CLOSEOUT REPORT PROJECT TYPE: Riparian Buffer; Stream
WHITELACE EEP ID (IMS#) 420 USACE ACTION ID # (unknown) DWQ 404# (default) CLOSEOUT REPORT PROJECT TYPE: Riparian Buffer; Stream Enhancement I & II; Wetland Enhancement & Preservation
Project Setting & Classifications County General Location Basin: Physiographic Region: Ecoregion: USGS Hydro Unit: NCDWQ Sub-basin:
Wetland Classification
Thermal Regime: Trout Water: Project Performers Source Agency: Designer: Monitoring Firm Channel Remediation Property Interest Holder
Lenoir Kinston Neuse Coastal Plain Southeastern FloodPlains and Low Terraces 03020202-040020 03-04-05 R2UB23Cb (Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand/Mud, Seasonally Flooded, Beaver) Warm No WRP/DOT/EEP etc Ecoscience Corporation Ecoscience; Stantec; Priority II EEP
Overall Project Activities and Timeline Milestone Project Instituted Permitted Construction Completed As-built survey Monitoring Year-1 Monitoring Year-2 2 Beaver/2 dams removed Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 4 Monitoring Year 5 Closeout Submission
Month-Year Sep 2005 Circa 2004 Jan 2006 Jan 2006 Jan 2007 March 2008 May 2010 April 2009 Nov 2009 Nov 2010 March 2012
Project Setting and Background Summary The original project design included a Priority I (pattern, dimension, & profile) approach for stream and wetland restoration. The design was permitted circa 2004. In 2005 the stream showed stable conditions and EEP decided on a Priority II design approach for stream and wetland restoration. The Priority II design included excavating a floodplain bench. The following table shows the difference between the assets of the Priority I design and the assets actually provided by the Priority II design. Priority I Assets (original design) Restoration Enhancement I Stream
3,750 lf 0 Restoration Enhancement 5.5 ac 16.5 ac 8 ac (348,480 sf) 4.4 ac (191,664 sf) Priority II Assets (actual assets) Restoration Enhancement I
Wetland Buffer
Stream
0
Wetland Buffer
Restoration 0 8.01 ac (348,916 sf)
3,293 ft Enhancement 2.77 ac 4.4 ac (191,664 sf)
Enhancement II 0
Enhancement II 1,889 ft Preservation 8.01 ac 0
The upstream portion of the project includes a conservation easement on only one side of the stream. This portion was removed from the requested assets. The conservation easement boundary is marked with square steel posts. A recent encroachment prompted the installation of additional markings. Two beaver dams were removed in May 2010. Three new dams were recently observed and are now actively managed. In addition, the project decommissioned a livestock waste lagoon located within the conservation easement.
Goals and Objectives
The restoration of a stable, ripple-pool, E5 stream channel; The enhancement of water quality functions in the on-site, upstream, and downstream segments of the main stem channel; The creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream channels and adjacent wetlands; The restoration of wildlife functions associated with a riparian corridor/ stable stream.
Page 2 of 17
Success Criteria Stream Successful classification of the reach as a function stream systems (Rosgen 1996); Channel stability indicative of a stable stream system based on dimension, pattern and profile variables. Hydrology Reference well data will be used to compare wetland hydroperiods between the restoration area and relatively undisturbed reference weltands. Target hydrological characteristics will be based on comparison to these reference site well data. The onsite well hydroperiods shall meet or exceed 75% of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference wells located within similar physiographic landscape position. Vegetation Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growh of “Character Tree Species”, which inlude the planted species, those species listed by Schafale and Weakly (1990), and species identified in the RFEs. All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to define “Character Tree Species” as termed in the success criteria. An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Species must be survivin in Year 1. An average of 290 character tree stems per acre must be surviving in Year 3. An avearge of 260 character tree stems per acre my be suriving in Year 5. Planted species must represent a minimum of 30% of the required stem per acre total (96) stems/acre. Each naturally recruited character species may represent up to 10% of the required stem per acre total. Seven naturally recruited character species may represent a maximum of 70% of the required stem/acre total. Additional stems of naturally recruited species above the 70% threshold are discarded from the statistical analysis. The remaining 30% are not removed from the Site, but will be left as a reserve and future seed source for species maintenance during mid-success phases of forest development. Riparian Buffer An average of 320 native planted hardwood stems per acre (trees only) are surviving at the end of Year 5. Planted vegetation must include a minimum of at least two planted native hardwood tree species.
