20061103 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20090413

201.0 ? 10.3
pn1?v
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
Stream Restoration Project
City of Durham
Durham County, North Carolina
SCO Project Number 040742501
Final Restoration Plan
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
CQ
June 29, 2006
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
Stream Restoration Project
City of Durham
Durham County, North Carolina
Final Restoration Plan
Prepared by:
iJ ?,7•?
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Suite 400
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Manager:
Kathleen M. McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ
[phone]
[e-mail]
June 29, 2006
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has identified a reach of Ellerbe
Creek and an Unnamed Tributary to Ellerbe Creek (UT-1) within Northgate Park in Durham
County, NC for potential stream restoration. Ellerbe Creek is located in the Upper Neuse River
Basin (US Geological Survey 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201050010 and NC Division
of Water Quality subbasin 03-04-01).
The drainage area for the site is urban and residential. The Project Site is defined by the City of
Durham property boundary comprising Northgate Park. The Project Reach begins at the
pedestrian bridge near the baseball diamond and ends at the culvert under Acadia Street. The
Project Reach includes the UT that enters Ellerbe Creek at the northern end of the Project Site
(UT-1). For design purposes, the mainstem will be referred to as Reach A and UT-1 will be
referred to as Reach B.
Ellerbe Creek is a perennial, third-order stream. Three UTs and four stormwater outfalls enter
Ellerbe Creek within the Project Site. The Project Site is dominated by a park setting with
scattered, large trees, recreational grasses, and patches of upland forested areas. The buffer area
along the stream is narrow, regularly maintained, and contains a large number of
ornamental/planted species as well as invasive herbaceous species.
The goals of the Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Stream Restoration Project focus on improving
water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat. These
goals will be accomplished by:
• Restoring the Project Reach to a stabl
dimension, pattern, and profile over time,
flows and sediment load efficiently;
urban stream channel that will retain its
and that is capable of transporting watershed
• Using Priority II restoration to change Ellerbe Creek from a G5c type stream channel to a
E type channel;
• Enhancing the capacity of the site to mitigate flood flows by improving the connection of
the stream to its floodplain;
• Improving aquatic habitat by establishing a heterogeneous bed morphology with riffle-
pool sequences supported by in-stream structures;
• Restoring the riparian buffer from park grasses and herbaceous vegetation to Piedmont
Bottomland Forest to provide filtration of nutrients and organic matter inputs into the
stream, to improve wildlife habitat, and to provide shade for the stream channel;
• Reducing sediment inputs from localized streambank erosion by re-establishing stream
geometry and by stabilizing and revegetating the stream banks; and
• Installing three stormwater wetland best management practices (BMPs) to reduce
stormwater pollutants (namely nitrogen and phosphorus) and improve water quality prior
to discharging into the stream.
Stream restoration, buffer restoration, and three stormwater BMPs will help improve the water
quality of the stream by reducing bank and streambed erosion and runoff of pollutants directly
into the stream. Restoration of a degraded system also leads to improvements in the aquatic and
terrestrial communities that depend on it.
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
The proposed restoration design will be a Priority 2 approach. The proposed stream dimension,
pattern, and profile will be based on the detailed morphological criteria and hydraulic geometry
relationships developed from a reference reach identified near the project site. The existing
length of Reach A is approximately 2,252 linear feet and Reach B is 235 linear feet. The
proposed stream lengths are 2,252 linear feet and 235 linear feet, respectively with 1,735 linear
feet of Stream Enhancement Level I and 752 linear feet of Stream Restoration. See Table 1.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i
............................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ................................................1
1.1 Directions to Project Site ...............................................................................................1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations ........................ I
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ..........................................................................2
2.1 Drainage Area ................................................................................................................2
2.2 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality ......................................................... ..2
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ............................................................................... ..3
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................ ..4
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................... ..5
2.5.1 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species ................................ ..7
2.5.2 Federally Designated Critical Habitat .............................................................. ..8
2.5.3 Biological Conclusion ...................................................................................... ..8
2.6 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... ..8
2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................... ..8
2.6.2 State Historic Preservation Office Records Review ........................................ ..9
2.6.3 Potential for Historic Architectural Resources ................................................ ..9
2.6.4 Potential for Archaeology Resources ............................................................... ..9
2.7 Potential Constraints .................................................................................................... ..9
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary .................................................................. 10
2.7.2 Site Access ....................................................................................................... 10
2.7.3 Utilities ............................................................................................................. 10
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Tresspass ........................................................................... 10
2.7.5 Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 11
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................12
3.1 Channel Classification .................................................................................................12
3.2 Discharge .....................................................................................................................13
3.3 Channel Morphology ...................................................................................................13
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ......................................................................................14
3.5 Bankfull Verification ...................................................................................................15
3.6 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................15
4.0 REFERENCE CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................17
4.1 Watershed Characterization .........................................................................................17
4.2 Channel Classification .................................................................................................17
4.3 Discharge .....................................................................................................................17
4.4 Channel Morphology ...................................................................................................18
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment ......................................................................................18
4.6 Bankfull Verification ...................................................................................................18
4.7 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................18
iii
5.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN ..................................
5.1 Restoration Project Goals .......................................................
5. 1.1 Designed Channel Classification ................................
5.1.2 Target Buffer Communities ........................................
5.1.3 On-Site Invasive Species Management ......................
5.2 Sediment Transport Analysis ..................................................
5.2.1 Methodology ...............................................................
5.2.2 Calculations and Discussion .......................................
5.3 HEC Analysis ..........................................................................
5.3.1 No-Rise, LOMR, CLOMR .........................................
5.3.2 Hydrologic Tresspass ..................................................
5.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices ................................
5.4.1 Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns ............................
5.4.2 Device Description and Application ...........................
.....................................20
.....................................20
.....................................20
.....................................21
.....................................22
.....................................23
.....................................23
.....................................23
.....................................23
.....................................23
.....................................23
.....................................24
.....................................24
')a
6.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA .......................................................................................25
6.1 Streams ...................................................................................................................25
6.2 Stormwater Management Devices .........................................................................25
6.3 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................25
6.4 Schedule and Reporting .........................................................................................25
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................27
8.0 TABLES ............................................................................................................................30
Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Table 3. Watershed Land Use
Table 4. Morphological Characteristics Table
Table 5. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimate for Project Site Streams
Table 6. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimate for Reference Streams
Table 7. Designed Vegetative Communities
Table 8. BMP Preliminary Design Parameters
9.0 FIGURES ..........................................................................................................................38
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Site Location Map
Figure 3. Project Site Watershed Map
Figure 4. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 5. Project Site Hydrological Features Map
Figure 6. Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 7. Reference Site Watershed Map
Figure 8. Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 9. Reference Site Vegetative Communities Map
10.0 DESIGNED PLAN SET ..................................................................................................48
Plan Set 1. Existing Channel
Plan Set 2. Designed Channel Alignment
Plan Set 3. Longitudinal Profile
iv
Plan Set 4. Designed Vegetative Communities Map
Plan Set 5. Designed Stormwater BMPs
11.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................65
Appendix 1. USFWS and NCWRC Correspondence
Appendix 2. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ and USACE Stream Forms
Appendix 4. Cross-Section Data
Appendix 5. Reference Site Photographs
Appendix 6. Reference Site NCDWQ and USACE Stream Forms
Appendix 7. HEC-2 Existing Condition Data
v
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
The Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Stream Restoration Site is located in Durham County, North
Carolina, within the Neuse River Basin (Figure 1). The Project Site is defined by the City of
Durham property boundary comprising Northgate Park. The Project Reach is defined as the
segment of Ellerbe Creek within the Project Site, beginning at the pedestrian bridge near the
baseball diamond, and ending at the culvert under Acadia Street (Figure 2). The Project Reach
includes the unnamed tributary (UT) that enters Ellerbe Creek at the northern end of the Project
Site (UT-1). For design purposes, the mainstem will be referred to as Reach A and UT-1 will be
referred to as Reach B. Proposed conditions are listed in Table 1.
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The Project Site is located in the northwest portion of Durham, north of I-85 in Durham County.
From I-40 West, take Exit 279-B to NC 147 North. From NC 147, take Exit 12-C (Duke Street).
From Duke Street, turn right onto West Club Boulevard. Pass under I-85, and turn left onto
Acadia Street. Northgate Park will be on the left. To access the upstream reach, turn left again
onto Lavender Street, then right on the gravel drive just after crossing the stream.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) uses a multi-tiered system to divide and subdivide
the country's watersheds into successively smaller hydrological units. Each hydrologic unit is
identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC), consisting of various numbers of digits
depending on the level of classification within the hydrologic unit system. Under the USGS
system, the Neuse River Basin contains four complete (Upper Neuse, Middle Neuse, Contentnea,
and Lower Neuse) and two partial (Pamlico and Bogue-Core Sounds) 8-digit hydrologic units.
The Project Site is located in the Upper Neuse Basin, HUC 03020201 (USGS 2006).
The 8-digit units are further subdivided into smaller 14-digit hydrologic units that are used for
smaller scale planning. There are 201 of these units in the Neuse River Basin. The Project Site
is located in the 14-digit HUC 030201050010, which consists primarily of the Ellerbe Creek
drainage and several other tributaries to Falls Lake.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) uses a two-tiered system to divide the
