20050377a Ver 1_Closeout Report_20120401

5-(977�
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland
Restoration
EEP Project No. 65
USACE Action ID# 200531348
Closeout Report
Stream & Wetland Protect
Construction Completed February 2007
Submission Date April 2012
Overall Proiect Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month Year
Restoration Plan
Sept 2004
Final Design
June 2005
Construction & Plantings completed
Feb 2007
As built survey
May 2007
Monitoring Year 1
Oct 2007
Veg Monitoring Year 2
Sept 2008
Monitoring Year 2
Oct 2008
Veg Monitoring Year 3
July 2009
Monitonng Year 3
Jan 2010
Veg Monitoring Year 4
June 2010
Monitonng Year 4
Feb 2011
Veg Monitoring Year 5
Aug 2011
Monitoring Year 5
April 2012
Closeout Submission
April 2012
Pro►ect Setting & Classifications
County
Anson
General Location
Ansonville
Basin
Yadkin
Ph sio ra h►c Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Triassic Basin
USGS Hydro, Unit
03040104
NCDWQ Sub basin
03 07 14
Wetland Classification
C
Thermal Regime
Warm
Trout Water
No
Project Performers
Source Agency
NC DOT
Designer
EcoScience Corporation
Monitoring Firm
Jordan Jones Goulding
Channel Remediation
\NA
Plant remediat►on
NA
Property Interest Holder
NC DOT & EEP

PC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Protect Setting and Background Summary
The Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (Site) is located in Anson
County, North Carolina, north of the Town of Wadesboro within the Piedmont eco- region and in
the Yadkin River Basin (USGS Subbasin HUC 03040104) The Site includes one of the two
Ecosystem Enhancement Program project sites located on the 200 -acre Bishop Site Dula
Thoroughfare EEP Project #65 and Camp Branch EEP Protect #92350 The Dula Thoroughfare
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project includes Dula Thoroughfare and its tributary (DT) and
Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Dula Thoroughfare The Site is contained by NC DOT and EEP
conservation easements The stream preservation /enhancement/restoration plan was designed by
EcoScience Corporation and was constructed by Vaughn Construction, Inc Construction and
planting activities were completed in February 2007 As -built surveys for the Site were
performed in May 2007 The first annual monitoring activities were conducted in October 2007
The project channels have exhibited limited bank erosion and no degradation of the profile and
have generally maintained the dimension of the cross - section (see cross section data) The site is
characterized by small, low energy channels that were subject to intense drought conditions
during the first year, which like many other small streams in the piedmont during this time
resulted in vegetation growth in the channel in some areas Beaver colonized Dula Thoroughfare
and were removed from Dula Thoroughfare in February 2012 The substrate along this reach was
dominated by silt deposition which is likely due to watershed contributions coupled with the
beaver dam impoundment However, this has not resulted in widespread bar formation capable
of deflecting flows into neighboring banks Assuming any potential upstream sediment sources
moderate with time, future storm events will likely evacuate this finer Except for localized low -
growth areas which represent less than 5% of the total planted bank length, riparian zones were
vegetating as expected and providing adequate soil stabilization and protection The current
project average planted stem density is 592 stems /acre Three vegetation plots (12, 14, 15) failed
to meet success criteria in 2005, plot 12 was likely affected by the beaver impoundment directly
downstream and plots 14 and 15 are likely affected by competition with surrounding Rubus sp
All groundwater gauges installed met the established 12 5 % success criteria in monitoring years
1, 2, 3, and 5 In year four, gauges two and three met success criteria and gauge one was
saturated for 19 days or 8% of the growing season
Goals and Objectives
Prior to restoration, the Site was predominantly utilized for row cropping and recreational
activities, such as hunting and wildlife viewing Historically, drainage features and wetland areas
were dredged, straightened, and filled in to provide land for agricultural purposes These
activities are thought to have inhibited stream channel stability and water quality, therefore,
producing an incised, eroded stream

PC
The primary goal for the Site included
• Restore functionality to impacted on -site stream reaches and adjacent riverine wetlands
Secondary Site restoration goals included
• Stream channel and adjacent wetland enhancement and preservation
The project goals were achieved by incorporating the following objectives
• Aquatic habitat creation via excavation of vernal pools within floodplain cut areas at Dula
Thoroughfare
• Re- establishment of the characteristic, pre - disturbance Piedmont Bottomland Forest
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches using at Dula
Thoroughfare
• Re- establishment of the characteristic, pre - disturbance Piedmont Bottomland Forest
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches using bare at UT
to Dula Thoroughfare
• Priority II stream restoration via excavation of approximately 2,730 linear feet of a
designed E -type stream of DT (Reach 1), including an associated tributary (Reach 2),
including adjacent floodplam excavation to achieve and entrenchment ratio characteristic
of E -type streams
• Creation of approximately 3 1 acres of riverine wetlands (Wetlands 1 and 5) adjacent to
DT and UT to DT via floodplain excavation in previously identified hydric soil areas,
thereby re- establishing jurisdictional wetland hydrology
Preservation of 2 3 acres of riverine wetlands adjacent to DT (Wetland 2)
• Level I enhancement of approximately 1,871 linear feet of stream (Reach 4) via backfill of
straightened and ditched portions of the existing watercourse, thereby re- establishing
characteristic stream dimension and pattern by reintroducing flow into adjacent relic
channel areas
• Level II enhancement of approximately 480 linear feet of stream (Reach 3) via riparian
plantings adjacent to the UT to DT streambanks
• Re- vegetation of open areas adjacent to the UT to DT via plantings of characteristic, pre -
disturbance community types described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) using bare root
seedling plantings
• Enhancement of 0 9 acre of riparian wetland adjacent to UT to DT (Wetlands 3 and 4)
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Closeout Report
EEP Project No 65

