20021884 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090902

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
C Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: _
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site:
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Project History
Event Event Date
401 Issued 2/28/2003
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: C
I
Stream: 0 r
t
Buffer: 1
Approved mitigation Ian 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
I
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20021884
Project Name: Horse Creek
County(ies): Wake
Basin & subbasin: Neuse
Nearest Stream: Horse Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: WS-IV,
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status:
20021884-1 2900 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 & 2
20021884-2
M Pl
Irk ??v?
5u
Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
2 ro
6?ar I 0)-
Version 1.0 (Augur, 2007)

Jpf-Page 2 Il I
L_ v?L ?
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
I
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this project is: successful partially successf unsuccess
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
I
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 2900 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 & 2 Component ID: 20021884-1
Description:
Location within project: Horse Creek
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
if no, provide description and notes regar?lc ing stability issues: /
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? te No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? ? 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 F' 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 thalweg 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.):
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. ?.
?? lJ
1 1 3 c)? 6 (SA 6
List an remaining aqua is biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, discharges or toxic2nts, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 4
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'1o cover j
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:
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 i
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.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successf unsuccessful i
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:
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 4

Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
Description:
Location within project: UT to Horse Creek
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
Component ID: 20021884-2
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:
I
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? 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.
j
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 - Appro Succ Criteria:
J ? V
Dominant Plant Species 1
_Species Story TPAP/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No 1, h
Average TPA for entire site (per report): (?
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on community composition? Yes No fv V V ?- "?
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.): O
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
??vz Q
!Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive eci es on site (species, location(s), and % covet n`?
if - S? VK 11 CUpIJJ lJ
List any remaining vegetation issues to addr-dss (e.g. plant survival, concerns etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful
List specific re s for lack of success for this component: 6 ) ( ?K'
?V77 o ?? - (ACE0 J ? J
partially successI unsuccessful,
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