20060268 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 2 Evaluation_20090409

L
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: t 1,?® Evaluator's Name(s): q?Ll tl
Date of Report: Q Report for Monitoring Yea
Date of Field Review: J / Evaluator's Name(s): i
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: 5 miles northwest of Wake Forest on Bold Hill Run Road, approx. 1.5 miles east of the int. with Mangum Dairy
rd in Wake Co.
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20060268
Project Name: Bold Run Creek
County(ies): Wake
Basin & subbasin: Neuse 03020201
Nearest Stream: Bold Run Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
i
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 1629 linear feet
Buffer: 27.1 acres
Project History
socr Afi?
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
20060268-1 Stream (Perennial)
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 1 of 2
i
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
--------------------
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this project is. successf artially 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: Stream (Perennial)
Description:
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes -No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? es No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? a No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, tc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? es No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations PeeNN o
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? o
Any ev idence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalwo
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water 10-' 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:
Component ID: 20060268-1
-1
?I
I
i
it
Is aquatic life present in the channel? Yes No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and geri ral 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
f
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA),% cover
', VIII r I UJ ??-
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No. :i
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Yes N
Observational field data agrees? o V
l
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
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):
e J _
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 is: uccessful artially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this componen
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