 2013
MY -4 Monitoring Report
Oct 2014
Repair Berm Gap Erosion
Jun 2015
MY -5 Monitoring Report
Dec 2015
Closeout Submittal
Mar 2016

Project Setting and Summary
The Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258) is located along the lower reach of Morgan
Creek just before it enters Jordan Lake, 2.5 miles southeast of downtown Chapel Hill, in the Cape Fear
River watershed (USGS HUC # 03030002-060080). Geologically, the site is in the Durham -Sanford
Triassic Basin, with elevations between 242 to 248 feet. Predominant soils on the 31.5 acre site are
mapped as Chewacla and Wehadkee series. The University of North Carolina (UNC) used the site for
agricultural and silvicultural research from the 1900s to 1980s. In the 1940s they channelized Morgan
Creek and constructed a soil berm (artificial levee) along the southwest bank to reduce flooding
frequency, and excavated ditches to further drain the floodplain and facilitate agricultural use. The stream
channelization, berm, drainage ditches, and land -use activities have degraded the former bottomland
wetlands on the site. In 1984 the property was designated as the Mason Farm Biological Reserve
(MFBR), and agricultural and silvicultural disturbances were ended. The property is now managed by
UNC Botanical Garden, with the long-term goal of restoring more -or -less natural communities where
feasible (http://ncbg.unc.edu/mason-farm-biological-reserve/).
The Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration project is designed to restore natural floodplain hydrology by
constructing five rock -stabilized openings through the berm to increase natural floodwater access from
Morgan Creek. Each opening (gap) is 15 feet wide at the base (at the existing floodplain elevation) and
roughly 50 feet wide at the top of the berm. Native trees and shrubs were planted on poorly vegetated or
exotic -dominated areas on the floodplain (previously farmed land) to restore a natural Piedmont
Bottomland Forest community. The 31.5 acre project area includes 14.37 acres of wetland restoration and
5.61 acres of wetland preservation. The remaining 11.5 acres includes the berm, trails, and non -wetland
areas. No stream work is included, but 3200 linear feet of riparian buffer along the south (right) bank of
Morgan Creek is preserved. The project generates a total of 15.49 wetland mitigation units. No credit is
sought for the buffer preservation.
Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the restoration plan focus on improving water quality and ecological functions for Morgan
Creek and the Jordan Lake watershed through the following:
° Increased overbank flooding to promote wetland habitats.
° Attenuation of floodwater sediments and nutrients within the floodplain.
° Retention of floodwaters thereby reducing downstream flooding.
° Reduced stormwater flow bank shear stress on Morgan Creek thereby improving localized bank and
channel stabilization.
The goals will be obtained through the following project -specific objectives, with the primary means to
reaching these objectives being to breach the man-made berm along Morgan Creek:
° Increase the frequency of floodplain flooding to approximately 2.5 times/year
° Restore wetland hydrology to 17.5 acres of impacted wetlands
° Preserve an existing 8 -acre wetland
° Re-establish native wetland and riparian plant communities
° Treat and remove non-native invasive plant species
° Preserve 3200 linear feet of riparian buffer on the south bank of Morgan Creek

