20220664 Ver 2_Proposal-Redact_20220725

PART D - Executive Summary
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) is proposing to provide 3,750
stream credits, 362,500.000 riparian buffer credits, and 9,003.077
nutrient offset credits within the Neuse River Basin Catalog Unit
03020201 at the Casey Creek Mitigation Site (Site) in Wayne County,
NC. Wildlands has recorded options to acquire conservation
easements on approximately 24 acres on the Site. The project will
include stream restoration, stream preservation, riparian buffer
restoration, and riparian buffer preservation.
The Site is an active row crop farm and the streams are in various
stages of impact due to historic cattle grazing and stream
manipulation as well as on -going farming activities. Crops are
planted up to the top of bank on all restoration reaches. The streams
are in various stages of evolution, with a predominant condition of
erosion and incision, which has drained historic riparian wetlands.
Existing wooded riparian areas are high quality pine and hardwood
forests. The presence of instream habitat and bedform diversity is
dependent on the extent of manipulation on each reach. The
presence of large woody debris (LWD) varies across the site
depending on the adjacent existing wooded riparian areas.
This project will improve water quality and ecology through riparian
buffer establishment and stream restoration. These activities will
result in a decrease in nutrient and sediment loads from the Site and
improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The specific evaluation
criteria outlined in the Division of Mitigation's (DMS) Request for
Proposals will be met as summarized in Part F of this proposal.
In summary, the mitigation plan for the Site will include the following:
• Reconnection of incised streams to their historic and newly constructed floodplains;
• Enhancement of habitat functions through in -stream structures and planting native riparian
buffers;
• Protection for stream channels from further channel degradation and vegetation impact for
agricultural purposes;
• Reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings due to overland runoff from agricultural fields;
• Improvements to water quality;
• Conservation of 24 acres of restored land in perpetuity.
1959 Aerial Photography
of the Site
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART D
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page D.1

Part F - Technical Approach
The Casey Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is in Wayne County approximately one mile west of the town of
Grantham (Figure 1). The project includes restoration and preservation of project streams, as well as
restoration and preservation of riparian buffers. The project is located within Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03020201170010 and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Neuse River Basin Catalog
Unit 03020201.
This Site is not located in a targeted resource area (TRA), local watershed plan (LWP) area, or regional
watershed plan (RWP) area. However, stressors to the Site are documented in other watershed planning
documents including the 2010 DMS Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP), the 2009 DWR
Neuse River Basin Water Quality Plan, and the 2005 Wildlife Resources Commission Wildlife Action Plan
(WAP).
The proposed project will address key CU-wide restoration goals outlined in the RBRP including
reduction of sediment and nutrient loads from agricultural lands by restoring streams and riparian
buffers and targeted implementation of a nutrient offset project. The 2010 Neuse RBRP highlights the
importance of riparian buffers for stream restoration projects. Of all streams in the Neuse 01 CU,
23% do not have adequate riparian buffers. The RBRP states that projects which increase or improve
buffers should be prioritized.
The Site is located in the DWR subbasin 03-04-12, which is impacted by the large amount of animal
operations within the watershed (Figure lb). DWR lists 22 permitted animal facilities within the
subbasin. This is the largest concentration of animal operations within a single subbasin in the Neuse 01
watershed. Selection of this Site was, in part, based on targeting sites with permitted animal operations.
In the WAP report, non -point source pollution including nutrient loading and erosion from stream
channelization for agriculture is described as contributing to degraded aquatic habitats in the basin.
Additionally, fertilizers and livestock contribute 60% of the nitrate and phosphate found in the Neuse
River basin according to the report. This report notes the importance of stream restoration and land
protection efforts in the watershed to address the observed stressors.
In addition, other important factors considered in the
development of TRAs were analyzed in selecting this site.
There are other conservation lands within the 14-didit
HUC including a Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) Easement and two large, private
mitigation bank sites called Falling Creek and Grantham
Branch. These easements protect 461 acres within the
HUC. The HUC is 41% agricultural land, indicating the
potential for water quality stressors. Casey Creek is a poor
quality, headwater stream with non-functioning buffers
that drains directly to Falling Creek where the confluence
is protected by the Falling Creek mitigation bank
easement.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Given all of the factors described above, Wildlands believes the Site should receive the additional points
for the planning identified stressors on the scoresheet, at least at the lowest level for water quality. Our
attached scoresheet includes the additional points as if the Site were in a water quality TRA.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.1

As shown in figure 2, the Site contains three unnamed tributaries to Falling Creek, which have been
given names for this proposal (Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch). Falling Creek flows into
the Neuse River approximately six river miles downstream of the Site.
1.0 Project Goals and Objectives
The major goals of the proposed stream, buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation project are to provide
ecological and water quality enhancements to the Neuse River Basin while creating a functional riparian
corridor at the site level.
Site stressors include stream incision, active stream erosion including mass wasting, row crops up to the
top of stream bank, and areas of limited to absent bedform diversity. Specific enhancements to water
quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined in Table F.1. Watershed ecological uplift potential and
specific calculations supporting these goals and objectives outlined in Section 3.
Table F.1
Water Quality, Hydrology, and Habitat Goals of the Mitigation Project
Site Functional
Stressors
Functional Uplift Potential
Site Goal
Site Objective
Very High — Riparian buffers on restoration
Convert agricultural
• Convert agricultural fields to forested
Water Quality:
reaches are currently in row crop
fields to wooded
riparian buffers along Site streams north
Non-functioning
production. Restored buffer widths extend
buffer. Improve
of US Hwy 13.
riparian buffer
from 50 feet to over 200 feet from top of
treatment processes
• Remove entire parcel from agricultural
bank, and average 90 feet from top of bank
by restoring floodplain
production south of US Hwy 13 and
across the Site.
wetlands.
establish riparian forest.
• Reconstruct stream channels slated for
restoration with stable dimensions and
appropriate depth relative to the existing
Water Quality:
High — Major sources of sediment include
eroding streams, mass wasting of banks,
and runoff from row crop operations in the
Improve the stability
of stream channels.
Reduce sediment and
floodplain. Add bank revetments and
instream structures to protect
restored/enhanced streams.
Sediment
riparian zone. The project will restore
nutrient input from
• Restore riparian stream corridor to slow
streambanks, establish a wooded riparian
adjacent agricultural
and filter runoff from adjacent agricultural
buffer, and remove land from agricultural
production.
fields.
fields.
• Remove entire parcel from row crop
production south of US Hwy 13 and
establish a riparian forest.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.2

Site Functional
Stressors
Functional Uplift Potential
Site Goal
Site Objective
Water Quality:
Nutrients
Very High — In addition to completely
removing a 13.3-acre parcel south of US
Hwy 13 from row crop production and
placing a 9.5-acre easement around the
streams, the completed project is expected
to reduce TN by 327 Ibs/yr and TP by 21
lbs/yr based on 4.3-acres of new wooded
buffers upstream of US Hwy 13 that will
continue to receive drainage from row
crops. Runoff from these heavily fertilized
agricultural row crop fields will be filtered
through wide restored buffers. Removing
the land south of US Hwy 13 entirely from
row crops production also improves the
project sustainability.
Reduce sediment and
nutrient input from
adjacent agricultural
fields; Convert
agricultural fields to
wooded buffer.
• Reconstruct stream channels slated for
restoration with stable dimensions and
appropriate depth relative to the existing
floodplain. Add bank revetments and
instream structures to protect
restored/enhanced streams.
• Restore riparian stream corridor areas to
slow and filter runoff from adjacent
agricultural fields.
• Remove drainage tiles to prevent
hydrologic bypass of the riparian zone.
Treat concentrated drainage tile runoff
through floodplain pools.
•Reconnect incised streams to their
floodplains through restoration will
restore floodplain wetlands and address
peak flows.
• Remove entire parcel from row crop
production south of US Hwy 13 and
establish a riparian forest.
Water Quality:
Fecal Coliform
Low — Site buffers are currently row
cropped; however, one cattle operation is
located in Casey Creek's watershed. Storm
runoff from this cattle operation will be
filtered through the restored floodplain
buffer, providing treatment.
Convert agricultural
fields to wooded
buffer. Improve onsite
treatment processes
for upstream runoff by
restoring floodplain
connection.
Hydrology:
Peak Flows
High — Project will use Priority 1 and
Priority2 restoration to correct deepReconnect
incision and allow for increased floodplain
storage of storm flows. Three lengths of
drainage tiles will be removed within the
conservation easement. Drainage from
remaining tiles outside of the easement will
be treated through a floodplain pool.
streams to
a wooded floodplain;
Prevent hydrologic
bypass of the buffer
and treat
concentrated runoff
points.
Hydrology:
Ditching/Draining
Moderate — Three lengths of drainage tiles
will be removed within the conservation
easement. Drainage from remaining tiles
outside of the easement will be treated
through a floodplain pool.
Prevent hydrologic
bypass of the buffer
and treat
concentrated runoff
points.
.Remove drainage tiles to prevent
hydrologic bypass of the riparian zone.
Treat concentrated drainage tile runoff
through floodplain pools.
Habitat:
Habitat
Fragmentation
Moderate — There is an approximate 6-foot
knickpoint between the preservation
section of Casey Creek and the restoration
reach, and there is a 4- to 5-inch drop from
the US Hwy 13 culvert outlet to Casey
Creek's normal water surface elevation.
These two barriers fragment aquatic
habitats during baseflow conditions.
Reduce habitat
fragmentation
• Raise the bed of Casey Creek to meet the
elevation of the preservation reach.
• Raise the invert of Casey Creek
downstream of US Hwy 13 to reduce the
habitat fragmentation effects of the
culvert.
Habitat:
Limited Bedform
Diversity
High — Bedform diversity in restoration
reaches of Casey Creek, Martha Creek, and
Afton Creek is low due to sedimentation
from bank erosion. Pools are silted in and
riffles are embedded with fines.
Improve instream
habitat and
incorporate
restoration strategies
that provide short -
• Install grade control step features
constructed with rock, wood, and brush
to create stable and diverse bedform.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.3

