20010830 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Review_20070124

Monitoring Report Review - Notes (DRAFT - for review by Amanda)
Site: Lee Street Mitigation Site
DWO #: 20010830 Date of Report: 12/2006 Monitoring Year: 4
Reviewer: Tammy Hill Date of Review: 1/24/07
Background:
- 401 requirements (all coastal marsh mitigation):
o restoration 1.41 acres
o enhancement 2.8 acres
o preservation 2.55 acres
Report does document wetland impact & mitigation types, and provides maps of
location and sampling points. Gauge numbers should be specified on the map,
so that we can match each gauge location with the data it yielded. Is elevation
needed?
Success Criteria:
1. Vegetation
- Vegetation sampling conducted in August.
- Issue to watch: site has not yet met vegetative cover requirement. Based on
photos, the site appears to be filling in with Spartina, and it may meet 75%
cover by the end of Year 5 monitoring. If not, monitoring will need to continue
until this criterion is satisfied. Will site remediation be necessary? They may be
able to plant or transfer plugs of a small amount of spartina to fill in major bare
spots if the criteria are not met. I would wait and see though. In general the
site seems pretty good to me.
Page 2 (top): DCM approved change in mitigation plan from planting to just
allowing natural recruitment. Should DWQ have approved this, too? In general,
my understanding of the process is that if it is a DCM or CAMA permit, we are
given the option to comment on the project and give comments to DCM We
may have been a part of the decision or opted not to comment.
- Pages 3 & 6: some interchanging of the terms density, frequency, and percent
cover. What does the 75% criterion really mean - is it 75% of mitigation site
covered by vegetation? How do we typically expect this to be measured? B-B
was used - is this a common method for vegetation monitoring? I must admit I
am not familiar with the B-B method (at least not as that name) Again, there is
some room for interpretation with the success criteria I typically considered
75% as a percent cover of the individual plot data and the site as a whole but if
some of the plots have less then 75% cover and the rest of the site looks
successful with 75% cover or more then I may consider is all successful Unless
of coarse there are some significant barren areas on the site that are raising
concerns.
2. Hydrology
- Gauges each had periods of malfunction, but were repaired. Overall data does
not appear to have been skewed due to missing some timeframes.
- Table 1: Is the average OK for determining success? Should months outside of
reference +/- 25% be specifically noted in report? I would make a comment
about noticing data from some months being outside of the accepted 25%
difference. To me, the 25% difference would apply to the hydroperiod which
would be monthly in this case not yearly. The monthly differences can effect
the viability of a tidal marsh. These numbers are marginally and it may not
negatively impact the site, but those are final decisions that can be made next
year and/or with a site visit.
- Issue to watch: increasing difference from reference in Gauge 1. Once we know
which is Gauge 1, we can assess how much of an issue this may become.
3. Soils
Not discussed. Not really relevant - site is a tidally-influenced coastal marsh.
Additional Issues / Questions: