20130577 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20180206

FINAL
YEAR 4 (2017) ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
LITTLE LICK CREEK BUFFER RESTORATION
Durham County, North Carolina
DMS Project No. 92542, Contract No. 5908
Data Collection - October 2017
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
December 2017

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603 919-215-1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
December 15, 2017
Mr. Jeff Schaffer
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
RE: Little Lick Creek Monitoring (DMS Project # 92542, Contract #5908)
Final MY4 (2017) Annual Monitoring Report
Dear Jeff:
i
DEC����„�
DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
12-004.19
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) is pleased to provide you with two hard copies and a CD of digital files for the Final Little
Lick Creek Annual Monitoring Report. Axiom received your comments via email on December 15, 2017 and have addressed
them as follows:
1. The digital data and drawings have been reviewed and DMS had the following comments:
a. Please remove the "Vegetative Areas of Concerns” attributed to Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese lespedeza
from the MY 4 GIS files based upon the report narrative on page 3, the areas are not shown on the CCPV and that
they are not discussed in Table 5 in Appendix B.
The i'egetation Areas of Concern shapefile was removed from the digital submittal and was replaced with a
shapefile showing only the dense blackberry areas (DenseBlackberry.shp).
b. Ensure all GIS files are using the correct geographic coordinate system of State Plane Feet NAD 83. DMS
received a pop up that CVS, Encroachment and Photo Point shapes were using another system.
1 he projected coordinate system Jor these shapeftles was changed to NAI -),Ni uate Plane (Deet).
2. Appendix B, Fixed Station Photos: It appears that the photos for Photo Point 2 and 3 are reversed.
These photos were mislabeled and were switched in the report. "They have now been corrected in both the report and
the digital suhn ittaL
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding any component of this submittal. Thank you for the
opportunity to continue to assist the Division of Mitigation Services with this important project.
Sincerely,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
y
RECEIVED
Kenan 14nigan
Project Scientist DEC 2 1 2017
Attachments: 2 hardcopies Final Little Lick Creek Annual Monitoring Report DIVISION OF
1 CD containing digital support files MITIGATION SERVICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................4
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 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
Durham County, NC Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality -Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS,
formerly 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 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 4 (2017) 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
within 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 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.
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (final) Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
Durham County, NC page 1

Project Components and Mitigation Units Table
Mitigation Credits^
Tye
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
8 CVS plots (see Figure 3 in Annually in
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
Component/
Restoration
Acreage
Ratio
Treated Over 30
Phosphorus Treated
Comment
Reach ID
Equivalent
will be mapped
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.
*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
0213.0242 (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 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 MY4 (2017) was collected in October 2017and can be found
in Appendix C. Stem count measurements for MY4 (2017) indicate an average of 369 planted stems per
acre (excluding livestakes) across the Project. Six out of eight vegetation plots met success criteria for
MY4 (2017) monitoring based on planted stems. Plots 2 and 3 were both 3 stems 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 winged elm (Ulmus alata) in Plot 3, these
plots were above success criteria.
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (final) Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
Durham County, NC page 2

Planted stem mortality can be attributed to competition from the dense herbaceous layer and a dense shrub
layer consisting of naturally recruited woody stems. Several dense patches of Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) were observed throughout the Project during MY2 (2015). These areas have
consistently reduced in size since originally observed, and in MY4 (2017) it was determined that the vines
are no longer significantly affecting the vigor of planted woody stems; therefore, the areas are no longer
considered areas of concern. Additionally, a small patch of Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) was
observed in the vicinity of Plot 3 during previous monitoring years, which had contributed to low planted
stem counts in this plot. This population was significantly smaller during MY4 (2017) and is therefore no
longer considered an area of concern. Furthermore, two patches of blackberry were observed; one in the
northeast portion of the site, near plot 1 and one on the eastern portion of the Project along the sewer
easement. The blackberry remains dense during MY4 (2017) and appears to be outcompeting several
planted stems in these areas. Also, a small area of easement encroachment was observed in and around
CVS plot 8. An approximately 5 meter wide strip was mowed from Butler Road to the existing maintained
sewer easement (Figure 3, Appendix B). This area was originally observed during MY3 (2016) and it
appears to have been continuously maintained throughout MY4 (2017) as well.
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (final) Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
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: http://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 library/get_file?uuid=
b9835c93-f244-4bc3-9282-4a58d98310da& rgoupld=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.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/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&groupld=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-7foa21387a42&.rg_oupld=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_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.
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (final) Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
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 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
Durham County, NC Appendices

