20230026 Ver 1_Swiftie Draft Mitigation Plan_20230921

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank
Edgecombe County, North Carolina

Private Commercial Mitigation Bank for Stream and Riparian and Non-
riparian Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Credits
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (HUC 03020101)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2019-00631
DWR #: 20230026 v1

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343

Prepared by:

September 2023
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Bank Sponsor ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 6
2 Bank Establishment and Operation ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Site Selection ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Service Area .................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Site Protection Instrument ............................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Watershed Need and Feasibility ................................................................................................... 8
3 Baseline Information ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Watershed Characterization ......................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Surface Water Classification ................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Jurisdictional WOTUS ............................................................................................................ 9
3.1.3 NC SAM and NC WAM ......................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................................................ 10
3.3 Landscape Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Physiography and Geology .................................................................................................. 10
3.3.2 Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.3 Climate ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.3.4 Existing Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Existing Stream Conditions ......................................................................................................... 13
3.4.1 Geomorphic Assessment .................................................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Existing Reach Descriptions ................................................................................................ 15
3.5 Existing Wetland Conditions ....................................................................................................... 18
3.5.1 Plant Community Characterization ..................................................................................... 18
3.5.2 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................................................. 18
3.5.3 Soil Characterization ........................................................................................................... 19
3.6 Potential Site Constraints ............................................................................................................ 20
3.6.1 Existing Easements on the Site ........................................................................................... 20
3.6.2 Utility Corridors within the Site .......................................................................................... 20
3.6.3 Aviation Facilities ................................................................................................................ 20
3.6.4 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance .................................................................................... 20
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 3
3.6.5 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ..................................................... 20
3.6.6 Invasive Species Vegetation ................................................................................................ 20
3.6.7 Potential Future Site Risk and Uncertainties ...................................................................... 20
3.7 Regulatory Considerations .......................................................................................................... 21
3.7.1 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 21
3.7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 21
3.7.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology .......................................................................................... 22
3.7.4 Adjacent Land Use .............................................................................................................. 22
4 Functional Uplift Potential .................................................................................................................. 22
4.1.1 Restoration Potential and Project Benefits Summary ........................................................ 23
5 Determination of Credits .................................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Types .............................................................................................. 25
5.2 Credit Release Schedule .............................................................................................................. 26
6 Mitigation Work Plan .......................................................................................................................... 28
6.1 Design Approach ......................................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Headwater Valley Stream Approach ........................................................................................... 29
6.3 Design Criteria Selection ............................................................................................................. 29
6.3.1 Stream Design Reach Summary .......................................................................................... 30
6.3.2 Wetland Design Summary ................................................................................................... 32
6.4 Flow Regime ................................................................................................................................ 34
6.4.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge .............................................................................................. 35
6.4.2 Regional Curve Comparison ................................................................................................ 36
6.4.3 Channel Forming Discharge ................................................................................................ 36
6.4.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis ........................................................... 37
6.5 Reference Sites ........................................................................................................................... 38
6.5.1 Reference Streams .............................................................................................................. 38
6.5.2 Reference Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 39
6.6 Revegetation Plan ....................................................................................................................... 40
6.6.1 Planting Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 41
6.7 Site Construction Methods ......................................................................................................... 42
6.7.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements ............................................................................ 42
6.7.2 Stream, Wetland, and Floodplain Improvement Features ................................................. 43
6.7.3 Construction Feasibility ....................................................................................................... 43
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 4
6.7.4 Future Project Risks and Uncertainties ............................................................................... 44
7 Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................................................... 44
8 Performance Standards ...................................................................................................................... 45
8.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................... 45
8.2 Headwater Streams .................................................................................................................... 46
8.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 46
8.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 47
8.5 Invasive Species .......................................................................................................................... 47
9 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................................. 47
9.1 Stream Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 48
9.1.1 Hydrologic Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 48
9.1.2 Geomorphic Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 48
9.1.3 Flow Duration Monitoring................................................................................................... 49
9.1.4 Headwater Stream Monitoring ........................................................................................... 50
9.2 Wetland Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 51
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 51
9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring .................................................................................................... 52
10 Long-Term Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 53
11 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................................................... 54
12 Financial Assurances ........................................................................................................................... 54
13 References .......................................................................................................................................... 56

Tables
Table 1. Parcel Ownership Information ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 2. NCSAM/NCWAM Summary .......................................................................................................... 10
Table 3. Existing Project Site Vegetation ................................................................................................... 13
Table 4. Reach Watershed Drainage & Jurisdictional Status ..................................................................... 14
Table 5. Existing Channel Morphology Summary ...................................................................................... 14
Table 6. Function-Based Goals and Objectives Summary .......................................................................... 23
Table 7. Project Benefits Summary ............................................................................................................ 24
Table 8. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) ................................................................................ 25
Table 9. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs) ............................................................................ 26
Table 10. Credit Release Schedule ............................................................................................................. 27
Table 11. Proposed Design Parameters ..................................................................................................... 30
Table 12. Flow Level and Ecological Role ................................................................................................... 35
Table 13. North Carolina Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations ............................................................. 36
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 5
Table 14. Design Discharge Analysis Summary .......................................................................................... 37
Table 15. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power ................................................................................. 38
Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison ............................................................................................ 39
Table 17. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings ........................................................................... 41
Table 18. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding ........................................................................... 42
Table 19. Routine Maintenance Components ........................................................................................... 45
Table 20. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary ......................................................................................... 53
Table 21. Financial Assurances................................................................................................................... 55

Figures
Figure 1 ......................................................................................................................... Project Location Map
Figure 2 ........................................................................................................... Geographic Service Area Map
Figure 3 ..................................................................................................................... USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 .................................................................................................................................. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5a-5b .................................................................................................................................. LiDAR Map
Figure 6 ....................................................................................................................... FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 7a-7c ...................................................................................................................... Historic Aerial Map
Figure 8 ........................................................................................................ Existing Aquatic Resources Map
Figure 9 ................................................................................................... Proposed Mitigation Features Map
Figure 10 .............................................................................................................. Proposed Monitoring Map
Figure 11 .......................................................................................................................Proposed Buffer Map
Figure 12 ......................................................................................................... Reference Site Locations Map

Appendices
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................ Design Plan Sheets
Appendix B ................................................................................................... Existing Conditions Information
Appendix C .......................................................................................................................... Site Analysis Data
Appendix D ........................................................................................................... Site Protection Instrument
Appendix E ............................................................................................................ USACE Assessment Forms
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................... WOTUS Information
Appendix G ............................................................................................................... Agency Correspondence
Appendix H ........................................................................................................................... Site Photographs
Appendix I .......................................................................... DWR Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 6
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to submit this mitigation plan for the Swiftie Mitigation Bank
(“Bank”). WLS proposes to develop this private commercial mitigation bank in the Upper Tar River Basin,
8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020101. The Bank will include one project site named Swiftie
Mitigation Bank. The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits to
compensate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. authorized under section 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and all applicable state statutes. The project
site will provide 4,313.26 stream mitigation credits, 40.19 wetland credits, and 327 acres of easement
that will be protected in perpetuity.
This mitigation plan is prepared in accordance with C.F.R. §332.1-8 (2008), Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources, and is based on current United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) –
Wilmington District Guidance, which is subject to the approval of the USACE District Engineer (DE) in
consultation with the North Carolina Inter-Agency Review Team (IRT).
1.2 Bank Sponsor
WLS will serve as the Bank sponsor for the Swiftie Mitigation Bank. The contact information for the
sponsor is:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Attn: Catherine Roland
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
1.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The purpose of the proposed bank is to generate compensatory mitigation credits in the Tar River Basin
(HU 03020101). The mitigation goals and objectives will be based on the current resource condition and
functional uplift capacity of the project site watersheds to improve and protect aquatic resources
comparable to stable stream and wetland systems within the Inner Coastal Plain ecoregion Inner Coastal
Plain ecoregion. The proposed bank will address the general watershed goals and restoration opportunities
outlined in the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Tar-Pamlico River Basin Restoration
Priorities Plan (NCDMS RBRP, 2018). The project goals include the following components:
1. Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers,
2. Continue targeted implementation of projects under the Nutrient Offset and Buffer programs, as
well as focusing NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) sponsored restoration in areas where
they will provide the most functional improvement to the ecosystem,
3. Protect, augment, and connect Natural Heritage Areas and other conservation lands.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 7
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives will be measured to document overall project success:
• Provide a floodplain connection to incised streams by lowering Bank Height Ratios (BHRs) to less
than 1.2, thereby promoting stable channel conditions and more overbank flood flows,
• Improve bedform diversity by increasing natural scour pool spacing and depth variability,
• Improve water quality parameters by reducing nutrient inputs and treating agricultural runoff,
• Increase native riparian buffer and wetland vegetation density/composition along streambanks
and floodplain areas to meet a minimum 50-foot-wide and 210 stems/acre after the monitoring
period,
• Improve aquatic habitat and fish species diversity and migration through the addition of in-stream
cover and native woody debris,
• Site protection through a 327-acre conservation easement that will protect all streams, wetlands,
riparian buffers, and aquatic resources in perpetuity.
The existing conditions site assessment suggests that the proposed mitigation activities will result in a
higher functioning aquatic ecosystem. The project goals and objectives address water quality stressors by
reducing nutrient and sediment inputs through stream restoration, riparian buffer restoration, and
riparian wetland restoration. Raising the local water table will improve hydrologic functions and biologic
and habitat functions will improve by the revegetation of the riparian buffers.
2 Bank Establishment and Operation
2.1 Site Selection
The Bank (35.9984° N, -77.6062° W) is located in Edgecombe County, North Carolina (Figure 1) within the
Upper Tar River Basin (8-digit HUC 03020101). The Bank site will have an estimated conservation
easement of approximately 327 acres. The Bank is located directly adjacent to and on the same property
as the Swift Creek Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) project (SAW-2016-02338). The Swift Creek
PRM site is being used to mitigate impacts associated with the CSX Transportation, Inc’s Carolina
Connector Intermodal Terminal project, located along the western edge of Edgecombe County, north of
the City of Rocky Mount, and between the existing CSX mainline and Old Battleboro Road. The bank
project and PRM project occupy distinct drainages and are not hydrologically reliant on each other.
Located within the Upper Tar River watershed, the Swift Creek subbasin has been identified as possibly
the most significant lotic creek ecosystem remaining along the Atlantic Seaboard (Alderman, et al., 1993).
Swift Creek is a major tributary of the Tar River, flowing southeast from the City of Henderson in Vance
County, then through Warren, Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties to its confluence with the Tar
River above the Town of Tarboro in Edgecombe County. The overall goal of the mitigation site selection
process is to enhance and improve the protection of this critical resource.
To access the site from Raleigh, NC, follow I-40 East, take exit 14 for US-64 E/US-264 E toward Rocky
Mt/Wilson, then continue onto I-87, Continue onto US-64 E, take exit 470 for NC-97/Atlantic Ave, turn
right onto NC-97 E/Atlantic Ave, then turn right onto NC-97 E., Turn left onto New Hope Church Rd, turn
right onto Battleboro-Leggett Rd, turn left onto Speights Chapel Rd, turn right onto White Oak Swamp Rd,
and finally turn right onto NC-33 E. The site will be on the right in four miles.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 8
2.2 Service Area
The proposed Bank will provide compensatory mitigation credits for unavoidable impacts to waters of the
United States in the Upper Tar River Basin 8-digit HUC 03020101 Geographic Service Area (GSA) (Figure
2). Use of the Bank to compensate for impacts outside the GSA may be considered by USACE on a case-
by-case basis. The Bank will supply compensatory mitigation for stream impacts and riparian and non-
riparian wetland impacts.
2.3 Site Protection Instrument
The Sponsor owns the parcel on which the mitigation project will be developed, and a permanent
conservation easement will be placed on the property as part of the mitigation project. The Sponsor will
record a permanent conservation easement in the county Register of Deeds for the sites upon IRT bank
approval. WLS has provided the deed to show ownership of the parcel in Appendix D. The current property
owner information is listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Parcel Ownership Information
Owners of Record Parcel ID Number County Acres Deed Reference
Palustrine Group LLC
(Owned by WLS) 4812-20-1970 Edgecombe 595.68 1733/0006

The conservation easement will ensure that the site will be protected in perpetuity from land uses that
are inconsistent with the MBI. Apart from USACE-approved activities (in coordination with the IRT), the
site shall not be disturbed by activities that would adversely affect the intended extent, condition, or
function of the project. The conservation easement shall not be removed or modified without prior
written approval of the USACE.
2.4 Watershed Need and Feasibility
As a result of implementing this Bank, WLS will restore, enhance, preserve, and protect approximately
11,010 linear feet of stream and 133.35 acres of wetland to address components defined in the RBRP
(NCDMS, 2018). As a result of implementing this Bank, WLS will restore, enhance, preserve, and protect
approximately 11,010 linear feet of stream and 133.35 acres of wetland to address components defined
in the RBRP (NCDMS, 2018). In order to appropriately offset unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United
States associated with growth and development, the proposed Bank will improve water quality and
protect aquatic resource functions in the watershed.
The technical feasibility of the Bank is assured due to WLS’ extensive experience with stream and wetland
mitigation in North Carolina and throughout the Southeast. Examples of WLS’ success with stream and
wetland restoration include the WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank and the WLS Neuse 02 Umbrella
Mitigation Bank. The absence of fatal flaws, such as hydrologic trespass and threatened and endangered
species, means the Bank is unlikely to be impeded by resource issues or objections from adjacent
landowners.
In addition to the riparian wetland and stream restoration improvements associated with the proposed
project, the project will also utilize the NCDWR Nutrient Offset and Buffer Compensatory Mitigation
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 9
Program to establish nutrient offset and/or riparian buffer mitigation credits. The addition of extended
buffers and nutrient removal potential associated with the project will further enhance and improve
downstream water quality capabilities of the project in addition to improving habitat for a diverse suite
of species. The buffer and nutrient offset project will be developed and implemented concurrently with
the stream and wetland mitigation bank.
Areas within the project that will be utilized for nutrient offset and/or riparian buffer mitigation credits
will not overlap with the portions of the project where riparian wetland and stream mitigation credits are
being proposed (Figure 11). Nutrient offset and riparian buffer mitigation credit generation is discussed
in Appendix I of this document.
3 Baseline Information
WLS performed an existing conditions assessment for the site by compiling and analyzing baseline
information, aerial photography, and field data. The purpose of this assessment was to determine how
aquatic resource functions have been impacted within the catchment area. Parameters such as watershed
drainage area, percent impervious cover, land use, climate, and hydrology were evaluated. The following
sub-sections describe the existing site conditions, impairment, and primary controls that were considered
for developing an appropriate restoration design approach.
3.1 Watershed Characterization
3.1.1 Surface Water Classification
The Bank is situated within the Swift Creek watershed in the north-central portion of Edgecombe County,
NC. The project reaches include White Oak Swamp and Swift Creek, which both flow along the
southwestern border of the Bank site. Swift Creek (Stream Index 28-78-(6.5)) and White Oak Swamp
(Stream Index 28-78-7-(2)) are classified by the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources as ‘WS-IV’ and ‘NSW’
(Water Supply, Nutrient Sensitive Waters) waters within the project area downstream to their respective
confluence (Swift Creek and Tar River).
3.1.2 Jurisdictional WOTUS
WLS investigated on-site jurisdictional WOTUS using the USACE Routine On-Site Determination Method.
This method is defined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Atlantic and Gulf
Coast Plain Regional Supplement (v2.0). Stream classification utilized the NCDWQ Stream Identification
Form. Potential jurisdictional (JD) wetland areas as well as upland areas were classified using the USACE
Wetland Determination Data Form. The results of the on-site field investigation indicated that all Project
reaches were determined to be jurisdictional stream channels.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) was submitted in 2019 as a part of the Swift Creek
Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) Plan by the Palustrine Group. A portion of the parcel was used
for the PRM project, the remaining area of the parcel will be for the Swiftie Mitigation Bank. The signed
PJD is provided in Appendix F. The signed PJD is provided in Appendix F.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 10
3.1.3 NC SAM and NC WAM
WLS completed stream and wetland assessments using the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM,
Version 5.0, 2016) and NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM, Version 2.1, 2015). WLS evaluated the
NC WAM and NC SAM metrics relevant to the Bank wetland areas and stream reaches (See Appendix E).
The Bank reaches scored ‘Low’ in the proposed restoration areas and ‘High’ in the preservation areas.
Stream S400 was not rated because it is proposed for buffer mitigation. Wetland areas W01, W02, W04,
W05 and W06 are classified as jurisdictional wetlands and were assessed using NC WAM. Wetland area
W03 is not considered a jurisdictional wetland but contains hydric soils and is proposed for non-riparian
wetland re-establishment. It is expected that as a direct result of plugging and filling ditches as well as
revegetating these areas, wetland functions will be restored. The ecological assessments also
incorporated qualitative and quantitative observations using historic aerials, field evaluations, and
detailed topographic survey data collected across the site. The conclusions from these assessments help
describe the current stream and wetland conditions and functional ratings, however, these methods are
not intended for determining mitigation success on the site.
Table 2. NCSAM/NCWAM Summary
Reach
Name S100 S200
Lower/Upper
S300
Lower/Upper S400 S500 S600 S700
NCSAM
Rating Low Medium/Medium High/Lower - High High High
Wetland
Name W01 W02 W03 W04 W05 W06
NCWAM
Rating Low Low Low High High High
3.2 Land Use and Development Trends
The Swift Creek watershed is primarily agricultural or forested undeveloped parcels that are privately
owned. The Bank will extend the wildlife corridor and protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the project
area through a permanent conservation easement (Figure 9). Currently, the project area consists of mostly
row crops (cotton) that have been in near-continuous production for several decades. A review of
topographic maps, field investigations of on-site soils, stream and wetland conditions, and LiDAR survey
data provides clear evidence that the valley morphology and catchments support a Coastal Plain stream
and riparian wetland system.
The surrounding areas remain a largely agricultural community with some neighboring forested property
and low-density home sites. US Census data indicate the community of Legette, NC is very small and has
been declining in population for several years. Based on historic aerial photo review and development
data, the project area and watershed has not appreciably changed or developed in several decades and
will likely remain in dominant agricultural use for the foreseeable future.
3.3 Landscape Characteristics
3.3.1 Physiography and Geology
The Upper Tar River Basin drains two EPA Level III ecoregions: Piedmont and Southeastern Plains. The
upper reaches of the watershed cover the transitional Piedmont ecoregion (45). The subbasin is
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 11
represented by several EPA Level IV ecoregions including the Northern Outer Piedmont (45f), portions of
the Triassic Basin (45g) and Carolina Slate Belt (45c). The lower reaches of the watershed are within the
Southeastern Plains ecoregion (65). The subbasin is represented by two EPA Level IV ecoregions: the
Rolling Coastal Plain (65m) and Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces (65p). Streams in the
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces are usually large, low gradient rivers and backwaters with
ponds, swamps, and oxbow lakes. This ecoregion also provides important wildlife corridors and habitat
(Griffith, 2002).
The geologic unit at the project site is classified as ‘Tpy’ Yorktown Formation and Duplin Formation,
Undivided. This type of sedimentary rock is characterized by underlying fossiliferous clay with varying
amounts of fine-grained sand, bluish gray, shell material commonly concentrated in lenses, mainly in area
north of Neuse River. The Duplin Formation is characterized by shelly, medium-to coarse-grained sand,
sandy marl, and limestone, bluish gray; mainly in area south of Neuse River (NCGS, 1985).
3.3.2 Soils
As shown on the NRCS Soils Map (Figure 4), there are fifteen mapped soils series existing in the floodplain
soils surrounding the project reaches: Altavista fine sandy loam (AaA), Ballahack fine sandy loam (Ba,
hydric), Chewacla silt loam (Cc), Conetoe loamy sand (CeB), Dogue fine sandy loam (DgA), Goldsboro fine
sandy loam (GoA), Norfolk loamy sand (NoB), Rains fine sandy loam (RaA, hydric), Roanoke loam (Ro,
hydric), State loamy sand (StB), Tarboro loamy sand (TaB), Wagram loamy sand (WaB), Wahee fine sandy
loam (We), and Wehadkee silt loam (Wh, hydric), Wickham sandy loam (WkB). It is anticipated that as a
direct result of implementing headwater stream restoration, ditch plugging, and revegetation, the natural
wetland hydrology will be restored and allow the wetlands to regain their natural/historic functions.
On-site hydric soil investigations of the project areas proposed for wetland restoration were conducted
in July 2022 by a licensed soil scientist (LSS), George K. Lankford, LSS, with George K. Lankford, LLC
(Appendix B). The findings were based on hand-turned auger borings. Two hydric soil map units were
found that were historically a single contiguous wetland. One is likely a jurisdictional wetland and the
other unit lacks hydrology. Mr. Lankford noted that areas of existing hydric soils have been manipulated
by a combination of past and current agricultural and silvicultural practices (i.e. lateral ditching).
3.3.3 Climate
Edgecombe County is generally hot and humid in the summer, and winter is moderately cold but short
(USDA, 1979). Edgecombe County is generally hot and humid in the summer, and winter is moderately
cold but short (USDA, 1979). The average growing season for the Bank site is 254 days, beginning March
15th and ending November 24th (Tarboro 1 S; NOAA, NC WETS table). The average annual precipitation in
the Bank area is approximately 46.3 inches with a consistent monthly distribution, except for convective
storm events or hurricanes that occur during the summer and fall months. Since January of 2020, the rain
gauge at the Tarboro 1 S station has recorded 167.54 inches of rain.
3.3.4 Existing Vegetation
The current use within the project area is primarily agriculture fields and forested wetlands. The
northeastern portion on the site closest to Highway 33 has a horseshoe-shaped area of forested wetlands
that encompasses S200. The natural community in the agricultural fields has been effectively removed
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 12
through tillage, ditching, agriculture, and silviculture. These practices have removed native vegetation and
have altered the hydrology of the site in order for row crops to be successful. These practices have
removed native vegetation and have altered the hydrology of the site in order for row crops to be
successful. The southwestern portion of the proposed easement includes large wetlands located within
the floodplain of Swift Creek & White Oak Swamp. The southwestern portion of the proposed easement
includes large wetlands located within the floodplain of Swift Creek & White Oak Swamp. Prior to
anthropogenic land disturbances, the riparian vegetation community likely consisted of Bottomland
Hardwoods in the floodplain of Swift Creek/White Oak Swamp and a Mesic Mixed Hardwood community
in the existing agricultural fields and forested area encompassing S200 (Schafale, 2012).

