Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
20130577 Ver 1_Asbuilt Report_20140211
FINAL BASELINE MONITORING DOCUMENT AND ASBUILT BASELINE REPORT LITTLE LICK CREEK BUFFER RESTORATION Durham County, North Carolina EEP Project No. 92542, Contract No. D13010S Data Collection - January 2014 NEUSE RIVER BASIN SUBMITTED TO /PREPARED FOR: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652 Y �Fcs OSarstem iement PROGRAM February 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY ......................................................................................... ............................... 1 Project Components and Mitigation Units Table ................................................. ............................... 1 1.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES ......................... ............................... 1 1.1 Location and Setting .................................................................................... ............................... 1 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ....................................................................... ............................... 1 1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ..................................... ............................... 2 1.3.1 Project Structure ................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach ........................................................... ............................... 2 2.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................................................................... ............................... 2 3.0 MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................... ............................... 2 Monitoring Schedule/Requirements Table ........................................................... ............................... 2 4.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY ..................................................... ............................... 3 5.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ............................................................. ............................... 3 Project Land Information Table ........................................................................... ............................... 3 5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ ............................... 4 APPENDICES Appendix A. General Tables and Figures Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table Figure 1. Project Location Figure 2. Project Assets Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View Figure 4. Site Protection Appendix B. Vegetation Data Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species Vegetation Plot Photographs Appendix C. Preconstruction and Asbuilt Photographs Appendix D. DWR Memorandum Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Table of Contents Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has established the Little Lick Creek Buffer Project (Project) located approximately five miles east of Durham in Durham County, North Carolina. The Project is located within the Upper Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03020201050020. This document details riparian buffer and nutrient offset buffer mitigation activites within an approximately 12.14 -acre easement. The Little Lick Creek Local Watershed Plan (NCEEP 2006) project atlas includes this Project (called Butler Road) with identified stressors resulting from anthropogenic activities related to the conversion of 80 percent of the watershed to disturbed land use /land cover with impervious surfaces covering over 14 percent of the watershed. Water quality is influenced due to the watershed slope (6 percent), the presence of moderately erodible soils, and its location within the Triassic Basin ecoregion. This project was identified for riparian buffer and nutrient offset restoration opportunities to improve hydrology, water quality, and habitat. Little Lick Creek is on the NC Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, due to poor aquatic life ratings and low levels of dissolved oxygen. The goals of the Little Lick Creek Project (Butler Road) address stressors identified in the Project watershed and include the following. • Restore riparian buffers associated with Little Lick Creek, a UT to Little Lick Creek, and water conveyances flowing to jurisdictional waters on site. The project goals will be addressed by the following objectives: • Reestablish natural vegetation along stream banks and water by planting existing cleared /disturbed land and treating invasive species. Project restoration activities were completed between November 2013 and December 2013 with invasive species controls ongoing. Activities included 1) removal and treatment of invasive species including rose (Rosa sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), 2) mowing and /or clearing of dense areas of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) seedlings and blackberry (Rubus argutus), 3) soil amendments based on recommendations from soil samples analyzed by the NCDA &CS Agronomy Division, and 4) plant community restoration. The implemented mitigation is as follows. Project Components and Mitigation Units Table Mitigation Credits,' Type Riparian Buffer Nutrient Offset 221,429 ftz (5.08 acres) [minimum, see ** below] Totals 106,331 ft2 (2.44 acres) Nitrogen: 11,547 lbs Phosphorous: 742 lbs Projects Components Project Restoration/ Restoration Mitigation Pounds of Nitrogen Pounds of Component/ Restoration Acreage Ratio Treated Over 30 Phosphorus Treated Comment Reach ID Equivalent Years Over 30 Years *Riparian Buffer Restoration 106,331 ftz 1:1 * *5546 lbs * *356 lbs Invasive /nuisance 2.44 acres species removal and ** *Nutrient Offset Restoration 221,429 ftz 1:1 11,547 lbs 742 lbs planting with native (5.08 acres) hardwood trees. ^Calculated in accordance with DWR Memorandum (Appendix D). *These areas are between 0 -100 feet from top of bank and will either be used for Riparian Buffer Mitigation OR Nutrient pound reduction, not both. * *Additional nutrient removal potential if used in lieu of Riparian Buffer square footage. ***This area is between 100 -200 feet from top of bank and can ONLY be used for Nutrient Offset pound reduction. Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Executive Summary Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration 1.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES 1.1 Location and Setting The Project is located five miles east of Durham in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) and Targeted Local Watershed 03020201050020 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03- 04 -01) of the Upper Neuse River Basin and will service the USGS 8 -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03020201 (Figure 1, Appendix A) (USGS 1974). The project HU encompasses approximately 21 square miles and is largely characterized by urban land use. The Project drainage area, nested in the 700 square mile Falls Lake watershed, encompasses approximately 6.0 square miles at the downstream Project outfall. The Project drainage area is located on the outer edge of Durham with identified stressors resulting from anthropogenic activities related to the conversion of 80 percent of the watershed to disturbed land use /land cover and impervious surfaces covering over 14 percent of the watershed ( NCEEP 2006). Directions to the Project from Raleigh, North Carolina: • Take Glenwood Avenue/US -70 West towards Durham • After approximately 15.5 miles, turn right on S. Mineral Springs Road • Turn left after 0.2 mile to stay on S. Mineral Springs Road • The Project is 2.8 miles on the left; the access point is on Butler Road Latitude 35.9852N, Longitude 78.8208'W (NAD83 /WGS84) 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Project is located in the Little Lick Creek Local Watershed planning area, which is nested in the 700 square mile Falls Lake watershed. The Project watershed is located within 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201050020, which was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan and is identified in the 2009 Little Lick Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) Upper Neuse Project Atlas (Butler Road). NCEEP developed a LWP for the 21- square mile Little Lick Creek watershed area that included land use analysis, water quality monitoring, and stakeholder input to identify problems with water quality, habitat, and hydrology. The Little Lick Creek watershed is relatively undeveloped and in an active state of rural to suburban transition with agriculture, forestry, rural, and undeveloped land comprising over 50 percent of the land uses. Durham's laws zone this land for more intensive development; therefore, this land is rapidly being converted to residential and commercial properties. Little Lick Creek is on the NC Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, due to poor aquatic life ratings and low levels of dissolved oxygen as the result of trash dumping, poor maintenance of on -site wastewater treatment systems, small vehicle maintenance and repair operations, outdoor materials storage, grease storage, and wash water disposal. The Little Lick Creek LWP project atlas includes this Project (Butler Road) with identified stressors resulting from anthropogenic activities related to the conversion of 80 percent of the watershed to disturbed land use /land cover with impervious surfaces covering over 14 percent of the watershed. Water quality is influenced due to the watershed slope (6 percent), the presence of moderately erodible soils, and its location with the Triassic Basin ecoregion. This project was identified for riparian buffer and nutrient offset restoration opportunities to improve hydrology, water quality, and habitat. Final Detailed Mitigation Plan Ecosystem Enhancement Program page 1 Little Lick Creek (EEP Project No. 92542, Contract No. D13010S) The goals of the Little Lick Creek Project (Butler Road) address stressors identified in the Project watershed and include the following. • Restore riparian buffers associated with Little Lick Creek, a UT to Little Lick Creek, and water conveyances flowing to jurisdictional waters on site. The project goals will be addressed by the following objectives: • Reestablish natural vegetation along stream banks and water by planting existing cleared /disturbed land and treating invasive species. 1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach 1.3.1 Project Structure A depiction of the project structure is provided in the Project Assets (Figure 2, Appendix A) and the Project Components and Mitigation Units Table (Table 1, Appendix A). 