20030368 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20100507

Av305rd
EEP Project Closeout Summary
Project ID and Status Project Setting and Background Project Timeline
Project
Name: Ellerbe Creek Basin: Neuse Restoration Plan: March 2003
Physiographic Construction
EEP ID: 127 Region: Piedmont Complete: March 2005
County: Durham Ecoregion: Triassic Basin Monitoring Year 1: Oct2005
Project Stream
Type: Restoration 14-Digit HUC: 03020201050010 Monitoring Year 2: Sept 2006
Current 5 years of
Status: monitoring NCDWQ Sub-
complete basin: 03-04-01 Monitoring Year 3: Sept 2007
Thermal
Regime: Warm Monitoring Year 4: Sept 2008
Trout Water: No Monitoring Year 5: July 2009
Designer: Stantec Consulting
Monitoring: Stantec Consulting
Robert J. Goldstein &
Associates
Table 1. Project Restoration Components and Mitigation Assets
Drainage/Hydrology
Component

Q a,
y o o
N
U U

w M 41

ac 7

LL

N
L
V
Q v a
N a a CO
CO
't . '.'yam
In., ? >:t7
Hillsborough Reach: Ellerbe 1000- 1 P2 R 1.00 1.00 1,663 1,663
Creek from culvert under 1-85 2663
to bridge over Bellevue
Avenue.
Croasdaile Reach: UT to Ellerbe CR 2 P2 R 1.00 1.00 703 703
from culvert under 1-85 to 1000-
confluence with Ellerbe Creek 1703 r

Asset Summary
7
Level F et SMU Buffer Credit Stormwater
Wetland BMP
R 5,920 5,920 1,938.45 Sq. F .) 1
TOTAL 5,920 5,920 .03 ( 1,938.45 Sq. t.) 1

2

) Piz I-rE ?
1) ?f %6? ?I,b CAW I,
Ellerbe Creek Restoration Project Within the
Ellerbe Creek Local Watershed Plan Area
Conservation _Easement _boundary
F Local Watershed Plans
0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles Legend

y
I
?. A

1 ?
AV ? ? .

t r'

0
d
co
2
m
2.
m
E
x
0
CL
C.
L
U
(U
L
tLo
O
0
s
x
O
Q.
J
a
L
v
m
4)
cr-
C
f6
a
4-
0
C.
Ln
tA
O
O
s
a
c
O
c
O
V
tto
N
x
Gl
G1
I
a
2
CL
E
m
x
W
N
W
L
U6
N
O
d
co
2
L
u
m
N
z
L
00
O
L
0
L
O
C.
0
H
r-I
O
a
O
L
u
rv
ai
v
is
v
w
O
C.
0

Y?
E ?A7>

?YpF.

'? ` 4
j ? a
C •

O
O
N
}
2
O
rn
O
3
O
N
H
O
U
lD
in
O
O
L
a
c
O
L
m
EM
C
O
u
LM
L
}
Op
C
'i
O
a+
c
CO
L
m
M
N
Q
M
L
LL
O
O
N
r-I
}
O
m
l"I
O
0
O
v
N
O
U
in
O
O
N
r-1
}
r }.
...i w
r _
rn
O
O
N
v
E
E
m
N
Ll1
2
rl
r' Z
4

t,
5.- SIC'
i
,
i'
O
l
f0
..r M

O k 1, 1`

.4! t
w

O
OC

Y 4?

O
O
N
O
rn
l?I
O
7
O
N
0
O
U

3

L
bA
C >-

J ?
Q
y"+
t

Ln
O
N
}
G
O
."
I
rn
.--1
O
7
O
a,
N
O
U
00
C
L
N
C
3
0
Op
C
4°
O
a
J
Q
0
0
N
ci
}
2
a--I
O
4-
0
v
H
O
U
Channel Stability
Dimension
Repeat X-section surveys indicate that the restored channels' dimensions were stable and changes were
within expected parameters. Fourteen X-sections were installed on the site during the as-built survey and
surveyed for all 5 monitoring years. The Hillsborough, Hillandale, and Albany reaches each contained 4 X-
sections consisting of two paired riffle and pool X-sections. The Croasdaile Reach included two X-sections-
one riffle and one pool. As might be expected, growth of stream bank vegetation caused the channels to
decrease slightly in width and deposition slightly increased the bankfull elevation. Repeated beaver activity
in the Hillsborough and Hillandale reaches appeared to have had little effect on overall channel dimension.
All riffle X-section plots are depicted in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4. Annual Cross-Section Plots
366
365
364
N
363
0
T 362
W
361
360
359
358
HB-1 (riffle)
I
0 10
20
Station (feet)
30 40
9
363
362
361
360
0
359
a?
W
358
357
356
355
HB-3 (riffle)
Bankfull
VJOPF!
-As-built 2005
- my l 10/05
MY210/25/06
MY3 7/9/07
- MY4 7/31/08
MY 6 6/11 /09
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
CR-2 (riffle)
363

