20061291 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090806

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: 1 a vPa) Yyiti(] P n -, Rfeport for Monitoring Year: '1?Oto
(VN
Date of Field Review: - Lo- bCi Evaluator's Name(s): " 11 L
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
C?w> a'S
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Location is 5 miles east of Columbia, NC. Approx. 1 mile after the inter. with Old US 64, turn right onto a
maintained dirt road running to the south (Timberlake Road). Gated entr. Is N entr. to Timb. Farms. Proposed
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20061291
Project Name: Timberlake Farms
County(ies): Tyrrell
Basin & subbasin: Pasquotank 03010205
Nearest Stream: Little Alligator River
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: SC;Sw
Mitigator Type: Mitigation Bank
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 970 acres
Stream:
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
Approved mitigation plan available? es No
Monitoring reports available? Yes Q
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Review - Wetlands 6/20/2007
Other 10/21/2008
XnAPlemertkc? 0n Plan, -bf N,r w
Jwl 21 , ')_uUt.o 0( _cCPe+e1J 1a{ M
PLO_V\. Lom Ql e.?e, -11241 Dlo (
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.
11. Summary of Results:
Mitigation Component
Monitoring Success Success
Year (report) (field) Resolved
20061291-1 970 acres Wetland Restoration
a. c LO + 1 mi l e, ?? ??znn
2S0 mac. uJl? c?? t
-OCT
KT as
? sAc:v?
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 970 acres Wetland Restoration
Description: mostly non-riparian, some riparian
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation: evc%_U? rCPDA1b _
Component ID: 20061291-1
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
? Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Q No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No V Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No ? Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc. :
W v
?rsz 1, + ?Ux w Cc) d't- ?a r ?¢sz t?,? ir. S , I

SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
A
il
h
i
d
b
i
h
d
i
? Y
N
re so
y
r
s
c or
ecom
ng
y
r
c
es
o
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):

VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/lo cover
(? C?D,-\-

Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No ??. CLAN
based on community composition? Yes No
`??? D` ?
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting: ?
Vegetation growing successfully? e N
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.):

t-:kp_?
>
0 -
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
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 successZ'Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues tdaddress (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful p rtially succes ful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
?n a?e? mac .- ?e r? < u+? P? ) ctic? .' kOU,
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
`?4 Rt7 ?T?V CS h?Xl,{1 'f' Y C.? ?l y C,? C C C M\ 4 C!'
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:
C? (Ott ?? ??, . c r` K c Q ?? re?tc?r Cx;L? (?cw-` v??4 /ieu?
t ?C ?,e? + UY?S1 1? 4E :4.? l t ?tti?IS?D, C? t ??vt 5 )
al? ,1'A- ct r-? v-(? C`RDS? c? l,odkD ?-? f ?-`-1 Cam,' cal- Lut&A. +-
CIV,
Ac?ti?. - aor +Coinc.{.. ?y
a weS,R ? ctr a??lr??- a%o`'` tkAJ (J
uX? l c VaC IA A reSwt 4? fir ?/?
C o1? ? ` rei ? rc&DcN" cL,--cro ( (v.. 4-ol oykl w I . m arm vy?0-4u_? '-qQLr-A-- 4A'_ 0Jf \_ LA
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: #Error
Description:
Location within project:
Component ID:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? Yes No
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:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations Yes No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? Yes No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg 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.
I
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
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
[VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
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
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):
i
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.):

