20040895 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090127

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: t A _?101 , r%?_
Date of Report: PA(` \1 2OLF,
Date of Field Review: BCD
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: _-Sk-,Q-- iA )e,S} jg
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: NE of Goldsboro along SR 1534
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20040895 Project History
Project Name: Neu-Con: Nahunta Swamp Mitigation Site Event Event Date
County(ies): Wayne
Construction Completed 3/15/2005
Basin & subbasin: Neuse 03020203 Report Receipt: As-Built 1/1/2006
Nearest Stream: ?0
Report Review -Streams 2/22/2007
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: .? Report Review - Wetlands 3/7/2007
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery Report Review - Wetlands 6/23/2008
r
071 Report Review - Streams 8/5/2008
DOT Status: DOT Site Visit - Wetlands 10/13/2008
Total Mitigation on Site Site Visit -Streams 10/13/2008
fi Report Receipt: Monitoring 12/12/2008 11
L
-9 -7 I
Wetland: 148.79 acres/ S4 Report Review - Streams 12/15/2008
Stream: 10815 linear feet C. :IZ7,
? Buffer: izApproved mitigation plan available? Yes No & k L c.2c i } rf ?s ccs,c cr rv)
Monitoring reports available? Yes No c) U" ? f ? C, o-) 0 .
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): i 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 (Succes report) S(field)s Resolved
Mitigation Component Year re ort
20040895-1 1159 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
20040895-2 1820 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
20040895-3 1090 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
20040895-4 1452 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
20040895-5 2083 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
20040895-6 3211 linear feet Stream (Perennial) Restoration 1
20040895-7 7.88 acres Wetland Restoration
Evaluator's Nam
20040895-8 17.87 acres Wetland Restoration
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 2
Evaluator's Name(s): rl ?i 1
Report for Monitoring Year: I 2Jx- j

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
20040895-9 16.5 acres Wetland Restoration
20040895-10 21 acres Wetland Restoration
20040895-11 24.53 acres Wetland Restoration
20040895-12 29.2 acres Wetland Restoration
20040895-13 0.48 acres Wetland Enhancement
20040895-14 31.33 acres Wetland Preservation
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this project is
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
successful partially successful unsuccessful
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):

(0 L_
kt-
r, "41 C'
?_ ?_ C,k- C?1 cf ?-,. / ,

h ?V'
/11?D
Cu"
?£C_t tl ae ?' v ?1 t? ?i t?? C ??v?ly
1(?? ViCc?.1 J6 V _AA1_ J U Ct1?,?c1 ??
C? ?y Jas -E- I w7 ?e(? -b ?-, C rtll
?-?? 0,6 'e-? L cei 6r.'.
LCLu'l- -
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2f. of 2
L7 J ST ??C1SI
? `` 1? c ?S5 w? ?'iC>1? IAC?In-? o? M T C ovic.0- n (fib.
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 7.88 acres Wetland Restoration
Description: Cole Tract
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
saturation within 12" of soil surface for at least 12% of GS (30
consecutive days); comparison with reference
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No ?c 1' ?
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on mitigation plan? Yes No
based on wetland type? Yes No
Component ID: 20040895-7
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Drift lines
Drainage patterns in wetlands
Sediment deposits
Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
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:
320 3-year old TPA @ end of Year 3; 260 5-year old TPA @
end of Year 5; up to 20% of community composition may be
volunteers (RM, sweet gum, loblolly, etc.) - remedial action
may be requ if vols > 20% deemed a problem
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): c' 2-
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: I -
4-.,2C, -L
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes No
Dominant Plant Species ?
Species Storv TPAf'/ cover
10 Pl tLCNCd %fX C. ( ?-:,U P Z? ) 3
t'(1D1A' V-ev - oct ( c" cleX`1-s?9 4- d.ivef- A
ok q0
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.):
I? •. Ce Q? 4???-lam c,??,2'Z Ct?u? ?tiZC?1?,' ? -tk?er?
I
I
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 1 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: 1 NCWAM Type on Site:
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 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 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 17.87 acres Wetland Restoration Component ID: 20040895-8
Description: Tapp Tract
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
- Approved Success Criteria:
HYDR61LOGY
[ Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
,
aturation within 12" of soil surface for at least 12% of GS 30 Inundated
consecutive days); comparison with reference Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes
?0:)

