19991173 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090609

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 5-y '20 -- 2
Date of Report: _?=12r3 400 m 1-ho (Ja0 (Lo 0
Date of Field Review: Ls_ G . Oq
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent): 11:? ID?
Directions to Site: Mitigation is in the Promenade development at 1-485 1 Providence Rd.
1. Office Review Information:
Evaluator's Name(s): 'M-t? I I
Report for Monitoring Year:
Evaluator's Name(s): 1AA k?
Project Number: 19991173
Project Name: Childress-Klein Properties
County(ies): Mecklenburg
Basin & subbasin: Catawba
Nearest Stream: Flat Branch
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: Private
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 19.25 acres
Stream: 1400 linear feet
Buffer:
N utr. Offset:
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available? Yes No
Project History
Event
Event Date
Report Receipt: Mitigation Plan 2/23/2000
I'
i n t icy ( (A-sbt, v? ` 0L!A
Q-u 61(l.ts v. o_ c SRC
s(he6_Wttt A-v 0-e- Scr A- - CL,
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No J'I
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:
Mitigation Component
Monitoring Success Success
Year (report) (field) Resolved
1173-1 1580 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration
19991173-2 1.25 acres Wetland Creation
19991173-3 18 acres Wetland Preservation( 6..r1L - u-Ce k r\(%l 'ouf?k_ - (o-L"L? (_0
L

C_o rn?- A- u:(b:
ve pfoovs
g-eYe. h 00A-s"Z UK,i c ks,?> Kl ?i n . m
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
`704 - !5&4-,39 R7
t. LL
zpco-r) ---ems rn
i C.C?-vt?- C?rZ

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: s ccess I partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
? J
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
6v, \ 1 vap? Cam -
Yw??
®- 0"4? '?Oc sfir-/u? 1.
CL sal
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 1.25 acres Wetland Creation Component ID: 19991173-2
Description: BLH, scrub/shrub, & emergent-aquatic zones
Location within project: N of and adjacent to 1-485
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
target is inund/sat w/in 12" of surface 12.5% of GS in lower ? Inundated
landsape posit; criterion is 5% GS; min of 1 well/created WL; Saturated in upper 12 inches
monitor 1-2 X/week durina 1st vear: continuous monitor if feasible
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Ye No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? es No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria: na
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
BLH: at least 60% or 320 woody SPA survive 3 cons yrs, 288
@ Yy 4, 259 @ Yr 5; Scrub/shrub: 60% or 600 woody SPA
surv for 5 cons yrs OR 75% aerial cover; Emergent: 75%
aerial cover
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? a No
based on community composition? es No
based on TPA and/or % cover? es No
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
oak- ?C'•
Vegetation planted on site? Ye No '_1,,
Date of last planting: Yom' S
Vegetation growing successfully. a No i
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no veetafio
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.):
of-
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
na Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.)
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: s 6ss 1 partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
i,
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, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 18 acres Wetland Preservation Component ID: 19991173-3
Description: swamp forest & upland buffers
Location within project: immed S of stream site
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
na Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e. g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):

SOILS - Approved Success Criteria: na
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):

VEGETATION - ApprovedSuccess Criteria: ? Dominant Plant Species
na b Species Story TPAI'1o 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
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.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site1
na Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach Non-riparian (drier)
List an Nremaining n Y NCSWAM issues to add report.
functionality, developing wetland any (e.g. type, 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.):
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, areas of concern, and important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 4 of 4
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 1580 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration Component ID: 19991173-1
Description: ag-impacted; restore stability, improve habitat, improve aesthetics
Location within project: stream runs NE to SW and is just S of 1-485
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
Are streambanks stable? Ye No
If no, provide description and no s regarding stability issues:
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
List all types of structures present on site:
Are the structures installed correctly?. eS No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc.
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? No
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? a No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations Pes 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 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.):
i`
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
Is aquatic life present in the channel? Ye 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: Dominant Plant Species
na Species Story TPA/'/ cover

Monitoring report indicates success?
Yes I
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? r Ye
General observations on condition of riparia /n buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.):
w D
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 : s cessf I 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:
• s
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2