20021572 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20100512

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s): 1?va
Date of Report: ' Fi?JA 1. M Report for Monitoring Year: 5W B -10k)
Date of Field Review: 1 rl Evaluators Name(s): Z
Other Individuals/Agencies Prese t:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: From Raleigh go west on US 64 to Siler City, then north on MILK Blvd (Snow Camp Rd). Continue north -12m
to community of Snow Camp pnd1ake fight on1,SR 2368 for 1m then right onto Quackenbush for 1.5m to road
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20021572 " Project History
Project Name: Reedy Branch
Event Event Date
County(ies): Alamance
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030002 Report Receipt: Monitoring 4/14/2008
Site Visit - Streams 4/8/2009
Nearest Stream: Cane Creek %
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: NSW; C
6(' V
d, ??'
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetlan:
?Pt
St eama 3155 linear feef Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
_ Ur Cs? c
1! Approved mitigation plan available? .- e ---. No G ?00y6V
Monitoring reports available? !es_... Na..-- - l?
Problem areas identified in reports? /00 ? v)(
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 informatiQjvJ ,qyqd uring office review and/or to be obtained during site visit.
II. Summary of Results:
d I Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved
20021572-1 3155 linear feet Stream Restoration`2 6
2
di
Cb I
'mot a t;r
)IJ
/Wo
S ? ?S s
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
z: .
-- LUr? V d
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.)
.41
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 3155 linear feet Stream Restoration 2 Component ID: 20021572-1
Description: moderately dense woodland surrounded by pasture
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and no f egarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
+vanes, weirs, & existing bedrock to control gfadebtJbps of riffles;root wads to protect outside meander ben
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad.ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately whefg shown on the plan? mss' > No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, depositip etc.)? Yes No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
{ _ --
- ---
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the.aorgect dcatioris . es 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 the thalweg Yes No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water Ponded areas
Describe any stream features that providppyi,dence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars,
downstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation etct.):+
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria:
Is aquatic life present in the channel? es No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantT es`'pfJhdlvid`uals; and general distribution of biota. Include a brief
description of the sapling methodologpr 01 " '1i" i'
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, dischar deor toxicants, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
s
h 4 r :u
r
f?
Page 1 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: ' bominant Plant Species
survival of 320spa after 5yrs Species.:_.. Story TPA/'/ cover
?df`tarr, ate, >:;
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes
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: nur?' is st ?; :essf.;i
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No7?,^:'-"
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc. ):
SOU l Co7)0
CFVO? ?Vcc (4 IAI ?MJT? (??E 1!W19__
Specific vegetation plots or locations with little to no vegetation:,.:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetatb6'areav
Inv'a/siv ?pecies on site (species, location(s), and cdver?
??,???????'L, ?'?Wblt?
/n
List any remainirfg vegetatXon issues to address (e.g..plantcsUrviv I, concerns, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is successf I
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
partially successful unsuccessful
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendti'dffetc.):
rd)O? A)
Use the definitions in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines to determine the correct type of
mitigation used for this component.
r..,. r14 % sa;
During site visit, document representative condiiions and aroas af'concern. Observe preservation and
enhancement areas that may not have specific success criteria.' Cabel 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) is Page 2 of 2
4