PC
Success Criteria
Characteristic
Standard
Dimension
Insignificant change in dimension from as -built
measurements or the previous year's
monitoring measurements Minor changes in
channel dimension are allowed, however,
dimension changes should not represent a trend
towards instability (e g increased width to
depth ratio or decreased width to depth ratio
with decreased entrenchment ratio)
Profile
Little change in longitudinal profile
Pattern and Profile
Pool /riffle spacing should remain fairly
constant
Substrate
Pools should not be aggradmg and riffles
should not scour
Substrate
Pebble count should trend toward a desired bed
material
Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology success criteria of 12 5%
for lower elevation wetland areas and between
5 -12% for upper landscape wetlands
Vegetation
Vegetative Plots success criteria of 260
stems /acre

REACH 6
Tributary to Dula Thoroughfare
REACH 2
REACH 7
WETLAND 4
w
REACH 4 REACH 3
Dula Thoroughfare
REACH 8
REACH 9
WETLAND 3
WETLAND 2
UT to Dula Thoroughfare
ALI
0 415 830 1,660 2,490 3,320
Feet"
Figure 1: Aerial Map
Dula Thoroughfare Stream & Wetland Restoration
tern . EEP Project No. 65 MOW
I? i 151 nun Anson County, NC
Closeout Report
REACH 1
WETLAND 1
REACH 5
0
Legend
Gauges
Success
0 Crest Gauge
Groundwater Gauge - Meets Criteria
Groundwater Gauge - Did Not Meet Criteria
Vegetation Plots
Wetland Modiflcation
Restoration Level
Welland Creation
( Wetland Enhancement
_1 Welland Preservation
Stream Modification
Restoration Level
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
— Stream Enhancement (Level 2)
Stream Restoration (Priority 2)
Stream Preservation
Conservation Easement
Aerial Source: National Agricultural Imagery Program, 2010
Sacle 1:10,000

�N",
� L
Tributary to Dula Thoroughfare �.
UT to Dula Thoroughfare
r
Dula Thoroughfare
i f
_ Figure 2: USGS Topography and Hydrologic Features Map
Dula Thoroughfare Stream & Wetland Restoration
1''os 'stem . EEP Project No. 65
Anson County, NC
Closeout Report
� � r
4�
elan
X r
Topographical Source. United States Geological Survey
Scale 1:10,000
Legend ~
Q Conservation Easement
.
Via.,►
r,,

N
A
Dula Thoroughfare
Tributary to Dula Thoroughfare
UT to Dula Thoroughfare
390 780 1,560 2,340 3,120
Aerial Source: National Agricultural Imagery Program, 2010; Soils Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008
Figure 3: Soils Map
W- - Dula Thoroughfare Stream & Wetland Restoration
1WF EEP Project No. 65
, ar cnlcnt Anson County, NC
Legend
C Conservation Easement
Wetland Modification
Restoration Level
Q Wetland Restoration
® Wetland Enhancement
® Wetland Preservation
Stream Modification
Restoration Level
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
— Stream Enhancement (Level 2)
Stream Restoration (Priority 2)
Stream Preservation
NRCS Soils Mapping
= Soils
May Contain Hydric Inclusions
Chewacala (ChA)
ra
Sena
Hydrae S...
Emily Descripdon
n Ch.nnery Silt L eem
Nun - Hydric
Typic Hepludulls Moderainly deep, well dmiae t m.&.ely permeable
(13.13, B.C)
n-C Idsmin Comple.
Von - Hydric
Typic Hapludutt Typic Shallow m moderately de p, well di—d, ..d—,— _
(BgD)
Dystndq.s nmderaely rapid permeability
McQumn (MrB)
Nan -Hydric
Typic Hap.". Deep, wclldrairod, slow permeabilty
ShellblufflShA)
Non -Hydric
Fluveotic Dyswdepts Very deep, well drm d, moderate pe muHoy
Tetouan (Tan)
Non- Hydric
Aq- H.pludulls Very dap, mod —.Iy well drained, n.rde— '(
pe— bility
Ch—l. (QA)
Nom Hydric: m.y
Fl-entic Dy —depd Very deep, somewhat poorly drained, m.der.. ^ .
main hwkir
mnnrahiliry
390 780 1,560 2,340 3,120
Aerial Source: National Agricultural Imagery Program, 2010; Soils Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2008
Figure 3: Soils Map
W- - Dula Thoroughfare Stream & Wetland Restoration
1WF EEP Project No. 65
, ar cnlcnt Anson County, NC
Legend
C Conservation Easement
Wetland Modification
Restoration Level
Q Wetland Restoration
® Wetland Enhancement
® Wetland Preservation
Stream Modification
Restoration Level
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
— Stream Enhancement (Level 2)
Stream Restoration (Priority 2)
Stream Preservation
NRCS Soils Mapping
= Soils
May Contain Hydric Inclusions
Chewacala (ChA)
ra

