HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030368 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080521Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s): ew?
Date of Report: 0 / Report for Monitoring Year:_
Date of Field Review: c5 l la Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent): 44)1,A? 1 ?4 2 : ,/,?9?/nl tS
Directions to Site: On Hillandale Golf Course
1. Office Review Information:
-- -- ---
Project Number: 20030368 Project History
Project Name: Ellerbe Creek H LG91 biz _ C .cam
!Event Event Date
County(ies): Durham
Report Review - Streams 3/30/2007
Basin & subbasin: Neuse 03020201 Site Visit -Streams 3/30/2007
Nearest Stream: Ellerbe Creek
I,
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C;NSW ?
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP j
DOT Status:
I ?.
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 0 acres
Stream: 6271 linear feet PZ
Buffer:
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available? 49)No
No
Problem areas identified in reports?
6?
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes
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 information found during office review and/or to be obtained during site visit.
II. Summary of Results:
Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved
20030368-1 6271 linear feet Stream (Perennial)
q&e < loot
Z,q SDA)
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
C ) ?Pl_
uppll
S PA,??
C
Page 1 of 2
,MCI
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this project is: successful partially successful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
Ii?(/L?')Pl? ??V)?L - ?4?-T lll? rlooamw 4o, PI-3
unsuccessful
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table (
NC Division of Water Quality J?? ?U?
Component: 6271 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Component ID: 2 3 8-1 ?` \
Description:
l
Location within project:
lu Q ll.)
III. Success Criteria Evaluation: d? _ +
V\J
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria: W
Are streambanks stable? es o g MOT
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
6),J U11 SZoKS- [J
STRUCTURES - Approved %Sucss Criteria: ) ?1 6
List all types of structures present on site: ?J? Vol
t?
Are the structures installed correctly? es No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? gi) No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? es No /Txc> ?r
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations ?& 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 thalwPg Yes ?o
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 Success 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 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
me, 6f ?ftmr/F r
46
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes
Average TPA for entire site (per report): _
Observational field data agrees? Yes
based on community composition? Yes
based on TPA and/or % cover?
Vegetation planted on site?
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully?
Dominant Plant Species
Species Storv TPAP/ cover
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):
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 remain ing,vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
j Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
/'? jcb4A5" y? V t?k 1
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 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: _
fv/ ,1 6? 1/?-5 GJ)1L PUS
Version 1.0 (Aug s 22, 2007` TO
Page 2 of 2
r ZIP 4_5