Table 1. Success Criteria
Success Criteria
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
Flood Hydrology: Morgan Creek
Monitor 5 manual crest gauges
Yes — Gauges and wrack lines
should flood onto its historic
(installed at each berm gap in
indicate at least 2 floods in
floodplain through the berm
2013) and the existing USGS
2013 and 3 or more floods per
openings at least 2.5 times per year
stream gauge on Morgan Cr
year in 2011, 2012, 2014, and
on average.
1,600 ft upstream.
2015. 5 -year average = 3.4
floods/yr.
Wetland Hydrology, Soil Unit #1
RDS Ecotone groundwater
gauges 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 installed in
Yes in Part -- 4 of 5 gauges
succeeded in 3 or more of 5
eastern portion of project: 12.5%
of growing season = 27 days.
soil unit #1; daily recording.
years. Gauge #2 succeeded in 2
of 5 years (Table 3).
Wetland Hydrology: Soil Unit #2
RDS Ecotone groundwater
gauges 3, 9, A, B, C installed
Yes in Part -- 4 of 5 gauges
succeeded every year (5 years
western portion of project: 5.0%
of growing season =11 days.
in soil unit #2; daily recording.
for gauge #9, 1 year for gauges
A, B, Q. Gauge #3 succeeded
in 1 of 5 years (Table 3).
Vegetation Community: Planted
Monitor 5 CVS plots, 100 m2
Yes — 4 of 5 CVS plots
areas should achieve at least 260
each, for survival and growth
exceeded the criteria (with
native woody trees/shrubs per acre
of planted and volunteer stems.
volunteers) and no low-density
(planted + volunteers) in MY5.
areas exceeding 0.10 acre were
found.

Table 2. Final Mitigation Assets
Final Assets Table: Morgan Creek Floodplain # 258 — Closeout Mar 2016
Project
Component or
Reach ID
Pre —
Mitigation
(acre / lin.ft)
Mitigation
Approach
Total Wetland
As -Built
(acre / lin.ft)
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits
(wnnu)
Wetland Units
Wetland Units
(WMU)
Buffer
Offset
0
15.49
Riparian Wetland
14.37 ac
R
0
14.37 ac
1:1
14.37
Riparian Wetland
5.61 ac
P
5.61 ac
5:1
1.12
Total
19.98 ac
R + P
19.98 ac
15.49 wmu
Assets Summary: Mitigation Unit Totals
Stream
Mitigation Units
Riparian
Non -riparian
Total Wetland
Riparian
Nutrient
(SMU)
Wetland Units
Wetland Units
(WMU)
Buffer
Offset
0
15.49
0
15.49
0
0

To USGS Gauge UNC Finlay GolICourse
NAD'
*.., a
O k/4}'"e
�w t 'til
liy l.Ity snhl 2
G�nservatlan €asernent (1-59 a�a1
Ox RDS Groundwater Gauge
CV5 Vegetation Plant
Rx Reran €5paning+Crest Gauge
Planting gone 1: Trees + Shrubs (12.51 ac)
Planting Zone 2: Understory Shrubs (5.$5 ae) To Big Oak
W €rod s
hydric sail 1 Sail Unit 1 Wetland Restoratlon: (9.05 ac)
hydric soil Soil Unit 2 Weiland Restnratlon: (5.31 ac)
Wetland Preservatim: (5-51 ac)
hydricsoil':``'-
ro
49
hydrdcsoil i
wetland i
i
preseraRtivn '•� +
i
%\ To
a _ Jordan
500 Feet `~ --. e6+ take
Figure la. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Final Project Assets Map.

Figure lb. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Wetland Restoration and Preservation Areas on Aerial Basemap.

Or�sng¢ Y r t xu
Grove 711 F,;, -1
n i, Ek IT,
��crfi _ ns ii Eutja'ning f° ' P-R®�
ro�sa�Aa
W. r^ L' Eu64 " k e' - w,- r; 501 }
LJ f AFl45REW5 I .'� rl 4 I EkV¢
'V rte,Morgan Creek
Watershed [y w `,F
WATK F�
��' '�a +kir. '�,. •� x � { � _ _
r
cI ,, _'% r a Q v 2 fL
C �1LEY --: tai GH,6P
II.
11 4 t alvander t' 111`'� 17 f �'
Y i 'firs` ' c, c• - ,t
A113D rt
EPN
KA
r
ICTUS
ou
903
i I
�f t
qb �`v cue �o i i �4}FIE � t F 5 -Morgan Gr ���T
j
r S.t
ells ' �� (f
!� � �'�■��gO♦pOd�lin
's �¢ r mitigati�_ n P4
� ILS r ,
Jg ��441 r .it d�tti r 1 c a 1
,�. . f�, S�ItE~ 25$
-
rRA.Dugwi
Atrnnd _ —NL 1 moi.Y�
F
+'� 4f'`
Cc
—.femn
0) �. {4}� , +�' �- Jordan La
v I 0 7, I 4 + , J �MKi�� _ vn�a,.,.. nn r f s: � ` i %
Figure 2a. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Project Vicinity and Watershed Map, Orange, Durham, and Chatham
Counties, NC. (DeLorme Atlas & Gazeteer)