Table 1. Dula Thoroughfare # 65 Project Components
Restoration
Se ment/Reach
Pre — Construction
(acres a /linear feet)
Mitigation
Approach
As -Built Linear
Footage/Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation Units
SMU/WMU
Wetland
Buffer
Offset
SMU
Wn1t Units
Reach 1
19861
R P2
2,025
1:1
29025
Reach 5
DT Tributary
Reach 2
19029
692
P
R (P2)
NA
705
7:1
1:1
147
705
Reach 6
19868
P
NA
5:1
374
Reach 7
Reach 3
971
19912
P
E I
NA
19871
5:1
1.5:1
194
1,247
Reach 4
480
E(11)
480
2.5:1
192
Reach 8
536
P
NA
5:1
107
Reach 9
WT ::
Wetland 1 DT
29331
P
C
NA
3.1
5:1
3:1
466
1.03
Wetland 2 Ut DT
.37
E
NA
2:1
.19
Wetland 3 Ut DT
.48
E
NA
2:1
.24
Wetland 4 DT
2.3
P
NA
5:1
.46
IIAI I IM, iIO1 UNIT TOTALS
Stream
Mitigation
Riparian Non-
i riparian
Total
Riparian
Nutrient
Units
Wetland Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Offset
SMU
Wn1t Units
(WMU)
5,457
1.92 0
1.92
0

Table 2
Closeout Report - Stream Areas Requiring Observation
Dula Throroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No. 65
Station/Area
Description
Dula Thoroughfare Stations: 4 +35 - 5 +05
Poor vegetative cover - Lack of vegetation growth; poor soils - left bank
facing downstream
Dula Thoroughfare Stations: 7 +30 - 8 +27
Poor vegetative cover - Lack of vegetation growth, poor soils - both
banks
Dula Thoroughfare Stations: 0 +45 - 4 +22
Vegetation growing in middle of channel
Dula Thoroughfare Stations: 4 +35 - 5 +24
Dula Thoroughfare Stations: 6 +05 - 6 +18
Dula Thoroughfare Stations: 8 +70 - 9 +27
Dula Thoroughfare Stations: 11 +40 - 13 +10
Dula Thoroughfare Stations: 20 +24
Beaver Dam (Removal in February 2012)
Dula Tributary Stations: 0 +51 - 0 +87
Poor vegetation cover - Lack of vegetation growth; left bank facing
downstream
Dula Tributary Stations: 1 +19 - 1 +46
Dula Tributary Stations: 1 +69 - 1 +81
Dula Tributary Stations: 2 +72 - 3 +08
Dula Tributary Stations: 4 +26 - 4 +37
Lack of vegetative cover - Both banks
Dula Tributary Stations: 5 +93 - 7 +00
Vegetation growing in middle of channel

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphics
Dula Thoroughfare (Main Channel) - Cross - Section 1- Pool
998.5
998
997.5
997 ......................... ............................... ... ....... ........
996.5
996
c
�°-� 995.5
995
Station (ft) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
--r -- MY 1 -2007 + MY2-2008 —— MY3-2009 —♦— MY4-2010 — ............... Rankfull
Dula Thoroughfare (Main Channel) - Cross - Section 2 - Run
1 000
999 NL
998
997
� 996 ....... ....... ............................... ............
995
0 994
993
v
w 992
Station (ft) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
- -3- _ — MY3-2009 + _ —
Dula Thoroughfare Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 65
April 2012

w
C
O
ro
W
Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphics
Dula Thoroughfare (Main Channel) - Cross - Section 3 - Pool
-]0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150
Station (ft) " MY5- 3/2012 • MY 1-10/2007 • MY2- 5/2008 MY3- 1/2010 —MY4- 1/2011 Bankfull Water Surface
Dula Thoroughfare (Tributary) - Cross - Section 4 - Run
1000.5
1000
999.5
999
998.5 .................. .. ...... ............... ...............................
998
O
997.5
w 997
Station (ft) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
MYI- 10/2007 MY2 - 5/2008 --'*— MY3 - 1/2010 MY4 -1 /2011 — MY5- 3/2012 Bankfull Water Surface
Dula Thoroughfare Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 65
April 2012

Table 3• Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphics
UT Dula Thoroughfare- Cross - Section 13 - Riffle
100 - -- - --
99.5
99
,1 98.5
98
AIM
b
97.5
97
0 96.5
1
... .... .... .............. .. ................... .... ..............................
96
>
w 95.5
95
Station (ft) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
— 1- mac— - — - • - 01 0 Y ................ Bankfull
UT Dula Thoroughfare- Cross - Section 14- Riffle
88.8 -
88.6
88.4
88.2
88
b 87.8
87.6
87.4
0 87.2
87
86.8
86.6
Station (ft) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
t MY1 -2007 — MY2 -2008 —A-- MY3 -2009 • MY4 -2010 t MY5 -2011 ...............I. Bankfull
Dula Thoroughfare Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 65
April 2012

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphics
UT Dula Thoroughfare- Cross - Section 15- Riffle
400.4 AA
400.2
400
399.8 ...........
b 399.6
399.4
4;
c
399.2
399
>
w 398.8
398.6
Station (ft) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
MY1 -2007 —�— MY2 -2008 MY3 -2009 * MY4 -2010 MY5 -2011 Bankfull
Dula Thoroughfare Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 65
April 2012
Longitudinal Plot Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65 -Main Channel
999
a
L
998
GQ
997
w
996
995
0
R
994
W
993
992
Station (ft) 0
500
1000 1500
2000
- ---
TW- 10/2007
TW- 5/2008 TW- 1/2010
TW- 1/2011 TW- 3/2012 WS- 3/2012 • BKF- 3/2012
0 Cross - Section
Dula Thoroughfare Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 65
April 2012

Table 3• Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphics
1002 Longitudinal Plot - Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65-TributaKy
L
1000
+� 998 — - --
b
996
a�
W 994
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Dula Thoroughfare Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 65
April 2012

Table 4
Closeout Report - Verification of Bankful Events
Dula Throughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
Date of Collection
Method
Gauge Measurement
12/2007
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
9/2007
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
6/2009
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
1 /2011
Visual Observation
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
4/19/2011
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
5/19/201 1
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
7/22/2011
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
7/22/2011
Visual Observation
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
3/22/2012
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
3/22/2012
Visual Observation
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)

Table 5
Closeout Report - Gauge Data
Dula Throughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for MY 1 through MY 5
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
MY 1 (2007)
MY 2 (2008)
MY 3 (2009)
MY 4 (2010)
MY 5 (2011)
GW 1
N /A*
Yes /81 Days (33 %)
Yes /117 Days (47 %)^
No /19 Days (8 %)
Yes /163 Days (65 %)
GW2
Yes /41 Days (16 %) **
Yes /69 Days (28 %)
Yes /99 Days (40 %)
Yes /54 Days (22 %)^^
Yes /149 Days (60 %)
GW3
Yes /42 Days (17 %) **
Yes /80 Days (32 %)
Yes /96 Days (39 %)
Yes /53 Days (21 %)
Yes /87 Days (35 %)
*Gauge was not installed until 7/11/2007
* *Percentages based off of number reported in EcoScience report raw data was unavailable
^Groundwater data is only reported through 9/28/2009
^^ Groundwater data is only reported through 7/27/2010

Table 6 Morphologic and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Closeout Report Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
Dula Thoroughfare Main Channel
PARAMETER
Cross Section 1 Pool
DIMENSION
Pre
Construction **
As Built * **
MYI 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 -2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
036
036
036
036
036
036
036
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
1407
960
960
756
757
895
649
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
0 83
090
090
1 036
040
062
076
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft')
660
890
890
966
871
5 52
494
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
3000
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
Channel Slope
00019
*
*
00014
00013
00012
00014
Channel Smousity
101
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
PARAMETER
Cross Section 2 Run
DIMENSION
Pre
Construction **
As Built * **
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 -2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
036
036
036
036
036
036
036
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
1407
870
870
800
729
635
744
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
083
090
090
086
081
064
065
Mean Bankf ill Cross sectional Area (ft)
660
820
820
688
590
408
481
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
3000
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
Channel Slope
00019
*
*
00014
00013
00012
00014
Channel Smousity
101
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
* Data was not provided
* *Pre construction cross section locations do not correspond to monitoring cross section locations therefore
pre construction cross section data was averaged along the entire reach
* * *As built data based on Monitoring Year 1 survey

Table 6 Morphologic and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Closeout Report Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
Dula Thoroughfare Main Channel
PARAMETER
Cross Section 3 Pool
DIMENSION
Pre
Construction
As -Built
MV1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 -2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
036
036
036
036
036
036
036
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
650
737
650
737
784
1087
492
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
060
063
060
063
071
1 045
061
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
380
464
380
464
5 54
494
302
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
Channel Slope
00019
00001
*
00014
00013
00012
0001
Channel Srrmousity
101
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
PARAMETER
Cross Section 4 Run
DIMENSION
Pre-
Construction
As -Built
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
036
036
036
036
036
036
036
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
561
966
490
458
561
966
447
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
037
030
050
048
037
030
1 033
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
206
292
240
221
206
292
1 50
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
Channel Slope
00019
00001
*
00014
00013
00012
00014
Channel Smousity
101
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
* Data was not provided

Table 6 Morphologic and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Closeout Report Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
UT to Dula Thoroughfare
PARAMETER
Cross Section 13
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As Budt*
MYl 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
023
023
023
023
023
023
023
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
370
1110
11 10
12 10
1202
13 08
1248
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
130
080
080
073
069
064
066
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
480
860
860
883
833
841
822
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
2000
3091
3091
3091
3091
3091
3091
Channel Slope
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Channel Smousity
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
PARAMETER
Cross - Section 14
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As -Built*
MYI 2007
MY2 -2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
023
023
023
023
023
023
023
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
440
1620
1620
1737
1556
1490
8 13
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
1 20
030
030
026
027
026
042
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
5 10
430
430
449
417
3 85
339
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
2000
3091
3091
3091
3091
3091
3091
Channel Slope
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Channel Smousity
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
PARAMETER
Cross Section 15
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As Budt*
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
023
023
023
023
023
023
023
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
620
710
7 10
1174
762
1126
807
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
070
040
040
026
043
037
048
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
440
260
260
304
324
412
384
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
2000
3091
3091
3091
3091
3091
3091
Channel Slope
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Channel Smousity
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
N/A Not Applicable (no longitudinal profile was required) *As built data based on Monitoring Year 1 survey

ble 7
-m Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
osout Report Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
MY5 2011
Annual Means
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 8
Plot 9
Plot 10
Plot 11
Plot 12
Current Mean
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
cer negundo
box elder
T
3
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
cer rubrum
red maple
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baccharis hamiltfolia
groundsel tree
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Betula nigra
Carya glabra
river birch
pignut hickory
T
T
1
1
17
17
14
14
2
79
2
2
7
N/A
23
N/A
7
N/A
7
N/A
7
N/A
9
N/A
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
T
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
T
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
Cephalanthus occtdentahs
common buttonbush
T
1
1
5
5
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
T
3
3
9
14
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
S
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virgintana
common persimmon
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fagus grandtfolta
American beech
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fraxtnus pennsylvanica
green ash
T
3
5
4
4
1
1
2
3
3
4
3
Liquidambarsryractflua
sweet gum
T
3
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Nyssa btflora
Pinus taeda
swamp tupelo
loblolly pine
T
T
I
1
1
1
1
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
Platanus occtdentahs
American sycamore
T
1
1
5
5
1
1
3
3
3
3
Quercus michauxn
swamp chestnut oak _
T
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
T
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
T
2
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Quercus sp
oak species
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Ulmus alata
winged elm
T
48
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ulmus americana
American elm
T
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
00247
8
9
8
8
9
9
4
6
3
5
11
13
7
7
7
8
15
24
39
47
30
1 30
9
90
6
55
1 22
51
21
21
20
24
607
972
1 1579
11903
1215
1215
364
3644
243
1 2227
802
1 1992
842
842
802
1 980
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total

Table 7
Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Closout Report Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
MY5 2011
Annual Means
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 8
Plot 9
I Plot 10
Plot I I
Plot 12
Current Mean
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
cer negundo
box elder
T
3
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
cer rubrum
red maple
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
Baccharrs hamtlrfolra
groundsel tree
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Betula nrgra
river birch
T
1
1
17
17
14
14
2
79
2
2
7
23
7
7
7
7
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
T
N/A
N/A
I
1
1
1
Celtrs laevrgata
sugarberry
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occrdentalrs
common buttonbush
T
1
1
5
5
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
T
3
3
9
14
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
Cornus,Jlorrda
flowering dogwood
S
N/A
N/A
1
1
N/A
N/A
Drospyros vrrgtnrana
common persimmon
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fagus grandrfoha
American beech
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fraxrnus pennsylvanrca
green ash
T
3
5
4
4
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
Lrqurdambar styracri lua
sweet gum
T
3
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
yssa bri fora
swamp tupelo
T
I
1
l
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prnus taeda
loblolly pine
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Platanus occrdentahs
American sycamore
T
1
1
5
5
1
1
3
3
3
3
Quercus mrchauxrr
swamp chestnut oak
T
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
T
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
Quercus phellos
wallow oak
T
2
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Quercus sp
oak species
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ulmus alata
1winged elm
T
48
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
58
Ulmus amencana
JAmencan elm
T
3
4
1
l
1
1
1
2
2
2
8
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
00247
' ` r I - �, I
8
9
8
8
9
9
4
6
3
5
11
13
12
12
12
12
15
24
39
47
30
30
9
90
6
55
22
51
29
29
29
29
607
972
1579
1903
1215
1215
364
3644
243
2227
802
1992
810
818
810
818
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total

Table 7
Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Closout Report Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
MY5
2011
Annual Means
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 13
Plot 14
Plot 15
Current Mean
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
cerrubrum
red maple
T
2
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
T
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
3
3
3
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cornus Florida
flowering dogwood
S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virgrniana
common persimmon
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
Fagus grand foha
American beech
T
1
1
1
3
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweet gum
T
1
2
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
T
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
N/A
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
T
22
3
11
N/A
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
T
4
4
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
T
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Rhus glabra
I smooth sumac
S
7
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Taxodrum distrchum
lbald cypress
T
i
i
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
00247
4
6
3
1 5
4
7
4 7
4 4
4 4
6 6
4 8
9
38
4
11
5
24
6 23
8 8
6 6
9 9
7 27
364
1538
162
445
202
972
243 985
310 310
243 256
283 283
243 1039
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total

Table 8
Closeout Report - Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration EEP Project No 65
Month
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Average
30%
70%
Jan
3 86
163
204
307
1 05
3 74
255
492
Feb
3 31
3 35
1 93
434
3 01
363
259
467
Mar
343
425
537
265
436
450
342
557
April
1461
462
240
047
1 98
309
2 16
402
May
024
1 85
524
489
346
3 21
229
4 12
June
461
067
2 16
4 73
649
425
301
548
July
197
448
466
374
3 91
431
342
520
Aug
279
584
264
6 18
5 09
429
3 04
5 53
Set
1 14
443
209
1 06
860
3 84
2 61
507
Oct
4 10
2 17
215
000
3 75
3 54
250
457
Nov
028
229
700
036
3 75
3 14
247
3 81
Dec
548
334
568
224
193
3 02
235
369
Year
4582
3892
4336
3373
4738
4453
3241
5665
30%
70%
All information gathered from nearby weather station KNCTROY 1 information gathered from www wunderground com
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Month
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
1 16
049
061
092
032
Jan
270
1 14
143
2 15
074
099
101
058
1 30
090
Feb
232
235
1 35
304
211
1 03
128
161
080
l 31
Mar
240
298
376
1 86
3 05
April
438
1 39
072
0 14
059
Aril
1023
323
1 68
033
139
FAuMYl
007
056
1 57
147
104
May
017
1 30
367
342
242
1 38
020
065
142
1 95
June
323
047
1 51
3 31
454
059
134
140
1 12
1 17
Jul
1 38
3 14
326
262
274
084
1 75
079
1 85
1 53
Aug
1 95
409
1 85
433
356
0 34
1 33
0 63
0 32
2 58
Set
0 80
3 10
1 46
0 74
6 02
1 23
065
065
000
1 13
Oct
287
1 52
151
000
263
Nov
008
069
2 10
0 11
1 13
Nov
020
1 60
490
025
263
Dec
1 64
100
1 70
067
058
Dec
384
234
398
1 57
1 35
All information gathered from nearby weather station KNCTROY 1 information gathered from www wunderground com

JJa
SUMMARY
EEP Recommendations and Conclusions
Overall the Site has matured as expected and is trending towards complete stability and self -
sustainability Stream related inefficiencies discussed earlier appear to be attributed to watershed
contribution and beaver activity, not design- related instability within restored reaches Watershed
contribution of sediment appears to be the primary reason for stream issues such as aggradation
and in- stream vegetative growth Regarding riparian vegetation, the Site has exhibited acceptable
coverage, survivability and diversity that coincide with similar mitigation projects Areas of
vegetative inefficiencies are very minor and are expected to self correct over time
EEP recommends site closure as the site is trending towards a sustainable system
Contingencies
Although the Site is experiencing some unintended characteristics, they do not warrant
contingency intervention An attempt to correct inefficiencies would likely result in more
disturbance than benefit
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Closeout Report
EEP Project No 65

Cross Section 1: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 1: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 1: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 2: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
tens Closeout Report
l i mcnf Page 1
pie

Cross Section 2: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 2: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 2: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 2: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
�ten1 Closeout Report
Li iat cilleut Page 2 0

Cross Section 3: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 3: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 3: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 3: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
r-�I EEP Project No. 65
1?co5yste m Closeout Report
Page 3 it

Cross Section 4: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 4: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 4: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 4: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
tern Closeout Report
1," a ii IIIcIit Page 4 0

Cross Section 13: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 13: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 13: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 13: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
��',,
r-�I , Closeout Report
r i .ii i i r i Page 5
IV

Cross Section 14: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 14: View Upstream
(MY I - 10/2006)
Cross Section 14: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 14: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
�, EEP Project No. 65
I,fo to -, Closeout Report
;iiliaic►ilcill Page 6
pit

Cross Section 15: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 15: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 15: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 15: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
_ Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
Closeout Report
1';n jai :tem clIt Page 7

Photo Point 1: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 1: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 1: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Photo Point 1: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
Closeout Report
Ennilafflal ent Page 8 ;9

Photo Point 2: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 2: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 2: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Photo Point 2: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
��,, On, Closeout Report
IiTiat me Page 9

Photo Point 3: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 3: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 3: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Photo Point 3: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
�? EEP Project No. 65
Eco tetll Closeout Report
11 riliai(rnunt Page 10 a Fir

Photo Point 4: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 4: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 4: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Photo Point 4: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Y Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
,F,os stem Closeout Report
l ;i 111t mcnt Page 11
pie

re
APPENDIX A
WATERSHED PLANNING SUMMARY
There is no Local Watershed Plan associated with this project; it is not located in a Targeted
Local Watershed.