Site Functional
Stressors
Functional Uplift Potential
Site Goal
Site Objective
Habitat:
Absence of Large
Woody Debris
Moderate — Project stream reaches slated
for restoration lack large woody debris, leaf
packs, and organic debris, due to the
absence of riparian vegetation. Woody
grade control structures installed on the
projects restoration reaches will enhance
bedform stability, enhance bank stability,
and will provide cover for aquatic
organisms.
and long-term carbon
sources.
• Install plunge and constriction features to
induce pool formation in reaches lacking
pools.
• Add woody materials/ LWD as grade
control, revetments, cover, and hydraulic
features to improve pool formation,
variability of habitat, and to increase
retention of coarse organic matter.
• Establish forested riparian floodplain
habitat to create long-term source of
woody debris.
• Install roughness features such as brush
toes that enhance retention of carbon
within stream reaches.
N/A
N/A
Permanently protect
the project site from
harmful uses.
• Establish a conservation easement on the
Site.
2.0 Project Description
The following section describes the existing conditions at the Site in terms of geomorphic condition,
watershed, soils, geology, cultural resources, species of concern, regulated floodplain zones, and site
constraints. Figure 2 provides a Site map that shows approximate locations of incision, water quality
stressors, active headcuts, bedrock, and other relevant site observations.
2.1 Existing Site Conditions
The proposed project is located on four parcels that contain tributaries to Falling Creek. A large portion
of the properties (over 40 acres) has been used for row crop agriculture for decades. The remaining
acreage is primarily wooded with a mix of pines and hardwoods. Currently, the agricultural fields are
used to grow a rotation of corn and soybeans with an occasional rotation of peanuts, cotton, and sweet
potatoes. Cattle were grazed in the fields south of US Hwy 13 until 1982. The fields are drained by drain
tiles, perennial, and intermittent streams on the Site have clearly been channelized and relocated to
increase crop production. Aerial photography dating back to the late 1950's (included in Appendix)
shows that the Site has remained in substantially the same configuration since that time.
2.2 Existing Conditions — Riparian Buffer
Casey Creek's riparian buffer condition varies throughout the Site. Casey Creek Reach 1 possesses a
forested buffer greater than 50 feet on both floodplains. Following its confluence with Martha Branch,
Casey Creek Reach 2 lacks a riparian buffer, with cotton fields occupying the floodplain and a narrow
community of winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifllua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), blackberry (Rubus occidentalis), and rivercane (Arundinaria gigantea) mixed
with annual herbaceous vegetation dispersed along its banks. Casey Creek Reach 3 is bordered by
agricultural fields on either side, with annual herbaceous vegetation and occasional sweetgum, winged
sumac, blackberry, and black willow (Salix nigra) stems scattered along its banks. Downstream from its
confluence with Afton Branch, Casey Creek lacks a riparian buffer on its right side with cotton fields in
the floodplain. On its left side, an agricultural field occupies the first approximate 30 feet perpendicular
to the stream. Past this 30-foot zone exists a mature forest. Martha Branch has a forested riparian
buffer greater than 50 feet on its left floodplain, while the right floodplain is occupied by row crops.
Afton Branch lacks a forested buffer throughout the project extent, with row crops occupying its
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.4

floodplain and occasional red maple (Acer rubrum) saplings, blackberry, rivercane, dogfennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium) and other annual herbaceous vegetation dispersed across its banks.
Within the forested area surrounding Casey Creek Reach 1 and the left floodplain of Martha Branch,
there is a predominantly hardwood mix interspersed with occasional loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) within
the first approximate 30-50 feet from the stream. Typical overstory species include red maple, tulip
poplar, sweetgum, swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), and white oak (Quercus alba). The mid -story
contains American holly (Ilex opaca) and a small amount of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Typical
understory species include rivercane and various fern species. Outside of the hardwood mix includes
areas of forest dominated by loblolly pine. Typical species within the forested floodplain on the left side
of Casey Creek Reach 3 include willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple, and
sweetgum, with rivercane and greenbriar (Smilaxspp.) in the understory.
2.3 Existing Conditions — Streams
On September 24, 2021, all Site streams were evaluated and
scored. Casey Creek Reaches 2 and 3 and Afton Branch were
identified as perennial within the project limits. Casey Creek
Reach 1 and Martha Branch were identified as intermittent
streams.
Casey Creek
Casey Creek flows south through the Site in a moderately
sloped, unconfined valley with a mixture of mature vegetation
and row crops in the riparian area. Crops are planted up to the
top of the stream banks in Reaches 2 and 3. Reach 1 is an
intermittent, high quality reference sand bed stream system
with extensive grade control from mature vegetation, high
bedform diversity, and large woody debris throughout the
reach. Reach 1 ends at a knickpoint that is held by a dense root
mat and drops approximately six feet to the start of Reach 2.
Casey Creek Reach 2 begins as an intermittent stream but
quickly changes to perennial near the confluence with Martha
Branch. This reach is highly incised with a measured bank
height ratio of 2.5 and an entrenchment ratio of 1.8. Bank
erosion is prevalent throughout this reach and row crops are
planted up to the top of bank. According to the landowners,
three drain tiles empty into this reach to drain surrounding historic wetlands. The reach ends at the US
Hwy 13 culvert.
Reach 3 is a perennial reach that has incised to bedrock which now controls grade for approximately 300
feet downstream from the US Hwy 13 culvert. This reach is also highly incised with a measured bank
height ratio of 4.9 and an entrenchment ratio of 1.1. Bank erosion is prevalent throughout this reach
and row crops are planted up to the top of bank. The reach ends at the downstream property line.
Martha Branch
Martha Branch is an intermittent stream that, according to the landowners, was ditched in the 1940s to
improve drainage from the adjacent parcel. The stream is highly incised with a measured bank height
ratio of 4.4 and an entrenchment ratio of 1.8. Bank erosion is prevalent throughout this reach and row
crops are planted up to the top of bank on the right side while the left side is forested. The reach ends at
the confluence with Casey Creek.
Preservation on Casey Creek Reach 1
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.5

Afton Branch
Afton Branch is a perennial stream that, according to the landowners, was excavated and straightened
in the 1940s to improve drainage from the adjacent parcel and drain surrounding wetlands. The stream
is highly incised with a measured bank height ratio of 2.4 and an entrenchment ratio of 1.8. Bank
erosion is prevalent throughout this reach and row crops are planted up to the top of bank. The reach
ends at the confluence with Casey Creek.
2.4 Existing Conditions — Wetlands
Quality forested wetlands exist where Casey Creek Reach 1 passes through a natural depressional area
and at the southern end of the project area where groundwater discharges in the Casey Creek
floodplain. Vegetation composition in these areas is similar to the wooded area surrounding Casey Creek
Reach 1. Wetlands are absent in remaining areas of the Casey Creek Reach 2, Casey Creek Reach 3,
Martha Branch, and Afton Branch floodplains due to the drainage effect of stream channelization and
drainage tiles.
2.5 Existing Conditions — Watersheds
The Site is located in NCDWR Subbasin 03-04-12. Project features flow to 303d listed stream Falling
Creek, which eventually flows to the Neuse River. The Neuse River is classified as WS-IV and NSW by
NCDWR. WS-IV waters are water supply waters used for drinking water, culinary, or food processing
where a WS-I, II, or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses
(recreational use, agriculture, fishing and fish consumption, and the maintenance of biological integrity
for wildlife). The NSW designation applies to surface waters that are experiencing excessive growths of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
The Site topography, as indicated on the Grantham USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle shows
moderate sloped valleys for Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch (Figure 3). Drainage areas
for the project reaches were delineated using 2-foot contour intervals derived from the 2016/2017
North Carolina Emergency Management Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (Figure 4). Land uses
draining to the project reaches are a mix of agricultural pasture/hay fields, forested areas, wetlands, and
developed land. The land use was calculated using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2016.
The watershed areas and current land uses are summarized in Table F.2, below and depicted in Figure 5.
Table F.2 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach
Name
NC DWR
Stream
Identification
Form Scores
Intermittent/
Perennial
Status
Subject
to
Buffer
Rules*
Watershed
Area
(acres)
Watershed
Area (sq.
mi.)
Land Use
Casey
Creek
25.5/36.5
I/P
Y
430
0.68
38% Agriculture, 19% Wetland, 18%
Forest, 16% Herbaceous, 9% Developed
Martha
Branch
23
I
N
71
0.11
46% Forest, 16% Agriculture, 18%
Herbaceous, 12% Wetland, 8% Developed
Afton
Branch
35.25
P
Y
210
0.33
34% Wetland, 33% Agriculture, 15%
Herbaceous, 9% Forest, 9% Developed
* Depicted on the Figure 3 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map — Grantham Quadrangle and Figure 6b Natural Resources
Conservation Service 1974 Soil Survey
2.6 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by Web Soil Survey for Wayne County. The primary project area soils
are described below in Table F.3. Figure 6a provides a soil map of the Site. Rains soils comprise the
majority of the project area in the lower landscape positions found along the southern portion of the
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.6

project area. Remaining soils are on slightly higher landscape positions and typically occur on coastal
plain uplands, flats, and terraces.
Table F.3
Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
Weston loamy sand
Deep, coarse -loamy, poorly drained soil that occurs on gently rolling coastal plain uplands, flats,
and stream terraces. Located along upper Casey Creek.
Kenansville loamy sand
Well drained, loamy, and deep soils formed of marine and fluvial sediment. Kenansville occurs
on level and gently sloping coastal plain uplands and stream terraces. Located along upper
Casey Creek.
Dragston loamy sand
Very deep, coarse -loamy, and somewhat poorly drained found on marine terraces. Located
along the middle portion of Casey Creek.
Norfolk loamy sand
Well drained, fine -loamy and very deep soils located on coastal plain uplands and marine
terraces. A very small area of Norfolk is located near the middle portion of Casey Creek.
Lynchburg sandy loam
Very deep, fine -loamy, and somewhat poorly drained soils occurring on coastal plain flats and
marine terraces. Located along Martha Branch.
Rains sandy loam
Very deep, poorly drained, fine -loamy soils with a shallow, persistent water table occurring on
coastal plain flats and depressions. Located along lower Casey Creek.
Kalmia loamy sand
Deep to very deep, well drained, fine -loamy soils found on coastal plain stream terraces. There
is a very small inclusion at the southernmost portion of the project area.
Source: Soil Survey of Wayne, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
2.7 Geology
The Site is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The landscape of the Coastal Plain is
characterized by flat lands to gently rolling hills and valleys. Elevations range from sea level to 600 feet.
The Coastal Plain largely consists of marine sedimentary rocks comprised of sand, clay, and limestone
that formed through the deposition of estuarine and marine sediments within the last 140 million years.
According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985), the underlying geology of the proposed Site is
mapped as the Black Creek Formation (Kb) which is described as gray to brown lignitic clay that contains
thin beds and laminae of fine-grained micaceous sand and thick lenses of cross -bedded sand.
Glauconitic, fossiliferous clayey sand lenses are present in the upper portion of the unit. Bedrock was
observed at the channel invert on Casey Creek Reach 3 but is not anticipated to be a constraint as it is
below the proposed design depth.
Sources: Geologic Map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, North Carolina Geological Survey
h ttps://ncdenr. maps. arcgis. com/apes/MapSeries/index.h tml?appid=a8281cbd24b84239b29cd2ca798d4a10
2.8 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
There are no entries in the State Historic Preservation Office's National Register located on the Site or
within a one -mile radius. The archaeological site files at the North Carolina Office of state Archaeology
(OSA) have not been reviewed at this time. All appropriate cultural resource agencies will be contacted
for their review and comment prior to any land disturbing activity.
2.9 Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlands searched the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NHP databases for federally protected
plant and animal species in Wayne County, NC. Currently the red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) and Carolina madtom (Notorus furiosus) are federally listed as endangered. The Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi) is federally listed as threatened. A pedestrian survey conducted on
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.7

September 24, 2021, indicated that no suitable habitat was identified for the red -cockaded woodpecker,
Neuse River waterdog, and Carolina madtom. Wildlands will conduct a full review of the Site for
protected species upon award of the contract and will coordinate with USFWS and NCWRC as necessary
based on that review.
Table F.4 Federally Protected Species in Wayne County, NC
Species
Federal Status
Habitat
Birds
Red -cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis)
Endangered
Open pine woodlands and savannahs with large specimen trees.
Little to no hardwoods.
Fish
Neuse River waterdog
(Necturus lewisi)
Threatened
Low to moderate gradient streams with cold water and high
dissolved oxygen.
Carolina madtom
(Notorus furiosus)
Endangered
Large streams and rivers with predominantly silt -free, stable,
gravel and cobble substrate.
Habitat information from the fo lowing websites
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-I istings-by-current-ra nge-county?fips=37127
2.10 Floodplain Compliance
The Site is represented on the Wayne County Flood Map 3720254600J. There is no mapped floodplain or
floodway on the Site. If necessary, Wildlands will coordinate with the Wayne County floodplain
administrator to obtain a floodplain development permit and meet local requirements. The project will
be designed to avoid adverse floodplain impacts or hydrologic trespass on adjacent properties or local
roadways.
2.11 Site Constraints and Access
One internal easement crossing is proposed at the Site to maintain landowner access to adjoining tracts.
Additionally, one external easement break is proposed as Casey Creek crosses under US Hwy 13. A
culvert is proposed at the internal easement crossing and will be fenced and gated if needed for
livestock exclusion. The culvert will be designed with the restored stream bed profile to allow for aquatic
organism passage. The crossings are summarized and numbered below in Table F.5 and on Figures 7.
Table F.5 Proposed Easement Crossings
No.
Width (ft)
Location
Internal or External
Crossing Type
1
50
Casey Creek Reach 2
Internal
Proposed Gated Culvert Crossing
2
60
Casey Creek Reach 3
External
Existing US Hwy 13
The easement boundaries around streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required 50-foot
minimum riparian buffer for Coastal Plain streams and nutrient offset mitigation. The entire easement
area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long-term stewardship from US Hwy 13.
There are two airports (Cox -Grantham airfield and Scottbrook Farm airport) located within five miles of
the Site. Both airports are single, turf runways.
3.0 Project Development — Functional Uplift Potential
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore a high quality of ecological function to streams and riparian
areas on this Site. The project design will be developed to avoid adverse impacts to existing streams,
wetland resources, or mature wooded vegetation where possible. Management strategies for individual
resources are tailored to their functional uplift potential.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.8