S100: Most of the upstream portion flows through agricultural fields. The lower portion crosses into the
forested area and ends in a wetland. Within the forested area, the canopy is dominated by larger
hardwoods such as red maple and sweetgum. These species are also present as saplings and shrubs in the
understory. Giant cane and Japanese stiltgrass are present within the wetland and along streambanks.
Vine species include greenbriers.

S200: This reach is within the western portion of the horse-shoe shaped forested wetland near Highway
33. Successional tree canopy consists of red maple, sweetgum and slippery elm. The understory and
herbaceous species are sparse, with limited Chinese privet, greenbrier, and Japanese stiltgrass.

S300: The riparian buffer along the entire length of S300 is partially to mostly wooded, however, the
understory contains limited invasive species vegetation, mainly Chinese privet. Canopy cover includes red
maple, loblolly pine, tulip poplar, and sweetgum. Smaller white oak, sweetgum and southern wax myrtle
are present as saplings and shrubs. Ground cover species include giant cane, netted chain fern, cinnamon
fern, switchgrass, false nettle, and greenbrier.

S400: This reach flows along the edge of agricultural fields with a partially wooded riparian buffer. Canopy
species include red maple and sweetgum, with additional saplings and shrubs present in the understory.
Japanese stiltgrass is present along the streambanks. Vine species consists of poison ivy and greenbrier.

S500, S600 and S700: These streams flow through a wetland network located within the floodplain of
Swift Creek & White Oak Swamp. Native woody vegetation is present along all three reaches. In the
canopy there is red maple, sweetgum, loblolly pine, river birch, and slippery elm. These species are also
present as saplings and shrubs in the understory with some American sycamore present as well.
Herbaceous species such as giant cane, Japanese stiltgrass, and netted chain fern are spread throughout.
Vines include false nettle and greenbrier.

Invasive Species Vegetation: There is a large presence of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) within W01,
W02, and W03 in the project area. After restoration, these areas will be monitored, and any invasive
plants found within the project boundary will be treated to prevent expansion and establishment of a
substantial invasive community. This will allow for a healthy, native riparian and upland plant community
to dominate the area and help prevent future establishment of invasive species vegetation.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 13
Table 3. Existing Project Site Vegetation
Common Name Scientific Name
Canopy Vegetation
Red maple Acer rubrum
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
River birch Betula nigra
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra

Understory & Woody
Shrubs
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
Red maple Acer rubrum
Southern wax myrtle Morella cerifera
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis
River birch Betula nigra
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra
White oak Quercus alba
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense

Herbaceous & Vines
Giant cane Arundinaria gigantea
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum
Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum
Roundleaf greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Cinnamon fern Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica
Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Invasives Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
3.4 Existing Stream Conditions
3.4.1 Geomorphic Assessment
WLS conducted geomorphic assessments of the Bank reaches to determine the current stream function,
channel stability, and impact of past and current land use on the Bank’s aquatic resources. From historical
aerial research, evidence was found to demonstrate that most of the Bank area has been heavily impacted
from historic and current land use practices. A further review of topographic maps, field investigation of
on-site features, stream and wetland reference data, and LiDAR imagery (Figure 5a-5b) provide clear
evidence that the existing channel conditions appear to be indicative of valley signatures, valley slopes,
and drainage basins that support headwater stream and wetland systems.
The streams were broken down into seven reaches (S100, S200, S300, S400, S500, S600 and S700) totaling
approximately 11,010 linear feet of existing streams. Field evaluations determined that a portion of
project reaches S300, S400, S500, and S600 are perennial streams. Stream reaches S100, S200, S700 and
portions of reaches S300, S400, S500, and S600 are anticipated to be intermittent. Table 4 provides reach
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 14
designations, approximate drainage area, stream status based on field analysis, and NCDWR stream
classification form score.
Table 4. Reach Watershed Drainage & Jurisdictional Status
Project Reach
Designation
Drainage
Area (ac)
Drainage Area
(mi2)
Stream Status Based
on Field Analyses
NCDWQ Stream
Classification
Form Score
S100
(Previously UT-C) 32 0.05 Intermittent 25.5
S200
(Previously UT-E) 90 0.140 Intermittent 24.25 (upper)
21.0 (lower)
S300
(Previously UT-D) 44 0.069 Intermittent/Perennial 24.5 (upper)
30.5 (lower)
S400
(Previously UT-H) 468 0.732 Intermittent/Perennial Not scored
S500
(Previously UT-A) 279 0.436 Intermittent/Perennial 32.5
S600
(Previously UT-A) 348 0.543 Intermittent/Perennial 31.0
S700
(Previously UT-J) 33 0.052 Intermittent 26.5
Note: Different stream names were used in the approved PJD than what are being used for the Swiftie Mitigation
Bank. Both the current reach names and the old reach names are listed in Table 4.
The existing project reaches S100, S200, S300, and S400 have been degraded as a result of historic and
current land use practices, including agriculture and silviculture. Agricultural practices, including
channelization and routine maintenance, have severely impacted portions of the project reaches. The
project streams are incised with documented channel manipulations (i.e. straightening, widening) and
associated bank erosion. Clearing of stream buffers for agricultural purposes has removed or reduced high
functioning riparian buffers. Currently, project reaches S100, S200, S300 and S400 are sources of sediment
and nutrient contamination to the Swift Creek watershed. Table 5 characterizes the existing stream
morphology based on general descriptions, channel evolution (Simon, 1989) and Rosgen stream
classification (Rosgen, 1994).
Table 5. Existing Channel Morphology Summary
Project Reach
Designation
Existing
Length (LF)
Entrenchment
Ratio (ER)
Width/Depth
Ratio (W/D)
Bank
Height
Ratio (BHR)
Existing Channel Type
(Rosgen Classification)
S100 996 1.5 11.9 4.7 G5
S200 1,111 13.5 51.4 1.0 G5/DA
S300 1,944 1.1, 2.9 7.8, 2.6 3.7, 2.3 G5/incised E5
S400 692 1.7 8.6 3.6 G5
S500 2,498 6.1 28.3 1.0 C5
S600 1,389 6.8 22.3 1.0 C5
S700 635 3.0 49.3 1.0 C5
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 15
3.4.2 Existing Reach Descriptions
S100: S100 is a small headwater tributary that
has been historically manipulated and
channelized; however, it appears to generally
be within the natural valley/low point along
most of its length. The valley slope is
approximately 0.8 percent, and the drainage
area is 32 acres. The majority of the drainage
area for S100 is in active agricultural
management. Because the stream system has
been channelized, the sinuosity is low
(k=1.04). S100 has a top width of
approximately 13.0 feet and a depth of 2.4
feet. The typical BHR is 4.7 and ER is 1.5. The
riparian buffer along upper S100 is actively
maintained within the agricultural fields and
composed of woody vegetation in the lower
end. The lower section in the wooded area
has downcut to the natural floodplain elevation but remains mostly stable. Based on the channel
conditions and historic anthropogenic disturbances, including channelization, S100 most closely
resembles a Rosgen ‘G5’ stream type. S100 drains into the PRM project easement.
S200: S200 is small headwater tributary that
begins at an existing culvert crossing under
NC Hwy 33 and flows southeast as an
intermittent headwater tributary. S200 has
a valley slope of 0.7 percent and drainage
area of 90 acres. Based on field
observations, the headwater stream
channel and floodplain have been ditched in
an attempt to drain surface hydrology for
agricultural use. The historic channel
manipulation in the upper section has led to
poor bedform diversity. The lower reach is
mostly stable with limited bank erosion
observed in a few localized areas.
Successional native woody vegetation was
observed along most of this reach;
however, Chinese privet was also documented. Successional native woody vegetation was observed along
most of this reach; however, Chinese privet was also documented. Based on the existing channel
conditions and anthropogenic disturbances, S200 is classified as a Rosgen ‘G5/DA’ stream type.
S100 looking downstream showing channelization and
adjacent agricultural fields with lack of native buffer
vegetation.
Looking upstream on S200 showing ditched conditions
with poor bed and bank definition.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 16
S300: S300 is headwater tributary that
originates from a heavily ditched area
containing hydric soils. The stream has been
channelized and straightened along its
upper length. Upper S300 is highly incised
and lacks natural bedform features. The
valley slope is approximately 0.5 percent,
and the natural drainage area is 44 acres,
which excludes the ditched non-riparian
wetland area. Because the upper channel
has been heavily manipulated, the sinuosity
is low (k=1.07). The typical BHR for upper
S300 is greater than 3.0 until the reach slope
flattens as it transitions towards the Swift
Creek floodplain and meander cutoff.
Although the lower reach is moderately
incised, it is mostly stable and experiencing localized lateral instability and bank erosion. The riparian
buffer along the entire length of S300 is partially to mostly wooded, andhoweverand, the understory
contains limited invasive species vegetation, mainly Chinese privet. Based on the existing conditions, S300
is classified as a Rosgen ‘G5/incised E5’ stream type.
S400: S400 begins downstream of an existing
culvert under a farm access road. S400 has
been channelized and straightened along
much of its length, as evidenced by the spoil
piles and levees along the floodplain. S400
BHR is 3.6 and ER is 1.7 and lacks natural
bedform features until the stream begins
downcutting towards the Swift Creek
floodplain and meander cutoff. This reach
exhibits localized streambank erosion and
associated soil loss. The valley slope is
approximately 0.9 percent, and the drainage
area is 468 acres. The majority of the drainage
area for S400 is within active agricultural
fields with an adjacent forested area. Because
the stream system has been channelized, the
sinuosity is very low (k=1.02) and typical BHR for S400 is greater than 2.0. The riparian buffer along the
entire length is partially wooded. Based on the existing conditions and sand and clay bed materials, S400
is classified as a Rosgen ‘G5’ stream type. This reach is not proposed for stream credit.
S500: S500 begins immediately downstream of the PRM project boundary and connects with a restored
stream system that flows towards the Swift Creek floodplain. S500 has a valley slope of 0.14 percent and
drainage area of 279 acres. Based on field observations, the channel flows across meander cutoffs and
backwater sloughs, although portions of the channel and floodplain areas appear to have been historically
S400 looking upstream showing channelization with
wooded buffer.
Looking upstream along S500 showing stable,
meandering channel.
Looking upstream at incised channel conditions along
S300 (enhancement area).
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 17
ditched. The reach is stable and native woody vegetation was observed along a majority of this reach.
Based on the existing channel conditions and limited anthropogenic disturbances, S500 is classified as a
Rosgen ‘C5’ stream type.
S600: S600 continues downstream of S500 and
eventually flows off the project boundary
towards its confluence with Swift Creek. S600
has a valley slope of 0.24 percent and drainage
area of 348 acres. Similar to S500, the channel
flows across meander cutoffs and backwater
sloughs, although some channel and floodplain
areas appear to have been historically ditched.
The reach is stable and native woody vegetation
was observed along most of this reach. Based on
the existing channel conditions and limited
anthropogenic disturbances, S600 is classified
as a Rosgen ‘C5’ stream type.

S700: S700 is a small headwater tributary
that flows directly into White Oak Swamp.
The valley slope is approximately 0.6
percent, and the drainage area is 33 acres.
The reach is stable and exhibits minimal bank
erosion. The channel appears to be within its
natural valley, and the existing buffer is well
vegetated. This headwater stream and
wetland system is considered to be high
functioning, and the existing riparian buffer
helps to filter pollutants (nutrients) that
would otherwise go straight into White Oak
Swamp. Based on the existing channel
conditions and limited anthropogenic
disturbances, S700 is classified as a Rosgen
‘C5’ stream type.

S600 downstream view demonstrating native woody
vegetation and a stable stream channel.
Looking upstream along S700 showing vegetated
buffer and stable bedform conditions.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 18
3.5 Existing Wetland Conditions
3.5.1 Plant Community Characterization
The existing vegetation community is a mature forest comprised of red maple, sweet gum, loblolly pine
and water oak. A sparse understory is comprised of red maple, American hornbeam, and sweetgum. A
herbaceous layer including Christmas ferns, greenbrier, and poison ivy are also present. W04, W05, and
W06 are verified jurisdictional wetlands proposed for wetland preservation. W04, W05, and W06 are
verified jurisdictional wetlands proposed for wetland preservation. W01 is also a verified jurisdictional
wetland that is proposed for wetland enhancement. W02 is a verified non-riparian wetland that is
proposed for wetland enhancement. It is expected that as a direct result of plugging and filling floodplain
ditches, implementing the stream restoration and stream enhancement along S200, and revegetation in
these areas, wetland functions will be restored to W01 and W02.
W03 is not considered a jurisdictional wetland but contains hydric soil areas proposed for non-riparian
wetland re-establishment. It is expected that as a direct result of plugging and filling ditches and
revegetation in these areas, wetland functions will be restored. All existing and proposed wetlands have
a continuous surface connection with a permanent water (stream).
3.5.2 Hydrological Characterization
Site hydrology for this landscape setting is derived from a combination of upland runoff and groundwater
seepages present along the upper terrace slopes. Combined with slow runoff from these depressional
terrace landforms, the drainages contain jurisdictional wetlands throughout the delineated hydric soils.
Groundwater discharge also provides a significant source along slope breaks and floodplains of White Oak
Swamp and Swift Creek. Historically, the groundwater table in the upper site was likely higher due to the
concave landscape and the restrictive, clayey subsoil perching the water table.

The existing channelized streams have a network of lateral ditches, surface modifications, and shallow
crowning which prevent prolonged surface ponding, lower the groundwater table, and limit the natural
wetland hydroperiods. The streams represent a significant source of hydrology at the site along with
numerous seepage areas present along the edges of the floodplain. Many of the shallow ditches have
been dug to remove slope seepage adjacent to the fields. Based on the location and elevation of hydric
soils, the site will provide adequate hydrology to support wetland restoration across the site.

Five (5) automated groundwater wells were installed on site to evaluate the range of hydrologic conditions
within the Bank. One well was located in the jurisdictional wetland W01 and one in W02. Three (3) wells
were placed in the hydric soils area where wetland re-establishment is proposed. This well data will help
provide the basis for comparing pre- and post-construction groundwater hydrology. The wells were
installed in March 2023 and the data summary is included in Appendix B. WLS will identify trends in water
table depth throughout the pre-restoration monitoring period that reflects seasonal rainfall as well the
hydrologic interaction with the disturbed stream. The automated data loggers (HOBO U20L-04) are
programmed to record water table levels every 12 hours.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 19
3.5.3 Soil Characterization
Detailed soils mapping, conducted by a licensed soil scientist (George K Lankford, LLC), determined that
jurisdictional wetlands and hydric soils are present within the Bank area (See Figure 8 and Hydric Soils
report in Appendix B). The soil borings exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface
within floodplain depressions and drained soils across the site. Approximately 162 shallow borings ranging
from 18 to 40 inches were evaluated to characterize the soils and delineate the hydric soil boundaries.
Based upon field observations, the actual site conditions appear representative of the expected range of
soil characteristics described by NRCS mapping units with hydric soils present in the floodplains.
The soil evaluation found hydric indicators throughout large areas of the floodplain. Based on recorded
profiles, the most common hydric soil indicators were A11- Depleted Below Dark Surface and S7- Dark
Surface. All hydric soil profiles recorded meet a dark surface indicator. In addition to these indicators, soil
borings exhibited indicators including A9- 1-cm Muck, A12- Thick Dark Surface, S5- Sandy Redox, F3 -
Depleted Matrix, F6 - Redox Dark Surface, and F13 – Umbric Surface. Subsoils below the dark surface often
exhibited distinct redoximorphic mottles. The deep dark surfaces observed contain high organic content
and require long periods of saturation or inundation for development.

Historically shallow depressions and mucky textured surfaces were likely more common prior to
cultivation. To form the thick black surfaces and mucky layer of these soil indicators suggest this site was
historically very wet and contained areas having long term seasonal saturation to semi-permanently
flooded conditions. Drainage and tillage of soils results in increased aeration of surface horizons, leading
to higher soil temperatures that increase microbial oxidation of organic carbon. Cultivation destroys
indicators such as the A9, S5, and F6 indicators by destruction of mottles and mixing of thinner layers of
organic muck. Historically mucky textured surfaces were likely more common prior to cultivation due to
the concave topography of this site. The loss of soil organic material eventually results in a loss of the
darker surface color. This loss of organic matter was observed in the black surface color in the existing
wetland areas compared to the soils found in the field.

