20060268 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20120401

c >l 0), �5g
Bold Run Creek
EEP ID (IMS# 439)
USACE ACTION ID 20064002
CLOSEOUT REPORT
Stream, Riparian Buffer & Nutrient Offset Buffer Restoration
Project Settina & Classifications
County
Wake
General Location
Wake Forest
Basin:
Neuse
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Piedmont
Ecore ion:
Inner Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03020201065010
NCDWQ Sub - basin:
03 -04 -08
Wetland Classification
n/a
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Encroachment (1 ac)
Feb 2011
Project Performers
2011
Source Agency:
EEP
Provider:
n/a
Designer:
KCI
Monitoring Firm
Axiom Environmental
Channel Remediation
n/a
Plant remediation
n/a
Property Interest Holder
EEP, owned in fee
Overall Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
unknown
Permitted
March 2006
Construction Completed
Feb 2007
As -built survey
June 2007
Monitoring Year -1
Dec 2007
Monitoring Year -2
Dec 2008
Monitoring Year 3
Dec 2009
Beaver removal
2010
Monitoring Year 4
Feb 2011
Encroachment (1 ac)
Feb 2011
Beaver removal
2011
Monitoring Year 5
Aug 2011
Beaver removal
2012
Closeout Submission
Apr 2012

Project Setting and Background Summary
The Bold Run Stream and Buffer Restoration Site (Site) is located five miles northwest of the Town of Wake Forest on Bold Hill Road, approximately 1.5 miles east of the intersection with
Mangum Dairy Road in Wake County. The Site is located within United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 03020201065010 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality Subbasin 03 -04-
08) of the Neuse River Basin. The Site was identified to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program in meeting stream and buffer restoration goals. Prior to restoration activities,
the Site was utilized for livestock pasture. Land use modifications including the removal of riparian vegetation and hoof shear to stream banks resulted in degraded water quality and unstable
channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse).
Primary activities at the Site included stream restoration and riparian buffer restoration by stabilizing stream banks, installing in- stream structures, adjusting stream plan form, and replanting
riparian areas with native vegetation. Project restoration efforts provided 640 Stream Mitigation Units, 14.9 Buffer Mitigation Units, and 14.7 Nutrient Offset Credit. This project was instituted
prior to October 11, 2007 and, therefore, is eligible for riparian buffer restoration credit up to 200 feet from the top of bank of all perennial and intermittent waterways within the Site. 2011
encroachment fully re- sprouted on its own and did not require supplemental planting.
Beaver Management
In 2008 a large beaver dam was observed at the downstream extent of the Site restoration reach near the confluence with New Light Creek. Beaver management was initiated at the time and has continued as
needed.
Goals and Objectives
• Construct a stable, riffle -pool stream channel capable of moving sediments supplied by the watershed so the channel neither aggrades nor degrades.
• Stabilize stream banks, install in- stream structures, adjust stream planform, and replant riparian areas with native vegetation.
• Improve water quality and reduce lateral erosion and bed degradation of stream channels by establishment of riparian vegetation.
• Enhance aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat through improvements to stream water quality including improved oxygen levels, reduced sediments and nutrients, and varied stream bed
features.
Success Criteria
Vegetation: An average density of 320 stems per acre must be surviving after five monitoring years in accordance with North Carolina Division of Water Quality Administrative Code 15A
NCAC 02B.0242 (Meuse River Basin, Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers) (NCDWQ 2007). Vegetation Success Criteria were met throughout
the 5 -year monitoring period.
Stream: Stream restoration reaches should show little to no change from the as -built channel over the five -year monitoring period. Stream Success Criteria were met throughout the 5 -year
monitoring period.
Hvdroloev: A minimum of two bankfull events documented in separate monitoring years. Hydrological Success Criteria were met throughout the 5 -year monitoring period.
Page 2 of 19

MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Restoration
Segment /Reach
Pre —
Construction
(acreage /linear
feet
Mitigation
Approach
Watershed
Acreage
As -Built Linear
Footage /Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Mitigation Units
(SMU/WMU)
STREAM
640
R
1.6
640
1.0
r '
640
Bold Run
Bold Run
469
R
1.6
469
2.0
234.5
Bold Run
519
R
1.6
519
2.0
259.5
BUFFER..'
Riparian TOB — 200'
14.9
R
n/a
14.9
1.0
649,039 s ft
Nutrient Offset
TOB — 200
14.7
R
n/a
14.7
1.0
640,327 sq ft
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Total
Wetland
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
(SMU)
Units
Wetland Units
WMU
1,134
0
0
0
649,039 sq ft
640,327 sq ft
Page 3 of 19

Page 4 of 19

` ' •�� � Y ''•� :1 't M��•_
�` �7r ',�'` ��j . i , . �, _ ,• �.. �- ��yls��� �� ���ti,, ff /�,��' • � M qtr � . S `� t
;
1 r,' J r�`�.`'~ rr } }1 I'4i L'�•�' �' l �Ff�'~ � tI � •���.E � �.f J}�_r.,r� f'�Ji
- S J 2f � �ti5' �f �' L'��'�Lr1 t.•- l ` : � ` �� -? • _ .. 1. �r,tttitiJJ �� f .I.
tj
� � + �';�'`�✓r�l'� ?rr f�il•,`al -'r � � ���•i��fa�55� r `I I hif._. �I�
IN
V f r � � f N�4 c+,r' � - •� � : �� � • V � Yri � f i � ^ r � 'rJ�� .��" ,� —,'.i• irr
i f Y' l y ii _ tita 1 �51 F1 r t r- s+- -;zti I
� r ri .r, ' � � ) ll�� �`�; fr. ,ll l '�- ZL- r,tif��y�'� . '! If ,• �-�h
'��``�ss� ',, ''- .�51r,�� = -1� _`•++.�' 'ter f —.r�l� ��'Ij'Yr
SS it .r .,a . � � `'•`� t1
i 51 � N.
Iti� +�. �r•+r -f ���f'� �l
0-0��+f ^1r
fir, r �yti r,�3•' l ,{. _ ti....,��'1:1 '� ,,a`�`� ��ti :�.,
V L
rf �' _{' I r `�� i r�.r N?��I h �.�1, �'t"' ti' �"� `y, II A���1r "ti. --.•
s;,:� r } -x!'" � i 11%r �. :'` •".._� �, rr f ,,��� L;, 1'� ti � �I A
-t '� y •tip rr � ^S•' ~�.�'��' f `" 'fY• i�rl • I5� I� 41•,~� -�
.I Yh r .•..ir„�1..51. `�73�- , ^� . F�l f •f, Lam. .! rJr � �Si: �, 5ti, �',�l���r ��
'lir �� "� t � ti"•�i -'- �',fFl� s�'�-- if�•r1:~''i--- �..,� -•') � l : ! �'•.,l.r 1`'iFr"".S
`+r � y� +rr I�rr,J���� � r�r� I �✓1.�� ," `�• � � I s �4 � VAt, 500250 O50U
Page 5 of 19