362

361

360

.o
a..
m
359
W
358

357
10/25/06
356
II
MY4 7/31/08
L T
355
II
MY 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)

Liankiull

As-b?iIt 2005
MY1 10105
MY2 t0l25/0
--:-? ! MY3'/9107
i

10
HD-2 (riffle)
360

359
-MY1 1C-106

358
MY4 811/08
357
0
.2
m
a
356

355

354
\ IXIN
353
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
HD-4 (riffle)
358
357

356

355
4
7
354
0 -
4
-
c

353
m
N
W 352

351

350
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (feet)

Bankfull
-As-built2005

LL
_ MY2 1 C1126/06
Y3
M
719/07

tMY56/11/2009

Bankfull
As-built 2005
MY1 10105
-

I MY210126/06
MY3 719!07
M Y4 7/31/08
-?- MY5 6111109

11
AL-1 (riffle)
355

354

353

w
m
352

351
w

m 350

W
BankfW
349

348

347

346
MY5 6/17/09
345
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
AL-4 (riffle)
354

352

c
Q

350
m
w

348

As-built 2005

346

344
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)

A b It X005
MY110/05
MY2 10/26106
MY3 719107
-M Y47131/08

Bonkf?l l

I
? MY1 10/05
2 1012 106 '
Y3 719/07

_,_ - ;- ._- -?MY56r11/ray

12
Q1
0
a c
m
3 c
GU1 m
I O O ?
L ?
v
I ?
O
w V
? p y
00 ? I
C/
[rl I
fC0 -_ ?
C
X ?
CL
CL o
Q
f6
H
{ V
{ 0
j `^ a
x _
{ V f0
4+ M
V
m
i L O
{ m f0
{ co
C
C
O Q
i LA
{ C] 0J
? V
L > LL.
C, b
O C
?? s
o ?
c v,
o
? C
d r? i
Q .G s
0
r{
d
?d
a
5
0
a
d
d
a
i
W
a ,
pp
S
qp M ? /
.G rC 'V' V r ? pq

I
?
d
=
a C f ?
1 i
>

r?
GG
x
i

__ I

I
N
c[,
x

?
_ - I 9
cc
i L
7
O
` O
x
m N 0 ON 00 h N
M M M M M M M M
(;aa?) ua;enal3
0
_o
N
O
0
0
N
O
O
U
O
O
CO
0
0
0
. o
w
c m
o r-I
o ro
o cn
0
. o
0
. o
M
°O
N
O
O
0
O
O
M
r ?
-

d Qti? ?ti L9vp q ?
u
d r/
I -
m
.
Q
N
u
N
J,
2

? t
u
A
N
s
v
-a
a l
D
0 !o
a

P
I
``, O
S
W ?
O

i O
m
aV..
O
` CQ
L
I
.I
III
t
O W M
?O lfl V1 1? 10 N
W" Yl ?r 1 V'1 Y'1 1(1
M M M M M M M M M M
0088) ualena13
O
O
N
M
0
0
M
0
0
O
M
O
O
Oll
N
O
0
W
N
0
o w
N
O
ro
co
O
0
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
N
O
O
O N
M
14
a
a?
0
o
v M O O
d O 6 06 G V, 00
d ? ? en -s
C
O
d
0
W
r
a
d
v
d
a
W
IT
u
2
2
fl
P
?v

CA
I
I
?I

?I

a
I I
N

? I
a
u

R
u
co
a
u
c
0
a
c
R
'.
a r
Q r -

I i
I
I
L
I
d

6+

S
(,- ?D vl ? M N O Oi
h V'1 ?!1 Yl Yl Y'1 Yl Yl 'd
M M M M M M M M M
(;aa?) uo?;enaJ3
0
. o
O
_ O