The hydric soils in the floodplain of this project reflect characteristics of the NRCS map units, most
notably the Roanoke soil. Based on mitigation guidance for Common Coastal Plain Soils Series (US Army
Corps of Engineers 2016), the Roanoke series (Typic Endoaquults) is expected to have a natural
hydroperiod of between 9 and 12 percent during the growing season where the water table is within 12
inches of the surface. Along the edges of the toe of slope, soils appear to be most similar to the Rains
series. Mitigation guidance for a Rains soil (Typic Paleaquults) is expected to have a natural hydroperiod
of between 10 and 12 percent. After restoration, due to natural variations in local topography and
internal drainage of soils in the floodplain, a local hydroperiod slightly higher or lower than this guidance
is expected. Areas having slightly higher elevations may experience slightly lower hydroperiods while
depressional areas should exceed 16 percent. Upland soils surrounding the floodplain are not included
in the Corps guidance and are not anticipated to have significant hydroperiods.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 20
3.6 Potential Site Constraints
3.6.1 Existing Easements on the Site
The Bank conservation easement is located on the same parcel as the conservation easement of the Swift
Creek PRM Mitigation Project. The Swiftie Bank easement will be contiguous with the Swift Creek PRM
easement in a few areas.
3.6.2 Utility Corridors within the Site
An overhead powerline easement is located outside of the conservation easement at the top of S200.
3.6.3 Aviation Facilities
Based on a review using Google Earth, the nearest airport to the project site is Tarboro-Edgecombe
Airport, which is located approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the site. The project is not anticipated to
affect aviation. There are no other aviation facilities within five miles of the project area.
3.6.4 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance
There are no known mineral or surface water rights issues within or adjacent to the site properties.
3.6.5 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program’s
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panel 3720480200K, 3720481200K, 3720480100K and
3720481100K, effective June 2, 2015, found that the lower portions of S100, S300 as well as the entirety
of S500, S600 and S700 are located within the FEMA regulated floodplain (“Zone AE and the Floodway”)
(Figure 6). WLS analyzed the potential impact of any grading or construction activities and submitted the
required documentation to Katina Braswell, Planning Director of Edgecombe County. Based on the project
design, there will be no grading or construction activities located within the Swift Creek regulatory
floodplain. Therefore, no flood modeling will be required, and hydrologic trespass is not a concern.
3.6.6 Invasive Species Vegetation
There is not a significant presence of invasive species vegetation in the project area. Within the wooded
areas there are small clusters of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). After restoration, these areas will be
monitored, and any invasive plants found within the project boundary will be treated to prevent
expansion and establishment of a substantial invasive community. This will allow for a healthy, native
riparian and upland plant community to dominate the area and help prevent future establishment of
invasive species vegetation.
3.6.7 Potential Future Site Risk and Uncertainties
Future site risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, development, silviculture, and
infrastructure maintenance. Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Bank has been used extensively for
agricultural and silviculture purposes. The surrounding areas remain in an agricultural community with
some neighboring forested property and small home sites. Due to low development potential, the areas
outside of the Bank will likely remain in agricultural use. The project area is not adjacent to any roads that
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 21
might need future maintenance. Project streams and wetlands were designed to be self-maintaining and
resilient in a dynamic landscape. Riparian buffers in excess of 200 feet in many areas of the project will
protect the project reaches and wetland areas from changes in watershed hydrologic regimes.
The Tar River Land Conservancy (TRLC) will be the long-term steward of the conservation easement and
eventual property owner of the Bank site. They have a vision that in thirty years the site will be a re-
emerging forest over the majority of the site with a mosaic of stand types and associated habitat
conditions. They anticipate that the property will be made open to the public for passive recreational use
which may include hiking, nature observation, and nature/conservation education opportunities. They
anticipate that the property will be made open to the public for passive recreational use which may
include hiking, nature observation, and nature/conservation education opportunities. A blue trail could
exist in the future along Swift Creek if access to this resource can be planned.
Designated areas outside of the conservation easement in the uplands may be more actively managed
relying on disturbance regimes such as burning, disking, mechanical, and chemical treatments for
vegetation control to allow for more open conditions and maintain early succession habitat. Throughout
the property, a network of foot and single-track trails will be installed to allow for public access to the
unique, diverse natural features of the site. The proposed network of foot and single-track trails will not
allow for vehicular use and will utilize mulch and other natural permeable materials in their construction.
These trails will be outside of creditable areas in the Bank. Additionally, educational signage may be placed
in various locations along the trails. Sensitive areas may have boardwalks or other features to allow for
public access and to limit the damage from foot traffic.
No new roads are proposed to be constructed within the upland portions of the Bank. The existing and
proposed interior roads will only be utilized for management and educational activities as well as public
safety.
3.7 Regulatory Considerations
3.7.1 Cultural Resources
The project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historic resources. There are no
sites currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the project area. The nearest
site is the Edward Cotton House (HPO Site ID: ED0721) which is approximately 0.8 miles from the project
site. On-site investigations and discussions with the previous landowners have not disclosed any potential
resources or occurrences of this type on the property. Therefore, the proposed project activities should
have no effect on any historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register, and SHPO did not have
any comments.
3.7.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on a review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database and IPAC, there are currently five
federally listed threatened and endangered species known to occur in Edgecombe County: Neuse River
Waterdog (Necturus lewisi), Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus), Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Tar
River Spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana), and Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata). The Neuse River
Waterdog and the Carolina Madtom are present in Swift Creek adjacent to the Bank, and there is the
potential for both species to be found in the lower tributaries of the Bank. The stretch of Swift Creek
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 22
adjacent to the Bank is critical habitat for the Neuse River Waterdog and Carolina Madtom. A net survey
in July 2018 captured a Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) near the Bank boundary. A net survey in
July2018 captured a Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) near the Bank boundary. The Tricolored bat is
proposed for listing as an endangered species, and a decision to list may be made as soon as September
2023. If the Tricolored bat is listed prior to the construction of the Bank, WLS will reinitiate the
consultation of USFWS.
Project implementation is not anticipated to have a negative impact on these listed species. Section 6.7.1
discusses the erosion control measures that will be implemented during construction to protect the Neuse
River Waterdog and the Carolina Madtom. WLS will coordinate with the appropriate agencies should a
determination be required for permitting. The PRM project did not encounter any protected species issues
during permitting as the Neuse River Waterdog and the Carolina Madtom were not listed, and critical
habitat was not yet designated.
The USFWS comments to the prospectus public notice are addressed in this section and the agency
correspondence is provided in Appendix G.
3.7.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology
Two existing road culvert crossings are located outside of the project area. The first culvert crossing is
located under State Hwy 33 upstream of S200, and the second culvert crossing is located upstream of
S400. The culvert locations will remain, and no adjustments will be made to the reaches in and around
the culverts. There are also several ditches throughout the site. These ditches were historically used to
drain wetlands and create arable land for agricultural production. Many of these ditches will be plugged
during restoration activities to maximize wetland hydrology as shown on the design plans and Figure 9.
The ditches flowing into S100 and S400 will not be plugged. However, several ditches that tie into S200
and S300 will be plugged to raise local groundwater elevations and to enhance/re-establish degraded
wetlands.
WLS has not observed any recent beaver activity in the proposed project area along Swift Creek. If beaver
activity is observed, WLS will trap and remove any beavers and dams to ensure Bank success after
construction.
3.7.4 Adjacent Land Use
Site-adjacent land use is primarily agricultural and silvicultural. None of these land uses will have negative
impacts on the operation of the site.
4 Functional Uplift Potential
Harman et al. (2012) provides a framework for conducting function-based assessments to develop project
goals and objectives based on a site’s restoration potential and functional uplift. The framework is based
on the Stream Functions Pyramid (SFP) which is a conceptual model that can be used to help define project
goals and objectives by linking them to stream functions. Stream functions are separated into a hierarchy
of functions and structural measures, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5, and include the following functional
categories: Hydrology (Level 1), Hydraulic (Level 2), Geomorphic (Level 3), Physiochemical (Level 4), and
Biological (Level 5). Stream functions are separated into a hierarchy of functions and structural measures,
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 23
ranging from Level 1 to Level 5, and include the following functional categories: Hydrology (Level 1),
Hydraulic (Level 2), Geomorphic (Level 3), Physiochemical (Level 4), and Biological (Level 5). Function-
based goals and objectives were considered that relate restoration activities to the appropriate
parameters from the SFP framework, which are based on existing conditions, site constraints and overall
restoration potential. To accomplish these site-specific goals, the following functional objectives will be
measured to document overall project success as described in Table 6. The project’s functional uplift
improvements will be measured based on the uplift of hydraulics and geomorphology.
Table 6. Function-Based Goals and Objectives Summary
Functional Category
(Level) Functional Goal / Parameter Functional Design Objective
Hydrology (Level 1) Improve Base Flow
Improve and/or remove existing stream
crossings, restore a more natural flow regime,
and improve aquatic passage.
Hydraulics (Level 2) Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area Widths Lower BHRs to <1.2 and increase ERs at ≥2.2
Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform Diversity Increase riffle/pool percentage and pool-to-
pool spacing ratios.
Increase Lateral Stability Improve cross-section values to stable
reference conditions.
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Plant native species vegetation a minimum 50’
wide from the top of the streambanks with a
composition/density comparable to reference
condition.
Physiochemical
(Level
4)Physiochemical
(Level 4)
Improve Water Quality Establish 200 ft wide riparian buffers that will
filter excess nutrients.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Health
Provide substrate and bedform diversity and
incorporate native woody debris into channel.
4.1.1 Restoration Potential and Project Benefits Summary
Restoration projects commonly provide functional lift of Level 2 and 3 parameters. To achieve goals in
Levels 4 and 5, a combination of reach scale restoration and upstream watershed health must be
measurable and sustainable. The Bank is expected to provide numerous water quality and ecological
benefits within the smaller catchments. While many of these benefits focus on the immediate project
area, others, such as nutrient removal and sediment reduction also provide downstream benefits. The
expected project benefits and ecological improvements are summarized in Table 7.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 24
Table 7. Project Benefits Summary
Benefits Related to Hydrology (Level 1)
Rainfall/Runoff Restoring and enhancing 200-foot forested riparian buffers and alleviating concentrated
flow points will decrease the volume and intensity of runoff into the system.
Benefits Related to Hydraulics (Level 2)
Floodplain
Connectivity
Restoration practices will restore proper floodplain connection by establishing stable bank
height ratios and entrenchment ratios.
Surface Storage
and Retention Floodplain connectivity will allow for more surface area for surface storage and retention.
Groundwater
Recharge/
Hyporheic
exchange
Raising and reconnecting the restored stream bed as well as plugging ditches throughout
the site will promote higher water table conditions and more hyporheic exchange.
Benefits Related to Geomorphology (Level 3)
Proper Channel
Form
An appropriate channel form for the valley type and slope will allow for a self-sustaining
system.
Sediment
Transport
Decreasing stream bank erosion, connecting with the floodplain, and removing areas from
pasture grass will decrease the sediment coming from the restored system.
Riparian Buffer
Vegetation
Restoring and enhancing 200-foot forested riparian buffers will allow for canopy cover and
large woody debris in the system.
Bioengineering
Treatments
The use of woody in-stream structures will ensure channel stability while also providing
large woody debris.
Benefits Related to Physiochemical (Level 4) – Benefits Related to Physiochemical (Level 4) – not monitored
Nutrient
Reduction
Restoration practices will exclude streams from adjacent agricultural and silvicultural use
and provide functional riparian buffers of sufficient width to provide nutrient reductions.
Sediment
Reduction
Restoration practices will exclude streams from adjacent agricultural and silvicultural use,
provide functional riparian buffers of sufficient width, and stabilize stream bank erosion to
provide sediment reductions.
DO, NO3-, DOC
Concentration
Restored buffers will also provide shade, reduce water temperatures, and increase dissolved
oxygen concentrations. The restored stream bed will promote higher water table conditions
and facilitate denitrification.
Benefits Related to Biology (Level 5) – not monitored
Terrestrial and
Aquatic Habitat
Restoration practices will restore appropriate habitats, reduce sediment and nutrient loads,
and provide increased shading and organic material inputs for aquatic organisms.
Landscape
Connectivity
Restoration practices will restore a healthy stream corridor, promoting aquatic and
terrestrial species migration, and protect their shared resources in perpetuity. Restoration
practices will restore a healthy stream corridor, promoting aquatic and terrestrial species
migration, and protect their shared resources in perpetuity.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 25
5 Determination of Credits
The Project consists of stream restoration, enhancement and preservation, riparian wetland
enhancement and preservation, and non-riparian wetland re-establishment and enhancement to achieve
the highest ecological lift possible. The proposed mitigation credit types, ratios, and design approaches
were discussed with the IRT during the prospectus site visit and described further in the meeting minutes
located in Appendix G.
5.1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Types
Proposed mitigation credit types are Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) and riparian and non-riparian
Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs). See Tables 8 and 9 for the proposed credit summary.
Table 8. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
Project Reach Type of Mitigation
Existing
Stream
Length (LF)
Proposed
Creditable
Length (LF)
Ratio
Stream
Mitigation
Credits
(SMCs)
S100 Stream Restoration (HWV) 6682 6793 1:1 679
S100 Stream Restoration 272 297 1:1 297
S100 Stream Preservation 154 154 7.5:1 20.53
S200 Stream Restoration (HWV) 2,366 2,262 1:1 2,262
S300 Stream Enhancement II 691 691 3:1 230.33
S300 Stream Preservation 1,318 1,318 7.5:1 175.73
S400 No Stream Credit 676 676 - -
S500 Stream Preservation 2,471 2,471 7.5:1 329.47
S600 Stream Preservation 1,393 1,393 7.5:1 185.73
S700 Stream Preservation 1,001 1,001 7.5:1 133.47
Totals 11,010 10,942 4,313.26
Note 1: No stream mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
Note 2: Existing stream length is surveyed jurisdictional stream length, not valley length.
Note 3: Headwater valley (HWV) stream mitigation credits calculated using valley length.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 26
Table 9. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Credits (WMCs)
Wetland Area Type of Mitigation
Proposed
Wetland
Acreage (AC)
Ratio
Wetland
Mitigation
Credits (WMCs)
W01 Riparian Wetland Enhancement 3.31 2:1 1.66
W02 Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.28 2:1 0.64
W02 Non-riparian Wetland Enhancement 3.80 2:1 1.90
W03 Riparian Wetland Re-establishment 2.69 1:1 2.69
W03 Non-riparian Wetland Re-establishment 19.61 1:1 19.61
W04 Wetland Preservation 1.18 7.5:1 0.16
W05 Wetland Preservation 99.20 7.5:1 13.23
W06 Wetland Preservation 2.29 7.5:1 0.31
Total 133.35 40.19
Note 1: No wetland mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
Note 2: No wetland mitigation credits were calculated within the 100-foot wide HW stream corridor.
5.2 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total number of mitigation credits generated as reported in the
approved mitigation plan and verified by the as-built survey. The initial credit release will be based on the
proposed stream restoration lengths (SMCs) and wetland acreages (WMCs) as approved in the final
mitigation plan. The credit ledger will be managed by WLS and approved by the USACE District Engineer
(DE) and IRT. The estimated credits will be released following current USACE guidance, as shown in Table
10 below. The initial credit release milestone shall include approval/execution of MBI, approval of final
mitigation plan, securing the Project site, financial assurances delivery, long-term protection mechanism
delivery, documentation of the establishment of endowment/escrow account, title opinion delivery, and
issuance of any permits necessary for construction.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 27
Table 10. Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Milestone Release Activity
SMCs:
Interim
Release
SMCs:
Total Released
WMCs:
Interim Release
WMCs:
Total Released
1
Project Site
Establishment (as
defined above)
15% and all
stream
preservation
credits*
15% and all
stream
preservation
credits*
15% and all
wetland
preservation
credits*
15% and all
wetland
preservation
credits*
2
Completion of all initial
physical and biological
improvements made
pursuant to the
Mitigation Plan
15% 30% 15% 30%
3
Year 1 Monitoring
Report demonstrates
that interim
performance standards
have been met
10% 40% 10% 40%
4
Year 2 Monitoring
Report demonstrates
that interim
performance standards
have been met
10% 50% 10% 50%
5
Year 3 Monitoring
Report demonstrates
that interim
performance standards
have been met
10% 60% 15% 65%
6
Year 4 Monitoring
Report demonstrates
that interim
performance standards
have been met
5% 65% (75%**) 5% 70%
7
Year 5 Monitoring
Report demonstrates
that interim
performance standards
have been met
10% 75% (85%**) 15% 85%
8
Year 6 Monitoring
Report demonstrates
that interim
performance standards
have been met
5% 80% (90%**) 5% 90%
9
Year 7 Monitoring
Report demonstrates
that interim
performance standards
have been met
10% 90% (100%**) 10% 100%
* Initial release of wetland credits and stream credits will be 15% of the total restoration and enhancement credits
and 100% of the preservation credits.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 28
6 Mitigation Work Plan
The project will involve the potential for stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation of six main
reaches (S100, S200, S300, S500, S600 and S700) totaling approximately 11,010 linear feet and the
restoration, enhancement, and preservation of 133.35 acres of riparian and non-riparian wetlands (Figure
9). The design approach utilizes common mitigation practices and will appropriately address the
jurisdictional streams and wetlands at the site, including protecting or enhancing riparian buffers along all
the Project stream reaches and wetlands, providing the maximum functional uplift with the goal of
improving aquatic functions to a degraded resource. The design approach and mitigation work plan are
described in the following subsections.
6.1 Design Approach
The project will involve the stream restoration and enhancement of three streams (S100, S200, and S300)
as shown on Figure 9. The design utilizes a Priority Level I & II and headwater valley restoration
approaches. The Project appropriately addresses all the jurisdictional stream reaches at the project site,
including restoring riparian buffers along all the project stream reaches currently in agriculture and
restoring and preserving riparian and non-riparian wetlands. Many of the disturbed riparian buffers in
restoration reaches are completely or partially cleared. The proposed project will provide adequate
floodplain access to all stream reaches. Priority Level I Restoration and headwater valley restoration are
proposed to reconnect the project streams with their geomorphic floodplains. In upper and lower
transition sections, the following elements will be incorporated into the Priority Level II Restoration design
and construction:
• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend a minimum of 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the
stream belt width such that meandering floodplains are not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over-excavated to accommodate
replacement of topsoil.
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating,
stockpiling, storage, handling, overall management, and replacement of A and B soil horizon
materials onto the excavated floodplain.
• Constructed return slopes between the outer edge of the excavated floodplain and the terrace
will be a minimum of 5:1.
The Project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for all reaches and will
be monitored to demonstrate successful floodplain function. The stream channel design included analysis
of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and bankfull channel dimensions. WLS
considered three methods (field indicators if present, published regional curve information, and hydraulic
modeling) for estimating a design bankfull discharge. The hydrology and hydraulics analysis evaluated a
range of lower flow discharges and flood frequency curves to help determine an appropriate design
discharge. The design discharge was used to select an appropriate channel geometry and help monitor
long-term project performance.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 29
The wetland restoration approach is supported by on-site soils investigations, surface flow observations,
topography, and groundwater hydrology data. Hydric soil polygons are mapped within the existing S200
floodplain corridor and adjacent field. The combination of headwater valley restoration, plugging ditches,
and minor grading of spoil and fill will restore the hydrologic conditions that formed the in-situ hydric
soils.
6.2 Headwater Valley Stream Approach
A headwater stream restoration approach is proposed for project reaches S100-R1 and S200 R1-R4. Prior
to disturbed conditions, these systems existed as low to medium gradient headwater stream and wetland
complexes within the natural valley, exhibiting moderately defined channels with a diffuse flow path and
increased meander lengths. This restoration approach is supported by preliminary soils investigations,
surface flow observations, topography, and comparing reference site data. Hydric soils are mapped along
the riparian corridors of the proposed stream reaches, and the similar soils series are mapped along the
adjacent restoration reaches. These shallow drainage ways are commonly observed in this area and
typically support headwater stream channels and wetland plant communities.
Headwater stream restoration activities will include excavating a broader floodplain at or slightly above
the existing bed elevation, at the historic valley centerline, and will seek to restore groundwater hydrology
and connection of surface flows. The design concept will address the current channel’s dimension,
pattern, and profile to create stable conditions. Appropriate use of in-stream structures will consist of
hardwood logs and woody materials to provide increased stability (both lateral and vertical) and aquatic
habitat.
6.3 Design Criteria Selection
Selection of design criteria (Table 11) was based on a combination of approaches, including review of
reference data, regional curve analysis, flow regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from
successful past projects, and best professional judgment. The proposed stream design parameters also
considered the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003) and the Natural Channel Design
Checklist (Harman, 2011) as described in Section 6.4.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 30

