20051061 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090630

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 0 Evaluator's Name(s): V
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year: e
Date of Field Review: 9 Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agenci Pre ent:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: From Raleigh take 164 to Siler City; Just b4 entering SC & inter. Of 164 & 1421 take right on Silk Hope Rd;
Cont. on Silk Hope to Rufus Brewer Rd & take left then immediate left onto Smith Hudson Rd. The Smith
......... w.. ?.. ?..,......+ ..a inn c...:ati u...a...... o.a
(.Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20051061
Project Name: UT Rocky River Stream & Buffer Restorati
County(ies): Chatham
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030003
Nearest Stream: Nick Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 2206 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
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
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Receipt: Monitoring 4/14/2008
0'A is f o6
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
20051061-1 1095 linear feet Stream Enhancement
20051061-2 1111 linear feet Stream Restoration 1
L-- -- - - -------
'wT< -,gefi

?v off/
Q C?,
A
Version 7.0 (August 22. 2007)
,\
-y V
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
a
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quali
Component: 1095 linear feet Stream Enhancement Component ID: 20051061-1
Description: Reach 1; Combination E1 and E2
Location within project: See maps
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:
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 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.):

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 4
a
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
112M
b !?J\
Monitoring report indicates success? Ye No
Average TPA for entire site (per repo ?I
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 unve9etated areas: 1
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. lant surv@t, concerns, etc.):
?? ?S SEA b? J
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component i (.successful artially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
PY I 17P
Use the definitions in the joint state/federal team 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.
I)A
Attach maps showing photo locations, problem areas, and/or important stream features.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component: 6,
AIA rw?evEAnWOFb
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) ?wz 50:C 4q n Page 2 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 1111 linear feet Stream Restoration 1 Component ID: 20051061-2
Description: Reach 2
Location within project: See maps
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
/U ors -FzvJ Alp
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
struc are +vanes, single rock vanes, sills, const. Riffles, geotextile fabrics, root wads; no criteria listed
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:
pebble counts in pools/riffles wil be measured to assure increase in coarseness in riffles and > of fineness in
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:
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.):
I
i
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
survival of 320spa after 5 yrs Species Story TPAP/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success Ye No
Average TPA for entire site (per re t
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.):
S1
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation: j
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, c cerns, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component : successful p rtially 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 4 of 4