state into watershed units. The state is divided into seventeen major river basins with each basin
further subdivided into subbasins (NCDWQ 6-digit subbasins). The Neuse River Basin contains
fourteen subbasins. The Project Site lies within Neuse River subbasin 03-04-01.
Subbasin 03-04-01 contains the headwaters of the Neuse River and the entire Falls Lake
watershed. This subbasin contains the cities of Durham, Hillsborough, Creedmoor, and a portion
of North Raleigh (NCDWQ 2002). The majority of the land area in the subbasin is agriculture or
forests, with urban development concentrated primarily around the City of Durham. Ellerbe
Creek flows east into Falls Lake, which serves as the drinking water supply for the City of
Raleigh. Improving the water quality in Ellerbe Creek could have a positive effect on the water
quality in Falls Lake.
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
The drainage area for the Project Reach is approximately 3,776 acres (5.9 square miles) at the
downstream limit of the project where Ellerbe Creek flows under Acadia Street. The drainage
for Reach B is approximately 41.5 acres (Figure 3 and Table 2).
The headwaters of Ellerbe Creek originate west of the City of Durham, approximately five miles
upstream of Northgate Park. The dominant land use within the watershed is urban (residential
and commercial). Ellerbe Creek flows through two golf courses upstream of the Project Site.
The downstream reaches of the watershed are more heavily developed than the upstream reaches.
Land use in the watershed is dominated by low intensity residential development in the
immediate vicinity of the Project Reach and mixed uses upstream. The dominant land use is
Southern yellow pine (30.4 percent). Other uses include bottomland forest, deciduous shrubland,
high intensity developed, low intensity developed, managed herbaceous cover, mixed
hardwoods/conifers, and water (CGIA 2005) (Table 3).
2.2 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality
Best Usage Classifications are ranks assigned to each surface water body by the NCDWQ in
accordance with Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards (15A NCAC 2B .0100)
and Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Surface Waters of North
Carolina (15A NCAC 2B .0200). These classifications serve to protect water quality by
governing the uses of the water resource.
The segment of Ellerbe Creek containing the Project Reach has an NCDWQ index number of
27-5-(0.7) and is classified as WS-IV; NSW (NCDWQ 1998). Class WS-IV waters are those
protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to discharge rules. Local
programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges of pollution are required. The
supplemental NSW designation indicates that the Project Reach is a `Nutrient Sensitive Water'.
Nutrient Sensitive Waters are subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation
requiring limitations on nutrient inputs (NCDWQ 2004).
The NCDWQ Draft 2006 303(d) list shows Ellerbe Creek as impaired for aquatic life and
secondary recreation uses. Ellerbe Creek was first listed in 1998 for impaired biological
integrity and has remained on the list since that time. Potential sources are cited as urban
stormwater runoff and point source discharge (NCDWQ 2006). The primary point source
discharge on Ellerbe Creek is the Durham Waste Water Treatment Plant, which is permitted to
discharge twenty million gallons per day. This discharge is located approximately seven miles
downstream of the Project Reach.
2
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Project Site is located in the Triassic Basin System of the Piedmont Soil Region and
Physiographic Province (Griffith et al. 2002; Daniels et al. 1999). Soils in the Piedmont form in
saprolite weathered from bedrock of various compositions. The geology of the North Carolina
Piedmont is a complex of very old metamorphic and igneous rocks. The Piedmont Soil Region
consists of four soil systems. These soil systems include: 1) The felsic crystalline terrains
composed of granite, gneiss, mica gneiss and schists; 2) The Carolina Slate Belt composed of
bedded argillites, felsic volcanics and mafic volcanics and fine-grained schists; 3) The Triassic
Basins composed of Triassic mudstones, sandstones, shales, and conglomerates, and 4) The
mixed mafic and felsic rock (Daniels et al. 1999).
The Triassic Basin System occupies four relatively long and narrow bands within the Piedmont.
The Project Site is located within the largest of these systems, the Durham-Sanford Basin.
Local relief and elevations are often less than in surrounding regions. Triassic rocks are easier to
erode than the surrounding crystalline and metamorphic rocks, and stream valleys that cross the
region tend to widen. Streams within the slate belt or the felsic crystalline terrain have narrow
valleys and floodplains that widen abruptly upon entering the Triassic Basin (Daniels et al.
1999). Streams in the Triassic Basin are typically low gradient with sluggish pools separated by
riffles with occasional small rapids. The highly erodible soils are underlain by fractured rock
formations that have limited water storage capacity. As a result, streams tend to have low
summer flows and limited ability to assimilate oxygen-consuming wastes.
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey of Durham
County, North Carolina, three soil series are mapped within the Project Site (Kirby 1971) (Figure
4). Ellerbe Creek and its associated floodplain travel through Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils
(Ch) in the east floodplain and portions of the west floodplain in the northern portions of the
Project Site. Mayodan sandy loam, 15-25 percent slopes (MfE) comprise the majority of the
west floodplain in the midsection of the Project Site. Some of the southwestern portion of the
Project Site is White Store-Urban Land Complex, 0-10 percent slopes (WwC).
The definition of a hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or
ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper
part (NRCS 2005). Hydric A soils are map units that are all hydric soils or have hydric soils as a
major component. Hydric B soils are map units with inclusions of hydric soils (Gregory 2004).
As shown on Figure 4, the Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils (Ch) are Hydric A. No Hydric B soils
are located within the Project Site.
Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts and Typic Fluvaquents): Chewacla
and Wehadkee soils are generally 60 percent Chewacla soil and 35 percent Wehadkee soil.
These are somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained soils on floodplains. They occur as long,
level areas parallel to the major streams and rivers. Chewacla soils are better drained than
Wehadkee soils and are found at higher elevations. Infiltration is moderate and runoff is slow.
Seasonal high water table is approximately I feet from the ground surface and depth to bedrock
is 5 feet.
3
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
Mayodan sandy loam, I5-25 percent slopes (Typic Hapludults): Mayodan sandy loam is a well
drained soil on side slopes adjacent to the major drainageways on uplands. Areas occur as long,
narrow bands that are roughly rectangular in shape. Infiltration is moderate and runoff is rapid.
Depth to seasonal high water table is greater than 6 feet, and depth to bedrock is greater than
5 feet.
White Store-Urban Land Complex, 0-10 percent slopes (Vertic Hapludalfs): White Store-Urban
Land Complex consists of White Store soil and urban land, which is mainly White Store soil
material. As much as 30 percent of each mapped area is covered by streets, houses, and other
structures. About 30 percent is undisturbed White Store soil. About 25 percent is a White Store
soil that, in places, has been covered with as much as 18 inches of fill material and in other
places has had as much as two-thirds of the original soil material removed. The remainder is fill,
18 inches or more thick, or places where the original soil material has been cut away.
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
A review of historical site conditions was conducted to evaluate the sequence of land use
changes in and adjacent to the Project Site. This review was conducted to assist in the
assessment of the existing site conditions. Historical aerial photographs of the site were obtained
from the Durham County Soil and Water Conservation Office for 1955, and the Durham County
Global Information Systems (GIS) office for 1966, 1980, 1994, and 2004.
The photographs show very little change within the Project Site and surrounding areas from 1955
to present. The neighborhoods to the east and west of the Project Site are evident in the 1955
photograph, and appear to have changed very little since then. All of the roadways that traverse
and surround the area at present are also evident in the 1955 photograph. Northgate Park was
established circa 1940. It appears that the maintenance practices within the park since the 1940s
have preserved the same forested areas and open space. The amount of impervious surfaces also
appears to remain the same in the immediate Project Site from 1955 to present, but development
upstream has increased, resulting in impacts to Ellerbe Creek. Within the Project Site itself, the
impervious surface is less than one percent. The forested, open space areas directly north and
south of the Project Site have remained in-tact and contain less than five percent impervious
surface. However, development farther upstream has increased with commercial areas having 60
or more percent impervious surfaces. The neighborhoods east and west of the Project Site have
remained virtually unchanged over the last 50 years with approximately 40 percent impervious
surface.
In 1955, the Project Reach appears to have a limited natural meander through the park. The US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) channelized Ellerbe Creek through Northgate Park
sometime in the early 1960's (NCEEP 2003). Some change in the stream course is evident in the
1966 photograph, but the channel follows the same general pattern as in 1955. By 1980, Ellerbe
Creek appears to be carving some meanders into the existing channel. This may be evidence of
the degradation of the channel (eroding banks and downcutting). Very little change can be seen
between 1980 and 1994, or between 1994 and 2004. In general, the analysis of the historical
photographs covering the time period between 1955 and 2004 indicates a long period of
relatively static site conditions within the Project Site.
4
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Species with the federal status of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as
amended (16 USC 1531 et. seq.). Any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as
federally protected will be subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The
USFWS and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online databases identified
three federally listed threatened or endangered species potentially occurring in Durham County
(USFWS 2006 and NCNHP 2006). An assessment of the likelihood for each species to occur
within the study area is discussed below.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed for Delisting)
State Status: Threatened
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Dare,
Durham, Hyde, Montgomery, New Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans, Richmond,
Stanley, Vance, Wake, and Washington Counties
Bald eagles occur in North America from Florida to Alaska. Adult eagles range in length from
two to three feet and have a wingspan of six to 7 '/2 feet. Adult bald eagles are identified by their
large white head and short white tail. Body plumage is dark brown to chocolate brown in color.
Juvenile eagles lack the white head plumage, and have dark colored body plumage with blotchy
white on the underside of the wings, belly, and tail (USFWS 2003a).
Bald eagles nest in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the
water, in the largest living tree in an area with an open view of the surrounding land. Eagle nests
generally range from ten to 12 feet across. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon
otherwise suitable habitat. Bald eagles breed in late December to early January. Food sources
include fish, coots, herons, and wounded ducks.
The reach of Ellerbe Creek proposed for restoration is located in a heavily urbanized area. The
Project Reach itself is located within a city park, containing a baseball diamond, walking trails,
and other recreational resources. The surrounding land use consists of residential neighborhoods
and large transportation corridors. No large bodies of water are present within one mile of the
Project Site.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect - A review of the NCNHP's database shows no known
occurrences of this species in the Project Site and suitable habitat is not available (NCNHP
2005).
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 12/9/91
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered - Special Concern'
Distribution in N.C.: Durham, Granville, Orange, and Rockingham Counties.
The smooth coneflower was once found in all of the Atlantic Coast states from Pennsylvania to
Georgia and on the Gulf Coast in Alabama and inland in Arkansas. Populations are now limited
to Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
This perennial herb grows from simple or branched rhizomes. It grows up to five feet tall, has a
smooth stem, and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest and are smooth to slightly rough,
tapered to the base with long petioles, elliptical to broadly lanceolate, and measure eight inches
across and three inches wide. Mid-stem leaves have short to no petioles and are smaller than the
basal leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in color, solitary, and '/2 to one inch across. The
petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are four-angled, oblong-prismatic, and gray-brown in color.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar
barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually
grow in soil derived from calcareous parent material. North Carolina populations are found in
soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with
abundant sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plants. Natural fires and large
herbivores are important in the maintenance of the smooth coneflowers habitat (USFWS 2003b).
The plant community within the Project Site consists of regularly mowed recreational areas with
scattered trees. Calcareous or basic soils are not found in the Project Site. Observed soils are
predominantly silty from stream overflow with a sand and clay component. No individuals were
observed during field investigation.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect - A review of the NCNHP's database shows no known
occurrences of this species in the Project Site and suitable habitat is not available (NCNHP
2005).
1 Special Concern - Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation Act]" (GS 19B 106:202.12). (Special