Table 11. Proposed Design Parameters
Parameter S100-R1 S100 R2 S200-R1 S200-R3/R4
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.040 0.050 0.170 0.20
Stream Type (Rosgen) DA C DA DA
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 1.25 1.25 2.2 3.5
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/sec) 1.20 1.2 1.59 1.14
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 4.11 4.11 5.35 6.48
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.30 0.3 0.41 0.54
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 13.5 13.5 13.0 12.0
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 16-46 50.8-61.0 59-87 41-94
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf
(ft/ft) 3.9-11.2 12.4-14.8 11-16.3 6.3-14.5
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.4 1.4 1.35 1.35
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 7.0-14.0 7.0-14.0 7.0-14.0 7.0-14.0
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 3.5.8.0 3.5-8.0 3.50-8.0 3.5-8.0
Channel Sinuosity, K 1.06 1.23 1.0 1.02
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0034 0.0162 0.0146 0.0038
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 1.1-1.8 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0-0.4 0.0-0.2 0.0-0.2 0.0-0.2
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
(ft/ft) 3.5-7.0 3.5-7.0 1.2-1.7 0.5-5.0
6.3.1 Stream Design Reach Summary
Restoration
S100-R1 & S100-R2: The historic channelization has disrupted the natural flow pattern of this reach. S100
most likely functioned prior to disturbance as a headwater stream system (Rosgen ‘DA’ stream type). The
upper section of S100-R1 will be restored as a Rosgen ‘DA’ stream. The valley bottom will be graded to
restore the natural microtopographic variability that is common within these system types. Brushy riffles
and wood will be incorporated into the stream for habitat. Below the ‘DA’ system there will be a transition
into a ‘C5’ stream type using appropriate riffle-pool morphology and grade control to accommodate
vertical drops towards the remnant meander cutoff. A new floodplain bench will be constructed to
dissipate stream flows exceeding the bankfull storm. In-stream structures such as brushy riffles, woody
riffles, and toe wood will be utilized to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks, and
eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. Once S100-R2 enters the Swift Creek floodplain,
stream bank heights decrease and channel morphology improves. This section of stream will be preserved
in place and will connect to the Swift Creek Mitigation Bank. Riparian buffers in excess of 200 feet will be
restored and protected along the entire length of S100.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 31
S200-R1: Similar to S100-R2, proposed work on S200-R1 will involve a headwater stream restoration
approach. The reach will be restored as a Rosgen ‘DA’ stream type, and the valley bottom will be graded
to restore the natural microtopographic variability that is common within these systems. The flow path
will generally follow the valley bottom. The combination of headwater stream restoration, plugging
adjacent ditches, and minor grading of spoil and fill will restore the hydrologic conditions. In-stream
structures such as brushy riffles and toe wood will be incorporated to provide bedform diversity and
habitat. Riparian buffers in excess of 200 feet will be restored and protected along the entire length of
the reach.
S200-R2: S200-R2 continues as a small headwater tributary that is mostly stable before connecting to a
ditch network that can be clearly seen in the field and on the LiDAR mapping (Figure 5a/5b) and the
existing hydrography map (Figure 8). Starting at S200-R2, the channel will be tied into a remnant channel
feature and the existing ditch network will be filled in completely. Restoration activities will include limited
in-stream structure installation to increase aquatic habitat, supplemental buffer planting to more than
200 feet, and permanently protecting the riparian stream and wetland area with a conservation
easement. Any invasive species vegetation will be removed in these areas and native riparian species
vegetation will be planted in any disturbed areas.
S200-R3: S200-R3 will involve a headwater stream restoration approach. The reach will be restored as a
Rosgen ‘DA’ stream type. The valley bottom will be graded to restore the natural microtopographic
variability that is common within these systems. A shallow flow path will be constructed within the
headwater valley bottom. In-stream structures such as brushy riffles will be incorporated to provide
bedform diversity and habitat. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed in these areas and native
riparian species vegetation will be planted in any disturbed areas. Riparian buffers in excess of 200 feet
will be restored and protected along the entire length of the reach.
S200-R4: S200-R4 connects to an existing ditch network that can be clearly seen in the field and on LiDAR
mapping and the existing hydrography map (Figure 8). This reach will be designed with conservative riffle-
pool morphology to tie into the existing non-jurisdictional ditch that will eventually become S300.
Activities will include in-stream structure installation to increase aquatic habitat, supplemental buffer
planting to more than 200 feet, and permanently protecting the riparian area and wetland area with a
conservation easement.
Enhancement Level II
S300-R1: S300-R1 is a small headwater tributary that has been historically manipulated along its entire
length. The channel is mostly stable throughout its length, although lacks a wide riparian buffer. The
historic ditching activities have disrupted the natural headwater flow regime and fragmented the native
buffer vegetation. Prior to disturbance, this area most likely functioned as a single thread channel with
appropriate riffle-pool morphology (Rosgen ‘C5’ stream type). Starting at the upstream end of S300-R1,
structures such as geolifts with brush toes and brushy riffles in combination with bank grading will be
strategically placed along the reach to stabilize the banks and stream channel. Riparian buffers in excess
of 200 feet will be protected along the entire length.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 32
Preservation
S300: The lower portion of S300 transitions into the Swift Creek floodplain and a meander cutoff.
Although the channel is slightly incised and entrenched, it is mostly stable and has adequate bedform
diversity and structure. Preservation work will only include localized bank stabilization near the transition
with the upper reach. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed along the reach and riparian buffers
in excess of 200 feet will be supplementally planted and protected along the entire length.
S500 & S600: Preservation is being proposed along these reaches since the system is stable and
downstream of a recently restored Swift Creek Mitigation Bank. The preservation area will be protected
in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This will extend the wildlife corridor while
providing a hydrologic connection to Swift Creek and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
Floodplain features such as depressions, sloughs, meander scars, vernal pools, and tree throws will be
protected or incorporated to improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
S700: S700 originates as a small jurisdictional stream that begins at a ditched meander cutoff area within
a mostly undisturbed forested area. Based on field investigations, the stream and wetland complex is
stable throughout its length until its confluence with White Oak Swamp. Preservation is being proposed
along this reach since the existing headwater stream and wetland system is higher functioning due to
minimal historic impacts. The preservation area will be protected in perpetuity through a permanent
conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor throughout the project boundary,
while providing a hydrologic connection to the larger swamp system.
6.3.2 Wetland Design Summary
Degraded and/or drained riparian and non-riparian wetlands were documented within the project
boundary. These areas contain hydric soils indicators and total approximately 23.8 acres of hydric soils,
12.6 acres of degraded jurisdictional wetlands, and 107.3 acres of wetland preservation. The predominant
native wetland vegetation communities are largely devoid or not considered reference quality in areas
proposed for restoration. Areas proposed for wetland enhancement have areas of excessive invasive
plants such as Chinese privet mixed in with native woody vegetation. On-site investigations of the soils
within the project area were conducted in April 2022 by licensed soil scientist (LSS), George Lankford, LSS,
with George K. Lankford, LLC (See Hydric Soils Investigation in Appendix BB2). The findings were based on
approximately 162 hand-turned auger borings and indicate the presence of hydric soils along the riparian
and non-riparian areas of much of the wetland restoration area. The hydric soils status is based upon the
“Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States” (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2).
The presence of hydric soil indicators and hydric inclusions within 12 inches of the soil surface was verified,
and a hydric soil boundary was identified as containing potential jurisdictional hydrology. Hydric indicators
typically occur within the upper 18 inches, but selected borings extended to greater than 40 inches in
depth to evaluate potential deeper drainage or locate restrictive horizons able to perch the water table.
Mr. Lankford noted that areas of existing hydric soils have been manipulated by a combination of
agricultural uses such as ditching, surface smoothing, and gentle contouring increasing runoff. The natural
unaltered condition would have supported lengthy periods of saturation in the wetland restoration areas.

The project lies within an appropriate landscape for wetland restoration and the site evaluation identified
a large area of continuous hydric soil. Available sources of hydrology are unnamed tributaries (S100 and
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 33
S200), and extensive areas of groundwater discharge along the toe of slope in non-riparian wetland areas.
Soils in wetland restoration areas relative to existing wetlands on site exhibit browner coloration due to
loss of organics due to manipulation and management by agricultural practices. It was found that project
soils are within the observed range for Roanoke (Ro) or Rains (RaA) soils.
Based on the 2016 NCIRT guidance and existing soil properties, WLS expects an appropriate wetland
saturation and hydroperiod for the Roanoke mapped soil series or with similar taxonomy to be at least 12
percent of the growing season (USACE, 2016). The Roanoke soil series is found in W03 riparian and non-
riparian wetlands. Due to the current drainage modifications, it may take up to a year for the site to
become completely saturated and reach the target hydroperiods. For at least the first year after
construction, it may be reasonable to expect a lower hydroperiod, depending on final construction timing
and rainfall distribution (assuming average seasonal rainfall, antecedent conditions, and over bank flow
frequency).
Non-riparian Wetland Re-establishment
W03: The proposed non-riparian wetland area (W03) will involve minor grading of the existing
topography, filling existing ditches, removal of and creation of natural depressions to restore what would
have most likely been the historic topography. The existing topsoil will be stockpiled and handled
separately to avoid compaction and loss of organic soils. The non-riparian wetland re-establishment
approach is supported by on-site soils investigations, surface flow and ditch flow observations,
topography, soil mapping, historic aerial photos, and anecdotal observations by long-time landowners.
The combination of plugging/filling ditches and minor grading will restore the hydrologic conditions that
formed the in-situ hydric soils. The predominant wetland vegetation communities are absent in the
project area. Planting native species vegetation in adjacent non-wetland areas will restore the appropriate
non-riverine swamp forest habitat.
Riparian Wetland Re-establishment
W03: The site conditions are favorable for restoring wetland hydrology and re-establishment of
jurisdictional status. The proposed riparian wetland area (W03) will involve minor grading of the existing
topography, restoring S200 headwater flow path through W02 & W03, filling existing ditches, and creation
of natural depressions to restore what would have most likely been the historic topography. The existing
topsoil will be stockpiled and handled separately to avoid compaction and loss of organic soils. The
riparian wetland re-establishment approach is supported by on-site soils investigations, surface flow and
ditch flow observations, topography, soil mapping, historic aerial photos, and anecdotal observations by
long-time landowners. The combination of plugging/filling ditches and minor grading will restore the
hydrologic conditions that formed the in-situ hydric soils. The predominant wetland vegetation
communities are mostly absent in the project area. Planting native species vegetation in adjacent non-
wetland areas will restore the appropriate non-riverine swamp forest habitat.
Non-riparian Wetland Enhancement
W02: The site conditions are also favorable for enhancing existing non-riparian wetland vegetation and
groundwater hydrology. Proposed wetland enhancement activities will involve filling existing ditches to
improve hydrologic conditions and removing existing invasive vegetation. The combination of filling
ditches and minor grading will restore the hydrologic conditions that formed the in-situ hydric soils. The
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 34
predominant wetland vegetation communities are mostly successional and partially disturbed.
Supplemental planting of native species vegetation areas will also enhance the non-riverine swamp forest
habitat.
Riparian Wetland Enhancement
W01: Wetland enhancement activities will occur in existing riparian wetland areas along the tributary
corridors. These areas have been historically ditched, artificially drained, and lack mature wet tolerant
vegetation. Planting native vegetation and removing invasive vegetation along with filling ditches and
raising the local groundwater elevation will contribute to improved hydrologic conditions. It is anticipated
that as a direct result of implementing headwater stream restoration, limited soil removal (less than 1
foot of depth), and revegetation, hydrology will be improved and allow the wetland areas to regain their
historic functions. It is anticipated that as a direct result of implementing headwater stream restoration,
limited soil removal (less than 1 foot of depth), and revegetation, hydrology will be improved and allow
the wetland areas to regain their historic functions.
Riparian Wetland Preservation
W04, W05, W06: Conditions are favorable for preserving large areas of historic higher functioning riparian
wetlands. Riparian wetland preservation will involve maintaining and protecting current hydrologic
conditions across the historic Swift Creek and White Oak Swamp floodplains, backwater sloughs, and
meander cutoffs. WLS concluded these areas experience seasonal wetness for prolonged periods, and
conditions are favorable to support wetland hydrology. WLS concluded these areas experience seasonal
wetness for prolonged periods, and conditions are favorable to support wetland hydrology. Areas where
invasive plant species are present will be treated within the preservation section. Existing wetland areas
will be avoided by keeping proposed restoration and construction activities away from the existing
wetland boundaries.
6.4 Flow Regime
Extensive research has demonstrated that a wide range of flows are essential to maintain stable and high
functioning habitat across ecological systems. The flow regime has been identified as the primary factor
in sustaining the ecological integrity of riparian systems (Poff et al. 1997) and is a key variable in
determining the abundance, distribution, and evolution of aquatic and riparian species (Schlosser 1985,
Resh et al. 1988, Power et al. 1995, Doyle et al. 2005). The ecological significance of variable stream flows
is more relative to flow duration, not necessarily just the flow recurrence interval. Seasonal flow variations
are impacted by natural and anthropogenic mechanisms (i.e. stressors) that correlate to biological
relationships and habitat response. Although dynamic, flow conditions can generally be categorized as
low flow, channel-forming flow, or flood flows, each with specific ecological significance (Postel and
Richter, 2003).
A majority of stream miles (>80 percent) in North Carolina are classified as headwater streams (drainage
area <3.9 mi2); however, less than 10 percent of the 284 USGS stream gages in North Carolina are located
on headwater streams (EFSAB, 2013). WLS recognizes the importance of these stream flow variables and
the ecological role they play in supporting high functioning headwater stream and wetland systems. As
such, flow monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored headwater stream systems
exhibit seasonal base flow during years with normal rainfall conditions. As such, flow monitoring will be
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 35
conducted to demonstrate that the restored headwater stream systems exhibit seasonal base flow during
years with normal rainfall conditions. The stream surface flow documentation methods are further
described in Section 9. Table 12 summarizes the basic flow levels and ecological roles the restoration
design will provide after Project implementation.
Table 12. Flow Level and Ecological Role
Low Flow (Base Flow):
occurs most
frequently/seasonally
-Provide year-round habitat for aquatic organisms (drying/inundation pattern)
-Maintain suitable conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen
-Provide water source for riparian plants and animals
-Enable movement through stream corridor and refuge from predators
-Support hyporheic functions and aquatic organisms

Channel-forming Flow:
infrequent, flow duration of
a few days per year
-Shape and maintain physical stream channel form
-Create and maintain pools, in-stream and refuge habitat
-Redistribute and sort fine and coarse sediments
-Reduce encroachment of vegetation in channel and establishment of exotic
species
-Maintain water quality by flushing pollutants
-Maintain hyporheic connection by mobilizing bed and fine material
-Create in-channel bars for seed colonization of native riparian plants

Flood Flow: very infrequent,
flow duration of a few days
per decade or century
-Deposition of fine sediment and nutrients on floodplain
-Maintain diversity, function, and health of riparian floodplain vegetation
-Create streamside habitat, new channels, sloughs, and off-channel rearing
habitat through lateral channel migration and avulsion
-Recharge floodplain and storage processes
-Recruitment of native wood and organic material into channel
6.4.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural stable
channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field can be difficult and
also subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1988; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions exist
of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon, 1959;
Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage in
the humid Southeast can be especially challenging because of dense understory vegetation and extensive
channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology.
It is generally understood that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the
elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation
and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant discharge
or effective discharge, is the flow that moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels.
Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the
highest scour line, or the top of the streambank (Leopold, 1994).
Upon completion of the field survey and geomorphic assessment, accurate identification of bankfull stage
could not be made in all reach sections throughout the reaches due to incised and channelized/ditched
conditions. Although some field indicators were apparent in segments with lower streambank heights and
discernible scour features, the reliability of the indicators was inconsistent due to the altered condition of
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 36
the stream channels. For this reason, the bankfull stage and discharge were estimated using published
regional curve information.
6.4.2 Regional Curve Comparison
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to drainage
area and are based on the channel forming discharge theory, which states that one unique flow can yield
the same channel morphology as the full range of flows. A primary purpose for developing regional curves
is to aid in identifying bankfull stage and dimension in un-gauged watersheds, as well as to help predict
the bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994). Gauge station analyses
throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of
1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedance probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold,
1978; Leopold, 1994).
Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or
extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall/runoff relationships
(FISRWG, 1998). Published bankfull regional curves are available for a range of stream types and
physiographic provinces. The NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) and NC State
University Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Doll et al., 2002) were used for comparison when estimating
bankfull discharge. The NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve and bankfull hydraulic geometry equations are
shown in Table 13.
It’s important to note these tributaries are classified as zero and first order streams, and generally smaller
headwater streams can be poorly represented on the regional curves. Based on WLS’ experience, the
published NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations can slightly overestimate discharge and
channel dimensions for smaller ungauged streams. Furthermore, estimating bankfull parameters
subjectively rather than using deterministic values may encourage designers to make decisions on a range
of values and beliefs that the bankfull depths must inherently be within that range (Johnson and Heil,
1996).
Table 13. North Carolina Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
EcoScience (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations
NCSU (Doll et al., 2002)
Qbkf = 8.79 Aw 0.76 R2=0.92 Qbkf = 16.56 Aw 0.72 R2=0.90
Abkf = 9.43 Aw 0.74 R2=0.96 Abkf = 14.52 Aw 0.66 R2=0.88
Wbkf = 9.64 Aw 0.38 R2=0.95 Wbkf = 10.97 Aw 0.36 R2=0.87
Dbkf = 0.98 Aw 0.36 R2=0.92 Dbkf = 1.29 Aw 0.30 R2=0.74
6.4.3 Channel Forming Discharge
A hydrologic analysis was completed to estimate and validate the design discharge and channel geometry
required to provide more frequent overbank flows and floodplain inundation. WLS used multiple methods
for evaluating the bankfull stage and dominant discharge for the Project reaches. Cross-sections were
identified and surveyed to represent reach-wide conditions. Additional bankfull estimation methods, such
as the commonly accepted Manning’s equation, were compared to help interpret and adjust field
observations to select the appropriate design criteria and justification for the design approach.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 37
The bankfull flows in gauged watersheds within the NC Rural Coastal Plain study documented return
intervals (RI) that range from <1.0 to 1.3, with a mean of 1.2 years (Sweet and Geratz, 2003). WLS then
compared lower flow frequencies in the 1.2-yr to 1.5-yr RI range versus survey data and discharge analysis
(See Appendix C). It should be noted that this best fit approach does not always match the dataset, since
it falls at the low end of the curve. Therefore, caution should be used when comparing these lower Ris
with additional data sets. Using the rationale described above, the bankfull discharge analyses compared
NC Rural Coastal Plain regional curves, Manning’s equation discharges calculated from the representative
cross-section geometry, and USGS regional regression equations.
Table 14. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
Project Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (Ac)
EcoScience
NC CP
Regional
Curve (cfs) 1
NCSU
NC CP
Regional
Curve (cfs) 2
Manning’s
Equation
(cfs) 3
USGS
Regression
Equation for
1.2-year
Recurrence
Interval (cfs)
4
Design
Discharge
Estimate (cfs)
S100-R1 25 0.75 1.62 2.21 3.32 1.5
S100-R2 32 0.89 1.90 5.04 3.58 1.5
S200-R1 90 2.28 4.62 5.59 7.26 3.5
S200-R3/R4 128 2.58 5.2 9.79 7.43 4.0
Note 1: Published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003).
Note 2: Published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (NCSU, 2003).
Note 3: Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning’s Equation for the representative riffle cross-
sections. Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n-values) ranged from approximately 0.02 to 0.05 based on
channel slopes, depth, bed material size, and vegetation influence.
Note 4: NC USGS rural regression equation extrapolated for 1.2-year flood recurrence interval (USGS, 2011)

After considering these estimation methods and results (geometry measurements, published regional
curves, flow frequency and USGS regional regression equations), WLS estimated the design discharge
using values nearest to the published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003). These
were then used to select the appropriate design dimensions and flows rates that best correspond to the
design channel that will convey the 1.2-yr RI. The design discharge analysis summary is provided in
Appendix CBC.
6.4.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
To evaluate channel stability and sediment transport relationships, shear stress, stream power, and width-
to-depth (W/D) values were plotted against comparable Coastal Plain sand-bed reference stream data
(Appendix C). The design shear stress and stream power values plot within the scatter of data points
collected from multiple stable reference reaches. This analysis provides a basic relationship that the shear
stresses and stream power predicted for the design channels are within the range of stable values.
Therefore, excessive scour of the design channel is not expected once the vegetation becomes established
and W/D decreases.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 38
Alluvial sand bed channels in small Coastal Plain headwater stream systems typically have a relatively low
sediment supply with finer grained material (D50 < 2mm), therefore a more complex sediment budget or
rating curve is not necessary. Under natural stable conditions, sediment deposits in these headwater
stream systems are more aggradational, due to low flow velocities and scour stresses.
As a design consideration, the proposed design riffle slopes greater than 0.001 ft/ft will be constructed in
transitional areas using native wood material to provide additional grade control and bed stability. Any
concerns regarding channel degradation and stability will be addressed by installing a combination of
grade control structures, such as constructed log riffles and step-pools in the straighter channel segments
(vertical stability) and brush toe and bioengineering in meander bends (vertical stability). In addition,
improving the existing stream crossings and restoring a more natural flow regime will facilitate positive
adjustments to sediment routing and storage across the reconnected floodplains. Table 15 represents the
boundary shear stress and stream power values under proposed design conditions for Project reaches.
Table 15. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area
(Ac)
Bankfull Q
NC CP Regional
Curve
(cfs) 1
Bankfull Q
Manning’s
Equation
(cfs) 2
Bankfull
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Shear
Stress
(lbs/ft2 )
Stream
Power
(W/m2 )
S100-R1 25 0.75 2.2 1.8 0.055 1.609
S100-R2 32 0.89 2.9 2.3 0.285 10.941
S200-R1 90 2.28 3.2 1.5 0.102 2.491
S200-R3/R4 128 2.58 5.6 1.6 0.114 3.087
Note 1: Published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003).
Note 2: Manning’s Equation for the representative riffle cross-sections. Predicted roughness estimates
(n-value = 0.020-0.035) were based on channel slopes, depth, bed material size, and vegetation influence.

