20031133 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20100510

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s): --441 I
Date of Report: a?kl: Report for Monitoring Year: k-
4 (?Q
Date of Field Review: z)-t0 - ?? 10 Evaluator's Name(s):"T'
Other Individuals/Agencies Present:i" 1 ?c+% LIt U Lila F,) - Q-t l
Weather Conditions (today & recent):
Directions to Site: 8 mi N of Greensboro @ Guilford-Rockingham county line, E of Church St Extensio
V V.LI'1)"Y1 ) r-:--, - NLO-c N
l rv?
Cross Rd ( .1
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number: 20031133 Project History
Pro1 ject Name: Haw River Swamp Wetland Restoration Si Event Event Date
County(ies): Guilford Rockingham , ,_
Basin & subbasin: Cape Fear 03030002 Report Receipt: Mitigation Plan 3/15/2004
Construction Completed 3/1/2005
Nearest Stream: Midway Creek (Haw River) Planting - Initial 4/1/2005
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream: Report Receipt: Monitoring 11/26/2007
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP) Site Visit - Wetlands 11/28/2007
DOT Status: CCU Szsc art lr 3
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 47.2 acres
Stream:
Buffer:
N utr. Offset:
_
Approved mitigation plan available? --- -es. No
Monitoring reports available? Y ...No-
Problem areas identified in reports ` ""I`~'"`N1i r '
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 crit4r64666VdIu9te each component based on monitoring report
results. Record relevant data in Sections I1,and.111.
On back of sheet, note other informatign y9Aduring office review and/or to be obtained during site visit.
II. Summary of Results:
Monitoring Success Success
Mitigation Component l2•b ac-. 'lRog LS1a'LC? Year (report) (field) Resolved
20031133-1 26.7 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration
20031133-2 2.5 acres Wetland (Riverine.) Enhancement
20031133-3 18 acres Wetland (Riverine) Preservation
6
6
6
4-t U OA?_XLq CA_ ?
. dtYer-?- ct- 2° +-t-lb down ticwz
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)
it` N ur°tj?E ±L s.? Page 1 of 2
??-Ir?u,l? ote?rGils (per r(?.3?'•,il x-;11 , tel.r,eS?r?M?wa-aD? loci wt-ir
o\.LV ak% t=,veA \J VCA- &-rt,,D 0 a-Q, t'; llUCs?
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

Wetland Mitigation) Project Ev.alUations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Component: 26.7 acres Wetland (Riverine) Restoration Component ID: 20031133-1
Description: BLH/swamp forest; mesic forest on upper floodplain slopes
Location within project:
Ill. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
satur. within 1' of soil surf. for min. 5% (BLH) or 12.5% (swamp Inundated
forest) of GS; comp w/ reference; 8 gauges ? Saturated in upper 12 inches
Monitoring report indicates success , ; s• Np;, Drift lines
Observational field data agrees? a No Drainage patterns in wetlands
based on mitigation plan? Yes No Sediment deposits
based on wetland type? Yes No. v? Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address (e.g. remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
-8AA Cdr C?EI?, >5% Z-h G-LL L_,? a'5'-1 .4-12.5 Z?o (1rre
3,Lv, `? l 00 1 o uti sL c? v -Aie?,t C"wo 6-
SOILS - Approved Success Criteria: (N ;
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 Crftdrih: Dominant Plant Species
320-290-260 character tree stems surviving i'n? 3425 =r,rSpecies Story TPA 101o cover
of TPA = planted trees, other 70% can be 1ON&each of othe'' r(J? -?{)lb?klJ G.'?a?? ? U?C?Str' ?QQ
char species; addit volunteers not incl in analysis (nor
removed from site) g- p ,\\ aS ?\C3 C#_Aa(L-k& aptd U L. r 1 cy.n??1NJ
Monitoring report indicates success?
Average TPA for entire site (per re ort): V5 ^1 ar1 k
Observational field data agrees? e llV?a ?qU1 +y-\, S Yuji Cdr
based on community composition?_: Yes No (Z?p Q(Y?i?cS2y1 , vAa4 LOW.
.
based on TPA and/or % cover? YesV No k60Jpt""1
+ , ' ;pkjA )V-.L
Vegetation planted on site? es No
A- lS (10? lh c`flOC?t? . 1?51? ?? S - 0.X1 .? ? ?
Date of last planting: }? j K1LAs%0. sgl.uc+ CCL C Iv1, wyl
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes' . Nom ' '
Specific vegetation plots or site locations"vJith little to.rio vegetation:
X'*' t b
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated ;areas: .
Invasive species on site (species, locatior€(,4), dnd,Q/ boiret):
List any remaining vegetation issues to add.ress.(e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
® 4- Lp 4? rlotc? lam -fu = 3"MV S
yr rrt c ?ertxs??uss.
v-xu
c ru.? rlGl,J:i ;yt r 4D '?LLc 1-?'%Si-F? '60rnk W_R_ar ' .?
vea lad Aj l uw -" c,? bL4
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) S p?
-Ti Page 1 of 6
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division oi' 1Nater duality
CWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
NA Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Yes `Nbo ? " Non-riparian (wetter)
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e. f44nctio1n?ality, developing wetland type, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: suc essfu partially successful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations; etc.):
SC?(Y?- Cs?-,?,? 4 J--C- v
leau2.0LL,'I- UN,n ?4Y r.' Q t?A }
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 6

Wetland Mitigation ftject'Eviluations: Information Table
NC Division of 1Na'ter Quality
Component: 2.5 acres Wetland (Riverine) Enhancement Component ID: 20031133-2
Description: BLH/swamp forest; mesic forest on upper floodplain slopes
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:. Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
satur. within 1' of soil surf. for min. 5% (BLH) or 12.5% (swamp Inundated
forest) of GS; comp w/ reference; 8 gauges 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
0?' 41
based on wetland type? 'Yes' A o `
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? Jes 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
320-290-260 character tree stems surviving in?01 3=4=5; 30°l0 _Species Story TPA/'/ cover
of TPA = planted trees, other 70% can be 10% each of other
char species; addit volunteers not incl in analysis (nor
removed from site)":
Monitoring report indicates success? ?Cee tlo
Average TPA for entire site (per report), T
Observational field data agrees? Yes` NP `
based on community composition? Ye No'
!cS '". S t7as?1
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„ar.eas.:
Invasive species on site (species, locatiotr(s), ahd-% c6V&-):
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
? R 4
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 3 of 6
td?,
ye
1p
Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of-'Wa'ter Quality
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
NA Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
sN63` r;;
Observational field data agrees? Ye's'' Non-riparian (wetter)
{
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report.
- Non-riparian (drier)
r ..., rat;:
List any remaining NCWAM issues to address (e.g. fu?jclio, ality,' 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) a y ` a,;lc Page 4 of 6

Wetland Mitigation Pro?,ect Evaluations: Information Table
NC division of Wafer Quality
Component: 18 acres Wetland (Riverine),?reservtiA Component ID: 20031133-3
Description: swamp forest
Location within project: southeast
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
NA
Monitoring report indicates success Yes
Observational field data agrees? Yes
based on mitigation plan? Fes
based on wetland ty e? Ye
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in upper 12 inches
No Drift lines
No Drainage patterns in wetlands
No Sediment deposits
p No Water marks
List any remaining hydrology issues to address:(:e g 'remaining ditches, excessive water, etc.):
SOILS -Approved Success Criteria: NA,
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
NA Species Story TPA/'/ cover
Monitoring report indicates success? XIS Nq
Average TPA for entire site (per report):;
Observational field data agrees? yms N' Q
based on community composition7- Yes„ No
J'.,. F ?,
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?novegetation:
Estimated acreage or site percentage of unvegetated areas:
Invasive species on site (species, locatiohi s); and Y;oV P}:
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007)

Page 5 of 6

Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluationslnformation Table
NC Division of Vat& 'dUaIiiy
NCWAM - Approved Success Criteria or Evaluative Techniques: NCWAM Type on Site:
NA Coastal
Riverine
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No Riparian
Observational field data agrees? Ydh `M Non-riparian (wetter)
?t? ab
Attach NCWAM analysis results to this report. r.N cd Non-riparian (drier)
y
of,
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:
Cr
TU' j6
1? (4=lit.
r

}
,f.
Version 1.0 (August 22, 2007) Page 6 of 6

a
N
N
O
O
N
OJ
O
4
Cri ?
8 °d
n
u

.JO v Cat \ '??
00
Q). a r.
(D c, <
3 a S °
o
CL y w m 0
CD
o a
T
N
?Z
V fJ
O
o
N ?
m

N

CL
G)
c
=.
Z D m
N
;t. n? ?
=r 0 0c a Q
0:UN a
O O
N N
? o?
d o-0
3
9 Q(D 3 -?)
c-c-cdi %1 h , o
51?0 lzo?o
r ?•
%
l
E J
r 4C
V O
ads ??
c
0 N ' m
o O .-. 0) O Vl
3
M
N -4
ZfD'? O
Vt
fin C1 CD O
3 ?v-4
U) 0)
4 M3
3
0-7-7 'swalSAS uoIaeaoasaa
abed
(6002) 9 JeaA
poded 6uuo4iuopV puell&M lenuuy
aUS uo1jeao4saa puelleM dwells aani? WH
•uosuas 2utmOB oql jo luaond S-ZI -S wojj a?iun.l Xrw polaado.lp,Cq puullom ? jolrln2a.l aqI
`saourjsui autos ul •suoilipuoo oilmilo luw.tou spun uosros 2ulmo.l?? aql jo luao.lad S aoj ao>?3ans
pos og13o loo} I uigllm (aalum aa.z3) uoijuinjus aalnba.r Et.Iali.lo BoloipXq puppom xioluin0a.l aq L
L'taallaD oloaP H PuVIPA . ioluln all
•salis purllam
aouaaaJa.l pup >?i.tall.lo ,C20101p, q purllam Caojujn&m i?uisn padolanap uaaq ant?q sluo° juoi2olo.lp,Cq jo??irj
elaa;l.13 ssaaans al oloap H Z-I-Z
•Pt.taliao ssaoons .? 2olo.Ip, q
aUl ?IWVS Ol r .IP,SSa1au CIPAJP1111 , IipP Iv (Q-161 daSg `q i gillPAO?l OI 97 I11_1VIN) IIOSV. K ?IIIMOT?
aql 2ulanp s>?aau uotiriolsa.l ui Ino pai.u>?o aq ll! m 2uildwLs oii?oloap,CH '(Z a.1n213) Cllunwwoo qou;) uigltm
32Paan03 anllt?Iuasa.ldaa aplnoad of sUNP uolleaOISN pusllam ul pallelsul a.lam sa2nO 2waoliuow lqf?iA
•spoot3
2ul.lnp uoileallldui molj aoujins putt, uoilullis luanaad of deo alluoluaq u glim polum put? `uoa.los puns t? ui
palanq `olagl?j aalltd , q papunoaans aaam 30nei? gong jo suoiliod pauaaaoS •aopjins ilos aqI molaq sogoui tZ
? 131 wixoAdu 3o gldap u of Ias a.tam sai?ne'B Bulaol!uoW '(E661 ddAND 1) spubNaAl ul stalawozard1s17aAl
gu7aopuon l?u?11nisuj ui suoppog!oads glim aouupiooop ut pollpisut aaam s3?3nvO 2utioliuow
.talumpunoB `?3wp.tooa.t snonutluoo `al!S aql le palaldwoo a.lam suotluo!jipow luoi??olo.lp.? q aaljd
aanpaaoad u!ao;luoW olo.Ip H i'i'Z
S21010.IPSH PUCIPAN i'Z
'anoqu paluls suoiluoL;isselo,Cllunutwoo aa.rq) aql uaamlaq z)jpilua.ta{jip of
sanutluoo l.toda.l i?ut.loliuow lunuue sigl `.lanamOH -patdissLIoaa oq of paau ?pw pup paIrpunui Clluauuwaad
UIUWZ)I ?PLU SPOJU Iua??.lawa it?.lanas `uollrppe ul -Isa.loj dwvms/poompirq purlwolloq :dnoiO auo
olui pauigwoo oq of paau ?uw satliunwwoo osagl `aaoja.tagl •aanlnj aql ui aliS aql ssoao, paxiw.lalui llam
og llim isa.toj dwems put? Isaaoj poompauq puulwolloq aql iLgl slsa??2ns .?JIS13nip oduospupi aqI `.tanamoH
•sadols uibldpooU aaddn uo Isa.loj oisaw (C pup `suoissa.[dap uirldpood ui Isaao3 dw>?ms (Z 'slulj uirldpoop
uo lsaaoj poompjuq puulwolloq (I papnloui suolltao!jissuj3 XliunwwoD wilvool uirldpooLl 3o uoilounj
u sr Xli.ruwi.td `polaado.tpXq uo pasuq so?3LIgwossu /Cliunwwoo luuld puoaq aa.tgl olui UOIIUlaOan al!S
,C31ssUIo of Sum uuld luiliui 3q L 'IuoiprB BoloapXq aqI 2uoir sagoiu Irooi ul Oulnlnans s?3utlpaos aa.tl jo
Clai.n?n E gllm `dolanap of onuiluoo suiourd XltunwwoD •Z aan??iq ui polotdop su uoilonilsuoo aliS uo posnq
Isa.loj oisow put? `lsa.to3 poompjuq puelwolloq `Isaaoj dwums olui paplnipgns uaaq spq Pon uotlu.lolsaa aql
'moloq pagi.tosop
st w-el2o.td fut.toliuow aql 'Pall!31nj aar elaalin ssaoons iilun .to sivoX s jo wnwiuiw le ao3 paw.lojaad
aq ipm sllojjo uo!IUIolsa.l JO ?WIJOltuolN •uollt?I323n put, Xi?oloap,sq :s.lalawr.led XiLwlad om13o sisXluue
Ilulua IHM 5uiJolluoW '(L861 holuaoqu-I ll?Iuawuoainug) Bi.zali.to pu>;Ilam Iuuoilolpsl.tnf jo uoijunjUA0
glim 2u0i>? swan uotluaolsai pup aoua.la33a uaamlaq uosi.redwoo u jo sisisuoo loooload 2ul.loliuow aliS aql
tvvH9oHd 9NIHO.LINOW 07