20050377a Ver 1_Monitoring Report Closeout_20120401

05__(Z_7� 4
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland
Restoration
EEP Project No. 65
USACE Action ID# 200531348
Closeout Report
Stream & Wetland Project
Construction Completed: February 2007
Submission Date: April 2012
Overall Project 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
Monitoring Year 3
Jan 2010
Veg Monitoring Year 4
June 2010
Monitoring Year 4
Feb 2011
Veg Monitoring Year 5
Aug 2011
Monitoring Year 5
April 2012
Closeout Submission
April 2012
lv
Project Settine & Classifications
County
Anson
General Location
Ansonville
Basin:
Yadkin
Ph sio ra hic 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, Gould'n
Channel Remediation
\NA
Plant remediation
Property Interest Holder
NC D0,11 & EEP

JJG
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project 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 Project #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.

we
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 floodplain 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 I1 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

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 aggrading 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

R
REACH 2 EACH 1
REACH 6
Tributary to Dula Thoroughfare
REACH 4
.' REACH 8
WETLAND 3
tom\
WETLAND 2
REACH 7
REACH 3
WETLAND 4
Dula Thoroughfare
REACH 9
UT to Dula Thoroughfare
0 415 830 1,660 2,490 3,320'
Fee
ire Figure 1: Aerial Map
C' Dula Thoroughfare Stream & Wetland Restoration
F1c oS stem EEP Project No. 65 MOW
Anson County, NC
Closeout Report
WETLAND 1
REACH 5
Legend
Gauges
Success
kiCrest Gauge
Groundwater Gauge - Meets Criteria
Groundwater Gauge - Did Not Meet Criteria
(_ Vegetation Plots
Wsttand Modification
Restoration Level
® Wetland Creation
® Wettand Enhancement
© 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
Socle 1:10,000

�- Tributary to Dula Thoroughfare 4 r�
TQ
UT to Dula Thoroughfar ,• . _:
� Dula Thoroughfare ` ���+. . •
Uzza
i Stan
G t f
~ — — _Fl�� f ~ Topographical Source: United States Geological Survey
`
+ �� Lf Scale 1:!0.000
i.. � Legend
Conservation Easement
Figure 2: USGS Topography and Hydrologic Features Map
r' Dula Thoroughfare Stream & Wetland Restoration
cosstent EEP Project No. 65
I'a� tal cmc. Anson County, NC
Closeout Report

Table 1. Dula Thoroughfare # 65 Project Components
Restoration
Segment/Reach
Pre — Construction
(acreage/linear feet
Mitigation
Approach
As -Built Linear
Footage/Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation Units
SMU/W
Date
Thtr dftt
rips an
Wetland
Riparian
Nutrient
Units
Reach 1
1,861
R P2
29025
1:1
2,025
Reach 5
19029
P
NA
7:1
147
DT Tributary
0
1.92
0
0
Reach 2
692
R (P2)
705
1:1
705
Reach 6
19868
P
NA
5:1
374
Reach 7
971
P
NA
5:1
194
Ut DT
Reach 3
1,912
E I
19871
1.5:1
19247
Reach 4
480
E(11)
480
2.5:1
192
Reach 8
536
P
NA
5:1
107
Reach 9
29331
P
NA
5:1
466
WETLANDS
Wetland 1 DT
C
3.1
3:1
1.03
Wetland 2 Ut DT
.37
E
NA
2:1
.19
Wetland 3 Ut DT
.48
E
NA
2:1
.24
Wetland 4 T
2.3
P
NA
5:1
.46
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream
Riparian
Toil
Mitigation
Wetland
rips an
Wetland
Riparian
Nutrient
Units
Units
Wetland
(WMU)
Buffer
Offset
SMU
Units
5,457
1.92
0
1.92
0
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
ro 997
......................... ............................... ... ....... .......
996.5
996
c
995.5
995
w
Station (ft) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
—r- MYI-2007 + MY2-2008 —— _ f MY4-2010 -- ...............
Dula Thoroughfare (Main Channel) - Cross - Section 2 - Run
1000 — - — --- - - - - -- - - --
999
998
997
A 996
....... ........ ............................... ............
it AR07
995
0 994
a�
993
w 992
Station (ft) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Dula Thoroughfare Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 65
April 2012