Concern species which are not also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be collected from the wild and sold under specific
regulations. Propagated material only of Special Concern species which are also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be
traded or sold under specific regulations.)
6
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park
Durham, North Carolina
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 9/28/89
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered - Special Concern
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus, Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Lincoln, Moore, Orange,
Richmond, Robeson, Scotland, Wake, and Wilson Counties.
Michaux's sumac is known historically from the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont of
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This species is believed to be extirpated in South
Carolina. Only twenty-one populations are known in North Carolina and Georgia. In North
Carolina populations of Michaux's sumac still exist in Hoke, Richmond, Scotland, Franklin,
Davie, Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows '/2 foot to three feet tall.
The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports nine to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong- lanceolate
leaflets that are each one to four inches long, one to two inches wide, acute and acuminate. The
bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. It bears small
flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits,
which develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent
drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It usually grows in association with basic soils
and occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight,
thus it is dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain an open habitat and does not
compete well with other species (USFWS 2003c).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect - A review of the NCNHP's database shows no known
occurrences of this species in the Project Site and suitable habitat is not available. In addition,
Michaux's sumac is historically known from Durham County, but was last observed in the
county more than 50 years ago (NCNHP 2005).
2.5.1 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as species that may or may not be listed in the
future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is
insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species list. Plant species with the North Carolina state status of
Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern are protected by the North Carolina Plant Protection
Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.), which is enforced by the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture. Animal species with the North Carolina state status of Endangered, Threatened,
Special Concern are protected by the North Carolina ESA (G.S. 113-331 et seq.), which is
enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Candidate and
Significantly Rare designations indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring and
conservation action, but are not protected by state law.
7
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
According to USFWS and NCNHP online databases (USFWS 2006; NCNHP 2006), there are 12
FSCs, nine of which are also state listed, potentially occurring in Durham County. NCNHP GIS
coverages (NCNHP 2005) were also reviewed and no known documented occurrences of FSC or
state protected species were identified within one mile of the Project Site.
2.5.2 Federally Designated Critical Habitat
The ESA requires (with only rare exceptions) the designation of critical habitat for all
endangered and threatened species. Critical habitat is defined as "the specific areas within the
geographical area currently occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with
Section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, and which may require special management considerations or
protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is
listed upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species" (US Federal Register 1999).
Once designated, critical habitat has only one regulatory impact. Under section 7(a)(2), Federal
agencies must, in consultation with the USFWS, insure that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Section 7(a)(2) likewise prohibits agency actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed species. Section 7(b)(d) of the Act and 50 CFR part 402 describe in detail
the process by which agencies consult regarding possible jeopardy to listed species and
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. According to interpretation of the
regulations, by definition, the adverse modification of critical habitat consultation standard is
nearly identical to the jeopardy consultation standard. There are no critical habitats identified
within the Project Site.
2.5.3 Biological Conclusion
Based on the findings, no species with the Federal status of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, Proposed Threatened, or federal designated critical habitats will be affected by the
proposed project. Concurrence from the NCWRC was received September 20, 2005. Written
concurrence has not been received from the USFWS, however, the USFWS will respond within
30 days if the project has potential issues (USFWS and NCWRC Correspondence in Appendix
1).
2.6 Cultural Resources
2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
A records check at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) was conducted. This
records check included consulting the Northwest Durham USGS topographic quadrangle which
depicts the locations of previously recorded archaeological sites, site files providing details about
the mapped sites, and reports from previous archaeological work conducted at these sites. This
information was used to determine if any significant resources had previously been recorded
within the Project Site.
8
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
The National Parks Service online database (NPS 2005) of historic resources listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was consulted to determine if any NRHP listed
historic structures or historic districts were located within the Project Site, or within one mile of
the Project Site.
2.6.2 State Historic Preservation Office Records Review
On September 8, 2005, site files housed at the OSA were consulted to determine if any known
archaeological resources were located near the proposed Project Site. No previously recorded
sites are present within the Project Site. There is only one previously recorded within one mile
of the Project Site.
No historic structures or districts listed on the NRHP are located within one mile of the Project
Site.
2.6.3 Potential for Historic Architectural Resources
Northgate Park has served as a recreational facility for several decades. It is unlikely that there
would be historic structures associated with the property. Furthermore, modern urban
development around the park is unlikely to contain historic architectural resources.
2.6.4 Potential for Archaeology Resources
The segment of Ellerbe Creek under current study is within a relatively narrow valley when
compared to the broader valley expanses to the upstream and downstream sides of the project.
Combined with the lack of substantial tributary confluences in this segment, it is unlikely that
significant archaeological resources exist in the project area.
In summary, no previously recorded archaeological resources or NRHP listed historic structures
or districts are located within the Project Site. Given the historic use of the Project Site as a
recreational facility, it is unlikely to contain significant architectural resources; the urbanized
surroundings are also unlikely to contain significant architectural resources. The segment of
Ellerbe Creek proposed for restoration is in a relatively narrow valley with no substantial
tributary confluences. As such, the presence of intact, culturally significant archaeological
resources is unlikely.
2.7 Potential Constraints
The presence of any constraints that have the potential to hinder restoration activities at the
Project Site were evaluated. This evaluation focused primarily on the presence of observable
hazardous materials, utilities, restrictive easements, pedestrian bridges, protected species or
critical habitats, cultural resources, the potential for hydrologic trespass, and existing
jurisdictional wetlands.
9
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The potential options for restoring the Project Reach are limited due to substantial constraints in
Northgate Park. The design profile is constrained by the existing stream invert at the upstream
end of the Project Reach and the invert elevation of the two culvert crossings along the Project
Reach (at the crossing of Lavender Road and West Club Boulevard). The invert elevation of the
proposed design will be dictated by the invert of the culverts in these locations. These
constraints, as well as concerns over hydrologic trespass, prohibit a Priority 1 approach of raising
the streambed to match the bankfull elevation with the historic floodplain elevation.
The pattern or planform of the stream is also substantially constrained, especially in the area
upstream of Lavender Road. The majority of the left floodplain upstream of Lavender Road is
not owned by the City of Durham, but is primarily private residential lots. The Project Site is
limited to approximately 50 feet from the left bank of the stream in this area.
The portion of the Project Reach downstream of Lavender Road is somewhat less constrained,
but is dominated by scattered, large trees that are important to the park ambiance. The proposed
plan form will minimize unnecessary impacts to these specimen trees. This area also contains
some park infrastructure, including playground equipment and picnic areas.
Additionally, vertical boundaries exist on the site. The elevation difference between the culverts
is minimal. Thus, large scale plan form changes would result in a no slope or negative slope
situation. The proposed planform can only deviate slightly from the existing condition.
2.7.2 Site Access
Site access is not a substantial constraint for this project. The baseball diamond north of
Lavender Road provides access to the northern portion of the project. Bisecting the Project Site,
Lavender Road provides access to the center of Reach A. Acadia Street and West Club
Boulevard provide access for the southern portion of the project. Park access may be limited
during construction activities to ensure public safety.
2.7.3 Utilities
The right floodplain upstream of Lavender Road is constrained by a sanitary sewer line and
easement as well as park infrastructure such as a baseball diamond, parking area, and restrooms.
Water lines, stadium lights, and electricity lines are also present in this area. An overhead utility
line crosses the Project Site along Lavender Road. The sewer line and any other underground
utilities should be located precisely prior to any ground-disturbing activities.
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood study will be conducted to evaluate
the need for a No-Rise, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR), and to assure no hydrologic trespass issues. The project is expected to require No-
Rise and LOMR documentation and produce no hydrologic trespass. Since the project is located
10
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
within a regulated floodway the local floodplain administrator, Christy Sokol of the City of
Durham Stormwater Services Division, will be coordinated with to ensure compliance with the
floodplain requirements.
2.7.5 Wetlands
No jurisdictional wetlands were identified on the Project Site. A small, created wetland garden
is present in the southwest portion of Northgate Park. This wetland has been planted, and is less
than one-hundreth of an acre in size. Vegetation present includes common rush (Juncus effusus),
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), milkweed (Asclepias sp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.),
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and silky willow (Salix sericea).
NWI mapping (USFWS 1994) was consulted. There are no wetlands mapped within the Project
Site.
11
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project Reach is located in an urban setting that drains an area of approximately 5.9 square
miles. The Project Reach begins at the pedestrian bridge, is bisected by Lavender Avenue, and
ends at West Club Boulevard. Ellerbe Creek passes under the roadway via a double-barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert (approximately 7 ft. x 32 ft. x 90 ft.). Another culvert with
similar dimensions is located at the end of the Project Reach under Acadia Street. In addition,
two pedestrian bridges span the Project Reach. One bridge is located at the upstream limits of
the Project Reach and the other is located approximately halfway between Lavender Avenue and
Acadia Street.
Within the Project Site, Ellerbe Creek is a perennial, third-order stream (USGS 1973). Three
UTs and four stormwater outfalls enter Ellerbe Creek within the Project Site (Figure 5). All of
the Project Site streams appear to have been impacted by human activities. Types of impacts
include channelization, streambank vegetation removal, and urban development. Photographs of
the Project Site are located in Appendix 2. NCDWQ and USACE stream data forms are located
in Appendix 3.
In addition to the mainstem of Ellerbe Creek, one of the tributaries (UT-1) was also identified for
stream restoration. For purposes of discussion, the mainstem of Ellerbe Creek is designated
Reach A, and UT-1 is designated Reach B.
UT-1 is a perennial, first-order stream within the Project Site. UT-1 enters the Project Reach
from the east near the upstream limit of the project. Channel width at the top of bank is
approximately 10 to 12 feet and at bankfull is 5 to 6 feet. Bank height is 6 to 8 feet, and bankfull
depth is approximately 2 feet.
3.1 Channel Classification
Reach A
According to the Rosgen classification scheme, the Project Reach most closely resembles a G5c
stream type, indicating a deeply entrenched channel with a low width-to-depth ratio, sandy
substrate, and low slope. However, due to the highly altered state of the channel, it does not fit
the criteria of any of the standard stream types exactly.
Bank height ratios (bank height/bankfull height) ranged from 1.7 to 1.9, indicating that the
channel is deeply incised and flows almost twice the bankfull flow are contained within the
channel.
Reach B
Bankfull indicators were much more prevalent in the tributary than in the mainstem, with the
back of the bankfull bench being the most consistent indicator. The low width-to-depth ratio and
entrenchment ratio classify this stream as a G5c type as well. This stream was dry at the time of
the site visit, so no water surface elevation shots were possible. Reach B has slightly more