1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach Project restoration work resulted in 106,331 square feet (2.44 acres) between top of bank and 100 feet from the top of bank viable for either riparian buffer mitigation or nutrient offset mitigation (providing 5546 pounds of nitrogen and 356 pounds of phosphorus offsets over 30 years). Additionally, work between 100 feet and 200 feet from the top of bank will result in 221,429 square feet (5.08 acres) of nutrient offset mitigation (providing 11,547 pounds of nitrogen offsets and 742 pounds of phosphorus offsets over 30 years). Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1 -4 (Appendix A). 2.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA An average density of 320 planted hardwood 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 (Neuse River Basin, Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers) (NCDWQ 2007). 11�05 LOO Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding project close -out. The following table outlines monitoring requirements for this Project. Monitoring Schedule/Requirements Table Parameter Quantity Frequency Notes 8 CVS plots (see Figure 3 in Monitoring Years Vegetation will be monitored using the Vegetation Appendix A for approximate 1 -5 Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) locations) protocols Exotic and nuisance Semi - annual Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation vegetation will be mapped Locations of fence damage, vegetation Project boundary Semi - annual damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped Final Detailed Mitigation Plan Ecosystem Enhancement Program page Little Lick Creek (EEP Project No. 92542, Contract No. D13010S) Vegetation Monitoring After planting was completed, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting methods were successful and to determine initial species composition and density. Eight sample vegetation plots (10- meter by 10- meter) were installed and measured within the Site as per guidelines established in CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) (Figure 3, Appendix A). Vegetation plots are permanently monumented with 6 -foot metal T -posts at each corner, and a ten foot tall pvc at the origin.. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will be documented by photograph. Baseline vegetation plot information was collected December 11, 2013 and can be found in Appendix B. Initial stem count measurements indicate an average of 496 planted stems per acre across the Project. 4.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY NCEEP shall monitor the Project on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of the Project a minimum of once per year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. Vegetation If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria. 5.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes portions of the following parcels. The State of North Carolina holds a conservation easement in perpetuity on all 12.14 acres of the Project area. The underlying deed is held by the Triangle Greenways Council (Figure 4, Appendix A). Project Land Information Table Final Detailed Mitigation Plan Ecosystem Enhancement Program page Little Lick Creek (EEP Project No. 92542, Contract No. D13010S) Deed Site Protection Acreage Parcel Landowner PIN County Book/Page Instrument Number Protected 1 Triangle Greenways 0851 -03 -33 -3914 Conservation 007156/ 1.19 2 0851 -03 -33 -1937 0.79 3 0851 -03 -33 -2686 0.74 4 0851 -03 -33 -1700 0.86 5 0851 -03 -23 -9712 0.91 6 0851 -03 -23 -9513 0.92 7 0851 -03 -23 -9313 0.92 0851 -03 -23 -9112 8 Durham Easement and 1.00 Council Right of Access 000758 0851 -03 -33 -0098 9 0.79 0851 -03 -33 -1440 10 2.50 0851 -03 -22 -6975 11 1.22 29 0851 -03 -23 -6160 0.22 TOTAL 12.14 Final Detailed Mitigation Plan Ecosystem Enhancement Program page Little Lick Creek (EEP Project No. 92542, Contract No. D13010S) 5.0 REFERENCES Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2. (online). Available: http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm. North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2007. Redbook, Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2012. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by River Basin (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org /c/ document_ library /get file ?uuid= b9835c93 -f244- 4bc3- 9282- 4a58d98310da &groupld =38364 [January 28, 2013]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2006. Little Lick Creek Local Watershed Plan (online). Available: http: / /www.nceep. net / services /lwps /little lick/LittleLick LWP.pdf [January 7, 2013]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (online). Available: http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /c /document library/ get _file ?uuid= 665be84c- cf93 -477b- 918c- 1993778efllf &groupld =60329 [January 7, 2013]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). undated. Little Lick Creek Hydrologic Unit 03020201050020 Upper Neuse Project Atlas (online). Available: http: / /www.nceep. net / services /lwps /little _ lick /Little Lick Creek chapter final reduced size.pdf [January 7, 2013]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Web Soil Survey (online). Available: http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov / [January 18, 2013]. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. National Hydric Soils List by State, North Carolina (online). Available: ftp:// ftp- fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC /Hydric Soils /Lists /hydric soils.xlsx [January 18, 2013]. United State Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North Carolina. Final Detailed Mitigation Plan Ecosystem Enhancement Program page Little Lick Creek (EEP Project No. 92542, Contract No. D13010S) Appendix A. General Tables and Figures Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table Figure 1. Project Location Figure 2. Project Assets Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View Figure 4. Site Protection Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Appendices Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Mitigation Credits' Type Riparian Buffer Nutrient Offset -- April 2013 221,429 ft2 (5.08 acres) [minimum, see ** below] Totals 106,331 ft2 (2.44 acres) Nitrogen: 11,547 lbs Phosphorous: 742 lbs Projects Components Project Restoration/ Restoration Mitigation Pounds of Nitrogen Pounds of December 2013 Component/ Restoration Acreage Ratio Treated Over 30 Phosphorus Treated Comment Reach ID Equivalent Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693 Years Over 30 Years *Riparian Buffer Restoration 106,331 ft2 1:1 * *5546 lbs * *356 lbs Invasive /nuisance (2.44 acres) species removal and ** *Nutrient Offset Restoration 221,429 ft2 1:1 11,547 lbs 742 lbs planting with native (5.08 acres) hardwood trees. 'Calculated in accordance with DWR Memorandum (Appendix D). *These areas are between 0 -100 feet from top of bank and will either be used for Riparian Buffer Mitigation OR Nutrient pound reduction, not both. * *Additional nutrient removal potential if used in lieu of Riparian Buffer square footage. ***This area is between 100 -200 feet from top of bank and can ONLY be used for Nutrient Offset pound reduction. Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan/Planting Plans -- April 2013 Pine Removal & Invasive Species Control Grant Lewis August 2013 Bushhogging -- November 2013 Invasive Species Controls -- November 2013 - present Planting -- December 2013 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0) December 2013 February 2014 Table 3. Project Contacts Table Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Designer Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693 PlantingNegetation River Works, Inc. Maintenance /Invasive Species Control 6105 Chapel Hill Rd. Contractor Raleigh, NC 27607 George Morris 919 - 818 -3984 Baseline Data Collection Axiom Environmental, Inc. 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693 Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Appendices Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Table 4. Project Attribute Table Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Project Information Project Name Little Lick Creek Project County Durham Project Area 12.1434 acres Project Coordinates 35.9852 °N, 78.8208 °W Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Region Piedmont Project River Basin Neuse USGS 8 -digit HUC 03020201 USGS 14 -digit HUC 03020201050020 NCDWQ Subbasin 03 -04 -01 Project Drainage Area 6.0 square miles Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface >14% Reach Summary Information Parameters Little Lick Creek UT to Little Lick Creek Length of Reach (linear feet) 1254 510 Drainage Area (square miles) 6.04 0.27 NCDWQ Index Number 27- 9 -(0.5) 27- 9 -(0.5) NCDWQ Classification WS -IV, NSW WS -IV, NSW Dominant Soil Series Chewacla and Wehadkee Drainage Class Somewhat Poorly to Poorly Drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Slope 0 -2 percent FEMA Classification 100 -Year Floodplain Native Vegetation Community Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives 5.6 Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable Waters of the U.S. — Sections 404 and 401 No Endangered Species Act No Historic Preservation Act No CZMA/CAMA No FEMA Floodplain Compliance No Essential Fisheries Habitat No Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Appendices 1 RE r5 ff 28 1i VYXX/ff� t The subject project site in an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR J Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement } boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designers /contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of r the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these . previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with EEP. Gags \� s 98 J ' `_ �``• �" �— 44 it _. . Project Location 35.9852, - 78.8208 ✓ ; '`,�) 4.. PA AL z ,1� }` IG 70 Directions from Raleigh: Take Glenwood Avenue /US -70 West towards Durham. 1 After approximately 15.5 miles, turn right on S. Mineral Springs rd. ` -� Turn left after 0.2 mile to stay on S. Mineral Springs rd. StLi�l , The Site is 2.8 miles on the left. r``s x f The access point is on Butler Road. t�em PRnc Rnrw P- 0, ° 0 1 2 J; A Miles F) Axiom Environmental 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 (919) 215 -1693 Axiom Environmental, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION MAP LITTLE LICK CREEK PROJECT Durham County, North Carolina Dwn. by. KRJ FIGURE Date: January 2013 EEP Project: 92542 N � pry ^"� i - -:u _�` :�� • •• �` � � `+ •''�, , ZV �- y A.✓ • i,y s i '.t "4 -* -t' ` i, it `1 1 • r rx: _r ( �. 5 �J .: — - � .n• "'r � Syr rt Sys �, �`1j0i + ^+yr t �• i� 9*w y � _- •7.' � RjfQ =�' � -�.7�( 7 t 'i5 M 5- d y c i 1.,J. �� +try' ✓� � �, � 1. �['l Tyl ✓,` / / "t .