20020459 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090505

i
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: CG Evaluator's Name(s): 1 ?1 ?r
Date of Report: 2_c Cull Report for Monitoring Year: 2 20M
Date of Field Review: ?I`j Evaluator's Name(s): T1-?j ?1 lE5
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: IAI0 C 4 ( cc CY't IL
Weather Conditions (today & recent): {:.:SIT t- t1 4( it ?__l
Directions to Site: Site E of Hwy 58 & bordered by Croatan National Forest. E on Hwy70 to Kinston, right and go S on NC 58 to
US17, right and -6mi to Maysville, then S on NC 58 8mi to left on SR1100, make immediate left onto gravel
I. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20020459
Project Name: Clayhill Farms
County(ies): Jones
Basin & subbasin: White Oak C) '3, t
Nearest Stream: Billy's Branch
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 146.7 acres
Stream: 6560 linear feet _
Buffer: 0 acres
Nutr. Offset:
Proiect Histo
Event Event Date
Report Review - Streams 8/1/2007
Report Review- Wetlands 8/1/2007
Report Receipt: Monitoring 4/14/2008
Problem areas identified in reports? e? No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes CNo
Mitigation required on site:
Uk;41_ 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:
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes 1,N9
Monitoring reports available? R No
Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved'
"20020459-1 146.7 acres Wetland Restoration
20020459-2 5210 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration
20020459-3 2200 linear feet Stream (Intermittent) Restoration
20020459-4 1350 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Preservation
1A -c6
to 1.,5
53, CnV\
n t 1 e- t°5 z? , 4 Key es ?? ?r?; ? ? 14. cdu?,
2 ur X1.-1 cc
Page 1 of 2
ov-e'- tn? 0*\-.V\? . I , $ mss
N\ t;?-N r-A v ? A- _t Ci of
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) jCCesS 4 u9-
i51.2Y'
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: j
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
b
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
F,
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 146.7 acres Wetland Restoration , & ?,<„( ? r?r,,,-J
Description: data per NCDOT "final debit ledger"
Location within project:
Component ID: 20020459-1
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
saturation of soil within 12" of soil surface for >12.5% of GS
6
)Cl J ?-
Monitoring report indicates success Yes ?No
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on mitigation plan? Yes No
based on wetland type? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Drift lines
Drainage patterns in wetlands
Sediment deposits
Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
CIA
un CX? -71,2-C) GJG > Z. / CD 5 12-5 `L
1P f1h? • n n n n n . 1, _ c.?.on - /. --., \ . --
, & L,
S S - Approved Success Criteria: na ( (I, ` -I .) _P-
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:
c ilk (y ?. s7_C A, (,6 k -;C'.1._._? (?S
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
L
survival of 3/20s/a after Ilyr %lP Species Story TPA/"1o cover
f
C) -w, wcL
j Monitoring report indicates success? e ?Vo,
Average TPA for entire site (per report): C Fr6-1 R- "s -,-e n na, I V ° Co-
Observational field data agrees? es No
based on community composition? s No
based on TPA and/or % cover? e; No S
Vegetation planted on site? a No 1X\-Qr] ,Acyx oustq Yrkuoh;?? LOD
51
Date of last planting: wsNt1vw5 OCOko t iYl V?Acj crvc.?u}
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No ?K?? Y?t't'? t
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): ? °? b u
(fLCLr
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival concerns etc.):
rcj Yw ; ` k,; )
ctE',,y -
- 202 pLan+-e6 S( ( wl vo l Ipe n>-e-s ,> 4
">rr r-;iDr-I- K 104C5 4 h" vn 40 src'c- '> 4 ?La" 20D (v C-CL n?- ?> 1nckAD? LQ,
'?? ??? or ? d srn-?? er--cafe ? _ ,?
t' re Swion 1.0 (August 22, 2007) ? -.
?C? 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:
na Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? I 1G?s No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? ?, Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this repo " Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to ress (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful p rtially succe ful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
VA CL r u1
ACA been 4l? (f:u 1 LL-MtiQ, C l ?-} C'Lb v-??
K `? c 1 ??,??(L li' tit C, 'C?.IC'C }t4 L rlp?? n4?
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ foll?w-up actions, recommendations, etc.): CCE. (cam>c??e4? ?+x
?L yl( ?.4 Lv1 41c jl°qu? (. C ?c?1;`t?(? b ) _?tc C:Em?C+?c.?(? 4./ V 1
L' 't
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:
- U-?h1? L?C? l UJ C" C Y-?' A-" ?? ._C ? -? ? \ s?rr c?JCA >
J 1 8"
v?, c, L"eLC vx_dk K ? v* f_yKQ?
Scr1?A tr1Gi?? S?sev o" jr:'t-- Cr '? cti
?IGI\ ?? -YDVV-J 0(e,,•t -CC) CYCA_L) Gt'ele
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Site E of Hwy 58 & bordered by Croatan National Forest. E on Hwy70 to Kinston, right and go S on NC 58 to
US17, right and -6mi to Maysville, then S on NC 58 8mi to left on SR1100, make immediate left onto gravel
......J ,..4k .. ....1..
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20020459
Project Name: Clayhill Farms
County(ies): Jones
Basin & subbasin: White Oak
Nearest Stream: Billy's Branch
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 146.7 acres
Stream: 6560 linear feet
Buffer: 0 acres
Nutr. Offset:
Proiect Histo
Event Event Date j
Report Review - Streams 8/1/2007
Report Review - Wetlands 8/1/2007
Report Receipt: Monitoring 4/14/2008
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
20020459-1 146.7 acres Wetland Restoration
20020459-2 5210 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration
20020459-3 2200 linear feet Stream (Intermittent) Restoration
20020459-4 1350 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Preservation
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.):
Page 2 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 5210 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration Component ID: 20020459-2
Description: data per NCDOT "final debit ledger"
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
little or no change in as-built +sect; a-b long. Profile should show bed features are neither aggrading or degra
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.
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, discharges or toxicants, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 1 of 6

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.):
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 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 2200 linear feet Stream (Intermittent) Restoration Component ID: 20020459-3
Description: data per NCDOT "final debit ledger"
Location within project:
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: 1
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 3 of 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'lo 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.):
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 4 of 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 1350 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Preservation Component ID: 20020459-4
Description: data per NCDOT "final debit ledger"
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
r
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? Yes
Are the structures made of acceptable material? Yes
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, E
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Yes
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? Yes
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
No
No
etc.
No
No
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.
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, discharges or toxicants, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 5 of 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: 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
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):
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)