Gag&KT"
I
r
Ci77. The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 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 _ rs
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designers/contractors
involved in the development, oversight, and stewardship of the restoration site is ) `
permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended �w,9
site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned
roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
CON
Cr
Project Location
tJ _J
' 35.9852, -78.8208Y70 -k
`
70
WT
4 7 \
N
0 1 2 4j—
Miles Cr r'
Directions from Raleigh:
Take Glenwood Avenue/US-70 West towards Durham. _
After approximately 15.5 miles, turn right on S. Mineral Springs Rd.� ;` P
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. ,
I Copyright:©i 013,National Geographic Societ i -'curbed
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue LITTLE LICK CREEK PROJECT
[phone] 603 DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92542
Durham County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2016
Project:
12-004.19

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration (DMS #92542)
^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 Credits^
Tvpe
Riparian
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
August 2013
Bushhogging
--
221,429 ft2 (5.08 acres) [minimum, see ** below]
Totals
106,331 ft2 (2.44 acres)
Nitrogen: 11,5471bs Phosphorous: 742 lbs
Planting
--
December 2013
Projects Components
Project
Restoration/
Restoration
Mitigation
Pounds of Nitrogen
Pounds of
October 2015
Component/
Restoration
Acreage
Ratio
Treated Over 30
Phosphorus Treated
Comment
Reach ID
Equivalent
Years
Over 30 Years
*Riparian Buffer
Restoration
106,331 ft2
1:1
**5546 lbs
**356 lbs
Invasive/nuisance
(2.44 acres)
species removal and
112
planting with native
***Nutrient Offset
Restoration221,429
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
2016 Annual Monitoring Document (Year 3)
October 2016
November 2016
2017 Annual Monitoring Document (Year 4)
October 2017
December 2017
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 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
Durham County, NC Appendices

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration (DMS #92542)
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (final) Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
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 Invasives
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 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
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 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
Durham County, NC Appendices

a
a
a
I
tat
a�� Legend
Easement Boundary = 12.14 acres
v�
� -�-- Streams
��'�� �•^- Water Conveyances
Riparian Buffer Restoration = 2.44 acres
z Nutrient Offset Credit Area = 5.08 acres
No Credit Area = 0.19 acres
Existing Mature Vegetation (No Credit) = 4.12 acres
Sewer Easement (No Credit)= 0.50 acres
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Feet
0 50 100 200 300 400
Project Components and Mitigation Units Table
Mitigation Credits^
Type Riparian Buffer Nutrient Offset
221,429 ft' (5.08 acres) [minimum, see ** below]
Totals 106,331 ftp (2.44 acres) Nitrogen: 11,547 His Phosphorous: 742 His
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 fl? 1:1 **5546 lbs **356 lbs Invasive/nuisance
(2.44 acres) species removal and
***Nutrient Offset Restoration 221,429 ft' 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.
PROJECT ASSETS
LITTLE LICK CREEK SITE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92542
Durham County, North Carolina
I
Dwn. by.
KRJ/CLF/PHP
FIGURE
2
Date:
October 2016
Project:
12-004.19
y
tat
a�� Legend
Easement Boundary = 12.14 acres
v�
� -�-- Streams
��'�� �•^- Water Conveyances
Riparian Buffer Restoration = 2.44 acres
z Nutrient Offset Credit Area = 5.08 acres
No Credit Area = 0.19 acres
Existing Mature Vegetation (No Credit) = 4.12 acres
Sewer Easement (No Credit)= 0.50 acres
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Feet
0 50 100 200 300 400
Project Components and Mitigation Units Table
Mitigation Credits^
Type Riparian Buffer Nutrient Offset
221,429 ft' (5.08 acres) [minimum, see ** below]
Totals 106,331 ftp (2.44 acres) Nitrogen: 11,547 His Phosphorous: 742 His
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 fl? 1:1 **5546 lbs **356 lbs Invasive/nuisance
(2.44 acres) species removal and
***Nutrient Offset Restoration 221,429 ft' 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.
PROJECT ASSETS
LITTLE LICK CREEK SITE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92542
Durham County, North Carolina
I
Dwn. by.
KRJ/CLF/PHP
FIGURE
2
Date:
October 2016
Project:
12-004.19