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.):
- 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
ZQ0
J
O
U.
1
D
JO JJ JO
J
?fA (g J_ QJJJ ??Q ?fA? 2
ZCJ ?(? F fO Vr ?O J Z8J
. cod zo? ?o J ?c?a 100. O
// M a Z' a CIVON 33HM01 f ?
U
• wm31v133HM01 n m
cli I- J
> a
// 3 • 3 > ,
>
Q /? /v • to
1 o L
ci ej s;. 4v
ko T m I
co 4Z7
C. y?? O 0. 0
Azk
ul,
a FL 4AT yJ U 4, • ? / U h aj -
G3 C4
a°
VAO?,"o- co A9 10 lr' a
4
° <u 2 U
z z Q2??' ---- -- y------
nw O20 // _ ? - O LL
0: ZS
1 • ^1
w'a r g // 1, a o o • ry o
8 .9 6 U.
? c ( N N E z F O O ,t7 , co
a
n co W
o' ? .- a • •
04
N / aka O' a • ' ul 0
O m lhN {OSiO T UE CL
Q ?? O ?NfV O? `C / Pt • , U b? 0)
0 O
J/ iz,
W as (r :q"
-ti t // 1 _ a oz O •o O• 4q"
U)
W -? r QQ?? Q p U u aa • O :Q
•¦ r i !! o a? , OO a Q 1 O •OK z
i N aV J • z • Z •
LL z V- 0
> h J 11 w O o z
•
w
z ?--- z • +i
} }O??? \` JJ V/ W J J r W
Z y/. • J _
W?W OZ? OU'H / ?? ?4)= , 0 , z "m .g-J ??m? • Q
?z O -ap0 \ ZoJ JO J' ?cs j ?co • Q? j ?c Q
OHO Z?? pFF ?a ?? ??./y3 LL ?c70. ??C.) n. • Z a , 2 N 4'
h V. ?<jW?Zj ?„ X (t ` m•1 cvoa aWill ? N 1? • o?
a
22 LU
Ile Q
LL JWJ< 0 z- Q 1V \\c'a vO • Q
IL X
o<? OuWA U U WmK J • O J Y Y • ao 1, 1 3330 Big ?UTf* aaaaa ENO i,', J \ W J OU? ` Q Y • • U
°W w..sty'. J` • ?oU ?jr a? •
JIM=
60
om?w aFm? p ?? is?b J. W v • •
m9 NpW v
O cc W •
t,,1W OwV 3 ,'•., R1f55?a,? J \ ' ° < ? _ i
rh ?i a i
z Z? 1?I°fg -w °a ??/1/lama 0 (? x d. • 0 ... = _ • u
4Z' C4
8 d " o • x
im 0!0
F- F-
0 CD ?z ?9? W ??\ loo •_`
c cli
z LL W Z \ ?? r- x • D
o ! o
a° a =
u e U y FL 0- F? c7 ro n m (9 c •' O O
g 0 1, W e ?tea x O • ?Ma O 1 U.
m o m a d p `+• x ?+` n • LL •
a
m mma W m? w IUC. u9 o /? av? to •O n U. •
c c3 > 0) i m -u x ^ a''\, 1J W LL
LL • LL M
.0 W c 0? W a 2 N O\? l? \ •O co
co N
t? Z 7c$ W W S It J LL • W
2
z ot? a2aFnd 0 O co loi j0. LL • w W
z Q • O
\ J .- W •
W F W c7 O LL 0
04 U. -4 Ul 0' w
•
.7 co
Z C7 (g U' C7 R Q an \ \ w } • _? O O O
F- F H H W LL v w •?? 19 • • O
J •• z w W w/ 3 c," o • ? o C co
avom 39a)a sl?(w ?, ? /?,, •
o . o ? ? •
WU 'a's Qono c • ? ? o
(MRI,09) IIOS co • °
40 V C-4 O
?., ?M II
• •
•
•
•
•
Site boundaries have been digitized from supplied Hy - Hyde loaill
botuidaty stuvey and overlaid onto the maps and Po - Ponzer imick
aerials. Distances and boundaries are approximate Rp - Roper inuck
and not meant to be absolute. N- 1- - Weaksville silt loaill
Ag>icllltlual Restoration Plait Needham EnAi-onmental, Inc.
Timbeflake Fafm Envirmnnental cmisultauts
Tvixell Coiulty, NC V.-huiaboxv, N.C.
March. 2006
Scale I-= 1 *S00'
Figure 7
NRCS Soil Data
& 1998 NAPP Infrared

U
•
64 y
I
x?
PH, ,. V,
OVA
Pn3 ? ? J ?'? _ Nrw Go
04 7-
3 1 S '?Yj' /r j
/f 3M Ye 3 ?/ / J 1
Ale
1 I /Z? Lail i?L /?
r'y3P ? / fasP H?
79 ZC x? / mat
sp
L f'1' Tn // / , / to r
J yo
P? prVA/
3" r Restored
Forest
zr 3 / e ?
3P ? i Agricultural
Restoration
LEGEND
"limber lvpe Alap - 1997
C'`•/H«°- Cypress Hardxvo(cl
PH - Pine" Hardwood
P'L`C - %Uu'te Cedar
SCALE P _ 2500'
Aglicultural Restoration Plwi Needham EnAronmental, Inc.
Timberlake Faniu Envlrauneutal Cmsultauts Figure 9
I'Vilell Comrry, NC Whniabow, N C. Timber T)pe
March, 2006 Nfalp
Implementation Plan for Agricultural Restoration at Timberlake Farms
• Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge which is the future owner of the tract will
also need maintained access into the property
Topography
Elevations are based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD29) and range
from minus 1 foot (-P) in the agricultural field to positive seven feet (T) on a spoil
pile along Timberlake canal found near Mills Ridge Road. Representative
elevation surveys by Geodetic Services, Inc. were conducted on Timberlake Farm
using Global Positioning System (GPS) in 1997. Additional kinematic GPS
elevation data was collected in September 2004. Elevation data points were
collected with the GPS on all terrain vehicles and resulted in a survey with spot
elevation being taken between 70 and 80 feet apart with plus/minus one inch
accuracy. Four transects were run between each pair of vee ditches. A total of
12,500 elevation points were recorded to produce the pre-construction contour
map. A second kinematic GPS survey was conducted in February 2005, post earth
moving restoration, and is referred to as the "as-built topo" (Figure 8 - As-built).
Plant Community - Adjacent Forest
The adjacent mature forest found to the west of Timberlake Canal was type-
mapped by Quentin Bell Company as Cypress-Gum with 3,000 board feet per acre
(cyph3m). This map unit grades into hardwood forest of 3,000 board feet per acre
(h3m) near the pump station and includes most of forested block E15. Vegetation
sampling of the forested area was conducted during the previous five years.
Cypress stumps were observed in this forest which was mapped as h3m.
Timber Type Map Timberlake Farms
The Timber Type Map, December 1997, by Mr. Bell is evidence supporting
historic riverine status (Figure 9 - Forest Type). The swamp floodplain forest
types have been shaded to graphically depict the historic course of Little Alligator
River. The H2M (hardwood, 2000 board feet per acre) forest type east of the
pump station is the location of a reference monitoring location (E16BaH3M).
Numerous bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) stumps exist, but swamp black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora) have dominated post logging. During forest
monitoring at this site all cypress identified has been T. distichum not T. ascendens
(Radford, et. al., 1973).
Approximately 1'/2 miles of CYPH3M (cypress/hardwood 3 thousand board feet to
the acre) was mapped alongside the present Timberlake Canal. Between Redwing
and Flicker Roads on the east side of the canal (the agricultural side) remains a
88.24 acre shrub scrub block that was drained, but not root raked for agricultural
production. Cypress stumps exist in this area indicating the forest type extended
• across the road into the agricultural area.
Page 18