20081838 Ver 1_Mitigation Evaluation_20090423

Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Date of Office Review: Evaluator's Name(s): W
Date of Report: 1?hJ 2tX1`? Report for Monitoring Year: ?. ( wg)
Date of Field Review: 2. _nci Evaluator's Name(s):
Other Individuals/Agencies Present: i ajp
Weather Conditions (today & recent): ,_NX- " fix. k"__a t bream
Directions to Site: US 64 E to Tarboro, N on NC 33 to Leggette (5 miles), rt on Draughn Rd (4
site on right in - 1 mile
1. Office Review Information:
Project Number 20081838
Project Name: Anderson Swamp Wetland Restoration
County(ies): Edgecombe
Basin & subbasin: Tar-Pamlico 03020102
Nearest Stream: Maple Swamp; Fishing Creek
Water Quality Class of Nearest Stream:. WS4; NSW
Mitigator Type: Full-Delivery (EEP)
DOT Status: non-DOT
Total Mitigation on Site
Wetland: 21.3 acres
Stream:
Buffer:
Nutr. Offset:
Approved mitigation plan available? Yes No
Monitoring reports available? Yes No
rt on Bethlehem Ch Rd,
Project History
- - - - -- 7
Event Event Date
Site Visit - Wetlands 3/19/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 5/27/2008
Report Receipt: Monitoring 12/8/2008
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:
Mitigation Component
Monitoring Success Success
Year (report) (field) Resolved
20081838-1 12.9 acres Wetland Restoration
3
20081838-2 8.4 acres Wetland Enhancement 3
CgD) no bu- er Comb Lr\, db cAAdA?-.>
0-VA_Sits, +-o-did C?Dnnponcx*
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:
List specific reasons for lack of success for this project:
successful partially successful unsuccessful
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
•,s
U

01
c?-er? ??? fix' c?.d???
?-. ;?(.
%
?,? ?n d?? ; s berms j aI l aAea -6r- fry-
t?7C ><- ,a i C4 (?c tkaJ '(i-4e lp?CtrAttkkt
1 L i ? v? rte- t?? 4 v\,? ?? C(Lcn : ?-4 , 7?r
CJ?Gk CEO ?i?_ c= Cdr ?'n4
ccr4
`- 5 ,tip ?e+,fv? ? ASS L4 1Gt'v(, (rtee ??_) wt?
, "CA
vi L
s ?J, ?
ate,
?cJ•. V i irv? (??? ? QCs '?-" ? Y1,?? °?(?" ??' ?'1? ?,v??
L-L
cy-

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
IV. Success Criteria Evaluation:
VEGETATION:
NOTE: Success Criteria is 320 spa
Monitoring report indicates success? Yes No
Average TPA for entire site (per report): ! c 30, fir.
Observational field data agrees? Yes No
Date of last planting:
Nutrient Offset (Streams or Ditches)
Ri iffcr Wir#h N C) C?
Comments:D Cl??(,)CC{x5 ?cn uv1c ? t Total Acres: .??
Restored Acres: .- 7
Enhanced Acres: Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPA/lo cover
r wC.?
co-1- ? ? .
i
Vegetation growing successfully? es No
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas and associated stream bank (e.g. bank stability,
overall health of vegetation, etc.)
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009)
I
Page 1 of 2
Buffer Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
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):
Easement Marking Method:
?G (,_?Okko 1 C Z'rne(-S
List any remaining issues to address (e.g. plant survival, easement encroachment, etc.):
MITIGATION SUCCESS:
Compared to the mitigation plan, this component is: successful partially successful not successful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component: 1
?•?, ?,` ?? 'C) A2 ?Je C_????Y? C ', ?' rti?t?rt?`1 (?1cEr? 1Yt ty t`? tl
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:
4
Version 1.2 (March 5, 2009) Page 2 of 2

Wetland Mitigation Project Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
?n
Component: 12.9 acres Wetland Restoration Component ID: 20081838-1
Description: non-riverine? -R\k di}cheS ,re i cA oAAj ? T-ouo cx-opS> F L4-uA-
Location within project:
III. Success Criteria Evaluation:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
saturation Win 12" of soil surface for min 5% (12 consec days) of Inundated j S
HYDROLOGY - Approved Success Criteria:
GS ?n dr`-1Ia(??OC??' I 0j- 1
Saturated in upper 12 inches
Moni oring report mdibates success eso? Drift lines V`
Observational field data agrees? a No Drainage patterns in wetlands 1.
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.):
LAA
kOAM C?f.RA- n?,1 C)
-2- (Lo
8`OILS - Approved Success Criteria:
Are soils hydric or bec in dric?
List indicators of hydri? ils:
Yes No
List any remaining soi ues to address (e.g
erosion, upland areas, etc.):
VEGETATION - Approved Success Criteria. Dominant Plant Species
320/290/260 char TPA @ Yr 3/4/5; planted spec min 30% Species Story TPA/'/ cover
` (96 stems) of requ TPA; each char vol may be up to 10% of
reeqqu TPA
?5 ?Cl 1 u? C?1??
1 Pic)
Monitoring report indicates success?QYe
v v A J J,_?
Ct ` ; ,1 Average TPA for entire site (per report):
CO Observational field data agrees? es,' No
based on community composition? No
based on TPA and/or % cover? s' No
Vegetation planted on site? No
Date of last planting:
Vegetation growing successfully? es 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):
LA-
I
List any remaining vegetation issues to address (e.g. plant survival, concerns, etc.):
ofi-2, U"
Ps VD
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 indicatescs?u ? Yes No Riparian
N
i
i
tt
Observational field data agree Yes No er)
on-r
par
an (we
Attach NCWAM analysis res s to this report. Non-riparian (drier)
List any remaining NC M issues to address (e.g. functibnality, developing wetland type, etc.):

MITIGATION SUCCESS:
I Compared to the approved mitigation plan, this component is: successful parti 41y succe sful unsuccessful
List specific reasons for lack of success for this component:
Additional comments (e.g. DWQ follow-up actions, recommendations, etc.):
&-A chit to c-tr r -._h\'2? I-e --tee vC's
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: 8.4 acres Wetland Enhancement Component ID: 20081838-2
Description: non-riverine ?altrY?irui rvw c -ve% tQ? ,off r k'Aii??
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 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:
320 stems/acre
Dominant Plant Species
Species Story TPAP/ 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 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.):
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
om>
C? 0
Z
f 1
o N 3
? 0 2
-_"---?A
Z

36°01.000'N 36°UZ.000'N 36"UJ.000N
--
,4 -4
°o °o
O \ R
t°p
14
14
--
y' f t ?_ c I- `? X
To,
r
i
T ti? rt i ? ?I f?d? ? ?? :tip /{ I \ it ? •/.
y P '
14
?.
i -?
IL:
i
? ` ? ? can
Rx m
ns V
a, ? V
p O
A W
tl ?A
Y•L - jL s 9
0
„l•vvu 11 sb'UZ.000' N 36°03.000' N
SHEET
NUMBER 7
An,
Rn
TIN