20061199 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080320

Date of Office Review:
Date of Report: Ah~
Date of Field Review:
Other individuals/agencie pr sent: _
Weather conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site:
1 !'1FFinn Rnvinui Infnrm7l'inn•
Evaluator's name(s): V ~Z'
Report for Monitoring Year:
Project Number:
Project Name: CCU U~vN~.l~
County(ies): /,~,~u Ax
Basin 8~ Subbasin: 2dA,ao1~£ ~3U (OIO~
Nearest Stream: ~Gb)CJrI~ 61~~5/~UN
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type: C~p 7 VLIr ~, ~L.1 ~E2 ~ ~) ~~'
DOT Status: ~J
Total Mitigation on-Sit p1
Wetland: C~lF~~C M~B~+/A~'~0-~ OT Ri~~~ J
Stream: ~O $d C.'~
Buffer:
,~5 gU~LT
Approved mitigation plan available? s No
Monitoring reports available? ~ 1~ Yes No.
Problem areas identified in reports? ~~~ Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site:
Associated impacts:
Event
/~S- ~vt ~
Project History:
Date

*Add significant project-related events: reports
received, construction, planting, repairs, etc.
During office review, note success criteria and evaluate eacn component oasea on monitonng report
results. Record relevant data in Sections II & III.
On back of sheet, note other information found during office review or to be obtained during site visit.
u. summa or rcesulis:
Monit Success Success
Miti ation Com onent Year re ort field Resolved
s~~~~ ~~asa ~~' o ~~ ~~
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the mitigation plan, this project is: successful partially successful not successful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
,~A. l~r ~~~ ~ ~~
Additional Comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 1
I ations: Information Table ~~ ~ ~ ~ !
Mitigation Project Eva u
. NC Division of Water Quality

Stream Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION -Approved Success Criteria:
3z~ Spy y~ 3~ ,2~d s~ ~1z5
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:
Dominant Plant Species
Species StoN TPAP/ Cover
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No ~
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc. )
X57 `~`~~ ` i~v~r~9~ sT~cK~~'~~ ~6U ~ lC>0 S~
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with tittle to no vegetation: ,~~~)~ ~D~/1 ~ ~~~. ~/2
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
~a~' o.QS~ev~
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
~l/~ - (ST ~~~ - Ta ~~91~z ~~ ~~o~C
Additional Comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions re ommendations, etc.):
~~v~_~~~- G~9ub~s ~~ ,ACA~f~~.
~~a,~ /~li~/zoTOP0~~9p~jY 1~ ~l ~2~~9~J ~~~
not successful
Use the definitions in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines to determine the correct type of
mitigation used for this project.
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

Stream Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component:
Location within project:
ui. uata rceportea rrom aiie visit
STREAMBANK STABILITY -Approved Success Criteria:
Are Streambanks Stable? Ye No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES -Approved Success Criteria:
List afl Types of structures present on site:~DN~- 1V ~~~
Are the structures installed correctly? Yes No
Are the structures made of acceptable material?
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete w/rebar, etc.) Yes No
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:
~ ~~~~ ~~ ~--~ ~~ 7~
-Approved Success Criteria:
i
e riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations? ~ No
the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? es No ~
iy evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the halweg? Yes o
;rcentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water Ponded areas
v~o~lo~
'scribe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.~,rni~h~ el bars,
~wnstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.): ~..CCJJ

AQUATIC BIOTA -Approved Mitigation Criteria:
Is aquatic life present in the channel? ~ No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and general distribution of biota. Include a
brief description of the samp-ing 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