i
S41 Senn
"%
�.AfA - �i>ta n[e Sody Lam it 7n a Pr:,tstga.
!I1x
.'SataC: - AFlii,* F Sod, Lam, (TO in Foam slopes, cas ie1
=• WZ- AFlQr6C4mc1YSu 1#j. :.a6Y- 41.PKF+tlM
! AW2- AM6,116 —ly %-* 1 -6 -,- 1 D Pc of SI W— 1-.,W
lllu - AmVbm Fweti WJV Len
�ilF3 - Cad 1:6y Ines, GG 70:0 Fe.rml S up.w Screalp• Findd
a1•Cll2 - L'ao! �%Laan ITn t I•xm 61mc41:�odod
lCSC� - Cml clay Lawn 6Tn .D Pour[ SLaDet Foaled
lC1C'9•L'iwil i7q Laa�tiio lU: a:rrl Rl� S.- acrd�l',nlrc
!OM -CaR Su* Lun, ID To 15 P.—i Slopes
iCe11: Cecil Eddy G.mu: To6 Pswe155y^ FIaW
aC1C2 -C�ci !alas.' Laam. G To lU ?Ilwly SHlcr. Fmd..l
ilk - "Im..d. S. I.
AD mkw:. SOdbw S&r.Jt L"% I DTe 1'' Pent" Slam- Ll09ed
�IMIP - SSMI.m w.M I unu IS Tn Is V —Mlg-r !I-&d
UK; - Md=%.dt I.. w7. 1'n 6 P—I Slq.o, Gndad
�StdC hW'LSan SOdLr Loon, 6 Ttl IU .'estaol J:I.Des. JodeD
1-0- - rX.Im%Qtly'Ia ' ID 'a :! M—I wqa:.
�y
MW=L- W.l.... Lea Lea.., a 1.25 lleuao M p.
=W.- W.I.& : Aml Im Scfl.
=2N'a - We6&m Slh Lam
- W9- Si., W Tu2nYco1 eluya I W' JE.
:Woe
asLW.F- Wi6w So w M Tot5 Pt,o.,,• 51v'
WC2
mm
p-7-61
r'
�1 VOW;
li
afA S f..aeea` y Ce!C2
— - -- r
Wo - Wehadkee and Bibb
Cm - Chewachla
Wn- Wehadkee Silt Loam
Afa - Altavista Fine Sandy Loam, 0 -4% slopes
MdE2 - Madison Sandy Loam, 15 -25% slopes, eroded
Page 6 of 19

29-1
280
278
276
Neuse River Basin, Bold Run, MY -05, SS - 1, Riffle, 14+25
-------- -- -- -- -- - -- ---- -- -- -- - -- BW4dl
---- Flood Arne Ala —MY-02 UI.
—My.03 7/14/09
AMY- 1421110
D 10 20 30 40 50 60 —% Y -5 21A'l l
Ytaron UK%
2 i9
277
i 275
273
271
0
.N.— River Ilasin, (told Run, M W15, XS - 3, Rifllc, 19+211
10 20 30 40 50
.Station Y"T)
Page 7 of 19
---- t9aokml
---- Mood Aaoe Ana
—Awltin s /Ntn
—dlY -01 Y /7417
_ a/Y -02 31MI A
— My -097n/n9
—MY-1 f✓2Ino
— MY -053NJn1
.Neuse River Basin, Bold Run, MY -05, XS - 2, Pool, 17 +25
-80
274
278
0
7\
_
____DaolYHl
-
a
_ __ ____ _______ _ _
.-- .FIndIRareAm
276
• Ar119110/d07
271
—MY -01917107
- -- -Flood Ame Ara
-� MY-02 5/15105
M Y -03 7A 1/U9
272 U IU 2U 30 +
n1Y,N21 /to
9munr U.ey
—MY -05219/11
.N.— River Ilasin, (told Run, M W15, XS - 3, Rifllc, 19+211
10 20 30 40 50
.Station Y"T)
Page 7 of 19
---- t9aokml
---- Mood Aaoe Ana
—Awltin s /Ntn
—dlY -01 Y /7417
_ a/Y -02 31MI A
— My -097n/n9
—MY-1 f✓2Ino
— MY -053NJn1
Neuse River Basin, Bold Run, MY -05, XS - 5, Pool, 24 +15
276
274
0
7\
z
272
-- -----------------
270
- -- -Flood Ame Ara
AYBaO[ 3!7/07
768
—MY-01 W1ll07
— MY- oz5/151 03
—MY -03 7/ 409
266
_MY4 6/21 /10
O 10 20 30 40 50
60
Slul101r (r
— MY -05 21911 1

III
231
ISO
27D
27a
.Q
277
Y
:J
276
27'
273
173
171
1440
Longitudinal Profile
Bold Run Creek
EEP Project Number 439 AIY - -05
Stations 10 +00 - 18 +00
1101 1210 2300 1410 1301 1610 1710 1010
STAY ON ($)
--A—A,5Wh3,7.07 f11YAIL13A0 —WIM17A40 �JJTA&Wndf —a—MYA3.V2M —W~Swt-
� r«ac..� �crwr•...

m
rn
ru
Z73
M
m
rn
as
it
W7
20
Longitudinal Profile
Bold Run Creek
EEP Project Number 439 MY -05
Stations 18+00 - 26+30
I nM s nn no n» Un am aw
STATION (R)

Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Photo (if
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
available
November 19, 2007
Between 8/31/2007
Crest Gauge
and 11/19/2007
Total of 3.48 inches* of rain reported to fall over 2 days
October 8, 2008
August 28, 2008
(August 27 — 28, 2008) as well as crest gauge readings at the
Site
Between 10/8/2008
February 9, 2009
Crest Gauge
- --
and 2/9/2009
1.43 inches of rain fall between June 4 -5, 2009, followed by
Between June 15-
0.5 inches of rain fall between June 9 -10, 2009, followed by
Event
June 19, 2009
17 2009
an additional 2.24 inches of rain fall between June 14-17,
Photo 1
(see below)
2009* as well as crest gauge readings at the Site
March 16, 2010
November 11 2009
3.44 inches of rain fall between November 10 -12 2009*
Visual observations of overbank event including wrack lines
and sediment deposition resulting from a 1.36 inch* rainfall
Event
February 17, 2010
February 5, 2010
event on February 5, 2010 that occurred after numerous
Photo 2
rainfall events, within the 3 weeks prior, that totaled 3.52
(see below)
inches.
Visual observations of overbank event including wrack lines
June 21, 2011
June 10, 2011
and sediment deposition resulting from a 1.74 inch* rainfall
--
event on June 10, 2011
* Reported at KNCWAKEFI Weather Station on Welcome Drive in Wake Forest.
Hydrology_: A total of seven bankfull events were documented over the five year monitoring
period with at least one event occurring in each monitoring year.
Page 10 of 19

Pre- As-
Construction Built
Drainage Area
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Discharge
108
130
Channel Slope
0.0007
0.0007
Channel Sinousity
1.04
1.1
Cross Section 1 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Riffle, 14 +25
Mean Bankfull Width
18.1
20.1
18.2
17.6
18.2
20.1
Mean Banfull Depth
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
Mean Bankfull XS
29.6
30.6
31.1
29.8
31.1
32.3
Area
Cross Section 2 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Pool, 17 +25
Mean Bankfull Width
19.3
19
15.9
17.7
17.4
18.9
Mean Banfull Depth
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
3
1.6
Mean Bankfull XS
30.8
29.3
24.3
28.2
27.7
29.7
Area
Cross Section 3 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Riffle, 19 +20
Mean Bankfull Width
18.9
18.9
16.5
18.6
19.7
19.3
Mean Banfull Depth
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.5
Mean Bankfull XS
34.1
34.5
28.7
31.9
34
28.5
Area
Cross Section 4 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Riffle, 20 +95
Mean Bankfull Width
18.5
16.2
19.5
16.6
15.8
16.3
Mean Banfull Depth
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
Mean Bankfull XS
31.6
30.3
38
30.2
29.7
30.6
Area
Cross Section 5 As -Built Yr I Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 V115
Pool. 24 +15
Mean Bankfull Width
30.1
31.4
32.9
30.7
33.1
33.8
Mean Banfull Depth
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
Mean Bankfull XS
65.5
68.9
84.1
73.4
79.6
80.9
Area
Stream: Year 5 (2011) monitoring measurements indicate that there have been minimal changes
in both the longitudinal profile and cross - sections as compared to as-built data.
Page 11 of 19

Data Summary
In summary, the Site has met mitigation success criteria for stream, buffer, and nutrient offset for
the entire five -year monitoring period.
Vegetation: tation: Based on the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 648
planted stems per acre surviving in year 5 (2011). The dominant species identified at the Site
were planted stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), oak species (Quercus spp.), and elm
species (Ulmus spp.). In addition, each individual plot met success criteria based on planted
stems alone in each monitoring year with the exception of Plot 14 in Year 4 -5 (2010- 2011),
which was one stem shy in both years with 283 planted stems per acre. When counting
appropriate natural recruit species stems such as box elder (Acer negundo) and green ash this
plot was well -above success criteria with 931 and 850 total stems per acre, respectively.
Stem Counts After Year 5 (2011) Monitoring
*Based on Riparian Buffer Success Criteria
Vegetation Plot ID
Planted Stems Excluding
Livestakes/AH Stems*
1
769/1214
2
769/971
3
647/1983
4
1133/1700
5
1335/1700
6
809/931
7
405/2914
8
324/324
9
567/1052
10
486/567
11
486/1093
12
850/1214
13
364/486
14•*
283/850
15
364/486
* *This plot was one stem shy of meeting success criteria in
Years 4-5 (2010 -2011) when counting planted stems alone;
however, when including naturally recruited stems of box elder
(Acer negundo) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) this plot
was well -above success criteria.
Page 12 of 19

