20041235 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090203

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:
Date of Field Review: of - 2-r7 Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
W, eather Conditions (today & recent): i
rC Directi0 to Site: 1-95 south to exit 49 (NC Highway 53 S). Left onto Hwy 53 South for approx. 17 mile ig
G, \' FarmSj?Site straddles the Bladen and Cumb rland Co. borders.
??. I.Office Review Information:
C ? Project Number: 20041235 Proiect History
Project Name: Privateer Farms
County(ies): Cumberland Bladen
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030005
Nearest Stream: Harrison Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery r-+n Av 1?C
DOT Status: DOT ( tt?°.1,J VTLr
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 425 acres
Stream: 33985 linear feet
Buffer:
Event
Report Receipt: Mitigation Plan
Report Receipt: Application
Report Review - Streams
Report Receipt: Monitoring

into Privateer
'tUli, t1 C.iT S??f"C1`lll?,
Event Date
7/27/2004
7/27/2004
1/9/2008
1/9/2008
-213) oci o? U)L
r 0b v -P?
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: *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:
Mitigation Component
Monitoring Success Success
Year (report) (field) Resolved
20041235-1 400 acres Wetland Restoration
20041235-2 25 acres Wetland Enhancement
120041235-3 33985 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
i?
r\.LA t. 0M U-) L iJ:? ;y)c°r ?'tI,?COs
r k(j pLan 3 Z -TPA V- ?S
Cn
qDf
?sc
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2 n of
c%
Ike&
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.):
AAC
L t1e ?>c?sS l ?r?? LJ? ct r'L'b c?_ ?Jty.
.
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 400 acres Wetland Restoration Component ID: 20041235-1
Description: Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands
Location within project: See map
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
inundation/saturation within 12" of surface for 12.5% of growing ? Inundated
season Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology is ues to address (e.g. remaining ditcJ?es, excepsive water, etc.):
Cell ct i"-(" , r ?4n? U? c c??? 1 (i( ?lcc c y?Lj? +r<zc1 L'L
i 11r1 i L;WiNAh 0 be G r?o n -ux.. t MCL, ",-a
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric?
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
320 spa after five years (from mitigation plan)
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
? P-1"A3LD
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on community composition? No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? es No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
voukc?-' ( -?Vv- Yr 4)

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):
U.

List any remaining vegetation issues toad ress (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
be lGf, tSC rts.? iis? c(' ,Lx, ccC
v?,? t?1( V7 r ?cl? C. t ?;-`J ?t 2 - f `f GL L1? i
c ± ,? cc i-cJ _V`mac rni 1x_.? _ rn_ - -
1;
?v ?Ckl L?
Lv'C:"Cl,l ?. Ci ?CC.? ?- C'1 vf. l_.CL'"t. Lt?L I? cc LLk i tc! c
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) f I I A Page 11?of 4
I A C; <?lQ( c L l'1% i?\ ?L 'r rV wi?CT At)
?1 L ^l`
Yes No
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, 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.):
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, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 25 acres Wetland Enhancement Component ID: 20041235-2
Description: Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Location within project: Northern side of site
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
320 spa after five years (from mitigation plan)
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
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, 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.):
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, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 4 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 33985 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
Description: Harrison Creek
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:
Component ID: 20041235-3

Jje'

STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site:
?+lk -+?
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:
19?s? ?c Lo C-AA-cbs
ho4 (xn P&A rlf nn?irrF'. rz)
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:"'
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations cj?2 G?irDL ? O?Yesll ID -
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? Yes No LA'k
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg Yes No 0-111
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:
Macrobenthos monitoring included (Qual-4) Pre and three years post.
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

11-9

n
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
See above Species Stony TPAI'/ cover
I
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,
i 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):
i
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:
i
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
L
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