20030557 Ver 1_Mitigation Closeout Report_20120523

Q3 13�b
SHEPHERDS TREE
EEP ID (333)
USACE ACTION ID # Phase III Culvert only
DWQ 401# 033306 — Phase III Culvert only
CLOSEOUT REPORT
MITIGATION PROJECT TYPE Stream and Wetland
Protect Setting & Classifications
County
Iredell
General Location
Statesville
Basin:
Yadkin
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Piedmont
Ecore ion:
Southern Outer Piedment
USGS Hydro Unit:
03040102
NCDWQ Sub - basin:
07 -07 -06
Wetland Classification
BLH
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Monitoring Year -1
2005
Monitoring Year -2
2006
Project Perforrnem
2007
Source Agency:
DOT
Designer:
KCI
Monitoring
DOT; S&EC; JJG; EEP
Channel Remediation
DOT; North State Env.
Plant remediation
EEP /HARP
Property Interest Holder
DOT
Overall Protect Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
2000
Restoration Plan
June -2001
Permitted (Phase III)
Main Planting (Phase 1 /II)
Feb 2002/ 2003
Channel repair from historic flood off
Third Creek
Oct 2003
Post Repair Supplemental
Feb 2004
Initial post -con gauge data
2004
As -built survey
2005
Monitoring Year -1
2005
Monitoring Year -2
2006
Monitoring Year 3
2007
Monitoring Year 4
2008
Monitoring Year 5
2009
Invasive Control
2010
Monitoring Year 5
2010
Invasive Control
2011
Monitoring Year 6
2011
Beaver began heavily colonizing the site in 2006 and 2007. The
site was put on monthly monitoring with APHIS wildlife control.
Beaver and associated dams were removed each year, multiple times
Der vear thereafter.

Project Setting and Background Summa
The Shepherds Tree Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (Site) was developed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and is located in Iredell County, southeast of
Statesville between Triplett Road (SR 2362) and Knox Farm Road (SR 2363) (Figure 1) The Shepherds Tree main channel and its tributary are first order tributaries of Third Creek, located
within the Yadkin River watershed (HUC 03040102) and drains approximately 1 l square miles, occupying approximately 160 acres within the 2, 10, and 100 year floodplam of Third Creek
Construction activities were completed in 2004 Monitoring has been conducted annually from 2005 to 2011 Historically, the Site was utilized for agricultural activities and improvement
protects through the Civilian Conservation Corps, resulting in the re- alignment, ditching of the floodplam and bermjng of Third Creek Adjacent floodplams and streams were also cleared,
drained, and ditched These activities are thought to have inhibited stream and wetland function within the site, resulting in a degraded riparian community The restoration activities included
relocation and restoration of existing ditched stream channels to develop more natural drainage patterns, removal of lateral drains to reduce offsite drainage, site grading to create wetlands, and
planting with species characteristic of the target communities Approximately 2,000 feet of channel near the top of the project required repair in 2003 due to near complete burial in over a foot of
sandy alluvium from a historic flood along Third Creek In addition areas of the site were treated for numerous invasive species in 2010 and 2011 (See fig 6 for remedial actions)
Project Performance Summa
Hydrology
Site hydrology data indicated success distributions in Figure 1 and Table 2 Roughly the Northern half of the project down to the power utility that crosses in a Northeast - Southwest axis
represents the bulk of the site's wetlands Beaver appeared on the site in 2006 and have been abundant and persistent in their colonization of the site Their impacts in terms of inundation and
backwater were particularly significant in 2006 and 2007 and in combination with the drought prompted additional monitoring There have many removal efforts, but their numbers in the
tributaries of the third creek corridor are very large according to the USDA -APHIS control contractor This combined with the small nature of the project channel and the overall size of the site
allowed for rapid re- establishment of dams EEP instructed APHiS to make certain the site was being fully checked monthly by 2008, but given the aforementioned factors this site represented
particularly large challenges for control Table 2 includes the gauge summary data with respective hydroperiods Using maps and visual assessments provided by the monitoring firm gauges that
seemed to have been impacted by beaver were identified and excluded from means that went into the success determinations There are significant seeps and surface hydrology coming off the
Northern slopes and has kept the corridor from gauge 8 to 14 very wet This corridor is the axis of removal of the main longitudinal ditch that ran the length of most of the site Gauges on the
Southern portion of the site bordering Third Creek and those in eastern areas generally did not meet hydrology The areas that have demonstrated wet conditions on site will continue to do so
given the hydrology from the Northern slopes and regular colonization by beaver in the future Pre- existing hydrological conditions can be found in figure 2 and site soils in figure 5
Veeetatjon
The growth over the protect site is very good The 14 vegetation plots all met with success with planted and total means of 491 and 1351, respectively Planted densities ranged from about 246
to about 700 with total stems ranging from about 700 to 2000 stems per acre Species counts ranged from 6 -13 per plot with a total of 23 species site wide based on the sample
Page 2 of 23

