20020906 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20091006

Ecosystem
PROGRAM
Project Closeout Summary-Suck Creek (2009)
Proiect ID & Status
Project Name/Number: Suck Creek
EEP ID : 368
Coun Moore
Project Type: Stream Restoration
Current Status: 5 Years of Monitoring complete
Proiect Setting & Classifications Proiect Timeline
Basin: Cape Fear

Physiographic Region:
Piedmont Milestone Date
Drainage: (4.8 SM) Permitted June 2002
Watershed:
Ecoregion: Rural Pasture, Imp cover <1%
Triassic Basin 45g Construction Jan-Apr 2003
USGS Hydro Unit: 03030003 Site Planted Apr 2004
NCDWQ Subbasin_ 03-06-10

Thermal Regime:
Warm As-Built Mar 2004
Monitoring Year-1 Fall 2004 4
Monitoring Year-2 Fall 2005
Monitoring Year-3 Aug 2006
Monitoring Year-4 Jul 2007
Monitoring Year-5 Mar - Sep 2008
Table 1. Suck Creek Project Restoration Components and Mitigation Assets
Drainage/Hydrology Component Stationin Asset Ratio

Suck Creek Ma # Approach Level Multi Feet SMU Acres Buffer
1+00 to 29+63 1 P1/P2 R 1.00 2889 2889
288

Buffer Current) Eli ible Buffer 2,3,7,8 R 1.00
Potential Buffer Assumin Su lemental 4,5,6 R 1.00
Page 1 of I I Suck Creek (368) Closeout Summary
Suck Creek (EEP #368) Asset Map
Proiect Backaround and Summarv
The mitigation project includes approximately 3000 linear feet of Suck Creek in Moore County.
The project is located on the Richardson farm and is surrounded by cattle and poultry opera-
tions. The channel was straightened and moved in the past and had incised (mean BHR of
1.8) progressing rapidly from a G stream type towards an F and was subjected to the impacts
of open access by the livestock prior to restoration. Priority Level I restoration was the ap-
proach used to convert the degraded channels to a more stable Rosgen C type channel. Con-
struction involved establishing a new planform and profile and better connecting the bankfull
discharge to a floodplain feature. Cross vanes were installed for grade control, bank stability
and to provide bedform diversity/habitat . The project also involved the installation of native
vegetation to establish a riparian buffer and fencing the livestock out of the easement.
Goals and Objectives
1. Improve the long-term stability of the subject stream reach by improving floodplain connec-
tion and restoring the channels dimension, pattern and profile to a more sustainable form.
2. Install instream structures to maintain grade, floodplain connection and provide bedform
diversity
3. Install an appropriate riparian buffer community that will provide stability, stream shading
and habitat.
4. Protect the project stream and buffer with livestock exclusion fencing and a conservation
easement.
Success Criteria
Morphological Stability. The dimension, profile and pattern of the project channel should dem-
onstrate maintenance or dynamic stability such that no adverse trends in channel aggradation,
degradation or widening in the form of elevated proportions of bank erosion become evident.
This was to be demonstrated through photos / visual survey and morphological measurement
of the projects profile and dimension. This criterion was met.
Vegetative Success. Vegetation plots should indicate an average stem density of no less than
260 stems/acre in year 5. This criterion was met.
Hydrologic Data. A minimum of 2 bankfull events shall be documented. This criterion was met.
Page 3 of 11 Suck Creek (368) Closeout Summary
M;
xwu?hu?• - ,mo ? ama ?
4 rr} W? a OM• MW } t` 1
--'-.e?• 1--• Y T
oc ;e
P Er.
w
? J
•, '?• • ? '?. ,\\ H ? 11
I4b". $? ''? ',yam •?'1 (i a W
1 Ads ', ''1 r i ,
?1 ' JrJyM10? ? J. ? ; li
7 Y ? Ii
LLJ
A ?
?LLJ= ? ?R, 1 •i
W 7 rr I i
!~W i
I
1 IW k ?i ?I 1 W Ir
7 ? ? ?? I Y s?z??
r c y.t . ' ' 1
SfG r , R`•.
o Q tl. ?i
y1 ?yy1 „ •.
J J yyJ co W
fi' o s ht ?' 3 s O_ ~ 1/
i? n71
1 - 11 S e 8 _W
In 1
- llk?
s
?` i M1 1 Ui F
i?IIF] ! l L Q Y
La -j
k
t
M
xr? wpp.., _ ,?. ?,? ofrr y •? O
W .mob r1?ii? s Mw IY?? ? ? Q N
?_ - ? I I1 1 d l)
s 7
`•?
;• .» '' P 5
.1, ? ° • iii ? ix ? z
ta
? j ?? ! ± 1 + W 7
f ? r .? I! ??? i i• 7
1 '
Vi •
a
It
C',
o
TU4zo
m
? ? r ? 1 I e• + LLIW ?~x
10 r %
e
w!
oil
5 7 m`
o=
i as
W
iii F
q '
• J
W
u: ?z J
Si=
xYw Moo.- ?. ua, anus
YYnl+71A1 ti
A11 1 1
COQ ? .'fig ? \,1 ??• ? ??'
11 7 S
W- z
a W w J
t C. W
w o• -
1.,1 r
VI ¢ 7
/ C ) C:
41 W
tJ
2
_** _Dz
`?- - • W Y H
13
A 'o 4c,
~ 1
R ?? WJCJ ,till `` ?j
,ly , r W U ? 4
1 ~ t JI
i • i •
1 ? •r.
Yl h?1, j?l ?? 1? Y ? F } >
/; ? ? r vr" 1 / In p.,
s
t w U !3 ?W
O/ •. ?1 r
vi i ? m a
?/ 1 q3
vi Ix
00
% p
nW N
CL
F
I W ? .[ p
\ u1 Cr w J
x c W. srJ I C]
T?
T +
?Ln ? ??? / 6S2wiE
I
AT HUNS 5
Pre-Construction Site Conditions
1 yT , .
Vol
'?+ 1
_ :, Yom,; ?.?
p _ IIY -
Looking upstream from the existing upstream crossing

