20041511 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20100510

1
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: C-5 -- ic) - ? ) Evaluator's Name(s): !)
Date of Report: S162 Report for Monitoring Year: q
Date of Field Review: =?L?='7 Evaluator's Name(s):r-; 11
ir-
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: ac_
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Site is located to the northeast of Ramseur, immediately south of the intersection of Watkins Rd (NCSR 2481)
and Fergusin Rd (NCSR 2479)
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20041511 Project History
Project Name: Open Springs Mitigation Site ;Event Event Date
County(ies): Randolph
Report Receipt: Monitoring 10/29/2008
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030003
Nearest Stream: UT to Deep River
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP)
DOT Status: DOT
Total Mitigation on Site "'Jo
Wetland:
Stream: 6825 linear feet____ Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
........... ..................:........
Approved mitigation plan available? .-Yes.-- R . ---
Monitoring reports available? es - No.
Problem areas identified in reports? a Nd'
Problem areas addressed on site? a No?
Mitigation required on site: I *Add significant project-related events: reports,
Associated impacts (if known): 't re +eNsd construction, planting, repairs, etc.
During office review, note success crit'6 is and evaluat each component based on monitoring report
results. Record relevant data in Sections ll,:and Ill. -
On back of sheet, note other information fawp ;during office review and/or to be obtained during site visit.
II. Summary of Results:
Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved
20041511 6825 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Multiple Types LP
20»CA `5
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
Uq` t? tai; riit.
a ,
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.):

C i:y;?'
;(, aV
t1 v 4 Page 2 of 2
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
!;;)n `.::U O 3?z9 i:1121nh
? t
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of'Watei Quality
Component: 6825 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Multiple Types Component ID: 20041511
Description: 3609 Restoration, 3216 E2
Location within project: See maps
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? es No ti ?.. v1n c?u
If no, provide description and not regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable structures
List all types of structures present on site:.
Are the structures installed correctly? Ye No
Are the structures made of acceptable matet"!pl?" No
?4r. E No
(Unacceptable materials include reilr6ladties, co"ncxete:with reba , etc.
Are the structures located approximately whiE r n.orr;the plan? a No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? es' No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the;: =,rectdocetions3' No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? es No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg 26 No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water' ' 50 Ponded areas SD
Describe any stream features that provid. y,oence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars,
downstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.): (\Z1(l.9._
4o LX.3 C) uo
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success,611 rl'4:
Is aquatic life present in the channel? Yes No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities'of noividuals and general distribution of biota. Include a brief
description of the sampling methodology. J
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
r ai
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: 6o inant Plant Species
2?0 spa in yr 5 Species Story TPA/'/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? No'
Average TPA for entire site (per report
Observational field data agrees? No
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? fe No
Date of last planting:)ob
Vegetation growing successfully? ys) > °+
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer are (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):Y??s5?1v1? 5rc?ly)
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no,ve?e#at+r3ns ;Ur J •1
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated'areas
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % covR
List any remaining vegetation 4issues to address (e.g. plantcsUrvival, concerns, etc.):
4r 4C ovL'3
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: su ces I p rtially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Cat v?S 2 C4
W 1\? +rY' ?t i C 1 L; p?12S:, rvL c' cq_1-4'L ?r L dCs2.?G?9*? C ?v'' U- r cry' J
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow--up actions, recommendatiof?sgetc.):
X' .* .,
-
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 suc6e'4s`criteri6u-1abel and attach photos to this report.
Attach maps showing photo locations, problem.aareasq_arad/oc i'mportant stream features.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
,.
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) ,.r f " Page 2 of 2