6.5 Reference Sites
6.5.1 Reference Streams
The morphologic data obtained from reference reach surveys can be a valuable tool for comparison and
used as a template for analog design of a stable stream in a similar valley type, drainage area, valley slope
and sand bed material. To obtain the morphological relationships observed in a stable stream system,
dimensionless ratios were compared from the selected reference reaches. These ratios were applied to
the stream design to ‘mimic’ the natural, stable form of the target channel type.
While reference reach data can be a useful aid in analog design, they are not always necessary and can
have limitations in smaller headwater stream systems (Hey, 2006). The flow patterns and channel
formation for many reference reach quality streams are often controlled by slope, bed material, drainage
areas and larger trees and/or other deep-rooted vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such
as radius of curvature, are particularly affected by vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference
reaches may not be applicable or are often adjusted in the design criteria to create more conservative
designs that are less likely to erode after construction before the permanent vegetation is established.
Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be applicable or are often adjusted in the design
criteria to create more conservative designs that are less likely to erode after construction before the
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 39
permanent vegetation is established. Often the best reference data is from adjacent stable stream reaches
or reaches within the same watershed.
WLS selected reference sites and monitoring data from the Turtle Creek and Hornpipe Branch Tributaries
mitigation projects and compared them with composite Coastal Plain (CP) reference data. The reference
reach data represents small headwater CP streams and falls within the same climatic, hydrophysiographic,
and ecological region as that for the Project site. The reference reach data shown on Table 16 helped to
determine the design approach for the project reaches proposed for single thread channel restoration.
Figure 12 shows the stream reference site locations. Additional CP headwater stream comparison data is
provided in Appendix C.
Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison
Parameter Headwater
Reference Data1
Headwater
Reference Data2
Composite
Reference Data3
Stream Type (Rosgen) C5 / B5c DA C5 / E5
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 1.7 1.2 1.0 – 1.4
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 5.9 – 11.0 10.1 – 19.5 8.0 – 14.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.6 – 3.7 4.3 – 5.8 4.0 – 13.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.4 – 1.8 1.5 1.2 – 1.7
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 – 1.1 1.0 - 1.2 1.0 – 1.3
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 4.4 – 7.1 N/A 4.0 – 17.0
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.3 – 3.1 N/A 1.5 – 3.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 2.4 – 3.5 N/A 2.0 – 9.0
Sinuosity, K 1.2 N/A 1.2 - 1.7
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0011 0.0083 0.002 – 0.010
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0098 0.0080 0.002 – 0.010
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.7 – 3.0 1.4 – 2.5 1.8 – 2.4
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.1 – 1.5 0.9 – 1.3 0.8 – 1.4
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.5 – 6.0 4.7 – 7.9 3.5 – 7.0
Note 1: Headwater reference reach data was collected from the Turtle Creek mitigation project.
Note 2: Headwater reference reach data was collected at an unnamed tributary for the Hornpipe Branch
Tributaries mitigation project named ‘South Reference Reach’.
Note 3: Composite reference reach data were compiled from the NC reference reach database, published by
NCDOT, and reference reach surveys conducted by Michael Baker International as published in the Natural Channel
Design Review Checklist (Harman Starr, 2011).
6.5.2 Reference Wetlands
An existing wetland type that is representative of the riparian wetland system to be restored at the Project
site was identified within the Hollowell Mitigation Project along upper UT2-R1 and UT2-R3 (see Figure 12
for wetland reference location). The reference riparian wetlands are an example of a Headwater
Forest/Bottomland Hardwood Forest (NC WAM, 2016) and a “Coastal Plain small stream swamp,” as
described by Schafale (2012). These headwater systems exist along the zero- or first-order streams and
floodplains of small brownwater (or blackwater) streams in which separate or consistent fluvial features
and associated vegetation are poorly developed to distinguished. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine
– intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Stream flows tend to be highly variable, with floods
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 40
of short duration, and periods of very low flow. Bottomland Hardwood Forests exist in geomorphic
floodplains along second-order and larger streams. These wetlands are generally intermittently to
seasonally inundated and overbank flooding is the source of groundwater and surface runoff. The
reference site has experienced minimal disturbances in the past, primarily due to timber harvest;
however, cutting of timber occurred long ago, and a mature canopy of vegetation exists across wetland
area. Evidence also suggests that the hydrology and soils were minimally affected by historic timber
harvest. The reference site has experienced minimal disturbances in the recent past due to being restored
and protected by a conservation easement. Figure 12 shows the wetland reference site locations and the
associated hydrology data is in Appendix B.
6.6 Revegetation Plan
Riparian buffers will be established a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the streambanks along each of
the Project reaches and, as well as permanently protecting those buffers with a conservation easement.
Many of the proposed riparian buffer widths within the conservation easement are greater than 200 feet
along one or both streambanks to provide additional functional uplift potential, such as encompassing
adjacent wetland areas. Proposed plantings will be conducted using native tree species, in the form of live
stakes and bare root seedlings. Bare root trees will be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per
acre. Outside of the creditable areas, 302 stems per acres will be planted.

The proposed plant selection will help to establish an appropriate native vegetation community based on
reference conditions and water quality goals. Schafale’s (2012) Natural Communities of North Carolina,
as well as existing mature species identified throughout the Project area, were referenced during the
development of the riparian buffer planting plan for the Project site. The closest approximation of the
riparian vegetation community is CP Small Swamp Stream in the headwater and wetland restoration areas
of the project (Schafale, 2012). Species proposed for revegetation planting are presented in Tables 17 and
18. Riparian wetlands do not necessitate a separate community designation from headwater forest or
non-riparian wetlands. WLS is proposing the use of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), a softwood
species, as it is currently found on site and is a species commonly found in Coastal Plan Small Swamp
Streams.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 41
Table 17. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Proposed
Percentage of Mix
Betula nigra River birch FACW 10%
Nyssa sylvatica Black gum FAC 8%
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore FACW 10%
Ulmus americana American elm FAC 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar FACU 5%
Quercus alba White oak FACU 5%
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak FACW 8%
Quercus phellos Willow oak FACW 8%
Quercus nigra Water oak FAC 8%
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress OBL 10%
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak OBL 8%
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood FACW 5%
Asimina triloba Pawpaw FAC 5%
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood FAC 5%
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. A minimum of 10
species will be planted from the list with no single species to be above 15% of the total.
6.6.1 Planting Materials and Methods
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between Mid-November
and March 15th. The final planting zone limits may be modified based on these observations and
comparisons, and the final selection of the location of the planted species will be matched according to
the species wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Live Staking and Live Branch Cuttings: Where black willow (Salix nigra) live staking is proposed on
streambanks, live stakes will typically be installed at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet. The
live stakes will be spaced approximately three feet apart in meander bends and six feet apart in the riffle
sections, using a triangular spacing pattern along the streambank, between the toe of the streambank
and bankfull elevation. When bioengineering is proposed, live branch cutting bundles will be installed at
five linear feet per bundle approximately two to three branches thick.
Permanent Seeding: Temporary and permanent seeding will be conducted simultaneously at all disturbed
areas of the Project site during construction and will be conducted with mechanical broadcast spreaders.
Table 18 lists the proposed species, mixtures, and application rates for permanent seeding. The vegetation
species proposed for temporary seeding germinate quickly to swiftly establish vegetative ground cover
and thus, short term stability. This mix will be appropriate for streambank, floodplain, and adjacent
riparian wetland areas and the upland transitional areas in the riparian buffer. This mix will be appropriate
for streambank, floodplain, and adjacent riparian wetland areas and the upland transitional areas in the
riparian buffer. Beyond the riparian buffer areas, temporary and permanent seeding will also be
conducted at all other disturbed areas of the Project site that are susceptible to erosion. If temporary
seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 42
per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied
at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Table 18. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland
Indicator
% Proposed for
Planting by
Species
Seeding Rate
(lb/acre)
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass OBL 10% 1.5
Dichanthelium clandestinum Deer tongue FACW 10% 1.5
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye FAC 10% 1.5
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass FAC 15% 2.5
Schizachyrium scoparium Little blue stem FACU 15% 2.5
Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed susan FACU 8% 1.5
Echinacea purpurea Coneflower NI 8% 1.5
Juncus effusus Soft rush OBL 6% 1.0
Penstemon digitalis Tall beardtongue FAC 10% 1.5
Vernonia noveboracensis New York ironweed FACW 8% 1.5
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of seeding stock.

Invasive Species: There is a significant presence of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) in the forested areas
of W01, W02 and W03. During the Bank implementation, invasive species vegetation will be treated both
to control its presence and reduce its spread within the conservation easement areas.
6.7 Site Construction Methods
6.7.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements
Much of the grading and excavation across the Bank site will be conducted within the existing riparian
corridor and conservation easement boundary. Grading in the proposed wetland credit areas will be less
than 12 inches. The restored streams will be graded within the natural valleys. Suitable fill/plug material
will be generated from new channel and floodplain excavation, as well as from adjacent upland areas and
hauled to stockpile locations as shown on the design plans. Portions of the existing degraded channels
and ditches will be partially to completely filled along their length using compactable material excavated
from construction of the restored channels to the proposed grades shown on the design plans. The
existing topsoil layer will be stripped in a manner to prevent intermingling with underlying subsoil or other
waste materials. The topsoil materials shall be stockpiled separately and shall be spread evenly to a depth
of at least eight (8) inches on top of subsoil material to achieve final grades. The backfill material will be
clean and free of debris, and compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10 inches with heavy equipment,
and shall be placed to a compaction standard to that of the surrounding/abutting undisturbed project
soils.
The sections of old stream channel and/or ditches to be abandoned will be filled with on-site soil
materials. Soil fill materials shall be placed in the abandoned stream channel and compacted with heavy
construction equipment. Areas of abandoned stream channel and/or ditches to be filled will have
additional soil fill material mounded over the top of the fill to a depth of approximately 12 inches to offset
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 43
future settling. Channel block and/or ditch plug areas shall be constructed according to the design plans
and technical specifications. Soil fill material used for channel plugs will have a higher clay content, befree
of debris, rocks, trash, etc., and consist of compactable soil materials. Soil fill material will be placed in the
channel plug areas and compacted in lifts of no more than 10 inches. The completed channel plugs shall
be free of voids and be impermeable to water flow through, around, or under the completed plug. The
proposed grades will be extended and connected to the surrounding undisturbed grades so that upon
compaction and subsequent settlement, the resulting grades will be at the proper elevations specified on
the construction plans. Compacted soil near plantings shall be loosened to a depth of at least eight (8)
inches prior to planting activities.
Floodplain grading activities will focus on restoring pre-disturbance valley topography by removing field
crowns, overburden/spoil, and surface drains that were imposed during conversion of the land for
agriculture. In general, floodplain grading activities will be minor, with the primary goal of soil
scarification, creating depressional areas, water quality and habitat features, and microtopographic
crenulations by filling the drainage features at the site back to adjacent ground elevations (Scherrer,
1999). Any excess material not used for ditch plugging or suitable as a soil base for vegetation will be
spread across upland areas outside of the easement boundary and jurisdictional WOTUS.
WLS will follow the stringent erosion control measures during construction listed on page two of the Fish
and Wildlife comment letter found in the initial evaluation letter in Appendix G.
6.7.2 Stream, Wetland, and Floodplain Improvement Features
Stream improvement features such as in-stream structures and bioengineering techniques are proposed
for grade control, streambank protection, and improvement of bedform diversity and habitat. All in-
stream structures will be constructed from materials naturally found in the region such as hardwood trees,
trunks/logs, brush/branches, and gravel stone materials. Whenever possible, existing substrate material
in the abandoned stream channels will be harvested and utilized for the new channel locations.
WLS will also incorporate bioengineering practices, when appropriate, that use biodegradable materials
and fabrics, uncompacted soils, live plant cuttings, and native species vegetation to stabilize streambanks.
Bioengineering treatments will provide initial bank stability that allows for the quick establishment of
deep-rooted vegetation along the newly restored streambanks. Additionally, floodplain improvement
features such as coarse woody debris (CWD) will be installed. This will mimic features like tree throws,
snags, stumps, etc. that are commonly found in natural riparian systems. These floodplain improvement
features will be added to provide habitat and serve as water storage and sediment sinks throughout the
corridor to improve riparian functions (Dooley, 2003).
6.7.3 Construction Feasibility
WLS has field verified that the Bank site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings, account for only a small percentage of
the proposed total stream reach length within the Bank boundary. Existing Bank site access points and
features will be used for future access after the completion of construction.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 44
6.7.4 Future Project Risks and Uncertainties
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the development
of design plans for the site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address these concerns.
Land Use Development: There is minimal risk that changes in land use upstream in the project watershed
would alter the hydrology or sediment supply enough to impair the project streams after construction.
The project area has seen little to no development in recent years, and it is unlikely development will
threaten the site.

o Methods to Address: Restoration and reforestation of the site streams will reduce the likelihood
of future degradation from watershed changes, as erosive flood flows will spread over a wider
reconnected floodplain.

Easement Encroachment: There is potential for landowner encroachment into the permanent
conservation easement.

o Methods to Address: WLS has had considerable discussions with the landowner regarding the
project requirements and limitations of easement access and is confident that the landowners
fully understand and will maintain the easement protections. The easement boundaries will be
clearly marked per requirements. Any encroachments that do occur will be remedied by WLS or
the long-term steward to remedy any damage and provide any other corrections required by the
IRT.

Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring period of
the project.

o Methods to Address: WLS will apply adaptive management techniques as necessary to meet the
site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include replanting, channel damage
repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management activities are significant, additional
monitoring may be required by the IRT.

Beavers: There is potential for beavers to affect project success during the monitoring period.

o Methods to Address: WLS will take steps to trap and remove beavers if they threaten Bank success
during the monitoring period.
7 Maintenance Plan
The Bank will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the Bank will take place at least
twice a year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These inspections may identify Bank components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance is anticipated in the years following Bank construction and may include the following
components as described in Table 19.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 45
Table 19. Routine Maintenance Components
Feature Maintenance Activity Through Close-out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in-stream structures
to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installation of live stakes and
other target vegetation along the Project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and
floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require maintenance.

Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing loose coir matting and
supplemental installations of target vegetation within the wetland. Areas of concentrated storm
flows that intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent excess scour.

Vegetation Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will be treated by mechanical and/or
chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring herbicide application will be
performed in accordance with North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations.

Project Site
Boundary
Project boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
project site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard,
post, or other means as allowed by Project conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed
basis.

Beaver
Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental
planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam removal. Beaver management will be implemented
using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the recorded Conservation Easement.

Stream Crossing The stream crossing(s) within the Project may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, right of ways, or corridor agreements. The stream
crossing(s) within the Project may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded Conservation
Easement, deed restrictions, right of ways, or corridor agreements. Stream crossings will be
excluded from the easement area and maintained by the landowner.
8 Performance Standards
The success criteria for the Bank will follow the approved performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in this mitigation plan which have been developed in compliance with the USACE
October 2016 Guidance, USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003 and October 2005), and 2008
Compensatory Mitigation Final Rule. Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of seven years
with the final duration dependent upon performance trends toward achieving the bank goals and
objectives. Specific success criteria components and evaluation methods are described below.
8.1 Streams
Stream Hydrology: Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. The bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until four bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 46
Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access: Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability
and floodplain access will be evaluated by measuring Bank Height Ratios (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratios
(ER). In addition, bedforms and pool to pool spacing should be consistent for channels of the design stream
type(s). The BHRs shall be ≤1.2 and the ERs ≥2.2 along the restored Project stream reaches. This standard
only applies to restored reaches of the channel where BHRs and ERs are corrected through design and
construction.
Stream Horizontal Stability: Cross-sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There
should be minimal changes in cross-section geometry during the monitoring period. If measurable changes
do occur, they should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling,
vegetation establishment, deposition along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method, and all monitored cross-sections
should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Streambed Material Condition and Stability: After construction, there should be minimal change in the
particle size distribution of the streambed materials over time, given the current watershed conditions and
anticipated upstream sediment supply. Since the stream substrate and supply is predominantly fine
particles (sand), significant changes in particle size distribution and excess channel aggradation are not
expected.
Jurisdictional Stream Flow: The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and
intermittent streams must exhibit 30 days of continuous flow for some portion of the year during a year
with normal rainfall conditions. Jurisdictional stream flow will be monitored annually. Post restoration
gauges will be installed on S100 and S200.
Photo Documentation: Photographs should illustrate the Bank’s vegetation and morphological stability
on an annual basis. Permanent photo stations will be set up at all cross-sections, above and below the
utility crossing, and at the culvert. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or
degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent mid-channel bars
or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable.
8.2 Headwater Streams
S100 and the S200 will be designed as a coastal headwater stream and the performance standards are as
follows:

Continuous Flow: Surface flow must be documented using gauges or automated photo loggers for 30
consecutive days.

