20180854 Ver 1_Viability Assessment Request_20180620

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 6/20/2018 8:37:39 AM (Message Start Event)
Approve by Montalvo, Sheri A 6/20/2018 12:21:20 PM (Initial Review- Sheri Montalvo)
• The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A 6/20/2018 8:37 AM

D# * 20180854
Version* 1
Select Reviewer:* Katie Merritt
Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/20/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream r Wetlands PF Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a r Yes f No
New Site? *
Project Contact Information
Company/Owner:* Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Contact Name:* Kevin Yates
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
....................................................................................................................................
Project Name:* Wingfoot Site
Project Type:* r DMS
r Mitigation Bank
County:* Pitt
Document Information
File Upload: 2018-06-20 to Katie Merritt - Wingfoot Site - Buffer
Mitigation Viability Request Form & Supporting 37.38MB
Documents.pdf
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kevin Yates
Signature:

SEND COMPLETE REQUESTS TO:
NCDWR - 401 & Buffer Permitting
Branch
Attn: Katie Merritt
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
or by email to [e-mail]
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director
BUFFER MITIGATION &/OR NUTRIENT OFFSET
SITE VIABILTY ASSESSMENT REQUEST
(Form must be complete and all attachments included to process request)
☒BUFFER MITIGATION ☐NUTRIENT OFFSET ☐BOTH
PARCEL/SITE DETAILS
Has anyone from DWR or the USACE visited the site in the past 12 months?☐YES ☒NO
Has a riparian buffer or stream call been performed by Division of Water Resources staff on the
subject site?☐YES ☒NO
Is the project receiving any state or federal grant money?☐YES ☒NO
Are there any State, Local or Federal Permits associated with the subject site?☐YES ☒NO
PARCEL/SITE ATTACHMENTS (provide items 1-4 as a separate attachment, not to exceed 10 pages)
1.Detailed description of the site including existing site conditions and Aerial Site Map;
2.Include a timeline of landuses and landuse changes from 1990-Present;
3.Most recent 1:24,000 scale USGS Topo Map showing the site; AND
4.Most recent published NRCS county soil survey showing site;
Name Kevin Yates
Company Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Address 604 Macon Place, Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Do you have the right to access the property?☒YES ☐NO
Proposed Site Name Wingfoot Site
Address PIN: 4636538996 / Deed Book: 3303 Page: 247
City Farmville County: Pitt
River Basin Neuse 8-Digit HUC: 03020203
Sub-watershed (if in
Jordan Lake or Falls)
Will this be part of a stream or wetland project/bank?☐YES ☒NO
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 1 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach

Section G.  Technical Approach  

1. Project Goals and Objectives 
The goals of the proposed Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Restoration Project are to provide high 
quality compensatory mitigation for authorized riparian buffer impacts credited through the NC 
DMS in‐lieu‐fee program and occurring within the Neuse River Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 
03020203 and to address the watershed goals identified in the Neuse River Basin Restoration 
Plan (RBRP) (NC EEP, 2010).  These goals will be achieved via the restoration and enhancement 
of woody buffer along unnamed tributaries of the Little Contentnea Creek (a 303d‐listed 
impaired waterbody).  Specific objectives of the proposed project to achieve the desired goals 
include: 
● Conversion of existing agricultural fields into wooded riparian buffer zones along 
existing tributaries via planting of characteristic hardwood species;  
 ● Enhancement of degraded buffer areas (currently in areas of fields laid to fallow) via 
planting of characteristic hardwood species;  
● Stabilization of eroded stream/ditch banks within the project area;  
● Ensuring diffuse flow throughout the riparian buffer zone;  
● Establishment of a conservation easement to protect the riparian buffer restoration 
site in perpetuity and to connect to existing DMS protected site; and  
● Invasive species management (as needed) during monitoring period.   

As is well‐documented in the scientific literature, riparian buffers along streams and 
drainageways provide a suite of benefits not only to the localized site but to receiving waters 
and streams of the larger watershed.  Riparian buffers reduce the potential for on‐site stressors 
to adversely affect streams.  In particular, restored and enhanced buffers on the Wingfoot site 
will remove non‐point source contaminants associated with intensive agricultural farming 
practices.  This is of particular benefit to the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) of Little 
Contentnea Creek (14‐digit HUC 03020203070030) which has exhibited significant water quality 
impairments associated with low dissolved oxygen (DO), high total nitrogen (N) and high total 
phosphorous (P).  High nutrient concentrations manifest from non‐point source loading 
associated with intensive agricultural land use practices.  The predominant land‐use within the 
watershed is agricultural production (with 49% of the land area in agricultural use).  There are 
approximately 67 miles of streams that flow through the Little Contentnea Creek TLW.  Forty‐
one percent of these streams are not adequately buffered with woody vegetation (NC EEP, 
2010).  Sediment loading (associated with intensive silvicultural and agricultural drainage 
practices) is prevalent throughout the watershed.  These impairments tend to be exacerbated 
by direct disturbances to streams and wetlands (such as prior channelization of streams and 
historic drainage of wetlands).  The cumulative effects of such practices result in diminished 
nutrient uptake and nutrient/sediment loading to down‐gradient waters.  The high percentage 
of land in agricultural use combined with the lack of adequate stream buffers results in the type 
of water quality impairments documented within this watershed.   

Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 2 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
The proposed project promotes the goals of the Neuse RBRP (2010) and specifically the Little 
Contentnea Creek TLW by addressing agricultural runoff and buffer restoration.  The RBRP also 
seeks to prioritize the goals and strategies of the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan.  These 
strategies similarly seek to reduce non‐point pollution and minimize cumulative losses of fish 
habitat and include measures designed to reduce sediment pollution from agricultural sites and 
increasing the use of effective vegetative buffers.  The Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Restoration 
Project helps to achieve these goals.     