sinuosity than the main channel, but is fairly straight. The substrate consisted primarily of sand,
12
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
with some small gravel and clay. The bank height ratio (bank height/bankfull height) for Reach
B was 2.7, which is extremely high, indicating a severely incised channel.
3.2 Discharge
Discharge rates for the bankfull event were calculated utilizing the Piedmont Physiographic
Province regional hydraulic geometry relationship (regional curve). The existing conditions
bankfull discharge is 320 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) (Harman et al. 1999).
Existing flood elevations will be obtained from the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) model
provided by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The existing model is in HEC-2
format.
Average daily flow for the site is approximately 6.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) according to Low
Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina (Giese and Mason 1991). The site is expected
to be constructed utilizing a pump around operation.
3.3 Channel Morphology
Surveyed cross-sectional data are shown in Appendix 4. Cross-section locations are depicted on
Plan Set 1.
Reach A
A detailed longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire Project Reach, consisting of
approximately 2,220 linear feet. The bed morphology is very homogeneous and poorly defined.
It consists almost entirely of flat sluggish runs, with occasional scour pools and one small riffle.
The average water surface slope for Reach A was 0.09 percent. The majority of the slope change
occurs in one short, steep riprap slope on the downstream side of the Lavender Road culvert.
Two cross-sections were surveyed in the Project Reach, one approximately 400 feet upstream of
Lavender Road and one approximately 300 feet downstream. The channel varies in dimension
from 30 to 40 feet in width at bankfull and 6 to 8 feet in bank height. The channel appears to be
actively widening due to noticeable bank erosion. Especially in the areas with little woody
vegetation, the banks are gradually slumping into the channel and being washed downstream.
The pattern of the Project Reach is extremely straight, with virtually no meander bends. The
channel was straightened by the USACE in the 1960s and appears to be somewhat regularly
maintained. In many ways, the channel resembles a man-made drainage canal more than a
natural stream channel. Long reaches of the banks are unnaturally straight, the bed is very
uniform with no riffle-pool sequencing, and there was very little woody debris in the channel.
These features are indicative of a channel that is maintained somewhat regularly.
The relic floodplain of Ellerbe Creek within the Project Site varies in width from approximately
500 to 1,000 feet. However, the channel is not accessing the historic floodplain as regularly as
needed. This results in higher flows being contained within the channel, contributing to
13
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
excessive scour and bank erosion. The effective flood prone width is only about 60 feet due to
the incision of the channel.
The substrate consists primarily of packed hardpan clay overlain by 8 to 16 inches of loose sandy
material. Bank erosion from within the Project Reach and upstream sources are likely
contributing much of the sand in the channel. The bed was bored in several locations to
determine if it is truly a sand bed channel or if it was a gravel bed covered up by sand. However,
only hard packed clay was found under the sand, and no gravel layer was encountered.
Occasional incidences of gravel and riprap were observed throughout Reach A.
Overall, the Project Reach is in a poor state of stability with minimal habitat value, as evidenced
by active bank erosion, lack of variability in bed morphology, lack of woody debris, lack of
streamside buffer, and excessive fine-grained sediment deposition within the active flow area.
Reach B
A 211-foot detailed longitudinal profile was surveyed within Reach B. The bed morphology is
fairly homogeneous. The average water surface slope for Reach B was 1.3 percent. One cross-
section was surveyed within Reach B. The channel is approximately 12 feet in width at the top
of bank, 4 feet across the channel at toe of slope, 6.5 feet at bankfull, and 5 to 8 feet in bank
height. The channel appears to be actively widening due to noticeable bank erosion.
The pattern of Reach B is extremely straight, with virtually no meander bends. Most likely the
channel has been historically straightened and is occasionally maintained.
Overall, Reach B is in a poor state of stability with minimal habitat value, as evidenced by active
bank erosion, lack of variability in bed morphology, lack of woody debris, lack of streamside
buffer, and excessive fine-grained sediment deposition within the active flow area.
Morphological data are located in Table 4.
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
The impacts associated with historical channelization, urban stormwater runoff, and removal of
riparian vegetation are the most significant factors contributing to stream degradation on site.
The initial straightening of the channel likely resulted in downcutting and channel incision.
After a channel becomes incised, the stress on the banks increases, causing bank erosion and
channel widening. The flashy flows from the highly impervious watershed and the lack of
sufficient stabilizing vegetation have further contributed to a high rate of bank erosion and
collapse. The large amount of fine-grained particles contributed by the eroding banks is causing
excessive sediment accumulation and channel aggradation that only exacerbates the tendency for
the hydraulically inefficient channel to over-widen. This silt and sediment buildup is also a
significant factor in limiting aquatic habitat, as it clogs the substrate and creates conditions
unsuitable to support diverse bivalve, benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish habitat.
It is important to consider this process of channel evolution where incision, widening, and
aggrading have occurred when evaluating the potential of the existing degraded channel to
14
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
naturally stabilize over time. Without intervention, it is expected that bank materials will
continue to erode at an accelerated rate, resulting in a loss of usable property as well as water
quality impacts downstream. The channel is in the process of migrating from an incised G to a
further over-widened F stream type. Restoring the channel to a stable form now will bypass the
lengthy stabilizing process, preventing further property loss and sediment pollution downstream.
Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) scores for Reach A ranged from moderate (27.9) to high
(30.4), indicating a high potential for continued bank erosion and channel widening. Scores for
Reach B were high (39.5), indicating a high potential for continued bank erosion and channel
widening. BEHI data was not taken in a multitude of places due to the homogeneity of the site.
BEHI data are located in Table 5.
3.5 Bankfull Verification
The accepted methodology for natural channel design is based on the ability to select the
appropriate bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from
a stable reference reach. Thus, the determination of bankfull stage is the most critical component
of the natural channel design process.
Determining bankfull stage can be difficult, especially in a highly altered, urban stream.
Bankf ill indicators in the Project Reach were not abundant, but a trend was developed from
several consistent features. In the upstream section with the forested buffer, a scour line on the
banks proved to be the most consistent bankfull indicator. In the downstream section, the
channel is more unstable, and indicators are less evident. Multiple benches were observed, but
they appeared to be a result of bank slumping rather than true depositional features formed at the
bankfull stage. In order to verify the field-indicated bankfull stage, it was compared to the
regional hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves) developed for the Piedmont
Physiographic Province (Harman et al. 1999). The rural regional curve was utilized as
recommended in Dave Rosgen's teachings. In an urban situation, bankfull flow continues to be
the channel forming flow. The bankfull cross-sectional area for the Project Reach (82.4 ft2) is
consistent with the cross-sectional area values from the regional curve (71.6 ft2 median value)
plotting within the 95 percent confidence limits.
3.6 Vegetation
Plant communities within the state of North Carolina are typically classified using Classification
of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). However, this
publication restricts its scope to those communities that are considered `natural' and without the
overriding influence of modern human activities. The difficulty in using this classification for a
project in an urban area is that the area is significantly altered from its `natural conditions'.
Furthermore, due to the park setting of this project, much of the area is dominated by scattered,
large trees and recreational grasses. Patches of upland forested areas are present along the
periphery of the park, but have been disturbed to the point that they do not match communities
listed in Schafale and Weakley's publication. These areas were likely once Oak-Hickory forests,
but now contain a large number of successional species. Streamside vegetation has also been
significantly disturbed. The buffer area along the stream is narrow, regularly maintained, and
15
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
contains a large number of ornamental/planted species as well as invasive herbaceous species.
Nomenclature follows Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas (Radford et al 1968).
Upstream of Lavender Road, Reach A has a limited forested buffer on the left bank of the
stream. The right bank of the stream consists of mowed grassland, a baseball diamond, and
parking lot with scattered large trees throughout and a thin strip of woody vegetation right along
the bank. Downstream of Lavender Road, the riparian vegetation consists of mowed grass with
scattered, large trees typical of a park setting. A narrow buffer is present along the banks in the
open areas, but does not shade the channel.
Reach B has a forested buffer on the left bank that is contiguous with the buffer in the upstream
portions of Reach A. The buffer on the right bank is forested in the upstream section, and
maintained grass in the downstream section.
The canopy of the forested upland areas is dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple (Acer rubrum), black oak (Quercus velutina), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), willow oak (Q.
phellos), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), chestnut oak
(Q. prinus), and white oak (Q. alba). Midstory species include American holly (Ilex opaca),
American silverberry (Eleagnus sp.), red mulberry (Morus rubra), eastern redbud (Cercis
canadensis), red maple, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), silver maple (A. saccharinum), flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida), arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), chestnut oak, black cherry (Prunus
serotina), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), American beech (Fagus grandiora), mimosa
(Albizia julibrissin), and catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides). The understory is dense and contains
early successional/invasive species such as English ivy (Hedera helix), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax sp.),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and blackberry (Rubus occidentalis).
The tree species found scattered throughout the maintained portions of the park are generally
large in size and include American sycamore, willow oak, sweetgum, red maple, Southern
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), tamarack (Larix laricina), black oak, green ash, pin oak (Q.
palustris), white oak, crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), live oak (Q. virginiana), eastern red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), river birch (Betula nigra), mimosa, and eastern cottonwood
(Populus deltoides).
Streamside vegetation consists of mimosa, crape myrtle, American sycamore, tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima), bristle mallow (Modiola caroliniana), American pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), black willow (Salix nigra), poison ivy, red mulberry, jewelweed, river birch,
multiflora rose (Rosa multiora), tulip poplar, boxelder (Acer negundo), sweetgum, elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), kudzu (Pueraria montana),
milkweed, smartweed, browntop (Microstegium vimineum), and catalpa.
16
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
4.0 REFERENCE CONDITIONS
A stable reach of a UT to Northeast Creek was selected as the Reference Reach for the Ellerbe
Creek (Northgate Park) Stream Restoration Project. Like the Project Reach, the stream is located
in an urban setting within the City of Durham in Durham County, North Carolina. The
Reference Site is located approximately eight miles south of the Project Site just north of I-40 in
the Meridian Office Complex. The stream flows south under Meridian Parkway before entering
Northeast Creek (Figure 6). The Reference Reach begins approximately 100 feet south of the
culvert at Meridian Parkway and extends 480 feet to the south. Photos of the Reference Site are
located in Appendix 5. NCDWQ and USACE stream data forms are located in Appendix 6.
4.1 Watershed Characterization
The Reference Site is located in the 03030002060140 14-digit hydrologic unit (8-digit unit
03030002, subbasin 03-06-05) of the Cape Fear River Basin. The watershed area is
approximately 3.3 square miles (Figure 7).
The UT to Northeast Creek Reference Reach is very similar to the Project Reach in setting and
features. The stream is a second order, perennial stream in an urban watershed with similar
valley type, slope, and substrate composition as the Project Reach. Perhaps most importantly,
both streams are located in the Triassic Basin ecoregion. Although the Reference Reach is just
across the river basin boundary, its position in the Triassic Basin, as well as its proximity to the
Project Reach and similar features make it a suitable Reference Reach. Furthermore, the portion
of the Neuse Basin in the Triassic Basin is small in size and heavily developed. There are few, if
any, reference quality stream channels remaining.
According to the Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina the Reference Reach traverses
two soil series (Kirby 1971) (Figure 8). The majority of the Reference Reach flows through
Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils (Ch). A small segment in the southern portion of the Reference
Reach flows through Congaree silt loam (Cp). Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils are Hydric A.
