20041482 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090604

it
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s): eYa
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s): ?LZ- 1L
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: West of Startown Road, east of US Highway 321, and north of Elbow Road, approx.five miles SW of Newton.
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20041482
Project Name: South Fork
County(ies): Catawba
Basin & subbasin: Catawba 03050101
Nearest Stream: South Fork Catawba River
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: WS-V
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP)
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 14294 linear feet
Buffer:
N utr. Offset:
Approved mitigation plan available? W No
Monitoring reports available? No
Event
Project History i
Site Visit - Streams
,my 2 s
1007
Event Date
9/26/2007
C?72?i a J ?
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Mitigation required on site:
Add significant project-related events: report
s,
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
20041482-1 9590 linear feet Stream Restoration 1
20041482-2 4704 linear feet Stream Enhancement t
l?
;G
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
5
5
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.):
MT IuS?_
E
A4 i/ CO w s toa Vi d (-,? rd4AR

Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
,. Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 9590 linear feet Stream Restoration 1 Component ID: 20041482-1
Description: Includes all rest. Reaches on site; UT1, UT2, UT3, M1, UT4, UT5, and M2
Location within project: Unknown
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:
Stable structures
List all types of structures present on site: ?dOjL.J ?? C)705S?4WbT VP MM:5
Are the structures installed correctly? `f No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? (ai) No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? Y_Z'g-) No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? (Yr) No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures: ???'??
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Riffle-pool sequences
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations Y No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg N
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water - Ponded areas 7,
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:
320 SPA woody veg by year 3
Is aquatic life present in the channel? YDrall o
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals an 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?
Average TPA for entire site (per re
Observational field data agrees?
based on community composition?
based on TPA and/or % cover?
Ye No
port):
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAP/ cover
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 4

Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 4704 linear feet Stream Enhancement Component ID: 20041482-2
Description: Include Enh 1 (UT2 and UT5) and Enh 2 (UT1)
Location within project: Unknown
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
NA
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable Structures
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:
320 SPA woody veg by yr 3
Is aquatic life present in the channel? Yes No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and general distribution of biota
description of the sampling methodology.
Include a brief
List any remaining aquatic biota issues to address (e.g. erosion, discharges or toxicants, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
I
Page 3 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAP/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): 0-170
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 j
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 4 of 4