Additional functional benefits to be provided by the proposed riparian buffer restoration effort 
include:  

 Increase of organic material as food for invertebrate, fish and wildlife; 
 Supply of woody debris that provides increased niche habitat for fish, invertebrates and 
amphibians; 
 Reduction of sunlight reaching the stream and modulation of surface water 
temperatures; 
 Floodwater attenuation via temporary storage, interception and slow releases from 
heavy rains; and  
 Habitat connectivity between currently protected riparian buffer areas (NC DMS Fox 
Run Site) and downstream riverine swamp forest via a protected riparian habit corridor 
(including expansion of refuge and foraging habitat).   

The anticipated functional uplift to be provided by the project will have direct benefits to the 
adjacent streams and to the broader ecological health of the Little Contentnea Creek 
watershed.   

2. Project Description  

A. Site Location 
The project site is located in Pitt County, approximately three miles southeast of the Town of 
Farmville, North Carolina and east of State Route 1139 (Moye Turnage Road) (refer to Figure 1).  
As indicated above, the Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Project is located within the Little Contentnea 
Creek TLW of the Neuse River HUC 03020203 (Figure 2).  The buffer restoration and 
enhancement areas are located along unnamed tributaries (UTs) and drainages that flow 
directly into Little Contentnea Creek approximately 0.3 miles downstream (refer to Figure 3 and 
Figure 4).  Flanagan Field is located 1.25 miles to the west off of US Highway 264 Alternate.    

B. Watershed and Water Quality Classification 
Little Contentnea Creek is a 303d‐listed impaired waterbody with a NC DEQ surface water 
classification of C; Sw, NSW.  The classification “C” denotes waters protected for secondary uses 
such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including 
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture.  “Secondary 
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water 
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 3 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.”  The 
classification “Sw” denotes swamp waters.  The “NSW” classification is a supplemental 
classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject 
to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. 

C.  Physiography, Geology, and Soils 
The Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Project site is located within the Rolling Coastal Plain Ecoregion IV 
(65m) just west of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain.  In general, this ecoregion coincides with 
higher relief and better drained landscapes north and west of the Surry Scarp.  Drainageways 
tend to be more incised with more rolling terrain along stream terraces and interstream divides 
relative to the flatter surfaces of the Mid‐Atlantic Flatwoods and Carolina Flatwoods to the east 
and south.   

Elevations of the site range from 42 ft above mean seal level (AMSL) along the eastern 
boundary adjoining the riverine swamp bottom of Little Contentnea Creek to 55 ft AMSL on 
ridges of interstream divides.  The soils formed in unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay deposited 
by water. They are nearly level to sloping.  Soils of the site consist of poorly‐drained to well‐
drained sandy loams (refer to Figure 5).    Mapped soil series occurring on the site and their 
associated properties are summarized in Table 1. 

  Table 1. Summary of Mapped Soil Series  
Map 
Unit 
Symbol 
Series Name Drainage Class Landscape Position and 
Landform 
Hydric 
Soil 
(Y/N) 
Tu Tuckerman fine sandy 
loam Poorly Drained Nearly level areas of lower 
Coastal Plain (< 2% slopes) Y 
CrB Craven fine sandy 
loam 
Moderately 
Well Drained 
Slopes of drainageways and 
uplands of Coastal Plain  
(0 to 12% slopes) 
N 
Go Goldsboro sandy loam Moderately 
Well Drained 
Marine terraces and uplands of 
lower and upper Coastal Plain  
(0 to 10% slopes) 
N 
MaB Masada sandy loam Well Drained Stream terraces of coastal river 
valleys (0 to 10% slopes) N 
Ly Lynchburg fine sandy 
loam 
Somewhat 
Poorly Drained 
Marine terraces and flats of 
lower to upper Coastal Plain 
(0 to 5% slopes) 
N 
WaB Wagram loamy sand Well Drained 
Slopes and shoulders of concave 
uplands of middle and upper 
Coastal Plain (0 to 15% slopes) 
N 
OcB Ocilla loamy fine sand Somewhat 
Poorly Drained 
Nearly level low uplands and 
stream terraces   
(commonly less than 2% slopes) 
N 
AgB Alaga loamy sand  Somewhat 
Poorly Drained 
Ridges and slopes of uplands 
and stream terraces  
(0 to 15% slopes) 
N 

Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 4 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach

D.  Streams and Existing Conditions 
The property is currently managed for agricultural production (corn, cotton, and soybean) and 
lacks existing forested buffer along a majority of the streams and drainageways dissecting the 
site.  Site drainage and hydrology have been historically altered with channelized streams and 
cleared agricultural lands prevalent on historic aerial photos dating back to the 1940s (see 
historical site aerial photography in Appendix A).  The extent of the conservation easement 
boundary is depicted on the 1998 aerial and 2016 aerial in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively.    

The buffer mitigation site consists of four stream reaches (A1, B1, B2, and B3) as illustrated in 
Figures 8A and 8B.  Reach A1 is a perennial stream located on the northern boundary of the site 
and is contiguous with the existing NC DMS buffer project easement (Fox Run).  Reach A1 flows 
from the NC DMS easement on the northwestern boundary to the north and into Little 
Contentnea Creek approximately 1,800 lf downstream.  There is approximately 815 lf of stream 
associated with Reach A1 within the proposed buffer easement area.  The corresponding buffer 
restoration area associated with Reach A1 is 71,525 sf.  Reach B1 is the perennial stream that 
dissects the central portion of the site.  It drains into Little Cotentnea Creek (approximately 
1,300 lf downstream from the eastern property boundary).  There is approximately 2,690 lf of 
stream channel associated with Reach B1 within the proposed buffer easement area.  Reaches 
B2 and B3 flow into Reach B1 from smaller drainage areas on the southern portion of the site.  
Reach B2 is an intermittent stream consisting of approximately 585 lf of stream channel.  Reach 
B3 is a jurisdictional Waters of the United States (non‐stream) exhibiting an Ordinary High 
Water Mark (OHWM) and flows directly into reach B2.  NC DWR Stream Identification Forms 
have been completed for each of the on‐site channels proposed for buffer restoration and 
buffer enhancement.  The completed stream forms are provided for reference in Appendix B.  A 
summary table of each of the channel attributes is provided in Table 2 below.  Site photos of 
existing conditions are provided for reference in Appendix C.     

