The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20041529 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080317Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Division of Water Quality Date of Office Review: ??- -' Evaluator's Name(s):___T_, 14,11 Date of Report: JCin 2=+ 4e b 2-ODE) Report for Monitoring Year: 115, Cn l d?? 2M1 Date of Field Review: Other Individuals/Agencies Present: Evaluator's Name(s): Weather Conditions (today & recent): Directions to Site: the mine is located directly south of & adjacent to Drowning Creek on west side of US Hwy 1 in NE Richmond Co.. NC 1. Office Review Information: Project Number: 19919468 T.> ZGf`JZ.?j Project Name: Southern Products and Silica County(ies): Richmond Basin & subbasin: Yadkin Nearest Stream: Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: Mitigator Type: Private DOT Status: Total Mitigation on Site Wetland: Stream: Buffer: Project History Event 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 Event Date Report Review - Wetlands 2/21/2007 iruusant.?. 3? ? 05 ?,? v?n.?1r?rrdr= II 03 Out cor?1-rrw rp? nevi cw_uA, al n Job s I II I Mitigation required on site: *Add significant project-related events: reports, Associated impacts (if known): received, construction, planting, repairs, etc. During office review, note suc ss criteria and evaluate each component based on monitoring report results. Record relevant dat ' Sections II and III. On back of sheet, note o er information found during office review 1'agr?d/or to be obtatne during site visit. II. Summary of Results: ?. U-U max k - rD cla i ?11cr t-AW (nbw LOU-) Monitoring Success Success Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved 19910168-1 218 acres Wetland Preservation 19910168-2 21 acres Wetland Pe*9#W--t,1 t{rlex FCC _ tveSk ?(MR, 1 gg2)-CIoSt`,? E.&*-LVAD rt llsku -- 200 2)1 A-CWV Q db: CiAI\ -- ?C? If Dn ,5 2001 L?k 40 -i> -t?: MLLShroomvb-o CImon sAt A- 2co Qi) ccq - ipv?? ??Cxn: ia-y1, b\. C,.,I L")1_ L)LIL V6<<cocq ? bold. cry j> y ,j ?C. ( c.r%. wLOaQ c uLt w?. '?dS) co.xviayn n? U-CA-Y e `efr , OU/LL - `a`te ?? Amer ? vw i s r, ersion 10 August, 2007) Page 1 of 2 (? F e L??XY1Cl?t?O? -b belq In AZAP 416, qe aj s q?, e1?i rl`r? I S? ?? -Its b.e-dorio-i-ed -b-flC M. Ac nkS 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: I 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: 218 acres Wetland Preservation Description: swamp Location within project: along Lumber River in L Ill. Success Criteria Evaluation: HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Monitoring report indicates success Yes Observational field data agrees? Yes based on mitigation plan? Yes based on wetland type? Yes Component ID: 19910168-1 .umber River State Park Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Inundated Saturated in upper 12 inches No Drift lines No Drainage patterns in wetlands No Sediment deposits No Water marks List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.): SOILS - Approved Success Criteria: 1 core sample per 2acs from restored site & 1 sample from nearby w 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 the final projected survival of overstory species at 10 years Species Story TPA/'/ cover should be within 20% of the RFE tree density for each overstory species Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Average TPA for entire site (per rep ort): 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.): I 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: fj-? `? mom rc - u ?nrc?,n ?ux1 -?eC?r Z reSu??{ - Y-- Cry _ n JApex u-A Jr }?, N 2`? ?? I?l e? h Lo d 1 L3 C4-_UC QP loin C__NDr _CA'1 "&"C- - Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 4 Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table NC Divisior) of Water Quality Component: 21 acres Wetland Res atio Or " Description: forested Location within project: onsite III. Success Criteria Evaluation: HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: umurv?or,?-for 5 ?? ?c??. ?-rnO?- wl..-h?drn? 'Lir lhj arS Uecn ?cJ?r t ; Monit tong er pout ndicateessucc s Yes No Observational field data agrees? Yes No based on mitigation plan? Yes No based on wetland type? Yes No Component ID: 19910168-2 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.): rCOr?- SOILS - Approved Success Criteria- ? VQk-LlUQ? Chirto1G. Are soils hydric or becoming hydric. yes No U ?1'ln, List indicators of hydric soils: ? i(d Oki elk I -I-nr Y1n I C_ G List any remaining soil issues o address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.): PYYt? -COQ P w . oMLA4 for (.7ucr rL" Per t rn>i- - -?YLa?,,`t'rD1tri 1-c? f 1- fA?Ler' a? VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:b q`- ` .) Dominant Plant Species jY 1Pr0d'rViV0A (D?OVerMOCV S Ca l0 Species Story TPA/'/ cover?(? u?a/C.n 20°Xe O? *-W- ? -}rCL d? ?erh > &1?ty ?x Bch over:ShON tcS Cuero culU& , Lo a nod c?rx ? )?iZi?rllctr? Moni oring re rt indicates success? Yes No Average TPA for entire site (per report): ?? C) tQYtS b?• C-?U ppird Observational field data agrees? Yes No ???'P?S rr,CkrL? bOywm ?ed?.. ?h erhs ) based on community composition? Yes No based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No C ?Nr1Cr -??Cwk : tom- yew NLOY'A - ( Vegetation planted o site? Yes No ?`'? z'?` SC`'- ?Te? j?`?? ?nb 'Date of last ??"' 20°3,2?? ?' C1,ulornuSS ? Su?C?e w planting:-T-4 near- l 2003 mush 10 Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No (` ULS ?WM'p? : 001 Lr • YYl DYU _ _ _ -- - iruslne.? ?- Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation. ?V1?rtiroO?m'?? ? Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas: 50°10 lac?' LwJ aY' Open` Lz-)C4? Up- V?A Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover): List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.): 5,,1C'5 16? C o\ler c? s I C?? Apr 0_-k_ : iL C uyWs ?><u-Lr`? ??er n ?cuS4 e c o }divers rhJ WozC)\-4V16LA ers.0 (August 22, 2007) ?W YY1D,4e Cut\,' ?h 1'' ° "`I' Page 3 of cn -rio ALJL Or Porv& PuA-&-> rYL.wJnruorr, uX1 nnon?? PUN-, ?'Yt we,r V W4'yJ GrL %ive- - c k fbr- C- %ii-ni " can 01pServ. L-)?- C)\FCA 2 -E heSQ sf?? c?# 5At- Cd'd They 'jusi- ruA-qe* rpla? CA v oa'? pkO- ko f M ?jr' 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