20030557 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20070405

Draft Wetland Mitigation Site Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
February 2, 2007: Draft Version 4.0
Evaluator's name(s)---
Date of Office Review: 22ocn
Other individuals/agencies present:
Weather conditions (today & recent):
1. Office Review Information:
Project Name: ?AI(' lrw
DWQ Project Number: a o?313D?,
Mitigation Project Type (Circle One)
/gff) Private Mit. Bank
Project mitigation was constructed for (if
applicable):
Monitoring reports available? Yes No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Date(s) of Monitoring reports.
2ADD
Year(s) of monitoring: 1 LJpGjb
Location of project (narrative): .n SR. Z3U'2-? '2-3 ' 1O• Ovr r" "`
Nearest named stream (WQ classification): ?trcl C,--.
County: r? River basin and subbasin: n
Approved Mitigation plan available?? Yes No Dates of Activities(month/year):
Goal of Mitigation (wetland type(s) & details): Start of Construction:
J Construction Completed: 2W-4
Mitigation Acreage required by 401: r-C.>Vyr
Mitigation Acreage resent on site: 4.6,OC4
LVVW C;
Type of Mitigation4?,e e,?fe ' el enhance, pr
eserve '
(circle all applicable and show locations on site map)
Corrective Measures Taken:
Type'. Date
When more than one type exists on site, evaluate each separately. Locate the approximate
boundaries of each on the site map, and prepare separate site evaluation forms.
Note success criteria & dominant species information in the appropriate areas in section II.
Below, provide any additional important information found during the office review,
and/or list any additional information that needs to be obtained during the site visit:
II. Data reported from Site Visit
Hydrology: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Approved Success criteria: Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches

Monitoring report indicates success: Yes No _ Drift Lines
Observational field data agrees: Drainage Pattern in Wetlands
based on mitigation plan Yes No _ Sediment deposits
based on type (per WAM) Yes No _ Water Marks
Met for entire site Yes No
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
?2 ? JCS
?1 u'? ?Lf C ? 1 u l !, o ? {-
m?- ) (-LOO) (J)10( k-ar i n-10(t )?
,
,
C- Oil - ?.

Evaluator's Agency: p L,OQ
Date of Field Review:
Draft page 1 of 2
Draft Wetland Mitigation Site Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality

J C
Soils:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
Any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, -etc.):
', ?u ? L `cal 1 t ? 'n • . Q C' D C& c . (
1 .z (DO C.? 1u C 1C--
Vegetation. Per monitoring report: r
Approved Success Criteria: Dominant plants cies TPA/% cover

Monitoring report indicates success: Yes No 2.
Observational field data agrees: 3.
Community composition Yes No 4.
TPA and/or % cover Yes No 5.
Vegetation planted on site Yes No Average Trees per Acre for entire site:
Vegetation growing successfully Yes No Date of Latest planting:
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with lit tle to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
List of invasive species on site and percent cover t, cyc)L?f o_ qtr
(A?_onS't(on U:??kb ??Yc c1 m
Any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc):

Wetland Functional Assessment with NC WAM:
Wetland Type: coastal riverine riparian non-riparian (wetter) non-riparian (drier)
Attach NC WAM analysis results to this report.
Mitigation Success:
Compared to the mitigation plan, the site is: successful partially successful not successful
List specific reasons for any lack of success for this site:
1.
2.
3.
4.
.5.
Additional Comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
¦ Attach site maps showing problem areas and/or different wetland types.
¦ Attach digital photographs of representative sites with photo locations shown on site reap.

7 k\ ,

4 Draft page 2 of 2