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction management and stewardship of this mitigation
project Includes a portion of the following parcels
http //www nceep net/GIS DATA/PROPERTY /65 DulaThorofareAtBishoaSite pdf
LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) NCDOT and EEP
will determine the long term steward for these parcels Conservation easements that
are held in the name of the State of North Carolina may be conveyed to the DENR
Stewardship Program upon approval by the parties
Site Protection
Deed Book &
Acreage
Grantor /Grantee
County
Instrument
Page Number
Protected
Rocky Pee Dee LLC/
The Landtrust for Central
Anson
Conservation
678/128
4422
Easement
North Carolina et al
Rocky Pee Dee LLC/
Conservation
Anson
722/186
6311
The North Carolina DOT
Easement
Rocky Pee Dee LLC/
Conservation
Anson
816/183
358
State of North Carolina
Easement
Rocky Pee Dee LLC/
gnson
Conservation
859/259
986
State of North Carolina
Easement
http //www nceep net/GIS DATA/PROPERTY /65 DulaThorofareAtBishoaSite pdf
LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) NCDOT and EEP
will determine the long term steward for these parcels Conservation easements that
are held in the name of the State of North Carolina may be conveyed to the DENR
Stewardship Program upon approval by the parties

PR
APPENDIX C
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS AND PERMITS
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Closeout Report
EEP Project No 65

,w
Action ID 200430199
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
County Anson
Property Owner NCDOT Authorized Agent EcoScience Corporation
Address Gregory J Thorpe, Project Attn W Grant Lewis
Development and Environmental Analysis Address 1101 Haynes Street
1548 Mail Service Center Suite 101, Raleigh, NC 27604
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548 Telephone 919 - 828 -3433
Telephone 919 - 733 -3141
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name /number, town, etc)
Bishop Property Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Approximately 930 -acre parcel adjacent to
the Rocky River off Carpenter Road north of Ansonville in the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Bann
Bans for Determination Delineation Maps and GPS surveys dated January 27, 2004 with
accompanying Wetland Data Forms and Stream Assessment Worksheets from August and
September 2003 identifying hydric soil, wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, stream flow, an
ordinary high waterline and surface hydrologic connections to the Yadkm /Pee Dee River System
Indicate Which of the Following apply
0 The wetlands aria surface waters on this project have been delineated and the limits of the Corps junsdict-wri have
been explained to you Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
retied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
Placement of dredged or fill material in streams and wetlands on this property without a
Department of the Army pernut is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1311) A permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing
high ground If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact
Steven W Lund at 828- 271 -7980 x 223
Project Manager Signature
Date January 13, 2004
Date January 13, 2009
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM
RECEIVED
SEP 17 2004
OMUN OF MAYS
POEA OFFICE OF NARRAL ENYIF

D I II I I
Applicant NC Department of Transportation File Number 200430199
Date 13 Jan 2004
Attached is
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
� e X11 o AM s >;eg g an �ti o e e
&OP
e y l a ctio s/c /cec o /ixeg o
A INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT You may accept or object to the permit
• ACCEPT If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization If you received a Letter of Pernssion (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the penmt including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit
• OBJECT If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therem, you may request that
the perrmt be modified accordingly You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district engineer
Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right
to appeal the penrut in the future Upon receipt of your letter the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may (a)
modify the permit to address all of your concerns (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify
the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered pernut for your reconsideration as indicated in Section B below
B PROFFERED PERMIT You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights
to appeal the pernut including its terms and conditions and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit
• APPEAL If you choose to decline the proffered pernut (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein you
may appeal the declined pernut under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this
form and sending the form to the division engineer This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the
date of this notice
C PERMIT DENIAL You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Adrninistrative Appeal Process
by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice
D APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information
• ACCEPT You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD
• APPEAL If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice
E PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD The Preliminary JD is not appealable If you wish, you may request an
approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction Also you may
provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD

REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an
initial proffered pernut in clear concise statements You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons
or objections are addressed in the administrative record )
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record However
you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal
process you may contact
Mr Steven W Lund, Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, CESAW RG -A
151 Patton Avenue Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 5006
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact
Mr Arthur Middleton, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD ET -CO R
US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta Georgia 30303 8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel and any government
consultants to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the onnortumty to participate in all site nevestmations
Date
Siemature of annellant or agent
Telephone number