rL w1iI IY'L r" s• ;' 0 sir::
�JI
• t ' r`` ILL f�y....5 .r`-, it y �f -I �' t
/�%/91*
—f�.. - ,- .�1,+ a I i �, .� ;" '� i Iw' it 1�i� •++ � �
'T
T i
. .
�'•�
# Finley
�+ ��,� � 1�` _
r ._ '-�� ti
�. xr �` .+ " , 1 Golf t ,•
Course
Al
*��'_ -r1 'l`. -�.. ` tit t x.�f _ J �y_4 ,., i ..."�L' �_ r� *}� -`� ■
�' i�,�. '`- � � fir.•-��,�`i; � r`' �`� �°' ..� l � - �'-� �,, �, `' � ,,r �
�=
� �rf�"'---r� _ ■ R a y.r'r! �# / .-a.` �-.=--' _ � '^ � _ � `.�% r$t �
!. • ! "1� ` t t l/,rs,fi' '} R _.°= R .r1 C�„ f I' I•' �',. Usgs
-411
�t
` r
� q
y, r � � �� ._ it ICY ,,�,,., . �r • ' a �,%� s .ir 1Ir� �3� �� ��t� �—�" � � �� •�" `.
f
r
mea fr- • � .r tr � `. �-.fir-�-� ��j _ "# t � �..t - f F,��i _ � I -R 'fir • - � i
t
0
'ill., `=\ i • * y ..✓ 9 - °'� h ./" ,� ++���� �1 °R`. I
� r
I _ • 1 G V�7' � � �r�/'-� � �`�r'r� I � y �� � >��tir� +f ,�+'. � C3 � f
�`-,. { � � _ ; �' � -.,.- �' +'� !"`_^--•�-�'�.�.3, � yam- _}`-ti', i'F� • ..�' .. -.��. r ,�� � � -" �.- ..
1 ms`s`
fR127$mpll
f �r�'� U�,'t � 4`• �`�\ f � �;'`- `- {���� *•4£�� ���`�' � �'`�' 1J{ � QiD�t3�ll"�� �,� � f �� /r
Reserve
F+'
09 -ter ' j , r�/f � '• 1.1 � � � � _
Y.
IV 0
Avet, )001
�' - •�'•` .fes �� � ,� � �} � k. �—���� �`� , , ,� �
� +�'���,1�1 �
•� .r� t. 1. +� y` l - _*-��'-{ r
9 7 r f f+ ; �J.,LL r� � � 7 { )') � ,` P �� �'r. � ♦ �f �.. , ��1 i r � �>." 7 � i d
Figure 2b. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): USGS Topographic Quadrangle, Chapel Hill, NC.

USDA Online Sail Survey Data
Ch = Chewacla loans w! Wehadkee inclusions
_Cp = Congaree fine sandy loam
C rB = Creed moor fine sandy loam 2-8%
WsB = White Stare loam 2-6%
WtC2 = White Store clay loam 6-15%
Figure 3. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Top Map = USDA Soil Survey
(1977); Bottom Map = On-site Hydric Soil Delineation (2008), Orange & Durham Counties, NC.

Figure 4. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Project Remediation Areas — High
flows eroded the berm gaps in 2013-2014, displacing soil and rock from the wire gabions. These areas
were repaired during the spring -summer of 2015.