Congaree silt loam is Hydric B.
4.2 Channel Classification
According to the Rosgen classification scheme, the Reference Reach is an E5 stream type. The
channel has a high entrenchment ratio value (indicating the channel has an adequate floodplain),
low width to depth ratio, meandering pattern, and sandy substrate. Bank height ratios (bank
height/bankfull height) range around one, indicating the channel accesses the floodplain during
bankfull events.
4.3 Discharge
Discharge rates for the bankfull event were calculated utilizing the Piedmont Physiographic
Province regional hydraulic geometry relationship (regional curve). The Reference Reach
bankfull discharge is 216 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) (Harman et al. 1999).
17 46
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
4.4 Channel Morphology
The bed morphology contained good riffle-pool sequencing, with riffles in the straight reaches
and deep pools in the outside meander bends. The average water surface slope for the Reference
Reach was 0.19 percent.
Two cross-sections were surveyed in the Reference Reach, representing a riffle and a pool. The
stream has a bankfull width of 13.5 feet and a maximum bankfull depth of 3.8 feet. The width-
to-depth ratio was 5.9 and the entrenchment ratio was 22.2, indicating an E stream type. The
pattern of the Restoration Reach appeared unaltered, with well-defined meanders and a sinuosity
of 1.33. Sediment on the floodplain and drainage patterns indicate that the stream is accessing its
floodplain.
The substrate was very similar to the Project Reach, consisting of packed hardpan clay overlain
by sand, with small amounts of gravel within the riffles. Overall, the Reference Reach appears
to be a stable, unaltered urban stream channel that will provide an appropriate model for
restoration of the Project Reach. Morphology data are located in Table 4.
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
The Reference Reach channel is providing a hydrologically efficient channel which has the
ability to transfer the watershed's sediment supply without aggrading or degrading the reach.
The channel is accessing the floodplain during above bankfull events, thereby significantly
reducing the flow's shear stress on the channel banks during flood events. The BEHI score for
the Reference Reach is 14, indicating a stable channel with low potential for bank erosion. BEHI
data are located in Table 6.
4.6 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull within the Reference Reach is consistently located at the top of bank as expected for a
stable system. Bankfull indicators included break in bank slope, evidence of flooding, and
vegetation establishment. In order to verify the field-indicated bankf ill stage, it was compared
to the regional hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves) developed for the Piedmont
Physiographic Province (Harman et al. 1999). As with existing conditions, the rural curve was
utilized. The bankfull cross-sectional area for the Project Reach (30.8 ftz) was consistent with the
cross-sectional area values from the regional curve, plotting within the 95 percent confidence
limits, below the median rural curve (47.9 ft), and well above the lower confidence interval (25.0 ft).
Therefore, the reference reach is functioning as a stable channel within the rural regional curve
confidence interval in an urban situation.
4.7 Vegetation
A forested floodplain is present along the stream channel's east bank side. On the west side of
the stream channel a sewer easement runs parallel to the Reference Reach, toward the parking lot
for the Doubletree Hotel. A narrow forested buffer is present adjacent to the stream (Figure 9).
The forest community resembles a Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
18
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
The overstory is dominated by hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) and red maple. Other species
include musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), American sycamore, willow oak, green ash, and
eastern cottonwood. The midstory consists of Chinese privet, boxelder, and American elm
(Ulmus americana). The understory is fairly dense and contains wisteria (Wisteria sp.),
blackberry, poison ivy, greenbrier, browntop, American pokeweed, Japanese honeysuckle, and
smartweed. The sewer easement is herbaceous and contains much of the understory listed above.
19
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
5.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Restoration Project Goals
The goals of the Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Stream Restoration Project focus on improving
water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat. These
goals will be accomplished by:
• Restoring the Project Reach to a stable urban stream channel that will retain its
dimension, pattern, and profile over time, and that is capable of transporting watershed
flows and sediment load efficiently;
• Using Priority II restoration to change Ellerbe Creek from a G5c type stream channel to a
E type channel;
• Enhancing the capacity of the site to mitigate flood flows by improving the connection of
the stream to its floodplain;
• Improving aquatic habitat by establishing a heterogeneous bed morphology with riffle-
pool sequences supported by in-stream structures;
• Restoring the riparian buffer from park grasses and herbaceous vegetation to Piedmont
Bottomland Forest to provide filtration of nutrients and organic matter inputs into the
stream, to improve wildlife habitat, and to provide shade for the stream channel;
• Reducing sediment inputs from localized streambank erosion by re-establishing stream
geometry and by stabilizing and revegetating the stream banks; and
• Installing three stormwater wetland best management practices (BMPs) to reduce
stormwater pollutants (namely nitrogen and phosphorus) and improve water quality prior
to discharging into the stream.
5. 1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The existing channel is shown in Section 10.0, Plan Set 1. The designed channel alignment is
shown on Plan Set 2. Table 4 presents the Morphological Data for the Existing Reach A and B,
Proposed Design Reach A and B, and the Reference Reach. The dimensionless ratios developed
from the Reference Reach were used to build the design parameters for the Project Reach.
Cross-sectional area was compared with regional hydraulic geometry relationships (regional
curves) developed for the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Harman et al. 1999) and verified
with the reference reach. The Longitudinal profile for Reach A is shown on Plan Set 3. Reach
B's structure placement and longitudinal profile will be finalized following final property
agreement between EEP and the landowner. Structure placement and elevations for Reach A
and B may be adjusted during final design.
Reach A - Enhancement
Due to the constraints to the planform and profile described above, the recommended restoration
alternative is a Priority Level 2. Priority 2 restoration involves excavating a floodplain bench at
the bankfull elevation to provide the stream additional flood prone area. The width of the
floodplain bench will be maximized everywhere possible; however, it may be narrower in some
areas where necessary due to site constraints.
20
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
The proposed restoration will convert the stream from an unstable G5c channel to a stable E5
channel with very low sinuosity. Type E channels typically have a very high sinuosity, but site
conditions are not favorable for a high sinuosity stream in the Project Reach. Increasing the
sinuosity would decrease the slope, and the Project Reach already has a very low slope and
sluggish flow. Rather than creating large meanders and excavating out into the floodplain, the
thalweg will meander gently within the existing channel, taking advantage of bank failures to
increase sinuosity slightly and create habitat diversity without significantly increasing stream
length. Because the stream will be relatively straight, structures will be incorporated to dissipate
energy rather than relying on pattern. The structures will also provide grade control, profile
undulation, and habitat diversity.
Reach A - Restoration
Priority 2 restoration will continue through Reach B with the addition of planform adjustments.
The proposed restoration will convert the stream from an unstable G5c channel to a stable E5
channel with fairly low sinuosity. Structures will be incorporated to dissipate energy in addition
to the energy dissipation of the planform/pattern. The structures will also provide grade control
and habitat diversity. The bed profile will be raised slightly to match the invert of the culverts,
reducing backwater effects and providing continuous flow for passage of fish and other aquatic
life. Currently, the stream is incised a foot or more below the culvert invert, effectively cutting
off flow during times of drought and isolating aquatic organisms in stagnant puddles.
Reach B- Enhancement
A Priority 2 restoration approach is also proposed for Reach B, converting the unstable G5c
channel to a stable E channel. The right floodplain is located entirely on park property and does
not appear to have any major physical constraints. However, the left floodplain is located on
private property, and negotiations with the property owner are not complete at the time of this
report. Depending on these negotiations, the left floodplain may be considerably constrained.
5.1.2 Target Buffer Communities
Re-establishing a riparian buffer composed of native woody and herbaceous species is critical to
the success of a stream restoration design. Vegetated buffers provide shade, input of woody
debris and organic matter, and a soil stabilizing root mass for the streambanks.
Native woody and herbaceous species will be used to establish a 50-foot wide riparian buffer on
both sides of the restored reach where possible. In some areas, park infrastructure and land use
will prohibit a fully vegetated buffer, so other areas will be extended beyond 50 feet to
compensate for the difference.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources;
however, species will all be native and appropriate to the Project Site soils. The proposed
plantings will cover the constructed streambanks and floodplain. Throughout the majority of the
site, the target natural community will be a Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Schafale and Weakley
1990), which is typical of this area in its natural condition.
21
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
In some areas, remnants of the target natural communities currently exist with mature individuals
of the desired species. As much as possible in these areas, the zone of construction activity will
be limited to lessen damage to individual stems. Maintaining existing trees in place with intact
root masses will contribute to post-construction slope soil and stream bank retention. Areas with
existing tree canopy will receive primarily herbaceous and shrub plantings. The designed
vegetative communities are presented in Table 7 and Plan Set 4. Four zones will be used to form
the target buffer community: Zone 1. Streamside Livestakes, Zone 2. Inner Floodplain, Zone 3.
Outer Floodplain, and Zone 4. Upland Enhancement.
5.1.3 On-Site Invasive Species Management
Prior to the revegetation phase of the project, removal of non-native floral species will be
necessary. Exotic species currently occurring at the Project Site include Chinese privet and
Japanese honeysuckle. Invasive species eradication and management shall commence in
conjunction with site preparation and will continue through the one-year monitoring period at a
minimum. Proposed management procedures described below are based upon recommendations
taken from the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual (SE-EPPC 2003).
Personnel applying herbicide will be licensed to do so, as required by the North Carolina
Pesticide Board and all work will comply with the North Carolina Pesticide Law of 1971 and
applicable federal laws (G.S. 143-434, Article 52). Environmental conditions including weather,
wind, temperature, and period of the growing season will be evaluated prior to initiation of
management efforts. The sequence of removal procedures will be coordinated with planned
seeding and planting tasks such that treatment methods do not affect planted species.
The first step of the invasive species removal process will consist of an application of Rodeo® or
equal herbicide (glyphosate - aquatic label) designated as suitable for extermination of trees and
shrubs in riparian and wetland areas. Ideally, application will occur late in the growing season,
but prior to dormancy. Ambient air temperature at the time of application will be above 40°F.
The herbicide will be applied at the recommended rate in accordance with label instructions.
This application will be completed a minimum of two weeks prior to planting activities. The
herbicide will be applied on all identified invasive plants using appropriate application methods
to prevent drift into adjacent areas.
Two weeks after spraying, all woody vegetation will be removed by cutting stems and stumps to
a maximum height of two inches above ground. A 25 percent glyphosate herbicide solution
approved for aquatic applications shall be immediately applied to completely cover the cut
surface of each individual stem or stump. After an additional two-week period, woody remnants
will be removed, separated from the soil and disposed of properly (i.e. burning).
The Project Site shall be observed throughout the monitoring period to evaluate invasive
management effectiveness. If required, additional control steps may be implemented.
22
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
5.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
5.2.1 Methodology
A stream's ability to transport sediment load without aggrading or degrading is the threshold of a
stream's stability. The stream's critical dimensionless shear stress, the force required to initiate
the general movement of particles in a streambed, and the overall stream's power are evaluated
to determine if the proposed design is able to transport the bedload without aggrading or
degrading. Stream power is a measure of the rate a stream can do work, or transport its load. As
a function of channel slope and discharge, the rate is expressed as power. The methodology
utilizes a comparison between existing conditions, Reference Reach conditions, proposed
conditions, and the Shields' curve. Additionally, shear stress is evaluated to verify the stream
design does not mobilize too large of a particle.
5.2.2 Calculations and Discussion
The design provides floodplain relief for above-bankfull flow while allowing sufficient stream
power such that the stream's sediment supply will be properly transported. Erosion potential is
considered very low for shear stresses below 0.5 lb/ftz. Shear stress for Reach A and Reach B is
below this threshold. An analysis of the Shields' curve shows the proposed condition will be