  Table 2.  Stream Attribute Summary 
Stream Attribute Stream Reach 
A1 B1 B2 B3 
Flow Perennial Perennial Intermittent Seasonal RPW 
Stream ID Score 42.0 38‐40.5 25.75 23.25 
Stream Length  815 2,690 585 420 
Drainage Area 557 acres 256 acres 21 acres 13 acres 

As indicated above, the site consists nearly entirely of actively farmed agricultural land (corn, 
cotton, soybean) with fields extending to the top of banks of existing streams and ditches.  
Herbaceous vegetation along the edges of ditches and the banks of the channels generally 
consists of soft rush (Juncus effusus), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), and cattail (Typha 
latifolia).  There are two smaller areas of fields that have been laid to fallow consisting of 
herbaceous and shrub species including soft rush, broomsedge, giant foxtail (Setaria spp.), old 
field blackberry (Rubus alumnus), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and winged sumac (Rhus 
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 5 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
copallinum).  Wooded areas offsite generally consist of red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine 
(Pinus taeda), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and bald 
cypress (Taxodium distichum). The NC DMS riparian buffer consists generally of planted river 
birch (Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus americana), American sycamore (Platanus 
occidentalis), water oak (Quercus nigra), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), swamp chestnut oak 
(Quercus michauxii), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).   

E. Cultural Resources 
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into 
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. LMG reviewed the State of 
North Carolina’s online cultural resource database (HPOWEB GIS Service) to determine if any 
cultural resources and/or historic properties have been recorded within or near the project 
area.  According to their website, there are no sites or features listed in the National Register of 
Historic Places within or adjacent to the project site.  Attached is a map illustrating documented 
cultural and historic resources in the vicinity of the project area (Appendix D).   

F. Threatened and Endangered Species 
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Officially Proposed 
(P) for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, 
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information, 
Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) system was used to determine federally‐protected species 
that are known to occur in the general project vicinity (Table 1). Furthermore, a search of the 
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was conducted to identify areas within or 
around the site that are already known to support rare species. According to their files, no 
federally or state‐protected species are known to occur within the site. Two historical records 
of state‐listed fish and one potentially historical record of a state‐listed dragonfly have 
previously been identified within a one‐mile radius of the site (see Appendix E). Additionally, a 
NC DMS Easement is located just northwest of the site. 

The presence of any plant or animal species is determined by the availability and abundance of 
suitable habitat. Staff of LMG performed a site evaluation to identify community types within 
the site that may support federally‐protected species. The site is predominantly composed of 
actively‐farmed agricultural fields and does not currently provide suitable habitat for any 
federally‐protected species known to occur in the area.  However, forested wetlands 
immediately off‐site and down‐gradient from the proposed mitigation areas could support 
nesting habitat for bald eagles.  Based upon preliminary site evaluations and findings, the 
proposed mitigation work would not have an adverse effect on any federally‐listed plant or 
animal species.  Upon award of contract, an environmental screening will confirm these 
findings.     

Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 6 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
Table 3. Federally‐protected endangered and threatened species that may exist within the project 
area, per the USFWS IPaC website. 
Table Key: 
Status  Definition 
E  Endangered. A taxon “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.” 
T  Threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 
BGPA  Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

G. Site Constraints 
The site is well‐suited for achieving the preferences as indicated in the RFP based upon its soil 
types, landscape position, hydrology, extent of previous human alteration, lack of physical 
constraints, and connectivity  to both Little Contentnea Creek and to an existing NC DMS 
protected site (Fox Run Riparian Buffer Site).  There are no known site constraints that would 
impede or adversely affect the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of riparian buffer 
within the proposed easement area.  There is a Piedmont Natural Gas utility line (50‐ft wide) 
that transects the larger property to the south; however, this utility line is located wholly 
outside of the proposed easement area.  The Grantor of the conservation easement has 
executed an option agreement that requires the conveyance of a 12‐ft ingress/egress access 
easement to the riparian buffer mitigation site (refer to Appendix F).     

3. Project Development 
The proposed mitigation site will provide for the establishment of natural plant assemblages 
occurring within riparian habitats of the Coastal Plain.  Target species to be planted have been 
carefully selected based upon site‐specific information (including soil profiles and evaluation of 
landscape position).  The proposed planting regime will result in a mature community 
characteristic of riparian buffer areas in the region.  The project will include the restoration and 
enhancement of riparian buffer of ditches and streams on the property as outlined in Figures 
8A and 8B.  This will be achieved via the planting of characteristic hardwood species (as further 
described in Section A below), ensuring diffuse flow through the riparian buffer and stabilizing 
eroded stream banks.  These actions are anticipated to result in several water quality and 
ecological benefits (as detailed within Section 1 above).  Most notably, the removal of 

Common Name 

Scientific Name 
Status 
Habitat Description 
Habitat 
Present in 
Project 
Area? 
Effects  
DeterminationUS NC 
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus BGPA T Nests in large trees near 
open water No No Effect 
Red‐Cockaded 
Woodpecker Picoides borealis E E 
Open pine woodlands and 
savannas with large old 
pines 
No No Effect 
West Indian 
Manatee 
Trichechus 
manatus E E 
Fresh‐and saltwater 
habitats at least 2 meters in 
depth 
No No Effect 
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 7 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
agriculture will result in a direct reduction of water quality stressors (i.e. reduced 
nutrient/sediment loading and the elimination of potential for contaminant release).  
Establishment of a characteristic plant community will provide for the necessary structure for 
resident and migratory fauna utilizing this type of habitat.  The project is expected to benefit a 
range of fauna by providing for a contiguous habitat corridor suitable for refuge, nesting, and 
feeding.  In addition, project activities are expected to contribute to enhanced water quality 
conditions beneficially affecting downstream faunal communities. 

A. Proposed Mitigation  
Approximately 4,090‐lf of streams and waters of the U.S. have been targeted for buffer 
restoration.  Approximately 13.19 acres of existing agricultural fields are targeted for buffer 
restoration while approximately 0.71 acres of fields recently laid to fallow are considered 
suitable for riparian buffer enhancement.  An additional 4.47 acres of riparian buffer will be 
preserved as part of the mitigation effort and additional lands (both wooded and agricultural 
fields) will be placed within the conservation easement to promote habitat connectivity 
between the existing DMS Fox Run buffer site, the Wingfoot buffer site, and the riverine swamp 
forest of Little Contentnea Creek to the east.  The proposed mitigation quantities and credits 
are outlined in Table 4 below.   

  Table 4. Buffer Mitigation Summary 
Riparian Zone  Mitigation Type Acres Ratio Buffer Credits 
0‐100 ft 
Restoration  11.38 1:1 11.38 
Enhancement 0.71 2:1 0.35 
Preservation  4.47 10:1 0.44 
101‐200 ft Restoration  1.81 3:1 0.60 
Riparian Habitat Corridor1 2.26 N/A 0.00 
Total  N/A 20.63 N/A 12.77 
(equivalent to 556,261 sf) 
1Additional riparian habitat corridor offered to provide habitat connectivity between existing, adjacent NC DMS 
site (Fox Run) with the proposed Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation Project.  There are no buffer credits 
proposed for this additional area to be included in the conservation easement.   

The final planting plan will be premised on a comprehensive vegetation survey of adjacent 
wooded areas as well as site soils and hydrology such that selected native trees will be well‐
suited to the site‐specific conditions of the property to promote high survivorship rates.  No 
existing exotic or invasive species have been observed within the proposed buffer areas.  
However, the mitigation plan will also incorporate an invasive species management plan and 
protocol that can be implemented should invasive species volunteer into the site.   

All areas targeted for vegetative plantings will be disked to reduce compaction and to enhance 
microtopography.  Reach A1 exhibits bank erosion and instability.  As a result, the southern 
bank of this stream reach will be stabilized via the establishment of a floodplain bench and 
grading of banks to a minimum 3:1 slope.  Erosion control measures (including the use of check 
dams, coir fiber matting, temporary silt fencing, and temporary/permanent seed mix) will be 
employed.  Note that the graded areas will also be planted with bare‐root seedlings and live 
stakes of appropriate species (black willow, silky dogwood, and/or elderberry) will be installed.  
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 8 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
There have been no observed drain tiles discharging into the subject stream channels or ditches 
targeted for riparian buffer restoration and enhancement.  However, such features will be 
removed during project implementation in the event any are observed prior to, or during, 
construction and planting. 

The conceptual planting plan consists of the planting of at least four hardwood species on a 
density of approximately 538 stems per acre.  Species selection and distribution will be 
matched closely to micro‐site hydrologic and edaphic conditions.  In other words, species more 
tolerant of poorly drained soils (i.e. bald cypress and willow oak) will be planted within lower 
landscape positions generally consisting of the Tuckerman soil series while species 
characteristically occurring in better drained soils will be planted in slightly higher convex 
landscape positions.  Pre‐planting herbicide application will be applied to control the spread of 
invasive, exotic plants.  The herbicide will be applied by a licensed applicator according to 
prescribed quantities and methods.   

Table 5 summarizes the concept planting plan for the Wingfoot mitigation site.    

  Table 5.  Concept Planting Plan1  
Common Name Scientific Name % Composition Acreage Quantity 
River Birch Betula nigra 25 3.66 2,000 
American Sycamore Plantanus occidentalis 20 2.93 1,600 
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 25 3.66 2,000 
Willow Oak  Quercus phellos 15 2.19 1,200 
Water Oak Quercus nigra 15 2.19 1,200 
Total  N/A 100 14.63 8,000 
1Note that there is approximately 1 acre of current farm field contained within the proposed riparian habitat 
corridor.  While no credit is proposed for this area, it will be planted per the same specifications (species density 
and composition) as those contained within final, approved mitigation plan.   

B. Current Ownership and Long Term Protection 
The current owner of the property is Ham Equipment, LLC (c/o Bobby Ham).  An executed 
conservation easement option agreement has been recorded at the Pitt County Register of 
Deeds and a copy of such is provided in Appendix F.  The recorded option agreement contains a 
condition requiring the Grantor to convey a 12‐ft access easement for ingress/egress from SR 
1139 (Moye Turnage Road).   

The riparian buffer mitigation site will be protected in perpetuity via the recordation of a 
conservation easement that will be conveyed to the State of North Carolina.    

C. Project Phasing 
The following is a projected timeline of tasks to be completed as part of the scope of work for 
this project: 
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 9 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
Table 5:  Project Timeline 
  Task Project Milestone Projected Completion1 
1 Submit Environmental Screening Report  3 months from Contract award 
2 Record a Conservation Easement on the Site Approved by SPO 6 months from Contract award 
3 Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial Assurances  6 months from Contract award 
4 Vegetative Planting and Baseline Monitoring Report  March 2019 
5 Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS  December 2019 
6 Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS December 2020 
7 Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS December 2021 
8 Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS December 2022 
9 
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS  
(with Project Close‐Out Documentation) December 2023 
1Tasks 4 through 9 assume an approximate award date of August 2018.   

D. Success Criteria  
Upon completion of the riparian buffer restoration, a Baseline Monitoring Report will be 
prepared and submitted to the NC DMS to document the extent of riparian buffer restoration.  
The report will include all information required by DMS monitoring guidelines including 
photographs, plot locations, and documentation of existing species density and composition.   
Subsequent annual monitoring will be conducted during each growing season for a period of 
five years.  Year 1 monitoring will be conducted a minimum of 6 months from the completion of 
the planting.  Monitoring will be performed in accordance with the Consolidated Mitigation 
Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) and current DMS standards.   

Vegetative monitoring will include the establishment of permanent plots consistent with the 
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocol Level 2 (version 4.2).  During monitoring, the number 
and height of each planted stem and volunteer stem by species will be recorded.  The site will 
be evaluated based upon performance criteria related to vegetative density.  Specifically, the 
performance criteria for this project will be: 

(1) “Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 260 trees per acre during 
the fifth year post‐planting;”1 and 

(2) Species assemblage must include a minimum of four native hardwood species or four 
native hardwood tree and native shrub species, where no one species is greater than 
50% of stems.   

Monitoring reports will be submitted annually to the NC DMS (by December 1 of each year).  
These reports will include results of vegetative monitoring and photographic documentation of 
site conditions.  Monitoring reports will also identify any contingency measures that may need 
to be employed to remedy any site deficiencies.  For instance, invasive species management 

1 Native hardwood and native shrub volunteer species may be included to meet the final performance standard of
260 stems per acre.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 10 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
may be needed if exotic species volunteer into the site.  The fifth year monitoring report will 
include a close‐out report that provides an assessment of the monitoring data collected from 
the entire monitoring period.  The project managers for Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and 
Land Management Group, Inc. will attend the close‐out meeting(s) and will present the final 
project to the DWR following all DMS closeout procedures and templates.   

E. Quality Control 
Our quality approach is based on the Total Quality Management philosophy, which provides 
guidance on producing quality deliverables.  Quality assurance begins with a clear 
understanding of the goals and objectives of the project prior to finalizing project scoping.  
Project team members are selected based upon qualifications considered most suitable for 
accomplishing identified task items.  The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for establishing 
clear roles for team members, facilitating project schedules, and ensuring quality.  The project 
team members are involved in the development and refinement of the final scope of work and 
project schedule.   

Quality control will be ensured for editorial content, technical validity, and overall project 
effectiveness.  Prior to submittal of any documents, the identified quality assurance reviewer 
meets with the PM and reviews the document’s technical merits and accuracy. The assignment 
of a Technical Reviewer is made by the PM.  The Technical Reviewer is a senior level scientist 
whose background and experience avoids and minimizes issues that may have been 
encountered on prior projects.  In addition, a peer reviewer will provide editorial comment to 
ensure correct spelling, grammar, formatting, and consistency in text and graphics.   

The project team has a strong record in providing deliverables in a timely fashion to our clients 
and the regulatory community.  Projects are typically executed within the stated budgetary 
constraints.  The assembled team has demonstrated ability to maintain efficiency while limiting 
cost overruns and providing our client with a quality product.  LMG has provided deliverables to 
NCDEQ (NC DMS) on time and on‐budget throughout the course of our work over the past 15 
years.    

Representative QA/QC measures to be employed for the Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation 
Project are described further below. 

1. The Project Manager (Mr. Kevin Yates) will be responsible for ensuring timely submittal of 
project deliverables (e.g. mitigation plan, baseline monitoring document, monitoring report, 
etc.) and invoicing that accurately reflects contracts tasks and contract percentages.  In 
addition, LMG has administrative personnel with direct experience in NC DMS invoicing 
procedures.  LMG will manage the invoicing spreadsheet that will display percentage of task 
completed and invoiced along with cumulative invoice totals.  

2. The Technical Reviewer (Mr. Christian Preziosi) and the Peer Reviewer (Ms. Kim Williams) 
will be responsible for the technical and editorial content of the project deliverables and will 
ensure that the deliverables are consistent with current NC DMS standards and templates 
(including the Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Mitigation Plan Template (ver. 2.0) 
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402 11 | Page
Section G. Technical Approach
and the Annual Monitoring Report Template (ver. 2.0)).  All riparian buffer work will be 
performed in accordance with the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 
and NC DMS requirements.   

3. Task managers will be assigned for each of the major milestones of the project.  Task 
managers will provide a minimum of monthly progress reports to the Project Manager and 
Technical Oversight Manager.  The Project Manager will assign deadlines for all tasks and 
sub‐tasks and will maintain a gantt chart illustrating projected completion dates and 
percentages of tasks completed.     

4. The planting and construction manager (Mr. Wes Fryar) will work closely with the Project 
Manager and Technical Oversight Manager for the procurement of characteristic native 
hardwood species from a reputable plant nursery with stock material suitable for the 
Coastal Plain.  Mr. Fryar has over 10 years of direct experience managing and overseeing 
mitigation site construction and planting.  CMS and LMG will conduct a pre‐construction 
meeting with the contractor and planting foreman to review the plans and to discuss 
specific construction and planting protocols.  Professional scientists from LMG and CMS will 
be on‐site during planting and construction to ensure implementation consistent with the 
approved mitigation plan.  Planting and construction will be photo‐documented.  The 
planting and construction manager will work closely with the monitoring task manager for 
the installation of permanent vegetation monitoring plots and the baseline monitoring.     