3.1 Functional Uplift for Water Quality
Non-functioning Riparian Buffer
The restoration reaches of Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch are row cropped up to the top
of the stream banks, rendering the existing riparian zone non-functional. Planting riparian buffers on
project stream corridors will not only improve terrestrial habitat but will contribute to water quality
improvements as well. North of US Hwy 13, planted riparian buffers will meet and often exceed the
required 50-foot minimum width. South of US Hwy 13, the entire 13.3-acre parcel will be removed from
row crop production, 9.5-acres of which will be placed in conservation easement and planted with
woody vegetation. Buffer widths on these sections of Casey Creek and Afton Branch will range from 110
to 200 feet off the top of the stream banks. Wildlands has scored non-functioning riparian buffer uplift
as very high.
Sediment
A preliminary watershed analysis was performed to evaluate onsite and offsite sediment sources.
Currently, sediment loading on Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch is largely dictated by
onsite sources. These streams are impacted by sediment runoff from row crops, which are planted
throughout the floodplains and up to the top of the stream banks. The lack of stabilizing stream bank
vegetation has also resulted in systemic stream bank erosion and incision through the row crop fields.
Sediment from onsite stream bank erosion is another substantial source of sediment loading. Both
sources will be addressed through restoration of stable stream geomorphology and the riparian zone.
Reconnection of these systems with flood relief areas will also allow the streams to use their floodprone
areas for sediment storage from any remaining upstream sources. Wildlands has scored sediment
functional uplift potential as high.
Nutrients and Fecal Coliform
Row cropping accounts for approximately 12.3 acres, or 51%, of the proposed 24.3-acre conservation
easement. The 13.3-acre parcel south of US Hwy 13, which contains 8.0 acres of row crops, will be
completely removed from row crop production. The remaining 4.3 acres of converted row crops
upstream of US Hwy 13 will continue to receive drainage from adjacent row crops. This 4.3 acres is
estimated to remove 327 pounds of total nitrogen (TN) and 21 pounds of total phosphorus (TP)
annually. Calculation variables are shown in Table F.6 below. Additionally, storm runoff from a cattle
operation in Casey Creek's watershed containing nutrients and fecal coliform will be treated via filtration
on the enhanced and restored Casey Creek floodplain. Wildlands has included additional buffer ranging
up to 500-feet off the top of stream bank along the upstream reach of Casey Creek to enhance these
watershed treatment efforts. Wildlands has scored nutrients functional uplift potential as very high
and fecal coliform functional uplift potential as low.
Table F.6 Water Quality Calculations
Estimated Nutrient Reductions for Proposed Project
Input Variables
Acres of restored riparian buffers adjacent to agricultural fields
4.3
LBs TN reduction/year
327
LBs TP reduction/year
21
Sources:
NCDMS. 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream
Restoration.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.9

3.2 Functional Uplift for Hydrology
Site streams slated for restoration are severely incised. Bank height ratios are greater than 2 on all
restoration reaches and exceed 4 on Martha Branch and Casey Creek south of US Hwy 13. The current
owners state that both Casey Creek and Afton Branch were ditched and straightened in the early 1940's
to create larger fields and stated that Martha Branch was ditched at the edge of the property to prevent
field flooding. Peak flow confinement within these ditched channels has led to systemic scour, incision,
and mass wasting of bank material. Restoration activities will be tailored to restore the hydrologic
connection between the stream and floodplain on incised reaches with an emphasis on Priority 1
restoration with transitional lengths of Priority 2 restoration upstream of US Hwy 13. Downstream of US
Hwy 13, topographic constraints necessitate a Priority 2 restoration approach to create a new, stable
floodplain elevation at a lower elevation. Raising the stream beds upstream of US Hwy 13 and lowering
the floodplain downstream of US Hwy 13 will improve floodplain connectivity, reduce the erosive effects
of peak flows, and decrease the drainage effect on surrounding wetlands. The existing channelized
streams will be filled. Three known lengths of drainage tiles will be removed from within the
conservation easement to prevent hydrologic bypass of the riparian zone. Floodplain pools will be
established near the easement edge to treat any remaining concentrated drainage as it enters the
easement. Floodplain pools provide attenuation and treatment of surface water runoff, as well as
habitat variety. Wildlands has scored control of peak flows functional uplift potential as high and
ditching/drainage function uplift potential as moderate since all restoration reaches streams are
incised, historic ditching will be corrected, and drainage tiles within the easement will be removed.
3.3 Functional Uplift for Habitat
The 6-foot knickpoint between the preservation section of
Casey Creek and the restoration reach and the 4- to 5-inch
drop from the US Hwy 13 culvert on Casey Creek impacts
hydrologic connectivity and fragments habitat. Raising
Casey Creek's bed elevation in both locations will promote
aquatic species passage. Wildlands has scored habitat
fragmentation functional uplift potential as moderate.
Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch all exhibit
poor bedform diversity due to silted in pools and
embedded riffles. The lack of stabilizing riparian vegetation
and widespread stream bank erosion has also created a
lack of bank habitats. The use of wood and rock step structures, riffles and bank revetments provides
habitat for macroinvertebrates, catches debris for leaf packs, and creates shelter for fish in undercut
banks. A diverse bedform will be created in restoration reaches to provide habitat for an increased
number of species of insects, fish, and amphibians. Wildlands has scored limited bedform diversity
functional uplift potential as high. The restoration reaches also lack large woody debris and leaf and
debris packs usually found in streams with ample riparian vegetation. Restoration efforts will
incorporate woody material to seed channels with sources of carbon and to provide physical roughness
to enhance retention of beneficial material. Planting the riparian buffers with woody vegetation will
provide future sources of large woody debris for the streams. Wildlands has scored absence of large
woody debris as moderate.
oar_
Woody debris in restored stream channel
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.10

Table F.7
Functional Uplift Potential Summary Table
Functional Category
Functional Stressor
Functional Uplift Potential
Water Quality
Non-functioning riparian buffer
Very high
Sediment
High
Nutrients
Very high
Fecal coliform
Low
Hydrology
Peak flows
High
Ditching/drainage
Moderate
Habitat
Habitat fragmentation
Moderate
Limited bedform diversity
High
Absence of large woody debris
Moderate
4.0 Project Development — Design Approach
Wildlands will begin the project by identifying the best design approach to meet the stated project
objectives and implement the appropriate degree of intervention. A combination of analog, empirical,
and analytical design approaches will potentially be used. All project resources will be designed to create
stable, functional stream channels and riparian buffers.
4.1 Preservation
Casey Creek Reach 1 is slated for preservation. Reach 1 is an intermittent, high quality reference reach
sand bed stream system with extensive grade control from mature vegetation, high bed form diversity,
and large woody debris throughout the reach.
4.2 Restoration
Reaches proposed for restoration include Casey Creek Reaches 2 and 3, Martha Branch, and Afton
Branch. While Martha Branch is an intermittent stream, the level of incision and bank erosion require
restoration rather than enhancement to develop a stable system. Restoration reaches will be designed
and built with appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile to allow for frequent overbank flooding,
provide stable bank slopes, enable biological lift, and reconnect streams with existing and constructed
floodplains. Reference streams will be identified and will serve as one of the primary sources of
information on which restoration designs are based. Wildlands has developed a general approach to be
used as the basis for stream restoration design. The design approach, which is tailored to each site,
continues to develop as additional projects are implemented.
Due to site constraints, Priority 2 restoration will be required on Martha Branch, Afton Branch, Casey
Creek Reach 3, and the downstream end of Casey Creek Reach 2 where it transitions down to the US
Hwy 13 culvert. While this amount of floodplain excavation is
not ideal, the Grantham Branch Mitigation Site located less
than one mile to the southeast provides an example of how
Priority 2 restoration can achieve the same functional uplift
and attain the same performance standards as Priority 1
restoration when constructed correctly. The project involved
2,700 feet of stream restoration, of which, 1,300 feet was
Priority 2 with cut depths as great as four feet. Four of the
nine vegetation monitoring plots are located within the
Priority 2 reach. Average stem density across the site at the
end of Monitoring Year 3 (2020) was 459 stems per acre
while average stem density within the four Priority 2 plots
was 445 stems per acre. Average stem height across the site
Grantham Branch Priority 2 Restoration
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.11