O
O
N

O
_ O

O
_ O
O
'c1
O
O
Oi
M
o
O C
M
W Ln

0
_ o
t-
M
O
O
b
m
O
_ O

M
O
- O

M
O
- O
M
M
O
O
N
W r, M
<t V
M M
Substrate
Repeat pebble count data indicate that median riffle particles have ranged from very fine sand to
medium gravels. As the As-built d50 for mainstem riffles ranged from very fine sand to fine gravel, the
project has generally demonstrated stability. Riffles have fined somewhat over the monitoring period
and some of this fining can be attributed to beaver activity. However, it is not an indication of project
instability.
Table 2. Proiect Bedform Substrate Means fnr RifflP rrncc_SPrtinnc
Cross MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Average
Section
HB-1 12.00 4.00 5.70 14.00 0.30 7.20
Medium Fine gravel Fine gravel Medium Medium Fine gravel
gravel gravel Sand
HB-3 0.06 0.04 6.60 0.05 0.05 1.36
Very fine Very fine Fine gravel Very fine Very fine Very coarse
sand sand sand sand sand
HD-2 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.69 0.20 0.23
Very fine Very fine Very fine Coarse Fine sand Fine sand
sand sand sand sand
H D-4 0.06 0.10 6.90 1.88 0.30 1.85
Very fine Very fine Fine gravel Very coarse Medium Very coarse
sand sand sand sand sand
AL-1 0.06 2.30 0.20 0.60 1.40 0.91
Very fine Very fine Fine sand Coarse Very coarse Coarse
sand gravel sand sand sand
AL-3 9.20 7.00 0.60 0.20 0.70 3.54
Medium Fine gravel Coarse Fine sand Coarse Very fine
gravel sand sand gravel
CR-2 12.00 9.50 8.30 6.70 0.06 7.31
Medium Medium Medium Fine gravel Very fine Fine gravel
gravel gravel gravel sand
Status of Engineered Structures and Stream Bank Stability
Grade control structures (rock cross vanes, j-hooks, and rootwads) were functioning as intended and
none were experiencing any active erosion or backcutting.
There were limited areas of stream bank scour and slumping over the monitoring period, and banks
under several of the golf cart bridges experienced scour. The Albany Reach had two areas of scour, each
about 50 feet in length, and one slumped section just downstream of the golf cart bridge at station
6290. Even with these identified areas, less than 2% of the total bank length was identified as erosional
in the monitoring year 5 visual assessment. Some amount of channel bank scour is expected in alluvial
systems and the year-5 percentages are considered a success, particularly in comparison with pre-
project conditions (Figure 2). It is anticipated that continued buffer vegetation growth will further
influence project channel banks.
16
Bankfull Hydrology Data
Onsite observations and evaluation of a crest gauge installed on 13 June 2007 indicated that the site
experienced at least one bankfull event during each monitoring year, exceeding the success criteria of
two bankfull events in separate years over the five-year monitoring period. Table 3 outlines bankfull
verification for the site.
Table 3. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data

Collection Date of Occurrence Method
4/30/06 Late April 2006* On-site high water indicators observed
6/28/06 Mid-June 2006* On-site high water indicators
9/19/06 Early-September 2006* On-site high water indicators
4/11/07 Between 7 December 2006 and 11 On-site high water indicators
April 2007*
10/02/07 Between 13 June 2007 and 02 crest gauge
October 2007*
4/16/08 4 March 2008+ On-site high water indicators AND crest
gauge
9/18/08 28 August, 6 September 2008+ On-site high water indicators AND crest
gauge
3/6/2009 Possible Dates: 3/2/2009 (1.36") + All cork at bottom of crest gauge; occurrence
of bankfull event deemed inconclusive
*Based on dates of on-site visits
+Based on data from State Climate Office of North Carolina NC CRONOS database (http://www.nc-
climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/) for COOP station 312515 and ECONET station DURK
Vegetative Performance
Planted buffer vegetation is successful along the project. All 11 established vegetation plots exceeded
320 planted stems per acre in monitoring year 5 and had an average planted density of 699 stems per
acre.
17
Table 4. Planted Live Stem Counts per Acre by Monitoring Year and Plot
Vegetation Monitoring Year
Plot ID
As-Built
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
HB1 2,266 1,902 890 809 769 769
HB2 1,538 1,133 1,133 809 769 688
1-163 809 1,093 890 890 728 728
CR1 2,752 728 728 769 769 728
CR2 1,012 1,781 1,376 1,174 1,214 1,174
HD1 486 486 324 324 324 324
HD2 1,497 1,052 890 769 688 688
HD3 1,497 769 688 688 688 526
AU 1,700 648 486 728 688 567
AL2 2,752 1,700 1,295 850 769 688
AL3 2,550 1,983 1,659 1,457 1,376 809
Average 1,714 1,207 942 843 798 699
Several small areas of bare soil persisted on
the site, primarily due to erosion of the
terrace riser slopes immediately adjacent to
the golf course. As can be seen in Figure 6,
herbaceous species have begun to establish
themselves and these areas are expected to
decrease over time. Several stands of
mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) were found on the
site, along with some other scattered
invasive species. The project is scheduled for
invasive vegetation treatment in 2010 and
2011, which should address this problem.
Figure 6. Bare soil associated with rill and
gully erosion
18
Project Goals, Outcomes, and Conclusions
This report summarizes the key information provided in the project's mitigation plan and monitoring
reports. Further details can be found in those materials, which may be accessed on the NCEEP website
(http://www.nceep.net/eep_projects.html). According to the 2005 Restoration Plan, the project's
objectives were to (a) establish a new floodplain at a lower elevation and connecting the stream to the
new floodplain; (b) reduce erosion and sedimentation; (c) provide wildlife habitat through the creation
of a more natural riparian buffer; (d) improve aquatic habitat with the use of natural material
stabilization structures and a riparian buffer; and (e) improve water quality within Ellerbe Creek.
Data collected over the last five years indicates that the restoration project has resulted in a stable
stream channel that has floodplain access and a thriving native riparian buffer. The riffle-pool structure
remained intact and improved the quality and distribution of in-stream habitat and erosion and
sedimentation on the site has been significantly decreased.
The project's assets and their measured performance yield the ratios listed in Table 1. Buffer credit is
only proposed for those areas that were planted as part of the restoration project and that are at least
50 feet wide from the stream edge. As the restoration project has met and exceeded the success
criteria EEP considers the project to be successful and seeks regulatory closure on the assets detailed in
Table 1.
19

