20030247 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090624

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review:
Date of Report: -Aill
Evaluator's Name(s): (la
Report for Monitoring Year: _l
Date of Field Review: (I? _ Evaluator's Name(s): J ?L
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: /?iQrOLU
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: 1-95 Business to Fayetteville, Hwys 87/210 W thru downtown, left of Blue St, bridge over Cross Creek; access
from either Washington Dr or Blue St
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20030247
Project Name: Cross Creek
County(ies): Cumberland
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear
Nearest Stream: Cross Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 2065 linear feet
Buffer:
N utr. Offset:
Project History
Event Event Date
03030004 Report Receipt: Mitigation Plan 3/5/2003
Report Receipt: Monitoring 4/14/2008
i Site Visit - Streams 11/13/2008
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, j
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
20030247-1 560 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 aosycow A v2p"
20030247-2 800 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 ('/Ltl l (?
20030247-3 705 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2
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
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 560 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 Component ID: 20030247-1
Description: Reach 1
Location within project: Cross Creek downstream of convergence with Little Cross Creek
111. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
bank erosion (pins), scour chains, cros ions, longit profile, photo refePA( e points O
Are streambanks stable? Yes No Sf,(?/j/l%VATZZ)G OlJ1 t(. IJV b S??r(?
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site: (itOA' 1/41/toq6
Are the structures installed correctly? No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? a No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? a No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? a No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? s No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in th h Iweg Yes
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.):
,sue MkWk E?l
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria:
macroinvertebrate studies for 3 to 5 years to determine changes in populations
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 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
kudzu mngmt; survival of target species in sample plots, at
least 6 differenfrepresentative tree species
S o Mgt >3z0 SPA
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? a No
based on community composition? Yes No
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
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 ripari n/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.): ZU 10A) t df S) ? of' •5)1aM M
? &A,46? ovl?lr?7
xmnaf?
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation: 1 e
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.):
z5v?) 0
MI IT GATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
&j?7 /o 641
r
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ low-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 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 800 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 Component ID: 20030247-2
Description: Reach 2
Location within project: Cross Creek upstream of the convergence with Little Cross Creek
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
bank erosion (pins), scour chains, cross-sections, longit profile, photo reference points
Are streambanks stable? (& )No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site: C/,')Ov
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:
I
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? a No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water ,?d Q/ 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:
macroinvertebrate studies for 3 to 5 years to determine changes in populations
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.):
I
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 3 of 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
kudzu mngmt; survival of target species in sample plots, at Species Story TPAP/ cover
least 6 different representative tree species
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes 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:
i
Vegetation growing successfully?
Yes
No
General observations on condition of ripari an/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):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
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:
Td ?a
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 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 705 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 Component ID: 20030247-3
Description: Reach 3
Location within project: Little Cross Creek
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
bank erosion (pins), scour chains s-sections, longit profile, photo reference points
Are streambanks stable? Yes o
If no, provide description and no s regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
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:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications?
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water Ponded areas
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
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:
macroinvertebrate studies for 3 to 5 years to determine changes in populations
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. j
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, discharges or toxicants, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 5 of 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
kudzu mngmt; survival of target species in sample plots, at Species Story TPAPlo cover
least 6 different representative tree species
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per rep ort):
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
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):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
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:
r
1
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 6 of 6