Page 3 of 17
Restoration Segment/Reach
Pre – Construction (acreage/linear feet)
Mitigation Approach
Watershed Acreage
As-Built Linear Footage/Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
3,400
R
10.1 square miles
0
1.0
E1 EII
3,293 feet 1,889 feet
1.5:1 2.5:1
2,195 756
E P
2.77 acres 8.01acres
2:1 5:1
1.39 1.60
STREAM Whitelace Creek
Mitigation Units (SMU/WMU)
WETLAND
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS Stream Mitigation Units (SMU)
Riparian Wetland Units
Non-riparian Wetland Units
Total Wetland (WMU)
Riparian Buffer (Grandfathered)
Nutrient Offset
2,951
2.99
0
2.99
565,734 square feet
0
Page 4 of 17
2010 AERIAL PHOTO WITH ASSETS
SOILS MAP AND WETLAND DELINEATION BOUNDARIES
Page 5 of 17
USGS TOPO MAP
Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17
Areas of Concern Beaver Dams observed 1/27/2012, Traps set in March 2012
Page 8 of 17
Whitelace Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project / EEP Project No. 420
Guage GW1 GW2 GW3 GW4 GW5 GW6 GW7 Reference Well 1 Reference Well 2 Reference Well 3
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) Year 1 (2006) Year 2 (2007) Year 3 (2008) Year 4 (2009) Year 5 (2010) Yes/234 days Yes/73 days Yes/216 days Yes/234 days Yes/234 days (100%) (31 percent) (92 %) (100%) (100%) Yes/140 days No Yes/128 days Yes/182 days Yes/100 days (60%) (55 %) (78%) (43%) Yes/234 days Yes/137 days Yes/168 days Yes/234 days Yes/153 days (100%) (59 %) (72 %) (100%) (65%) Yes/119 days No Yes/70 days Yes/230 days Yes/ 223 (51 %) (30 %) (98%) days (95%) Yes/234 days Yes/109 days Yes/149 days Yes/190 days Yes/112 days (100%) (47 %) (64 %) (81%) (48%) Yes/234 days Yes/233 days Yes/180 days Yes/234 days Yes/153 days (100%) (99 %) (77 %) (100%) (65%) Yes/234 days Yes/234 days Yes/173 days Yes/234 days Yes/90 days (100%) (100 %) (74 %) (100%) (38%) Yes/70 days Yes/80 days Unknown Yes/39 days Yes/44 days (30 %) (34%) (17%) (19%) Yes/70 days Yes/132 days Unknown Yes/45 days Yes/126 days (30 %) (56 %) (19%) (54%) Yes/70 days Yes/159 days Yes/112 days Yes/125 days Yes/124 days (30%) (68 %) (48 %) (53%) (53%)
Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17
EEP Recommendation and Conclusion The original Priority I design approach for stream restoration and wetland restoration was reduced to a Priority II design approach resulting in stream Enhancement I and II.
The former approach to wetland restoration (grading a floodplain bench) is no longer considered. The requested wetland mitigation credit is now reduced to fewer acres of wetland enhancement and preservation.
The requested buffer credit provided by the site will help to meet the program’s current needs for Neuse 02Buffer.
EEP recommends closure of this site with: 2,951 SMUs 2.99 WMUs 565,734 square feet of buffer (grandfathered) Contingencies Obvious encroachments appear along the easement boundary lines by mowing to maintain for active crop management. EEP has installed markers in the areas of encroachments and notified the landowner. No further action is necessary. Assets were reduced to exclude the impacted areas. EEP has assessed the exotic/invasive vegetation. The problem areas appear to be minor and no further action is necessary. Two beaver dams were removed in May 2010. Three new dams were observed in January 2012. EEP is actively managing the beaver. No further action is needed after closeout. Areas of poor growth are observed in six of the fifteen vegetation plots. EEP has excluded the poor growth areas from the requested buffer credits.