�;�' 'm �' . Vii.,, F' `? �. A' , t" ! • �,' 'i lE� f yep Legend I Easement Boundary = 12.14 acres { t y • / ���`e N - I% Streams /V/ Water Conveyances _ -- Riparian Buffer Restoration = 2.44 acres Nutrient Offset Credit Area = 5.08 acres No Credit Area = 0.19 acres a �, Existing Mature Vegetation (No Credit) = 4.12 acres y' ':� . , // ,� ,;� +`�•� A. �� Sewer Easement (No Credit)= 0.50 acres f , Feet 0 50 100 200 300 400 r - '; �4 Project Components and Mitigation Units Table Mitigation Credits^ Type Riparian Buffer Nutrient Offset JI'' -z•° - 221,429 ft2 5.08 acres) minimum, see ** below] +'j �• ,� - Totals 106,331 ft (2.44 acres) Nitrogen: 11,547 lbs Phosphorous: 742 lbs Projects Components Project Restoration/ Restoration Mit Pounds of Nitrogen Pounds of igation Component/ Restoration Treated Over 30 Phosphorus Treated Comment ' �. Reach ID Equivalent Acreage Ratio years Over 30 Years "~ `* 106,331 ft' Invasive /nuisance *Riparian Buffer Restoration (2.44 acres 1.1 * *5546 lbs **356 lbs species removal and 4 * ** 221,429 ftz planting with native Nutrient Offset Restoration (5.08 acres) 1:1 11,547 lbs 742 lbs hardwood trees. �- ^Calculated in accordance with DWR Memorandum (Appendix D). *These areas are between 0 -100 feet from top of bank and will either be used for Riparian Buffer Mitigation OR Nutrient pound ' reduction, not both. * *Additional nutrient removal potential if used in lieu of Riparian Buffer square footage. �� • ** *This area is between 100 -200 feet from top of bank and can ONLY be used for Nutrient Offset pound reduction. Axiom Environmental PROJECTASSETS 218 Snow Avenue LITTLE LICK CREEK PROJECT Raleigh, NC 27603 (919) 215 -1693 Durham County, North Carolina Axiom Environmental, Inc. Dwn. by. KRJ /CLF /PHP FIGURE Date: January 2014 2 EEP Project: 92542 • I]] � I � ' 1. . �► .;•ti 4 IL l_.gfJ�Y= � .._'1M'�' .. Yri F e`�_P� •e. '�.- I� Air '6 r rNV • - f ffSS�� Ot I .. � : �, �.b 7`r:�!'� � . �/ - i t r `" . ,, - � y`• � �• "� • i 111 `, .* ri a. a U!1 1 .6�r�. �'W r s I "r !� v� _.I� 5•_ 6 w JJ �, � PSI � - #• .,, ���� � ;y�i .t�C tw y+4 Oj 5j Y C° cY .T ter ,? # 7 f, YY� �l' + - I ! ' - f ill' ! !. 0 .�■�y■■.�■�, te eht PROGRAM Legend C3 Easement Boundary = 12.14 acres ^Jyy � i • /,Y I Streams JY k 1 r w l ^n.^- Water Conveyances CVS Vegetation Plots ' i 7!" `, .c 1 ♦r N.G. i_. /, G ~ Photo Point Sewer Easement [ f. ��� �,�',d:• " ,• ' �y y Excluded Area (No Credit) = 0.19 acres Existing Mature Vegetation (No Planting) = 4.12 acres * Y fy 'r . >.• , ,,;` �.... �'r'.' r r+ir ' 0 100 200 YN Vk Feet Dwn. by. FIGURE Axiom Environmental CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW KRJ 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 LITTLE LICK CREEK SITE Date: (919) 215 -1693 Durham County, North Carolina January 2014 Project: Axiom Environmental. Inc. 12 -025 VICINITY MAP - IF. CA_RA WAKE CD1 WILSON, CERTFY THAT THE RAWN DER MY SUPERVS SURVEY MADE UNDER MY PRON RECORDED IN BOOK THAT THE BOUNDARIES N( RE CLEARLY IN TED As IA110N FOUNo IN BOOK_ I'D IS 1:100• p00N 1S AMENDED. 11 A AT OT K I AR CHE hoar xDT `EA,Lc Einp Is O1A mi aAUA�tY1Y- A OF FREEMAN RD. ©��B3l�ECF£fC� LOT 3 DI= EAST SC H RID D, LARRABEE & r A A. LARRABEE 25 23 BAPTIST RD. DURHAM, - A \ SITE , E S 27587 ING. 1'879 (Y F) -T P 133.01' — I \ TH LMA A. LARRABEE MINERAL SPRIN BUTLER RD. T.H. uai m SEE ,F R] 1 1_ I H 9 rc WY 98 e • 9'zr w n sqy. DE VICINITY MAP - IF. CA_RA WAKE CD1 WILSON, CERTFY THAT THE RAWN DER MY SUPERVS SURVEY MADE UNDER MY PRON RECORDED IN BOOK THAT THE BOUNDARIES N( RE CLEARLY IN TED As IA110N FOUNo IN BOOK_ I'D IS 1:100• p00N 1S AMENDED. 11 A AT OT K I AR CHE hoar xDT `EA,Lc Einp Is O1A mi aAUA�tY1Y- A N 8 '38 S - FIR ,. pR A 3T HAND » I � PER t2l 7 - C PN ?43 "E oo. N -.4 DI urr ga s To INSYS CCx Ix A) Dx C..- YH as _ 0 R CERR.IATE IN 7 PROPER L NG� PL TU B I OWNER EDYNICEBANES T RDI . L' " k 0 AR BEE ORDERED THE WORK A S YE G AN p PL TO MA EA.P ALL PU91JC STREETS, A D G 0 OPE SPACES SO DESIGNATED UPON SAI P TAE I REB CE CA ED OR s USE AND THAr ALL U AN P 1MA EA NTS PUT ARE HEREBY CRAN ME TP TED. R OWNER) s WI S TC SIGNATURE Sl TE C OF .—A -A WAKE TTT A NOTARY PUBUC, CER FY TPA G. t P SO AL AAPPAEARED BEFORE ME TH19 AY I fR Y TO ME BY AT F E S NOT A GRANTEE E A T{E TR M scrvco THE Fg1ECgNC po M r A e mNC vnTNess, —CODING D. R1CHiND C. LARRABEE W A RA ON THE PC T PU C M aMMISSION F<PlRESA#anAJj 1410 IT TE IF NORTH CAROUNA :0 NT OF DURHAM VI 0 ICER FOR IU A _CG NTY N.0 DO HEREBY CERT Y E LA OR M TO NI IS CUTTFICATIDN IS AFFIXED M TS AL ST TUT w Y IEQUIRE MEN TS FOR RECOROINO. DATE !E EW OFF ER SCALE: 1" 100, sD loo xoD < D REV. 394 3.2.86' / BIT" D / 0�\B5 i 1 3 / xwu N D.B. i'JU 1 CB t Do rt 1 1 4d / OF / 1-22 Lot v su.ux.4.0 ©��B3l�ECF£fC� LOT 3 DI= EAST SC H RID D, LARRABEE & r A A. LARRABEE 25 23 BAPTIST RD. DURHAM, - A \ S I- 27 I (91 i , E S 27587 ING. 1'879 (Y F) -T P 133.01' — I \ TH LMA A. LARRABEE MINERAL SPRIN > \ T.H. uai m SEE ,F R] 1 1_ P.B. 4 0 _- aD PG T6 I \ I e • 9'zr w n sqy. DE N 8 '38 S - FIR ,. pR A 3T HAND » I � PER t2l 7 - C PN ?43 "E oo. N -.4 DI urr ga s To INSYS CCx Ix A) Dx C..- YH as _ 0 R CERR.IATE IN 7 PROPER L NG� PL TU B I OWNER EDYNICEBANES T RDI . L' " k 0 AR BEE ORDERED THE WORK A S YE G AN p PL TO MA EA.P ALL PU91JC STREETS, A D G 0 OPE SPACES SO DESIGNATED UPON SAI P TAE I REB CE CA ED OR s USE AND THAr ALL U AN P 1MA EA NTS PUT ARE HEREBY CRAN ME TP TED. R OWNER) s WI S TC SIGNATURE Sl TE C OF .