at the end of Monitoring Year 3 (2020) was 6.0 feet while average stem height within the four Priority 2
plots was 6.4 feet. Permanent cross sections within the two reaches showed minimal change in
dimension throughout the first three years of monitoring in either the Priority 1 or Priority 2 reaches.
While these parameters are not a complete picture of functional uplift, they provide an indication of
how stockpiling and spreading topsoil on cut surfaces and
addressing nutrient deficiencies at cut depths can achieve
results similar to Priority 1 restoration. Priority 2 reaches will be
designed with a minimum 2.2 entrenchment ratio and
floodplains will be graded to mimic reference valley cross
section conditions.
Stream structures will be installed to promote water quality,
increase bed and bank stabilization, provide bedform diversity,
and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Wildlands plans to
evaluate stream substrate and determine appropriate
gradations/bed features for the Site streams. At this stage,
Wildlands believes most of these channels will be built using a
threshold channel approach with a sand and gravel substrate.
Existing Mitigation Site Designed
and Constructed by Wildlands
4.3 Riparian Restoration and Preservation
Ecological uplift will be accomplished by restoring agricultural row crop fields to a protected riparian
corridor. Riparian buffer restoration will involve planting appropriate native tree species within
unforested areas of the conservation easement. Herbaceous riparian vegetation will also be planted, but
additional herbaceous plants are expected to re-establish naturally and through the placement of a
native seed mix in disturbed areas. Live stake shrub species will be planted along restored streams.
Vegetation management and herbicide applications may be
needed over the first few years of tree establishment in the
riparian buffer restoration areas to prevent encroachment of
invasive species. Portions of the Site that have been maintained
as cleared agricultural fields may require little site preparation
other than select herbicide treatments or tillage to loosen
compacted soil.
The planting plan will be based on an appropriate nearby
reference community and past project experience. The plan will
be developed to restore appropriate strata (canopy, understory,
shrub, and herbaceous layers).
5.0 Proposed Mitigation
The mitigation stream credit calculations were derived using the US Army Corps of Engineers' Stream
Mitigation Guidance, and was based on Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum ecological uplift.
Given the existing conditions of the stream channels, riparian buffers, the disturbance factors, and the
constraints, management objectives for each reach have been established. The Site will be a
combination of stream restoration and preservation activities. Stream restoration is proposed at a ratio
of 1:1 and preservation is proposed at a ratio of 10:1. Preservation credits do not exceed 10% of the
proposed stream credits.
The Site is also proposed for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset mitigation. The mitigation
credit calculations for riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset credits were derived based on
Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum ecological uplift, the October 2020 Credit Calculation Tool,
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.12

the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295), and the Nutrient Offset Credit Trading
Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0703).
The management objective, the mitigation type, and proposed amount of mitigation for each option are
presented in Table F.8 below.
Table F.8
Mitigation Credits Proposed
Stream Credits
Reach
Management Objectives
Type of
Mitigation
Length
(feet)1
Ratio
Stream
Credits
RESTORATION
Casey
Creek R2
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile with Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration.
Install habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain
access. Establish native riparian buffer and exclude
agricultural activities.
Restoration
1,274
1
1,274
Casey
Creek R3
924
1
924
Afton
Branch
636
1
636
Martha
Branch
743
743
Restoration Subtotal
3,577
3,577
PRESERVATION
Casey
Creek R1
Protect with a conservation easement.
Preservation
1,734
10
173
Preservation total
1,734
173
TOTAL:
5,311
3,750
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoration:
350,810
350,810.000
Enhancement:
0
0.000
Preservation:
116,900
11,690.000
Total Riparian Buffer:
467,710
362,500.000
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient Offset.
Nitrogen:
172,534
9,003.077
Phosphorus:
0.000
6.0 Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
The Site is located on four parcels owned by two property owners. Option agreements for the project
area shown on Figure 7 have been signed by the property owners and the Memoranda of Option are
recorded at the Wayne County Register of Deeds. The option agreements allow Wildlands to purchase a
conservation easement on the project properties. The Memoranda of Option are valid for a minimum of
one year from the closing date of the RFP 16-20210201. Wildlands will convey the conservation
easement to the State to provide long term protection of the Site. The conservation easement
agreement will ensure the right of entry abilities of Wildlands, its contractors, and the future easement
holder in any future land transactions. Copies of the Memoranda of Option are included in the appendix.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.13

7.0 Scope of Work and Project Phasing
Table F.9 describes the tasks and deliverables required by the Scope of Work outlined in RFP 16-
20210201. Table F.10 provides the proposed schedule for accomplishing each Scope of Work task. The
Wildlands Team has experience handling tightly scheduled projects with multiple stakeholders. We
understand the importance of clear communication and adherence to deadlines. We will establish
additional internal deadlines to keep the project milestones on track. Each task will be staffed with the
appropriate technical and management staff to ensure quality and timely completion.
Table F.9 Summary Scope of Work
Task #
Task Name
Task Summary
DMS Deliverable
1
Environmental and
Project Screening
• Onsite meeting with the IRT and DMS
to discuss concepts of the mitigation
plan and obtain concurrence on
planned work and crediting.
Conduct DMS/FHWA guidelines for
environmental screening to identify
threatened/endangered species,
environmental, or cultural issues on
the Site.
• Secure DMS Full Delivery Landowner
Authorization Form (if applicable).
• Satisfy USACE public notification
process (if applicable).
• Approved Categorical Exclusion document -•
emailed Adobe PDF.
• IRT meeting minutes — emailed Adobe PDF.
• DMS Full Delivery Landowner Authorization
Form (if applicable).
• USACE Public Notice (if applicable).
2
Property
• Create conservation easement
documents and plats.
• Close and record the conservation
easement.
• 4 preliminary review items outlined in the
RFP, submitted electronically as defined in
Attachment H.
• 5 final deliverables outlined in the RFP,
submitted electronically and in hard copy as
defined in Attachment H.
• Installation of boundary marking
documented with As -Built survey during
Task 6.
3
Mitigation Plan (Final
Draft) and Financial
Assurance
• Develop a site specific mitigation plan,
appropriate for the Site.
• Revise per DMS and IRT review
comments.
• 2 hard copies and 1 electronic "Draft"
Mitigation Plan and survey.
• 3 hard copies and 1 electronic "Final Draft"
Mitigation Plan and survey.
• Performance Bond (may be retired after
completion of Task 6)
• 2 Completed PCN forms and 2 hard copies of
the "Final" Mitigation Plan. 1 copy of both
submitted electronically.
4
Permitting and
Earthwork
• Secure all necessary permits and/or
certifications for Site construction.
• Construct the Site.
• 1 electronic copy of approved permits prior
to beginning earthwork.
• Written notification of earthwork
completion.
5
Mitigation Site
Planting and
Installation of
Monitoring Devices
• Complete planting of Site.
• Install monitoring devices.
• Written notification of planting and
monitoring device installation completion.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.14

Task #
Task Name
Task Summary
DMS Deliverable
6
Baseline Monitoring
Report (Including As-
Built Drawings)
Approved by DMS
• Conduct baseline monitoring.
• Perform as -built survey.
• Prepare baseline monitoring
document.
• Prepare as -built survey drawings.
• Install easement markers and signage.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of "Draft"
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built
drawings. Electronic copies of surveys.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of "Final"
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built
drawings. Electronic copies of surveys.
7
Monitoring Year 1
• Monitor the Site.
• Prepare the monitoring report.
1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of each
"Draft" annual monitoring report. Electronic
copy of survey.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of each
"Final" annual monitoring report. Electronic
copy of survey.
8
Monitoring Year 2
• Monitor the Site.
• Prepare the monitoringreport. p p
9
Monitoring Year 3
• Monitor the Site.
• Prepare the monitoring report.
10
Monitoring Year 4
• Monitor the Site.
• Prepare the monitoring report.
11
Monitoring Year 5*
• Monitor the Site.
• Prepare the monitoring report.
12
Monitoring Year 6
• Monitor the Site.
• Prepare the monitoring report.
13
Monitoring Year 7
and Close -Out
Process
• Monitor the Site.
• Prepare the monitoring report.
• Prepare closeout report.•
• Attend closeout meetings and present
final project to IRT.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of the
"Draft" annual monitoring report and
closeout report. Electronic copy of survey.
1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of the
"Final" annual monitoring report and
closeout report. Electronic copy of survey.
* Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Closes Out after Monitoring Year 5
assuming site meets success criteria)
Table F.10
Project Schedule
Project Milestone
Proposed Time to
Completion
(from date of NTP)
Proposed Completion
Date (assuming NTP on
March 1, 2022)
Task 1. Regulatory Site Visit & Environmental Screening
3 months
June 1, 2022
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
1 year, 9 months
December 1, 2023
Task 3. Mitigation Plan Approved by DMS and Financial Assurance
1 year, 9 months
December 1, 2023
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
3 years
March 1, 2025
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting & Installation of Monitoring
Devices
3 years, 1 month
April 1, 2025
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report (Including As -Built Drawings)
Approved by DMS
3 years, 2 months
May 1, 2025
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS*
3 years, 9 months
December 1, 2025
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS*
4 years, 9 months
December 1, 2026
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS*
5 years, 9 months
December 1, 2027
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS*
6 years, 9 months
December 1, 2028
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS*
7 years, 9 months
December 1, 2029
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS*
8 years, 9 months
December 1, 2030
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS* and complete
Close -Out Process
9 years, 9 months
December 1, 2031
*Meets success criteria (schedule progression has been developed assuming that the site meets success criteria each monitoring
year)
qie Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.15