Gauges 1,2,4,5,6 are in Restoration Unit 1; success criterion= 12.5% of growing season (27 consecutive days)
Gauges 3,9,A,B,C are in Resoration Soil Unit 2; success criteria =5%of growing season (11 consecutive days)
Growing Season (Chapel Hill, NC)=March 28 to November 3 = 227 days.
Table 3. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Wetland hydrology criteria attainment, 2010 to 2015, from RDS Ecotone
groundwater gauges.
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2011-2015
Gage#
1
Max#Consec
61
Days%Grow Sea...
28
success cdteria
Yes
Met Max#Consec Days %Grow Season
35 16
success Criteria
Yes
Met Max#Consec Days %Grow Season
50 22
successcriteea
Yes
Met Max#Consec Days %Grow Season
46 21
snaesscraeda Met
Yes
Max#Consec Days %Grow Season successcdteda
42 19
Mee
Yes
Yearsof Success
5 of5
2
34
15
Yes
8 4
No
23 10
No
39 18
Yes
27 13
Yes
3of5
3
5
2
No
3 1
No
- -
-
7 3
No
14 6
Yes
1of4
4
8
4
No
23 10
No
48 21
Yes
39 18
Yes
25 11
No
2of5
5
53
24
Yes
61 28
Yes
52 23
Yes
46 21
Yes
42 19
Yes
50f5
6
51
23
Yes
25 25
No
51 23
Yes
46 21
Yes
46 21
Yes
4of5
9
32
14
Yes
11 11
Yes
32 15
Yes
45 20
Yes
41 19
Yes
5 of5
10
61
18
Yes
42 42
Yes
169 76
Yes
- -
-
- -
-
3 of3
A
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
20 9
Yes
1 of 1
B
-
-
-
-
-
40 18
Yes
1 of 1
C
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
40 18
Yes
1 of 1
Gauges 1,2,4,5,6 are in Restoration Unit 1; success criterion= 12.5% of growing season (27 consecutive days)
Gauges 3,9,A,B,C are in Resoration Soil Unit 2; success criteria =5%of growing season (11 consecutive days)
Growing Season (Chapel Hill, NC)=March 28 to November 3 = 227 days.
Table 3. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Wetland hydrology criteria attainment, 2010 to 2015, from RDS Ecotone
groundwater gauges.

9
s
7
m
Percentile Graph for Rainfall 2010-2015
2
1
0
aaiitiary Fel)rtiary Harch April Id ay hire ltlly htipst September Octol)er November December
Date
Rahifall2010 Rainfall 2011 Rainfall 2012 MRahifall20B
MRain#all 2014 MRainfall 2015 — 30tli Percentile —70th Percentile
Figure 5. Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Plot of monthly rainfall totals by
year from 2010 to 2015, with 3011 and 70' percentile climate normal values. Monthly rainfall totals
recorded at Third Fork Creek, USGS Gauge# 355511078570745 (4 miles ENE of project site). Monthly
climate normal values are based on the 30 year period from 1981 to 2010 at Williams Airport, Chapel
Hill.

Table 4. Over -bank Flood Events Through Berm Openings
Morgan Creek Floodplain -DMS # 258
Date of
Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Data Method / Evidence
Photo #
17 -Dec -10
Fall 2010
Observed wrack lines south of berm gaps
MY -01
#6
3 -Jun -11
27 -May -11
USGS Gauge height > 11.0 feet, wrack observed
MY -01
#7
1 -Aug -11
31 -Jul -11
USGS Gauge height > 9.0 feet, wrack observed
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 > 8.0 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, wrack observed
MY -02
#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
7 -Mar -14
7 -Mar -14
USGS Gauge height > 8.5 feet
n/a
16 -May -14
16 -May -14
USGS Gauge height > 8.5 feet
n/a
2 -Sep -14
Jun -Aug -14
*Berm Gap 1 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 2 feet
n/a
2 -Sep -14
Jun -Aug -14
*Berm Gap 2 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 3 feet
n/a
2 -Sep -14
Jun -Aug -14
*Berm Gap 3 - Crest gauge damaged
n/a
2 -Sep -14
Jun -Aug -14
*Berm Gap 4 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 2.3 feet
n/a
2 -Sep -14
Jun -Aug -14
*Berm Gap 5 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 3 feet
n/a
5 -Mar -15
5 -Mar -15
USGS Gauge height > 8.0 feet
n/a
19 -Apr -15
19 -Apr -15
USGS Gauge height > 9.5 feet
n/a
2 -Oct -15
2 -Oct -15
USGS Gauge height > 10.2 feet
n/a
9 -Nov -15
9 -Nov -15
USGS Gauge height > 7.9 feet
n/a
19 -Nov -15
19 -Nov -15
USGS Gauge height > 8.0 feet
n/a
16 -Dec -15
2 -Oct -15
*Berm Gap 1 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 0.7 feet
n/a
16 -Dec -15
2 -Oct -15
*Berm Gap 2 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 1.5 feet
n/a
16 -Dec -15
2 -Oct -15
*Berm Gap 3 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 1.2 feet
n/a
16 -Dec -15
I 2 -Oct -15
*Berm Gap 4 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 2.7 feet
n/a
16 -Dec -15
2 -Oct -15
*Berm Gap 5 - Crest Gauge Flood Elevation 1.9 feet
n/a
* Crest gauges reset after cork measurement

Plantinq Zone 1 –(Piedmont Bottom land Hardwood (turves 1251 acnes
Pla nti ng Density = approx. 400 stems�acre for (approximately 10' X 10' spaacin )
QLJ-,Irltity
ITaxonemic Name
lCommon Mame
TT—Y P e
Canopy Layer
lCommon Narne
I Tyrpe
200
,betula nigra
River birch
bare root
3001
Pfatanus occidentalis
Sycamore
bare root
3001
Linodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
bare root
2001
NVyssa syfvatica
blackgurn
bare root
2001
Diospyros Orgruana
Arnencan Persimmon
bare root
3001
Carya ccrC#fcrrrus
bitternut hickory
bare root
30C.
Quercusphallas
Willow oak
bare root
210
Ufmus rubra
Slippery elm
bare root
20CD
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut soak
bare root
Small Tree and Shrub Layer
ITotal Sterns
200
Alnus serruiata
Tag alder
bare root
300
Carp nus caratiniana
Ironwood
bare root
2401
Cornus arnornum
Silky dogwood
bare root
230
Sambucus eanadensis
EIderberry
bare root
1401
Rhododendron v scosum
Swamp azalea
bare root
2101
5taphyl+ea trffolia
Bladdemut
bare root
234:
'Vaccfnium corymbosurnr
Highbush blueberry
bare root
3764
Total Stems
Planting Zone - (Piedmont Bottorriand Hardwood Forest -Enhancement) 5.85 ac
Planting Density = approx. 400 sternsiacre
Planting Density = approx. 600 ste,m acre
Quantity
Taxonomic Name
lCommon Narne
I Tyrpe
Shrub Layer
100
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
bare root
200
Arorxa arbutifolia
Red chokeberry
bare root
260
Carrxis arnornum
Silky dogwood
bare roast
300
Sarnbucus canaderrsis
Elderberry
bare root
300
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
bare root
300
VibLr u.rrn nudum
P'ossumhaw uibumum
bare root
325
Am4anctrierarborea
SeNcebeny
bare root
400
vacciryium corymbosti a
Highbush blueberry
bare root
2340
ITotal Sterns
Planting Zane 3 - (Berm Openings) 1.15 ac
Planting Density = approx. 600 ste,m acre
Ouantity
ITaxonromic Name
lCornmon Name
I Tyree
Shrubs
50
Ainus serrufata
Tag alder
bare root
100.
Cornus amomurn
Silky dogwood
bare root
100
Sambucus canadan&s
Elderberry
bare root
00
Jtea kdrginica
V it inia wi Ilow
bare root
75
Aroma arbutifo is
fled choke -bar
bare root
801
Viburnum pudum
Pessumhaw viburnum
bare root
100
Euonymous americana
Strawberry bush
bare root
001
Vaccinum ccrymbosum
Highbush blueberry
bare root
685
Total Stems
Morgan Creek Floodplain Restoration Site (DMS # 258): Woody species planted in Dec 2010. Native
grasses and herbs were seeded in non -forested areas, including Elymus, Panicum, Dicanthelium,
Andropogon, Schizachyrium, Sorgastrum, Tripsicum, Juncus, Bidens, Coreopsis, and Vernonia.

Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Year
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Recommendation & Conclusion
The project has met its success criteria and is functioning well. The berm openings have increased the
flooding frequent from Morgan Creek onto its historic floodplain; two to five floods per year were
documented during 2011 to 2015. Wetland hydrology has increased in areas where the flood -control berm
and ditches had effectively dewatered these wetlands since the 1940s. Five of the original seven
groundwater gauges met the success criteria during three or more of the 5 -year monitoring period, and
three additional gauges installed in mid -2014 all met success criteria in 2015.
Alluvial forest trees and shrubs, both planted and volunteer, are reclaiming the site. Average stem density
of native woody species among the five CVS plots far exceeded the success criterion in 2015, with
volunteers included. All remaining planted areas outside the CVS plots have adequate native woody
density, and no low-density areas exceeding 0.10 acre were noted. Exotic species are common, due to
past use of the site, but are not a significant threat to reestablishment of a bottomland forest community.
The NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS, formerly NCEEP) recommends closing out this project
with the mitigation units specified in Table 2, specifically: 15.49 riparian wetland mitigation units.
Contingencies: (None)
Photos Attached: Pre -Construction and MY5
Baseline
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
PnoLS
T
PnoLS
T
PnoLS
T
PnoLS
T
PnoLS T
PnoLS
T
Plot 1
566.6
566.6
404.7
404.7
405
688
283
324
243 283
243
243
Plot 2
404.7
404.7
242.8
242.8
202
1902
202
1012
162 971
202
890
Plot 3
607
607
364.2
364.2
283
1295
283
1093
283 931
1 283
931
Plot 4
607
607
445.2
445.2
283
1862
243
931
283 1295
202
1133
Plot 5
1 485.6
485.6
323.7
1 323.7
1 243
1 890
1 0
0
0 405
0
647
Yearly
Average
534.2
534.2
1 356.1
1 356.1
1 283
1327
1 194
1 1206
1 194 777
186
769
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Recommendation & Conclusion
The project has met its success criteria and is functioning well. The berm openings have increased the
flooding frequent from Morgan Creek onto its historic floodplain; two to five floods per year were
documented during 2011 to 2015. Wetland hydrology has increased in areas where the flood -control berm
and ditches had effectively dewatered these wetlands since the 1940s. Five of the original seven
groundwater gauges met the success criteria during three or more of the 5 -year monitoring period, and
three additional gauges installed in mid -2014 all met success criteria in 2015.
Alluvial forest trees and shrubs, both planted and volunteer, are reclaiming the site. Average stem density
of native woody species among the five CVS plots far exceeded the success criterion in 2015, with
volunteers included. All remaining planted areas outside the CVS plots have adequate native woody
density, and no low-density areas exceeding 0.10 acre were noted. Exotic species are common, due to
past use of the site, but are not a significant threat to reestablishment of a bottomland forest community.
The NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS, formerly NCEEP) recommends closing out this project
with the mitigation units specified in Table 2, specifically: 15.49 riparian wetland mitigation units.
Contingencies: (None)
Photos Attached: Pre -Construction and MY5

Pre- and Post -Restoration Photos - Morgan Creek Floodplain #258 - Closeout Report
Morgan Cr Floodplain #258 - Closeout Report 17 Mogensen Mitigation Inc - Draft Mar 2016