able to mobilize a 1 to 2 mm particle. With movement of a 1 to 2 mm particle, the proposed
design will have ample shear stress to mobilize the substrate without degrading the system.
Subpavement analysis is not addressed due to the lack of a subpavement feature on site
(substrate consisted of sand several feet in depth). Grade control structures (rock cross vanes)
will provide additional profile stability by controlling sediment transport locally and maintaining
bed elevations.
5.3 HEC Analysis
FEMA has conducted a preliminary flood study for the Project Site. Restoration activities will
require a flood study for the Project Reach and coordination with the local floodplain
administrator. Existing condition data provided by Christy Sokol, City of Durham Stormwater
Services Division, is in HEC-2 format. HEC-2 existing condition data is provided in Appendix
7.
5.3.1 No-Rise, LOMR, CLOMR
A flood study will be conducted to evaluate the need for a No-Rise, LOMR, and CLOMR. The
project is expected to require No-Rise and LOMR documentation.
5.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass
The flood study discussed above will assure the design does not create hydrologic trespass
issues. The project is not a Priority 1 restoration and is expected to create no-rise in flood
elevations.
23
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
5.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices
5.4.1 Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns
Urban stormwater runoff was cited as a major source of impairment to Ellerbe Creek in the
Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2002). Four stormwater outfalls enter
Ellerbe Creek within the Project Site. They all enter the Project Reach from the east, and drain
the adjacent residential area. The two in the upstream portion of the Project Reach, outfall 1 and
2, flow through forested areas with well-established woodland buffers and therefore were not
good candidate sites for BMPs. The two outfalls in the downstream portion, outfall 3 and 4, are
in the open parkland. Proposed BMP construction would create limited disturbance to existing
vegetation along outfall 3 and 4; therefore, these sites were selected for potential BMP sites.
Additionally, a BMP will be incorporated on UT-3. This site is suitable since the tributary is
located in an open park with no existing vegetated buffer thus would have limited /no impact on
existing large trees and is a low aquatic habitat quality, intermittent stream which falls under
USACE regulatory jurisdiction. The BMP would be designed such that flow is unimpeded and
would incorporate a low-flow channel as part of the design. A forebay will be located where
stormwater enters the BMP and such that it may be accessed for maintenance/clean out activities.
A bench will be provided along the main channel for wetland species. Because Ellerbe Creek is
classified as a "Nutrient Sensitive Water", nitrogen and phosphorus will be primary pollutants of
concern guiding BMP selection. The proposed wetland community is listed in Table 7 and
shown on Plan Set 4. Preliminary design parameters are located in Table 8.
5.4.2 Device Description and Application
All of the proposed BMPs are Stormwater Wetlands. Stormwater Wetlands have proven
effective at stormwater nutrient removal and the public park setting will provide enhanced
opportunities for public education on stormwater runoff and treatment. Design parameters are
based on event mean concentrations (EMCs) measured during storm events in mg/L and
converted to export coefficients in pounds/acre/year. Loading is computed utilizing the Simple
Method (model developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments) where:
L =P * Pi * Rv * C * 0.227
L is the nutrient load in lb/ac/yr.
P is the average annual rainfall (45 in/yr in NC piedmont).
Pi is a correction factor for storms with no runoff (0.9).
Rv is the runoff coefficient equal to 0.05 +0.9I .
I is a fraction of the impervious area (0 to 1).
C is the flow-weighted EMC in lbs/ac/yr.
The Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus EMCs were taken from monitoring data on a similar
site with a low residential watershed in Durham, NC. The estimated EMC used for Total
Nitrogen was 1.30 mg/L and Total Phosphorus was 0.32 mg/L. Locations of BMPs are shown
on Plan Set 5 and the BMP design parameters are shown in Table 8.
24
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
6.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
6.1 Streams
Performance criteria and monitoring protocol will follow that outlined within the EEP Site
Specific Mitigation Plan and detailed in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et
al., 2003). Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian
vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established
restoration objectives. Data collection will include measurements of stream dimension, profile,
pattern, and bed materials; photo documentation; vegetation survivability sampling; and stream
bankf ill return interval. Monitoring will be performed each year for a five year period, with no
less than two bankfull flow events documented through the monitoring period. If less than two
events occur during the first five years, monitoring will continue until the second bankfull event
is documented.
6.2 Stormwater Management Devices
Performance criteria and monitoring protocol will follow "Specifications for Monitoring
Stormwater Management BMPs" (NCDOT, March 19, 2003). Pre-construction monitoring will
be preformed one time and post-construction monitoring will capture a minimum of three events.
Post-construction monitoring will be preformed following vegetation establishment.
Physical monitoring shall include an analysis of site stability and riparian vegetation
survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established restoration
objectives. Data collection will include nutrient levels, photo documentation, and vegetation
survivability sampling. Monitoring will be performed each year for a five year period.
6.3 Vegetation
Evaluation of planted vegetation survival will be measured based upon the survival of 320 stems
per acre at the end of three years of monitoring. A tolerance of ten percent mortality rate will be
acceptable for years four and five. The final vegetated success criteria will be survival of 260
trees per acre through year five (USACE et al. 2003). In addition, survival percentages will also
be monitored on a species by species basis.
6.4 Schedule and Reporting
URS will prepare a Mitigation Plan in accordance with EEP standards (September 20, 2005) and
will include the following sections: introduction, summary, success criteria, monitoring
schedule, mitigation type and extent, maintenance/contingency plans, and references. Existing
data developed during the assessment and design phases of the project will be used to the extent
possible.
Following construction, URS will establish permanent stream monitoring cross-sections,
vegetation plots, and photo reference points on the project site, marked using rebar and cap, for
use during subsequent monitoring phases of the project. The selected construction contractor
25
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
will survey these points during the execution of the as-built field survey. The contractor shall
supply URS with a complete and properly sealed Project As-built Survey for inclusion in the
Mitigation Plan (11" x 17" format). The Mitigation Plan will be formatted and submitted in a
three-ring binder format to allow the latter inclusion of yearly project monitoring reports.
Collected monitoring data will be analyzed to evaluate the project status in relation to the
established success criteria, summarizing observations of the stream and overall site conditions.
A monitoring report will be produced in 8 ''/s" x 11" format containing appropriate
documentation, field data, engineering computations, and photographs. Supporting illustrations
and plan sheets in 11" x 17" format will be included as necessary.
The yearly project monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted each year after monitoring
tasks are completed. The report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the new data
against previously existing conditions. Data, cross-sections, profiles, photographs, and other
graphics will be included in the report as necessary. The report will include a discussion of any
significant deviations from the as-built survey, as well as evaluations as to whether the changes
indicate stabilizing or de-stabilizing conditions.
26
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
7.0 REFERENCES
CGIA. 2005. Land Use / Land Cover Classification for Durham County, NC. Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis. USGS shapefile.
Daniels, R.B., Buol, S.W., Kleiss, H.J., and C.A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina.
North Carolina State University Soil Science Department. Technical Bulletin 314.
January, 1999. Raleigh, NC.
Giese, G.L. and R.R. Mason, Jr. 1991. Low Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina.
USGS in coordination with NCDENR.
Gregory, James D. 2004. Hydric Soils and Growing Season: Wetland Delineation for North
Carolina. North Carolina State University Department of Forestry. Raleigh, NC.
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.,
MacPherson, T.F. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina (map scale 1:1,500,000). U.S.
EPA. Corvallis, OR.
Harman, W.H., Jennings, G.D., Patterson, J.M., Clinton, D.R., Slate, L.O., Jessup, A.G.,
Everhart, J.R., and R.E Smith. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for
North Carolina Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited
By: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Kirby, Robert M. 1971. Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC.
NCDOT. 2003. Specifications for Monitoring Stormwater Management BMPs. North Carolina
Department of Transporation. March 19, 2003
NCDWQ. 1998. NC Division of Water Quality Basinwide Information Management System
(BIMS): North Carolina Waterbodies Reports, Stream Classifications. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(NCDENR, NCDWQ). Available URL:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/b1ns/reports/reportsWB.htrnl [Accessed: August 8, 2005].
NCDWQ. 2002. 2002 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR,
NCDWQ).
NCDWQ. 2004. "Redbook." Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards. NC Administrative
Code 15A NCAC 02B .0 100, .0200 & .0300. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR, NCDWQ).
Ammended effective August 1, 2004.
27
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
NCDWQ. 2006. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review Draft. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR,
NCDWQ).
NCEEP. 2003. Ellerbe Creek Local Watershed Plan. December 2003. 134 pages. Available
URL: http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Upper-Neuse/Ellerbeplan.pdf.
NCNHP. 2005. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), Div. of Parks and Recreation, Natura, July 2005, Natural Heritage Element
Occurrences: NC DENR Div. of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, NC.
NCNHP. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. Office of
Conservation and Community Affairs, NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC. Available URL: http://www.ncsparks.net/iihp/county.hti-ni
[Accessed: March 14, 2006].
NPS. 2005. National Park Service. National Register Information System. Available URL:
http://www.nr.nps.gov/ [Accessed: August 8, 2005].
NRCS. 2005. Hydric Soils - Introduction. USDA, NRCS. Available URL:
http://soils.usda.gov/. Date Accessed: November 10, 2005.
Radford, A.E., Ahles, H.E., and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Rosgen, David L. 2001. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate.
Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp.
II - 9-15, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, A Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, NC.
SE-EPPC. 2003. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual. Southeast Exotic
Pest Plant Council Available URL: http://www.invasive.org/eastern/eppc/ [Accessed
March 23, 2005].
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, and N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
US Federal Register. 1999. Critical Habitat. USEPA. Federal Register Environmental
Documents. Volume 64, Number 113, Page 31871 - 31874. Available URL:
wais.access. gpo.gov [Accessed July 11, 2005].
28
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
USFWS. 1994. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL. Available URL: http://www.nwi.fNvs.gv_v
[Accessed: August 8, 2005].
USFWS. 2003a. Bald Eagles in North Carolina. Available URL:
ht!p://web.ncusfws.org/birds/balde.html [Accessed: August 8, 2005].
USFWS. 2003b. Smooth coneflower in North Carolina. Available URL:
http://web.ncusfws.or<,r/plantlsmoocotiefl.html [Accessed: August 8, 2005].
USFWS. 2003c. Michaux's sumac in North Carolina. Available URL:
http://web.ncusfws.org/lilant/michsumac.html [Accessed: August 8, 2005]
USFWS. 2006. List of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species for the
Southeast Region. Durham County, NC. Available URL:
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/county%20%llsts.htm. Updated March 14, 2006.
[Accessed March 20, 20061.
USGS. 1973. Northwest Durham Quadrangle, North Carolina (map scale 1:24,000) 7.5 Minute
Series. Washington, DC. Photorevised 1987.
USGS. 2006. Water Resources of the United States. Hydrologic Unit Maps. Available URL:
http://water.usLs.gov/GIS/huc.html. [Accessed: March 16, 2006].
29
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
8.0 TABLES
Table 1: Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Project Number 040742501 Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
Reach Station Range Restoration Priority Existing Designed Comment
Type Approach Linear Feet Linear Feet
A 10+00 -25+00 Enhancement 2 1
500 1
500 Main stem of Ellerbe Creek
Level I , ,
A 25+00 - 32+52 Restoration 2 722 752 Main stem of Ellerbe Creek
B 100+00 -102+32 Enhancement 2 224 235 Unnamed Tributary 1
Level I
Table 2: Drainage Areas
Project Number 040742501 Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
Reach/Hydrologic Feature Drainage Area (Acres)
Reach A 3,776
Reach B UT-1 41.5
UT-2 31.2
UT-3 30.9
Outfall 1 2.0
Outfall 2 2.7
Outfall 3 10.3
Outfall 4 2.7
30
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
Table 3: Watershed Land Use
Project Number 040742501 Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
Land Use - Area (acres) Percentage
Bottomland Forest /
Hardwood Swamps 9.6 0.3
Deciduous Shrubland 46.7 1.2
High Intensity Developed 724.0 0.5
Low Intensity Developed 691.9 18.3
Managed Herbaceous Cover 435.2 11.5
Mixed Hardwoods / Conifers 686.2 18.2
Mixed Upland Hardwoods 11.0 0.3
Southern Yellow Pine 1,147.1 30.4
Water Bodies 24.3 0.6
31
03
O
U
O
z
Q
(d
a*
O
U
N
W
c?
F i
y O
=z
y
L U
sJ S?
U;
v W
tn
Sr' ?
ao
O
L
% O
F Z
T

