20040929 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080318

y Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table 2~b~~~~~
NC Division of Water Quality ®~'
77
Date of Office Review: il,~ l~G9lVs I.~C • Evaluator's name(s): /~~- ~
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: ~ U Ev a o 's
Other individuals/agenci s p esent: M ~
Weather conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site:
I. Office Revie ormation:
Project Num v 0
Project Name: G
County(ies):
Basin & Subbasin:
Nearest Stream:
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type:
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: G2~S L~
Buffer:
Approved mitigation plan available?
Monitoring reports available?
Problem areas identified in reports?
Problem areas addressed on site?
Mitigation req-wired on site:
Associated impacts:
Event
Project History:
Date
l~ G~Tr
®, No
Yes ~!
~~
*Add significant project-related events: reports
received, construction, lantin , re airs, etc.
_,
G~~~
During office review, note success criteria ana evaluate eacn cornpvnei ~~ uasCU ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~.y ~ ~N~~
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.
II. Summa of Results:
Monit Success Success
Mitigation Component Year re ort field Resolved
~~o lad o.J sIT~.
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:
Additional Comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, r ommendations, etc.):
C~~ ~A~ ~d 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~P ,~ ~-~
~bT ~~~ ~T~O PO~r ~S d M~~, /c~f,' T~' ~~/I ~~
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) ~~ )J~ ~) L C~ -- ~~ ~ Page 1 of 1
"v C ~ ~~~~q ~,q~~~ ~

Stream Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION -Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
/U`4 It~a2TS ~U~t~~6 L~ Species Story TPA/'/ Cover
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
Date of last planting:
Ve etation rowin successful) ? Yes No
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc. )
T~f~ ~SPA2s~ ~~/_IUpA2~A~ ~~-,~GsI~ /-~~.o~4C'~ovS
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.):
~~A~LSI~~~ _c~!~~f~ ~~ ~~~ ~~1~
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially [u~ccessful not successful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component: ~ /~
~0 ~ ~ j ~ u~
Additional Comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommend do s, etc.):
~ ~~ 1 ~ 2~~0~ ~ ~a~-A~~s ~~.~s ~~.~ c~'~J~~~
y
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:
III. uata rcepor[ea rrom mite visit
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approv Success Criteria:
Are Streambanks Stable? Y s No
If no, provide description and notes 'rding stability issues:
STRUCTURES -Approved Success Criteria:
List all Types of structures present on site:
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:
TURES -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 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 provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars,
downstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.):
AQUATIC BIOTA -Approved Mitigation 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