20050377 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090324

3tf4A 4? 0 t, t.j R)oo.l'i 5-fimmz,
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC pivlslon of Water Quality
d Evaluator's Name(s): LZ
;/10
Date of Office Review:
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:_
Date of Field Review: J? Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
9& Y JXLI?A [4
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: located at confluence of Rocky & Pee Dee River in n. Anson Co. near border of Stanly, Montgomery, and
Richmond Co, approx 3m. North of Ansonville. Proposed rest./enh. Reaches & wetlands lie between Pinkston
1. Office Review Information:
ect Number: 200503 77 Project History
-
Proj --
Project Name: Bishop Property Event Event Date
County(ies): Anson
Report
Basin & subbasin: Yadkin 03040104 Review - Streams 5/21/2008
Report Review - Wetlands 5/21/2008
Nearest Stream: Rocy & Pee Dee River
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 16.7 acres
Stream: 25409 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
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
20050377-1, 25409 ' ar feet Stream Multiple Types
0 - e1 Ol G
20050337-4 7306 linear feet Stream Enhancement 2
20050337-5 11250 linear feet Stream Preservation
20050337-6 5.6 acres Wetland Restoration
20050337-7 0.9 acres Wetland Enhancement
20070337-8 10.2 acres Wetland Preservation
20070337-2 1195 linear feet Stream Restoration
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 25409 linear feet Stream Multiple Types
Description: Multiple streams!!!
Component ID: 20050377-1
Location within project: Camp Branch, UT to Camp Branch, Dula Thoroughfare & its UT
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? ?If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
/)OvF_ 40?
Are the structures installed correctly? es No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? es No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Yes No 7
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? &i>o
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
"pebble count should trend toward a desired; stable riffle/pools
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations Yes No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? Yes No 7
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg Yes No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water 9C? Ponded areas
Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars,
downstrea meander migration, chute c ati n, etc.):
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed but LE recommended at least 6EPT taxa after year 6 & BI below 7.0
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
i
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 10
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
species composition, density, % cover, & strata presence for ! Species Story TPA),% cover
woody species will be monitored; tables & discussions
presented in each monit report
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? 4s No
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? es No
j
Date of last planting: 1,0104
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
_7d NF?
etc.):
?'a L?
?v - 2,?oe7S 310 v/r
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site(species, locations a d % 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:
IV14 -rdO ?4? f?)?WVAII
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ ow-up actions, recommen tions, etc.):
?u Qjb?'?el fo SOV SS?t-,
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 10

Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 5.6 acres Wetland Restoration-+ 0.1 WA Component ID: 20050337-6
Description: backwater sloughs, grading, reestablish veg
Location within project: Dula Thoroughfare
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: 11 Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
sat. or inun. at least 12.5% of GS, 5 - 12.5% (w/ hydrophytic veg) Inundated
in upper landscape positions Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success es 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: USACE confirmed that bright soils (10YR 4/4 & 4/6) are indicative of
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? ?No 7 ??(iD7 Say 7
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
7
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
species composition, density, % cover, & strata presence for species Story TPA/'/ Cover
woody species will be monitored; tables & discussions
presented in each monit report
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 6
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 2 of 6