8.0 Performance Standards and Monitoring Plan
The performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the October
2016 IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidance, and DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and
Guidance (October 2020), and the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B.0295). Annual monitoring
and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the completed project. Specific
performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation.
Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven years of post -construction monitoring. An
outline of the performance criteria components follows.
8.1 Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration reaches should be stable
and should show little change in bankfull area, bank height ratio,
and width -to -depth ratio. Riffle cross sections should fall within
the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream
type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to
assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability.
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward
stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -
depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth.
Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a
movement toward stability.
In order to assess channel dimension performance, permanent cross sections will be installed on
restoration reaches per the IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines (October 2016). Each cross section will
be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. Cross section surveys will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Cross
section and bank pin surveys (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one, two, three, five,
and seven.
Example of a cross section survey
Profile and Pattern
Longitudinal profile surveys will be conducted during the as -built survey but will not be conducted
during the seven-year monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a
trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will
follow standards as described in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field
Technique (Harrelson et. al., 1994) for the necessary reaches.
Substrate
The proposed project features are consistent with sand bed streams. Due to the nature of substrate in
sand beds, pebble counts will not be performed.
8.2 Hydrology
Stream
Four bankfull flow events, occurring in separate years, must be documented on the restoration reaches
within the seven-year monitoring period. Stream monitoring will continue until success criteria in the
form of four bankfull events in separate years have been documented. Bankfull events will be
documented using photographs and an automated pressure transducer. The device will be installed in
the stream within a surveyed riffle cross section. Photographs will also be used to document the
occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.16

Where restoration activities are proposed for intermittent streams, monitoring gages will be installed to
track the frequency and duration of stream flow events. Continuous surface water flow within the
tributaries must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the seven-
year monitoring period. This 30-day period of flow can occur at any point during the year. Additional
monitoring may be required if surface water flow cannot be documented due to abnormally dry
conditions.
8.3 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria for the stream mitigation project will be the survival of 210 planted
stems per acre in the restored riparian areas at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven).
The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems
per acre at the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 planted stems per acre at the end of
the fifth year of monitoring. Also, trees must average seven feet in height at the end of the fifth
monitoring year, and ten feet in height at the end of the seventh monitoring year. The extent of invasive
species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period.
The final vegetative success criteria of the riparian buffer and nutrient offset project will be the survival
of at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring.
Vegetation monitoring quadrants will be monitored for seven years and will be installed across the Site
to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required will be
based on the October 2016 IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidance. Vegetation monitoring will occur in
monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven between July 1st and leaf drop and will follow the CVS-
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008) or another DMS approved protocol.
8.4 Other Parameters
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent mid -channel bars within the channel or vertical
incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane
arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at regular intervals along the channel by taking a
photo looking upstream and downstream. Cross sectional photos will be taken of each permanent cross
section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the
vegetation plots. Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point, cross section, and
vegetation plot will be taken when the stream and vegetation assessments are conducted. The
photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above. Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi-annual basis during the
seven-year monitoring period. Problem areas such as channel instability (e.g., lateral and/or vertical
instability, instream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetation health (e.g., low
stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species, or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access will be noted. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed and will be accompanied by a
written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent
visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, a plan of action will be provided in the annual
monitoring report.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.17

Benthic Macroinvertebrates
If required by NCDWR as part of the project's permitting process, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
will be performed on the restored Site. Any required sampling will be performed using NCDWR Standard
Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, February 2016
(Version 5.0).
8.5 Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the DMS As -Built Survey Requirement Document (October 2020), the Annual Monitoring Report
Template (October 2020), and the Record Drawings Requirement Guidance (October 2020), a baseline
monitoring document and as -built record drawings of the project will be developed for the constructed
Site. Annual monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to
DMS. These reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Template (October 2020). Full
monitoring reports will be submitted to DMS in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Abbreviated
monitoring reports will be submitted in monitoring years 4 and 6. Closeout monitoring period will be
seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance standards have been met.
8.6 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions if the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined above.
The project -specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an appropriate
threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions implemented will be
designed to achieve the success criteria previously specified and will include a work schedule and
updated monitoring criteria (if applicable).
9.0 Quality Control
The Wildlands Team takes pride in the quality of services that we deliver to
our clients. We strive to exceed our clients' expectations. To maintain the
highest level of quality, Wildlands has an established Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) protocol that every member of our staff
follows.
At the beginning of a project, the necessary level of QA/QC is determined
based on the size and complexity of the project. At a minimum, the project
manager and an assigned QA/QC manager will function to control the
quality of the project. The project manager provides day-to-day QA/QC and
may assign task leaders to provide task -specific quality control (QC)
functions. The QA/QC manager is a knowledgeable senior staff member
who is not assigned to function in a lead capacity on other areas of the
project. This provides the QA/QC manager objective views of the quality of
work.
Our QC program includes established procedures for processes performed
from project inception through implementation and monitoring of the
project. For example, Wildlands has developed standardized checklists and
pre -defined procedures for activities such as field surveys of stream cross -
sections and profiles, pebble counts, benthic surveys, bank stability assessments, natural channel
design, permitting, contract document preparation, post -construction baseline survey, and post
construction monitoring. The checklists are largely based on the most current DMS guidelines to ensure
that all required information is included in the correct format. Task leaders assigned for each activity
train project team members in the application of these procedures. The task leaders assist the project
manager by providing day-to-day QC functions, such as establishing clear decisions and directions to
ti
.o.,Cwab,,One
w wpm c.•
wB _
wry B1 01.
rt..•••a
0.1
ro NBiBB..1.1..B., .a •.vwwi
• 11,
• Ma
Fe ▪ ..*.
w
Awe. % Cam
Nww+v&
0,.44.m. ..r
tuuci.0 • Lan,.•
ram
... ,�..B
Rem am.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.18

team members in the field, checking the completeness and accuracy of checklists, constant supervision,
and documentation of all decisions, assumptions, and recommendations. The role of the project
manager in QC is to monitor and maintain project schedule and budget, address any concerns the client
may have, constantly assess company resources, and review all of the checklists.
During the conceptual and preliminary design stages, the project manager and the task leader will
perform a review of the design data, plans, technical specifications, and construction estimate for
accuracy, correct approach, and general overall quality of the product and compliance with DMS
formats before submission to the client. Sediment sampling, groundwater gage monitoring, and
pressure transducer surface flow monitoring are frequently used during the design phase to validate the
design criteria and analytical models. The project manager will perform a similar review at final design as
will the QA/QC manager. During the construction phase, the project manager and the construction task
manager will regularly meet to provide updates and discuss any issues. The goal of the QC process is to
provide the highest quality product to our client by completing tasks correctly the first time. By
completing procedural processes once, Wildlands helps ensure that we deliver the best products at a
minimum cost to our clients.
QA is performed to confirm that the QC program is effectively practiced, and to provide feedback on
further developments needed in the QC program. The QA/QC manager leads the QA program; however,
the project manager, task leaders, and project team staff also play large roles. It is each person's
responsibility to notify the QA/QC manager whenever discrepancies and inefficiencies are found in the
set of procedural activities that make up the QC process. The objective of QA is the continual
improvement of the total delivery process to enhance quality, productivity, and customer satisfaction.
We are continually improving the QC process so that our latest products and services are better than the
previous ones.
9.1 Deliverables
The project schedule is established during the scoping phases of a project and it is the project manager's
responsibility to maintain the schedule. A work plan is developed at the outset of a project and shared
internally with team members so that milestone deadlines and work requirements are clearly outlined.
Review time is built into this internal schedule to ensure that adequate review takes place.
The QA form, which is maintained by the QA/QC manager, is established at the beginning of the project
and is maintained throughout the life of the project. Reviews of technical data, design parameters,
reports, plan sheets, hydraulic models, and supporting calculations are tracked on the form. Included on
this form are requirements that a professional staff member, who is not involved in the project on a
day-to-day basis, review the design calculations, hydraulic models, reports, plans, and all other types of
project deliverables. Conformance with DMS report templates and a final grammar/spelling/formatting
review are also integrated into the QA review process.
9.2 Construction
Wildlands team members are familiar with the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to
construct natural channel design and stream and wetland mitigation projects. Wildlands has provided
construction administration and observation services for over 280 acres of riparian buffer mitigation,
219 acres of nutrient offset mitigation, and 115 miles of stream work. We believe that project
implementation is the ultimate key to a successful project and, to achieve this, it is extremely important
to have our most experienced staff members involved on all construction projects. Our team knows how
to oversee construction so that the project is completed on time and in compliance with all federal,
state, and local permits. Several members of the proposed project team have assisted with construction
services for the DMS restoration sites, many of which have performed successfully for multiple years.
Casey Creek Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.19