Stream
One of the 7 project impact permits required morphological measurement The cross section overlays generally indicated stability although some cross - sections near the top of the site exhibited
deposition in the channel and a decrease in cross - sectional area When beaver did colonize these areas some in- channel deposition occurred and without the benefit of the additional hydrology
from the northern slopes that enter the valley below these points it has yet to demonstrate mobilization of these sediments The deposition amounted to an average of 0 5 feet in these locations
However, in general the channel is stable
Assets
Figure i includes the extent of wetland features These were delineated based on work completed by EEP monitoring consultants Catena and Jacobs engmeenng The wetland shapes were then
applied against restoration and creation zones developed as per the site grading performed by DOT This yielded the wetland assets as indicated in figure 1 and table I The majority of the
acreage under the power utilities is wetland (8 -10 acres), but has been removed from the asset totals given the maintenance which is allowed in those zones The stream footage in table 1 is that
depicted in figure i all of which is classified as restoration with 50% reductions for those areas crossing under the power utilities (i e 2 1 ratio)
Goals and Objectives
To re- establish an integrated stream - wetland complex that will restore ecosystem processes, structure, and composition
To re- establish a suite of wetland and stream functions that were historically intact, but during conversion to agricultural production were lost or grossly degraded
Target functions for restoration are
Nutrient removal/transformation
Flood flow attenuation
Aquatic and Terrestrial species diversity/abundance
To be achieved through the following objectives
Restoration/enhancement of bottomland and swamp communities
Restoration of floodplam/wetland interfaces
Restoration of stream channels and drainage patterns
Re- establishment of wildlife travel corridors
Success Cntena
The success criteria specified in the mitigation plan called for the following
Stream stability
Vegetation densities of 260 stems per acre at year 5
Hydroperod for 8% of the growing season
Page 3 of 23

Table 1
Restoration
Segment /Reach
Pre —
Construction
(acreage /linear
feet
Mitigation
Level
Watershed
Area
As -Built Linear
Footage /Acreage
Mitigation Ratio*
Mitigation Units
(SMU/WMU)
STREAM
(Acre -BMU)
10,345
53.7
0
Mainstem
-
R
1.1
9,894
1.02875
9,618
Tributary
664
R
799
1.09904
727
Sum
10 693
1.03364
10 45
WETLAND
Restoration
-
R
-
48.2
48.2
Creation
-
C
-
13.8
4.6
Enhancement
-
E
-
Preservation
-
P
-
4.541
0.91
66.541
53.7
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Total
WWtla d
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
(SMU)
Units
Wetland Units
(Acre -BMU)
10,345
53.7
0
53.7
NA
NA
Ratio incorporates reductions related to utility crossings, 553 feet of utility on the project mainstem at a 50% reduction (2:1), and 144 feet at a
50% credit reduction (2:1) for the tributary as delineated in Fig 1. Most of the acreage under the utilities are wetlands (approximately 8 -10
acres), however none of this acreage is included in any of the credit totals because no maintenance agreements could be secured with Duke
Energy. The above wetland assets were originally estimated at 131 and — 98 acres at the As -built and monitoring stages, respectively and
have been reduced to the amounts listed above.
Page 4 of 23

Shepherds Tree Mitigation Plan
Direction of surface
* water flow
Or TP Seep area
ww�,
I Pre - existing Site Hydrology
Direction of flow in Third Creek
Direction of flow in perennial stream
-� Direction of flow in ditches
FIGURE 2
N
A
NOT TO SCALE

_,Figure 4. Shepherds Tree Site (EEP ID # 333)
Detailed Site Topography
i
i i^?'V'
9
�l <,� �+
W1 kl\511
►\ ` =' � &A
�: gum
Legend
OProperty Boundary
Utilities
Shepherds Tree Channel Features
�` tl
PERM
0 800 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,49eet E
S

