20130577 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2015_20170113

FINAL
YEAR 2 (2015) ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
LITTLE LICK CREEK BUFFER RESTORATION
Durham County, North Carolina
DMS Project No. 92542, Contract No. D13010S
Data Collection - October 2015
NEUSE RIVER BASIN
Cataloging Unit 03020201
SUBMITTED TO/PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
November 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY...........................................................
2.0 METHODOLOGY..................................................................
3.0 REFERENCES........................................................................
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Project Assets
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Fixed -Station Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Planted Woody Vegetation
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Success by Project Access Type
Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality- Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS,
formerly NCDMS) 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 activities within an approximately 12.14 -acre
easement. The easement boundary currently has no signage or marking. Completed project activities,
reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4
(Appendix A). This report (compiled based on the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for DMS Monitoring Reports Version 1.5 dated 6/8/12)
summarizes data for Year 2 (2015) monitoring.
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 Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) 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).
NCDMS 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 laws zone this land for 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.
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
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC page 1

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
Annually in
Vegetation will be monitored using the
221,429 ft2 (5.08 acres) [minimum, see ** below]
Totals
106,331 ft' (2.44 acres)
Nitrogen: 11,547 lbs Phosphorous: 742 lbs
Projects Components
Project
Restoration/
Restoration
Mitigation
Pounds of Nitrogen
Pounds of
vegetation will be mapped
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.
*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.
Vegetation 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 Resources Administrative Code 15A NCAC
02B.0242 (Neuse River Basin, Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian
Buffers) (NCDWR 2007).
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) monitoring template. The monitoring report shall provide a chronology of project data that
will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, population of NCDMS databases for analysis,
research purposes, and to 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
Annually in
Vegetation will be monitored using the
Vegetation Appendix B for approximate
Monitoring Years
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
locations)
1-5
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
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 -DMS
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) (Figure 3, Appendix B). 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. Vegetation plot information for MY2 (2015) was collected in October 2015
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC page 2

and can be found in Appendix C. Stem count measurements for MY2 (2015) indicate an average of 425
planted stems per acre across the Project. Six out of eight vegetation plots met success criteria for MY2
(2015) monitoring. Plots 2 and 3 were 2 and 4 stems, respectively, shy of meeting success criteria based
on planted stems alone; however, when including natural recruits of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
and willow oak (Quercus phellos) in Plot 2 and American elm (Ulmus americana) in Plot 3, these plots
were above success criteria.
Planted stem mortality can be attributed to competition from the dense herbaceous layer. Several large,
dense patches of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) was observed throughout the Site. The vines
are affecting the vigor of planted woody stems; therefore, treatment is recommended. Additionally, a
small patch of Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) was observed in the vicinity of Plot 3, which is
attributing to low planted stem counts in this plot. Furthermore, a large patch of blackberry was observed
in the northeast portion of the site, near plot 1. The blackberry is dense and appears to be outcompeting
several planted stems in this area ( Figure 3, Appendix B).
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC page 3

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2. (online). Available: htip://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2007. Redbook, Surface Waters and Wetlands
Standards. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2012. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by
River Basin (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_librar /get file?uuid=
b9835c93-f244-4bc3-9282-4a58d98310da&groWld=38364 [January 28, 2013]. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2006. Little Lick Creek Local Watershed
Plan (online). Available: http://portal.nedenr.org/c/document�librar/get file?uuid=
6607bd28-4af8-458b-8582-cblacbcacle6&groupld=60329 [January 7, 2013]. North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document�library/get file?uuid=
665be84c-cf93-477b-918c-1993778efllf&groold=60329 [January 7, 2013]. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). undated. Little Lick Creek Hydrologic Unit
03020201050020 Upper Neuse Project Atlas (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/
document_library/get file?uuid=2173c5bf-25d7-46f9-925e-7f0a21387a42&groupld=60329
[January 7, 2013]. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 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 Environmental Quality. 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
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.
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC page 4

