20052147 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090224

r. ?
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: -- 4- zcrq Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: o? - 21 - 20Cf1 Evaluator's Name(s): 11
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: L?-&a_
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Coord. Are Reach 1, located north of Bolick Road
0......6 n ;.. -"6 ..i O......6 ' .J...... AL..., Cti. l:.... 0....4 CG nct CCukI 04 nOi 13,71, VU
(.Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20052147 Project History
Project Name: Gray Farm Stream Restoration E
t

County(ies): Iredell ven Event Date
Basin & subbasin: Catawba 03050101 Report Receipt: Monitoring 4/14/2008
Report Review - Streams 5/15/2008
Nearest Stream: Buffalo Shoals Creek Site Visit - Streams 5/19/2008
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 8004 linear feet
Buffer:
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:
Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year re ort( p ) (field) Resolved
20052147-1 5813 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 & 2
20052147-2 2191 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
A.
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
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 5813 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 & 2 Component ID: 20052147-1
Description: Reach 1 - north of Bolick Rd
Location within project: See maps
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stream bed form feat & cross-sections remain stable after 5yrs; no less than 2 bankfull events in 5yrs and in
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:

IU
I l C.? (L- Cpl) ?.r1J?C "U.4-LA `11,7?f
SIyLC? ,
l c? 1-GO 8 A.:,

?X ? ult,Lc
.
5f 2 ?v La_C_ j?w?c r - cal ?,?y? C?y c5`??2_7 1??C?- 4c..
-- UZ)
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
cross vanes, rock & log j-hooks
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly? a 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? Yes No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? Ye No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations Ye 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 Ci%L
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water Ponded areas G?A?
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:
none listed
Is aquatic life present in the channel? es 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 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
surv of woodies at least 320stems/ac after yr3, Species Story TPA/'/ Cover
288stems/acre through yr4, & 260 stems/acre through yr5
Monitoring report indicates success? No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? Yes
based on community composition? es No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes to
Vegetation planted on site? E 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.):
,,
n? vim`- d L4 hey JAA?? C),??::?rtc
ev ti rvv. uc 0'_ Ob L` ire ?'1?G ??c ? Z-tw?e , 1 ?7vYl°. ? - u?? ?
LO O ? 4e_(4_ ?_13?_7? Vj? ?'
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):
ale r ? ??? ??nve?C
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 r is ly success I 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:
?i C? ?>t , CL xs_z? 00 6_M Ctxi- . ? D (? t.,'l_'? ,? v`i ?? GAL i GL;,1
-Y CL"
15'1
Version 1.0 Augus 2P 2007) Page 2 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 2191 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1 Component ID: 20052147-2
Description: Reach 2 - north of New Sterling Road
Location within project: See maps
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Same
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Same
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:
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
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:
NA
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 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
same 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 lots 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