L
Project Location
5 Mile Radius
j--_--j County Boundary
Municipality
al8-DigitHUC
Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit) 111 NC Historic Preservation Areas
/1
03020201150050
47 •
Bentonville
Battlefield (NHL) I INk
_
1
0302020170010
Local Watershed Plans n Wildlands Mitigation Banks
Significant Natural Heritage Areas 303d Listed Streams
r- NC Nat. Heritage Program Managed Areas © Airports
IO ( Water Supply Watershed
Targeted Local Watersheds
-ter` ■ • ,�-- •
A �..! ..
-.��^+ 11
r - �.�( • i'-,�_ a - ,~
Project Location
\-?
Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program Easement
,f
—.•••
03030006090010 ,\
03030007010010
J
OWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Falling Creek
Mitigation Bank
t' r
= Grantham
Cox -Grantham Airfield
\• • Grantham Branch
Mitigation Bank
Falling Creek
•
• 7i i •
• • 03020201b700600
■' .l'•
Mill Creek Aquatic Habitat .;
•
r
r
~
J , Scottbrook Farm
,. \
,USFWS Critical Habitat - 03020201170 + I
Neuse River Waterdog Conservation Trust for / / • kr
North Carolina Preserve -
'1 -- s
0o 1 r C? - ;A'
•
i
0302 2011170040
raw ..•- ¢i s1Y
i - • • • T •
•
/- ,7 (
•1
03020201170050
03020201170030
-
i001` #
03030007010010
0 0.75 1.5 Miles
1 1 1
Figure la Vicinity Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

03020201150040
03030006
03030006090010
03030006090030
03030007010010
03020201150050
CREP Easement
03020201170010
03020201140010
Proposed Casey Creek
Mitigation Site
03020201170030
*Ma
03030007010010
03020201160010
Grantham Branch
Mitigation Bank
Falling Creek
Mitigation Bank
03020201170020
03020201200n10
8-Digit HUC
L.--i
14-Digit HUC
_I Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Conservation Easements
Streams
• Animal Operations (2019)
03020201170040
03020201170050
030300070200.10
'WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 0.5 1 Miles
11 1 1 I
Figure 1b Site Proximity Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

1
A
l l
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Incision
Erosion
Cross Section
Existing Drain Tiles
Non -Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
0 Bedrock
Headcut
OO Reach Break
Aerial hotogr
kitsif WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 150 300 Feet
I I I I I
Figure 2 Site Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

Grantham USGS 7.5Minute -
- Topographic Quadrangle '
i_,_ _ Proposed Conservation Easement
Ikitli,'WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 250 500 Feet
1 1 1 1 1
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

�'WILDLAND S
ENGINEERING
0 250 500 Feet
1 1 1 1
Figure 4 Lidar Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

Casey Creek
438 AC,
Martha Branch
71 AC
2017 Aerial Photography
Casey Creek Watershed
Subwatershed
Proposed Conservation Easement
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Afton Branch
210 AC
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 450 900 Feet
I I I
Figure 5 Watershed Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Dr- Dragston Loamy Sand
KaD- Kalmia Loamy Sand, 10-15% Slopes (Winton)
L Ke- Kenansville Loamy Sand
Ly- Lynchburg Sandy Loam, 0-2% Slopes
NoB- Norfolk Loamy Sand, 2-6% Slopes
Ra- Rains Sandy Loam, 0-2% Slopes
We- Weston Loamy Sand (Woodington)
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Non -Project Streams
41411' WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 250 500 Feet
I I I
Figure 6a Soils Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

1974 NRCS Soil Survey of Wayne County - Sheet 29
kitWILDLANDS
ENGINEERIN G
0 250 500 Feet
1
1 1 1
Figure 6b 1974 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

Parcels
Project Location
1 Proposed Conservation Easement
•
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (0-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (0-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credit (101'-200')
No Credit
® Proposed Internal Crossing
rOB
Existing External Crossing
Proposed Stream Restoration
■ Proposed Stream Preservation
Existing Drain Tiles To Be Removed
Non -Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
® Reach Break
Floodplain Pools
\2017 Aerial/Photogr
0141/r WILDLAN DS
ENGINEERING
0 150 300 Feet
Figure 7 Concept Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC

ok‘
INOLJ RY #: 6676512.5
YEAR: 1999
= 625'
N

INQUIRY #: 6676512.5
YEAR: 1983
625'
iI N
'EDR

625'
N
DR

INOL) RY #: 6676512.5 /1 N
YEAR: 1964
= 625' 'EDR

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 9 / i
i
Project/Site: cos ,i 1
Latitude:
Evaluator: CN / Y
County:
toa-V,mO -,
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if 99orperennial if>30*
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral In rmitten Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = (I. 10 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3••-)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
)
3 v.
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
al
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
Z
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
(17
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
CO
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
CO
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0 0.5
1
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No _0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
3-D
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
ccib
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
(9)
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
(9,..5,_)
,.
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high
ater table?
No = 0
(es = 3)
Bioloav (Subtotal
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)
0j
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
O]
1
2
3
22. Fish
(0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
(CI)
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
(0'b
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
€Fier
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
-�
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 /✓ c �J 3
Date: ?/ 2 -f f ,
I
Projectlsite: (i cry rl
Latitude:
Evaluator: C' 4/
County: Wit yx, £
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent -C
if _ 19 or perennial if a 30'
Stream Determination {circle
Ephemeral Intermittent erdnnia
Other
e_g Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = (I'")
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1B Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
C�
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
(3,
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
Q7,
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
®
1
2
3
7, Recent alluvial deposits
0
_
C
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
C ]
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
= 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = /0. 5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
C2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
(3
0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
C:t>
0.5
1
1,5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
�`%t5
1
1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
CYq
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
V
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
al
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1�7
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
C§=7
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
`0.5)
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
CI)
1.5
25. Algae
, 0
0.5
1.5 _
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; (9:13L' -1 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Corm Version 4.11 S. 4-1 qt^''I )3
Date: g12,L(/ ? I
ProjectiSite06e Lye( lr`
Latitude:
Evaluator: -
County: Wri
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is of least Intermittent 3 j
if z 19 or perennial if z 30'
Stream Determination (circle one
Ephemeral Intermittentfier al
Other i
e.g Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =__ '_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
(3.}
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
CP
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
(-12
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
C
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
CC
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 (2
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
a
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
a2
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 01-6-6-3")=
C. Biology (Subtotal = !O. 7
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
(1
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
CD
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0--)
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
r `1>
23. Crayfish
(0�
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
r'0:5.1
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;(gL =
� Other
= 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: q /7 Lj /z!
Project/Site: Cot Ct� tG
Latitude:
Evaluator:
C��yC !
County: 4
UiaA./in2
Longitude:
Total Points: j- 2 ir)
Stream is at feast intermittent
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent P real
p
Other
.g• Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = C�i_ )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
v
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
CD
2 .
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
(j
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
CO
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
(
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
J)
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
60
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
s = )
artificial ditches are not rated; see discu sions in manual
B. H drolo )
y gy (Subtotal =
12. Presence of 13aseflow
0
1
2
G
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
d)
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
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?
No = 0
es =_..'
C. Biology (Subtotal = \1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
'_2j
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
0
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
C1,.5)
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
�A'�W = t?; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC ❑WQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Ce/Se
Date: Ve1 2 f
ProjectSite: MA f11 k 15V
Latitude:
Evaluator: GA// J �j if
County: w; , �r/ £
l
Longitude:
Total Points:
Slream 8! least ir�termr[[enl
if ? f 0 or perennial if z 3e'
Stream Determinatia,� rcircle one)
Ephemeral lntermitte i erennial
Other
a g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_ )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
ep
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool. step -pool.
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
(3?
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
_rED
0
J)
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0-
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
()
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
(No
Yes = 3
B. Hydrology {Subtotal = 7z
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
( "I__-)
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
CrP
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
CEP
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
(0:)
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yet
C. Biology {Subtotal =
j
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
d
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
Q
2
1
0
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
_20.
21. Aquatic Mollusks
f{�]
1
2
3
22. Fish _
02
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
CO)
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
Z
0.5
1
1,5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; �t�L =1i1 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