;t
1 1 }y.I - -
h�-
hj
f ilk'.
1 Topics Ron AM
'�J14
r -y
c
w
34 Pq
Avea- i

Pre- and Post -Restoration Photos - Morgan Creek Floodplain #258 - Closeout Report
Berm Opening (typical, after flood) Apr 2011
Berm Opening (#1 ) Dec 2015
Morgan Cr Floodplain #258 - Closeout Report 19 Mogensen Mitigation Inc - Draft Mar 2016

Pre- and Post -Restoration Photos - Morgan Creek Floodplain #258 - Closeout Report
Recent Flood through Berm Opening 5: Apr 2015
Restored Wetland, GW wells B and 9: Apr 2015
Morgan Cr Floodplain #258 - Closeout Report 20 Mogensen Mitigation Inc - Draft Mar 2016

Appendix A
Watershed Planning Summary
Morgan Creek Floodplain
Watershed Characteristic Overview
The Morgan Creek Floodplain wetland restoration and preservation project is located in the
Morgan and Little Creeks Local Watershed Plan, within the Cape Fear River Basin in Orange
County. According to the 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities Plan the Morgan
Creek watershed (HU 03030002060080) is characterized by 7% agricultural land use, 59%
forested, 23% prioritized by the NCNHP as Natural Heritage Natural Area and 8% impervious.
In addition, the majority of the watershed is identified as a Water Supply Watershed while 18%
of the streams included on the NCDWR 303d List. There is one additional DMS project in this
watershed, Chapel Creek, which closed out in 2014.
Morgan Creek, which is also located within the Upper New Hope watershed and drains to Jordan
Lake, is identified by the NCDWR as Nutrient Sensitive Water Supply Water and is identified on
the 2012 303d List. According to the 2009 RBRP, improving water quality flowing to Jordan
Lake is the highest priority in the Cape Fear 03030002 Catalog Unit.
This project is located within a reserve call the Mason Farm Biological Reserve (MFBR) which
is now managed by UNC Botanical Garden. Within the MFBR, the Morgan Creek Floodplain
project is adjacent to the most ancient forested site called Big Oak Woods. Big Oak Woods is a
65 -acre hardwood bottomland and has been continuously forested since before European
settlement that has never been clear-cut or plowed. Some of the larger white oaks exceed 300
years of age. The MFBR protects natural areas, supports academic research and public education.
The MFBR plus contiguous undeveloped tracts create an approximately 900 -acre natural area
that connects with the 41,000 -acre New Hope Game Lands to the south.
(http://ncbg.unc.edu/mason-farm-biological-reserve/) In addition, the NCNHP designated this
area as a Natural Heritage Natural Area (NHNA) and rated it as Exceptional, which is the highest
rating. This project is also located along two other NHNAs, within the Morgan Creek Floodplain
Forest (which is rated as Very High), within the Morgan Creek Bluffs (rated Very High).
The development of the Morgan and Little Creeks LWP included intensive field monitoring and
GIS assessment which pinpointed major causes of degradation for watershed streams. Stressors
identified in the LWP affecting watershed functions include: phosphorus load, nitrogen load,
poor in -stream habitat, low dissolved oxygen, pathogen load, poor/loss of wildlife habitat,
flooding potential and wetland loss.

