20000846 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080124

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review 12 q Evaluator's Name(s): /(]4:2
Date of Report: / Report for Monitoring Year: = 3 P2? n,P3=g
Date of Field Review: U Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies res nt: 17f/6 W0MfkZo b
?
Weather Conditions (today & recent): - i2AW - W 61tiL
Directions to Site:
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20000846
Project Name: Horsepen Creek (Fedex - PTAA)
County(ies): Guilford
Basin & subbasin:
Nearest Stream:
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
1 Mitigator Type: Private
DOT Status: non-DOT
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Review - Streams 2/612007
Report Review - Wetlands 2/6/2007
Site Visit - Streams 5/3/2007
Site Visit - Wetlands 5/3/2007
Report Review - Streams 1/24/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 1/24/2008

Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 17 acres
Stream: 2689 linear feet
Buffer:
? i•
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available? es No
I!
Problem areas identified in reports? es No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes (IW
Mitigation required on site: 7 *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
20000846-1 17 acres Wetland
20000846-2 2689 linear feet Stream
z?3
&IT
let, ?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 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
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 17 acres Wetland Component ID: 20000846-1
Description: Horsepen Creek wetlands
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
l
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No ?T l7
Observational field data agrees? Yes
based on mitigation plan? Yes No j
based on wetland type? Yes No
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditche
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Drift lines
Drainage patterns in wetlands
Sediment deposits
Water marks
s, 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 TPA/"/ cover
J Y C?J- Y
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes
Average TPA for entire site (per report): ? 3,?
Observational field data agrees? & 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:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes Nokb?- N-2-Specific vegetation 20s tor site locations with f to no vegetation:
LIZ Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site I(sspecies, location(s), and % cover):
?01VF 107`?]
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival concerns, e.) V'
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
na 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 artially succe ful unsuccessful
List specif' issons or lack of success for this component:
L! I????Jb 0
Additional com a is (e.g. WQ foll w-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
InU NO
During site visit, document repre entative 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 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 2689 linear feet Stream
Description: Horsepen Creek streams
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Component ID: 20000846-2

Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
&c J,,,T Al c^O/e 0f 7-10A,, WPi r,Ob ?4TN YOM Z ,etA4116 W STb'
gem IbV?oA) *e ISSUE 0?' )A r,VCJJ
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria: l
41S, r4 2t S
List all types of structures present on site:(/Z OZ 1141)F5, I?OCt< VAwC5, ?_0041
Are the structures installed correctly? _)fCs) No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? e No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? `y No {
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? Yes No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria: S
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations es 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 No ?,(r M]?'HN^G
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? Ye No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and general distribution of biota. Include a brief
description of the sampling methodology.
ll?l?JS?Q ?1 E.S? I b?6>7?- G9S?'3 ? ??a ??
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
may-, OR -3 Y2 / Species Story TPA/' cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes ' I
Average TPA for entire site (per report): Y36
Observational field data agrees? fl?s No
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? No
Vegetation planted on site? l No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):
APO 6?S0 ?
fip
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas: , r?/z
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: successf rtially successfu unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
?TABtZ' i? oputs J VL 6,
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommen tions, etc.): /k- ?E3
30 /Z?yI??k2A ?9Il?S lets i(T )) /yJ`' U C7 L? l
Ni0/Z? f 4(e ?)?t &,4 l/rt More )170,e W
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