?

co

O ?

r o

0
N
(V

r
M
?
L U
?
U L w
U
m
LO
O
U,
M
O
O
co
O
O
CO
C N
U
M
N

(d Z ,
41
O Y lZ W co
O M N O 1n O
c7 r-
N Cl) O
N
M N UO
- O
w O
o N O
UO ti
M
O

U Q)

F- N
'-

°
? pU
L
U

' d N
w
O
O
to
O
M
m E N Y CO - M M ?

•? ? N
N N
E co

LO

O

O

O

O

O

Cl)

(p

00

0

O

M

00

(D
(D 0 U-)
m IT LO CO
p D M ti N o
Lu ? o
w
L
U
. c
0 °o ° g g g o
Q U Y M r r
M
O N
Q
'
'

N y
Z
U U
)
W (D
ti O

6 (D
(rj O O (D LO O
N
. O
O O
.
O
V'
M
(n
O
N N
O U
)
O
a)
p 2 M N M O N O O N co
°
W
L
U
N O
0 O
0
04
"l:
E N Y ?- ti (D N

O)
C W
=3 m

Q

m CD
Z
U (.C)
W to
ti O
' i (D
M O O (o 0 O
N V
t17 O
O O
4
O
UC)
O
0
(D
O
O
O c D li N r~ M O ro_ C6
(°
cD
W
N c N O

w
L
U
(
O O
°
(Yj O O (
O O O
U Y M LO r (V
C
N
a)
E co
O
LO
It
t`
-
V
M
07
It
a
t?
to
O
'X Z U ~ (t7 N 1: O O co N O O
cD M O V O
M O) O M
W M Sri
M co o
N O
W

Q Y

U
Q O

O
°
O
O
co

O

O
O

c
=
U v
s CO cli

Z .0 m u
(7 CD 00 t` O (D O co C.0 O O N N
W N (Y O M ?-- 00 M .~v.. ti O 6) O ca I O NO
M
r O

Z N
? O
w
i a = O W = f° O E
Z
O
0
W
O Z _5
W
Of
w a
i
Q
g -j
a D
I-
a
p
Z
:C g Cr
F-
W
2 W
W U
U
d
w
z
O
D
O
T
p
w U
(n CL Q 3: 2 Z
Q a X _
p o 2 J J U 2 Y O
w 2 W
p w
O J
J J
- M W J
J J
J J
J J
J 8 2
U
LL V-
O
LL H
p J
fn
Q
Z U)
O 2 2 Q > > o
2 >
w >
<L >
tl >
LL U-
2 Z
w W
p O (A W
p U }

W W U
Q W
R' Z Y
Z Y
Z LLI
p y
z ?c Y
Z Y
Z Y
Z w
H Z
Q O
f- p
p
F-
J Z
Q O
Z) W
J
(n (n LU
m m -1 co m m co W co 2 fn
N
M
0
U
0
z
C?
Q
Y,
Cl
P.
z
U
a?
W
L O a
ca M rn O
a) On c0 co

O
O
M W
? O O O ? N N tC) M >

O
N
O
CL
0
d
06
rn
m
M E (6
C: W
O )o

N

00

O

O

O

O

C

O
N cn O O O N M M
C O O O N N M
N M N
W O O O O
N
O

N c
N
-le
? c
Q .2 ?
O .?

c 2 N

°'O
cn y
cn
M
_
o
O
It
o
O
0
0
n!

M
'
M a
O
h
p O
O O
O O
O O N O
co c) c)

O
O
O co N
-
m
t
3
N C
?? ? rn O
a
Q E co y
c fl)
°' c

U
co
cD
o
o
?r
o

0

0
°
o
U
p
C O
O O O
O r O
N M N M
M M
M O

w
O
O
O 00 c
>1
m
E
T
N
w
ul
7
cc w
C ?
N O Q Q Q co
Q
Q
Q
Q
T
W o Z Z Z N Z Z Z Z Z

o in
L ?
U w

O
U d

O
_

O w
N

?
U
Q N CO •
d C

G LO C
y

'X m
O o
d• o
O 0 0
CD .-
h co
O o
O
O
Ln 3
>
O
W O O O CO r M
T u)
'T
C
O O O Y O
O
U
N
4)
3
t m
z IV V- cn
o >

= v cn
o 0
Q U .p

O =
O
O OI
W 0J
W
a =p
?J S Z
U OJ
CL Z) X rn
o
co O
j
= J
0L p Q LL
Z
W (
W _

JF-
U) F-

J
N O
d
O
W Jd
00
W JY
OZ
O- J
0 Q
Om O C
y 0
J CL W OJ
p
O Q
=
O
O U
m
W U) 0 a d (n J d OD F-
p (I d J CL d F m O

Q C7 OCR 0
O 00 O? 0
F- 00
Z a?z

z W
J (n
J
0§
a
0?
J W
OY
J
OU > X
W W
Q LL. O
a F- W
?G F- W
?Q 0
0 f- Z
?m O
C F- Q
? U) ?>
z 0
E
U)
M
M
0
U
0
z
Q
C?
IZ
N
U
w
CC
L
?-W
ou
S" L
Gr p
L
w ?-
? L
?U
a?
W L
o w
W V)
N
C d'
d ?
O
'b
Z
x?
MwM
6
C?
H
j,jAodxg o
;uawipas o
H d

Mo'
Baa
A
]
0
0

MO'T

0
a;e
iapo W
.

o °o
,? °o
.? °o
._.
qNlH

q2?H ?aaA

0
awa
i;xg
.

L _
~
N
W
O cd
¢ 0 a; ¢ E 04 CG
.C
cl U
N
N U
L
0 C U

co
(x y p y
>
0 C13
?l 0 c
d
b ?1

y Q
O

O U
o, rn
E c
0
U
F a?
a
L4j
8
C?
6>
V1 L
e?
v Gw
C
wo
W O
w z
y
L
W i
L ?
C. W
? o
W ,n
C .It
O
'O O
? L
V] y
? .a
C
as O
?z
MWM u
?a
,,,podx3
;uawipas

Mo'] haA

o
MO'i
a\
V
0
aluapow

w
0
q?(H

W
o
q$!H ,CaaA

w
0
awalIxg

V

U N
N
6J N
fx
O

Gr
v
8 a
?
H U
a
It
en
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
Table 7: Designed Vegetative Communities
Project Number 040742501 Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
ZONE 1': STREAMSIDE LIVESTAKES
Common Name Scientific Name
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum
Black willow Salix nigra
Tag alder Alnus serrulata
ZONE 2: INNER FLOODPLAIN
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana
Beautyberry Callicarpa americana
New Jersey tea Ceanothus americanus
Steeplebush Spirea tomentosa
River birch Betula nigra
Tag alder Alnus serrulata
Lowbush blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana
ZONE 3; OUTER FLOODPLAIN
Virginia willow Itea virginica
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Wax myrtle Myrica cerifera
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii
Willow oak Quercus phellos
Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia
Spicebush Lindera benzoin
American elm Ulmus americana
ZONE 4: UPLAND ENHANCEMENT
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida
American holly flex opaca
Scarlet oak Quercus coccinea
Hazelnut Corylus americana
Rhododendron Rhododendron spp.
Carolina hemlock Tsuga caroliniana
35
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park) Durham, North Carolina
BMP ZONE: STORMWATER WETLAND
Common Name Scientific Name
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum
Arrow arum Peltandra virginica
Tag alder Alnus serrulata
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis
Arrowhead Saggitaria latifolia
Blue flag iris Iris versicolor
Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus
Common water plantain Alisma subcordatum
Soft rush Juncus effusus
Sweet flag Acorus calamus
Wool grass Scirpus cyperinus
Swamp mallow Hibiscus moscheutos
Allegheny serviceberry Amelanchier laevis
Arrowwood viburnum Virburnum dentatum
Carolina allspice Calycanthus floridus
Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius
Big bluestem Andropogon gerardi
Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum
Joe-pye weed Eupatorium maculatum
Swamp sunflower Helianthus angustifolius
switchgrass Panicum virgatum
Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans
Tall ironweed Veronia altissima
36
0
0
U
0
Q
N
N
L.
U
x
L
R
a
R
as ?
6
? O
R z
a?
a U
A?
•'" O
a?
ILI
O
R
ca °
L
? a
R Z
H r+
u
u
•O
L
a
R
a?
L
d'
u
u
R
? v O O N
u
O
4
O
L
a
y
O O ?
? L C
R O
H
C
M N
: M
. O R
SFr app d ,?

a
?, ? o ou
L
s.
c

o
a
A

M
- 00
C?
W?..
W
,
a
OA
? C 1.i
?? C ?
A C O R O
OMO M
C ?
M

Wa za
R

w
c
(A
R
M
L Q ? O O N

L a?-i •b +?-+ "C) a?+ "O
y a 3? 3? 3

M
V]
a M
E"' ^" ""

O O
r-
M
W
9.0 FIGURES
38

I I/
I ?
J

,
),
do Project Location
L'7, J Durham County
Neuse River Basin
Cape Fear River Basin
V:?' A

70
l I
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
Legend Stream Restoration Project
Project Number 040742501
Roads .' `Steil l City of Durham
Project Site Interstate ', Durham County, North Carolina
Streams State Highways
?Figure 1
US Highways 1 inch equals 0.5 miles Project Site Vicinity Map
Primary Roads 0 0.25 0.5
Miles Sources: Durham County, NC; CGIA, ESRI, Inc, and
URS Corp - INC. March 2006
-AA
B{fig
S
Baseball Diamond

i4
Legend
Project Site
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
Stream Restoration Project
Project Number 040742501
City of Durham
Durham County, North Carolina
Figure 2
Project Site Location Map
Sources: Durham County, NC; CGIA, ESRI, Inc, and
URS Corp - NC. March 2006.
i
Q.
S? D
A
CL R O O
O N m
U d cr
M 0. n
c m t w
` Q
k t
?o? ?
?
7Z4)
Z o?? L.
C +
+
cc zo
Y N E O
` w Z - O LL r U g
U
d m N f z
E
d
a ? a u
r
.'
(D 0
W ? N
°
7
L (
n
a

. N
E
?
O

-co
N

L
U
C
? O

N N
-0 T
O 3 ?
y m r
C Q ? ?
T
76
J N Q CO
U E L L
O
y m co
Q)
k ?
d

a^
Pi i4`Y
Reference Reach
Ellerbe Creek (Northgate Park)
Stream Restoration Project
Legend Project Number 040742501
City of Durham
Reference Reach Watershed OSINIS II Durham County, North Carolina
Reference Reach Figure 7
1 inch equals 2,000 feet Reference Site Watershed Map
Streams 0 1,000 2,000
Spumes: Durham County, NC; CGIA, ESRI, Inc,
and URS Corp - INC. March 2006.
Feet
10.0 DESIGNED SHEETS
48
09uz MODI-0 wxw VfWIJAN 13NNVH3 OMISIX3 UP SASO)'�
"Ag $Ad AWWIAd 009
PJPA3 4NAM - ump"Aa sun
103mld
NOUV60MH NV38iS MUMUd IN3M33NYM3 de
IN 3 -"' OHIHO N) ft31SAS033 a r
SNOISIA3d 40 PA" X3311, 31"" 13 YMIOBYD H18ON WE
2 133HS 33S 3NI� HDiVV4
f i j; ILI,
L x
j
CD
LL
LD
Ld
-j