4
1'
L
J"A
Midway down project extent N 15+00
Upper extent of pre-existing channel
. _? 'A
m? ? r
Looking downstream from N current sta. 8+00
Lower end of project extent
Upper extent of pre-existing channel
Post-Construction Site Conditions- 2008 Photos
Vegetation Plot 6 N 7+75
Photo Station 1 N 1+00
XS-1 downstream N 1+75
Vegetation Plot 5 N 17+25
Photo Station 4 - 18+50
vegetation Plot 4 N 22+00
Morphological Stability
The channel exhibited morphologic stability. No systemic trends of degradation or aggradation were
evident. Bank stability was reported in 2008 at 99% and structural functions were maintained between
95 and 100% for the lower an upper reaches, respectively. Cross-section and profile overlays indi-
cated stability (see figures in 2008 report http://www.nceep.net/eep projects/eep projects.html).
Some fining was observed in various locations at various times over the last few years, which is likely
the result of extreme drought conditions in 2007 and 2008 with groundwater levels apparently still lag-
ging in 2009. This summer, EEP staff and their monitoring contractors have observed many piedmont
streams ranging from headwater systems to drainages as large as 8 SM to be either dry or lacking any
flow simply exhibiting isolated, stagnant pools. The peak drought periods in 2007 caused many
streams to develop vegetation in channel, which has remained to a large extent. Until these channels
are subjected to multiple years of typical hydrology, this vegetation may trap fine material to a greater
extent than normal. Beaver also colonized the site in 2007 and 2008, which may have contributed to
localized backwater and fining as well. The beaver and associated dams were removed by EEPs wild-
life contractor.
Hydrology
The site was outfitted with a continuous stream recorder in late 2006 halfway between the upper
crossing and the top of the project and multiple bankfull events were recorded in 2007 and 2008. Be-
tween site precipitation data and other regional gauges 3/2/07, 4/16/07, and 9/6/08 were unequivocal
overbank events.
Vegetation
The sites vegetation plots indicated an average of 10 stems per plot, equating to a site average of ap-
proximately 400 stems per acre. Recent site visits have indicated that the site is being widely utilized
by wildlife including small mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. There is a high density of deer
bedding throughout the site and there was evidence of intensive browsing on the site vegetation. The
stem densities in the middle section between the middle and lower crossings were lower than those in
the upper and lower sections of the site and are not at the required 320 stems per acre for buffer
credit at this time, but with supplemental planting will achieve those densities.
Table S. Stem Count by Plot and Species
cr ? a ?. w ? r r
?y d c c c'
? T 1
Ater rar'onmt 4 ? 3 1
Ablus semdiata 1 1 1
B¢nlia.ni a 32 4 8 1 9 13 9
Celris occid¢ntalis 1 1 1 1
Ccrvnrs amonnan 1 1 1 1
DiOST"'ros rir iniana 1 1 1 1
Frm7rnrs ¢rnrsrivanica 7 4 2 1 3
Li adarnbarsnracl.ua 1 1 1 1
P171rr5 taeda 4 3 1 1 2
1
P.'aranus orridenraiis 6 2 3 1 ;
r¢.*cus it¢iios ? 1 1 1
r S:r'h rat a 9 4 1 1 6 1
TOT: 12 70 12 2 5 8 6 ?3 1, 11 0
Page 10 of 11 Suck Creek (368) Closeout Summary
Stewardship and Easement Protection
The landowner indicated that some livestock had gotten under some fencing near the middle
crossing on 2 or 3 occasions recently over the last year due to flows that had knocked over
some T posts attached to the electric fencing trying to prevent this. In addition, while the
fencing preventing access to the buffer is intact and has been reinforced, the middle ford
crossing does not have end gates, allowing livestock access at the crossing, but not in the
buffer. The landowner has indicated that he will install end gates similar to those that exist on
the other 2 crossings to prevent use of the crossing for anything beyond transport of livestock
from one pasture to the other. EEP has contacted the Moore County NRCS to see about grant
opportunities with this landowner for fence maintenance moving into the future and to provide
better treatment and stabilization of draws and inputs that may be occurring on the outside
edges of the easement/fencing.
Page 11 of 11 Suck Creek (368) Closeout Summary