Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021864 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090303Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table dn T)) NC Division of Water Quality Date of Office Review: 3 Q Evaluator's Name(s): Date of Report: U ' Report for Monitoring Ye r: Date of Field Review: -z,14 IAO Evaluator's Name(s): Other Individuals/Agencies Present: 44 Weather Conditions (today & recent): Directions to Site: 1-40 to 1-95 S, exit 73 to 421 W (West Cumberland St), site is directly across from Wal-Mart after crossing Black River 1. Office Review Information: Project Number: 20021864 Project History Project Name: Erwin Lowes Project County(ies): Harnett Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear Nearest Stream: Black River Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: Mitigator Type: Private DOT Status: non-DOT Total Mitigation on Site Wetland: Stream: 1125 linear feet Buffer: Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No Monitoring reports available? Yes No Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No Mitigation required on site: *Add significant project-related events: reports, Associated impacts (if known): received, construction, planting, repairs, etc. During office review, note success criteria and evaluate each component based on monitoring report results. Record relevant data in Sections II and III. On back of sheet, note other information found during office review and/or to be obtained during site visit. II. Summary of Results: Monitoring Success Success Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved 20021864-1 1125 linear feet Stream (Intermittent) Restoration Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2 Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality MITIGATION SUCCESS, Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this project is: successful partially successful unsuccessful List specific reasons for lack of success for this project: Additional comments (e.g. DW follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.): Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2 Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species Species Story TPA/'o cover I' Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Average TPA for entire site (per report): Observational field data agrees? Yes A o based on community composition? Yes No based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No Vegetation planted on site? Yes No Date of last planting: Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No General observations,Rn ondition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g etc.): ??F i,t? 7T / ?. I,6 Jt?` buffer width, overall h a?th aide e ation, Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation: Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas: 15 ,? Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover): List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.): O'd MITIGATION SUCCESS: Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful List specific reasons for lack of success for this component: . , III partially successful unsuccessful Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.): Use the definitions in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines to determine the correct type of mitigation used for this component. During site visit, document representative conditions and areas of concern. Observe preservation and enhancement areas that may not have specific success criteria. Label and attach photos to this report. Attach maps showing photo locations, problem areas, and/or important stream features. Additional notes related to evaluation of this component: Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2 Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality Component: 1125 linear feet Stream (Intermittent) Restoration Description: relocation of channelized stream (self-mitigating) Location within project: UT to Black River III. Success Criteria Evaluation: STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria: Are streambanks stable? Yes No If no, provide description and notbz- egarding stability issues: STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria: Component ID: 20021864-1 List all types of structures present on site: ./ 0 Are the structures installed correctly? Yes No . X Are the structures made of acceptable material? Yes No (Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc. Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Yes No Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? Yes No Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures: FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria: i Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations No Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? s No Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalwea Yes, No Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water Ponded areas Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars, downstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.): AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria: Is aquatic life present in the channel? Yes No Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and general distribution of biota. Include a brief description of the sampling methodology. /G List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, discharges or toxicants, etc.): Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2