20050098 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090528

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: lJ Evaluator's Name(s): alZ
Date of Report: IJVzalL12 U? Report for Monitoring Year: 3
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Interstate 1-40 to Morganton. US 64 south from Motganton to Propst Road (NCSR1112). Right onto Propst
Road and project site is on both sides of the road approx. 1,800 feet from the US 64/Propst Road intersection
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20050098
j Project Name: Bailey Fork
County(ies): Burke
Basin & subbasin: Catawba 03050101
Nearest Stream: Bailey Fork
Water Quality Class of Nearest.Stream: WS-IV
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP)
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 5500 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
Project History
Event
Report Receipt: Mitigation Plan
Site Visit - Streams
Report Receipt: Monitoring
?? ?s,? ? ? X00
amIRI?
Event Date
1 /21 /2005
12/4/2007
12/8/2008
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No ! I',
Monitoring reports available? Yes No
I I
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 (report) (field) Resolved
20050098-1 5500 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1/2
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

Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 5500 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1/2 Component ID: 20050098-1
Description: Bailey Fork, UT1 and UT2
Location within project:
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 m
List all types of structures present on site: OLF?"/ "//Poe
55
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:
li
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable riffle-pool, etc.
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:
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:
320 spa in yr 3, 260 spa in yr 5
ti y /r
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): 3)3
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
Dominant Plant S ecies
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
oZU 3
X03
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
General observations on c nd of riparian/buff areas (e. . buffer width, 9verall health of v Tei,
n
etc.): '11
A, 1)
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little PnP,Jetation: kcy I/
-- -
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unve9etated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
y?
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 follo - actio , r com endatigns tc.
??J 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:
VV
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) / v1J4 v , d2 of fiw)