Channel Formation: Headwater stream channel formation within the valley or crenulation must be
documented through identification of field indicators consistent with those listed in Section 9. All multi-
thread and single-thread channels should maintain jurisdictional features as listed in Section 9.
8.3 Wetlands
Wetland Hydrology: The performance standard for wetland hydrology will be at least 12 percent
throughout hydric soil areas proposed for wetland re-establishment (W03). These hydroperiods are based
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 47
on the suggested wetland saturation thresholds for soils taxonomic subgroups provided by the licensed
soil scientist (LSS) and IRT. The proposed success criteria for wetland hydrology will be when the soils are
saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12 percent (30 days) of the growing season on
the WETS data table for Edgecombe County, NC. The saturated conditions should occur during a period
when antecedent precipitation has been normal or drier than normal for a minimum frequency of 5 years
in 10 (USACE, 2005 and 2010b).
Precipitation data will be obtained from the Tarboro-Edgecombe Airport Station (Cardinal Station Scout:
KETC), which is approximately 5.3 miles south of the Project and a rain gauge will be installed on site. If a
normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, WLS will continue
to monitor the Project hydrology until the Project has been saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod. If
rainfall amounts for any given year during the monitoring period are abnormally low, reference wetland
hydrology data will be compared to determine if there is a correlation with the weather conditions and
site variability. WLS has installed five wetland gauges prior to restoration to document baseline hydrology.
Two gauges are in verified wetlands, W01 and W02. Three gauges are located in the hydric soil areas (see
Appendix B).
For the first year after construction, it may be realistic to expect a shorter hydroperiod. The deeper soil
horizons will likely need time to become fully saturated and establish a high groundwater table across the
floodplain. For at least the first year after construction, it may be reasonable to expect a hydroperiod
range between 9 and 12 percent.
8.4 Vegetation
Vegetative restoration success for the lower Project during the intermediate monitoring years will be
based on the survival of at least 320, three-year-old planted stems per acre at the end of Year 3 of the
monitoring period; and at least 260, five-year-old, planted stems per acre that must average seven feet in
height at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative restoration success criteria will
be achieving a density of no less than 210, seven-year-old planted stems per acre that must average 10
feet in height in Year 7 of monitoring.
8.5 Invasive Species
WLS will treat invasive species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a case
by-case basis. Common invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) will be removed to allow native plants to become established within the
conservation easement. Invasive species vegetation will be treated by approved mechanical and/or
chemical methods. Any control methods requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance
with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. If necessary, these removal treatments
(i.e., cutting and/or spraying) will continue until the corrective actions demonstrate that the site is
trending towards or meeting the standard monitoring requirement.
9 Monitoring Plan
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as-built report
documenting the mitigation activities will be developed within 60 days of the completion of planting and
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 48
monitoring device installation at the restored Bank. In addition, a period of at least six months will
separate the as-built baseline measurements and the first-year monitoring measurements. The baseline
monitoring document and as-built monitoring report will include all information required by the USACE
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, issued in April 2003 and USACE Guidance for Compensatory Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District dated October 2016.
WLS will conduct mitigation performance monitoring based on these methods and will submit annual
monitoring reports to IRT by December 31st of each monitoring year during which required monitoring is
conducted. Bank success criteria must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or
monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met. The following subsections summarize
the monitoring methods and linkage between the goals, parameters, and expected functional lift
outcomes. Figure 10 illustrates the post-construction monitoring feature types and location.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted for all Bank stream reaches. Hydrologic monitoring will be
conducted for all Bank stream reaches. For reaches that involve a combination of Restoration (Rosgen
Priority Level I and II) approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods will be employed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices. Visual monitoring will be conducted along these reaches as
described herein. For reaches involving an Enhancement Level I approach, monitoring efforts will focus
primarily on geomorphic monitoring, visual inspections, photo documentation, and vegetation
assessments, each as described herein. The monitoring of these Bank reaches will utilize the methods
described under visual monitoring.
9.1.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
The occurrence of four required bankfull events within the monitoring period, along with floodplain access
by flood flows, will be documented using pressure transducers and/or photography. The pressure
transducers will be installed in pools and correlating sensor depth to top of bank elevation. Recorded
water depth above the top of bank elevation will document a bankfull event. In addition to the pressure
transducers, traditional cork gauges will be installed at bankfull elevation and will be used to document
bankfull events with photographs. Corresponding photographs will be used to document the occurrence
of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits. This hydrologic
monitoring will help establish that the restoration objectives of restoring floodplain functions and
promoting more natural flood processes are being met.
9.1.2 Geomorphic Monitoring
Pattern: A planimetric survey will be conducted for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as-built baseline conditions (Monitoring Year 0). The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, bankfull, and top of banks. The plan view
measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, and meander width ratio will be taken on newly
constructed meanders during baseline documentation (Monitoring Year 0) only. These measurements will
demonstrate that the restored stream channel pattern provides more stable planform and associated
features than the old channel, which further provide improved aquatic habitat and geomorphic function,
as per the restoration objectives.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 49
Dimension: Permanent cross-sections will be installed and surveyed at an approximate rate of one cross-
section per 20 bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of restored stream.
Approximately 50 percent of cross-sections will be located at riffles and 50 percent at pools. Each cross-
section will be monumented on both streambanks to establish the exact transect used and to facilitate
repetition each year and easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will occur in years
0 (as-built), 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 and will include measurements of bankfull cross-sectional area (Abkf) at low
bank height, Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include
points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water,
and thalweg, if the features are present.
There should be minimal change in as-built cross-sections. Stable cross-sections will establish that the
restoration goal of creating geomorphically stable stream conditions has been met. If changes do take
place, they will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward
increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in
width-to-depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller
channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed streams, bank pin arrays will not be installed unless
monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion at cross-sections occurring in meander bends, an increase
of greater than 15 percent in cross-sectional area, or when visual monitoring indicates potential bank
instability. Given the smaller channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed streams, bank pin arrays
will not be installed unless monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion at cross-sections occurring in
meander bends, an increase of greater than 15 percent in cross-sectional area, or when visual monitoring
indicates potential bank instability.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. Photographs will be taken of both
streambanks at each cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent cross-section
monuments/pins will be centered in each of the streambank photographs. The water elevation will be
shown in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the streambank as possible will be included in each
photo. Photographers should attempt to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Profile: A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction (Monitoring Year 0) to document as-built baseline conditions. The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features installed are
consistent with the intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be taken during
subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial
actions/repairs are deemed necessary. Bank height ratios will be measured along the restored reaches
using the results of the longitudinal profile.
9.1.3 Flow Duration Monitoring
Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation: Monitoring of stream flow will be conducted to demonstrate
that the restored stream systems classified as intermittent exhibit surface flow for a minimum of 30
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 50
consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during years with normal rainfall conditions. To
determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, precipitation amounts using tallied data
obtained from the Tarboro-Edgecombe Airport Station (Cardinal Station Scout: KETC), which is
approximately 5.3 miles south of the Project, will be used, and a rain gauge will be installed on site. If a
normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, monitoring of flow
conditions at the Bank site will continue until it documents that the intermittent streams have been flowing
during the appropriate times of the year.
The proposed monitoring of restored intermittent reaches will include the installation of flow devices
(continuous-read pressure transducers) installed in pools and correlating sensor depth to the downstream
top of riffle elevation. If the pool water depth is at or above the top of riffle elevation, then the channel
will be assumed to have surface flow. The devices will be installed in the upper one-third portion of the
reach. In addition, photographic documentation using a continuous series of remote photos over time may
be used to subjectively evaluate and document channel flow conditions throughout the year. More
specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate the presence of flow within the channel to illustrate
water levels within the pools and riffles. The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five
feet to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) at the Bank site are documented in each
monitoring period and will be shown on a plan view map. The devices will be inspected on a quarterly basis
to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating flow response to rainfall events and
surface runoff throughout the monitoring period.
9.1.4 Headwater Stream Monitoring
Continuous Surface Flow: Continuous surface water flow within the valley or crenulation must be
documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the prescribed monitoring period.
Channel Formation: During monitoring years 1 through 4, the preponderance of evidence must
demonstrate a concentration of flow indicative of channel formation within the topographic low point of
the valley or crenulation as documented by the following indicators:
• Scour (indicating sediment transport by flowing water)
• Sediment deposition (accumulations of sediment and/or formation ripples)
• Sediment sorting (sediment sorting indicated by grain-size distribution within primary flow path)
• Multiple observed flow events (must be documented by gauge data and/or photographs)
• Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
• Presence of litter and debris
• Wracking (deposits of drift material indicating surface water flow)
• Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent (herbaceous or otherwise)
• Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
During monitoring years 5 through 7, the stream must successfully meet the requirements above, and the
preponderance of evidence must demonstrate the development of stream bed and banks as documented
by the following indicators:
• Bed and banks (may include the formation of stream bed and banks, development of channel
pattern such as meander bends and/or braiding at natural topographic breaks, woody debris, or
plant root systems)
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 51
• Natural line impressed on the bank (visible high-water mark)
• Shelving (shelving of sediment depositions indicating transport)
• Water staining (staining of rooted vegetation)
• Change in plant community (transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long
duration, including hydrophytes)
• Changes in character of soil (texture and/or chroma changes when compared to the soils abutting
the primary path of flow).
9.2 Wetland Monitoring
Hydrology: Approximately 12 automated groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored wetland areas to determine hydrologic success criteria are achieved.
Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to record daily groundwater levels in accordance with the
USACE standard methods described in “Technical Standard for Water Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites” (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2, June 2005). The objective for the monitoring well data is to
demonstrate that the Banks exhibit an increased flood frequency as compared to pre-restoration
conditions and on-site reference conditions. The wells will be downloaded on a quarterly basis.
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring quadrants or plots will be installed and monitored across the Bank in accordance
with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008). The total planting area for the conservation
easement is 109.1 acres. Of the 109.1 acres 79.6 acres are within 200 feet of the stream in the credible
areas and 29.5 acres are outside the credible areas but within the conservation easement. Within the
creditable area (79.6 acres) the vegetation monitoring plots shall comprise approximately two percent of
the planting area. There will be 44 plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas.
The sampling may employ annually located quasi-random plot locations, which may vary upon approval
from IRT. Any random plots should comprise no more than 30 percent of the total required plots, and the
location (GPS coordinates and orientation) will be identified in the monitoring reports. The size and
location of fixed plots will be 100 square meters (i.e. 10m X 10m or 5m X 20M) for planted stems and may
be adjusted based on site conditions after construction activities have been completed. No monitoring
quadrants will be established within undisturbed wooded preservation or enhancement areas, however
visual observations will be documented in the annual monitoring reports to describe any changes to the
existing vegetation community.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall each required monitoring year, prior to the loss of leaves.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will
include specific data for monitored stems on height, species, date planted, and grid location, as well as a
collective determination of the survival density within that quadrant. Volunteer species will be noted, and
if they are on the approved planting list and meet success criteria standards, they will be counted towards
success criteria. Other species not included on the list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case
basis.
The presence of invasive species vegetation within the monitoring quadrants will also be noted, as will
any wildlife effects. At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days,
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 52
species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent year, vegetation
plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, and visual monitoring in years 4 and 6,
or until the final success criteria are achieved.
9.4 Visual Assessment Monitoring
WLS will conduct visual assessments in support of mitigation performance monitoring. Visual assessments
of all stream reaches will be conducted at least twice per monitoring year with a minimum of five months
in between each site visit throughout the monitoring period. Photographs will be used to visually document
system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank and bed stability, condition of in-
stream structures, channel migration, active headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant
species or animal browsing, easement boundary encroachments, cattle exclusion fence damage, and the
general condition of pools and riffles. The monitoring activities will document and quantify the visual
assessment throughout the monitoring period.
A series of photographs over time will be compared to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation (bar
formations) or degradation, streambank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. More specifically, the longitudinal profile
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth, while lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) at the Bank site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a
plan view map. The results of the visual monitoring assessments will be used to support the development
of the annual monitoring document that provides the visual assessment metrics.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 53
Table 20. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary
Functional
Category
(Level)
Project Goal /
Parameter
Measurement
Method Performance Standard Potential Functional
Uplift
Hydrology
(Level 1)
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (i.e.
channel forming
discharge)
Pressure transducer,
regional curve,
regression equations,
catchment
assessment
Maintain seasonal flow on
intermittent streams for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Create a more natural
and higher functioning
headwater flow regime
and provide aquatic
passage.

Hydraulics
(Level 2)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Flood prone Area
Widths
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
Crest gauge
Maintain average BHRs ≤1.2
and ERs ≥2.2 and document
out of bank and/or significant
flow events using pressure
transducers or photographs &
crest gauges.
Provide temporary
water storage and
reduce erosive forces
(shear stress) in
channel during larger
flow events.
Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform
Diversity
Pool to pool spacing,
riffle-pool sequence,
pool max depth ratio,
longitudinal profile
Increase riffle/pool
percentage and pool-to-pool
spacing ratios compared to
reference reach conditions.
Provide a more natural
stream morphology,
energy dissipation and
aquatic habitat/refugia.
Increase Vertical and
Lateral Stability
Cross-sections and
longitudinal profile
surveys, visual
assessment
Decrease streambank erosion
rates comparable to
reference condition cross-
section, pattern, and vertical
profile values.
Reduce sedimentation,
excessive aggradation,
and embeddedness to
allow for interstitial
flow habitat.
Establish Riparian
Buffer Vegetation
CVS Level I & II
Protocol Tree Veg
Plots (Strata
Composition Vigor
and Density), visual
assessment
Within planted portions of
the Project site, a minimum
of 320 stems per acre must
be present at year three; a
minimum of 260 stems per
acre must be present at year
five; and a minimum of 210
stems per acre must be
present at year seven.
Increase woody and
herbaceous vegetation
will provide channel
stability and reduce
streambank erosion,
runoff rates and exotic
species vegetation.
Note: Level 4 and 5 project parameters and monitoring activities are not proposed and are not required to
demonstrate success for credit release.
10 Long-Term Management Plan
The Bank will be protected in perpetuity by a recorded conservation easement. The conservation
easement will allow for annual monitoring and maintenance of the Bank during the monitoring phase.
Upon final site approval and project closeout, the Bank stewardship will be transferred to an approved
long-term stewardship program. WLS has partnered with Tar River Land Conservancy (TRLC) as the long-
term steward for the Bank site (See Appendix D for conservation easement template and engagement
letter). Following the development of the mitigation bank and completion of all restoration and
enhancement stream and wetland activities, the property fee title will be transferred to TRLC.
Tar River Land Conservancy
Attn: Derek Halberg
121 N. Main Street
P.O. Box 1161
Louisburg, NC 27549
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 54

This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will
conduct periodic inspection of the Bank to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
are upheld. Any endowment funds for the conservation easement and deed restrictions shall be
negotiated prior to transfer to the responsible party. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party
on a yearly basis until such time and endowments are established. The use of funds from the Endowment
Account is governed by NC General Statue GS 113A-232(d) (3). Payments and interest gained by the
endowment fund may be used only for stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable. The management activities will be conducted in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the approved UMBI as agreed to by WLS, USACE, and the IRT.
11 Adaptive Management Plan
The Sponsor will conduct post-construction monitoring activities and routine maintenance as needed for
the duration of the monitoring period. The Sponsor will notify the USACE immediately if monitoring results
or visual observations demonstrate that performance standards cannot be achieved. In the event the Bank
site or a specific component of the Bank site fails to achieve the performance standards as specified in the
mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the IRT and develop a corrective action plan and facilitate
remedial actions. The Sponsor is responsible for providing any necessary permits to implement the
corrective action plan that describes the extent and nature of the work to be performed. If the USACE
determines that the Bank is not meeting performance standards, or the Sponsor is not complying with the
terms of the instrument, the USACE may take appropriate actions, including but not limited to holding
credit sales, utilizing financial assurances, and/or terminating the instrument.
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will take place at least
once a year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction.
12 Financial Assurances
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of casualty insurance or a performance bond
that is acceptable to the USACE and sufficient to assure successful completion of all mitigation bank
activities, reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to the approved Mitigation
Plan and/or UMBI. The insurance policy or performance bond will be submitted for review and approval
by the USACE. The financial assurance will cover the cost estimates for providing the mitigation bank
activities such as site mobilization and construction, annual monitoring, and reporting as outlined in Table
21 and broken out by annual cost below. There will be a financial assurance for the construction phase in
the amount of $835,000, and that financial assurance will be retired following completion of construction
and planting. Then, a monitoring financial assurance in the amount of $224,000 will be provided to assure
completion of seven years of monitoring, and reporting, and any remedial work required during the
monitoring period.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 55
Table 21. Financial Assurances
Category Item Estimated Cost
Construction Site Earthwork, Amenities, & Planting $835,000
Monitoring &
Maintenance
Monitoring Activities and
Annual Reports through 7 years $110,000
Land Management and Routine Maintenance $49,000
Contingency / Remedial Action $65,000

The annual monitoring costs for Table 21 are itemized below and each item includes direct costs.
Annual Monitoring Costs Price Per Task
Gauge downloads/maintenance $4,000.00
Vegetation Plot Measurements (44 plots) $4,714.00
On-site Physical Measurements (6 XS) $2,500.00
Data Processing and Analysis $2,000.00
Report Preparation $2,500.00
TOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING COSTS $15,714.00

Annual Maintenance Costs Price Per Task
Invasive Species Vegetation and Annual Maintenance $7,000

The monitoring financial assurance will be reduced following approval of each annual monitoring report
as provided in the financial assurance policy; however, monitoring years 1 through 3 will keep the full
contingency amount of $65,000 and the contingency will be reduced starting in monitoring year 4. The
monitoring financial assurance will be retired in total following official notice of site close-out from the
IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the oblige
or lender. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the
Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. The USACE shall receive notification at least 120 days in advance of any
termination or revocation. In the event of Sponsor default, TRLC has agreed to receive the endowment
funds and will ensure the mitigation work is successfully completed.

Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 56
13 References
Alderman, John M., Alvin L. Braswell, et al. 1993. Biological inventory: Swift Creek Subbasin. NC Wildlife
Resources Commission. 133 pp.
Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach, 2003, Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, NC Stream Restoration Institute.
Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith, and J. Spooner.
2002. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the Piedmont of North
Carolina. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(3): 641-651.
Dooley and Maschhoff, 2003. Functional requirements and design parameters for restocking coarse
woody features in restored and enhanced wetlands.
Doyle, Martin W. et al. “Effective discharge analysis of ecological processes in streams.” Water Resources
Research, vol. 41, no. 11, 2005.
Dunne, T. & Leopold, L.B. (1978): Water in Environmental Planning W.HG. Freeman Co., San Francisco,
818 pp.
Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB). 2013. Recommendations for Estimating Flows to
Maintain Ecological Integrity in Streams and Rivers in North Carolina.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Griffith, G.E., et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. Reston, VA. United States Geological Survey.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function based
framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance standards and
standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands.
Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington D.C. EPS 843-B-12-005.
Hey, R.D. 2006. Fluvial Geomorphological Methodology for Natural Stable Channel Design. Journal of
American Water Resources Association. April 2006. Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 357-374. AWRA Paper No.
02094.
Johnson, P.A., and T.M. Heil, 1996. Uncertainty in Estimating Bankfull Conditions. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 32(6): 1283-1292.
KCI Associates of NC, DMS. 2010. Using Pressure Transducers for Stream Restoration Design and
Monitoring.
Kilpatrick FA, Barnes HH Jr. 1964. Channel geometry of Piedmont streams as related to frequency of
floods, Washington, DC. Professional Paper 422 E. Professional Paper 422 E. US Geological Survey.
Knighton, A. D., Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective, Arnold, London, 1988.
Lee, T.L, Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., and Wentworth, T.R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocolv4.2- lev1-2.pdf.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 57
Leopold, Luna B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
Nixon M. 1959. A study of bankfull discharge of rivers in England and Wales. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers 12: 157–174.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team, 2015. “NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
User Manual”. Version 2.1, August 2015.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team, 2016. “NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
User Manual”. Version 5.0, February 2016.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 2019. “DWR Surface Water Classifications.”
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2018. “Tar-Pamlico River Basin Restoration
Priorities.”
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2010. “Methodology for Identification of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins”, v 4.11.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC. Cited from http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htm on
August 2, 2023.
Poff, N. LeRoy, et al. “The Natural Flow Regime.” BioScience, vol. 47, no. 11, 1997, pp. 769-784.
Postel, Sandra and Brian D. Richter. “Rivers for Life: Managing Water For People And Nature.” 2003.
Power, M. E., A. Sun, G. Parker, W. E. Dietrich, J. Timothy, and J. T. Wootton. 1995. “Hydraulic food-chain
models: an approach to the study of food-web dynamics in large rivers.” BioScience, 45: 159–167.
Resh, Vincent H., et al. “The Role of Disturbance in Stream Ecology.” Journal of the North American
Benthological Society, vol. 7, no. 4, 1988, pp. 433–55.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Scherrer, E. 1999. Using Microtopography to Restore Wetland Plant Communities in Eastern North
Carolina.
Schlosser, Issac J. “Flow Regime, Juvenile Abundance, and the Assemblage Structure of Stream Fishes.”
Ecology: Ecological Society of America, vol. 66, no. 5, 1985, pp. 1484-1490.
Schumm, S. A. 1960. The shape of alluvial channels in relation to sediment type (Geological Survey
Professional Paper No. 352-B.
Simon, Andrew. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms. Volume 14, Issue 1, pg 11–26.
Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina’s Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
39(4):861-871.
Draft Mitigation Plan
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Page 58
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2011.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program.
Technical Note VN-RS-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Technical Standard for Water-Table Monitoring of
Potential Wetland Sites. ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Notification of Issuance of Guidance for
Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District, October 2016,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources; Final Rule dated April 10, 2008 of the Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 70.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil
Survey Division. 1979. Soil Survey, Edgecombe County, NC.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina (County Listing). Edgecombe County. 2023.
Williams, Garnett P. “Bank-full discharge of rivers.” Water Resources Research, vol. 14, no. 6, 1978, pp.
1141-1154.
Wolman, M. Gordon and Luna Bergere Leopold. “River flood plains: Some observations on their
formation.” 1957.

Figures

Swiftie Mitigation Bank
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
Figure 2 – Geographic Service Area Map
Figure 3 – USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 – NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5a – LiDAR Map
Figure 5b – LiDAR Map
Figure 6 – FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 7a – 1994 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7b – 2008 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7c – 2013 Aerial Photograph
Figure 8 – Existing Aquatic Resources Map
Figure 9 – Proposed Mitigation Features Map
Figure 10 – Proposed Monitoring Map
Figure 11 – Proposed Buffer Map
Figure 12 – Reference Site Locations Map

Palustrine Group LLC
4812-20-1970
Tar River Land Conservancy
4812-33-5285
±0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Figure1Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_NC_FIPS_3200_Feet
Project
Location Map
!(
o
o
PITT CO
HALIFAX CO
NASH CO
MARTIN CO
EDGECOMBE CO
Lower Tar03020103
Fishing03020102
Upper Tar03020101
Lower Roanoke03010107
Contentnea03020203
Proposed Conservation Easement
Parcel Boundary
!(Project Location
Vicinity Streams (NHD)
HUC-8
5-Mile Aviation Zone
o Airport
Edgecombe County
NC Counties
0 5 10
Miles075150Miles
Project is located in:
HUC8 - 03020101
HUC12 - 030201010803
Date: 9/8/2023
Legend
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
36.00490, -77.60111
!(
SiteLocation
Figure2Service
Area Map
Date: 8/15/2023
!(Site Location
Service Area (HUC8 - 03020101)
´0 10 205
Miles
1 inch = 10 miles
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Figure3USGS Topo QuadDraughn, Tarboro
Date: 9/21/2023
Approximate Project BoundaryParcel BoundaryS100 Watershed (32 ac)S200 Watershed (90 ac)S300 Watershed (44 ac)S400 Watershed (468 ac)S500 Watershed (279 ac)S600 Watershed (348 ac)S700 Watershed (33 ac)
´0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation ProjectHUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101Edgecombe County, North Carolina
33
S
1
0
0
S200
S300
S400S500
S60
0
Swi
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
W
h
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
Ro
Wh
Ro
TaB
RaA
DgA
Cc
WaB
Wh
Ro
Lu
RaA
WkB
GoA
BB
RoWaB
TaB
CeB
TaB
NoB
WaB
TaB
Wh
Ba
RaA
TaB
DgA
AaA
Wh
CeB
WaB
TaB
GoA
TaB
TaB
StB
WaB
NoA
CeB
NoB
We
AaA
LyA
Ro
NoB
TaB
StB
TaB
WkB
WkB
WaB
TaB
AaA
Ro
AaA
RaA
CeB
AaA
CeB
NoA
Ro
GoA
AaA
NoB
StB
NoA
TaB
RaA
LyA
TaB
TaB
AaA
GoA
RaA
AaA
TaB AaA
NoA
WaB
AaA
CeB
AaA
AaA
AaA
TaB
WkB
TaB
AaA
AaA
StB
GoA
AaA
Wh
W
GoA
NoB
Ro
WkB
WkB
StB
We
TaB
RaA
LyA
CeB W
WaB
RaA NoBWaB
GoA
GoA
GoA
DgA
TaB
NoA
Figure4NRCS
Soils Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Soil Type
AaA: Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes
BB: Bibb soils (Hydric)
Ba: Ballahack fine sandy loam (Hydric)
Cc: Chewacla silt loam
CeB: Conetoe loamy sand, 0 to 4% slopes
DgA: Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes
GoA: Goldsboro fine sandy loam, 0 to 2%
slopes
Lu: Lumbee fine sandy loam
LyA: Lynchburg fine sandy loam, 0 to 2%
slopes, So Coastal Plain (Hydric)
NoA: Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2% slopes
NoB: Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6% slopes
RaA: Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes,
So Coastal Plain (Hydric)
Ro: Roanoke loam (Hydric)
StB: State loamy sand, 0 to 4% slopes
TaB: Tarboro loamy sand, 0 to 6% slopes
W: Water
WaB: Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6% slopes
We: Wahee fine sandy loam
Wh: Wehadkee silt loam (Hydric)
WkB: Wickham sandy loam, 0 to 4% slopes
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing Stream
!
Elevation79.9 ft
!
Elevation69.1 ft
!
Elevation68.4 ft
!
Elevation69.8 ft
!
Elevation60.2 ft
!
Elevation57.6 ft
S200
S
1
0
0
S500
S300
S400
Figure5aLiDAR
Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing StreamLiDAR Elevation (ft)
High : 94.0414 Low : 53.9585
´0 500 1,000250
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
!Elevation49.8 ft
!
Elevation53.9 ft
!
Elevation56.7 ft
!
Elevation57.6 ft
S500
Swi
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
W
h
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
Figure5bLiDAR
Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing StreamLiDAR Elevation (ft)
High : 74.5389 Low : 48.5213 ´0 500 1,000250
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
33
S
1
0
0
S200
S300
S400S500
S60
0
Swi
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
W
h
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
Figure6FEMA
Floodplain Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing StreamFEMA Floodzone
100-yr Floodplain (Zone AE)
100-yr Floodplain (Floodway)
500-yr Floodplain
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Project boundary located within
FEMA FIRM Panel(s):
3720480200K, 3720481200K
3720480100K, 3720481100K
Effective Date: 06/2015
Figure7a1994
Aerial Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Figure7b2008
Aerial Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Figure7c2013
Aerial Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
"/"
"/"
White OakSwamp Rd
33
W01
W04
W02
W06
W05
Hydric Soil(W03)
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
Wh
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Dit
c
h

4
Ditc
h

3
Ditch 2
D
i
t
c
h

1
Figure8Existing Aquatic
Resources Map
Date: 9/19/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing Roads
Existing Stream
Existing Ditches
Existing Wetland (verified)
Existing Hydric Soil
Open Water Feature
"/"Existing Culverts
Existing Utility (powerline)
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
"/"
"/"
White OakSwamp Rd
33
W01 W02
W03
W04W06
W05
Swift Creek MitigationBank As-built Stream
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
Wh
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Figure9Proposed Mitigation
Features Map
Date: 9/19/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing Utility (powerline)
"/"Existing Culverts (to remain)
Existing Roads
Existing Ditches
Open Water Feature
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement
Preservation
No Credit
Wetland Mitigation
Riparian Enhancement
Non-Riparian Enhancement
Riparian Re-establishment
Non-Riparian Re-establishment
Preservation
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Swift Creek Mitigation Bank Easement Boundary
Swift Creek Mitigation Bank As-built Stream
")!
")
")!
")
")!
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")!
")
")
")!
")
")
")
")")
")!
")
")
")
")
")
")
!.
!.
!.
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
33
W01
W02
W03
W04
S300
S500
S400
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Figure10Proposed
Monitoring Map
Date: 9/19/2023
Approximate Project
Parcel Boundary
")Fixed Vegetation Plots
")!Random Vegetation Plots
")Fixed Additional DWR
Vegetation Plots (20)
!.Flow Gauge
!!Groundwater Gauge
!.Crest GaugeCross Section
Headwater Valley
Riffle
Pool
´0 500 1,000250
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement
Preservation
No Credit
Existing Ditches
Buffer and Nutrient Mitigation
Coastal HWV Buffer Restoration 0-100 ft
Coastal HWV Buffer Restoration 101-200 ft
Buffer Restoration 0-100 ft
Buffer Preservation 0-100ft
Buffer Preservation 101-200ft
Nutrient 0-100 ft
Nutrient 101-200 ft
Wetland Mitigation
Riparian Enhancement
Non-Riparian Enhancement
Riparian Re-establishment
Non-Riparian Re-establishment
Preservation
White OakSwamp Rd
33
W01
W02
W03
W04W06
W05
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
Wh
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Figure11Proposed
Buffer Map
Date: 9/19/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel BoundaryStream Mitigation
Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement
Preservation
No Credit
Existing Ditches
Buffer and Nutrient Mitigation
Coastal HWV Buffer Restoration 0-100 ft
Coastal HWV Buffer Restoration 101-200 ft
Buffer Restoration 0-100 ft
Buffer Preservation 0-100ft
Buffer Preservation 101-200ft
Nutrient 0-100 ft
Nutrient 101-200 ft
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
!(
Site Location
Figure12Reference SiteLocation Map
Date: 9/21/2023
!(Site Location
^_Reference Site Location
´0 10 205Miles
1 inch = 10 miles
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation ProjectHUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Headwater Stream/Wetland Reference
Wetland Reference
Hollowell35.354143, -78.115899
Hornpipe35.133994, -77.655111
Turtle Creek34.934181, -77.584147
Stream ReferenceReachesStream ReferenceReaches
Stream Reference Reach
^_
Appendix A - Design Plan Sheets
Swiftie Mitigation Project
© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS
© 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2023 Maxar ©CNES (2023) Distribution Airbus DS
C
E
CE CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CECE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
NOTES:
1. THE PLANS HAVE BEEN CREATED ON ANSI D FULL BLEED (22"X34") PAPER. FOR REDUCTIONS, REFER TO
GRAPHIC SCALE. WHEN PLOTTED ON 11"X17" PAPER, THIS PLAN SET WILL NOT BE TO SCALE.
2. THE PLANS HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR FULL COLOR PLOTTING. ANY SET OF THE PLANS THAT IS NOT PLOTTED
IN FULL COLOR SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
**WARNING**: INFORMATION MAY BE LOST IN COPYING AND/OR GRAY SCALE
PLOTTING.
SITE35.9984,
-77.6062
USGS 8-DIGIT HUC BOUNDARY MAP
N.T.S.
TAR-PAMLICO
HUC ID: 03020101
GEOGRAPHIC
SERVICE
AREA
TI
T
L
E

S
H
E
E
T
1
VICINITY MAP
RESTORATION
LEGEND
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CE
CE
STREAM MITIGATION
00
SCALE IN FEET
05001000 1000
SWIFTIE MITIGATION PROJECT
EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
USACE ACTION ID NUMBER: SAW-2019-00631
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM,WETLAND, NUTRIENT, AND BUFFER MITIGATION
DRAWING LIST
1
2
3
4
5-13
14-15
16
17-20
21-23VICINITY MAP
LOCATION MAPTITLE SHEET
GENERAL & SPECIAL NOTES
PROJECT KEYMAP & LEGEND
TYPICAL SECTIONS
PLAN & PROFILE
WETLAND GRADING PLAN
PLANTING PLAN TABLES & NOTES
PLANTING PLAN
DETAILS
000
SCALE IN MILES
48 8
SITE
WETLAND MITIGATION
RIPARIAN RE-ESTABLISHMENT
RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

3
3
WHIT
E

O
A
K

S
W
A
M
P

R
D
.
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

A
_
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
C
O
V
E
R
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
PRESERVATION
ENHANCEMENT
NO-CREDIT
RIPARIAN PRESERVATION
NON-RIPARIAN RE-ESTABLISHMENT
NON-RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENT
2
GE
N
E
R
A
L