Appendix A.
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices

�, Gag,
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ r 1
1� Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded - l ✓t
conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. -'
_. C7
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
V authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designers/contractors
p 4_ involved in the development, oversight, and stewardship of the restoration site is r r.
r ,.-.e 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 DMS.�,0 i
Project Location A
35.9852, -78.8208
o� J
T
L
(7k,
4V
T J23
70
WT J,
_1 �AA.
1 2
i Miles I�
Directions from Raleigh:
Take Glenwood Avenue/US-70 West towards Durham.
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.
The Site is 2.8 miles on the left.
The access point is on Butler Rd.
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
LITTLE LICK CREEK PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92542
Durham County, North Carolina
© 2013,
iety,
Dwn. by.
KRJ
Axiom Environmental
-
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
12-004.19
[phone]
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
LITTLE LICK CREEK PROJECT
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92542
Durham County, North Carolina
© 2013,
iety,
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2015
Project:
12-004.19

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration (DMS #92542)
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
221,429 ft2
planting with native
***Nutrient Offset
Restoration
(5.08 acres)
1:1
11,547 lbs
742 lbs
hardwood trees.
^Calculated in accordance with DWR Memorandum.
*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 (DMS #92542)
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Deliver
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
2014 Annual Monitoring Document (Year 1)
September 2014
October 2014
2015 Annual Monitoring Document (Year 2)
October 2015
November 2015
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration (DMS #92542)
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 & Annual
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration (DMS #92542)
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices
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
NCDWR 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
NCDWR Index Number
27-9-(0.5) 27-9-(0.5)
NCDWR 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 hivasives
5.6
Regulator 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
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices

Appendix B.
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Project Assets
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Fixed -Station Photographs
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices

F •
t
,
'Y
Butl34,
er Roa
t � f ti •"
i'.'.�•�,
V 919
4
" a .
all
W.�_�;
4.
�/ 1• a '. f - J •. % '/ � 4'%r.}�^'-s , t'r.`
tAAiI ;
>- * 4
Aft
$� :.
Legend
Easement Boundary 12.14 acres
•4
-,I' — Streams
Water Conveyances
—f Riparian Buffer Restoration = 2.44 acres
Nutrient Offset Credit Area = 5.08 acres
No Credit Area = 0.19 acres
C, Existing Mature Vegetation (No Credit) = 4.12 acres
Sewer Easement (No Credit)= 0.50 acres
-c
Feet
0 50 100 200 300 400
ot
,1. Project Components and Mitigation Units Table
?
Sj _I Mitigation Credits^
Type Riparian Buffer Nutrient Offset
4 z 221,429 ft' (5.08 acres) [minimum, see ** below]
Totals 106,331 ft (2.44 acres) Nitrogen: 11,547 lbs Phosphorous: 742 lbs
Projects Components
Project Restoration/ Pounds of Nitrogen Pounds of
Restoration Mitigation
.a
Component/ Restoration Treated Over 30 Phosphorus Treated Comment
' =A' p Acreage Ratio p
Reach ID Equivalent
106,331 ft uisance
^ *Riparian Buffer Restoration 1:1 **5546 lbs **356 lbs IYears Over 30 Years nvasive/n
(2.44 acres) species removal and
.' *** 221,429 ftz planting with native
Nutrient Offset Restoration (5.08 acres) l . ] 11,547 lbs 742 lbs hardwood trees.
^Calculated in accordance with DWR Memorandum (Appendix D).
`'�`►� r i *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.
r ; _ **Additional nutrient removal potential if used in lieu of Riparian Buffer square footage.
y / " ***This area is between 100-200 feet from top of bank and can ONLY be used for Nutrient Offset pound reduction.
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
PROJECT ASSETS
Dwn. by.
KRJ/CLF/PHP
FIGURE
LITTLE LICK CREEK SITE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92542
2
Date:
October 2015
Durham County, North Carolina
—
Project:
12-004.19