—A -A WAKE TTT A NOTARY PUBUC, CER FY TPA G. t P SO AL AAPPAEARED BEFORE ME TH19 AY I fR Y TO ME BY AT F E S NOT A GRANTEE E A T{E TR M scrvco THE Fg1ECgNC po M r A e mNC vnTNess, —CODING D. R1CHiND C. LARRABEE W A RA ON THE PC T PU C M aMMISSION F<PlRESA#anAJj 1410 IT TE IF NORTH CAROUNA :0 NT OF DURHAM VI 0 ICER FOR IU A _CG NTY N.0 DO HEREBY CERT Y E LA OR M TO NI IS CUTTFICATIDN IS AFFIXED M TS AL ST TUT w Y IEQUIRE MEN TS FOR RECOROINO. DATE !E EW OFF ER SCALE: 1" 100, sD loo xoD < D REV. 394 3.2.86' / BIT" D / 0�\B5 i 1 3 / xwu N D.B. i'JU 1 CB t Do rt 1 1 4d / OF / 1-22 Lot v su.ux.4.0 ©��B3l�ECF£fC� LOT 3 DI= EAST SC H RID D, LARRABEE & r A A. LARRABEE 25 23 BAPTIST RD. DURHAM, - "•: ,. S I- 27 I (91 i , E S 27587 ING. 1'879 (Y F) 0lg3FZ���'.vsz:rsTII� TH LMA A. LARRABEE N 8 '38 S - FIR ,. pR A 3T HAND » I � PER t2l 7 - C PN ?43 "E oo. N -.4 DI urr ga s To INSYS CCx Ix A) Dx C..- YH as _ 0 R CERR.IATE IN 7 PROPER L NG� PL TU B I OWNER EDYNICEBANES T RDI . L' " k 0 AR BEE ORDERED THE WORK A S YE G AN p PL TO MA EA.P ALL PU91JC STREETS, A D G 0 OPE SPACES SO DESIGNATED UPON SAI P TAE I REB CE CA ED OR s USE AND THAr ALL U AN P 1MA EA NTS PUT ARE HEREBY CRAN ME TP TED. R OWNER) s WI S TC SIGNATURE Sl TE C OF .—A -A WAKE TTT A NOTARY PUBUC, CER FY TPA G. t P SO AL AAPPAEARED BEFORE ME TH19 AY I fR Y TO ME BY AT F E S NOT A GRANTEE E A T{E TR M scrvco THE Fg1ECgNC po M r A e mNC vnTNess, —CODING D. R1CHiND C. LARRABEE W A RA ON THE PC T PU C M aMMISSION F<PlRESA#anAJj 1410 IT TE IF NORTH CAROUNA :0 NT OF DURHAM VI 0 ICER FOR IU A _CG NTY N.0 DO HEREBY CERT Y E LA OR M TO NI IS CUTTFICATIDN IS AFFIXED M TS AL ST TUT w Y IEQUIRE MEN TS FOR RECOROINO. DATE !E EW OFF ER SCALE: 1" 100, sD loo xoD < D REV. 394 3.2.86' / BIT" D / 0�\B5 i 1 3 / xwu N D.B. i'JU 1 CB t Do rt 1 1 4d / RCS RB- REFERENCE u OF / 1-22 Lot v su.ux.4.0 LOTS 1 -11 & 29 LOT 3 DI= EAST SC H RID D, LARRABEE & r A A. LARRABEE 25 23 BAPTIST RD. DURHAM, N.C. 27703 BSS, 8 T F NIXON & KIE NSULTING EN31 10 CHAPEL HILL ROAD LEIGH, NORTH CAROL! 19 HERITAGE TRADE ER E FOREST, NORTH C LEPHONE: (919)851-04 : (919 )851 -8988 (Ral.), S I- 27 I (91 i , E S 27587 ING. 1'879 (Y F) TH LMA A. LARRABEE DE CR PTI P O _ ftG^ itD 11-Al { EP RS N $ P I.A. 1 e$ � B gBgg 3.02 RCS T $m 188. 8' JD o { Rcs ! lip DO yi nr RCS RB- REFERENCE u OF / 1-22 Lot v su.ux.4.0 LOTS 1 -11 & 29 LOT 3 DI= EAST SC H RID D, LARRABEE & r A A. LARRABEE 25 23 BAPTIST RD. DURHAM, N.C. 27703 BSS, 8 T F NIXON & KIE NSULTING EN31 10 CHAPEL HILL ROAD LEIGH, NORTH CAROL! 19 HERITAGE TRADE ER E FOREST, NORTH C LEPHONE: (919)851-04 : (919 )851 -8988 (Ral.), S I- 27 I (91 i , E S 27587 ING. 1'879 (Y F) TH LMA A. LARRABEE DE CR PTI PM, PEA i lEFERENCES '.B. 186 PG. 47 '.B. 1541`13.193 '.B. 137 PG. 718 '.B. 124 PG. 23 '.B. 82 PG.1 '.B. 40 PG. 78 RREAM BUFFERS RADINC, EROSION ANT WA I E Ao6RDN. ( DO SECT. ass B, C AND ) A ` ""a v Ck IRS NOTE: 1) AREAS BY CO RDI A E CEO ETRY UNLESS SHOWN 0 W1 E ;E- 2) FOUND R SE A ALL CORNERS UNLESS SET" 0 E WISE. 3) ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES. 4) ALL STREETS RE PUBLIC RIC�iHT TS -OF -WAY UNLESS 5 10 TH RWISE. 5) OTHER INSTRU ENTS OF RE(jORO MAY AFFECT THIS R E TY.. 6) NO TITLE SEA CH PERFORM D FOR THIS SURVEY. 7) FEMA FLOOD AZ RD AREAS LOCATED ON THIS SITE PER FRM PANEL H 3720085100 J MTTI E FE TIVE DATE OF MAY 2, 00 ZONE AE 8) THE COORDINATES S 0 04 THIS PLAT WERE DER[ D GY VR 3 (VIRTUAL REFERENCE TA ION 0 S SING DUAL FREQUENCY RE Eh ER. THIS METHOD RESULTS IN (NAD 11183 - (DOES 96) POSITIONS AND NA D 88 (MSL) ELEVATIONS USIHG HE DUNTINUOUSLY OPERATING 3TAnDlIS AAINTAINED BY NORTH CARD N GIOD:TTC SURVEY. 9) ALL LOTS ARE VA CAP T. 10) PROPERTY IS Z014ED R- 20. TQ AL AREA = NAME OF OVINER LOTS 1 -11 & 29 RI H RID D, LARRABEE & THEL A A. LARRABEE 25 23 BAPTIST RD. DURHAM, N.C. 27703 NAME OF PR JE is ¢TITLE LICK CREEK ''.. S N 0 LE ' E NU1 POI BE :032 CT NUMBER: -BA 92542 C RR NT 0WT ER: RI�^HAR0 0. LARRABEE TH LMA A. LARRABEE OF NORTH CAROLINA SHEET ENHANCEMENT PRCK REEK BUFFER(BUTLE .) ) SPO A 032 -BA ROPERTY OF 2D D. LARRABEE & OF VIA A. LARRABEE I I I I I 1 ro a m r 0 It L Appendix B. Vegetation Data Table 7. Planted Woody Vegetation Table 8. Total Planted and All Stems by Plot and Species Vegetation Plot Photographs Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Appendices Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woodv Veeetation Species Quantity American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 504 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 466 Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) 56 Red maple (Acer rubrum) 277 River birch (Betula nigra) 458 Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) 310 Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 429 Water oak (Quercus nigra) 300 Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 254 TOTAL 3054 Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Appendices Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species EEP Project Code 92542. Project Name: Little Lick Creek Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes P -all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits Current Plot Data (MYO 2013) Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 92542 -01 -0001 92542 -01 -0002 92542 -01 -0003 92542 -01 -0004 92542 -01 -0005 92542 -01 -0006 92542 -01 -0007 92542 -01 -0008 MYO (2013) PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Acer rubrum red maple Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 7 7 7 Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 12 12 12 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 9 9 9 2 2 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 6 6 6 23 23 23 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 3 3 31 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 11 11 11 