20061334 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080320

aG- ~ ~3~
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table

~~ NC Division of Water Q ality
vLZ
d~
'
~~ ~~~
Date of Office Review: s Name(s):
valuator
,
U £Ul t
Date of Report: Cdr? Report for Monitoring Year: ~_
L
v~
'
Date of Field Review: U s Name(s):
-
E lu tot
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: LL ~ 2 ~'~~

Weather Conditions (today 8~ 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
o.......... r...... o....a o...;...d :....., ....ti•
I. Office Review Information:
'Project Number: 20061334 Proiect History
~
Project Name: Harrell Site j Event Event Date
County(ies): Edgecombe
li
T
P
~ 03020101 ' Report Receipt: Mitigation Plan 4/4/2007
ar-
am
co
~~ Basin 8~ subbasin: Application Review -Wetlands 4/10/2007
Nearest Stream: Swift Creek ~ Application Review -Streams 4/10/2007
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C; NSW
~
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery ( ' ~
~~,
'DOT Status: non-DOT ,
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 15 acres
Stream: 6987 linear feet
Buffer:
Approved mitigation plan available? ©e No ' ~, i
', Monitoring reports available? Yes No ~'~~
Problem areas identified in reports? ~ No
~~, Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site: *Add significant project-related events: reports,
~, Associated impacts (if known): 1 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
II 20061334-2 5722 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 2
20061334-3 15 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration
~~
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: successful partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
', Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.)
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2

f
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? ~ No
', If no, provide description and notes regarding sta ility issues:
~d~ ~~>J ~ I ~~~ .~7~~
STRUCTURES -Approved Success Criteria:
~~, List all t es of structures present on site: ~QC(C UR~~~,S ~ti~1• ~ l~f
YP ~
~', 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 es 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 ~ No
I! 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.):
-~. St~~~~G~i~s -
AQUATIC BIOTA -Approved Success Criteria:
--_ J
Is aquatic life present in the channel? ~ No
'Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and general distribution of biota. Include a brief
description of the sampling methodology.
~s i~
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, discharges or toxicants, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 20~~
~~/U~G" j ~~ w Nd ~~UC IFS
Page 1 of 4

Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
- - - -- - --_-- - __ --- - -- T- - ---- _ -- -_- _ - _ __ __ __
VEGETATION -Approved Success Criteria. Dominant Plant Species
!~ ~ Species Storv TPA/'/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No L 1~
Average TPA for entire site (per rep ort): V `r
j~
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
~~ based on community composition? Yes No
~'~, based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No ~I
II Vegetation planted on site? Yes No '
i
j Date of last planting:
'i Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No ~, ~'I
--- -- - --
__- - -
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc. ):
.~SI _ ~'~Jyllrt/6 .S'~A,1V1~ - /i'1 u~ l L 6'l~/~~
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.):
i
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:

/c%9 Td ~2 ~ T~~~-
', Additional comments (e.g. DWQ f o -up aa-c~tio)ns, recommendations, etc.):
Use the~nitio~~t~~e ~oiht-state/federal stream miti ation uidelines to determine the correct t e of
1 9 9 Yp
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
111. Success Criteria Evaluation:
', STREAMBANK STABILITY -Approved Success Criteria:
',
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes reg ding st lity i sues:
.~ t ~~~ ~
STRUCTURES -Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site: G~~ ~QOPS- C'dNSZ~~~I`TTL~'
Are the structures installed correctly? Y No ~~
Are the structures made of acceptable material? es No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
', Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Ye No '~
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? ~ No `
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
___ _ _ -__
FEATURES -Approved Success Criteria: I~
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 64' Ponded areas ~' ~' ` ~~
~ Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars,
downstream mea~er migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.): ',
~7U~ P~~,~~AC~ ~ ~o~ ~t~w7 ~, rs _ ~(~~1i~ i~2 ~ ~J) ~ ~ -- J~9 g~ ~~ V~IN~ ~
AQUATIC BIOTA -Approved Success Criteria:
Is aquatic life present in the channel? Yes No i,
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals an neral distribution of biota. Include a brief I
I~ description of the samplin methodology.
~~Q~Nt~~9~-s~ ~~ ~l~~jl~
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, discharges or toxicants, etc.):
__
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
Page 3 of 4

Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION -Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
Species Storv TPAP/ cover
.n
~'~ Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No ~
~ 1 C
Average TPA for entire site (per report): ~~ '
)
Observational field data a r ~
gees . 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,
j etc.):
IS) yf~~ - ~,e~~~~;
' 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.):
ti~
i; MITIGATION SUCCESS: ',
'~i 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, re o mendations, etc.):
t/q TC(~ {~r~ c~iJ U u J ~
___
Use the definitions in the joint state/fed ral 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 4