20030503 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090911

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
9/ NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: V / Evaluator's Name(s): W,7
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year. L'(
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s): !Il LL
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: --T-rCA C-U m
Weather Conditions (today & recent): S r- YAA , rJ
Directions to Site: US-1 S to Hwy 55 N; right on Humie Olive Rd; left on Olive Farm Rd (dirt rd); go to end of road
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20030503
Project Name: Little Beaver Creek Stream Restoration
County(ies): Wake
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030002
Nearest Stream: Little Beaver Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 5.45 acres
Stream: 5560 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:

Afn
Approved mitigation plan available?
Monitoring reports available? No
Aes No
Problem areas identified in reports? No
Project History
Event Event Date
401 Issued 4/25/2003
? :ice ?l l' C\ ll? O
14
Mitigation required on site: co *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:
Problem areas addressed on site? Nres - ?fo1
Mitigation Component
Monitoring Success Success
Year (report) (field) Resolved
20030503-1 4609 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration
20030503-2 951 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration
20030503-3 4.75 acres Wetland Restoration No&-- 2 /4 C-
2000503-4 0.7 acres Wetland Enhancement

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
`? ? CCJ
C,C Gn
cr
,_ (-,h 3 ?> 5 iC
4 V,1A
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: 4609 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration Component ID: 20030503-1
Description:
Location within project: Little Beaver Creek
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria: JG
Are streambanks stable? Yes ?
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues: ICJ n ???J' '
AVgff? of
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? J 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:
k lAW F061_L AS Y09, ?11%1?
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations Yes
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? "J1 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)
No
Page 1 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
Dominant Plant Species
Species - Storv TPAf% cover
Wi TX'?J) S
Monitoring report indicates success? es 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:
75/. W001149')? sF?+S iNA,6114
(/J . g) (-OA/,5 ZS)4 0P safmulm?ys
64 1-7 - 0) AvA &M?
r 6
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), d % cover):
A)nvtr miaourup 1,rwtez 4 mf /d'rz
List any remaining vegetation( issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
A)f T? 1/J 0---VOL 5ww?
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 2 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 951 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration Component ID: 20030503-2
Description:
Location within project: UTs to Little Beaver Creek
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No 7
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
407r,40(- Td P-9"'f
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
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 3 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
-- _ - - -- - ----- - - -- -- -
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
i
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 1
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.):
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.):
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
A_
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Divisi of 1l?atfelr?QuaI' C^''
component• 4.75 a es Wetland Restoration ( ` ""? Component ID: 2 30503-3
Description: C'
Location within project: throughout project V OZ
III. Success Criteria Evaluation: ; (-. G r r-J h A ?14 :r <
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: CO)
?-O/ 4L+0 f? /? ?z1?3J Inundated
I

U)l_/ CC7YA_
i?sl
?CSaturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report ndic to su c sYes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No ?L Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches excessive water, etc.):

{ ?, t tom, ??' °` 1t 0 U?? S • CA A u0 V
Lt G X1 1 -tt

SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric. Ye No
qAA
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upIan a ,ec. C

L.L C-C

VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAP/ cover
/ -- _ 31 tai MA_ , PLW 'f;?(

Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? ?es No _ _
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? es No
Date of last planting: c Lkr
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No AC S ?E ?? A5 - AA-
,vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegeta
Speciifiic
t
i
on:
-?
p
f
l
n
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and %o cover):
I VAuneLtSuc"e 1 V\' A C-U% Aeq I t?i??©YC Vim -
P''1,ti L
(
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concernq, etc.):
k _ n?c r? cati_?? ?? co cod <I
i

7q?
A_" i ?-
? ct
4Cu?J
1

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:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 0.7 acres Wetland Enhancement Component ID: 2000503-4
Description: ;;? ?C? l?G (O?rC?S1 CtS ?` c?GC(? den r? GG?2 L b k?v? ??
Location within project: SW corner
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
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:
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
Species Story TPAf% cover
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)
I 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