20030045 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20071101

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review:
Date of Report: M)VPrnbC f ?-T )O 1
Date of Field Review:
Other Individuals /Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site:
I. Office Review Information:
Evaluator's Name(s):
Report for Monitoring Year:
Evaluator's Name(s):
Project Number: 20030045 Proiect History
Project Name: Moye
Event Event Date
County(ies): Greene
Basin & subbasin: Neuse 03020203 Site Visit 4/20/
Buffer 12009
Nearest Stream: Contentnea Creek C rJ U-} ff_Ce5A-(d - 3,1,,�,tl�t)
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C Sw NSW t- �m�'C�Q �T
Mitigator Type: Full- Delivery (EEP) IfACa,Q plar`1_.._ _1�3
DOT Status: �`�
�I mom, -�c� �2� C)
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: S(90c hefbiCaCV -2 S10�0
Stream:
Buffer:,91o3- acres ►52285
Nutr. Offset: 'O.lp2a_C. (1tAbQ.32 S��A .�
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes N9
Monitoring reports available? Ye No
Problem areas identified in reports? No
Problem areas addressed on site? a No
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
Year (report) (field) Resolved
Mitigation Component
20030045 -1 -35L9 acres Buffer Restoration
-2. OAc1 c� c. t-L- 0
Version 1.0 (August 22, 200 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.):
- -con** cbG au(A CSC\, �- \oJui-Q-0
— ecaZ5;cwc 00--;-QLVCx5R-0rTJ -W'l�rn ­`v(1:4 &i+e ul
�YY1�Q 0" *
Version 1.0 (August 22, 200 7) Page 2 of 2

Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 37.1 acres Buffer Restoration Component ID: 20030045 -1
Description: goal: eventually expand project total to 90 acres
Location within project:
III. Buffer Site Details:
Riparian Buffer (Streams Only) Nutrient Offset (Streams or Ditches)
Streams verified by DWQ: Yes No Buffer Width:
Comments: Comments:
Total Acres: q�0
Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres:
Buffer Width: 50' > 50'
Grandfathered Site? (EEP Only) Ye No
IV. Success Criteria Evaluation:
VEGETATION:
NOTE: Success Criteria is 320 spa
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): 1 14-
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
Total Acres: D. 4 Z
Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres:
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/lo cover
O &k-
�e�- E�UrY�
General observations on condition of riparian /buffer areas and associated stream bank (e.g. bank stability,
overall health of vegetation, etc.)
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009)
Page 1 of 2
'C 7

,
Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
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):
Easement Marking Method:
List any remaining issues to address (e.g. plant survival, easement encroachment, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful not successful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional Comments (e.g. DWQ follow -up actions, recommendations, etc.):
During site visit, document representative conditions and areas of concern. Label and attach photos to
this report.
Attach maps showing photo locations, problem areas, and /or important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009) Page 2 of 2