20020906 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20091006

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
/? NC Division of Water Quality 7
Date of Office Review: V ? 11 - Evaluator's Name(s): V(?-
Date of Report: =0viv Report for Monitoring Year: Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: h - N, At' RW Weather Conditions (today & recent). _
Directions to Site: Site is located south of SR1261 and east of SR1210. Access is by road on Richardson Farm.
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20020906 Proiect History
Project Name: Suck Creek
County(ies): Moore
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030003
Nearest Stream: Suck Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 0
Stream: 3260 linear feet
Buffer: 0
Nutr. Offset:
Approved mitigation plan available? "/Y- No
Monitoring reports available? es No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site: j `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
20020906-1 3260 linear feet Stream Restoration
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
,ATION SUCCESS:
spared to the approved mitigation plan, this project is: successful partially successful unsuccessful
specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
tional 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: 3260 linear feet Stream Restoration Component ID: 20020906-1
Description:
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
none Isited
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
log vanes, J-hook vanes, cross vanes, root wads, boulder clusters and installing fencing to keep out cattle
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? Yes No
j 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:
none listed
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 thialweg ('Yes`, No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water T r Ponded areasw
Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel b s,
downstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.):
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria: F
none listed
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
over 260s/a but report doesn't say over what time period Species Story TPA/'/ cover
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:
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 2

Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: #Error Component ID:
Description:
Location within project:
Ill. Buffer Site Details: r (' ;
Riparian Buffer (Streams Only) Nutrient Offset (Streams or Ditches)
Streams verified by DWQ: Yes No Buffer Width:
Comments:
Total Acres:
Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres:
Buffer Width: 50`, > 50'
Grandfathered Site? (EEP Only)
Yes No
Comments:
Total Acres:
Restored A?s:
/'
Enhanced Acres:
f,
IV. Success Criteria Evaluation:
-- -
VEGETATION: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/lo cover
NOTE: Success Criteria is 320 spay
tv !
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
? ?ti
Vo
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas and associated stream bank (e.g. bank stability,
overall health of vegetation, etc.)
Jai h
Cf
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:
i
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.
-y Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009) Page 2 of 2