20050409 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090423

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report, Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: "23 10 9 Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies esent.
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Both stream reaches are located in Tarboro. Reach 1 site lies between Forest Acre Dr. and Rosewood Dr.
Reach 2 is located between MLK Dr. and St. James St.
(.Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20050409
Project Name: East Tarboro Canal
County(ies): Edgecombe
Basin & subbasin: Tar-Pamlico 03020103
Nearest Stream: Tar River
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C;NSW;WSIV
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 4804 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
Project History
r
! n /v I
i
I
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 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
20050409-1 4804 linear feet Stream Restoration
ao c?t? e? c?m(?onex?t- ix?. Gi?3 bC??e --+> C ?
pa* I
?
ew, Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
)d ?-
,Z? ?' 4 C ,v l (a)
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: 4804 linear feet Stream Restoration Component ID: 20050409-1
Description: grass maintained parkway adjacent to road
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? As
o
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
root wads, cross vanes, vegetated geogrids/brush mattresses
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly?
Are the structures made of acceptable material?
AAC'y I -
B -CvoOT
r(-f
Yes No
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:
installing structures to providing a riffle-pool system; pebble counts taken to ensure pools contain a finer mat
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations es No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? ?e? No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the y alweg e-s) No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water 16 -- 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.):
C j AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
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
80% survival of planted trees or 260spa after 5 years Species Story TPA/lo Cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Yes No v
Observational field data agrees?
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No ?t) Vegetation planted on site? Yes No 'i Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No (, IV ,
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:
i
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.):
7 ?l(?
<U
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 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
Comments:
Total Acres:
Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres:
Buffer Width: 50' > 50'
Grandfathered Site? (EEP Only) Yes No
IV. Success Criteria Evaluation:
VEGETATION:
NOTE: Success Criteria is 320 spa
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Total Acres:
Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres:
Dominant Plant Species
Species Storv TPA/'/ cover
146
No
i
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
sfFr??J?CbT
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas and associated stream bank (e.g. bank stability,
overall health of vegetation, etc.)
a-?
PA
.
/Vo Rei
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009) Page 1 of 2
Component ID:
Nutrient Offset (Streams or Ditches)
Yes No Buffer Width: j
Comments:
i
J . I
Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
tA r",
IT r, , I
l
Estimated acreage or slt? perce? ge o?un4egetated' areas: DWI
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
Easement Marking Method:
-\j d IvA r)4
List a remaining issues to address (e.g. plant survival, easement encroachment, etc.):
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:
0,AJ
Version 1.2 (March 5, 009)
I-Aw
woo?s

Page 2 of 2
r
a
nz
?o
= r
r1
c
2C)o S)C)q tit 6tK \, is i ? y W) 09
0
O
G
n
c
c
c

u_
c
N
C
C
C

Gl
Ln
O
A
V
V
O
W
O
O
O
O

O
A ?p
o N 3
? o z
J.T7•f.VVV IV
35055.000'N

N
r
y
' a
77
O

1
1