20041612 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090630

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year: A/0 NeW&r
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencie Pr sent:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Frtom US 64 take US 421 north to Old Liberty road. Left onto Old Liberty Road to Melanchton. Right on
Ramseur Julian Rd. Site is on right.
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20041612
Project Name: Meredell Farm
County(ies): Randolph
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030003
Nearest Stream: Sandy Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: WS-III
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site Wetland: fX
Stream: 13702 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
Project History

Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
i
Monitoring reports available? Yes No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No j
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site: -Add significant project-related events: reports,
Associated impacts (if known): received, construction, planting, repairs, etc. l
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
20041612-1 6580 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
20041612-2 1988[[ linear feet Stream (Perennial) Enhancement
20041612-3 51341inear feet Stream (Perennial) Preservation
STS
/? dK ?XP> S? C11 /I A
A10 V
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:
j List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
Additional comments (e.g
successful partially successful unsuccessful
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: 6580 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
Description: UT1, UT2, M1 UT3
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 notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? Yes
Are the structures made of acceptable material? Yes
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Yes
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? Yes
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
Component ID: 20041612-1
No
No
No
No
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
i 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.)
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)

Page 1 of 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
320 spa after 5 yrs Species Story TPA/'/ cover
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
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 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 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 1988 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Enhancement Component ID: 20041612-2
Description: UT4, UT5
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 notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? Yes No
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 3 of 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
320 spa after 5 yrs Species story TPAP/ cover
I
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 I
No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
General observations on condition of ripari an/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
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 4 of 6
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 5134 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Preservation Component ID: 20041612-3
Description: M2, Sandy Creek
Location within project: See map
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
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 5 of 6
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
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAP/ cover
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 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 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 6 of 6