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 20 20 20 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 11 11 11 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 7 Ulmus alata lwinged elm ITree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 20 20 20 8 71 9 10 10 11 10 171 10 11 11 11 11 111 11 11 11 11 17 17 17 981 98 100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 4 4 4 6 6 6 5 5 6 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 �_51 5 8 8 9 809.4 809.4 809.4 323.7 323.7 364.2 404.7 404.7 445.2 404.7 404.7 404.7 445.2 445.2 445.2 445.2 445.2 445.2 445.2 445.2 445.2 688 688 6881 495.71 495.71 505.9 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes P -all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits Little Lick Creek (Butler Road) Baseline Vegetation Monitoring Photographs Taken December 2013 .......... r . ......... {I , Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Appendices Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Appendix C. Preconstruction and Asbuilt Photographs Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Appendices Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Preconstruction Photographs Taken January 2013 Facing South Looking Towards Little Lick Creek Facing West Looking at a Water Conveyance � Draining Project Fields Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Appendices Asbuilt Photo Point Photographs Taken December 2013 Photo Point 4 Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration Appendices Appendix D. DWR Memorandum Final Baseline Monitoring Document and Asbuilt Baseline Report Appendices Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration PA M��. NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Resources Water Quality Programs Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder John E. Skvarla, III Governor Director Secretary August 9, 2013 MEMORANDUM To: N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program From: Tom Reeder Subject: DWR responses to the EEP document "Reforms needed immediately in the regulation of riparian buffer mitigation" On August 2, 2013, the Division of Water Resources (DWR) received a document from the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) titled "Reforms needed immediately in the regulation of riparian buffer mitigation ". Below is a short summary of each point raised in the document and DWR's response to those points. I. Riparian Buffer Mitigation Widths — the Ironclad 50' Standard There are two issues raised under this section: (a) provide mitigation credit for buffers wider than 50 feet and (b) provide mitigation credit for buffers narrower than 50 feet. Response: (a) DWR will approve mitigation credit for buffer widths in excess of 50 feet on a prorated basis, up to a maximum of 200 feet, including on pre- existing mitigation sites: Buffer width (ft) Percentage of Full Credit 50 -100 100% 101 -200 25% for area > 100 feet 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617 Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone: 919 -807 -6300 \ FAX: 919 - 807 -6492 Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer Example for restoration of a 1,000 linear foot stream segment: 50 ' 100 20D ' (b) DWR agrees that mitigation credit should be granted for restored buffer widths less than 50 feet, however this would require a rule change. The draft consolidated buffer mitigation rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) already has provisions for narrower buffers in urban areas and DWR supports expanding this to non -urban areas. II. Riparian Buffer Jurisdiction — Map Jurisdiction. There are two issues raised under this section: (a) the ability to conduct restoration or enhancement on unmapped streams and (b) the ability to conduct restoration or enhancement on all watercourses, including ditches. Response for the Neuse, Tar - Pamlico, Catawba and Jordan: Under the current buffer mitigation rules, applicants may "restore or enhance a non - forested riparian buffer..." A riparian buffer is defined within each of the buffer rules. Each rule has an applicability paragraph that defines where the rule shall apply (e.g. in the Neuse "This Rule shall apply to 50 foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin (intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries), excluding wetlands. ") The rule goes on further to clarify that a subject feature must be depicted on either the USGS topo map or the NRCS soil survey and defines the Zones of the riparian buffer. 50'minimum `\ required 50' 100 t FULL CREDIT FOR A 1DO ' BUFFER Area= 100;00.0W credk - 100,000 Ft- Stream FULL CREDIT FOR q 5D' BUFFER 1,000 LF Area = SD,DDD Ft� Credit = 5D,DOD W 25 % FULL CREDIT FOR ADDITIONAL BUFFER. BEYOND 10D' Area = 100;000H2 Credit = 25,000 W of to scale) Tot.