20060268 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20130212

Bold Run Creek
EEP ID (IMS# 439)
USACE ACTION ID 20064002
CLOSEOUT REPORT
Stream, Riparian Buffer & Nutrient Offset Buffer Restoration
Protect Settinn & 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 Protect 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
f-hannel chdracteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse)
Primary activities at the Site included stream ,restoration and riparian buffer restoration by stabilizing stream banks, installing to -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, nflle -pool stream channel capable of moving sediments supplied by the watershed so the channel neither aggtades nor degrades
• Stabilize stream banks, install in-stream structures, adjust stream planfonn, 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 I SA
NCAC 02B 0242 (Meuse River Basm,'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.
Hvdroloay 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
Riparian Wetland
Pre —
Total
Wetland
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
(SMU)
Units
Restoration
Construction
Mitigation
Watershed
As -Built Linear
0
Mitigation Units
Segment/Reach
(acreage /linear
Approach
Acreage
Footage /Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
(SMU/WMU)
feet
STREAM
Bold Run
640
R
1.6
640
1.0
640
Bold Run
469
R
1.6
469
2.0
234.5
Bold Run
519
R
1.6
519
2.0
2.59.5
BUFFER
Riparian TOB — 200'
14.9
R
n/a
14.9
1.0
649,039 sq 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

,
^|P"�;ml
fop 11-11
QW
fill'
`
� .
`

Wo — Wehadkee and Bibb
Cm — Chewachla
Wn— Wehadkee Silt Loam
Afa — Altavista Fine Sandy Loam, 0 -41/o slopes
MdE2 — Madison Sandy Loam. 15 -25% slopes, eroded
Page 6 of 19

291
5
276
'74
I
Neese River Basin, Bold Ran, MY-OS,SS -1, Rime, 14+25
--------------- -- ------------ - -------- Fl-Wl
- -- -Flood J'r=A=
AsBw7l 316007
AMY -01 917107
A MY -02 all S.,
—� —M3 -037/1100
—Arc-1 6.21110
D to 20 30 40 10 60 _MY- }21WIt
yam, yu4
Neese River Basin, Bold Ban, il1Y4O5, XS - 2,1*00417 +25
280
276
278
'-r5
274
---- aanuml
276
-------- -----------------
--- -------- - --- -- - - - --
- - --nmt Mu Am
y3
3
AYHIla13 /6/07
271
— Vl -0t 9/7607
---- 8adfidl
— � -3lrq! UI`l0a
275
A11 -01'11 INv
U IU 211 !U
01tlu1a ((M/
—3t1 -053,9111
'.m,c utver Iiusla, Itold stun, ail .05, V% -4, [itmr, 20+95
,7A
---------------------------------------------------------------------
270
----Iluthil
o271 ----- --- - - - - --
�A,BvIDST'91
—an m71 }oa
'-n
0 t0 20 30 10 50 �W+ 62uto
Slollon 6(@ll — W-0a29111
Page 7 of 19
Neat.. River Basin, Bold Rum, MY -05, XS - 5, Pool, 24+15
276
274
e 2r_
---- 8adfidl
3 ''_70
-- 'Flood tlmeAra
lay
— •— Aa•9u0t 1'T /OT
368
—MY -0I w1 vo7
MY -0 3 dl Y08
266
—MY -03 -/ 409
0 10 20 30 40 50
60
�YY- +d`I /IG
Sluilun (red)
A MY -0S in" t

:71
171
ISO
IV
170
0 277
c
L
y
171
175
I.:
272
IIOJ 1100 110 170 170 Im 100 1710 1700
ST.ALRON (ft)
Longitudinal Proflle
Bold Run Creek
EEP Project Number 439 b1Y - -05
Stations 10 +00 - 18 +00
- �A"%ik Y7.137 y-71Y4117,01 --Q- IM-02 9•15,a - AM44421.10 - IW -053 -1111 - W.-S -fia

m
ns
X74
2n
2n
ii
a
sm
>4
Y
2r
2e
2M
M
2N
ItN lMl 21M 21M Im 22M 241 2m 2M
Longitudinal Profile
Bold Ran Creek
EEP Project Number 439 MY -05
Stations 18+00 -26+30
srenax lad
— AQka.vM �mmtnn —UM MU -- UY42vuro —%QMGMM —MV45=m — w—s.su

Venfication of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date orOccurrence
Method
Photo (if
Collection
available
Between 8/31/2007
November 19, 2007
Crest Gauge
and 11/19/2007
Total of 3 48 inches' of rein 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
February 9, 2009
Between 10/8/2008
Crest Gauge
- --
and 2/9/2009
143 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
Photo I
June 19, 2009
17, 2009
an additional 2 24 inches of rein fall between June 14-17,
2009$ as well as crest gauge readings at the Si e
(see below)
March 16 2010
November 11, 2009
3 44 inches of ram fall between November 10-12,20090
Visual observations ofoverbank 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 174 mch+ 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
penod with at least one event occurring in each monitoring year
Page 10 of 19

Pre- As-
Construction Built
Drainage Area
16
1 6
Bankfull Discharge
108
130
Channel Slope
00007
00007
Channel Sinousity
104
1 1
Cross Section 1 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Riffle. 14+25
Mean Bankfull Width
181
20 1
182
176
182
201
Mean Banfull Depth
16
15
17
1 7
17
16
Mean Bankfull XS
296
306
31 1
298
31 1
323
Area
Cross Section 2 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Pool. 17 +25
Mean Bankfull Width
193
19
159
177
174
189
Mean Banfull Depth
16
15
1 5
16
3
16
Mean Bankfull XS
308
293
243
282
277
297
Area
Cross Section 3 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Riffle. 19+20
Mean Bankfull Width
189
189
165
186
197
193
Mean Banfull Depth
1 8
18
17
1 7
17
15
Mean Bankfull XS
34 1
345
287
319
34
285
Area
Cross Section 4 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Riffle. 20 +95
Mean Bankfull Width
185
162
195
166
158
163
Mean Banfull Depth
17
19
19
18
19
19
Mean Bankfull XS
316
303
38
302
297
306
Area
Cross Section 5 As -Built Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 YR 5
Pool. 24 +15
Mean Bankfull Width
301
314
329
307
33 1
33 8
Mean Banfull Depth
22
22
26
24
24
2 4
Mean Bankfull XS
655
689
84 1
734
796
809
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 I I o 1 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
Ve etg atlon 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 (Fraxtnus pennsylvanrca), 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
Lrvestakes/All 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 pennsylvantca) this plot
was well -above success criteria
Page 12 of 19

Planted and Total Stems
r m sl Means
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'' /2 -1 foot from the ground.
Page 13 of' 19
���
®
©E
©E
©EE€
EEElE
EEE
ESE
EEE
�Cl�f".!-
®ESE
EE
E
E
EE
EEE
EEE
EEE
���
EPEE
■E
EEE
EEE
EEE�
EEE
EEE
l���'E'3�
E{)EE�EL
EfiEE[
ECECEL
ECECE[
EEf7E6
EEE,
�'1�'.d•�
®EEEflEEEEE
Ef1EflEEE
©EEEEEEE
112V�11��
®ESE
EEE
E
E
E
EEE
EE
E
EEE
�"1i�lG"1a'��
®EPEE
■Er
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEC
�•.f2�ff;l��
®EEEE€
EEflEP
Efl
E!
E
EE
Efl
©Et
EEE
��
®ESE
EEE
E
EE
EEE
EEE
EEE
���
®E�EPEE
©EEEEEEEEEEEE
�1ET��!!!'t'!�!�
®EEEE�EEEl.''
FEEL
EEE
EEE
EEEE
E*���
E�EE�E�
E�E�E�
E�E�E�
E�EE�
Eft
©EE
EEEE
C*1*!p,1l��
®EEEEEEE
EL�EDE
EEEE
EEE
EI]EDELt
E1fE�E�
L��"":!!?L,*!'
®©
EEiELEEELEt3EELE3
®EE�EffE�E�E
■E■
L•�f'��
®E;"EE7El"
E*E
E
E
EEL
EEE?'
E�
®E
EflEfIEf!
����
EPEE
■E�
E�E1fEE
E�E�E�
E�E�E�
E�E�E�
E�E�E�
�,��
®E�EEilE�
E�EtlE�
Eit
©Er
E�EE7E£
EPEE
E�E�E�
�®,"'��
E�EEEE
E�E10E[
EPEE
E�EflE[
EEE
E�Ei•E�
����
EEEE7E€
EflEE
EflEflE1A
EEE1E'
EPEE
E�E€1E€
�
®
®EEE7E@
E13EE
E�E�E�
EEEt�
E�E�E�
ESE
■E�
ALL"
�®
E .tE�EEE�EEE�E1fE�E�EIEE�EEE�EEE
�I>*'!�
®EEE�E
EilEflE@
EEflEiE�
E17EflEE�
E1fE�E�
E�E�Eit
�LQ'Z'�
®E�EE�E�
E�E�E
EEflE@
EEEE+EEE�
E�E�E{t
1 EEEETEEflELE !�EEEE�EDE•s ©EE�E1rE!'
:SUM
..'" EEEE°E ®E�EE��E�'- 'EL••EEcEEEiri
aaaaaa
.. ELEEEEEEEEEEE�EElEE
E
EEC_ NORM. IMF. M= E`
s :,-
a�s
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'' /2 -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 bight 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 Neese 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 macro invertebrate 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: NCUsc 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.
ham: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA /PROPER "rY /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
ham: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA /PROPER "rY /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
AooliedCredit Ratios 1_L96B3e1 15.1 95.1 5.1 1 1 4 1 9 1 S 1 1 1 a.1 9, S 1 1.1 z., O, c., I z, nc.,
1,628. 0.
0.00
c c
O
o
aD
2 K
0.00
c
tl C
m p
aq
z U
0.00
c E
tl
z E
S
i w
0.00
c c
q 0
at
0
a
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 19,044 .00
a
tl T
z�
640,332.00
i
0.00
tl
o
O
z
0.00
D
c
a
O
z
0.00
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres):
Not Applicable
":!' Debits (feet and acres):
DWO 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 -28048 -
Widening of SR 1652
967.85
2000 -0280
1998 -21210
Pinnacle Park
155.05
Riparian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
596,772.00
NO ILF Credit Purchasel
496,584.00
Ri arian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
El
52,272.00
NO ILF Credit Purchase
143,748.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.01
0.001
0.