Planted and Total Stems
Baseline stem counts (Year 0) are misleading when counting stems for riparian buffer success criteria.
The majority of stems were marked as unknown since baseline counts were done during the dormant
period; the stems were later identified during Year 1 (2007) monitoring. Total stem counts increased
throughout Years 1 -5 (2007 -2011) as the result of resprouts of planted stems within plots adjacent to the
stream. During the first several years these stems encountered heavy herbivory by beaver and deer,
therefore, the stem would be considered missing one year and found the next. These stems have much
larger diameter stems near the base of the plant relative to the plant diameter '' /� -1 foot from the ground.
Page 13 of 19
����
E
E ©ET
EEE"
E
©E�
EEE
EE
E
EEE
�f�f��
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EE
E
EEE
��
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
�"R.,'!�'�
EEC!
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
•,®. "'B!'!!Z7l�E
©EEEEEEEE
©EaE
©E'EEE
CIT�C ®r.�!"�!�r"'�fi>E•
E�
E
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
E
EE
��
EEC
E
EE�7
EEE
EEE
©®
©EEE
li����
EEEE
EE
E
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
I!2'��l�f�'IE♦iiE♦
EEEE�
EE
E
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
�®•"tE•�
EEE€
EE
E�
EEE
EEE.1r
©©
©EEE
�I'ffi�iiE•
EEEE
EE
E
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
�1��i1�
EEEEI'
E
E
©EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
�f�'1'��
EE�l9
E
EE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
����
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
��l�
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
©EE
EEE
�^LLE•C'��i1�
EE�EL
E�EE�
FEES
EEE
®
®Ep
EEE
����
EE�E�
E►�EE
©
©E
©
©
©
©®
©EEE
!���i;;E•
EEE£
�*'EE
EEEL
EEEI
®
®E'
E
©E
�'���
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EE
E
EEE
��l�EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEI
E'�Et,��fi;3E■
E
ESE
E
EE17
E
©E
EEE
EEE
EEE'
�m.`�!�
EEEE
E
E!
EEE
EEt
EEE
EEE
��'1!�
©E
©EEEEEEE
©EEEEEE
©E
®
®ice
©E
©E
©EE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
�C4'�ii�
EEE€
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
��f;;3E•
E
E�El•
EEE
©EEC
EEE
EEE
EEE
�!'�*�'I�ii;3E■
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
���
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
E
®®
000 ©a©
Mae (ACRES)
©ESE FEEL E�EEE E►�EE ©EE EEEL
�� �� ®M MMI OEM
� �ElEE� 'E ®EEE�E[*�E�E�QE ®E�E£i�Ei
" EM. MMM.W.MMM-MIR.M MW-Mii
E IM Ems' EIM IME E,, ILMMr Q
Molded hardwood tree s,.6e, ...ted toward riparian buffer sutoess aiteria.
h by less than 10% T =All planted and natural recruit stems indudinglivestakes
" by less than 1CFA Jillinill" natural recruit stems
" by more than ICFA
Baseline stem counts (Year 0) are misleading when counting stems for riparian buffer success criteria.
The majority of stems were marked as unknown since baseline counts were done during the dormant
period; the stems were later identified during Year 1 (2007) monitoring. Total stem counts increased
throughout Years 1 -5 (2007 -2011) as the result of resprouts of planted stems within plots adjacent to the
stream. During the first several years these stems encountered heavy herbivory by beaver and deer,
therefore, the stem would be considered missing one year and found the next. These stems have much
larger diameter stems near the base of the plant relative to the plant diameter '' /� -1 foot from the ground.
Page 13 of 19

EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
The Bold Run site has demonstrated success in stream, riparian buffer and nutrient offset buffer
restoration.
EEP recommends closing out this site with the proposed Stream Mitigation Units of 1134.
Contingencies
No contingencies recommended at this time.
Page 14 of 19

Pre - Construction Photos
2006
Post - Construction Photos
Page 15 of 19

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
The Bold Run Creek project is located in HUC 03020201065010, the New Light Creek
watershed that was originally designated as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2002
Neuse RBRP (NCEEP, 2002) and continues this designation in the 2010 Neuse RBRP (NCEEP,
2010). At nearly 77 %, this watershed has one of the highest forest cover percentages in the
upper Neuse basin. The watershed exhibits some level of impacts due to agriculture and
livestock maintenance. The 2010 RBRP recommends agricultural best management projects to
improve water quality conditions here. The Bold Run Creek project restores a significant
amount of riparian buffer and restores stream pattern to help reduce flow energy, thereby
reducing impacts of agricultural runoff to the watershed. EEP has no additional projects in this
TLW.
According to the 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ, 2009), during the
2005 benthic macroinvertebrate community sampling approximately 0.5 miles downstream of
the Bold Run Creek project site, "instream habitat [was] sparse with only a few riffle areas and
eroded stream banks" and the stream "was very turbid in this area". Also, the benthic
community indicated a decline in water quality evidenced by a stream bioclassification of
"good" during and prior to 2001 and "good- fair" in 2005 and 2010 benthic sampling events. The
2010 data reflect the lowest number of EPT species present since the initial sampling in 1995.
This project restores buffer function for the length of the stream restoration and reduces nutrient
and sediment inputs via increased infiltration. These functional improvements are beneficial to
the benthic community and support the TLW goals.
References:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, 2009.
Online at: Neuse Basinwide 2009.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Neuse River Basin Watershed Restoration
Plan, November 2002. Online at: Neuse RBRP 2002.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities,
2010. Online at: Neuse RBRP 2010.
Page 16 of 19

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation
project includes a portion of the following parcels.
httl2: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA/PROPERTY /439 BoldRunCreek(G).pdf
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be
transferred to the DENR Stewardship Program, which will be responsible for periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
are upheld.
Page 17 of 19
Site Protection
Deed Book &
Acreage
Grantor
County
Instrument
Page Number
protected
Douglas A. Darch et ux
Wake
Warranty Deed
11504/1919
State of North Carolina
Wake
Covenants &
13961/1802
34.938
Restrictions
httl2: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA/PROPERTY /439 BoldRunCreek(G).pdf
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be
transferred to the DENR Stewardship Program, which will be responsible for periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
are upheld.
Page 17 of 19

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
Permits could not be located in paper or electronic project
files.
Page 18 of 19

Mitigation Project Name Bold Run Creek
EEP IMS ID 439
River Basin NEUSE
Cataloging Unit 03020201
Annlied Crarlit Rating 1 d3583*1 1 S 1 9 5'1 S'1 1 1 4.1 9*1 S'1 1'1 3'1 9 1 S'1 1.1 3 1 9 1 41 1.1 3'1 n 5'1 1 1 1 1
1,628.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
6 q
O d
z¢
0.00
d
O U
z
0.00
n
O L
z
W
0.00
`o
a
O 0
z a
0.00
L
C o
W
d
o¢
V
0.00
L
C
2
.q. d
N U
o
V
0.00
L
C y
R
`� u
q L
o
V W
0.00
L
6 0
N
E A
.qAy.�: �..
q
0.00 649,044.00
T
Z C
o '2
640,33.00
0.00
v
W
0
z
0
z
0.00
�
o
a
t
a.
z
0.00
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres):
Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action
IDs
Impact Project Name
2001 -1689
2002 -20819
NCDOT TIP R -2547 / R -2641 -
Knightdale Bypass
505.09
1999 -1201
1996 -01876
NCDOT TIP U -2804B -
Widening of SR 1652
96785
2000 -0280
1998 -21210
Pinnacle Park
155.05
Riparian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
596,772.00
NO ILF Credit Purchasel
496,584.00
Riparian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
52,272.00
NO ILF Credit Purchasel
143,748.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.011
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 0.001
1 0.00