Links to Watershed Goals and Objectives
The table below summarizes the major LWP-identified stressors in the Morgan and Little
Creeks LWP area, recommended management strategies, and stressor -related objectives
achieved by the Morgan Creek Floodplain project.
Stressors and Issues
Management Strategies
Morgan Creek Floodplain
Riparian Buffer Disturbance
Stormwater management, stream
Native trees and shrubs planted on poorly
restoration, protect open space, buffer
vegetated or exotic -dominated areas on
restoration
the floodplain (previously farmed land) to
restore a natural Piedmont Bottomland
Forest community.
Floodplain Alteration
Stream, buffer and wetland restoration,
Restored natural floodplain hydrology by
stormwater management, protect open
constructing five rock -stabilized openings
space, prevent floodplain encroachment
through existing berm to increase natural
floodwater access from Morgan Creek.
Jordan Lake Eutrophication
Nonpoint source management such as
Restored floodplain connection through
buffer restoration, buffer protection,
natural floodwater access from Morgan
stormwater management, stream
Creek. Native trees and shrubs planted on
restoration, additional monitoring
poorly vegetated or exotic -dominated
areas on the floodplain (previously farmed
land) to restore a natural Piedmont
Bottomland Forest community.
Lack of Forest Habitat
Buffer protection, education, stream
Restored a natural Piedmont Bottomland
Contiguousness
restoration, buffer restoration
Forest community within a high value
natural resource that connects to additional
important State of NC resources.
Lack of High Quality Habitat
Buffer protection, education, stream
Planted native trees and shrubs on poorly
restoration, stormwater management,
vegetated or exotic -dominated areas in
buffer restoration
floodplain (previously farmed land) to
restore a natural Piedmont Bottomland
Forest community in an area designated by
NCNHP as an Exceptional Natural
Resource in the state.

Watershed Context Summary
In addition to the Morgan Creek Floodplain project there is one additional DMS project, Chapel
Creek (Long Term Management), two CWMTF projects (a wastewater and an innovative
stormwater site) and one Section 319 project (rain garden) within the LWP.
2016 DMS Project Closeout: Morgan Greek Floodplain
Morgan and
Utl e
Creeks LWP
Chapel
Creek
`r 2035 Closaeout Project
r` DMS Projects
q, CWMTF Projects
1W, 9 Projects
NHP Natural Heritage N atural
roet Local Watersheds
al Watershed Plaris
Morgan
Creek
Floodplain
[pal Bounanes 0 0.0 1 2
ty Boundary _ _ Miles
N

Appendix B: Property Ownership & Protection
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available
at the specified County Register of Deeds office, and is linked to the property portfolio at:
http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Mitigation Services/Document Management
Library/Property/Property Portfolio/258 MorganCreekFloodplain PD 2004.pdf
Project Name IMS county Grantor Property Rights Area
Morgan Creek Floodplain 258 Orange UNC -Chapel Hill Reallocation of Fights 31.5
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DEQ Stewardship Program.

Mitigation Project Morgan Creek Floodplain
DMS IMS ID 258
River Basin CAPE FEAR
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 05/19/2016
2
E'+'
C
E c
N
E
O
E"
C
C .�
m
C C
m o
C
C O
m E
C
C
m
C C
t0 O
C
R C
o
C C
N E
E
C C
,p O
N C
m O
`
C
10 O
y C
d
m E
N C
O
m
m
v
d
m
a
a u
a
- m
�
W
D!' U
D! L
0! `
O N
O U
O L
O
N W
N U
A L
ry
Cr
o
W
c
W
a
o
W
a
z
z
z C
W
z a
o
U
o
U
o C
U W
o y
U
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
14.37
5.61
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
14.37
1.122
NCDOT Pre -DMS Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
DMS Debits (feet and acres):
DWR Permit No
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
NCDOT TIP U-47638 - Triangle
Parkway, Durham and Wake
2008-0540
2006-20445-232
Counties
4.610
NCDOT TIP R-2635 - Western
2007-1470
2007-02903
Wake Expressway, Wake County
I
I
1 1.0001
1
NCDOT TIP R -2413C - NC 68
Connector, Guilford and
2011-0392
2002-20447
Rockingham Counties
1.590
NCDOT TIP R -2413A/13 - NC 68
Connector, Guilford and
2013-0517
2013-00557
Rockingham Counties
5.480
NCDOT TIP R-26128 - US 421
2013-0912
2013-01990
Improvements, Guilford County
4.780
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
2.520
0.00
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
2.520
0.000
Information from DMS Debit Ledger dated 05/19/2016