20041198 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090625

?i
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 45bg Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year 7
Date of Field Review: L310 Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Preser :
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: US 220 south from Asheboro to NC 134. South on NC 134; cross Montgomery ounty line. Look for Abner
Road on right. Abner Road to Flint Hill Road. Left onto Flint Hill Road. Site is on right immediately before
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20041198
Project Name: UT to Barnes Creek
County(ies): Montgomery
Basin & subbasin: Yadkin 03040103
Nearest Stream: Barnes Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C; ORW
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 4.5 acres
Stream: 4063 linear feet
Buffer:
N utr. 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
Mitigation required on site:
Associated impacts (if known):
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Receipt: Mitigation Plan 7/22/2004
Report Receipt: Application 7/22/2004

?I
*Add significant project-related events: reports,
received, construction, planting, repairs, etc.
uunng orrice review, note success criteria and evaluate each component based on monitoring report
results. Record relevant data in Sections II and 111.
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
20041198-1 3440 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1/2
i ((JJ
20041198-2 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2
20041198-3 3.12 acres Wetland (Riverine) Enhancement
20041198-4 1.38 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration
Fle(B
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
fVE4 r)

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: 3440 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1/2 Component ID: 20041198-1
Description: UT Main Stem (Harris and Hurley Reaches)
Location within project: See map
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:
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.):
? ?.rJ ??OS l r 1 ?? l/.P?Z(? ? . /9 ?C?11?? ? T?? G471??45 G?I?IL?1^??
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.
I
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
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
320 spa after 5 years _Species Story TPAP/ cover

02
C'
,oj 3 - 0,L0?) SuecEy?
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): _160
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.):
I

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:
I
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
(?` U?X b MS' 04WJJVFL-
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 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 623 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 Component ID: 20041198-2
Description: Harris Tributary (side trib)
Location within project: See map
111. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP
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:
F 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.):
L.
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.
i
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 - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
320 spa after 5 years Species Story TPA)% cover
i
I
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): 360
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,
j 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):
j
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
I
i

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:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 4 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 3.12 acres Wetland (Riverine nhancem t Component ID: 20041198-3
Description: Enhancement of existing W s (planting)
Location within project: See map
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
j based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
320 spa after 5 years Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
1} bd? ,??? L CC 0 >
y
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
i
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 1 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, 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.):
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, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 1.38 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration Component ID: 20041198-4
Description: Restore hydrology and planting
Location within project: See map
Ill. Success Criteria Evaluation: - A r ),Pal ,
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Saturation within 12" for 5-12.5% of growing season q-t I ? r
R 96V- AW M v N p rH l t t 5,1 N " ?. Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Ye No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
i

SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):

VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
320 spa after 5 years Species Story TPAf'/ cover
i
i
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
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, c
i oncerns, etc.):

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No I Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, 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.):
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, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 4 of 4