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphics
Dula Thoroughfare (Main Channel) - Cross - Section 3 - Pool
AL
PRE
r
�.
b
.n
c�
0
0
a; The right cross - section pin was re- established in MY -2010
w
-10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150
Station (ft) MY5- 3/2012 MY1- 10/2007 • MY2- 5/2008 11�- MY3- 1/2010 -0-- MY4- 1/2011 .................. Bankfull Water Surface
Dula Thoroughfare (Tributary) - Cross- Section 4 - Run
1000.5
1000
999.5
b999
998.5 ................. .. ...... ............... ...............................
998 ................
0
997.5
a�
W4 997
Station (ft) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-*— MY1- 10/2007 MY2 - /2008 — MY3 - 1/2010 -t 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
too
99.5 -
99 - -.0000000 —7
98.5
98
Z 97.5
97
96.5 ........ ....... ....................................
0 A7
96
95.5
95
Station (ft) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1 MY 1 -2007 MY2-2008 MY 3-2009 MY4-2010 --*— MY5-2011 B;kf��
UT Dula Thoroughfare- Cross - Section 14- Riffle
88.8
88.6
88.4
88.2
88 -
87.8
87.6 -
87.4 -
87.2
M 87 -
>
86.8
86.6
Station (ft) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
I —*-- MYI-2007 MY2-2008 ---7&— MY3-2009 MY4-2010 —*-- MY5-2011 Bankfull I
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
400.2
400
s`-
399.8 ..........
NAO WOW-
b 399.6
3;
399.4
c
399.2
•9 399
>
.2 398.8
398.6
Station (ft) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
MY1 -2007 MY2 -2008 MY3 -2009 MY4 -2010 -+ MY5 -2011 ................. Bankfull
Longitudinal Plot Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEPProjectNo. 65 -Main Channel
999
a 998 - - -- -- - — -
L
b997 ! a a
a 996
e 995 A ♦ _fir A l
a 994
a
w
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 A BKF- 3/2012 0 Cross - Section
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)
4/19/20 11
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)
5/19/2011
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
7/22/2011
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)
7/22/2011
Visual Observation
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)
3/22/2012
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
3/22/2012
Visual Observation
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphics
1002 Lon itudmalPlot - Dula Thorou hfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65-Tributaiy
b 1000 • - - —
998 ♦. ♦ -
_
°o �! •
996 = --
a�
W 994 -- - - - -r -- -- -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Dula Thoroughfare Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 65
April 2012

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
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
MY 1 (2007)
MY 2 (2008)
MY 3 (2009)
MY 4 (2010)
MY 5 (2011)
GW I
N /A*
Yes/81 Days (33 %)
Yes/] 17 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/] 49 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 * **
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
960
960
756
757
895
649
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
083
090
090
036
040
062
076
Mean Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ft)
660
890
890
966
871
552
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
r 1 20
1 20
120
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 Bankfull 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
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)
650
737
650
737
784
1087
492
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
060
063
060
063
071
045
061
Mean Bankfull Cross - sectional Area (ftZ)
380
464
380
464
554
494
302
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
42 67
4267
Channel Slope
00019
1 00001
1
1 00014
1 00013
00012
0 0014
Channel Sinousity
101
1 1 20
1 1 20
1 1 20
1 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
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 Sinousity
101
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
l 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 -Built*
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)
3 70
1110
1110
12 10
1202
1308
1248
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
1 30
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*
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)
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 -Built*
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
7 10
7 10
11 74
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
4 12
384
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
2000
3091
3091
3091
3091
3091
3091
Channel Slope
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Channel Sinousity
1 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 I survey

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
Plot 10
Plot I1
Plot 12
Current Mean
MY1 - 2007
MY2 - 2008
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
9cer 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
Baccharts hamilifolia
groundsel tree
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Betula nigra
river birch
'r
1
1
17
17
14
14
2
79
2
2
7
23
7
7
7
9
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
1
I
I
1
Celtis laevigaia
sugarberry
T
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
Cephalanthus occidentalis
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
I
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fraxinus pennsylvant.ca
green ash
T
3
5
4
4
1
1
2
3
3
4
3
Liquidambar siyracii lua
sweet gum
T
3
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
T
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
T
1
l
5
5
1
1
3
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
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
1winged elm
T
48
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ornus americana
American elm
T
3
4
1
1
1
1
l
2
2
2
3
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
0.0247
8
9
8
8
9
9
5
11
13
7
7
7
8
l5
24
39
47
30
30
=364
55
22
51
21
21
20
24
607
972
1579
1903
1215
1212227
802
1992
842
842
802
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
Plot 10
Plot 11
Plot 12
Current Mean
MV3 - 2009
MV4 - 2010
P
T
P
T
P I
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
cer negundo
box -elder
'r
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
Baccharis hamilifolia
groundsel tree
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Betula nigra
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
1
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
T
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
Cephalanthus occidentalis
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 Florida
flowering dogwood
S
N/A
N/A
1
1
N/A
N/A
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
T
3
5
4
4
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweet gum
T
3
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Nyssa bii fora
swamp tupelo
T
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
T
1
1
5
5
1
1
3
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
T
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
T
2
4
I
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
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
1
Quercus sp.
oak species
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ulmus alata
winged elm
T
48
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
58
Ulmus americans
American elm
T
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1 2
1 8
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
0.0247
8
9
4
6
3
5
11
13
12
12
12
12
E[29
39
430
"1215
9
90
6
55
22
51
29
29
29
29
1579
1912151364'
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
MYl - 2007
MY2 - 2008
MY3 - 2009
MY4 - 2010
P7
I
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
I
P
T
cer rubrum
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
I
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
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
iospyros virginiana
common persimmon
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
T
1
1
1
3
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
iquidambar styraciva
sweet gum
T
1
2
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
yssa Mora
swamp tupelo
T
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
N/A
inus taeda
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
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
Es
7
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Taxodium distichum
bald c ress
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
I
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
0.0247
4
6
3
5
4
4 7
4 4
4 4
6
4 8
9
4
11
5
W972
6 23
8 8
6 6
9
N283
7 27
110391
364
1538
162
445
202
243 985
310 310
243 256
283
243
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
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Average
30%
70%
Jan
386
1 63
204
307
1 05
374
255
492
Feb
3 31
335
193
434
3 01
363
2 59
467
Mar
343
425
537
265
436
4 50
342
5 57
April
1461
462
240
047
1 98
309
2 16
402
May
024
1 85
524
4 89
346
321
229
4 12
June
461
067
2 16
473
649
425
3 01
5 48
Jul
1 97
448
466
3 74
3 91
431
342
520
Au
2 79
584
264
6 18
509
429
304
5 53
Se t
1 14
443
209
1 06
860
3 84
2 61
507
Oct
4 10
2 17
2 15
000
3 75
354
250
457
Nov
028
229
700
036
375
3 14
247
3 81
Dec
548
334
568
224
1 93
302
235
369
Year
45 82
3892
4336
33 73
4738
4453
3241
5665
30%
70%
All information gathered from nearby weather station KNCTROY1, information gathered from www wunderground corn
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Month
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
1 16
049
061
092
032
Jan
270
1 14
1 43
2 15
074
099
101
058
1 30
090
Feb
232
235
1 35
304
2 11
1 03
1 28
161
080
131
Mar
240
298
376
1 86
305
438
139
072
0 14
059
Aril
1023
323
1 68
033
1 39
May
FAu
007
056
157
147
104
May
0 17
1 30
367
342
242
1 38
020
065
1 42
195
June
323
047
151
331
454
059
134
140
1 12
1 17
Jul
1 38
3 14
326
262
274
084
1 75
079
1 85
1 53
Au
1 95
409
185
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
1 51
000
263
Nov
008
069
2 10
0 11
1 13
Nov
020
160
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 KNCTROY1, information gathered from www wunderground corn

Ja
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
r-�I EEP Project No. 65
Closeout Report
En lai enlent Page 1 opt

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
F Closeout Report
1 I ii7 ai . meat Page 2 Ire

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:
r-;J Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
Closeout Report
L1 iu emcht Page 3 a Fir

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
FCOSstem Closeout Report
l I lai •enient Page 4 a Pe

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:
Y Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
Closeout Report
Ei i einent Page 5 opt

Cross Section 14: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 14: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 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
r-�I EEP Project No. 65
Closeout Report
l ;t t t went Page 6

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'a jai ell Page 7 0 FIV

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
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
Closeout Report
1 ?ienient Page 8
Prepared By:
a Pe

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
Closeout Report
1"I i n e 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
Closeout Report
v eet Page 10 pie

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:
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
tern Closeout Report
Ei iai ^ment Page 11

PC
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 DulaThorofareAtBishopSite.odf
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
44.22
Easement
North Carolina et al
Rocky Pee Dee, LLC/
Conservation
Anson
722/186
63.11
The North Carolina DOT
Easement
Rocky Pee Dee, LLC/
Conservation
Anson
816/183
3.58
State of North Carolina
Easement
Rocky Pee Dee, LLC/
Anson
Conservation
859/259
9.86
State of North Carolina
Easement
http: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA/PROPERTY /65 DulaThorofareAtBishopSite.odf
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.