Page 11 of 17
Post-Construction Photos
Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17
APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary 420 - WHITELACE CREEK The Whitelace Creek project is located in HUC 03020202040020, Lower Falling Creek watershed, and is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2010 Neuse RBRP. Approximately 70% of the streams in this watershed lacks adequate functioning riparian buffers. Over half of the land here is agricultural including 7 permitted livestock operations. The southern boundary of this watershed is bordered by the Neuse River and was 303(d)-listed due to low dissolved oxygen (DWQ, 2008). According to the Year 5 Monitoring Report (Stantec, 2010), “previous dredging and straightening of Whitelace Creek had lowered the streambed elevation, thereby causing a reduction in the acreage of riverine wetlands due to a lowered water table.” The project intended to restore hydrologic function (onsite stream, floodplain, and wetland flood storage), and to reestablish forested buffers in the riparian zone. It includes 3,293 linear feet of stream enhancement I, 889 stream enhancement II, 2.77 acres riparian wetland enhancement, 8.01 acres of riparian wetland preservation, and 565,734 square feet of buffer restoration (grandfathered). The restoration and enhancement of streams, wetlands, and riparian buffer contribute to the conservation goals identified in the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities for 2010 (NCEEP, 2010), including the reduction of sediment and nutrient inputs from agricultural fields, and the reestablishment of functioning riparian buffers. Buffer establishment and the hydrologic reconnection of the stream to its floodplain both contribute to stream stability and removal of nutrients and sediment that would otherwise flow downstream into the nutrient-sensitive waters of the Neuse River.
Page 14 of 17
APPENDIX B – Land Ownership and Protection SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes a portion of the following parcel.
Landowner
The Baptist Childern’s Home of Lenoir County
County
Lenoir
Site Protection Instrument
Conservation Easement
Deed Book and Page Number
Acreage protected
DB1427 P 0281
35.81
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close-out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the DENR Stewardship Program, which will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld.
Page 15 of 17
APPENDIX C – Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits Jurisdictional determinations and 404/401 permits were unavailable.
Page 16 of 17
Whitelace Creek 420
Beginning Balance (feet and acres) NCDOT Pre-EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable EEP Debits (feet and acres): DWQ Permits USACE Action IDs Impact Project Name NCDOT TIP R-2719BA 2001-0048 1999-11192 Crescent Road Harbor Island Channel 1987-0237 1991-01850 Prloject 2007-1989 2008-00388-125 Catawba Road Project NCDOT TIP R-2001B 1999-0929 1997-05426 Upgrading NC 11 Anvil Investments 1998-0444 Wakefield Subdivision 1996-1148 NCDOT TIP R-2001C Widening of NC 11 1998-0667 Riparian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
5:1
1:1
3:1
2:1
5:1
1:1
3:1
2:1
5:1
Riparian Restoration
Riparian Creation
Riparian Enhancement
Riparian Preservation
Nonriparian Restoration
Nonriparian Creation
Nonriparian Enhancement
Nonriparian Preservation
Coastal Marsh Restoration
Coastal Marsh Creation
Coastal Marsh Enhancement
Coastal Marsh Preservation
3,293.00 1,889.00
2.77 8.01
1:1
3:1
0.5:1
565,734.00
0.04 0.56 0.98 1,999.70 1,889.00 465.00 588.30 240.00 565,734.00
0.00
0.00
1.19
8.01
0.00
1:1 1:1 NO Phosphorus
2:1
NO Nitrogen
3:1
Total Stream Buffer (acres)
1:1
Buffer Nutrient Offset Only (sf)
5:1
Stream Buffer Enhancement (sf)
2.5:1
Stream Buffer Restoration (sf)
1.5:1
Stream Preservation
1:1 Stream Restoration
Applied Credit Ratios:
Stream Enhancement II
NEUSE 03020202
Stream Enhancment I
Mitigation Project Name EEP IMS ID River Basin Cataloging Unit
Project Setting & Classifications County General Location Basin: Physiographic Region: Ecoregion: USGS Hydro Unit: NCDWQ Sub-basin:
Wetland Classification
Thermal Regime: Trout Water: Project Performers Source Agency: Designer: Monitoring Firm Channel Remediation Property Interest Holder