I
P.
ci
tip: }
Anti
AaA
�- cn 1 '.
_
e
Co W ;
Ud + . 46 Ch
AaA
Shepherds Tree Mitigation Plan Soils FIGURE 5
aQ NORTH Soil Series:
Ch - Chewacla loam WkD -Wilkes loam LmD2 - Lloyd loam
# * Co - Congaree Wo - Worsham loam N
We - Wehadkee silt loam CxB - Colfax sandy loam ' Soil Pit Locations A
"'OFTO-Nc�� AaA - Altavista Ud - Udorthents NOT TO SCALE

Figure 6. Shepherds Tree Site Project Remediation
2003 Channel Repair and 2010/2011 Invasive Species Treatment
X
ti W E
Legend
OProperty Boundary
Shepherds Tree Channel Features
2003 Flood/ Channel Repair Area
Invasive Species Treated In 201012011
AIAL, LIST. LOJA, PUMO AIAL -Tree of Heaven
AIAL, LISI. LOJA. ROMU LECU - Sericea Lespedeza
LISI - Chinese) European Privet
I�
u AIAL, LOJA. LISI LOJA - Japanese Honeysuckle
LECU, LOJA, ROMU, SOHA PUMO - Kudzu
LISI, LECU, LOJA, MIVI, ROMU, SOHA ROMU - Multiflora Rose
SOHA - Johnson Grass
LOJA. PUMO 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,0 set
PUMO

Page 11 of 23
Photos of a large flood from Third Creek in 2003 shortly
after construction. Over a foot of sandy alluvium was
deposited over approximately 12 acres and 2000 feet of
newly constructed channel with scoured channel in some
areas. See Figure 6 above.

Table 2. Gauge Data
25%
242 day Growing Season from the Soil survey
14%
179'0
149'0
Means
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
15%
Without
DOT
Y3
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
Y7
Mean
Beaver
13%
S%
229'0
21%
219'0
219'0
7%
o%
090
a9%
o•�°
09%
o%
o<r°
13%
-
42%
47%
27%
17%
339'0
23%
7%
14%
139'0
59'0
119'0
153'0
9%
9%
323'0
729'0
333'0
249'0
19%
43'Yo
319'0
219'0
16%
15%
5
2i'o
29'0
39'0
-
2%
43%
393'0
1%
1%
803'0
909'0
909'0
579'0
213'0
303'0
499'0
259'0
33%
28%
83%
40%
30`Yo
149'0
100%
229'0
339'0
43%
10%
11%
30%
16%
100%
259'0
289'0
439'0
22%
24%
34%
35%
1
5%
67%
149'0
5%
59'0
149'0
4%
17%
2%
11
159'0
29%
299'0
3%
-
2%
1%
71%
57%
12
2%
33'0
-
5%
4%
59'0
79'0
40%
31%
36%
22%
1
36%
27%
5%
1
32%
8%
1
�4%
4%
430.
4%
Not Met
Drought years (Mid 2006- Mid 2008
Met
Note — percentages above may
differ form those in prior monitoring reports. Monitoring firms
were using growing season
from the mitigation plan (193 days), however the
appropriate growing
season is March 21
—Nov 18 (243 days) for Iredell
County. The gauge data was recalculated using the appropriate growing season.
25%
213'0
14%
179'0
149'0
16':'0
109'0
12%
5190
15%
0%
09'0
93%
19%
15%
219'0
69'0
12%
-
49'0
12%
153'0
8%
7�Yo
7%
15%
13%
S%
229'0
21%
219'0
219'0
7%
o%
090
a9%
o•�°
09%
o%
o<r°
13%
-
42%
47%
28%
469'0
339'0
23%
7%
14%
139'0
59'0
119'0
153'0
89'0
79'0
323'0
729'0
333'0
249'0
19%
43'Yo
319'0
219'0
23'0
533'0
559'0
2i'o
29'0
39'0
-
2%
43%
393'0
100%
669'0
803'0
909'0
909'0
579'0
213'0
303'0
499'0
259'0
259'0
47%
83%
40%
30`Yo
149'0
100%
229'0
339'0
43%
223'0
219'0
30%
16%
100%
259'0
289'0
439'0
22%
24%
6%
3%
100%
5%
67%
149'0
5%
59'0
149'0
4%
100%
1%
66%
159'0
29%
299'0
3%
-
2%
1%
2%
129'0
99'0
2%
33'0
-
5%
4%
59'0
79'0
29'0
2%
Page 12 of 23

