20050408 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090630

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: JJ Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: Ceport for Monitoring Ye r:
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s): _
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: The site is located adjacent to Old Liberty Road (SR 2261), approx. 5.5 miles west of Liberty, Randolph
County, NC
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20050408
Project Name: UT to Sandy Creek (Williams Farm & Risi
County(ies): Randolph
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030003
Nearest Stream: Sandy Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Typ P
DOT Status• -DOT
Total i iqa ion on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 2590 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
Project History
iti y?sl V ?S
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:
Mitigation Component
Monitoring Success Success
Year (report) (field) Resolved
20050408-1 2590 linear feet Stream Restoration

L
t e%p gK??'l/??
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:
I
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
I

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2

M
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component ID: 20050408-1
Component: 2590 linear feet Stream Restoration
Description: agriculture
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
a stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding ability issu
?P( o NJ
oii K
Cd
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
cross vanes, root wads, log vanes
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:
pools/riffles connected by glides and runs

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.):
Page 1 of 2
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
success for trees is 320spa after 3yrs and 260spa after 5yrs
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per rep ort): SZO
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: j
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAP/ cover
A1&6,
6?N
AV
n;ID
4J IL <
Sw? Gd?((L?
/9P?L 1
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas g. r width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.): ?O e?Ss?IY?" ?'? ?QF
--- ----------
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): C/S
ZIFZ?cz&? , mm vs.4 N2) Y , ;11 / /
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e. g. lant survival, concerns, etc.):

MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for la k of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up acti 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