20031001 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090409

A
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: ';-116 Evaluator's Name(s): 4p_
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:_
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s): orz_
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: L`
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: From Raleigh take US1 N towards Franklinton, right on SRI 210 (Montgomery. Rf). Project reach is S of
Montgomery Rd, -3mi E of US 1 to NE of Franklinton on property privately held by the Grove Family.
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20031001
Project Name: UT to Billy's Creek Stream Restoration
County(ies): Franklin
Basin & subbasin: Tar-Pamlico 03020101
Nearest Stream: Billy's Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: NSW;
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 2301 linear feet
Buffer:
Proiect Histo
Event Event Date
Report Review - Streams 4/11/2007
Site Visit - Streams 4/13/2007
Report Receipt: Monitoring 4/14/2008
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes
Monitoring reports available? No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? es 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
20031001-1 2301 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Multiple Types 4

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
K
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: 2301 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Multiple Types Component ID: 20031001-1
Description: 2101 LF P1, 200 LF E1
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
j STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? Yes No 13Ah,2 s(y??l?/?
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues: xs_L ' po Wt??'?
t'v STRUCTURES -Approved Success Criteria:
rock cross-vanes, step pools, rootwads and platnings installed to establish & stab a profile w/riffle & pool seq
i List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? 07 No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? es No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Yes No '7 _
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? es No Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
,d__AJ / 1 ?/Ji
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
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the t 1 g Yes No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water l / - Ponded areas
Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-c s,
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 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
260 spa ?y?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
n t fl t 1 4'.
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/% cover
A ?? rt
??L 6R)(
le /)
a e o as p an g. " I?.'
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No f + "
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 p rtially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Pl
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 2 of 2