20030299 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20100512

11

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 110 Evaluator's Name(s): L--
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies P sent: rU 2=
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: NC 147, exit 126, south on Roxboro Rd.; east on W. Lakewood Ave.; merge onto University Dr.; Forest Hills
Park is on the left
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20030299 Project History
Project Name: Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration (For ,
'"Event Event Date
County(ies): Durham w
' .. ,..

Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030002 Report Review - Streams 3/30/2007
Site Visit -Streams 3/30/2007
Nearest Stream: Third Fork Creek I Site Visit - Streams 5/21/2008
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:.,C Report Receipt: Monitoring 5/21/2009
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: DOT FJP S)T( Z-(5r 4111
J
Total Mitigation on Site `6/AA?2
Wetland: r/
Stream: 2900 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset: too )i%
Approved mitigation plan available? ?. No
Monitoring reports available. es No
^
Problem areas identified in reports' . i `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 °cri atii?`a c1iicV hale each component based on monitoring report
results. Record relevant data in Sections-,11"-"and ill:;
On back of sheet, note other informatiojQJ. un,04uring office review and/or to be obtained during site visit.
II. Summary of Results:
Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved
20030299-1 2900 linear feet Stream Restora(ion
2 , 6
.
19d ?J?)
ovo )S5 Li
Version 1.0 (August 220(37) ?_ c?. 41age 1 of 2
41
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table w i
NC Division of Water Quality
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this project is: Csuccessf 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: 2900 linear feet Stream Restoration 2 Component ID: 20030299-1
Description:
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? &e. Nor:
:+?(?? J
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
?JJAJ Ph
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site: Aide)
Are the structures installed correctly? No
Are the structures made of acceptable n1AWjpl?; 1&0 No
(Unacceptable materials include: railrbadAies,dohcrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately,wnere.$hown on the plan? )_Q,) 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,-iborreCtJocations: 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 th w'e? Yes No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water Ponded areas _
Describe any stream features that provide gyidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars,
downstream meander migration, chute cutoff.,formation, etc.):
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success eria.,
Is aquatic life present in the channels es No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantii :61) indiviilbals and general distribution of biota. Include a brief
description of the sampling methodology.
-AN rS
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e g. erosion, discharges or toxicants, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
?r..,...,z1 h..?. Page 1 oft
he
U
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? No (j ??V !
Average TPA for entire site (per repoies : -WA j
Observational field data agrees? s No A? U cL J 1
?f?JIJ
based on community composition? No ,v 3
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes 1?f6, ' t
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer, width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):
.Z m? . , ?fQo
or, )J 141)&SCT,
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no veg%a'tio i?,,
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetatedtareas.rtf -c
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and %'cd' er)
List any remaining Vegetation itsubto address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.).
qww? 1#??
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is:?;uccess I partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
i ' 414kP M"(W
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 cond itions-and-areas-ef- 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:
0.
r-
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 2 of 2