20030299 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080521

99 ??
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s): (/L
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:_
Date of Field Review: 5 Evaluator's Name(s): AVI)):Z
Other Individuals/Agencies Pr sent:
Weather Conditions (today & recent): L/?/ lL? `1.Fi9? 1 v? .?0
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
(.Office Review Information: r -,
Project Number: EEP139-•/ Project History
Project Name: Third-Fork` Creek Stream Restoration (For Event Event Date
County(ies): Durham
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030002
Nearest Stream: Third Fork Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C IJ
4E 30d
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 2900 linear feet
Buffer:
Report Review - Streams 3/30/2007
Site Visit - Streams 3/30/2007
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
j Monitoring reports available? es No
Problem areas identified in reports? CYe?, >No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site: j Add significant project-related events: reports,
Associated impacts (if known): 1 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:
j Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved
EEP139-1 2900 linear feet Stream Restoration 2 4
G __
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
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.):
1 C0 LNG o?' ??rN7 n?I??
?sr?ccpA-?s
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: EEP139-1
Description:
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation: ?'` ?? ?V?'" 1?
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
,Cr-2 RZP012f-J Nao4(P ?r?toq 'zmf OVOW)1 ?4"
N( 1/- 3'1 -? ?a - 6Afe sq,66 ?Od
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
jJ? fl S
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? Y No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? Ye No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
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 struc res:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations AA67T pn) Yes No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan spec cations? Yes No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thal eg Yes
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 mean _der migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.):
,??,? 1o?b n,`z??' ?S'r?? l?? , L?1?S TU?'t<Dt7
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success 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
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per rep ort):
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:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No

Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAPlo cover
General ob ervations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc. ):, , t?i2 GJ) ?7? - 30' P£2IaPOJ 1' 9U' A4JA)46 Zo 6jHZ
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
j 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.):
j4?vv,iV?S F1?45J ?y91 J11k)ll??
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
partially successful unsuccessful
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
J
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:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
v n <
ao?rn?n>wti-?0 A?A? awiv
o
_ o
NoooT
no N
N N N O W OW N 2222.
n?imm NAAP, mNN w
gi a?wen'N?i ?am? IC
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z
rn'aoop?wu? mm ??' 'mom ?? o
?m in min
rnom m11 ?
U A A O ? w
¦ I S ?
d
a<i u00i ? 3
O
N F 3 1
N J Cr
N fD
3
c c D
0 N
? 3 N
a rn
0 0
SAN
o d
o o x m°
d ? ? C A
_ o c
o /
East Forest Hills Blvd.
o
/ f -
0+50
-11+00
-------11+so
--- 13+00

-------- -18+00
18+50
U

m
N
20+50
__._.-------- ___-__21+50
- --22+00
+50 0
y -.23+00 v p
N Y
- --- - -23+50 ?-
. 24+00 [n H
V"
2a+so 0
? o to
m o a u<i O m o o C1 •-
__ -25+00 o m m f 'm d o y m 0 ' N
z p? m f o N m ? O X 'C O
r y p? O
A ci
C) 0
e
00 1111 y m o z tr7 c'o ( C
b ti
v g` O b f co
?._-. _.._ -.-26+ D
7. w
n
Figure 1.1 Match line
D Figure 1.2

o H
N
N q
00
A
1

\ -
t __-26+

Figure 1.1 Match line
- -- o Figure 1.2
?V v
'--_ . _... O O <
0

p
A W N O N
O
01
A A W W fA m
r- .1Z1 r W OD V O N
O

W 3

-
N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N O
N N N N=1 N N N N c
O O O O W 0 0 0 0°
N N N N N N N N N

of
(T (T N U1 (Ji
O] J J J J 00
O O? OD
o
0 N (T (T N !n N N N M

J J J OD 00 J J 00 Dl
!!??
l;/ . W
f
0
O O? N N W (n cO J J N J j N (/I
(p OD O O (p W Ui

--°--- - 00 O? 00 O? N O1
W f0 J? O (T
J J O OD W t0

JNtO ODNN O Q> W W J W (T OD 7
f0 O j OJ N O CT O
O W O N O
A 00 a 0 A
J
tp W fp -+
.__29+ 000000 _
A A A A a oa a
I V -- _ -30 0 ao ao a m oo au ao ao 0o w ao 00 0o m
Z
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
j Q? OJ O N W
00 -? O (1? J o
o 0
N N O O A Q> OO W
J (Ji Ut J j W N
i? --- 0+50
A?OA
OI PD
NA O W ON

1 V O O W J O
J W OD NA N
O O O 1 N
m O
-• Ui A U? dD A
N?? ? A A W W A (Ji 4r 00 -+
-+ O N co W N O
O OD O A 00 N J Vf
tD cD N a7 J A A N
J J J V A m O W
???
-- 31+00 -+ N N N
East Forest Its B vd. x
= m
- -31+50
0
.
m c
32+00
? fi ID
c 'n 3

32+50 y D
? d
N

(D l?
-_--33+00 r o
O V
N
/
?.
O
-?
i. 33+50 o o, n Q c
C C o d

?,s
mil...? _ -34+00 m n
c
v v y
C
= N 0° S y
C
\ -.-
-_
4+50
- -- c
a

0
A
I:
36+50
x 0-..-- - -37+50
A a 0 o
o p1
I ? - - --38+51
d?
?- ---------39+00
39+50

c
b4
0. ? 023
ry7 rn

mon5Np
N N F N d
3oog
O N m J y y
0C?
R b N
o
3 m W

m y j d m
o 3 n

y= °
z 7< o
py ° r7

o

"

3 A
CL 0
rox °
-c
o = w
c
0
a N w
w
?