I. lum,
Shqtm&T.. (Mg. c►—d)-bw
100
E 99.5
.... .......
................................. ...................
.
I f5
Si
1.1 I;A 1" x00 110 X$ 35.1 11.0 q.0 m
setae (R)
lo—oo
ns
SO le. is* 204 1.0
—Wmom
f
Shqtm&T.. (Mg. c►—d)-bw
100
E 99.5
E 99
................................. ...................
.
Z 4J
Si
1.1 I;A 1" x00 110 X$ 35.1 11.0 q.0 m
setae (R)
lo—oo
Page 13 of 23
m"lo" T— W— Ch —d) -1w
................................. ...................
.
Z 4J
fl
ns
YNW
Page 13 of 23
-b" &M..... cl—d) - &W
.... . .... .................
Sb.,"& T— (SU. Ch.—d,- 'w-
IN
. . .........
Z 4J
fl
ns
YNW
-b" &M..... cl—d) - &W
.... . .... .................
Sb.,"& T— (SU. Ch.—d,- 'w-
Z 4J
fl
I
YNW
-b" &M..... cl—d) - &W
.... . .... .................

sh"k" 7H" Mm chad' 4fv6
C..4kd-10 -Rd
FK. . ................... ..... .. . ....... ..............................
. . . ..... . ............... ... .
ff.
sxs
rx
S
7
\Z1W
UA. Child
Cno-0tlir 11 -14.1
95 3
9e f
9e f
9B 93
p us
91 5
000 f.00 logo 1560 10.10 1100 39,11
iWw
sh"k" 7H" Mm chad' 4fv6
C..4kd-10 -Rd
. . . ..... . ............... ... .
ff.
Ip
S
7
\Z1W
9e f
40.06 1.0 0.0 78."
Page 14 of 23
yu
sae
MR-
16wjA
1005
99 .
.......................... ............
Ip
S
7
1
9e f
40.06 1.0 0.0 78."

eaghaYLNQIriMil-16�
CYfY7Yar. U-M
101
Visa] Ammotownt
IN
tf
N/A
Au -05
Surface Gouge I and 37MC
£y
ft
51-1/
{I
5
11
a
1>
is
Surface GaueI -MC
to
! 10 la 11 N N N
mY.la!
- ttrl«mtf — Yff.lafl0 �fsr411/alf �IIrINII ....... a.rna
too
_..._......_.._._._.._ ........_...._._....._.. ». »..._ _....._...__. _.__... ._.__ ----- . »._ ....... _....._.__
Jun -05
Visa] Ammotownt
!It
b
N/A
Au -05
Surface Gouge I and 37MC
I
51-1/
to
ar.do
Surface Gouge I -MC
Page 15 of 23
N
frf
f!
N!
a
»s
+� s
shgC, —Tnf 16-Ri!•aM
weu (N
Verification of Bankfull Events — 2011 Monitoring Report
Shepherds Tree Site — EEP Project 333
NIA
Jun -05
Visa] Ammotownt
WA
N/A
Au -05
Surface Gouge I and 37MC
N/A
51-1/
Ocl-05
Surface Gouge I -MC
N/A
1>
Dec -05
Surface GaueI -MC
Page 15 of 23
N
frf
f!
N!
a
»s
+� s
shgC, —Tnf 16-Ri!•aM
weu (N
Verification of Bankfull Events — 2011 Monitoring Report
Shepherds Tree Site — EEP Project 333
NIA
Jun -05
Visa] Ammotownt
WA
N/A
Au -05
Surface Gouge I and 37MC
N/A
N/A
Ocl-05
Surface Gouge I -MC
N/A
N/A
Dec -05
Surface GaueI -MC
N/A
WA
Nov-06
Surface Gauge 3 -MC
N/A
N/A
Dec -06
Surface Gouge 3 -MC
N/A
N/A
Jan -07
Surface Gouge 3 -MC
N/A
WA
Mar -07 -
Surface Gauge 3 -MC
N/A
WA I
Aug-08
Surface Gauge 3 -MC
N/A
N/A
Sc P.08
Surface Gouge 3 -MC
NIA
WA
Apr-09
Surface Gauge 2 -Trib
N/A
WA
Mar -09
Surfacc Gauge 3 -MC
N/A
N/A
Apr-09
Surface Gauge 3 -MC
NIA
NIA
Jun -09
Surface Gauge 3 -MC
NIA
N/A
Apr-09
Surface Gauge 2 -Trib
N/A
N/A
Jun -09
Surface Gauge 2 -Trib
NIA
N/A
Au -09
Surface Gau e2 -Trib
N/A
N/A
09
Surface Gauge 2 -Trib
N/A
N/A
Apr- 10
Surface Gauge 3 -MC
N/A
N/A
May-10
Surface Gauge 1, 3 and 4 -MC
N/A
N/A
Jun-10
Surface Gauge I, 3 and 4 -MC
N/A
N/A
Jui-10
Surface Gouge 4-MC
N/A
N/A
Aug- 10
Surface Gouge I, 3 and 4 -MC
N/A
N/A
Se 10
Surface Gauge 3 and 4 -MC
N/A
N/A
Oct -10
Surface Gauge I, 3 and 4 -MC
NIA
N/A
Various -201 I
Surface Gouge I, 2, 3 and 4 -MC
NIA
i