un•iw w?.. w. m raw yon yosm
09W AW AOMIJ W#WIJXX 13NNYHO ONlSIX3 °
avWarovuaw - ww+o0+ro Syn mw W f
i33road
dap Nollvaols3d wv3als WVH00bd .N3N33NVHN3
sm Iravd 3iVOHiaoN) h31SASOD3 a
SKMA38 h >I33a3 3883113 q VNI106YD HIHON
woa ws
IIHS 13S Il H
\ Y
1
1
\
, ir-f
\
i
Y ?
I 11 {
_ _ z ??e.?ino ? J III
R
i
I 1 I' / I J -
A
I 133HS 33S 1W H:)IVM
un•iw •?.; w. mn•ir r?.. so.om
09w.o, i r•q d a9 I3NNVH3 ONI1SIx3
an Ao viAw - wjoWxo sun Tw _
1J a o
b A N V2101s3 3d H NOON) 5 rytlN70ed 1N3ry37NtlrvN3
(N21 C?
Vd 31V`JH12i0N ry3isaso]3 3
SNOISIAM p p )13321) 38213133 q)JOY VNIIQOD HINON ??y *E
b .L33HS 33S 3NIl HDIM
I f I o
1
-rte - '1' ,I o
i
I &
? i
P i
I, I1
,1 I
a f
?'a r
'i
it `
All
/ f 1 / a
/
/ ,.?? I I i s s '3
Z 133HS 33S 3NI3 H'-)1VW
un•?w wu w. mn•?w w?.? so.aa.
/JOn
l3NNVHD ONIISIX3
i!l -11fI
?
r
-
??
fJvd ow .
i
a
W _
atolo9 WAN - ~Adm san mw
J3f a
I
NoilVao153a wV3a15 WHO08d1N3h3ONVHN3 p
u.o s
SPMA38
b (AaVd 31VOHidON)
H3383 MA113 n Y43lsAso33
VNnoaV3 NINON Iw
o va a E
3
0
0

aI
x?
W ??y g
b F 'Y} g p
6' & ? M b 5
J
J
? 1I311S 33S - ]Nil HDJ Vn
un•?09 •w as ri?serer. 1N3YINDIV
09S[7 wNoNo7 viAW er MlMh?+4r 13NNVH3 NOIS30 WO ?R/ ?M/4 lnA' -
AUAOAOVIAN - WolwAo w mu, A j o o
1J3f'Odd $s
Im A N/1ddo1S3d V yytlb'JO bd 1N31V 33Ntl HN3 G
.wt. (N2JVd 31VOHIdON) n3is'sa33 E r
SNOISIAM p N1183 39d3JI3 VMIObV3 H18ON WE
Z ANS 33S - 3NIl H30A
,\r? j ? ?•?' r? I ? ' I
t \ i
r I? ,
1
VII
?f
..... _y
Q
co
/ f ? I Ii
,
I '
? I
'? ;l(f ?? z II
1,.
rn•?r a10 - mu•,r w... *o IN31"1N911V
",a "d WAW ow 13NNVH3 a3NOIS3a 7
auua92 VIAav - ~1WM sun mug W f, i
1?3road
Sim NOI1Va0153a INV361s MUDO d 1NJMDNVNN3
ILN v
(Na Vd 31VOH160N) n3isesoD3 ;
SNOISIA38 Jp p NJJHD 30213113 937011 VNI10M -ON u.m ws
113HS 713S Il H c
' r
j j
N
r
% y \
- ?\
_ t
?y
I ?
I ,
) I k ,
1 J , { I \ ,¢ s
r
.
' C? - V r I eYi
b Y 3 ?
" k
LLJ
I \
61
7 ?
--
ZZ/
I BINS 33S 3NI? HDlVW
un•iw ww? w• mu•iw w??? so?sm
O9fi[d wpoo9 v??w rar+l?ar 1N3WN`Jiltl
w.o u+d AMAd 0091 13NNVH3 03NOIS30 I s t,itit ?:r, r s n
133' jd p a
fuO ! NO11VdO1S 31J WV3N15 -00H, 1N31N33NVHN3 E o
DHvd 31VSH180N) M3i5 SO33 s 22 E
SNIDIVAM p PDAOkVd N13 H3 3B2i3113 »p, INIMO VD HIHON , wa
5: 1 H Il H{
?r. IT,
= 11
o
-. III 'I ' i I
II j I'
II I i %
? 1 Ilil /
I
1.
F
i
i `
l{
\ \ I
I
5 1 ?
II
11 v
1 I 6 `' "I
v Pd I '
? A I,II? li ?I j
II
\_ I
', ? \? ?\ I III. I I j I
I /, \ II II ..jll.
1 is ? ' I III
1
1 I I 1
I II i r -
1 \
/I
"? / 14' I I ? W j I I
' ? ? ?,??? Y? ., II ?.I II 1 ill (• J 1 I I
I ? r' 1
1133HS 33S 3NI? HSiVA
??... »....., rou„r ,.., *a
o?cta wrn+zw iN3wN9I1V -
wr??.d Go9r l3NNVH0 03NOISICl 61q tiiS,
AMOA* WAN - Yf AfJV San Rug ? u E
1J3rOdd /a

7a?a
p

S

NOI1Vd01$3d WV3d15

MVNO"d?1N31 nNVHN3

2 ¦q

6 0
S"SfA3s!
1 NdVd 31V9H16ONI %315AS3
aNnodaD HI HieoN a IL
Y i0
4 POA*W >3383 3843113 ? ,w"

41 *a
Y

O
O
O

f
g
€ i
Y
II
II
v II
I
SNO11035-SSOaJ
OMZ SUPAO WAN gPOOIJ-1r
"Jo$AdAM,M" IvDid, l a3sodoad
MMA03 Vl.ON - 14F.arR3 S!M mw

a _ / 4
?
SIM NO11 ra0153a
13r3a1S i 2 Q Q
° a
A a
IMard 31r9N1a0N) *VVDDI
immix"]
A
S0
a
d
r
SNOISIA32! p 133 83 3983113 31SA
33
Mlo"3 MUM .,.w 3.a
I
11I??

W
I

G

?
J
J
? °
F
°
W
Q
W
I H
"X
I w m
7 0 6

I J am
a
?
?l o a
?
o _
?H
O x<(
?<
O Z<
h W i
O

I CL
O
H; ! !
O S
H
a w O
O?
2 f N W
1 6 2
f f
.1
< O Y 2 = 2= N
off
W
W
=
! f 3 ? F
a W m
N m W 0
a

w

W
0

? N
W q
u
O
o
C l)
/
W rzi
2 O M w
O
c J

I
Q W028
c
w U
.°21
O O 4
p o W
'a

I 4
o J
<oB<
I

I ?J
wF

Ho ..
N
W
O
2
\ /J
`
J
i
O
p
O
fY?
H
/
J

w m LL
¢
O
a
a

LU
:
oo i g?
U- J
U-
L

¢

O
< M
Li d W Q
=r, 6
U 20
' I 0
O
I
Z
O O R
.
W Z
O
?..?
O S
O
J O H 2 2 ..
10o ¢
J
U ??` 2 W oy- r? t
_ Wm
C
LU O 2 w.WO
° .OWE
W M04,
Q
Nmm F
y 0
O 1?- H W
J N 6
H J U
8°H a8
CL Z
i 0 Np2oW LLQQ
oz
W

0o po
d

H 'a
J
J J
a o?t
wo W

I a
W
y
?

O W
H
2

I

I
I
I
I w
3
QJ
a
F
0
0
0
0
N

d
d M
! N
? t
Q U

?
I,
I

d' C

?s L
U
m
F

jj e
del ?
° xNx
W
T O m

? a
x
x
W

S
j ?^m
[
l C
m
{
i O

d F
>? t
I? (
}
O
O
3 a: rv E

3
?
U
o Q
d
? a
d J ?. o
tl
` m
I + o a

V d
?
}
d J p I
?
LL °
O ry
U

r d
I ? ? 3

? c
co
v
t ?

'
I
? h
7 i o
>' a

4
?
a
I

S"
ei
i
?

114LLL O
O
N p O
0 o m °m m °m °
M N N N N
(4001) uolwgl3
dVA S311114mvio
09912 m401013 WXN WOH%]AN o x
wv+od M��daoer 3AIlV1303A 03NOIS30 - -
Nme ut a - W.Mv Sao ` e
1 ad o
b ,a Nouvaols38 wv38ls
YItltl00M3 SAS03]NtlMN3 a�
(Matld 31VOH1a0N) IY315A50]3 a
SHOISIAld 3380 38x3113 tlNIIONtl] H18ON wa
1133HS 33S - 3N11 H�lVA
�-
0
}
I
,
77
Rill 1 i
j I
Iii s
' 1
i
I
1,
,
45
-._-�
1
0 I
,
1 i m' o '1
j 1 r IL
1 Y,�
c o
r _
a a
�Il

' WS/d uiaA7VlX& q/hWU.M N x
"IV #Ad A lAd 0091 3nIlv13o3n 03NDIS30
WA100VIXN - DJJP"AJ San tx
133POdd 1:;.'- 3
NOlIV801S38 1VV381S NV8008d iN3w3"Nvum 2 rt
INBVd 31V0H180N) n31SASON3 E
SNdSIA38 ro a )(3380 3083113 VNI108VD H16ON wa
i; ,
ir
C
+
o_ N
_i
1133HS 33S - 3NII HD1VW

.
G" pqVA9 WXN Wr"JAN
O dVIN S3111NnvmoD
3A11V13`)3A a3NOIS30 .`.`k 1
i.1t 1;.: t);7",
"JO I.
d MlM OGA 3 W
avpm*Vuov - .aaoe a sun n.
J3f08d
i 8 6
NolivaOiS3a wv3ais " Q tl °
n.o a (N8Vd 31VOH180N) MVHOOed
iNYMN-3
rv3isaso33 . 2
3 a
C
E
SPOlVA38 p PeAdwd N3383 3983113 ,"V. VNIIOHVD HIHON ea
d 133HS 33S - 3NII H310i
3

,0
/if
r
A/l/ '
2 133HS 33S - 3NIl H:)1VW
un•?w »»?... m..•». »»? soatt dVO4 S3111Nn A03
Ma wpwo7 WAW MiM4AN
.,
A
Apl
A
O
3AIlV1303A 03NOIS30
,n ?
g
d O
d
A
^!"o plAw - ukoAOAO Sun mw a W ( `J~I
1J3fOdd Q( 3
A NOI1Vaols3d WV3dls M 008d?iN3w3oNVHN3 . 2 E ° d
¢ (Ndvd 31V9H16ON) n3isdsoD3 ; 22 666
SKOVA38 b N33H3 3B8J _j q vNnoevo -ON ,ws v *s
0
Y
N
O
N
Z
i
g
4 d
N N N N
r, n
?u i
•in... r1•1 - am ... .a•. soss. sdA9 VJOPAO ?O Vffje 009 ijAw d]lVM 6015 a3NJIS30 °
DAVOAO /AY - WPAOA3 Sun 4u•
1)3POHd
NOIl Vd0ls]H WV32115 nvaooad^ilv3r,3auvaru3 2 °
sun
u.o (MVd IAOH12i0N1 vV3isASOl3 i
SNOpSiAM b P.-Com N1387 39N3113 .1"V. v oav aiaoN a so wa
1
t I? 1 ?-
? I °
1 ry
I' r
r
----- or i f
w z.
,
,
a m t
I
t
/ F
Yi, ? I C;1 E ? I ?
t
"10aAdAMiAd ii31VMWii01S 03N91530 a;.Fis'„,,7y,
aopoo3 y/tw - IQJPAO»y sun aau
1 8d $ 6
u.o ¢San NOI1tla01S38 WV381S MbOO a 1N3W37NVNN3 . 3 o
(NdVd 31VOH1a0N) m3isnsoo3
SNOISIAU b p N3383 3983713 q VNnoHVJ HiHON sa
C
wQr,
oS° I �l
f r / Ia0Q I
% / + ami
I
Ob
I
L
I
1 9i
d
j� n
LU
LIJ
a�
o��
cr
j d m J
Z 133HS 33S 3NII H31VW

Glick on the Desired Link Below
Appendices