20050983 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080215

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: O?/ o? Evaluator's Name(s): 413--
DateofReport: Report for Monitoring Ye r: _5
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent): rf'9 2 /yl /Zk
Directions to Site: From Raleigh take US Hwy 1 south to Exit 79 (Old US 1 exit).. South on Moncure-Pittsboro Rd to Old US 1.
Tight on Old US1. Cross Deep River and turn left onto Lower Moncure Rd. Site is on the left.
1. Office Review rma i
Project Numbetr 20001007
Project Name: 3 ry
County(ies): Lee
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030003
Nearest Stream: Deep River
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: WS-IV
Mitigator Type: 3M Pittsboro
DOT Status: non-DOT
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Receipt. Monitoring 2/11/2008
Report Review - Streams 2/15/2008
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 4540 linear feet
Buffer:
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available?
d i
?
id
tifi
t es o
Y
n repor
s
Problem areas
en
e es
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site: *Add significant project-related events: reports,
Associated impacts (if known): 1 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
120001007-1 4300 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration
20001007-2 240 linear feet Stream (Perennial) 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.):
i
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 4300 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration
Description: UT 1
Location within project: See map
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? Yes o
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Component ID: 20001007-1
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? Yes No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? VNo
No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
,W 1,c VAP E3

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? es No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalwe Ynes N
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water - 70 , 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 Crite i ^ 1
d 11
' /
"
Macro monitoring; no success criteria A . C /Tj?
Is aquatic life present in the channel? Yes No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals an eral 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.):
Lrt?-f
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
260 spa after 5 yrs
Monitoring report indicates success? Ye 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
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/11o cover
v?G
4 it
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):
av?5MU_A64("11'?d d
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this componen is: success I 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:
CD OSC d r7?
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 240 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration Component ID: 20001007-2
Description: UT2
Location within project: See map
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? Yes o
j If no, provide description and n garding stability issues:
STRUCTURES -Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site: 4)OWE
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 o
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? 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 Abc-l 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,
Macro monitoring; no 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:
j 260 spa after 5 yrs
Monitoring report indicates success? Ye o
Average TPA for entire site (per repo
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
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
i
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g
etc.):
buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
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.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component s: successf I 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