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 hydrolog-y? issues to addre ' ing ditches, excessive water, etc.)
lL`f ?L? ; i Lo j I 1 ?`c Z L ?:?"?o V?ICi?" 1??,t l l iC C7{?lG ,
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
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:
320 3-year old TPA @ end of Year 3; 260 5-year old TPA @
end of Year 5; up to 20% of community composition may be
volunteers (RM, sweet gum, loblolly, etc.) - remedial action
may be requ if vols > 20% deemed a problem
Monitoring report indicates success? es No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):t 2
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
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'/ cover
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.):
II
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
Coastal
j 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 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 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 16.5 acres Wetland Restoration
Description: Edmundsen North Tract ( V1,C'nY) \(CA(
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
saturation within 12" of soil surface for at least 12% of GS (30
j consecutive days); comparison with reference
Component ID: 20040895-9
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success es 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.):
3 u _?k?,? . Ici - 2* % GS,
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
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.):
_ -- - --- _ 1
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria: Dominant Plant Species
320 3-year old TPA @ end of Year 3; 260 5-year old TPA @ Species Story TPA/"/ cover
end of Year 5; up to 20% of community composition may be
volunteers (RIM sweet gum loblolly etc) - remedial action
may be requ if vols > 20% deemed a problem
Monitoring report indicates success? es No
Average TPA for entire site (per reportt ? ( L
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 w ith 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 5 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
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 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 6 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 21 acres Wetland Restoration Component ID: 20040895-10
Description: Edmundsen South Tract
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
saturation within 12" of soil surface for at least 12% of GS (30 Inundated
consecutive days); comparison with reference Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success 7,9 No j Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? Yes No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No I Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No Water marks
Li t any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
w?1` 1lS '. ? GI -- 2l0'l? C S
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
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
320 3-year old TPA @ end of Year 3; 260 5-year old TPA @ Species Story TPA/% cover
end of Year 5; up to 20% of community composition may be
volunteers (RM, sweet gum, loblolly, etc.) - remedial action
may be requ if vols > 20% deemed a problem
Monitoring report indicates success? (s No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): 1-5 h'-
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 7 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
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 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 8 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 24.53 acres Wetland Restoration
Description: Gonder Tract
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
Component ID: 20040895-11
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
saturation within 12" of soil surface for at least 12% of GS (30 Inundated
consecutive days); comparison with reference Saturated in upper 12 inches

Monitoring report indicates success Yes 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 ?eerain itches, excessive water, etc.):
12 4 I °/a 2 I - 3 -0/o vt 'I
Sck ,
is

A-? V`t>J L
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? o Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
List any remaining soil issues to addr? (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
L-)

VEGETATION o ON PA Approvedce Criteria: T Dominant Plant Species
320 /'/ cover
@ d of Year 3 year old TPA @ Species Story TPABlo cover
end of Year 5; up to 20% of community composition may be
volunteers (RM, sweet gum, loblolly, etc.) - remedial action
may be requ if vols > 20% deemed a problem
Monitoring report indicates success? Ye No
i
Average TPA for entire site (per report):t? j
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 9 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: 1 NCWAM Type on Site:
Monitoring report indicates success?
Observational field data agrees?
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report.
Yes No
Yes No
_ Coastal
Riverine
_ Riparian
Non-riparian (wetter)
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
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 10 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 29.2 acres Wetland Restoration Component ID: 20040895-12
Description: Cook Tract (emsr1V-??e
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
saturation within 12" of soil surface for at least 12% of GS (30 Inundated
consecutive days); comparison with reference Saturated in upper 12 inches
Drift lines
Monitoring report indicates success Yes N ?c??c?
-- Drainage patterns in wetlands
Observational field data agrees. Yes No
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.):
L??C l? 5: 3 a? 2- 3 -32 t o
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
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
320 3-year old TPA @ end of Year 3; 260 5-year old TPA @ Species Story TPA/% cover
end of Year 5; up to 20% of community composition may be
volunteers (RM, sweet gum, loblolly, etc.) - remedial action
may be requ if vols > 20% deemed a problem
Monitoring report indicates success? es No
Average TPA for entire site (per report):tQ2v
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 11 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site.
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 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 12 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 0.48 acres Wetlan Enhanceme Component ID: 20040895-13
Description: Tapp Tract
Location within project:
111. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
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:
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 TPA/'/ 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 13 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques:
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report.
NCWAM Type on Site:
_ Coastal
Riverine
- Riparian
- Non-riparian (wetter)
Non-rioarian (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 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 14 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC ivision of Water Quality
Component: 31.33 acres Wetlan Preservation Component ID: 20040895-14
Description: 3.3 ac (Cole) + 4.03 ac (Tapp) + 4 ac (Edmundsen N) + 20 ac (Cook)
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success Yes No unit 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:
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:
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
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/"/ cover
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 15 of 16
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques:
NCWAM Type on Site:
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 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 16 of 16