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

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:[phone]
Telephone: 919 - 733 -3141
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway nametnumber, 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 Yadkm/Pee Dee River Basin
Basis 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 Yadkin/Pee Dee River System.
Indicate Which of the Following apply:
0 The wetlands and surface waters on this project have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction have
been explained to you Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, ttus determination may be
relied 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 permit 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
OfVIS N OF HIGHWAYS
MD4M OF NATURALE1MF

9
1 I
fA
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
i tto in� nsm e o 1 e ► ► ''a Kim-
,
A INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT You may accept or object to the permit
• ACCEPT If you received a Standard Pernnt, 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 nghts
to appeal the permit, including Its terns and conditions, and approved junsdlctional 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 peanut be modified accordingly You must complete Section H of this form and return the form to the distract 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 permit 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 permit 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 permit, Including Its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit
• APPEAL If you choose to decline the proffered peanut (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit 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 permt 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
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 OBJECTIOjN�SS (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an
initial proffered permit 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 rovide additional information to clarify� the location of information that is alread in the administrative record
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
process you may contact
also contact
Mr Steven W Lund, Protect Manager ,
Mr Arthur Middleton, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilrrungton District
CESAD- ET -CO -R
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, CESAW -RG -A
US Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
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 protect site during the course of the appeal process You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to p artici ate in all site investigations
Date
Telephone number
Signature of appellant or agent

RECEIVEJ)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS APR L 7
WILMINGTON DISTRICT 2005
Action ID 111C ECOSY 200531348 County Anson USGS Quad Mt Gilead "NCF9PIT R
GENERAL PERMIT (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 adjacent 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 Pernut 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 submitted 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 permit, activities which have commenced (i c, 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 venfication does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits
If there are any questions regarding this venfication, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Mr Steven Lund at telephone [phone] x 223
Corps Regulatory Official Steven Lund /S ki -I— 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 September
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 prelirninary information, there appear to be waters of the US within the above described project area This preliminary
deterrrunation 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 pernut 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 determination 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 permit 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 Junsdictional Determination
Corps Regulatory Official Steven Lund '4w -y
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 <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:02:07 -0400
To: Lin Xu <lin.xu @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 <cyndi.karoly ancmail.net>
To:JeffJurek <jeff.jurek;ncmai1.net>
CC:ken.averitte a,ncmail.net
Jeff - please file this project 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
Jeff jurek(a,ncmail.net
1 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
Annlipri Crpdit Ratios: 1 1 1.5:1 2 5.1 5.22R23*1 1 1 3:1 2:1 5.1 1'.1 3.1 21 5'1 1 1 3.1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3 -.1 0.5:1 1'.1 1:1
P'
y
2,730.00 1,871.00 480.00
6,735.00 0.00 3.10 0.85 2.30
c o
0.00
m e
0
c >u
O U
z
c y
E°
c
O L
z W
0.00
c c
c
O W
z a
0.00
C a
n
d
U
L" c
�
U
V
>? w
q
q L
U W
0.00
o
N d
V a
0.00
v=
c „
Z c O
`P
Ic
m L
0.00 0.00 0.000
ko-(
0
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
0.00
0.00
0.00
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres):
Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2008 - 03161 -384
NCDOT TIP U -33008 -
Albemarle - SR 1542
(Ridge Street Extension)
294.00
2009 -1046
2009 -01941
NCDOT TIP 1 -4407 - US
220 Improvements
(Future 1- 73/74)
167.00
800.00
2000 -0874
1994 -00590
NCDOT TIP R -2231
(Ellerbee Bypass)
2,269.00
1,871.00
480.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
1 0.001
0.001
U.001
5,935.001
1 3.10
0.85
2.30
P'
y