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RECE1VL::J)
WILMINGTON DISTRICT APR z 7 2005
Action ID 200531348 County nson USGS Quad Mt Gilead NC ECOSY87EM
ty Q It
GENERAL PERIMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attn Mr Jeff Jurek
Address 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
27699 -1652
Telephone No 919 715 -0476
Size and location of property (water body road name /number town etc ) Approximate 195 -acre parcel adiacent to
Camp Branch, Dula Thoroughfare and Rocky River between Pinkston River Road and Carpenter Road three
miles north of Ansonvdle
Description of projects area and activity Discharge dredged or fill material into wetlands and surface waters to facilitate
the restoration of 5663 linear feet of stream channel, the restoration of 5 6 acres of wetland, the enhancement of 8496
linear feet of stream channel and the enhancement of 0 9 acres of wetland through the excavation of new channels and
floodplain benches, excavation of backwater sloughs, installation of rock and log vanes, plugging and refilling old
channels, construction of temporary stream crossings and permanent stream fords, stream bank stabilization and
replanting of stream banks and floodplain buffer SPECIAL CONDITIONS See attached sheet for special
conditions
Applicable Law ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act 33 USC 403)
Authorization Regional General Permit Number
Nationwide Permit Number 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your subnutted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked If prior to the expiration date identified below the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below provided it complies with all modifications If
the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended revoked or is modified such that the activity would no longer comply
with the terms and conditions of the nationwide pernut, activities which have commenced (i a are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve
months of the date of the nationwide permit s expiration, modification or revocation unless discretionary authority has been exercised
on a case by case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
prior to beginning work you must contact the N C Division of Coastal Management
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the perrruttee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals /permits
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Peraut or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Mr Steven Lund at telephone [phone] x 223
Corps Regulatory Official Steven Lund /S i,J'y Date 4/20/2005
Expiration Date of Verification 3/18/2007
Page 1 of 2

SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT 27
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Action ID 200531348
April 20, 2005
a The permittee shall fully implement the Bishop Property Restoration Plan, Anson
County, North Carolina, prepared by EcoScience Corporation and dated Septembei
2004 except as conditioned below
b Authorization is provided for construction of the proposed stream and wetland
mitigation site and does not obligate the US Army Corps of Engineers to recognize
this project as a mitigation bank The permittee will provide an As Built plan to the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office within 60 days of
completion of the authorized work
c All temporary stream crossings and channel diversions will be constructed of non -
erodable materials and will be removed in their entirety upon completion of the
authorized work
d All channel relocations will be constructed in a dry work area and stabilized before
stream flows are diverted through them The US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Regulatory Field Office shall be notified in advance by facsimile transmission or
electronic mail of the intended diversion of water into new permanent channels

Determination of Jurisdiction
® Based on prelirrunary information there appear to be waters of the US within the above described project area This prelirrunary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part
331)
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this deterrrunation may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification
❑ There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the pernut requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
❑ The, jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action Please reference
.jurisdictional determination issued Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Deterrrunation
Corps Regulatory Official Steven Lund /SL0 Z
Date 3/20/2005
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC, MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE
Page 2 of 2

Action ID Number 200511348
County Anson
Perm►ttee North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attn Mr Jeff Jurek
Date Permit Issued 4/20/2005
Project Manager Lund
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
151 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 -5006
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U S Army Corps of
Engineers representative If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension,
modification, or revocation
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions
Signature of Permittee
Date

[Fwd Bishop Property Stream and Wetland Enhancement and Restor
Subject [Fwd Bishop Property Stream and Wetland Enhancement and Restoration, Anson Co,
05 -0377]
From Jeff Jurek <Jeff Jurek @ncmail net>
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14 02 07 -0400
To Lin Xu <lin Yu @ncmail net>
File email, serves as write off for certification
-- - - - - -- Original Message -- - - - --
Subject Bishop Property Stream and Wetland Enhancement and Restoration, Anson Co, 05 -0377
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13 46 51 -0400
From Cyndi Karoly <cyndt karolypncmail net>
To Jeff Jurek <leff Jurek pncmail net>
CC ken itte a,ncmail ne?
r - - J
Jeff - please file this pr03ect as Deemed Issued The 30 -day clock
expired 3/26/05
Jeff Jurek
Assistant Operations Manager
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
(919) 715 -1157 phone
(919) 715 -2219 fax
leffJurekdncmail net
I of 1 4/15/2005 8 12 AM

Mitigation Project Name Dula Thorofare at Bishop Site
EEP IMS ID 65
River Basin YADKIN
Cataloging Unit 03040104
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5.22823:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 0.5:1 1:1 1 1
q 0
A C
n d
A D
O
N
P O
N
O
A m
O
C D
d
C N
d
N r
O Z
2
_ r
�
_ N
i 0
_ Z
r
Z
O
..
G
N
O
C N
O q
C
O U
C q
O t
C h
O d
q 0
N
��pp
N
q U
N q
N
q
N
_
Z
0
t
0.
Z K
2
2 W
2 a
O
]
Z
0
2,730.00
1,871.00 480.00
6,735.00
0.00
3.1
0.85
2.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Z
0.00
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres):
Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
NC DOT TIP U -3300B -
Albemarle - SR 1542
2008 - 03161 -384
(Ridge Street Extension)
294.00
NCDOT TIP 1 -4407 - US
220 Improvements
2009 -1046
2009 -01941
(Future 1- 73/74)
167.00
800.00
NCDOT TIP R -2231
2000 -0874
1994 -00590
(Ellerbee Bypass)
2,269.00
1,871.00
480.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.00
0.001
0.00
5,935.00
3.10
0.85
2.30