20061905 Ver 1_Mitigation Site Visit_20090421

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: 1% -' .2A - Q!?J Evaluator's Name(s):
Date of Report: D2C 2L qR Report for Monitoring Year:
Date of Field Review: .I-- Evaluator's Name(s).
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: +
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: Located on State Road 264 north of Rose Bay, NC; accessed via an existing farm lane; 99 acre agricultural
site: 36 acres along LIT ("Mason Ditch") to Rose Bay Creek will be restored to wetlands
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20061905
Project Name: Mason Property Wetland Restoration
County(ies): Hyde
Basin & subbasin: Tar-Pamlico 03020105
Nearest Stream:
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP)
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 36 acres
Stream: 0
Buffer: 0
N utr. Offset:
Project History
Event
Report Review - Wetlands
Report Receipt: Monitoring
Event Date
1/10/2007
2/12/2009
`Jyp( , c?ctie CGS
t,o! --c.r,. pJ as -kb
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
20061905-1 16 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration
20061905-2 20 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Restoration
che?l?+ype. - ? c?" r'e Ono --for OkJAY 44-
o
? jor bu-??ea-'

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
j List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
i i?-
ire-
l? C loo an -?? l V is ra vv1
J
Syr -? Lac 4?1 ?v.? CACA- v-"? .
,-
vcu"ouW c ?
recd
c?
apti.
??-1.,(1 ??i? ??(l ?il'TLI.?SL..? i .? `?.??i7 U? V'V?-? ??' `5 M ?O I,L-1- -? ,?rD i .
V.)j Lko 4 b
iD u-N re \(1'e-to.
CZC)D()

A"u
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 2 of 2
Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: #Error
Description:
Location within project:
III. Buffer Site Details:
Component ID:
Riparian Buffer (Streams Only)
Streams verified by DWQ: Yes No
Comments:
Total Acres:
Restored Acres:
Enhanced Acres:
Buffer Width: 50' > 50'
Grandfathered Site? (EEP Only)
Yes No
Nutrient Offset (Streams or Ditches)
Buffer Width:
Comments: (hC?l ?1 C?1 rv?E tY?e?
??JJtd t?L.O•
Total Acres:
Restored res: , o F
Enhanced Acres: C A- loc"on
?-
IV. Success Criteria Evaluation: l
VEGETATION: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/"/ cover
NOTE: Success Criteria is 320 spa
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes
00.rn-b'`c) - Is .
Average TPA for entire site (per report):
0A?APX-S S1?C a ?tZ r LSY\ J`
t?L?s'sC,_
Observational field data agrees? Ye No
i(?GLv. OGL?
Date of last planting: YYLG f-GV\

? ? •}-C7.??-?-?.-? ??j ?i c?l/? ?;r? 2..0.7
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes \C?-S S c
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas and associated stream bank (e.g. bank stability,
overall health of vegetation, etc.)
W
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009) Page 1 of 2
Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Specific vegetation p ots 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): {t- SIAS??SS
Easement Marking Method:
List any remaining issues to address (e.g. plant survival, easement encroachment, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the mitigation plan, this component is: successful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
pa ially successf Cotsuccessful
-f c6f\?
Additional Comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
During site visit, document representative conditions and areas of concern. Label and attach photos to
this report.
Attach maps showing photo locations, problem areas, and/or important field observations.
Additional notes related to evaluation of this component:
J
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009) Page 2 of 2
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 16 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration Component ID: 20061905-1
Description: emergent wetland & shallow open water o uJ 4 z Yl . f h?,? o
Location within project: 6-

.S
V
Success Criteria Evaluation:
111. 'v
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: CC?(?'e L
Monitoring report indicates success i No
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on mitigation plan? Yes No
based on wetland type? Yes No
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.):
vk(a-:? , -"?Ac ub Jcyz CL u1'-r0-QQ., sic- cX(-,-)
-? ?o ?m-c?n,? d??-?u? ?? CAS
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or becoming hydric? Yes No
List indicators of hydric soils:
vt k-"NO-O-
List any remaining soil issues to address (e.g. erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria:
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes
0 ID Avera e TPA for entire site
2('?3 g (per report): c2J5
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
based on community composition? Yes No
based on TPA and/or % cover? Yes No
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/'%o cover
III
Vegetation planted on site? Yes No
Date of last planting:
IVegetation growing successfully? Yes No
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no vegetation: V vA 4
stimated 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.):
A
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:
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 succe ful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Cx t/e-i"
??, Si;?rV??[aQ.
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 4
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 20 acres Wetland (Non-riparian, wetter) Restoration Component ID: 20061905-2
Description: diverse mix of WL communities: bottomland hardwood, scrub shrub, hummocks, forested WL
Location within project:Q ?ce \1
III. Success Criteria Evaluation: (c?
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.):
i
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 - ADDroved 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:
j 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:
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.):
I,
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 4