20061342 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20140327

Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
EEP Project No. 38
USACE 404 Certification (Action ID #SAW- 2006 - 41271 -148), issued November 2006
DWQ 401 Certification (Deemed Issue)
CAMA Permit #49479, issued December 2007
CLOSEOUT REPORT
Project Type: Wetland Restoration and Preservation
March 2014
Table 1a. Project Setting and Classifications
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
County:
Hyde
General Location:
Scranton, NC
Basin:
Tar - Pamlico
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Outer Coastal Plain
Ecoregion:
Chesapeake - Pamlico Lowlands and
Tidal Marshes
USGS Hydrological Unit:
03020104 - 120010
Wetland Classification:
Non - Riparian Hardwood Flat, Coastal
Marsh, & Riverine Forested
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Warranty Planting
Project Performers
Source Agency:
NCDOT
Provider:
NCDENR EEP
Desi ner:
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
Monitoring Firm:
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Planting Contractor:
HARP, Inc.
Property Interest Holder:
NCDOT
Closeout Report — Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP, March 2014
Table 1 b. Overall Project Activities and Timeline
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
Milestone
MonthNear
Restoration Plan:
August 2006
Permitted:
November 2006
Final Design — Coust. Plans:
July 2007
Construction:
December 2008
Permanent Seeding:
January 2009
Bare -Root
January 2009
Mitigation Plan /As -Built
July 2009
Year 1 Monitoring
December 2009
Warranty Planting
March 2010
Year 2 Monitoring
December 2010
Year 3 Monitoring
December 2011
Year 4 Monitoring
December 2012
Supplemental Planting
March 2013
Year 5 Monitoring
December 2013
Page 1

1.0 PROJECT SETTING AND BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The Bishop Road Site is situated along SR 1156 (Bishop Road), between US 264 and the Pungo River in
Hyde County, North Carolina (Figure 1). It is approximately one mile north of Scranton, five miles
southeast of Leechville and ten miles east of Belhaven. The Project Site is bordered to the northwest by
Tarklin Creek, the south by Scranton Creek and the west by the Pungo River. It is within the Tar - Pamlico
River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020104.
The history of the property underlying the Project Site was obtained from Weyerhauser Corporation.
The Site had been managed for timber since the early 1900's and was initially converted from its original
vegetative community to pine plantation by removing the canopy vegetation.
Prior to implementation, EEP obtained approximately one year of hydrologic data via monitoring gauges
and multiple soil profile data across the Project Site. Implementation consisted of the restoration and
preservation of riparian, non - riparian and coastal marsh areas. Restoration activities included the
removal of the earthen roadways across the interior portions of the property and using this material to
fill the adjacent roadside ditches. The roadside ditches were responsible for draining the underlying
hydric soils and preventing hydrologic connectivity across the Site. All restoration areas, except coastal
marsh, were ripped prior to planting. Vegetation was cleared from non- jurisdictional areas and
replanted with appropriate native vegetation. Preservation areas were left as -is. Following
implementation, the Project Site was monitored for five consecutive years via monitoring gauges
(wetland hydrology), Carolina Vegetation Survey assessments (vegetation) and photographs
(successional comparisons).
The final mitigation components depict: 56.3 acres of non - riparian hardwood flat restoration and 332.5
acres of preservation; 0.343 acres of coastal marsh restoration and 184.0 acres of preservation; and,
1.0 -acre of riverine forested restoration and 61.7 acres of preservation. These overall amounts are
provided in more detail in Section 3.0.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The project goals were to restore Site hydrology, restore natural diverse wetland communities and
protect the Site from vehicle access, logging or development. These goals were accomplished by the
following objectives:
• Removal of earthen roads and fill roadside drainage ditches;
• Removal of bedding rows in selected areas, replanting and establishing natural plant
communities, non - riparian hardwood flats, coastal marshes and riverine forested wetlands;
and,
• Purchase of the property fee simple, record a conservation easement for protection in
perpetuity and installation of vehicle access barriers.
The system of measurement to determine successful implementation includes documentation of
hydrology through groundwater monitoring wells and documentation of vegetation development
through permanent 100- meter 2 plots.

3.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA
Table 2. Success Criteria
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
Feature
Wetland
Success Criteria
Continual wetland hydrology for 5% of the growing season (11 of 230 days) within a normal
Construction
Acreage
precipitation year.
A ea
Average of 260 planted woody stems /acre, as indicated by permanent vegetation plots after
Vegetation
five years of monitoring (non -marsh vegetation plots)
Coastal Marsh
Dominance by one or more of the coastal species noted in the CAMA Handbook'
The Coastal Resources Commission's rules define Coastal Wetlands as any marsh in the 20 coastal counties that regularly or occasionally
floods by lunar or wind tides, and that includes one or more of 10 plant species: salt marsh cord grass (Spartina alterniflora), black needlerush
(Juncus roemerianus), glasswort (Salicornia spp.), salt or spike grass (Distichlis spicata), sea lavender (Limonium spp.), bulrush (Scirpus spp.),
sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), cattail (Typha spp.), salt meadow grass (Spartina patens), or salt reed or giant cord grass (Spartina
cynosuroides).
The following table denotes the restoration components and summations at the Project Site.
Table 3. Project Restoration Components
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
Project Segment
Construction
Acreage
..
....
A ea
..
..
.. .
Coastal Marsh
184.0
P
184.0
184.0
5:1
36.8
Preservation
Coastal Marsh Restoration
-
R
1.1
1.1
1:1
1.1
Non - Riparian Wetland
78.2
P
78.2
78.2
5:1
15.6
Preservation
Non - Riparian Wetland
180.9
P
180.9
180.9
7:1
25.8
Preservation
Non - Riparian Wetland
60.5
P
60.5
60.5
10:1
6.1
Preservation
Non - Riparian Wetland
-
R
55.6
55.6
1:1
55.6
Restoration
Riparian Wetland
61.7
P
61.7
61.7
5:1
12.3
Preservation
Riparian Wetland
-
R
1.0
1.0
1:1
1.0
Restoration
R = Restoration
P = Preservation
.. -...
Coastal Marsh Units Non - Riparian Wetland Units Riparian Wetland Units Total Units

DIRECTIONS FROM RALEIGH
Take US 64 east towards Wendell. Merge onto
US 264 East. Continue on US 264 approximately
135 miles. Turn right onto Bishop Road. The Site
abuts the intersection of US 264 and Bishop
Road and extends to the north, west and south.
N
W o E
S
USGS Quad Names: Ponzer, Belhaven,
Q�d
Scranton and Pamlico Beach, NC ^rte
Map Source: Terrain Navigator
Series: 7.5- minute
Scale: 1:24,000
ti
Y PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
Fcasstem
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC FIGURE 1
L,I 111 ['111��I1t EEP Project No. 38 November 13, 2013

N
Veg Plot #171MW #17
S Veg Plot #241MW #24 323 planted stemslac
Marsh Restoration Plot 1,902 total stem slac
98 %herbaceous cover _
Veg Plot #201MW #20
485 planted stem slac
2,914 total stem slac
Veg Plot #21 IM #21
323 planted stems/ac
3,197 total stemslac
Veg Plot #26
Marsh Restoration Plot
50% herbacous cover
Veg Plot #231MW #23
40 planted stemslac
364 total stem slac
Y
iM
i
b •.
r 45
Veg Plot #221MW #22
404 planted stem slac
2,104 total stemslac
Veg Plot*1"n #19
404 planted stemslac
Veg Plot #181MW #18 404total stem slac
283 planted stemslac
1,983 total stem slac
Lit 'l
Legend
Vegetation plot meets or exceeds mitigation Vegetation plots does not meet mitigation expectations
❑ expectations forYear5 monitoring (? 260 planted ❑ forYear5 monitoring ( <260 planted stemsfacre)
stem slacre) 0 650 1,300
❑ Marsh vegetation plots PhragmitesTreatmentArea Feet
Areas of Interest /Concern
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC FIGURE 4
system
1:'.11 111 C�11C111 EEP Project No. 38 February 20, 2014
Aerial Pholo rah Source: data.nconema .cam

Table 5. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment Table
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved/ Max Consecutive D. .•
MW# 7 (Reference)
Year 1 iii (20 10 i i i
Yes/ 198 days Yes/ 230 days Yes/ 230 days Yes/ 230 days Yes/ 38 days
86% 100% 100% 100% 17%
MW# 14 (Reference)
Yes/ 150 days
Yes/ 46 days
Yes/ 23 days
Yes/ 187 days
(Malfunction)
65%
20%
10%
81%
MW# 17
Yes/ 35 days
Yes/ 23 days
Yes/ 34 days
Yes/ 47 days
Yes/ 51 days
15%
10%
15%
20%
22%
MW# 18
Yes/ 33 days
Yes/ 21 days
Yes/ 25 days
Yes/ 22 days
Yes/ 51 days
14%
9%
11%
10%
22%
MW# 19
Yes/ 20 days
Yes/ 20 days
Yes/ 29 days
Yes/ 43 days
Yes/ 51 days
9%
9%
13%
19%
22%
MW# 20
Yes/ 29 days
Yes/ 19 days
Yes/ 31 days
Yes/ 23 days
Yes/ 41 days
13%
8%
13%
10%
18%
MW# 21
Yes/ 52 days
Yes/ 24 days
Yes/ 58 days
Yes/ 53 days
Yes/ 49 days
23%
10%
25%
23%
21%
MW# 22
Yes/ 51 days
Yes/ 29 days
Yes/ 78 days
Yes/ 47 days
Yes/ 48 days
22%
13%
34%
20%
21%
MW# 23
Yes/ 78 days
Yes/ 96 days
Yes/ 98 days
Yes/ 230 days
Yes/ 219 days
34%
42%
43%
100%
95%
Notes: Growing Season Length = 230 days
12.5% = 29 days
5% = 11 days

Table 6. Vegetation Species Planted
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
Common Name
American holly
Scientific Name
Ilex opaca
Plant Stratum'
ShrubNR
.. l Planted (2ii
31,315 non - riparian trees and
shrubs & 650 riparian trees
and shrubs.
w i
Atlantic white cedar
Chamaecyparis thyoides
TreeR & NR
Bald cypress
Taxodium distichum
TreeR
1,800
Choke cherry
Aronia arbutifolia
ShrubNR
Highbush blueberry
Vaccinium corymbosum
ShrubNR
Loblolly bay
Gordonia lasianthus
TreeNR
Overcup oak
Quercus lyrata
TreeR
Pond pine
Pinus serotina
TreeNR
Shining fetterbush
Lyonia lucida
ShrubR & NR
Silverling
Baccharis halimifolia
ShrubNR
Swamp white oak
Quercus michauxii
TreeNR
Sweetbay
Magnolia virginiana
TreeNR
2,400
Sweet pepperbush
Clethra afnifolia
ShrubNR
Tag alder
Alnus serrulata
ShrubR
Ti -ti
Cyrilla racemiffora
ShrubR & NR
Water hickory
Carya aquatica
TreeR
Water oak
Quercus nigra
TreeR & NR
Water tupelo
Nyssaaquatica
TreeR
Wax myrtle
Morella cerifera
ShrubR & NR
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
TreeR &NR
1,000
Rose mallow
Hibiscus mocheutos
Shrub"'
2,235 coastal marsh species
Swamp rose
Rosa palustris
Shrub"'
Arrow arum
Peltandra virginica
Herbaceous"'
Black needlerush
Juncus roemerianus
Herbaceous"^
75
Duck potato
Sagittaria lancifolia
Herbaceous"'
Monkey flower
Mimulus ringens
Herbaceous"^
Pickerelweed
Pontederia cordata
Herbaceous"'
Rice cutgrass
Leersia oryzoides
Herbaceous"^
Saltmarsh bulrush
Scirpus robustus
Herbaceous"'
75
Sawgrass
Cladiumjamaicense
Herbaceous"'
75
Seaside goldenrod
Solidago sempervirens
Herbaceous"'
Smooth cordgrass
Spartina alterniflora
Herbaceous"'
Swamp milkweed
Asclepias incarnata
HerbaceousM
Switch grass
Panicum virgatum
Herbaceous"'
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagoda
TreeNR
1,000
Laurel oak
Quercus laurifolia
TreeR & NR
1,000
Southern red cedar
Juniperus silicola
TreeNR
1,500
Giant cordgrass
Spartina cynosuroides
Herbaceous"'
75
Total
Number of Species
34,200
9,000
Notes: ' Plant Stratum: M = coastal marsh wetland, NR = non - riverine wetland, R = riverine wetland.
2 Individual species quantities were not available at the completion of construction. Overall amounts were obtained from the Project
Manual.
3 Supplemental planting conducted in the spring of 2013.

Table 7. Wetland Vegetation History (stems /acre)
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
Plot
Number
VP# 17
Planted
323
i
Total
809
i
Planted AlTotal
323 2,590
Planted
404
i
ToAtal[Planted
3,480
364
i
Total
2,550
Planted
323
i
Total
1,902
VP# 18
323
1,133
323
6,273
323
4,735
323
2,509
283
1,982
VP# 19
364
809
404
2,590
485
4,856
485
2,954
404
404
VP# 20
364
1,295
404
3,197
283
4,492
404
3,521
485
2,913
VP# 21
283
1,983
242
3,035
242
6,556
283
3,602
323
3,197
VP# 22
323
647
323
2,104
323
2,388
404
2,023
404
2,104
VP #23
526
3,237
121
1,214
121
2,711
40
364
40
364
VP# 241
30%
N/A
70%
N/A
80%
N/A
95%
N/A
98%
N/A
VP# 25'
0%
N/A
5%
N/A
10%
N/A
50%
N/A
50%
N/A
Annual
Means2
358
1,416
305
2,571
311
4,173
329
2,503
400
2,271
Notes: ' Vegetation Plots #24 and #25 are marsh plots dominated by herbaceous stem types. MY 1 & MY 2 percent cover were determined
from photos taken during those monitoring years.
2 Annual Means refer to the average number of species excluding Vegetation Plots #24 and #25.
Table 8. Monthly Rainfall Data in Inches
Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site
January
2.16
4.72
3.00
2.44
2.15
February
1.61
3.98
2.98
2.66
5.97
March
2.75
3.29
2.89
3.12
1.57
April
1.06
0.44
1.61
2.49
3.34
May
5.25
2.10
0.47
5.86
3.24
June
3.95
4.93
2.60
1.19
7.62
July
5.48
0.62
1.93
5.57
3.49
August
7.60
4.31
2.14
7.67
4.81
September
2.64
5.37
4.05
3.99
4.87
October
1.41
3.75
0.26
4.19
3.01
November
8.09
0.72
0.00
0.43
3.54
December
5.76
2.82
0.63
4.54
3.56
Closeout Report - Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County Page 10
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP, March 2014

Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County, NC
30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall - Monitoring Years 1 through 5 (2009 -2013)
10
� Monthly Data 2009
i Monthly Data 2010
Monthly Data 2011
g Monthly Data 2012
� Monthly Data 2013
301/
-70%
m 5
s
c
c_
c
0
'a
4
a
L� It
0 i + I ii i
� > v
> > ro 'en s
Q o
q
LL Q a
v o �
Month
4.0 EEP RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Monitoring Year (MY) 5 vegetation monitoring effort was performed by determining density and
survival of planted species, consistent with prescribed Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols. Seven
100- meter 2 wetland and two 100- meter 2 marsh plot locations were assessed. Based on the 2013
assessment, the mean stem count for the seven wetland plots was 400 planted stems per acre and
2,271 total stems per acre. The MY 4 means were approximately 329 planted stems per acre and 2,503
total stems per acre. Six of the seven wetland plots met the 260 - planted stem count threshold required
for Year 5 results. The remaining two marsh plots were evaluated according to percent herbaceous
coverage. One plot was at 98 percent and the other at 50 percent. Supplemental planting was
performed in early 2013 to augment existing planted stems. All 7 gauges met the success criteria of 5 %,
the lowest hydroperiod was 8 %.
The Site has met both vegetation and hydrology success criterion. It is anticipated that additional natural
recruitment of native species will continue across the property. Two more treatments for invasive plant
species, particularly phragmites, are scheduled for this year. EEP recommends the successful closeout
of the assets, 37.9 Coastal Marsh WMUs, 103.1 Non - Riparian WMUs and 13.3 Riparian WMUs.
5.0 CONTINGENCIES
None
Closeout Report - Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Hyde County Page 11
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP, March 2014

Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site Vegetation Plot Photograph Summary
Photograph
February 12, 2009 Baseline
Janua ry 2010 Monitoring Year 1
July 2010 Monitoring Year 2 July 2011 Monitoring Year 3
July 2012 Monitoring Year 4
September 2013 Monitoring Year 5
Information
Photo #
VP-17
f
Facing
'-
Southwest
. - -
71!1
r
Photo #
Facing
Northeast
tt
.... t -_
11 1
7
+
iss
':
Photo #
VP -19
Facing
t ,.
"a
Southwest
x.
Photo#
VP -20
d •.:_
Facing East
.
Photo #-7
�..� •r .,,ate`. ��
�• 3�th '
., ,
�
VP -21
Facing West
=
00
-,

Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site Vegetation Plot Photograph Summary Continued
Photograph February 12, 2009 Baseline January 2010 Monitoring Year 1
Information
Photo #
VP -22
Facing West
Photo #
VP -23
Facing North
Photo #
VP -24
Facing North
Photo #
VP -25
Facing North
July 2010 Monitoring Year 2 July 2011 Monitoring Year 3
July 2012 Monitoring Year 4 September 2013 Monitoring Year 5
1.
�'d 1

APPENDIX A- Watershed Planning Summary
The Bishop Road Wetland Mitigation Site is not within a watershed planning area.

APPENDIX B- Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
following parcels:
Grantor
County
Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book &
Page Number
Acreage
protected
Weyerhaeuser Company
Hyde
Fee simple
187/636
Weyerhaeuser Company
Hyde
Fee simple
187/642
Weyerhaeuser Company
Hyde
Fee simple
187/663
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the NC Department of
Transportation will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required
in the conservation easement are upheld.

Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW- 2006 - 41271 -148 / Nationwide Permit No. 27 (Wetland Restoration)
Mr. Salam Murtada
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Murtada:
This correspondence confirms our receipt of your notification dated August 17, 2006,
requesting Department of the Army (DA) authorization to implement the restoration plan
entitled, Bishop Road Wetland Restoration Project. This work will be undertaken on a 691.7
acre site located on the west side of North Carolina State Road 1156 (Bishop Road), just north of
Scranton Creek, adjacent to Tarklin Creek, approximately fifteen miles southeast of Belhaven, in
Hyde County, North Carolina.
Accordingly, for the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, lists nationwide
permits. Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities in waters of the United States associated with
the restoration of former waters, the enhancement of degraded tidal and non -tidal wetlands and
riparian areas, the creation of tidal and non -tidal wetlands and riparian areas and the restoration
and enhancement of non -tidal streams and non -tidal open water areas on private lands.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the attached General Conditions and the following Special Conditions:
a. This authorization in no way obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to recognize this
work as a stream, riparian or non - riparian wetland restoration project.
b. This authorization in no way obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accept this
project for use as compensatory mitigation proposed by the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP), or any other person, program, or entity.
This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing
NWPs are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to March 18, 2007. It is

Incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. W
when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or
this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide e will issue a public notice
are under contract to commence
modification orris modified or revoked
the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide on of the NWp to comple
have twelve (12) months from the date of the modilte
nationwide permit.
You should contact Ms. Cyndi Karol
(919) 733 -9721, regarding Section 401 Water orth Carolina Division of Water
not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other it wired Quality, telephone
Quality Certification. This nationwide permit does
Thank you for your time and cooperation. required or local approval.
the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephQonee [phone], e may be addressed to me at
616, extension 26.
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
Water Management Div' '
Sincerely,
William . Biddlecome
Regulatory Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636 -3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
2
t,e

t
Carr, Cindy
From: Sell, Michael F SAW [Michael .F. Bell @saw02.usace.army.mil]
Sere: Friday, February 15, 2002 1:14 PM
To: 'LeiLani Paugh'
Subject: RE: bishop road
Leilani, I do not have any open dates until April. Therefore, I will accept wetland delineation work.
- - - -- Original Message--- -
From: LeiLani Paugh [ nailto 1paughC�ot,state_nc.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:21 PM
To: Michael Bell
Subject: bishop road
Hi Mike,
I am trying to finalize the bishop road plan and prospectus. We
need a verification of the wetland delineation. We sent the map
and data forms before Christmas. We can schedule a field
verification if you want. I will have people out on site this
coming Monday and Tuesday if you want to verify the flags. Please
let me know. I have attached a summary table of the site and
acreages based on the delineation map we sent.
Thanks
LeiLani

APPENDIX - D Debit Ledger
Mitigation Project Name Bishop Road
EEP IMS ID 38
River Basin TAR - PAMLICO
Cataloging Unit 03020104
Anolied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 6.72842:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5.1 1.1 3:1 1.1 1.1
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 3/12/2014
C
E
N
O.'
E E
W
E
W
C
E @
(L
C
m
.O
2
m o
c
E
�
IL
C w
4
C a O
O
Z 2
O U
Z
a
O
Z W
@
C m
a
O
Z a
L Y O G
U
L
@ o
U
U
U W
@ 0 C d
0
U a
m
N
= E
pl W
?•
Z O
d y
3 0
m
VE @ I "0
Z
Z
t O
n x
O
a L
O
Z
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
1.00
61.70
55.60
319.60
1.10
184.00
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
1.00
1
12.34155.601
1 47.50
1.101
1
36.801
1
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2000 -0895
2000 -11538
SR 1149A / SR 1150 -
Division 1
2.35
15.81
0.06
2005 -10477
SR 1100 - Division 2
0.04
2009 -1224
2007 -02941
NCDOT TIP B -3611 -
Bridge 77 on NC 99
0.88
4.40
2009 -1325
2010 -00959
NCDOT TIP B -4417 -
Bridge 59 over Jack
Creek
0.02
0.10
2011 -0101
2011 -00308
NCDOT TIP B -4413 -
Bridge 51 on US 264
0.08
2.90
2002 -0388
2006 - 40635 -148
SR 1109 - Division 1
0.01
0.07
Statewide ILF Credit Purchase
0.10
0.50
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
1
0.00
54.40153.251
303.79
0.91
183.34
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
1
0.00
10.88153.251
45.15
0.91
1 36.67
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 3/12/2014

Mitigation Project Name Bishop Road (Intra- program Purchase)
EEP IMS ID 38
River Basin TAR - PAMLICO
Cataloging Unit 03020104
Comment: This ledger shows the debits for the amount of mitigation that the Statewide ILF Program purchased from the NCDOT ILF Program.
The beginning balance represents the amount purchased and not the total mitigation credits available on the site.
Aoolied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 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 1:1 1:1
'NOTE: This debit is associated with a Small Impact Policy request to provide coastal marsh mitigation credits for a coastal marsh requirement in Tar - Pamlico 03020105.
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 3/12/2014
E
C
E
E
c
W
E
m
W
C
O
E
d
a
O
m
N
_a ..
Q_
Ao
A
_1 m
C
m E
N
_a c
IL
C
. O
m �
a w
O.
C C O
zQ_
C C
o
E
z
C
E
c
O L
2 W
C
O
`m
D
Za
y N
UW
o
A
,_, m
ip U
U
m
c
ry L`
U W
L C
o
`m
Ua
d N
o
E
+�+
C a
E
U y
E c �.
L
Vl W
C" c
>.
Z 0
_
mO
W ` y
N "'
_
Hm
••
0
Z
L O
o -
in
o
O.
z
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
0.10
0.50
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
0.10
0.10
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2005 -0068
2005 -11011
Linda Foster
Subdivision, Lot 1
1
0.10
1 0.50
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.00
0.00
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
0.00
0.00
'NOTE: This debit is associated with a Small Impact Policy request to provide coastal marsh mitigation credits for a coastal marsh requirement in Tar - Pamlico 03020105.
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 3/12/2014