5. Monitoring reports will be submitted annually to the NC DMS (by December 1 of each year).  
These reports will include results of vegetative monitoring and photographic documentation 
of site conditions.  Monitoring reports will also identify any contingency measures that may 
need to be employed to remedy any site deficiencies.    The fifth year monitoring report will 
include a close‐out report that provides an assessment of the monitoring data collected 
from the entire monitoring period.  The project managers for Clearwater Mitigation 
Solutions and Land Management Group, Inc. will attend the close‐out meeting(s) and will 
present the final project to the DWR following all DMS closeout procedures and templates.  
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402

FIGURES

Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Map Source: DeLorme 2012 Atlas & Gazeteer, Pages 43 & 65
SITE
N
SCALE 1" = 1 mile
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
SITE
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
Public Use Airport (not listed as a general aviation airport nor listed
in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems or “NPIAS”)
Response to RFP # 16-007402
Figure 2
Watershed Map
N
SCALE 1" = 10 Miles
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
Legend
8-Digit Hydrologic Unit (03020203)
Project Boundary
Targeted Local Watershed (03020203070030)
Pitt
Nash
Wayne
Lenoir
Wilson
Johnston
Edgecombe
Greene
Franklin
Craven
Wake
Martin
Sampson
Duplin
Jones
Halifax
NCDOT GIS Unit, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, (c)
OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License
(CC-BY-SA)
Wingfoot
Site
Map Source: USGS Farmville Quadrangle 7.5 minute
Figure 3
Topographic Map
N
SCALE 1" = 1,500’*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
A
s
k
e
w

R
dMoye-Turnage RdBallards CrossroadsNC911, NCCGIA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors
FOX RUN
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
SITE
Legend
Conservation Easement
Response to RFP # 16-007402
Figure 4
LiDAR map
Map Source: NC Floodplain Mapping Program 2014 QL2 LiDAR Data
N
SCALE 1" = 700’
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
NC911, NCCGIA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors
Legend
Elevation
78.49 - 83.13
73.85 - 78.49
69.21 - 73.85
64.57 - 69.21
59.93 - 64.57
55.29 - 59.93
50.65 - 55.29
46.01 - 50.65
41.37 - 46.01
FOX RUN
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
SITE
Legend
Conservation Easement
Response to RFP # 16-007402
Map Source: NRCS Pitt County Soil Survey, 1974
Figure 5
Soils Map
N
SCALE 1" = 1,000’*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
Legend
AgB: Alaga loamy sand, banded substratum, 0-6% slopes
Bb: Bibb complex
Co: Coxville fine sandy loam
Crb: Craven fine sandy loam, 1-6% slopes
ExA: Exum fine sandy loam, 0-1% slopes
GoA: Goldsboro sandy loam, 0-1% slopes
GoB: Goldsboro sandy loam, 1-6% slopes
Ly: Lynchburg fine sandy loam
MaB: Masada sandy loam, 0-4% slopes
NrB2: Norfolk sandy loam, 1-6% slopes, eroded
OcB: Ocilla loamy fine sand, 0-4% slopes
Ra: Rains fine sandy loam
Tu: Tuckerman fine sandy loam
WaB: Wagram loamy sand, 0-6% slopes
FOX RUN
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
SITE
Conservation Easement
Response to RFP # 16-007402
Figure 6
1998 Aerial Photograph
Map Source: 1998 NAPP Aerial Photography
N
SCALE 1" = 700’
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
NC911, NCCGIA, NCCGIA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
NC911, NCCGIA, NCCGIA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors
FOX RUN
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
SITE
Legend
Conservation Easement
Response to RFP # 16-007402
Map Source: 2016 NC OneMap Aerial Photography
Figure 7
Aerial Photograph
N
SCALE 1" = 700’
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
NC911, NCCGIA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors
FOX RUN
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
SITE
Legend
Conservation Easement
Response to RFP # 16-007402
Figure 8A
Concept Mitigation Plan
Overview
N
SCALE 1" = 700’Map Source: 2016 NC OneMap Aerial Photography
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
NC911, NCCGIA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors
Legend
Parcel Boundary ~127 ac
Buffer Restoration (0FT-100FT) ~11.38 ac
Buffer Preservation ~4.47 ac
Streams ~4,090 l.f.
Riparian Habitat Corridor (No Credit) ~2.26 ac
Existing Fox Run Riparian Buffer Site
Existing Piedmont Natural Gasline
Buffer Restoration (101FT-200FT) ~1.81 ac
Buffer Enhancement ~0.71 ac
SITE
FOX RUN
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
A-1
B-1
B -2
!!!Waters of the US / Jurisdictional RPW ~420 l.f.B-3INSET
Conservation Easement ~ 20.63 Acres:
Response to RFP # 16-007402
Figure 8B
Concept Mitigation Plan
Inset
Map Source: 2016 NC OneMap Aerial Photography
N
SCALE 1" = 400’*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
L:\WETLANDS\2018\40-18-093\maps\mapset
Wingfoot Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Site
Cataloging Unit 03020203
Pitt County, NC
March 2018
LMG # 40-18-093
NC911, NCCGIA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors
FOX RUN
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
200-ftA-1
B-1 1 0 0 -f t
100-ft
B -2
B-350-ft
50-ft100-ft
100-ft
Legend
Buffer Restoration (0FT-100FT) ~11.38 ac
Buffer Preservation ~4.47 ac
Streams ~4,090 l.f.
Riparian Habitat Corridor (No Credit) ~2.26 ac
Existing Fox Run Riparian Buffer Site
Existing Piedmont Natural Gasline
Buffer Restoration (101FT-200FT) ~1.81 ac
Buffer Enhancement ~0.71 ac
!!!Waters of the US / Jurisdictional RPW ~420 l.f.
Conservation Easement ~ 20.63 Acres:
Parcel Boundary ~127 ac
Response to RFP # 16-007402
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402

APPENDIX A.

HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
Wingfoot Property
Moy-Turnage Road
Farmville, NC 27828
Inquiry Number:
March 24, 2018
5232866.1
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
2014 1"=875'Flight Year: 2014 USDA/NAIP
2010 1"=875'Flight Year: 2010 USDA/NAIP
2008 1"=875'Flight Year: 2008 USDA/NAIP
1998 1"=875'Flight Date: January 26, 1998 USGS
1994 1"=875'Acquisition Date: February 27, 1994 USGS/DOQQ
1982 1"=875'Flight Date: March 29, 1982 USGS
1977 1"=875'Flight Date: January 30, 1977 USGS
1974 1"=875'Flight Date: April 01, 1974 USGS
1964 1"=875'Flight Date: April 01, 1964 USGS
1961 1"=875'Flight Date: October 24, 1961 USGS
1959 1"=875'Flight Date: January 07, 1959 USDA
1957 1"=875'Flight Date: January 19, 1957 USGS
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 03/24/18
Wingfoot Property
Site Name:Client Name:
Land Management Group, Inc.
Moy-Turnage Road 3805 Wrightsville Avenue
Farmville, NC 27828 Wilmington, NC 28403
EDR Inquiry #5232866.1 Contact:Randy Brant
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.
Search Results:
Year Scale Details Source
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot
be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE
OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any
analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to
provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2018 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are
the property of their respective owners.
5232866 1-page 2
5232866.1
2014
= 875'
5232866.1
2010
= 875'
5232866.1
2008
= 875'
5232866.1
1998
= 875'
5232866.1
1994
= 875'
5232866.1
1982
= 875'
5232866.1
1977
= 875'
5232866.1
1974
= 875'
5232866.1
1964
= 875'
5232866.1
1961
= 875'
5232866.1
1959
= 875'
5232866.1
1957
= 875'
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402

APPENDIX B.

STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS

NC UWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 (� Project/Site'.
Evaluator: Wej F�-t o,I� County: Tit
1
Total Points: Stream Determination
Stream is at least intermittent LiZ, b E h eral Inte ttei
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30" p
vAayvr1 Latitude: 3 G.$ (oq- 6 q y
Longitude: -+-i . 53�
Other SP
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = G I
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
15. Sediment on plants or debris
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
1 1.5
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
QD
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
10
Other = 0
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a
No = 0
Qes =
.1 ui 1. ww - - nuL iGLUU, ACO UIDGUbbIUII, III IIIdIIUdl
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= R. q 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
{ 1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1. 1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
CID 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
L. OIUa]CIV 1 .-NIInTrITRI = L J . ILJ 7
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
CD
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos [note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2 j
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
0
0
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; BL = 1.
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
FL &b 1 Al N
F1El.D
J 1

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 l2� `�
Project/Site: �QAI^
County:
Latitude: 3S. G (S+5f0
Evaluator: Wei Pir�
Longitude: -��. Cc�322`
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cir
Other .5P2•
Stream is at least intermittent
if >19 or perennial if >_ 30*
E h eral Inter
A 'tient erial
e. 5' Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I+ - U a
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
/"
C)
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
M
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
CD
2
3
8. Headcuts
NJ
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1 1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
tYes = 3
artitiaai ditcnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9 • D )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
0 0.5
1 1.5
1==ZL 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
G. Biolow (Subtotal = 14 •Z) )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0
1
2
3
22. Fish 0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish 0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians 0
0.5
1.
25. Algae 0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 07K
OBL = 1. Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: rw• c- -�
Sketch:
S�v

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 `ZS I Project/Site:y�
Evaluator: �� �. �r County: P�-
Total Points: Stream Determination (c
Stream is at least intermittent i� 5 E h eral Inter tten
if> 19 orperenniai if 2: 30* Ir �i
Latitude: a5, 419S
Longitude: -14, 5 32 W
Other 5F3
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo Subtotal =-A-6 ��p
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- of sequence
0
1
�,�
Q2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
13
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0'
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0Is
ryes = 3
01w 0 wwl IVJ 01C Iwl IGICu, JCC uibuu55Iun5 In manual
B. Wdroloav (Subtotal = /0 ,_S 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
CO2
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5)
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
0
No = 0
1, Yes =
1.5
1.5
J�-IIGII&IDUMN-1II$lfilftl�fmukwl 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
(Z)
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
0
0
0-D
0.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
13
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
CBL = 1..0 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
�L'A►n W
4
rr'tc+DaPIA'•n�

iNu j)wy stream lcientitication Norm Version 4.11
Date: ?�.''L3 l �$ Project/Site'.
Evaluator: County: �-
Total Points: E� Stream Determination
Stream is at least intermittent �, �J I Q Eph eral Inte ttel
if a 19 or Derennial if a 30•
Latitude: 2s, a i.B 3
Longitude: T*}. S3(o3S
Other �c�.^'PH
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= ! cG - V
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
0 0.5
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or beat"
0
1
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
0
0
1
0.5
2
1 1
3
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
D-1-01 U-11- Glc 11UL IGIOU, JCC UI5GU551UIIb" III rrldrlUdl
B. Hvdraloav fSuhtntal = ID- S
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
1
2
2
3
3
14. Leaf litter
1 1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or d0b1L-y
0 0.5
1
1.
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1
1.
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes -1_3)
3
L�-]Lei MHPtbZ111Nl[Oleo]� i>�rsl
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7 ,
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch.
FtFC.I�
r�ffl�
47H
1= lfol..Q
C
Pel