Lenoir Kinston Neuse Coastal Plain Southeastern FloodPlains and Low Terraces 03020202-040020 03-04-05 R2UB23Cb (Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand/Mud, Seasonally Flooded, Beaver) Warm No WRP/DOT/EEP etc Ecoscience Corporation Ecoscience; Stantec; Priority II EEP
Overall Project Activities and Timeline Milestone Project Instituted Permitted Construction Completed As-built survey Monitoring Year-1 Monitoring Year-2 2 Beaver/2 dams removed Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 4 Monitoring Year 5 Closeout Submission
Month-Year Sep 2005 Circa 2004 Jan 2006 Jan 2006 Jan 2007 March 2008 May 2010 April 2009 Nov 2009 Nov 2010 March 2012
Project Setting and Background Summary The original project design included a Priority I (pattern, dimension, & profile) approach for stream and wetland restoration. The design was permitted circa 2004. In 2005 the stream showed stable conditions and EEP decided on a Priority II design approach for stream and wetland restoration. The Priority II design included excavating a floodplain bench. The following table shows the difference between the assets of the Priority I design and the assets actually provided by the Priority II design. Priority I Assets (original design) Restoration Enhancement I Stream
3,750 lf 0 Restoration Enhancement 5.5 ac 16.5 ac 8 ac (348,480 sf) 4.4 ac (191,664 sf) Priority II Assets (actual assets) Restoration Enhancement I
Wetland Buffer
Stream
0
Wetland Buffer
Restoration 0 8.01 ac (348,916 sf)
3,293 ft Enhancement 2.77 ac 4.4 ac (191,664 sf)
Enhancement II 0
Enhancement II 1,889 ft Preservation 8.01 ac 0
The upstream portion of the project includes a conservation easement on only one side of the stream. This portion was removed from the requested assets. The conservation easement boundary is marked with square steel posts. A recent encroachment prompted the installation of additional markings. Two beaver dams were removed in May 2010. Three new dams were recently observed and are now actively managed. In addition, the project decommissioned a livestock waste lagoon located within the conservation easement.
Goals and Objectives
The restoration of a stable, ripple-pool, E5 stream channel; The enhancement of water quality functions in the on-site, upstream, and downstream segments of the main stem channel; The creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream channels and adjacent wetlands; The restoration of wildlife functions associated with a riparian corridor/ stable stream.
Page 2 of 17
Success Criteria Stream Successful classification of the reach as a function stream systems (Rosgen 1996); Channel stability indicative of a stable stream system based on dimension, pattern and profile variables. Hydrology Reference well data will be used to compare wetland hydroperiods between the restoration area and relatively undisturbed reference weltands. Target hydrological characteristics will be based on comparison to these reference site well data. The onsite well hydroperiods shall meet or exceed 75% of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference wells located within similar physiographic landscape position. Vegetation Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growh of “Character Tree Species”, which inlude the planted species, those species listed by Schafale and Weakly (1990), and species identified in the RFEs. All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to define “Character Tree Species” as termed in the success criteria. An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Species must be survivin in Year 1. An average of 290 character tree stems per acre must be surviving in Year 3. An avearge of 260 character tree stems per acre my be suriving in Year 5. Planted species must represent a minimum of 30% of the required stem per acre total (96) stems/acre. Each naturally recruited character species may represent up to 10% of the required stem per acre total. Seven naturally recruited character species may represent a maximum of 70% of the required stem/acre total. Additional stems of naturally recruited species above the 70% threshold are discarded from the statistical analysis. The remaining 30% are not removed from the Site, but will be left as a reserve and future seed source for species maintenance during mid-success phases of forest development. Riparian Buffer An average of 320 native planted hardwood stems per acre (trees only) are surviving at the end of Year 5. Planted vegetation must include a minimum of at least two planted native hardwood tree species.
Page 3 of 17
Restoration Segment/Reach
Pre – Construction (acreage/linear feet)
Mitigation Approach
Watershed Acreage
As-Built Linear Footage/Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
3,400
R
10.1 square miles
0
1.0
E1 EII
3,293 feet 1,889 feet
1.5:1 2.5:1
2,195 756
E P
2.77 acres 8.01acres
2:1 5:1
1.39 1.60
STREAM Whitelace Creek
Mitigation Units (SMU/WMU)
WETLAND
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS Stream Mitigation Units (SMU)
Riparian Wetland Units
Non-riparian Wetland Units
Total Wetland (WMU)
Riparian Buffer (Grandfathered)
Nutrient Offset
2,951
2.99
0
2.99
565,734 square feet
0
Page 4 of 17
2010 AERIAL PHOTO WITH ASSETS
SOILS MAP AND WETLAND DELINEATION BOUNDARIES
Page 5 of 17
USGS TOPO MAP
Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17
Areas of Concern Beaver Dams observed 1/27/2012, Traps set in March 2012
Page 8 of 17
Whitelace Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Project / EEP Project No. 420
Guage GW1 GW2 GW3 GW4 GW5 GW6 GW7 Reference Well 1 Reference Well 2 Reference Well 3
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) Year 1 (2006) Year 2 (2007) Year 3 (2008) Year 4 (2009) Year 5 (2010) Yes/234 days Yes/73 days Yes/216 days Yes/234 days Yes/234 days (100%) (31 percent) (92 %) (100%) (100%) Yes/140 days No Yes/128 days Yes/182 days Yes/100 days (60%) (55 %) (78%) (43%) Yes/234 days Yes/137 days Yes/168 days Yes/234 days Yes/153 days (100%) (59 %) (72 %) (100%) (65%) Yes/119 days No Yes/70 days Yes/230 days Yes/ 223 (51 %) (30 %) (98%) days (95%) Yes/234 days Yes/109 days Yes/149 days Yes/190 days Yes/112 days (100%) (47 %) (64 %) (81%) (48%) Yes/234 days Yes/233 days Yes/180 days Yes/234 days Yes/153 days (100%) (99 %) (77 %) (100%) (65%) Yes/234 days Yes/234 days Yes/173 days Yes/234 days Yes/90 days (100%) (100 %) (74 %) (100%) (38%) Yes/70 days Yes/80 days Unknown Yes/39 days Yes/44 days (30 %) (34%) (17%) (19%) Yes/70 days Yes/132 days Unknown Yes/45 days Yes/126 days (30 %) (56 %) (19%) (54%) Yes/70 days Yes/159 days Yes/112 days Yes/125 days Yes/124 days (30%) (68 %) (48 %) (53%) (53%)
Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17
EEP Recommendation and Conclusion The original Priority I design approach for stream restoration and wetland restoration was reduced to a Priority II design approach resulting in stream Enhancement I and II.
The former approach to wetland restoration (grading a floodplain bench) is no longer considered. The requested wetland mitigation credit is now reduced to fewer acres of wetland enhancement and preservation.
The requested buffer credit provided by the site will help to meet the program’s current needs for Neuse 02Buffer.
EEP recommends closure of this site with: 2,951 SMUs 2.99 WMUs 565,734 square feet of buffer (grandfathered) Contingencies Obvious encroachments appear along the easement boundary lines by mowing to maintain for active crop management. EEP has installed markers in the areas of encroachments and notified the landowner. No further action is necessary. Assets were reduced to exclude the impacted areas. EEP has assessed the exotic/invasive vegetation. The problem areas appear to be minor and no further action is necessary. Two beaver dams were removed in May 2010. Three new dams were observed in January 2012. EEP is actively managing the beaver. No further action is needed after closeout. Areas of poor growth are observed in six of the fifteen vegetation plots. EEP has excluded the poor growth areas from the requested buffer credits.
Page 11 of 17
Post-Construction Photos
Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17
APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary 420 - WHITELACE CREEK The Whitelace Creek project is located in HUC 03020202040020, Lower Falling Creek watershed, and is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2010 Neuse RBRP. Approximately 70% of the streams in this watershed lacks adequate functioning riparian buffers. Over half of the land here is agricultural including 7 permitted livestock operations. The southern boundary of this watershed is bordered by the Neuse River and was 303(d)-listed due to low dissolved oxygen (DWQ, 2008). According to the Year 5 Monitoring Report (Stantec, 2010), “previous dredging and straightening of Whitelace Creek had lowered the streambed elevation, thereby causing a reduction in the acreage of riverine wetlands due to a lowered water table.” The project intended to restore hydrologic function (onsite stream, floodplain, and wetland flood storage), and to reestablish forested buffers in the riparian zone. It includes 3,293 linear feet of stream enhancement I, 889 stream enhancement II, 2.77 acres riparian wetland enhancement, 8.01 acres of riparian wetland preservation, and 565,734 square feet of buffer restoration (grandfathered). The restoration and enhancement of streams, wetlands, and riparian buffer contribute to the conservation goals identified in the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities for 2010 (NCEEP, 2010), including the reduction of sediment and nutrient inputs from agricultural fields, and the reestablishment of functioning riparian buffers. Buffer establishment and the hydrologic reconnection of the stream to its floodplain both contribute to stream stability and removal of nutrients and sediment that would otherwise flow downstream into the nutrient-sensitive waters of the Neuse River.
Page 14 of 17
APPENDIX B – Land Ownership and Protection SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes a portion of the following parcel.
Landowner
The Baptist Childern’s Home of Lenoir County
County
Lenoir
Site Protection Instrument
Conservation Easement
Deed Book and Page Number
Acreage protected
DB1427 P 0281
35.81
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close-out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the DENR Stewardship Program, which will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld.
Page 15 of 17
APPENDIX C – Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits Jurisdictional determinations and 404/401 permits were unavailable.
Page 16 of 17
Whitelace Creek 420
Beginning Balance (feet and acres) NCDOT Pre-EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable EEP Debits (feet and acres): DWQ Permits USACE Action IDs Impact Project Name NCDOT TIP R-2719BA 2001-0048 1999-11192 Crescent Road Harbor Island Channel 1987-0237 1991-01850 Prloject 2007-1989 2008-00388-125 Catawba Road Project NCDOT TIP R-2001B 1999-0929 1997-05426 Upgrading NC 11 Anvil Investments 1998-0444 Wakefield Subdivision 1996-1148 NCDOT TIP R-2001C Widening of NC 11 1998-0667 Riparian Buffer ILF Credit Purchase
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
5:1
1:1
3:1
2:1
5:1
1:1
3:1
2:1
5:1
Riparian Restoration
Riparian Creation
Riparian Enhancement
Riparian Preservation
Nonriparian Restoration
Nonriparian Creation
Nonriparian Enhancement
Nonriparian Preservation
Coastal Marsh Restoration
Coastal Marsh Creation
Coastal Marsh Enhancement
Coastal Marsh Preservation
3,293.00 1,889.00
2.77 8.01
1:1
3:1
0.5:1
565,734.00
0.04 0.56 0.98 1,999.70 1,889.00 465.00 588.30 240.00 565,734.00
0.00
0.00
1.19
8.01
0.00
1:1 1:1 NO Phosphorus
2:1
NO Nitrogen
3:1
Total Stream Buffer (acres)
1:1
Buffer Nutrient Offset Only (sf)
5:1
Stream Buffer Enhancement (sf)
2.5:1
Stream Buffer Restoration (sf)
1.5:1
Stream Preservation
1:1 Stream Restoration
Applied Credit Ratios:
Stream Enhancement II
NEUSE 03020202
Stream Enhancment I
Mitigation Project Name EEP IMS ID River Basin Cataloging Unit
