20061334 Ver 1_Buffer and nutrient offset audit (2)_20090423

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
/
Date of Office Review: /0? Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year,
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies resen :
' 14,
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: From US 64 in Rocky Mount, go north on US 301 Bypass for 7.5 mi. to E. Battleboro Ave., which becomes
Battleboro-Leggett Rd. Left on Morningstar Ch. Rd. to Benson Farm Rd. Turn left onto dirt road across from
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20061334
Project Name: Harrell Site
County(ies): Edgecombe
Basin & subbasin: Tar-Pamlico 03020101
Nearest Stream: Swift Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C; NSW
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP)
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 15 acres lStream: _ 698 linear f let
r
Buffer:
Nutr Offset/
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Receipt: Mitigation Plan 4/4/2007
Application Review - Wetlands 4/10/2007
Application Review - Streams 4/10/2007
Site Visit - Streams 3/19/2008
Site Visit - Wetlands 3/19/2008
III
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available? Yes No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No j
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No L - - - -
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
20061334-1 1265 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2
20061334-2 5722 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 2
20061334-3 15 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration 2
nov - D? bu&k"- cA-LOU?, 6'dld J'QD cab .
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:
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
successful partially successful
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
unsuccessful
J
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 1265 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration Component ID: 20061334-1
Description: Reach 1 (P3 restoration)
Location within project: Upstream portion of stream
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and no garding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria: I?
I?
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? 'Y No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? e 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 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 that eg a No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water Ponded areas /A_
Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars,
ownstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.): _
0
r - - - - - - VWP -//
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteri
5
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 4
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 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? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAP/ cover
x?
AA
(u?
ct
1 V?
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
S ?At rp\
C L
V6
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width"?verall health of vegetation,
etc.):
,
1? C co Ur ?AA
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 remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
fA
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
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.):
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 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 5722 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2 Component ID: 20061334-2
Description: Reaches 2,3,4.
Location within project: Remainder of stream
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES -Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? Yes No
I Are the structures made of acceptable material? Yes 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 structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
-
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations Yes 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 thalweg Yes No
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? 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.):
I
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 3 of 4
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
r% t f 1 t 1 t'
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/% cover
i
I
a e o as pan mg.
I? Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No - -
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 remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
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 II
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, 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:
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 4 of 4

Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: #Error
Description:
Location within project:
111. Buffer Site Details:
Riparian Buffer (Streams Only)
Streams verified by DWQ: No
Comments:
Total Acres:
Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres:
Buffer Width: 50' S0'? Ow
Grandfathered Site? (EEP Only) Yes No
IV. Success Criteria Evaluation:
VEGETATION:
NOTE: Success Criteria is 320 spa
Mo ring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): V/7 (-
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Component ID:
Nutrient Offset (Streams or Ditches)
Buffer Width:
Comments: /
,.f
Total Acres:
Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres:
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAPlo cover
I
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas associated stream bank (e.g. bank stability,
overall health of vegetation, etc.)
kit
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009)
Page 1 of 2
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
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
partially successful not successful
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)
111)AJ ?'R?> ?'sD'
Page 2 of 2
r
Qrn?
Ll ?
n
1
i
1
to '
3
? 0 2
"_UU. UUU- N 30"Ul. UUU- N 30-UL. UUU- IV
A O m W
o
00
11 ro
0
0
CD yI;
CID
V ? r V
A l yr '? ,'?? ? ?e m ? I •+A°
`-
_
,? r/•, ,?? ??.... i/N Y.:.` ? ? - J //`??? J„??'? ???0\ as A4 I
w { ? r.
4
o
?s L
f -
7??,,-At?tot??f+,
??m? ?• ? ??"r t :'?„'" ' ? to ? (t ? ttg ? i ? t i ??,{ ??, '? f?r?,, ?y-.,.f ?M'??'?? ' ,
14
° f sl4 } 'F4 t' ?l?s y {{ ,rti? V
Cl c \ {i " 7 -1 ! t ?' I "
Kr } l.-.. y o
C a - F k! 1 - L ___ 2
r ? F _?_ V y\ n= I
.r`e.-? et n? ? 1?•? I J ` `??` i s l
10
1? U)
p
f ? w p
1;1 C?
'JLOIIA A
4
• ` s'?"° ? mss= o - o

""""""' '• 30'Ul.000- IV 36002.000' N
Map