O k P t5 `?
I U) p,- CL
`L `
'
°
a m
`r Z m
w ?
+?
pa H
m
Z
Go
g v? 0

F
W 9 rn to ?m

$? o
ni y. 1y J O J'i d m a
v
ofl ` Z L W fp
v? o v
en o
? ?Z I
i
.
LE
?w^a
QW Z
U 7.1
9A`j•-v vr?i?m
yyU W
LL pNyyy c
«EQp
? ? UC
a ¢mU0
y?
d O
?
0
d o L
c
o ?
? ? } v

a

° a

J -
I a
M a N iv?vY ?IIII'1 O
5? S ? ? 1 s, r
?D n
QD da?v QedY
4 ?nD..vaD I'D
u n? a a$
•DaD

to h
e?

Hnmj§jj? IF??;g?NAM?
ti
N g a
0
Qmmmmmmmmz???tmmmmmmmmm?¢¢
U 2 S x x S x m 2 U V V U a x S 2 x S x x x x U U U

8
g
b
* I
r ?
' rl
d ?` N
p ? 00 ] N ? N
a [oy
Z
` ::7 LL E Ca c c u C ?d .
o v s z'
rl ? 2 V LL,
rl 'F v E
? ® I ? a
o?ri - v

f

goeea elepuell!H
goao?j g5no,ogs
?, ? Pa?2?jlpd?!QII!H

' I!
..
Z ejn0i?
6 I yoea? Ruegly
Z'Z sjn0j? yoeab alopuellil
µ

la H ?
g
I ?

i
hCl I t.:._.. q--.-
_...
1 I ! I I
g
I i
t ,
r

.47 i i
s

v ;

/ .
_
'-`--zi 14

.1_ _• ?_.._.??
R
L'L e,n6i?
Z
i ovaoo I::. ,M2..
N N? N N N N N N N N N N
W p W Wp W Wpp p W Wpp Wpp W W W [[[pp000 Wpy W W
W NO? COm N (O N?N(0 O?
??S?G8?$m fR?yFi$3o?
I(on? V W qW N N D m W M M O N d> N
Q? r a?a ?p QrQ ?pp ?p o?o ?p fp• ?p p? p? p? ?p
?? N (V N N (V N N N N N N N N
?`I y tri
? N N
Q 2J 0. 4 6t01 , if? 7r
o" o r
y
0 LL
L) LLI
?f
s?
z"i
?eyMce
? AV
W=
R
? ?np
?R W Zi
`g }?? b 1`toN
W
}
N?
?pR
c3
¢m U?
0N0a?0 p0p_?? f?0tN?00 ? ON h V B?YOO CY ??i????fAAANpp
m N W ?W?pp N2 O m N ?yO?ypp,(( V OV ctc000 a
n~ o N n^ N t S N N nN N N N
01
W?? m?? W W ro W ro m m W
5W3??3R,p3?MMO°? EmS?`p°o???9?
W M 6 O Y U'i N L N O?? O 0
ui ciacn 6 ui 0 vi is Nvi?Namdvi
J J J J J J J J
U Q Q Q Q 4 Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q 6 Q 6 Q