20040722 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20100519

17 rrL
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 5/1 ? Evaluator's Names :
Date of Report: ALL X622 Report for Monitoring Year: 51)07o)
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s): LIi/ c
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: 1-40 to exit 144. North onto Old Mountain Rd. approx six miles. Left onto Old Concord Church Road. Go
approx. one mile to culvert crossing. Site is on right
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20040722 Project History
Project Name: Sink Property/Elk Shoals Creek
Event Event Date
County(ies): Alexander
Basin 8? subbasin: Catawba 03050101 Report Receipt: Monitoring 5/27/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 2/12/2009
Nearest Stream: Elk Shoals Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: WS-IV ??
&PA)c A
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP)
DOT Status:
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 5168 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes &o vd
A)o W Il - 200 t? f )-01N10N
1
Monitoring reports available? )0 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 (report) (field) Resolved
20040722-1 5168 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1/2
X 5'/6 , VRI P4 av6T?
Nol ? 5?3 c f' off'
zE?? rN?s
suff
PTA L
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
kqd
0
Component: 5168 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1/2 Component ID: 20040722-1
Description: Elk Shoals Creek, UT1 and UT2
Location within project: See map
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Stable PDP; XSs as-built, yr3 and yr5
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues:
mss VAb?'Ar sa - (?Ipj ) ? ,
UMC 1?s d? ? N ,x v?r/u)
S 1
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site: 001,71? goOY5
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:
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.
A
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: Dominant Plant Species
yr 3 and yr 5
Monitoring in as-builts
No criteria listed Species Story TPAP/ cover
,
.

Monitoring report indicates success? Y 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.): F1 IqA-)d
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invas*ve species on site (species, location(s), and % cover):
es t oad ss (e
,ve
etation iss
lant survival
conc r s
et
Li t
any remammg
,
,
.
g
u
. g. p

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.):
6?4 VE/Q /Zv(s - q b?mJ')??MN W
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:
?D
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2