S Y .� ,.r .� it - �+ ,)•
z
N
_ -
aUt r R 1
M -7—
"XI ;,.,4 n-
'. At
04
;. of
"
r
.� Y� it � • .^off; rF,.?9�
7 t `
^'
4
Legend
Easement Boundary = 12.14 acres
Streams
Water Conveyances
F CVS Vegetation Plots
r . k Plots meeting success criteria
a Plots not meeting success criteria
O Photo Point
U
Sewer Easement
•�V Excluded Area (No Credit) = 0.19 acres
V
Existing Mature Vegetation (No Planting) = 4.12 acres
Japanese Honeysuckle
Chinese Lespedeza
KDense Blackberry
„ '';'F•a K fes' -.. +, ,r
f 0 0
100 200 40
Feet
CURRENT
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
Dwn. by.
FIGURE
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
LITTLE LICK CREEK SITE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92542
3
Date:
October 2015
[phone]
Project:
Durham County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
12-004.19

Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration
Planted Acreage8.02
Easement Acreage' 12.14
%of
Mapping
PP g
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Planted
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage' 12.14
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Ilkley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics
are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be
mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the
narrative section of the executive summary.
% of
Mapping
Pp g
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Easement
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Dense Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese lespedeza competing with planted woody vegetation.
1000 SF
pink and yellow
6
1.74
14.3%
polygons
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
None
none
none
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Ilkley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics
are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be
mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the
narrative section of the executive summary.

Little Lick Creek (Butler Road)
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2015
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices

Little Lick Creek (Butler Road)
Fixed -Station Photographs
Taken October 2015
Photo Point 5
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices

Appendix C.
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Planted Woody Vegetation
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Success by Project Access Type
Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices

Table 6. Planted Bare Root Woodv Vegetation
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
Table 7.
Vegetation Plot Success by Plot Type
Little Lick Creek (#92542)
Riparian
Stream/
Unknown
Buffer
Wetland Live
Growth
Plot #
Stems'
Stems2 Stakes Invasives Volunteers3
Total4
Form
1
18
n/a 0 0
15
33
0
2
6
n/a 0 0
7
13
0 -mi
3
4
n/a 0 0
8
12
0
4
10
n/a 0 0
65
75
0
5
11
n/a 0 0
72
83
0
6
n/a
9 0 0
95
104
0
7
11
n/a 0 0
73
84
0
8
15
n/a 0 - 0
0
15
0
Stem Class
characteristics
'Buffer Stems
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines.
No vines.
2Stream/ Wetland Stems
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl.
vines.
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (FINAL) Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project No. 92542 November 2015
Durham County, NC Appendices

Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
DMS 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 109/c
Fails to meet requirements by more than 109/,
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY2 2015)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
92542-01-0001
PnoLS P -all T
92542-01-0002
Pnol-S P -all T
92542-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
92542-01-0004
Pnol-S P -all T
92542-01-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
92542-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
92542-01-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
92542-01-0008
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2015)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY1 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2013)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
2 2
2
3
3
12
6
1
1
1
6
6
25
7
7
19
7
7
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
7
7
7
8
8
8
12
12
12
Carya
hickory
Tree
2
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
Tree
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
17
5
22
14
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
13
11
1
241
1
55
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
8
8
9
2
2
8
1
1
1
1
1
7
4
4
28
30
6
6
6
22
22
89
22
22
111
23
23
23
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
37
37
54
43
171
139
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
7
7
7
8
8
8
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
11
41
4
4
1
11
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
111
11
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
7
7
7
2
2
2
2 2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
11
3
3
3
19
191
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4 4
4
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
11
11
2
1
2 2
8
11
11
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
13
6
6
8
6
6
7
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
3
4
11
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
4
9
6
19
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
4
728.4
18
1
0.02
4
728.4
33
6
1335
6
4
242.8
6
1
0.02
4
242.8
13
4
526.1
4
4
161.9
41 12
1
0.02
4 6
161.9 485.6
101 10
1
0.02
4 4
404.7 404.7
75
9
3035
11
6
445.2
11 83
1
0.02
6 9
445.2 3359
9
6
364.2
91
1
0.02
6
364.2
104
10
4209
111
6
445.2
Ill
1
0.02
6
445.2
84
8
3399
151
5
607
151
1
0.02
5
607
15
5
607
841
8
424.9
841 419
8
0.20
8 15
424.9 2120
891
8
450.2
891
8
0.20
8 15
450.2 2099
8
495.7
981 100
8
0.20
8 9
495.7 505.9
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 109/c
Fails to meet requirements by more than 109/,
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits