Initial Evaluation Letter_Swiftie Mitigation Bank

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
March 28, 2023
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2019-00631
Re: NCIRT Initial Review of the Swiftie Mitigation Bank (Site) Prospectus
Ms. Catherine Roland
Water & Land Solutions
7721 Six Forks Rd. Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27699
Dear Ms. Roland:
This letter is regarding your prospectus document dated January 2023, for the
proposed Swiftie Mitigation Bank (Site). The proposal consists of the establishment of a
new 343-acre mitigation bank known as the Swiftie Mitigation Bank (Site), located in
Leggett, Edgecombe County, North Carolina (35.998400' N,-77.606200' W). The
proposed Swiftie Mitigation Site would include stream restoration, enhancement, and
preservation, in addition to wetland restoration activities within the Tar River watershed
(8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC): 03020101).
The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (P/N
# SAW-2019-00631) on February 06, 2023. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the
views of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or
affected by the proposed work. Incorporated in this email and attached are comments
received in response to the public notice from the North Carolina Department of Natural
and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
IRT COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
1. USACE Comments, Kim Isenhour:
a.) IRT would like to see a flow gauge on S200. B.) IRT requested a lateral
drainage effect analysis on the ditch to remain open adjacent to W02/03. c.)
Discussed adjusting the northwest corner of the easement boundary on S100 to
abut the PRM easement boundary. Also discussed potentially adjusting the
easement boundary near the preservation areas (S700/S500) so open pockets of
forest wouldn't be left unprotected.

The Corps has considered the comments received from members of the Interagency
Review Team (IRT) and information that was discussed during an IRT site review on
January 17, 2023. We have determined that the proposed mitigation bank appears to
have the potential to restore aquatic resources within the 8-digit HUC 03020101 of the
Tar River Basin; however, we request that you address the enclosed agency concerns
in the draft mitigation plan.
Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft mitigation plan
submittal. We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United
States. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [phone]
or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Casey M.
Digitally signed by
Casey M. Haywood
Haywood
Date:2023.03.28
10:06:52-04'00'
Tor Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division - Wilmington District
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
February 23, 2023
Kim Isenhour
The Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
Kimberly.D.Browningkusace. army.mil
Re: Establish PG Tar 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Swift (Swiftie) Creek Mitigation Site, Edgecombe
County, ER 19-2626
Dear Ms. Isenhour:
Thank you for your letter of February 06, 2023, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review&ncdcr�. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 30, 2022
Kim Isenhour
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Water and Land Solutions LLC; Swiftie Mitigation Site/ SAW-2019-00630/ Edgecombe
County
Dear Ms. Isenhour:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft mitigation prospectus for the
Swiftie Mitigation Site. Water and Land Solutions LLC (WLS) proposes a wetland and stream
mitigation project along Swift Creek, in the Tar River basin near Leggett, Edgecombe County,
North Carolina. The project includes potential stream restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of approximately 9,265 linear feet of stream reaches and the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of 140.47 acres of riparian and non -riparian wetlands. We regret
that Service staff were unable to participate in the field meeting at the site on January 17, 2023.
Federally Listed Species
The site is adjacent to occupied habitat for the Neuse River waterdog (NRWD) (threatened), and
the Carolina madtom (endangered), as well as critical habitat for both species. In addition, mist -
net surveys in July of 2018 captured a tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) (TCB) close to the
project boundary.
Tricolored Bat
The TCB is proposed for listing as endangered and a decision to list may be made as soon as
September 2023. If work is not completed (particularly tree removal and any culvert
modification/removal) before the listing decision, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
will need to consult with the Service on impacts from the project construction to TCB. The
prospectus and mitigation plan should document the occurrence of TCB on the property and
acknowledge that reinitiation of consultation will be required if the TCB is listed prior to
completion of the project. The Service hopes to have programmatic solutions in place prior to a
listing decision.
In the piedmont, TCB roost in trees during warmer months and roost or hibernate in culverts and
potentially bridges year-round. It is not well-known whether they may come out of the culvert
roost on warm winter nights, or whether they may roost in trees for any part of the winter. Tree
removal and culvert removal or modification may affect TCB if individuals of the species are
present. Until we have more information, we will probably treat the TCB similar to the northern
long-eared bat in the piedmont and rangewide. This means (if and when it is listed) that there
will be time of year restrictions on tree -cutting and also probably an acreage threshold in order to
make a determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In general, the Service will

expect tree cutting to avoid the late spring/summer pupping season. The pup season may begin
earlier in Edgecombe County than other parts of the range. For areas in the coastal plain (not far
east of this project) we will also likely have time of year restrictions to avoid the coldest months
when bats may be hibernating in trees and culverts (which makes it harder for them to wake up
and flee a felled tree or culvert that is being removed/modified). However, Edgecombe County
is not currently considered part of this year-round active area.
Neuse River Waterdog and Carolina Madtom
The Service is pleased to see the proposed restoration, enhancement, and preservation of
wetlands and buffers within and adjacent to the Swift Creek floodplain. No direct impacts are
anticipated to NRWD and Carolina madtom or the critical habitat for those species. The project
will likely benefit the aquatic species.
In Section 4.2.6 of the prospectus, the Service recommends adding a statement that the NRWD
and Carolina madtom are present in Swift Creek adjacent to the project, and there is the potential
for both species to be found in the lower tributaries of the site. The designation of critical habitat
for NRWD and Carolina madtom in this stretch of Swift Creek should also be discussed in
Section 4.2.6. The Service recommends deletion of the following sentence: "No potential
protected species occurrences were observed during initial site investigations." Because NRWD
and Carolina madtom are relatively small aquatic species that live on or near the bottom of
streams, the Service would not expect anyone to observe them during basic site investigations
without entering the water and conducting rigorous surveys. In addition, the last sentence of the
section should acknowledge that during the permitting process for the PRM project, the NRWD
and Carolina madtom were not listed, and critical habitat was not yet designated.
The Service recommends that the mitigation plan commit to implement stringent erosion control
measures during construction, including:
• A double row of silt fence, to ensure that erosion is captured effectively.
• Silt fence and other erosion control devices should not include outlets that discharge
closer than 50 feet to the top of bank of any stream.
• Silt fence outlets for each row of silt fence should be offset to provide additional
retention of water and sediment in the outer row.
• Conduct twice -weekly inspections of all erosion and sedimentation controls. In
addition to twice -weekly inspections, inspect also within 24-hours of rain events
(including a 1-inch total rain event or an event where rainfall rates are 0.3 inch/hour
or greater). Inspect all of the erosion and sedimentation controls to ensure the
integrity of the devices.
• Maintain all controls as necessary to ensure proper installation and function. Repair
and replace sections of controls as needed to minimize the potential for failure.
• Revegetate with native species as soon as possible.
• Any spills of motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, or similar fluids into the riparian
wetlands or floodplain must be reported to the Corps and Service immediately.
• Educate the construction crew about the presence of sensitive species by providing
information or installing signs on the silt fence. Attached is an example of such a
sign.
2

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the mitigation site
prospectus. Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Kathy
Matthews at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin,
Field Supervisor

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Meeting Minutes
Swiftie Mitigation Bank
Subject: NCIRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting
Date Prepared: January 18, 2023
Meeting Date and Time: January 17, 2023 @ 10:00 am
Meeting Location: On Site (Edgecombe County, NC) 35.9984° N,-77.6062' W
Attendees: USACE: Kim Isenhour, Casey Haywood (NCIRT)
WRC: Travis Wilson, Maria Dunn (NCIRT)
WLS: Kayne VanStell, Catherine Roland
George Lankford, LSS
Recorded By: Catherine Roland
These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) Draft Prospectus Site Meeting for the Swiftie Mitigation Bank (project, site). The
project site is located within Tar River Basin (CU 03020101) in Edgecombe County, near Leggett, North
Carolina. The meeting began at 10:OOam with a general summary of the overall project concepts and site
background. After the site overview, attendees toured the project site to review existing conditions,
proposed mitigation types, design concepts and approaches. In general, the project site review notes are
presented below in the order they were visited.
5100
• The meeting started with 5100, the group walked from the start of the reach into the wood line
where the project connects into a ditch and then the PRM Swift Creek Site. The group agreed to
the headwater restoration approach at a 1:1 ratio. There was a discussion to pay particular
attention to the removal of privet in this area during construction and emphasized importance of
a stable connection with the PRM reach.
5500
• The group then drove down to 5500 and stopped at the first existing culvert.
• There was discussion about the removal of the two culvert crossings and limited ditch fill along
5500. Kim stated that in the mitigation plan WLS should note how many feet of in channel work
is proposed and then propose a credit ratio for those areas we are working to remove the culverts.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
In the mitigation plan WLS should call out the stations in the text and write an explanation
justifying the proposed credit ratio.
• The IRT agreed with the preservation approach for S500 and S600 and connection with the PRM
reach. Travis and Maria stated that the 7.5:1 ratio was appropriate for the area considering the
quality of the preservation area.
• Kim stated that re -delineating the bottom of the project in the preservation area was not
necessary. Kim was going to look into the PJD files to see if the application was ever officially
signed.
• IRT requested that WLS show existing roads and existing culvert locations on the maps.
• WLS to remove small wetland area from mitigation credit along road and change to 'open water'
that used to be a borrow pit.
S300
• The group then drove across the field to lower S300 and began walking the stream preservation
area. The group agreed that even though this section of the channel was incised, there was
excellent vegetation establishment on the banks as well as adequate bedform diversity. The group
agreed with the preservation approach and proposed credit ratio.
• The group then walked upstream to the enhancement area. There was a general agreement that
enhancement was the appropriate approach. Kayne noted a combination of localized bank
stabilization, installing log/woody structures and privet removal would be implemented in this
reach section. Kim would like to know the percentage and type of work being done on the banks
in this reach. Knowing the percentage of work completed will determine the appropriate credit
ratio. This will be described in more detail within the mitigation plan stage of the project.
• The old house adjacent to reach will be removed from the easement.
• Discussion at the top of S300 about how the culvert will be removed and the ditch will be left
open to convey the water flowing out of W03 into S300.
W02 W03
• The group then walked along the ditch at the bottom edge of W02 and W03.
• Kim suggested a bump out of the easement of 50ft along the edge in order to protect the wetland
areas and limit crop loss/groundwater influence, if possible. Kayne noted that WLS owned the
property and can adjust the easement boundary as necessary.
• Kim mentioned that WLS might need to call some of the cliches something else (i.e., drainage
swale) if they are considered jurisdictional ditches. WLS would still get 1:1 ratio for wetland re-
establishment but, would have to show them differently on a figure.
• In the mitigation plan WLS to show which ditches will be filled, which will be modified/partially
filled, and which will be left open.
• Kim requested pre -restoration wetland gauges in this area.
• Group discussion of the existing ditch network and how it flows out at a point into S300. The group
agreed that this was an appropriate concept approach for the site.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
5200
• The group walked along the drainage swale towards 5200. The IRT agreed to the enhancement
approach for the bottom of 5200 and also agreed to the headwater restoration approach and
connection with lower 5200 at the top of the reach.
• Kim noted that there should be a discussion in the mitigation plan about the DOT culvert at the
top of the project, is it appropriately sized, vertical profile impacts, etc.? WLS to include a photo
and brief discussion.
• WLS noted that the powerline from highway ROW to house would be relocated outside of the
easement and spoil/floodplain areas would be regraded. IRT requested a call out on a map of the
power line.
Overall Notes
• Kim will look into existing PJD application from 2019 and coordinate with Catherine on the next
steps concerning the PJD.
• Travis suggested ongoing coordination with the TRLC to see how the plans for the property
outside the easement have changed since the original site plan, including the adjacent PRM site.
Include any land use changes and property management objectives in the mitigation plan.
• Catherine/WLS will coordinate nutrient/riparian buffer plan with Katie Merritt/DWR.
• Overall, the IRT agreed with the revised mitigation approaches proposed by WLS. WLS will submit
any updates and suggestions with the final prospectus.
The above minutes represent Water & Land Solutions' interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error, incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions
within five (5) business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111