20061346 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090303

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 1, A /0 / Evaluator's Name(s): KbJL_1_
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: Evaluator' SNat?e s):
Other Individuals/Agencies re ent:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: 1 mi SE of Richlands, 5 mi NW of Jacksonville; From Richlands, go S on Hwy 24/258 - 4 mi, left (E) on
Northwest Bridge Rd (Gum Branch Rd in 2003 Gazeteer) - 2 mi, site is on left (N) side of road
(.Office Revile n:
Project Numbe 2006134
Project Name: Lloy
County(ies): Onslow
Basin & subbasin: White Oak
Nearest Stream: New River (UTs)
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery
DOT Status:
Project History
Event Event Date
401 Issued 9/15/2006
Report Receipt: Monitoring 5/27/2008
Report Review - Wetlands 6/3/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 2/12/2009
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 6.4 acres
Stream: 4750 linear feet
Buffer:
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available? es No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes
AiP
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No W4,
Mitigation required on site: *Add significant project-related events: reports,
Associated impacts (if knownreceived, construction, planting, repairs, etc.
During office review, note success criteria and evaluate
9 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'.
20061346-1 3.3 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration
20061346-2 3.1 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Restoration
20061346-3 2375 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
20061346-4 2375 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
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 rtially 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: 2375 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 Component ID: 20061346-3
Description: 2nd order, restore to E-type
Location within project: Main trib
Ill. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
E-type W/D ratio; BHR indic sta annel; minimal changes in cross-sect area, width, banK erosion; sinuosi
Are streambanks stable? (o
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issyes:
i?a Ply yo b- Goo. A17?A
STRUCTURES -Approved Success Criteria: /VO
visual assessment (failure = collapse, undermining, abandonment of channel, flow beneath structure)
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
j 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 No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? N
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the th e Yes N
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water -? ` gZ?Ionded areas
Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars,
downstream meander migration, chute cutoff form?t)n, etc.):
FnS lS IMpD???, 4 X ? ?6 L
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria: A I
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 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
visual inspection during Yr 1; quantitative sampling during Yr Species Story TPA/'1o cover
2+; 320/290/260 char TPA in Yr 3/4/5; planted spec min 30%
(96 TPA) of required total; char volunteer spec count up to
10% each J?
I
Monitoring report indicates success? No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): f
Observational field data agrees? Yes No -'v
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No ov
v
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
General observations on condition of riparian/buff r areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.) : ?U 1'?S ??'" Y'i? ???? ? J/ ?"-v?`-''' ???
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetationNA
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 compone
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 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 2375 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 Component ID: 20061346-4
Description: 1st order, restore to E-type
Location within project: Eastern trib
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
E-type W/D ratio; BHR indic stable channel; minimal changes in cross-sect area, width, bank erosion; sinuosi
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
visual assessment (failure = collapse, undermining, abandonment of channel, flow beneath structure)
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.):
i
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
visual inspection during Yr 1; quantitative sampling during Yr ! Species Story TPA/'1o cover
2+; 320/290/260 char TPA in Yr 3/4/5; planted spec min 30%
(96 TPA) of required total; char volunteer spec count up to
10% each
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 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 3.3 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration Component ID: 20061346-1
Description:
Location within project: floodplains
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
saturation for at least 8% of GS during avg climatic condit; support Inundated
hydrophytic veg 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 ditches, excessive water, etc.)
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria: note: Muckalee soils
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
visual inspection during Yr 1; quantitative sampling during Yr Species Story TPAP/ cover
2+; 320/290/260 char TPA in Yr 3/4/5; planted spec min 30%
(96 TPA) of required total; char volunteer spec count up to
10% each
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.):
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
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
partially successful unsuccessful
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 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 3.1 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Restoration Component ID: 20061346-2
Description:
Location within project: interstream divide
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
saturation for at least 10% of GS during avg climatic condit; Inundated
support hydrophytic veg 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 ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria: note: Rains soils
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
visual inspection during Yr 1; quantitative sampling during Yr Species Story TPA/'/ cover
2+; 320/290/260 char TPA in Yr 3/4/5; planted spec min 30%
(96 TPA) of required total; char volunteer spec count up to
10% each
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 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:
I
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