19970330 Ver 1_Mitigation Site Visit_20090708

ti
Date of Office Review:
Date of Report:
Evaluator's Name(s): 1/b_(_
Report for Monitoring Year'
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies P es nt: i -
Weather Conditions (today & recent): f
Directions to Site: SW of Greensboro near Exit 120 off 1-85. Site is generally bordered by Wiley Davis Rd., High Point Rd., and
existing developments
i. uttice
Project Number: 19970330
Project Name: Grano olden Road
County(ies): Guilford
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030003
Nearest Stream: Reddick's Creek/Deep River
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: WS-IV
Mitigator Type: Private
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 2 acres
Stream: 3000 linear feet
Buffer:
N utr. Offset:
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available? Yes No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site:
Associated impacts (if known):
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Review - Streams 2/22/2007
Report Review - Wetlands 3/1/2007
Site Visit - Streams 6/5/2007
Site Visit - Wetlands 6/5/2007
Report Receipt: Monitoring 1/16/2009
Report Review - Streams 1/28/2009
Report Review - Wetlands 2/4/2009
PA)z 1010?
"Add significant project-related events: reports,
received, construction, planting, repairs, etc.
During ottice 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.
11. Summary of Results:
Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved
19970330-1 3000 linear feet Stream Restoration
19970330-2 2 acres Wetland Creation
7
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
7
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 3000 linear feet Stream Restoration Component ID: 19970330-1
Description:
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
"creation of a stable, enhanced C4/e channel that is reconnected to its floodplain and capable of more efficie
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
5'ri2LSor19: G'?,R ?AJJJ_ 6p)FIL t?' IV/ PN
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
root wads, rip rap, j-hooks, cross-vanes, weirs
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? es No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? Y No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Yes No ft- 1j
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? (9 No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
#J 1/96VLI,
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations (Q No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? Yes No 7
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg Yes No `
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water W4 Ponded areas d
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? 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: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
AW M5-* 1
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on community composition? ® No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer idth, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation
'Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas: /v1
Invasive ties on (species, lot tion(s aid %?over ?C2os/?,G)vA
(T4ZWPW?)l
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is.. cress partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
Use the definitions in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines to determine the cvrrec< <yNr U1
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