Vegetation Plot Data
Appen&xC Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9 Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and*c!es
Shepherds Tree Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Protect #333
Monitoring Year 7
P PbmlydV V• •'•� — J
T -TuW
PL.- dend.-rdq rtc..dcp. i um ddue,.,eD rwody .paec -hn plot
Page 16 of 23
I
�o�����0000�o�om�o�oo
©om���0000
©00000m0000
•
r�o©
o�mm©©©©
oo�
©ommomomomom000m00000momomom
n�o�����om��
©m�omo
®�oommmm0000
®oommmmmmm
®oo
��
©�
©��
©oo
©
©���o
©©
©moo
©oo��
©ooa000000000000
�©
oo�©
oo©
��om�oo��������oo�00000
©
©0000
©000
��omm���oo������o�oa000������oa000000000000
�000�00000000�
©ommoo���o
©o�
©oo
©
©0000000000
�o���©
o���o�
©�oo������oo
©000000000000m0000
o�
©moo
ommmmmm
©
®o
®o
®v
- �om�ommmomom�omomom000momomom000000mmmm
P PbmlydV V• •'•� — J
T -TuW
PL.- dend.-rdq rtc..dcp. i um ddue,.,eD rwody .paec -hn plot
Page 16 of 23
I

Post Construction Photos - Year 2011
Page 18 of 23

W
EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
EEP/DOT recommends closure with the assets depicted in Figure I and listed in Table I The
site is slated for stewardship by the NCDOT
Contingencies
EEP has one additional year of invasive control planned and will treat several localized areas of
Kudzu, which have made inroads from some of the utility and road boundaries
Page 19 of 23

s
APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary and Map
EEP ID #333 - Shepherds Tree Site
The Shepherds Tree project is located within a designated EEP Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) within the South Yadkin River subbasin (Cataloging Unit 03040102), approximately
seven miles east of Statesville. The Third Creek TLW (Hydrologic Unit 03040102040030) is 41
square miles in area and encompasses a mixed suburban and rural/agricultural landscape in
Iredell and Rowan counties. It includes over 40 percent agricultural land cover, 29 percent
degraded (non - forested) riparian buffers, and 14 animal operations. A 22 -mile stretch of lower
Third Creek is impaired due to poor bioclassifications (benthos and fish) and turbidity violations
[NC DWQ, 2010 303(d) list]. Potential watershed stressors identified within this TLW -- as
noted in the Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities document (EEP. 20091
( httn:// www. nceep.net/services/realans/Uppgr Yadkin RBRP 2009.0 — include impervious
cover and stormwater runoff in the upper portion of the watershed (Statesville and vicinity),
animal/livestock operations, degraded (non - forested) riparian buffers, channelized streams and
unstable stream banks. Over 10,000 feet of stream restoration (and 48 acres of wetland
restoration) on a channelized tributary to Third Creek at the Shepherds Tree project site should
help address some of these watershed stressors, as well as enhancing high - quality bottomland
habitat.
There are currently no other EEP projects within this 14 -digit HU (the Third Creek TLW)
Yadkin 03040102
EEP Project Close -outs:
o
Shepherd's Tree
:a
�Yadkin
Shepherd's Ire
Pro) eCt Sao i"]s)
ROWAN
Legend
Project Types
• EEP Tier I
6 319
.--ir
0 CWMTF
N
Counties
O8 -di9d CUs
W-yQ�c
-fi
O14491t HUs
Major Hydrogaphy
IFEDELL
Municipalities
1 2 4
8 Mlles
EEP LWP
EEP TLW
HCB, April 201,
Page 20 of 23

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation
project includes the following parcel:
http: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA /PROPERTY /333 ShepherdsTree.pdf
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be
monitored by the N.C. Department of Transportation, which will be responsible for
periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required are upheld in
perpetuity.
Page 21 of 23
Site Protection
Deed Book &
Acreage
Owner
County
Instrument
Page Number
owned
Owned Fee
NC Dept. of
Iredell
Simple by
1124/1043
161.86 Acres
Transportation
NCDOT
http: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA /PROPERTY /333 ShepherdsTree.pdf
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be
monitored by the N.C. Department of Transportation, which will be responsible for
periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required are upheld in
perpetuity.
Page 21 of 23

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
pr.asa�
aaar.r�a.ldo.0
IM
A.L vp bwgq�0ee.p ®rrla®N.1.yawY. wwld
X14
AmAma
Ere WsWL CPf�bkl¢I dOm
PabhQM f. ft R0.b OM
C-WQ evd0.i�ad p6la
� Xb
FY(kq
h�17.
di�1rY Ia�Y�rrbb f�rf�p0.rrYrY�le•�vf
t.r..r• �r�reb✓..d.4 hr.r.r.rr�rlds.�a.lwarwrf.
trIIRTbYand7b111Yflb .it.vih Yab'rbArr Iahmiledapala
Idpf� have hrdrfrWl1d M40m.r,li�lYrdioYrdwsrdl.
n.F�1s
aaYhrrh.lr+d Lrm
fa
- -0ihrlNa�-
Ish✓)O�
the lwrx rb n low m Iw
r..a frd.
1WsOasih7r l.rh6q
f.n
1hr v7dh.hpy..L
blla TaphaOarab OrYr asdad
rrrl.rd.dr. hbrepid Sir
arada Y�s.�.Mid.l�..�a+�1r
�✓b.rd\ riirraadrlfa.r
tlWaallidlYVrb. rla�adas
alara..r •rpat 11awr.l��bA
sJ. pgs..Y�Y.1 +i.7ra.Ytib}
•d' � Y plvl, r m� a aa1 r.rvr b
lYbb1r w
Page 22 of 23
1AmOaf],
qF
m a 9 4L
e`
9gYf8Y00 o
m
o
A.RDVdLQ101 R.tr Vvb CbrdMn"Oft UWM AQD7If074L M7dd1U
G QW, J 7h"%MD.DW-
e1Dndepml 6d��Adlb BooA
LSUM 3
17d h60lairc—
R.Iei,LMC77®Y•I711
D-R lb p
Ya bw w qpw L Y .M me M bW =fidR b mvaa da Sbq� ll.v
1(tlsm .LV ral Y huk'0 C.aq 7L
2M P va b 7b w Il M.6 l Y �vdmr rM P
091fa1a Lld h1q L 700 (wNr O.dta >4 70011 oal mdr Ol.lda of im
Q&=alef.ar d.m.O+�IrtrYad b.a atr 11rr
k0,mar
•71(Om Qro
mm Tdv
.dhmla dO.rYrb braaYbhWQ
dC—ifr
6.
blvid a tr r Addtlaav, Qo0 rrmr d V r Yid . 1p=3 r
F 4
aa� Y tr m �dsd .hhY Onb beA �d'� 0dran Sb 1 1}a 7 �
afOr�Op�uIW
Afl avbvf0l� shn. bi71d d•m6 rdhaPS1!!Umml a11aOr9
C.do0 Na711br7D7.®a mftwd.USAmp Capcdt N.Im.Y. Yad
N®Oa. baWlogp ®sue.) latipa.bYbd p
kb S.A -d Warm
� atl P ONvv bAl®q Na m hmel W Sada d Bedm Gaeol Mfoq.dtap
=*M pw w& m" 10 pe*
===
zC=q=
Mopwdba Oddy6 dap.par daFpdc -bw 1. ghralm 0.6- aov@l
bd.4 %rf7prpl}allafp,p fa1a11Q7tr DOft)r..hly df.Omh.a�pOda
Q d p�a0' h d4 r m em a ®b hle. a�0 dlbb /bd8r11a r qad kas r b
�a;.rhrtraafl171d rMd traatllp aO69ir'y rb a9hpm0Da
m.aall®OaNYb.0.l.7 a.10lla rga1D7m1Gall ®OtlW hdr
® ditptft bmb�1� M i
1 .C,Un/CY /d 4
dghbd."bda /tl1Cm�bMba•m�S YtlYr..-.A yr
dorVplW b lmo/lm'mQispajfamnitrlm
Opba b hw
Yoga rMYW&d Sfavdadrlpralwdrlma Thal I..ho,b- - .r-
.Aib Nldamlaa rOT1pt. l9m.fb Nad.Q.F- al7]mab 0. 00,Q
AbibWlwBale<L67NWBle.YeCeib 41eW,ML 77d/010 . ffian0dmd4
—DJ— m th d r hr/a oba p aY tr. bahw
iOa.rlfar.ab odaoa
r.lrrrar.lr�'�i mif11r.1r.d
aaar.r�a.ldo.0
IM
A.L vp bwgq�0ee.p ®rrla®N.1.yawY. wwld
X14
AmAma
Ere WsWL CPf�bkl¢I dOm
PabhQM f. ft R0.b OM
C-WQ evd0.i�ad p6la
� Xb
FY(kq
h�17.
di�1rY Ia�Y�rrbb f�rf�p0.rrYrY�le•�vf
t.r..r• �r�reb✓..d.4 hr.r.r.rr�rlds.�a.lwarwrf.
trIIRTbYand7b111Yflb .it.vih Yab'rbArr Iahmiledapala
Idpf� have hrdrfrWl1d M40m.r,li�lYrdioYrdwsrdl.
n.F�1s
aaYhrrh.lr+d Lrm
fa
- -0ihrlNa�-
Ish✓)O�
the lwrx rb n low m Iw
r..a frd.
1WsOasih7r l.rh6q
f.n
1hr v7dh.hpy..L
blla TaphaOarab OrYr asdad
rrrl.rd.dr. hbrepid Sir
arada Y�s.�.Mid.l�..�a+�1r
�✓b.rd\ riirraadrlfa.r
tlWaallidlYVrb. rla�adas
alara..r •rpat 11awr.l��bA
sJ. pgs..Y�Y.1 +i.7ra.Ytib}
•d' � Y plvl, r m� a aa1 r.rvr b
lYbb1r w
Page 22 of 23

Mitigation Project Name Shepherd's Tree
EEP IMS ID 333
River Basin YADKIN
Cataloging Unit 03040102
Annlied Credit Rntins 1 03364.1 1 5'1 2 5 ' 1 5 ' 1 1 ' 1 3 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 I 1 1 z -1 n s I 1, 1 1
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
10,693.00
48.20
13.80
4.54
A O
q
'C O
C h
O N
za!
N C
C
'C d
C
O U
z
C m
m W
C C
C
O t
zW
q 0
-
q«
'C d
C y
O
za
t" 0
q .-
f F
q«
N y
q N
v °X
i
C
N
q U
v
i d
q
rL y
N q
q L
v °w
C O
«
«q. Z
p �I
0
L
'C
7 C
2 0
d «y
y
m
W
O
.`.
z
0
z
O
d
L
d
0
z
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres):
Not Applicable
NCDOT TIP R -2568A
2,279.00
2.70
NCDOT TIP R -2530A
968.00
NCDOT TIP 1- 2511CA
1,081.00
NCDOT TIP U -2508C
628.00
NCDOT TIP U- 2528AA
1,272.00
NCDOT TIP R -2239B
234,001
1
400
NCDOT TIP R -2533
4,272.00
3 16
EEP Debits feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2004 -0289
2004 -30596
NCDOT TIP R -2911A
0.27
2004 -1476
2003 -21097 /
2003 -21336
NCDOT TIP R -2911C / D -
US 70 Improvements
0.691
345.
Statewide ILF Credit Purchase
0.24
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
-41.00
37.141
13.80
1.09
NOTE: The total stream footage on this project is 10,693 feet. All of the stream mitigation was debited by the NCDOT prior to EEP and will require a permit modification to at least one permit. NCDOT is aware that the project is currently
overdebited and will make appropriate adjustments to permit(s) once the final close out stream footage is known.
Information on Assets and Debits Valid as of 8/26/2012