20000008 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20080624

(41 e uaA
h.
Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information
NC D'vision of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: K1- r c " ' r Evalua?pe
Date of Report: -:? - - Y--- ' "1 Report foi
Date of Field Review: x - i Evaluator'
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: r L_
Weather Conditions (today & recent): C:?,c7? ?_tln ?i
Directions to Site: K,l J I Ad D o'? - V' O'_ t& t4( t,"
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20000008
Project Name: Mason Inlet Relocation
County(ies): New Hanove
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear
Nearest Stream: Banks Channel
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: SA; HQ
Mitigator Type: Other
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: q acres
Stream:
Buffer:
Name(s):_
Monitoring Year:
Project Histor
?0k'Yln i I to, L k ) CY ?A
-f-by Y'E ?C.C C?ttU+ ? ?(1,
nu." pto ri r-e cd
'fiCrl
&\Ai CL9 0_a_ti-1-"
I
1 ?`zcnt?
rnarc h -vnail
5?2?3
Approved mitigation plan available? `es No Y
Monitoring reports available? (Yep No
Problem areas identified in reports? Yes
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes `o
Mitigation required on site. ? c/ ? J(c (' r rYUS?1! *Add significant project-related events: reports, i?
Associated impacts (if known):.f,t c x??tit?Lr c{ i j('rt deceived, construction, planting, repairs, etc.
During office review, note success criteria and evalua a 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.
If. Summary of Results:
Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component Year (report) (field) Resolved
O0°7 wC( qr
20000008-1 acres Wetland Restoration
2ccrCC°?t !?( ac hi r 1c tvMiCi";
? bt i"t 00 CILli f f-lL??1+ ?1 t?C1 ?
_LwAeiJ
Cyp- SVM f 'suec?ss ?, 5?A8 z 6gAV 10( 1. 7 .4c_ C'v. fiL "AN
19 At AAf-VV*)6/P
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) I/A5 f3v 16_? g o)
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:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up acti s, comnve dation Qtc.):
U? Q 1 `?'v j ?1 LC C t <5. ?.J?s bra - c_?J,
Can ?ra_r? ?{iru? - c ?ner Sew-arC"7
a-\?- t' r1 40 Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2

CLrtCA rrt???} f.
t; tl?iq
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 5.8 acres Wetland Restoration C Component ID: 20000008-1
--
`brie
Description:
z'Y1 l??Co e_
l
? ?
J Cl 4cI-o 4 (L1L?
Location within project: ?? ? nc_

U. C,.;I,
r /
(
` ? t
III. Success Criteria Evaluation: 'l C ? r (=LC4-? `
L )k C, C
C
r
i' c_J Wetl nd Hydrology Indicators:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria. c
t u) l ) L.

) 01r
' r
hydrlgc regime of rest. to mimic hydrology of reference site Inundated
? Saturated in upper 12 inches +
cA
Monitoring report indicates success ei No Drift lines
? Drainage patterns in wetlands
b i rI
(???1Cj?,?
e No
Observational field data agrees?
based on mitigation plan? No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? ? (o No Water marks
I
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g., remaining ditches, excessive water, etc) - .
-- y
??c?_ll'lC? uJ -PV
tl v I 1cI ?C ?,4I-i Al ? Ct6L S?-DLkY
Jfa rnC( Cr(Cttr-_1

t,
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria: "
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes Nc
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to acd>ess (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
survival rate of plantings and naturally colonized indiv to
meet or exceed 75% and veg density of rest. Marsh to mi
or exceed 75% of density of reference marsh
Monit=TPA o,J indipates su ce s7
V- Flo 4- V
for entire site (per re
Observational field data agrees?
based on community composition?
based on TPA and/or % cover?
Vegetation planted on site?
Date of last planting: c) ?_1 (-t?
Vegetation growing successfully?
- A
Dominant Plant Species
CS. h-.'r n
S. pcrl?n?
bS,
f YLCC?h
1?710
VL t72?i L 4
? ?,? 2 t 1'YL 7L? 1
No <c?' Ck -f rL riS
No jx<CC kCu'L6 vtai(mlfi?ca
(Yes No
Xe No CSI,?tU ?.
G 1 &A- 6 IC-0-
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas t-? L
Invasive species on site tspecies, location(s), and % cover):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
Storv TPA/'1o cover
cGzCC ?.9-r ??C c-v-
?? CK? ?.
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluatj" Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicatessI c? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agkee?s . Yes No Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis resy?it's to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCVyAfA issues to address (e.g. functionality, developing wetland type, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is:. ucces ful 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 2 of 2