20021215 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20100519

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Revile 5 6 l /10 Evaluator's Name(s): K1161-
Date of Report: /l O? Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: From Charlotte take 1-77 N to Exit 25 and trun right. Gilead Rd will turn into Huntersville-Concord Rd and stay
on here 2-miles. Hunter.-Concord Rd crosses the UT at low point in road, trib. 1000' downstream from
(.Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20021215
Project Name: Cato Farms Stream Rest.
County(ies): Mecklenburg
Basin & subbasin: Yadkin 03040105
Nearest Stream: Clark Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: C
Mitigator Type: EEP/WRP
DOT Status: DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland:
Stream: 2444 linear feet
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
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:
Associated impacts (if known):
Project History
Event Event Date
Report Receipt: Monitoring 4/14/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 5/21/2009
Report Review - Wetlands 6/25/2009
Site Visit - Streams 6/29/2009
*Add significant project-related events: reports,
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
20021215-1 2444 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 7
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: 2444 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration Component ID: 20021215-1
Description: before rest. predominant use was for cattle grazing
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
STREAMBANK STABILITY - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
Are streambanks stable? Yes No
If no, provide description and notes regardin stability issues: ?A
021 !JoiE_S CWAlf L,5r 1 tff)/V6 g-4 a ?}Ni? ?C 1Z?r? L?v c J
Sum ???ls 05T 2S S ) l? v wl
STRUCTURES - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
List all types of structures present on site:
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: C/??;,pS f ON I?????/?
none listed xJ gM5
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.):
s
10
2
U-1-1 1/ r
BIOTA - Approved Success Criteria:
none listed
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.):
(August 22, 2007)
AS5 B)S-,PI???S I? ?? FS?lawf
Page 1 of 2
Stream Mitigation Component Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
ears 1 throu
h 3
success=320/stms/ac Species StoN TPA/'/o Cover
g
y
i 139 "PA w0
Monitoring report indicates success? 3Ye No
Average TPA for entire site (per repoif):
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 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 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 2 of 2