1v U u W Q Stream Identification Norm Version 4.11
Date: 3 �2?I�� Project/Site".
Evaluator: u -yam + ,,far-- County:
Total Points: Stream Deter
Stream is at least intermittent
if > �] 19 or perennial if a 30" 5 - � E ph"e ral
i yy1 Latitude: X35 , ra �P 22y
P �-- Longitude: -;+�- 53120
circle one) Other CJ�
ergitte PerejWial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo Subtotal =_�
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
®
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
05
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
ACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
Notes: c•iG�C� t�•17{
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
01UH IC11 UILUMb CIC IIUI IdMU, see uiscusslons In manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = q • O )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
0 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or d2tna,
0
0.5
1 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 C 1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes =
%.. Dluluuv toumaial = `I - i
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1110
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
05
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
C019
1 1
1.5
25. Algae
0
_"D
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: c•iG�C� t�•17{
Sketch:
&
��t.0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ?J. C'L3
o
Project/Site: "CVUej
Latitude: .3G.5(p
Evaluator: Wes
County:
Longitude: . 532 615
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent '� 3
Stream Dete circle one
Other �
, 2S
if> 19 or perennial if 2t 30*
Eph eral nter 'tte t Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
r -
A. Geomorphology Subtotal 10
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
/'1
l�
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
Op1
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1 1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channelo
= 0
Yes = 3
Sketch: �%
X�
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 2 � O )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 ©
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1 2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 (T) 0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or deb '
0 0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5 rij
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 Yes= 3
1
C. Biology (Subtotal = _ )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW = 0,7
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: ccr ie r n ci,'�l
Sketch: �%
X�
F1� L9

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I
Project/Site:
Latitude: 3ra SCJ y 3 31
Longitude:-'�-_-,5?253
Evaluator: j)` �'�
County: P�.�-
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 3 Q • '+ S
Stream Determination (t;iMereia
Other
if > 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Eph eral Inte ttent
e.g. Quaddame:�
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 5.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
3
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
14. Leaf litter
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
/
l J
2
0.5
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1M
No = 0
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
3-
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
Notes:
1
2
3
9. Grade control0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
es = 3
aruticiai oacnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. HYdrolow (Subtotal= q-0
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
es = 3
L. blotogV (Subtotal = -A .L=) =) ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 )
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
CQ_
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
CW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
w-tt..a�rr
Sketch:
LD

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: vJ Project/Site'.
Evaluator: uje5 C ,_. �� County: Q ; �-
Total Points: L Stream Determination {cir
Stream is at least intermittenth eral Inter E ttent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30" Q , p inf
Latitude: ?s.5(,q 30S
Longitude: -'+-.. S 31,51
Other 57F2
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = V 'U _
Absent 1
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
No = 0 es = 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
M
2
3
ripple -pool sequence
LJ
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1M
3
5. Active/relict#loadplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
D
1
42D
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
CD
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a
No = 0
Yes = 3
��•������.� ..�•..��...� v�v nva �a�caa, avu ul1, uaalullA III IIIdIIudl
B. Hvdrolorav (Subtotal= / O - 0
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 2 3
1 2 3
14. Leaf litter
1. 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5 1 1.
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 es = 3
%-. oiuwuv iauororai = r -3. rrJ 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; f2BL = 1.5
Other= 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch.
(CI00C'pL`P'(ra
SFS

Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402

APPENDIX C.

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS – EXISTING CONDITIONS

APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402
Appendix C. Site Photos – Existing Conditions

1

(1) Stream channel A1 along northwestern boundary with NC DMS Fox Run Buffer site on left side of bank.

(2) View of existing conservation easement marking immediately northwest of Wingfoot buffer site.

APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402
Appendix C. Site Photos – Existing Conditions

2

(3) Reach A1 channel segment to be stabilized (right bank) along northern project boundary.

(4) View of upper stream segment of Reach B1.
APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402
Appendix C. Site Photos – Existing Conditions

3

(5) View Reach B1 looking upstream (riparian buffer restoration proposed for left side and riparian
enhancement proposed for right side).

(6) Downstream segment of Reach B1 (buffer restoration proposed for right side and buffer
preservation proposed for left side).

APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402
Appendix C. Site Photos – Existing Conditions

4

(7) View of Reach B2 looking upstream (near confluence with Reach B3).

(8) View of upper segment of Reach B3 looking down-gradient.

Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402

APPENDIX D. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES MAP 

Neuse 03
USDA FSA, GeoEye, CNES/Airbus DS
NR Points
NR Individual Listing
NR Listing, Gone
NRHD Center Point
NR Boundaries
National Register Boundary
Boundary of Destroyed/Removed NR Listing
SL Points
SL Individual Entry
SL and DOE entry
Study List Entry, Gone
March 26, 2018
0 0.25 0.50.13 mi
0 0.4 0.80.2 km
1:14,705
Response to Request for Proposal #16-007402

APPENDIX E. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES  
(NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM DATABASE) 

NCNHDE-5649
March 26, 2018
Kim Williams
Land Management Group, Inc.
3805 Wrightsville Avenue; Suite 15
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: Neuse 03
Dear Kim Williams:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached ‘Documented Occurrences’ tables and map.
The attached ‘Potential Occurrences’ table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one-mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Neuse 03
March 26, 2018
NCNHDE-5649
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the NCNHP database
does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare
species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
*NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally-listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on March 26, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2018. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Neuse 03
March 26, 2018
NCNHDE-5649
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Rank
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Dragonfly or
Damselfly
33766 Somatochlora georgiana Coppery Emerald 2004-Pre H?5-Very
Low
---Significantly
Rare
G3G4 S2?
Freshwater Fish 36850 Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner 1960-08-18 H 3-Medium ---Significantly
Rare
G4 S2S3
Freshwater Fish 10294 Noturus furiosus Carolina Madtom 1960-08-18 H 3-Medium Species of
Concern
Threatened G2 S2
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
NC Division of Mitigation Services Easement NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on March 26, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2018. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 4 of 4
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 3303 Page: 247 County: Pitt
Parcel ID Number: 4636538996
Street Address: 963 LIS -258
Snow Hill NC 28580
Property Owner (please print: Bobby Ham
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owners) of the above property, do hereby authorize
(Contractor/Agent/Project Manager)'
of Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
(Name of Contractor/Agent Firm/Agency)2
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property
as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address:
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 252-531-5358
Property Owner Telephone Number: 252-747-8204
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
03/27/018
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
'Name of full delivery staff member (full -deliveries) or DMS project manager (design -bid -build).
Name of company (full -deliveries) or DMS (design -bid -build).