20031064 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090409

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
/ NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: f4 1 <I Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year: d S
Date of Field Review: alu ,tor's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies es nt:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: From Raleigh take US401 north to Louisburg. Turn right (south) at NC39 and take the first left onto Burnette
Rd. Site is on the right and runs parallel with road.
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20031064
Project Name: UT to Tar River
County(ies): Franklin
Basin & subbasin: Tar-Pamlico 03020201
Nearest Stream: Tar River
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: NSW; WS-V
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 1937 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
Project History
Event
Report Review - Streams
Site Visit - Streams
Report Receipt: Monitoring
Event Date
4/11/2007
4/13/2007
4/14/2008
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 knownreceived, 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:
Mitigation Component Monitoring
Year--- (report) Success
) (field) Resolved
20031064-1 1937 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 4
G?e?e r mixes, a_rf koUxi- 10LAX )r prL Srlle. corn -
o c?-
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: 1937 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 Component ID: 20031064-1
Description:
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
i
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
rock grade control vanes & root wads for aquatic habitat enhancement and bed and bank stability
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 1 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
survival of 320s/a after 3 years and 260s/a after 5 years Species Story TPA/'/ cover
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
General observations on condition of ripari an/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.):
i
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
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 2

Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: #Error
Description:
Location within project:
III. Buffer Site Details:
Riparian Buffer (Streams Only)
Streams verified by DWQ: es No
Comments:
Component ID:
Nutrient Offset (Streams or Ditches)
Buffer Width:
Comments:
Total Acres: Total Acres:
Restored Acres: Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres: Enhanced Acres:
Buffer Width: 50'
Gran dfathered Site? (EEP Only) Yes No
IV. Success Criteria Evaluation:
VEGETATION:
NOTE: Success Criteria is 320 spa
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
Date of last planting:
i
I
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No - - -
-- --- --- I
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas and associated stream bank (e.9bank stability,
overall health of vegetation, etc.)
mav?)
Q COO D v ? 'om-7 (Gp 4?1
Uvc, v?1? - ?J/-) 3 /rV
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009) Page 1 of 2
Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
I
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
Easement Marking Method:
List any remaining issues to address (e.g. plant survival, easement encroachment, etc.):
I
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful not successful
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. Label and attach photos to
this report.
Attach maps showing photo locations, problem areas, and/or important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009) Page 2 of 2