The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20020253 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20091022Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC QtvistQ? of Water Qua Date of Office Review: - - ?? ( tob??? i uat is Name(s): Date of Report: ? )Pc Report for Monitoring Year: Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):" 1?t Other Individuals/Agencies Present: Ff, m ( E:E h C? 11?___c Cb ret r U'_ Uri- Weather Conditions (today & recent):C' ,? f-cl-k-n C?UCIt? . CrYI LI1 Directions to Site: from Hwy70Bus in Smithfield S on Rt701 -15mi, left on Devil's Racetrack Rd -10mi, left into Howell Woods Envir. Learning Center 1. Office Review Information: Project Number: 20020253 Projec?tHisto 'Project Name: Howell Woods County(ies) Johnston ?UC?S C? hC-? pY?IC(rQ I Basin & subbasin: Neuse 03020201 Ln rylm i?. ??k C- CXI-Mr ck Nearest Stream: Neuse-Ri e - a =-, CyLA C cyk_ Cie Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: NSW; C,_ ?A_ Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP DOT Status: Total Mitigation on Site Wetland: 102 acres Stream: 5251 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 j 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 20020253-1 34 acres Wetland Restoration 20020253-2 64 acres Wetland Enhancement j 20020253-3 4 acres Wetland Creation 20020253-4 5251 linear feet etl Restoration ?k fro CC . C Cz, Q + eItCQ& CU._0A4J)_ ;4> ,re S ? ?Z- -f -cam U_K4 -ern 4? 66LA6am- w-sko U-x >`t pal b _ oztj 4`- p ?®uu?. t?.?L 4- u,LL-a,,? .S(,?,- tv cam- ?' Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Pa e 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 Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality Component: 49ffe Component ID: Description: zi, W-t? \0 ce_ssA tr? Location within project: III. Success Criteria Evaluation: STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria: <4?cl M Lxq, Are streambanks stable? Yes No If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues: STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria: ?? - cCLU_- ,D ? prey , reach m- ?r List all types of structures present on site: Are the structures installed correctly? Yes No l .L Q _ SOrAd-O + ? Are the structures made of acceptable material? Yes No CWPtam-d Slur, (Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc 1 rr Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Yes No to w-c L? rn?? C Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? Yes No of u Sl't_ am Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures: (`, cuct o at-ch_ kcv 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 2 1 C/? 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 ripari an/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.): i ill 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: NIA .re- Le L,)cttLLo _ ct)L1.."!, Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.): i 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 Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality Component: 34 acres Wetland Restoration Component ID: 20020253-1 Description: pre-rest. site was agric land, fallow fields & forest Location within project: III. Success Criteria Evaluation: i HYDROLOGY - Approved Success s Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: soil saturation within 12" of the soil surface for >12.5% of GS 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 j Water marks List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.): i I SOILS - Approved Success Criteria: na Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No List indicators of hydric soils: j List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.): VEGETATION -Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species 260s/a survival after 5 years i Species Story TPA/'% cover i Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Average TPA for entire site (per report): j 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 successful) ------------ y. 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 8 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? 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 8 Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality Component: 64 acres Wetland Enhancement Component ID: 20020253-2 Description: Location within project: III. Success Criteria Evaluation: HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12 inches j 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: Dominant Plant Species Species Story TPAf% 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. : i Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 8 Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site: Coastal II 'i I l 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 8 Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality Component: 4 acres Wetland Creation Description: `'AX A Shed-F? k C C?VG?-ice Component ID: 20020253-3 Location within project: III. Success Criteria Evaluation: 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? 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 ditche -- 1 s, 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: Dominant Plant Species Species Story TPAN/ cover I I Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No j 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.): I Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 5 of 8 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 6 of 8 Wetland itigaf n Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality Component: 5251 linea eet Vtr' land Restoration Description: Location within project: III. Success Criteria Evaluatio - HYDROLOGY - Approved Success iteria: Monitoring report indicates success s No Observational field data agrees? Ye No based on mitigation plan? Yes No based on wetland type? Yes o List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. r?r 20020253-4 Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated / Saturated in upper 12 inches Drift lines Drainage patterns in wetlands Sediment deposits I Water marks ditches, excessive water, etc. I i i inii ---------------- - - -- 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. erosign, upland - --- - -- --------- - VEGETATION -Approved Success Criteria: s, etc.): ominant Plant Species Date of last planting: Vegetation growing successf ly? Yes No Specific vegetation plots or sit locations with little to no vegetation: Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Average TPA for entire site (per re or Observational field data agrees? Yes No based on community compositi ? Yes No based on TPA and/or % cover Yes No Vegetation planted on site? Yes No Estimated acreage or site p rcentage of unvegetated areas: Invasive species on site (s ems, location(s), and % cover): List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.): Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 7 of 8 Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NC AM Type on Site: Coastal I Riverine Monitoring rep?irt indicates success? Yes No Riparian j Observational fi Id data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter) Attach NCWAM an lysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier) List any remaining N \ AM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.): MITIGATION SUCCESS: Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful parti y successful unsuccessful List specific reasons for lack of s\uccess for this component: Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up act ns, recommend tions, etc.): During site visit, document representative condi ns an areas of concern. Observe preservation and enhancement areas that may not have specific ccess crit ia. Label and attach photos to this report. Attach maps showing photo locations, area of concern, and portant field observations. Additional notes related to evaluation of t s component: Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 8 of 8