20040500 All Versions_Mitigation Evaluation_20091029

• Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: ICS 2q - O 9 Evaluator's Name(s): 141 1
Date of Report: i ?C5 Co, V (I G n3DP rnon r-c+ • Report for Monitoring Year: 3 p
Date of Field Review: 1 0 - 2?1- D Q Evaluator's Name(s): =T}-- 'Other Individuals/Agencies Present: 1A",(1 WT\-2 C fig)
Weather Conditions (today & recent): Si a-r ni i 1,? dj
Directions to Site: From 1-85 take Exit 48, follow to Exit 33, and turn right onto Hwy 49. Turn left onto Back Creek Church Rd,
and continue until inter. with Back Creek. Rest. Project is downstream from Back Creek Church Rd.
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20040500
Project Name: Back Creek Stream & Wetland Rest
County(ies): Mecklenburg
Basin & subbasin: Yadkin
Nearest Stream: Back Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: NCDOT
DOT Status: DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 3.9 acres
Stream: 4075 linear feet
Buffer:
N utr. Offset:
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Receipt: Monitoring 7/28/2009
(D UT
CtD r) ? il?Yl 1 L
-L / ac, (S?
r c jv -cc-? l.Y\ 2?Lp 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 (report) (field) Resolved
i 3 c o' rPS (p l
20040500-1 4075 linear feet Stream Restoration P 2-13
20040500-2 0.4 acres Wetland Restoration 2 - l 4h bS -o Bock C u c (t' I? `- ?
20040500-3 3.5 acres Wetland Enhancement r?p6L(
-?QCtn
? VLI` Yt r? } :
3 fi e o_ s V:), (I CA U
'
. S a C l? ? rF S p?LY-. ( a ?ti c?Q C? t
c a C e-e r i,; a*A C/U_a4, (J(. 4r, c MIL yu-ffl

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: 4075 linear feet Stream Restoration Component ID: 20040500-1
Description: fallow, successional fields and a few stands of isolated hardwood forests
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regarding stability issues: 11 alb
33 ?- i `1 3`-+ t 3 - rf' cra??
p ? ??c VY) CL" a_C1'g ?'iC f S k1 + A n
C CXVV u__J? wl v(' 1 ASA P > o-WcA- cv,__o ckn
r
>tib
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
List all types of structures present on site: ?C?q?k IJ C, ? Odrlc?
Are the structures installed correctly? e ` No
Are the structures made of acceptable material? Ye No
(Unacceptable materials include: railroad ties, concrete with rebar, etc. Lk_, A_c_
Are the structures located approximately where shown on the plan? ?;es No 5r?' , 5 bfc°?
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
?n 1'V i ? V-D -' U r1
FEATURES - Approved Success Criteria:
Are riffles and pools in approximately the correct locations Ye No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? a No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the thalweg No
No
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water u Ponded areas
Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable tream reaches (e.g. mid-channel bars! ?.
downstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.): "N c`)
b ? f D co Lrtc?
QVAAC*? i'Lti?rc-
V,UU?c?
a.n
AQUATIC BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria: + "e? hcxx' C c
Is aquatic life present in the channel? No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and general distribution of biota. Include a brief
description of the sampling methodology_roc,dc.

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:
eS -:)-0 /2(-t0/2(-o o -WA, ? ?- Jr 4 +/s
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report : 3 lCj
Observational field data agrees? es No
Dominant Plant Species
Species Sto TPAP/ cover
?&
' `rte. r?Vf a ic ( l)l?L
based on community composition? es No
-?14'
based on TPA and/or % cover? es No ?21 • -C?JN? S? L rye
Vegetation planted on site? es No ?VJ(`•?C c 1 ran _ _
-2 D
Date of last planting: I ?? ?U)?
Vegetation growing successfully? es No Hr11 ,ooj -
?t?t-? t-e- q LLn'l - UC H
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of vegetation,
etc.): ba_p.? ?? ? cLu, 'V`ice. CpnC'V?.L , _. u.)2 l_ l C L't'v -y , Ci t'Yq
?,u t 0 ?- AA(u C,,? deems- + P o
C?2 cx ?e,rY\ ?zt'? ?lctl T -C, ak h CLl,Ac_ c) rrux u L L ' /D r tin t:
(Ytt? - Ci > CkxALl-?1 C kkc . 4h'l u'f_c A crr v`?? Ck :S C-?back ? 0_?o o Cq CrY?tJ?.
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
?`1?(?rZ? . ?P1 lzCi ?JZv ??ek - 6?, c-?c t'c? ??- Ci: VC
l ? d acrea M_ c_?p to tlf uve etatedareasW ??`? ?t' s? i 1 C_ CYn{?2c ?OUI? d(,rUw 1r1? i
Es ima a e r site perc'en ag g >>_ 2(aO e4
Invasive species on site (species, location(s), and 0!0 pover):
X1'1 Ve? ty???i unc . (?+ Cb 141 C?? - '?u >?n 4 (in o d. t? nu ?re_? C a vex a ck ru Cv ?_ Sc, ?Ak
?OSct e+e.,Isu?E?le .?_t ? err ? p(L1 4 V1t 0<<u?l???.? (_? ?
LIs any remaining vegetaLioi- issues)to address (e.g. la'nt survival, concerns, etc.):
r? ? rv?ec
, wUU1u5 ?L?? 1? e CL ?f lid. S?c4krc > 1.?,1-?s to ?v, ov
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: ccessfu partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
_y, r2.,4Yi u Goa_4-c) ASS-'
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 2
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 0.4 acres Wetland Restoration Component ID: 20040500-2
Description: same as above
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
soil saturation within 12" of surface for 29 consecutive days ? Inundated
(12.5%) of GS ? Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success L_Z No ??Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? 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.):
cJ m1_' o f 'J t Si -- es ` Uv- C?Cj?. _?U S
u-?v?'?_ bcYC4? 5urv?a c ..s) ,? c?u'.S1?k C'o-k- + 'J 01. S Cs w? o d ??
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: Dominant Plant Species
success=survival of 320stms/ac in years 1 through 3 pecies Story TPA/'/ cover
tin l t l (? ?u} ). 2_ C? ?uti
.SuLCe1
l?J( (A? R S --4>
Monitoring report indicates success? es ?Vo ?S
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
Observational field data agrees? es • No _k?
based on community composition? W- e,-
based on TPA and/or % cover? es No
Vegetation planted on site? a No
Date of last planting: 20-?p C&x?k X / c 1 pln? ( J
Vegetation growing successfully? es 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):
0tc'CV_oc'--r1. _
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
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: su essf l partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
wL a.F-Q? J C&Q puocj-) c A(I
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
C hc'C,V Cut E17 i All- -Dy
7
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
1
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 3.5 acres Wetland Enhancement Component ID: 20040500-3
Description: same as above
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
Monitoring report indicates success Yes
Observational field data agrees? Yes
based on mitigation plan? Yes
based on wetland type? Yes
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
No Drift lines
No Drainage patterns in wetlands
No Sediment deposits
No Water marks
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: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAI'/ 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 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: 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 conrlitionr and areas of concern. ObJVrv e 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
`. '+"Y? ; ? << ''plc ? ?
E ?? ? i, ? ;< ? - ? ?'1-
?.,?:1
G?k,