HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061241 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090402
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 4-.2- -2-co q Evaluator's Name(s): `T} L I
Date of Report: Da 2008 ( rcc'ej 1?4 6 &0 Report for Monitoring Year: 2-
Date of Field Review:- Evaluator's Name(s): Ct--?`I
Other Individuals/AgenciesPresent: t=iRD (?-AIuT??T N L t ter-(Ucari,.ic_- M; (I AL ((qtr
Weather Conditions (today & recent): C-1 PIA-A? c o (-) ( ? q b s ? Ccz*
Directions to Site: located immed adjacent to Lake Norman SW of Mooresville on US-21, - 1.3 mi NE of US-21 & 1-77
intersection; from 1-77N, take exit 33 for US-21 E toward Mooresville; site is on W side of US-21 @ - 1.3 mi.
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20061241
Project Name: Reeds Creek Wetland Restoration
County(ies): Iredell
Basin & subbasin: Catawba 0305011
Nearest Stream: Reeds Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 6.4 acres
Stream:
Buffer:
Project History
Event Event Date
Construction Completed 2/12/2007
1 Report Receipt: Monitoring 5/27/2008
Report Review - Wetlands 6/3/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 12/8/2008
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
20061241-1 4.2 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration
20061241-2 2.2 acres Wetland (Riverine) Enhancement
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. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
C)105'.
rD (? a-e. e??rwrvu 5 - c c? ??i }titer
T
Y'_ -? c?S e rn?es?s?? lti c C i A- cs? SSCC J
?.x ?5 t Tee ?? _VD -- ces V\,0
A-u CJQ_??
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 4.2 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration Component ID: 20061241-1
Description: remove berm along banks of Reeds Creek to reestablish overbank flooding
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
reintroduce surface hydrology & create microtopography Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remai
I ning ditches, excessive water, etc.):
I
SOILS -Approved Success Criteria: discussion ab soils in mit plan & Guy's comments to provider: Chewa
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upl and areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
establish native woody veg (lists on p. 5 of mit plan) Species Story TPA/'/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
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
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) _Page 1 of 4'
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.)
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
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, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 2.2 acres Wetland (Riverine) Enhancement Component ID: 20061241-2
Description: estab permanent woody veg community
Location within project:
Ill. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY -Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
minor grading to expand WL hydrology area & create Inundated
microtopography Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.)
'SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
establish native woody veg, remove invasive & non-native
veg
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAP/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
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
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS.
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
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, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 4 of 4