��3 .^ ,� + . ,x�l• !tt ' ,� r'- _T Vii• �.�.#;.�+ '; ,t ..t I,F+� .
N
ISR
40
owla _+ i r ad;
JU
e = -
i. ��' •,ate _ �/
alit.`• r ,. w�7 5rie • _ _ ,'
i � '•.mak.?=. �,.� '` .
E ..pr" • +. .r 4
�� ` a •idqui+ ~r •- '- •i.. 7 "•�JJr
; .
04
17 .•
7
R ' L,• 4 `sLi� � 1
;V.e .
_ ' �a ! ✓ i .
' Legend
A
Easement Boundary = 12.14 acres
Streams
Water Conveyances
CVS plots meeting success criteria in MY4 (2017)
` °• ,* CVS plots not meeting success criteria in MY4 (2017)
Photo Points
J " Sewer Easement
{,r _�' Excluded Area (No Credit) = 0.19 acres
,
Existing Mature Vegetation No Planting) 4.12 acres
+ �' •yam } Dense Blackberry
2016 Easement Encroachment (Mowed Area)
• _ .�
0 100 200 400
Feet
Axiom Environmental
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
LITTLE LICK CREEK SITE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92542
Durham County, North Carolina
3
Date:
November2017
Project:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
12-004.19

Table 5
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Little Lick Creek Buffer Restoration
Planted Acreage' 8.02
Easement Acreage 12.14
% of
Mapping
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Planted
Threshold
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 likley 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
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Easement
Threshold
polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
None
1000 SF
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Black crosshatch
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3
Mowed area
none
with orange
1
0.05
0.4%
background
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 likley 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.

It
y. d ' w� c flb^
a.
a
,f
.� f
nftO
I `
y. s •.�wra, a�ar
�
.� f

Little Lick Creek (Butler Road)
Fixed -Station Photographs
Taken October 2017
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (final) Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
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 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
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. 2017 Vegetation Plot Success by Plot Type
Little Lick Creek (#92542)
Riparian Stream/ Unknown
Buffer Wetland Live Growth
Plot # Stems' Stems Stakes Invasives Volunteers3 Total° Form
1
16
n/a
0
0
23
39
0
2
5
n/a
0
0
13
18
0
3
5
n/a
0
0
10
15
0
4 10 n/a 0 0 54 64 0
5 9 n/a 0 0 84 93 0
n/a _ 0 _ 0 100 0
7 11 n/a 0 0 87 98 0
n/a 12 EM 0 _..i
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
'Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Tota1 Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Little Lick Creek Restoration Project (final) Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2017)
DMS Project No. 92542 December 2017
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 10%
Fails to meet requireme.Wby 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 (MY4 2017)
Annual Means
92542-01-0001
92542-01-0002
92542-01-0003
92542-01-0004
92542-01-0005
92542-01-0006
92542-01-0007
92542-01-0008
MY4 (2017)
MY3 (2016)
MY2 (20 5)
MY1 (20 4)
MYO (2013)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
Pnol-S 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
4
7
7
10
6
6
50
6 6
25
7
7
19
7
7
7
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
1 1
1 5
5
5
5
5
5
7 7
7
8
8
8
12
12
12
Ca rya
hickory
Tree
2
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
Tree
1
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
Tree
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
12
12
9
22
14
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
22
6
3
2
2
35
34
24
55
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
8 8
9
2
2
6
1
1
1
1 1
8
4
4
39
61
2 2
4 18
18
128
18
18
91
22 22
89
22
22
111
23
23
23
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
42
56
50
20
168
197
171
139
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2 2
2 5
5
5
5
5
5
5 5
5
7
7
7
8
8
8
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
4
1
5
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
4
4
41
1 1
1 9
9
9
9
9
9
10 10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5 5
5
1
1
1
2 2
2
2 2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
2 14
14
14
14
14
14
19 19
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
9 9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
Quercus phellos
willowoak
Tree
1
1
5
2 2
6
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
14
6
6
13
6 6
13
6
6
8
6
6
7
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
Rhus copallinum
Iflameleaf sumac
shrub
6
6
4
1
Ulmus alata
1winged elm
ITree
4
4
3
11
22
4
11
1
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
ITree
2
5
7
3
19
Stem count
16 16
39
5
5
18
5
5
15
10 101
64
9 9
93
9
9
100
11
11
98
8 8
12 73
73
439
721
721
472
841 841
419
89
89
415
98
98
100
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Species coun :1
41 41
5
41
41
61
51
5
71
41 41
76
6
11
6
6
9
6
6
9
5 5
6 8
8
16
8
8
18
8 8
15
8
8
15
8
8
9
Stems per ACRE 647.5 647.5 1578 202.
202.3 728.4 2
.
202.3
607 404.7 404.7
2590 364.2 364.2
3764 364.2 364.2
4047 445
445.2
3966 323.7 323.7 485.6 369.3 369.3 2221 364.2 364.2 2388 424.9 424.9 2120
450.2 2099 495.7 495.7 505.9
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requireme.Wby 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