0
a)
v
w
103
102
101
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
XS 4 - Afton Branch
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Existing Channel -ApproximateBankfull

104
103
102
101
100
0 99
> 98
v
w 97
96
95
94
XS 3 - Martha Branch
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
0 10
20
Station (ft)
30 40
r
-Existing Channel -ApproximateBankfull

102
101
100
99
Y
V-
98
0
97
„°M 96
95
94
93
XS 1- Casey Creek Reach 2
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
0
10
20
30
Station (ft)
40 50 60 70
-Existing Channel -Approximate Bankfull

104
102
•
...
C 100
0
.• 0
co
>
411 98
7.1
96
94
XS 2 - Casey Creek Reach 3
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
60 70 80 90
Existing Channel -Approximate Bankfull

Page 1 of 4
Type: CRP
Recorded: 10/11 /2021 4:10:03 PM
Fee Amt: $26.00 Page 1 of 4
WAYNE COUNTY, NC
CONSTANCE B. CORAM REGISTER OF DEEDS
BK3671 PG 511 -514
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attention: Matt Covington
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION AGREEMENT
This Memorandum of Option Agreement (this "Memorandum") is between Martha C. Kornegay,
Trustee, or her successors in Trust, under the Martha C. Kornegay Declaration of Trust, dated November
21, 2000 ("Seller"), and Wildlands Engineering, Inc., a North Carolina corporation ("Buyer").
This memorandum will become effective when all parties have signed it. The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this Memorandum is signed by the last party to sign it.
Seller does hereby give and grant to Buyer the right and option to purchase fee simple title to
portions of real property comprised of approximately 12.88 acres, 12.83 acres and 43.59 acres located at
3890 S US 13 Hwy in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, recorded in that County's Register of
Deeds at Book 1823, Page 155 (the "Property"). The Property is also identified as Tax Parcel Identification
Numbers 2546314958, 2546229607 and 2546335459.
This option expires on October 12, 2024 and the closing shall occur on or before the date that is
30 days after the option expiration.
The provisions set forth in a written Option Agreement between the parties with an effective date
of Seir}e.-o5er+ 7, 2021 are hereby incorporated in this memorandum.
Each party is signing this memorandum on the date stated below that party's signature.
submitted electronically by "wildlands Engineering, Inc."
in compliance with North Carolina statutes governing recordable docJme 5,'
and the terms of the submitter agreement with the Wayne County VP.�C1atter.5WTve tiger 511 Seq: 1

Page 2 of 4
BUYER: SELLER:
W!LDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina
corporation
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY, TRUSTEE, OR HER
SUCCESSORS IN TRUST, UNDER THE MARTHA C.
KORNEGAY DECLARATION OF TRUST, DATED
NOVEMBER 21, 2000
le"‘"-- $1 • Wi'Vk'`-- By ;71/41 .4" 0-1 iLut7
awn D. Wilkerson, President rtha C. Kornega Tr�i to
Date: I1.7 7/21 Date: 9---‘.2 / ` /N
2
Book: 3671 Page: 511 Seq: 2

Page 3 of 4
A&Gk Ie-i AO County, North Carolina
I certify that Shawn D. WiIkerson personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he
is President of Wildlands Engineering, Inc., a North Carolina corporation and that he, as President, being
authorized to do so, executed the foregoing on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Date:
(Official Seal)
„A OW tiiiiI4h
Notary Public
Meeklenbur
sueI- county
..'2�
Q
�•1,'fi��rH C ARO.�.
/306
Notary's printed or typed name
My commission expires: g ,24,
3
Book: 3671 Page: 511 Seq: 3

Page 4 of 4
LAdefaj e County, Aor )13 C JAI. (State)
I certify that Martha C. Kornegay personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that she
is Trustee of the Martha C. Kornegay Declaration of Trust, dated November 21, 2000 and that she, as
Trustee, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing on behalf of the Martha C. Kornegay
Declaration of Trust, dated November 21, 2000
Date:
q-.21-Z
(Official Seal)
D ficia e otary
,.r
,`'c��
ii 80�
My commission expires: L7 �i i Ea
Q puy�lic
otatV _
Y MeCoun s6
=4`
,fflr`'grH iC►� %;.0\
Notary's printed or typed name
4
Book: 3671 Page: 511 Seq: 4

Page 1 of 4
Type: CRP
Recorded: 10/11 /2021 4:13:26 PM
Fee Amt: $26.00 Page 1 of 4
WAYNE COUNTY, NC
CONSTANCE B. CORAM REGISTER OF DEEDS
BK3671 PG515-513
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wiidlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attention: Matt Covington
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
This Memorandum of Option (this "Memorandum") is between Johnnie Mangrum Brock
("Seller"), and Wildlands Engineering, Inc., a North Carolina corporation ("Buyer").
This memorandum will become effective when all parties have signed it. The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this Memorandum is signed by the last party to sign it.
Seller does hereby give and grant to Buyer the right and option to purchase mitigation use rights
on a portion of real property comprised of approximately 23 acres located at Paul Hare Road in Goldsboro,
Wayne County, North Carolina, recorded in that County's Register of Deeds at Book 915, Page 852 (the
"Property"). The Property is also identified as Parcel Identification Number 2546248066.
This option expires on October 12, 2024 and the closing shall occur on or before the date that is
30 days after the option expiration.
The provisions set forth in a written Option to Purchase Mitigation Use Rights between the parties
with an effective date of OCTCa3 TZ , 2021 are hereby incorporated In this memorandum.
Each party is signing this memorandum on the date stated below that party's signature,
1(1.1.21 tnlmtc
submitted electronically by "wildlands Engineering, Inc."
in compliance with North Carolina statutes governing recordable docJme
and the terms of the submitter agreement with the Wayne CountyV1404tter.5 �veJZtige: 515 Seq: 1

Page 2 of 4
BUYER: SELLER:
WiL€DLA DS ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina JOHNN!E MANGRUM BROCK
corpora n
By:
Shwn D. Wilkerson, President
Date:
/o/ 61 .2)
2
By:
Date: 10 — ‘Zol 4
Book: 3671 Page: 515 Seq: 2

Page 3 of 4
121eckfe-t3v j
County, North Carolina
certify that Shawn D. Wilkerson personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he
is President of Wiidlands Engineering, Inc., a North Carolina corporation and that he, as president, being
authorized to do so, executed the foregoing on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Date: /0-- 6. 2O•7)
(Official Seal)
Official Signature of Notary
,4obee+
w. 13,..„k5
Notary's printed or typed name
My commission expires:
3
Book: 3671 Page: 515 Seq: 3

Page 4of4
County, North Carolina
l certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he
or she signed the foregoing document:
L..� CA4c. ,i /•-• it", P A a 64.0 ! .A.
Date: lb Ga Z
(Official Seal)
Name of principal
(;k=Gte
Official Sign ture of Notary
-bAL.)l ,►.. N._.--ri4tfZb 2.
Notary's printed or typed name
My commission expires: 10 -22--Zy
4
Book: 3671 Page: 515 Seq: 4