{ Credit = 125,00DjJ&` 50 ' 100 20D ' (b) DWR agrees that mitigation credit should be granted for restored buffer widths less than 50 feet, however this would require a rule change. The draft consolidated buffer mitigation rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) already has provisions for narrower buffers in urban areas and DWR supports expanding this to non -urban areas. II. Riparian Buffer Jurisdiction — Map Jurisdiction. There are two issues raised under this section: (a) the ability to conduct restoration or enhancement on unmapped streams and (b) the ability to conduct restoration or enhancement on all watercourses, including ditches. Response for the Neuse, Tar - Pamlico, Catawba and Jordan: Under the current buffer mitigation rules, applicants may "restore or enhance a non - forested riparian buffer..." A riparian buffer is defined within each of the buffer rules. Each rule has an applicability paragraph that defines where the rule shall apply (e.g. in the Neuse "This Rule shall apply to 50 foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin (intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries), excluding wetlands. ") The rule goes on further to clarify that a subject feature must be depicted on either the USGS topo map or the NRCS soil survey and defines the Zones of the riparian buffer. To allow buffer mitigation to occur on non - subject features requires a rule change. DWR does support buffer mitigation on unmapped streams, and the draft consolidated buffer mitigation rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) already has language to allow for this. Response for Randleman: Under the current Randleman buffer mitigation rules, applicants may "restore or enhance a non - forested riparian buffer..." A riparian buffer is defined within the Randleman rules to include unmapped features, as well as ditches or manmade conveyances that "deliver untreated stormwater runoff from an adjacent source directly to an intermittent or perennial stream are subject to the Rule." DWR will continue to allow buffer mitigation to occur in the Randleman watershed on unmapped features as well as ditches or manmade conveyances that meet the rule. Response for Goose Creek: Under the current Goose Creek buffer mitigation rules, unmapped streams may be used to provide buffer mitigation, as well as first order ephemeral streams that discharge /outlet into intermittent or perennial streams. III. Riparian Buffer Jurisdiction — Stream Calls on Mapped Streams The issues raised under this section focus on the requirement to have a stream determination made by DWR staff. More specifically, there is a concern that the stream method is not appropriate for modified natural streams that may be severely degraded and that these streams are not eligible for mitigation. Response: • DWR will allow all subject streams to be eligible for riparian buffer mitigation. IV. Restoration Success Criteria — Native Hardwood Trees The issues raised under this section focus on the requirement to plant a minimum of at least two native hardwood tree species and the current DWR practice of not allowing Sweet Gum or Red Maple to be counted towards meeting this requirement. Response: • DWR agrees that as written, the use of Sweet Gum and Red Maple counts towards meeting the minimum requirement of the rule. Mitigation providers will be expected to meet planting criteria established by the IRT in buffer areas that are part of a stream mitigation site. V. Restoration Success Criteria — Planted Stems The issues raised under this section focus on the requirement to plant 320 trees per acre and the statement that DWR does not count trees derived from existing seed sources, planted seeds, stump sprouts or other volunteer species towards meeting that 320 requirement. Response: • DWR agrees that using 260 stems per acre at the end of the monitoring period would provide more consistency with the federal performance standards for stream and wetland projects; however this would require a rule change. The draft consolidated buffer mitigation rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) has already incorporated this change. DWR staff will continue to consider the presence of woody volunteers during closeout of buffer sites. VI. Restoration and Enhancement Criteria — Measuring Density The issues raised under this section focus on tree density for determining restoration or enhancement. More specifically, the issues include the inconsistency among rules, the lack of clarity on how to measure density which has resulted in inconsistent calls among DWR staff, and the use of a tree's dripline. Response: • DWR agrees that the inconsistency among rules has created confusion and inconsistency in implementation; however this would require a rule change to be consistent among all six rules. The draft consolidated buffer mitigation rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) has definitions for restoration, enhancement and preservation, which were written to provide clarity and predictability while still allowing DWR staff to use best professional judgment in evaluating potential mitigation sites based on their many years of experience. In the Jordan and Randleman watersheds, the rules allow for restoration on sites with fewer than 100 trees /acre and enhancement on sites with between 100 and 200 trees. In these two watersheds, DWR will accept established forestry protocols (e.g. fixed radius plot sampling) to be used to determine existing tree densities in any non - forested buffer area. Sufficient numbers of plots should be used to accurately assess stem densities and delineate areas of the site with varying densities. Plot data should not be averaged to determine an overall stem density unless the site is fairly homogeneous in terms of vegetative coverage. Existing forested areas should be delineated out and not included in stem density calculations. DWR has not considered the drip line to represent the outer edge of a wooded area for several years and will not consider it in the future. Existing wooded areas should be delineated at the trunks of the outer edge of the areas.