20061199 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090701 (2)

?s??1S t.?/L ?r?1CL?t1 ?.rY Pte,
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review; ' Evaluator's Name(s): _
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Ye r:
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s): /LZ
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Immediately to the south of NC Hwy 561, south of Tillery.
i. uTTlce KeVlew inTormation:
Project Numbe 20061199
Project Name: Conoconnara Site
County(ies): Halifax
Basin & subbasin: Roanoke 03010107
Nearest Stream: Looking Glass Run
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP)
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 148 acres
Stream: 5050 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. 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
Site Visit - Streams 3/19/2008
Site Visit - Wetlands 3/19/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 5/27/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 2/12/2009
"Add significant project-related events: reports,
received, construction, planting, repairs, etc.
-11IV uinLot- review, note success criteria ana 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
20061199-1 69 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Restoration 3
20061199-2 8 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Enhancement 3
20061199-3 71 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Preservation 3
20061199-4 5050 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 3
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2

Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 5050 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 Component ID: 20061199-4
Description:
Location within project: See map
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and no s regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES -Approved Su es o teria:,,
Stable structures 0-1b
L
List all types of structures present on 2-?. ' /1 2
Are the structures installed correctly? No v
Are the structures made of acceptable material? No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with r#ar, .
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:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria: 1
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? PNOo
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water Ponded areas
Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e. . mid-channel bars,
downstream mea
r)) / ? - , -I- <1 v---, 114 G, r/ nder migration, chute cutoff formats, eA ? '--J
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
l
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:
320 spa in yr 3, 260 spa in yr 5
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? es No
Date of last planting:
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAf'% cover
ASWmak?'
Vegetation growing successfully? es No
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g
etc.):
buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
?? ,???.?? _ ill tS
sry?9 rte, Ivu1il'GIN
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas: Iv o ;/off
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
L___-
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component i : successf I partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-u ns, recommendations, etc.):
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