&

S
P
E
C
I
A
L

N
O
T
E
S
GENERAL NOTES
1. THE PROJECT (35.9984° N, -77.6062° W) IS LOCATED IN EDGECOMBE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA WITHIN THE UPPER TAR RIVER BASIN (8-DIGIT HUC 03020101)
AS SHOWN ON THE COVER SHEET VICINITY MAP. TO ACCESS THE SITE FROM
RALEIGH, NC, FOLLOW I-40 EAST, TAKE EXIT 14 FOR US-64 E/US-264 E TOWARD
ROCKY MT/WILSON, CONTINUE ONTO I-87, CONTINUE ONTO US-64 E, TAKE EXIT
470 FOR NC-97/ATLANTIC AVE, TURN RIGHT ONTO NC-97 E/ATLANTIC AVE, TURN
RIGHT ONTO NC-97 E, TURN LEFT ONTO NEW HOPE CHURCH RD, TURN RIGHT
ONTO BATTLEBORO-LEGGETT RD, TURN LEFT ONTO SPEIGHTS CHAPEL RD,
TURN RIGHT ONTO WHITE OAK SWAMP RD, TURN RIGHT ONTO NC-33 E, THE
SITE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT IN 4 MILES.
2. THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS AS THE
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM
ALL RELATED WORK ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES
AND/OR WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD). THE PROJECT SITE SHALL
BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THE
ESC PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PERMITTED
ACCESS THROUGHOUT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS AND MEASURES
TO PROTECT ALL PROPERTIES FROM DAMAGE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
REPAIR ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS/HER OPERATIONS TO ALL PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LEAVE THE PROPERTY IN GOOD CONDITION AND/OR
AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. UPON
COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE AREA IS TO BE
RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN FOUND PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
4. THE TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP WAS DEVELOPED USING SURVEY DATA
COLLECTED BY ASCENSION LAND SURVEYING IN SUMMER 2023. THE
HORIZONTAL DATUM WAS TIED TO NAD83/2011 NC STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM, US SURVEY FEET AND NAVD88 VERTICAL DATUM USING VRS NETWORK
AND NCGS MONUMENT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND SITE
CONDITIONS MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL SURVEY WAS
COMPLETED. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONFIRM EXISTING
GRADES AND ADJUST QUANTITIES, EARTHWORK, AND WORK EFFORTS AS
NECESSARY.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND THOROUGHLY
FAMILIARIZE HIM/HERSELF WITH ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS. PRIOR TO
BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACCURACY
AND COMPLETENESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN
PLANS REGARDING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE WORK DESCRIBED.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE
CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR FIELD CONDITIONS TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.
7. THERE SHALL BE NO CLEARING OR REMOVAL OF ANY NATIVE SPECIES
VEGETATION OR TREES OF SIGNIFICANCE, OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED ON
THE PLANS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES IN THE
VICINITY OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND TREES OF SIGNIFICANCE AT THE
CONSTRUCTION SITE. ALL GRADING IN THE VICINITY OF TREES NOT IDENTIFIED
FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE MADE IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT DISTURB THE
ROOT SYSTEM WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE.
9. WORK ACTIVITIES ARE BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL REASONABLE
EFFORTS TO REDUCE SEDIMENT LOSS, PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND MINIMIZE
DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.
ALL AREAS SHALL BE KEPT NEAT, CLEAN, AND FREE OF ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS,
AND ALL REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID DAMAGE TO
EXISTING ROADS, VEGETATION, TURF, STRUCTURES, AND PRIVATE PROPERTY.
10. PRIOR TO START OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF
MATERIALS, INCLUDING AGGREGATES, EROSION CONTROL MATTING, WOOD
AND NATIVE PLANTING MATERIAL TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE SOURCE OF MATERIAL
IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NECESSARY
COORDINATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL
AGENCIES, UTILITY COMPANIES, HIS/HER SUB-CONTRACTORS, AND THE
ENGINEER FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.
12. PRIOR TO START OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THEIR DETAILED
PLANTING SCHEDULE TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. NO WORK SHALL BE
PERFORMED UNTIL THIS SCHEDULE IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. THE
DETAILED PLANTING SCHEDULE SHALL CONFORM TO THE PLANTING
REVEGETATION PLAN AND SHALL INCLUDE A SPECIES LIST AND TIMING
SEQUENCE.
13. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND
CULVERT PIPES USING A BACKHOE/EXCAVATOR WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF
SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS INCLUDING LOGS,
STONE, AND TEMPORARY WOOD MAT STREAM CROSSINGS.
1. NO GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR BEYOND THE PROJECT LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (LOD) AS SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS.
2. ONCE DESIGN GRADES ARE ACHIEVED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PLAN
AND PROFILE, THE WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN AREAS SHALL BE ROUGHENED
USING TECHNIQUES DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.
3. ALL SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL REQUIRED TO FILL AND/OR PLUG EXISTING
DITCHES AND/OR STREAM CHANNEL SHALL BE GENERATED ON-SITE AS
DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. ANY EXCESS SPOIL
MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED IN DESIGNATED AREAS AND OR HAULED TO
AN ON-SITE LOCATION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. NO TEMPORARY
STOCKPILES OR SPOIL MATERIAL SHALL REMAIN WITHIN FEMA FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
4. ANY OFFSITE BORROW MATERIAL MUST COME FROM A SITE WITH AN
APPROVED ESC PLAN. ANY TRASH/DEBRIS OR WASTE MATERIAL GENERATED
BY GRADING ACTIVITIES MUST BE DISPOSED OF AT A REGULATED FACILITY
PER DWR RULES AND REGULATIONS (15A NCAC 4B .0110).
CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS FOR THIS PROJECT AND ALL WORK
SHALL BE IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF EACH PERMIT.
GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REALIGNED STREAM(S) SHALL FOLLOW ALL GOVERNING
AUTHORITIES' REGULATIONS.
BENCHMARKS
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOLDING, SETTING, AND MAINTAINING
BENCHMARKS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. IN THE EVENT THAT A
BENCHMARK IS DISTURBED, THE CONTRACTOR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER, WILL
RELOCATE OR REESTABLISH THE BENCHMARK. NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OR COMPENSATION
WILL BE MADE FOR THIS WORK.
ELEVATIONS
ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN REFER TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88).
COORDINATES
THE PROJECT DATUM ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE
SYSTEM. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (2011)
(NAD 83). GRID FACTORS ARE NOT REQUIRED WHEN MAKING FIELD MEASUREMENTS.
VERIFICATION OF DIMENSIONS
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALL PLAN AND ELEVATION
DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VARIOUS BID
ITEMS IN THE CONTRACT.
TREE CLEARING
TREE CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY TO THE EXTENT AND TO THE
LIMITS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND INSTALL THE MEASURES AS SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS.
WASTE MATERIAL
ALL MATERIAL EXCAVATED AND NOT REUSED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT SHALL
BE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNUSED WORK MATERIAL DISPOSED OF BY
THE CONTRACTOR IN LOCATION(S) APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
FILTER FABRIC
NON-WOVEN FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AT IN-STREAM STRUCTURES SHOWN IN THE
DETAILS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
UTILITIES
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INVESTIGATION, LOCATION, SUPPORT,
PROTECTION, AND RESTORATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES WHETHER
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ASCERTAIN
THE STATUS AND LOCATION OF EACH UTILITY WHEN PERFORMING WORK WHICH MAY AFFECT
THESE FACILITIES, INCLUDING PROBING, EXCAVATION, OR ANY OTHER PRECAUTION REQUIRED
TO CONFIRM LOCATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXPOSE ALL UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EFFECT ON PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL, TOLL FREE, NORTH CAROLINA 811 CENTER
(1-800-632-4949) TWO DAYS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL NOTIFY ALL UTILITY
COMPANIES AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO WORK IN THE VICINITY OF THEIR UNDERGROUND
LINES. THE CONTRACTOR WILL RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE OR DISRUPTION TO
UTILITY LINES WHICH ARE KNOWN ACTIVE AND ARE TO REMAIN IN OPERATION.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE ESC NOTES AND PLAN SHEETS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND
POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES ARE ORDERED BY THE ENGINEER DUE TO THE
CONTRACTOR'S NEGLIGENCE, CARELESSNESS, OR FAILURE TO INSTALL PERMANENT
CONTROLS AS PART OF THE WORK AS SCHEDULED. SUCH WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED BY
THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS OWN EXPENSE.
THE FIRST ORDER OF WORK FOR THE CONTRACTOR IS TO INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROL
MEASURES AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. INITIAL CLEARING AND GRUBBING IS ONLY TO
BE WHAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THESE OPERATIONS.
IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACTOR IS TO NAME AN INDIVIDUAL TO REVIEW THE EROSION
CONTROL FEATURES AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE A WEEK DURING PERIODS OF HEAVY
PRECIPITATION AND/OR ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION TO ASSESS THE SUCCESS OF THE EROSION
CONTROL STRUCTURES, REVEGETATION EFFORTS, AND SEE THE REPLACEMENT, CLEANING,
AND/OR INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL FEATURES IF NECESSARY ARE CARRIED OUT.
SITE CLEANUP
DURING CONSTRUCTION AND PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, THE
OWNER/DEVELOPER SHALL REMOVE OR CAUSE TO BE REMOVED ALL REFUSE, RUBBISH,
UNUSED MATERIALS, EXCESS EARTH, FILL ROCK, DEBRIS, AND FOREIGN MATTER FROM ALL
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, IMPROVEMENTS, AND/OR EASEMENTS AS WERE DEPOSITED, LEFT, OR
RESULTED FROM THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS OF ANY NATURE WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT. SUCH REMOVAL SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS AFTER
BEING NOTIFIED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER AND REGULATING AGENCIES.
THIS WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A MANNER WHICH PREVENTS EROSION AS WELL AS
PREVENTS STORM WATER FROM ACCUMULATING OR PONDING ON THE SITE. THE WORK SHALL
ALSO BE PERFORMED IN A MANNER THAT PREVENTS DISRUPTING OR IMPEDING SURFACE
DRAINAGE FROM ONSITE OR OFFSITE SOURCES AND PREVENTS ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON
ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS AND SAFETY REGULATIONS
THE CONTRACTOR AND ANY SUB-CONTRACTORS SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE OSHA
SAFETY REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR AND ANY SUB-CONTRACTORS SHALL BE SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS TOGETHER WITH EXERCISING PRECAUTIONS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE
PROTECTION OF PERSONS INCLUDING EMPLOYEES AND PROPERTY. IT IS THE SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SUB-CONTRACTOR TO INITIATE, MAINTAIN, AND
SUPERVISE ALL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS, PRECAUTIONS, AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE WORK.
CLEARING & GRUBBING LIMITS
CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE EXTENDED TO A MAXIMUM LIMIT NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS AND SHALL NOT EXTEND BEYOND CONSTRUCTION BOUNDARIES WHERE
EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES ARE TO BE PERFORMED. GRUBBING SHALL ONLY TAKE PLACE WITHIN
THE AREA AS NECESSARY. ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEARINGS & GRUBBING SHALL BE
CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO BID ITEM CLEARING AND GRUBBING.
A.AS-BUILT DRAWINGS - DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE
CONTRACTOR AND THE ENGINEER SHALL WORK TOGETHER TO
MAINTAIN A SET OF PRINTS SHOWING ANY CHANGES OR
CORRECTIONS IN RED. THESE PRINTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO
THE ENGINEER AT THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK.
B.STREAM DESIGN DEFINITIONS
1.BANKFULL ELEVATION - BANKFULL ELEVATION IS THE POINT
OF INCIPIENT FLOODING IN AN ALLUVIAL CHANNEL.
2.FLOODPLAIN SILL - A FLOODPLAIN SILL IS THE BURIED
EXTENSION OF THE STRUCTURE AND IS LOCATED ACROSS
THE BANKFULL BENCH OR FLOODPLAIN.
3.THALWEG - THE THALWEG IS THE LOWEST POINT OF THE
BANKFULL CHANNEL ILLUSTRATED BY THE LONGITUDINAL
PROFILE. THIS ELEVATION IS THE REFERENCE FOR ALL
ELEVATIONS ON OR ALONG THE CHANNEL AND HYDRAULIC
STRUCTURES DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION AND SHOWN IN
THE DESIGN DRAWINGS.
4.VANE ANGLE - THE VANE ANGLE IS THE SMALLEST ANGLE
MEASURED BETWEEN A VANE AND A LINE TANGENT TO THE
BANKFULL ELEVATION AT THE POINT WHERE THE VANE
INTERSECTS THE BANK. THE VANE ANGLE SHALL BE
BETWEEN TWENTY PERCENT (20%) AND THIRTY PERCENT
(30%), OR AS SPECIFIED IN THE DATA TABLE AND/OR
DETAILS.
5.VANE LENGTH - THE VANE LENGTH IS THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM LIMIT OF THE VANE ARM AT THE
CHANNEL BED TO THE DOWNSTREAM INSERTION POINT OF
THE VANE ARM INTO THE STREAM BANK.
6.VANE SLOPE - THE VANE SLOPE IS THE SLOPE OF THE VANE
ARM FROM THE UPSTREAM LIMIT AT THE CHANNEL BED TO
THE DOWNSTREAM INSERTION POINT OF THE VANE ARM
INTO THE STREAM BANK. THE VANE SLOPE SHALL BE
BETWEEN TWO PERCENT (2%) AND FOUR PERCENT (4%) OR
AS SPECIFIED IN THE DATA TABLE OR DETAILS AND THE
VANE ARMS SHALL TIE INTO THE BANKS AT HALF TO THREE
QUARTERS OF THE BANKFULL ELEVATION OR AS SPECIFIED
IN THE DETAILS.
7.SUBSTRATE RESTORATION - SUBSTRATE RESTORATION IS
DESIGNED TO REPLACE AND RESTORE APPROPRIATE
SUBSTRATE (SAND, GRAVEL, COBBLE, AND BOULDER) TO
THE STREAM CHANNEL IN CASES WHERE COARSE
SUBSTRATES OR BEDROCK ARE ABSENT FOLLOWING
CHANNEL EXCAVATION. THE PURPOSE OF SUBSTRATE
RESTORATION IS TO PROVIDE NATURAL SUBSTRATE AND
EROSION AND SCOUR PROTECTION IN THE CHANNEL.
8.BASE FLOW - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS, A FLOW EQUAL TO ONE CUBIC FOOT PER
SECOND (CFS) PER SQUARE MILE OF DRAINAGE AREA.
C.FLOODPLAIN AND CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION
1. DEPENDING ON THE SITE CONDITIONS, SOME ADJUSTMENT
OF THE STREAM CHANNEL AND STRUCTURES MAY BE
NECESSARY. ANY WORK ASSOCIATED WITH CHANGING
CHANNEL ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS SHALL
BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. THE PROPOSED STREAM CHANNEL SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED BY FIRST EXCAVATING THE FLOODPLAIN TO
THE ELEVATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED ON THE
GRADING PLAN. THE PROPOSED STREAM CHANNEL SHALL
THEN BE EXCAVATED TO THE PROPER DEPTHS INDICATED
ON THE PROFILE AND CROSS-SECTIONS. THIS SHALL BE
DONE AS UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND IS TYPICALLY
ACCOMPLISHED WITH A TRACK EXCAVATOR WITH
HYDRAULIC THUMB. ANY STOCKPILING OR
DOUBLE-HANDLING OF MATERIALS NECESSARY TO BUILD
THE CHANNEL SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO
CONSTRUCTION.
D.FILTER FABRIC
1. NON-WOVEN FILTER FABRIC SHALL ONLY BE USED WHEN
COVERING A STRUCTURE. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE FABRIC
AS SPECIFIED IN THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT.
SPECIAL NOTES FOR NATURAL STREAM DESIGN
GRADING NOTES
THE ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE SHALL BE USED DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION. PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY LAND
DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, NOTIFICATION OF AND RECEIPT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM NCDEQ-LAND
QUALITY SECTION (LQS). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL LQS AT 910-796-7215 TO SCHEDULE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AT LEAST 72
HOURS PRIOR TO PROJECT ACTIVATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
PERMIT AND CORRESPONDING PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING ITEMS AND SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT CONDITIONS.
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "NC 811" (1-800-632-4949) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION BEGINS. ANY UTILITIES AND RESPECTIVE
EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UTILITIES AND ADJOINING EASEMENTS AND SHALL REPAIR
OR REPLACE ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES AT HIS/HER OWN EXPENSE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, HAUL ROADS AND SHALL MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT,
MATERIALS, PREPARE STAGING AREA(S) AND STOCKPILE AREA(S) AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. HAUL ROADS SHALL BE PROPERLY
MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION.
3. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE AREA DENOTED AS "LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE" OR "HAUL ROADS" AS SHOWN
ON THE PLANS.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY DIVERSIONS AND PUMP-AROUND OPERATIONS AT LOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE
PLANS.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE AROUND THE STAGING AREA(S). TEMPORARY SILT FENCING WILL ALSO
BE PLACED AROUND THE TEMPORARY STOCKPILE AREAS AS MATERIAL IS STOCKPILED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STREAM CROSSINGS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PERMIT. THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND DITCHES ON
SITE WILL REMAIN OPEN DURING THE INITIAL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE AND TO MAINTAIN SITE
ACCESSIBILITY.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT ONLY THE PORTION OF CHANNEL THAT CAN BE COMPLETED AND STABILIZED WITHIN THE
SAME DAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEED AND MULCH TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE END
OF EACH WORK DAY, WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER THROUGH
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT.
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB AN AREA ADEQUATE TO CONSTRUCT THE STREAM CHANNEL AND GRADING OPERATIONS
AFTER ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND APPROVED. IN GENERAL, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL WORK FROM UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM AND IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND CHANNEL FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED
USING A PUMP-AROUND OR FLOW DIVERSION MEASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL BEGIN CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION UPSTREAM AND PROCEED IN A DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION WITH
CONSTRUCTION. THE DESIGN CHANNEL SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED OFFLINE AND/OR IN THE DRY WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE AND CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TO PROPOSED DESIGN GRADES AND SHALL NOT
EXTEND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES ANY CLOSER THAN WITHIN 10 FEET (HORIZONTALLY) OF THE TOP OF EXISTING STREAM BANKS IN
ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL UNTIL ABANDONMENT.
10. THE CONTRACTOR WILL CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION BY EXCAVATING CHANNEL FILL MATERIAL. THE CONTRACTOR MAY FILL
NON-JURISDICTIONAL DITCHES WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN ANY WATER DURING THE GRADING OPERATIONS. ALONG STREAM REACHES
OR POND AREA, EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHOULD BE STOCKPILED IN AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. IN ANY AREAS WHERE
EXCAVATION DEPTHS WILL EXCEED 10 INCHES, TOPSOIL SHALL BE HARVESTED, STOCKPILED AND PLACED BACK OVER THESE AREAS
TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8 INCHES TO ACHIEVE DESIGN GRADES AND CREATE A SOIL BASE FOR VEGETATION PLANTING ACCORDING
TO THE DESIGN PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.
11. AFTER EXCAVATING AND CONSTRUCTING THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TO PROPOSED DESIGN GRADES, INSTALL IN-STREAM
STRUCTURES, BIOENGINEERING MEASURES, PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SEEDING AND ALL REQUIRED AMENDMENTS, MULCHING,
VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS, TO COMPLETE CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION AND READY THE CHANNEL TO ACCEPT FLOW PER APPROVAL
BY THE ENGINEER.
12. STREAM FLOW WILL BE DIVERTED BACK INTO THE CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL ONCE THE RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL AND
ASSOCIATED RIPARIAN AREA HAS BEEN STABILIZED, AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. ONCE STREAM FLOW IS RETURNED TO A RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL REACH, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
IMMEDIATELY BEGIN PLUGGING, FILLING, AND GRADING THE ASSOCIATED ABANDONED REACH OF STREAM CHANNEL, AS INDICATED
ON PLANS, MOVING IN A DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION TO ALLOW FOR POSITIVE AND ADEQUATE DRAINAGE OF THE ABANDONED
CHANNEL REACH. STREAM FLOW SHALL NOT BE DIVERTED INTO ANY SECTION OF RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL PRIOR TO THE
COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT REACH OF PROPOSED CHANNEL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINAL GRADING,
STABILIZATION WITH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING AND ALL REQUIRED AMENDMENTS, MULCHING, VEGETATION
TRANSPLANT INSTALLATION, INSTREAM STRUCTURE INSTALLATION, BIOENGINEERING INSTALLATION, AND COIR FIBER MATTING
INSTALLATION.
13. THE RESTORED CHANNEL SECTIONS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT THEIR DOWNSTREAM END TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE DURING RAIN
EVENTS.
14. ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM CHANNEL AND RIPARIAN WETLAND AREAS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO
DIVERTING STREAM FLOW INTO THE RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL REACHES. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED ON A REACH OF
PROPOSED STREAM CHANNEL, ADDITIONAL GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED WITHIN 10 FEET (HORIZONTALLY) OF
THE NEWLY RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL BANKS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT FINALIZE GRADE OR ROUGHEN AREAS WHERE
REQUIRED EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED UNTIL DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
15. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE WITHIN A PUMP-AROUND WORK AREA OR CONSTRUCTION WORK LIMIT, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL APPLY TEMPORARY SEEDING TO ANY AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN HOURS. ALL SLOPES STEEPER
THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS. ALL OTHER DISTURBED
AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND-DISTURBING
ACTIVITY.
16. PERMANENT GROUND COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS
(WHICHEVER IS SHORTER) FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED
GROUND COVER PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION. REMOVE ANY TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AND TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES. HAUL ROADS TO BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN FOUND PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
17. ALL REMAINING DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED BY TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING AND MULCHING BEFORE
CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT IS REQUESTED AND DEMOBILIZATION CAN OCCUR. ALL WASTE MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE
PROJECT SITE.
18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TREAT AREAS OF INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AREA ACCORDING TO THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE APPROVED PERMIT, PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO
DEMOBILIZATION.
19. THE CONTRACTOR COMPLETE ALL REMAINING PLANTING ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING, REMAINING
TRANSPLANT INSTALLATION, INSTALLATION OF REMAINING BIOENGINEERING MEASURES, AND LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION,
ACCORDING TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE APPROVED PERMIT, PLANS AND TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE RE-FORESTATION (BARE-ROOT PLANTING) PHASE OF THE PROJECT AND
CONDUCT REMAINING PERMANENT SEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE
APPROVED PERMIT, PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
20. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS FREE OF TRASH AND LEFTOVER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRIOR TO
DEMOBILIZATION FROM THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF ALL TRASH, EXCESS
BACKFILL, AND ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL MATERIALS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE. THE DISPOSAL AND
STOCKPILE LOCATIONS SELECTED MUST BE APPROVED TO THE ENGINEER AND ANY FEES SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR.
21. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT SELF-INSPECTIONS OF THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING COMBINED SELF-INSPECTION FORM FOUND ON THE NCDEMLR WEBSITE
HTTPS://FILES.NC.GOV/NCDEQ/ENERGY%20MINERAL%20AND%20LAND%20RESOURCES/
STORMWATER/NPDES%20GENERAL%20PERMITS/DEMLR-CSW-MONITORING -FORM-REV-AUGUST-8-2019.PDF . TWELVE MONTHS OF
COMPLETE INSPECTION FORMS SHALL BE KEPT ON-SITE AND AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT ALL TIMES. IT IS RECOMMENDED A
COPY BE KEPT IN A PERMITS BOX.” (GS 113A-54.1 (E), 15A NCAC 04B.0131, NCG01 PART III SECTIONS A AND B).
22. WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE, THE PERMITTEE SHALL CONTACT DEMLR TO CLOSE OUT THE ESC PLAN. AFTER DEMLR INFORMS
THE PERMITTEE OF THE PROJECT CLOSE OUT, VIA INSPECTION REPORT, THE PERMITTEE SHALL VISIT DEQ.NC.GOV/NCG01 TO
SUBMIT AN ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF TERMINATION (E-NOT). A $100 ANNUAL GENERAL PERMIT FEE WILL BE CHARGED UNTIL THE
E-NOT HAS BEEN FILLED OUT.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RI
S TOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

B
_
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
G
E
N
E
R
A
L

N
O
T
E
S
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
CE
CE
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
17
19
18
20
9
8
PROJECT KEY MAP NORTH
S700
00
SCALE IN FEET
0250500 500
3
PR
O
J
E
C
T

K
E
Y
M
A
P

&

L
E
G
E
N
D
*SOME ITEMS SHOWN IN THIS LEGEND MAY NOT ACTUALLY
BE PRESENT WITHIN THE PLAN SET*
S
2
0
0
NOW OR FORMERLY
PALUSTRINE GROUP, LLC
PARCEL ID: 4812-20-1970
DEED BOOK: 1733 PAGE: 006
BEGIN NO CREDIT S400
STATION 10+00
BEGIN PRESERVATION S700
STATION 10+00
END PRESERVATION S600
STATION 23+93
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

C
_
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

K
E
Y
M
A
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
LEGEND
OHE
101
100
100YR
FO
G
EXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
EXISTING 100 YR FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
EXISTING ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
EXISTING GAS MAIN
GAS
FO
ELC
FO
E
FO
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
UGE EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING ELECTRIC MARKER
EXISTING FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE
EXISTING FIBER OPTIC PEDESTAL
EXISTING FIBER OPTIC MARKER
EXISTING GAS MAIN MARKER
W
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING WATER MAIN MARKER
EXISTING ROAD/FARM PATH
EXISTING WOODLINE
EXISTING TREE
EXISTING FENCE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CUT/FILL LIMITS
TP PROPOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCE
CE
C/F
X X PROPOSED FIELD FENCE
FS PROPOSED FILTER SOCK
||||||PROPOSED SILT FENCE
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN POOL
X PROPOSED GATE
PROPOSED FARM PATH
PROPOSED TEMPORARY STOCK PILE
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MAT
PROPOSED TEMPORARY GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL (PROFILE)
PROPOSED EXCAVATION (PROFILE)
EXISTING GROUND (PROFILE)
PROPOSED BANKFULL (PROFILE)
PROPOSED THALWEG (PROFILE)
SS
ST
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING STORM SEWER MAIN
ST
S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING CENTERLINE
(THALWEG)
EXISTING TOP OF
STREAM BANK
EXISTING STREAM
CHANNEL
15+00
PROPOSED BANK BOUNDARY
EXISTING WETLAND AREA
EXISTING WETLAND AREA
(NO CREDIT)
TOE WOOD
GEOLIFT WITH TOE WOOD
LOG RIFFLE
ROOT WAD
OHT
UGT
W
EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
EXISTING WATER MAIN
TEL
T EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING TELEPHONE MARKER
101
100
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
(THALWEG)
PROPOSED TOP OF
STREAM BANK
PROPOSED
STREAM CHANNEL
15+00
STREAM FLOW DIRECTION
PROPOSED OUTLET CHANNEL
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CHANNEL/DITCH BLOCK
CHANNEL FILL
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN
DEPRESSION
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT FEATURE
RIPARIAN WETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENT
PROPOSED PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
PROPOSED TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
PROPOSED PUMP AROUND
PROPOSED TEMPORARY HAUL ROAD
RIPARIAN WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
PROPOSED TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
CONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLE
BOULDER STEP POOL
BOULDER VANE AND ROOTWAD
BOULDER VANE AND J-HOOK
BOULDER CROSS VANE AND ROOTWAD
BOULDER CROSS VANE WITH STEP
LOG STEP POOL
BOULDER CASCADE
WOOD SNAG
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
LOG VANE, ROCK J-HOOK
CONSTRUCTED BRUSHY RIFFLE
PROPOSED STAGING AREA
TO BE REMOVED
LOG CASCADE
EXISTING STORM PIPE
EXISTING STORM PIPE
PLUNGE POOL
LOG VANE
100YR PROPOSED 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
500YR EXISTING 500 YR FLOODPLAIN
FP EXISTING FEMA FLOODWAY
S
1
0
0
S300
S400S50
0
S
6
0
0
END PRESERVATION S700
STATION 20+01
BEGIN HWV CONSTRUCTION S100-R1
STATION 10+00
END CONSTRUCTION S100-R2
START PRESERVATION S100-R3
STATION 20+00
BEGIN HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R1
STATION 10+00
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R3
START HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R4
STATION 30+92
END NON-JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
START CONSTRUCTION S300 STATION 39+54
START PRESERVATION S600
STATION 10+00
END PRESERVATION S500
STATION 34+71
END NO CREDIT S400
STATION 16+76
END CONSTRUCTION S300 ENHANCEMENT
START PRESERVATION S300
STATION 46+45
END PRESERVATION S300
STATION 59+63
WHIT
E

O
A
K

S
W
A
M
P

R
O
A
D
NC

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

3
3
W01
W02
W03
W04
W05
W06
PROPOSED BUFFER
RESTORATION PLANTING
EXISTING FORESTED AREA
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING (AS NEEDED)
RIPARIAN WETLAND PRESERVATION
NON-RIPARIAN WETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENT
NON-RIPARIAN WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
BEGIN PRESERVATION S500
STATION 10+00
END PRESERVATION S100-R3
21+54
EXISTING BRUSHLINE
END HWV S200-R2 (MINIMAL CONSTRUCTION)
BEGIN HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R3
STATION 18+70
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R4
START GRADING NON-JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
STATION 33+02
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R1
START HWV S200-R2 (MINIMAL CONSTRUCTION)
STATION 12+64
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S100-R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION S100-R2
STATION 17+03
NOW OR FORMERLY
TAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCY, INC
PARCEL ID: 4812-33-5285
DEED BOOK: 1723 PAGE: 0936
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RI
S TOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

D
_
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
4
TY
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
TOP OF TERRACE
POOL POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
N.T.S
N.T.SN.T.S
RIFFLE
Wbkf
D-max
Wb
D-max
Wbkf
Wb
EXISTING
GROUND
EXISTING
GROUND
PROPOSED
GROUND
PROPOSED
GROUND
N.T.S
Wbkf
EXISTING
GROUND
VARIES VARIES
3:1
3
:
1
D-max
Wbkf
WbPROPOSED
GROUND
3
:
1
EXISTING
GROUND
3:1
TOP OF TERRACE
VARIES VARIES
D-max
WbPROPOSED
GROUND
70
70
68
68
69
69
71
71
71
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
67
68
69
69
69
69
71
7171
71
71
71
72
72
72 72
9+78
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00 1
5
+
0
0
16+0
0
17+00
50
60
70
80
90
50
60
70
80
90
9+50 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
1
6
.
5
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
7
6
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
3
2
.
7
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
7
4
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
5
2
.
6
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
7
1
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
4
1
.
3
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
5
4
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
7
9
.
1
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
6
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
1
5
.
3
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
3
9
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
4
8
.
4
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
3
2
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
7
3
.
0
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
7
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
9
4
.
5
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
2
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
1
6
.
5
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
1
8
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
4
7
.
2
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
1
1
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
6
9
.
3
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
0
7
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
8
8
.
2
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
0
3
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
1
0
.
1
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
9
8
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
3
1
.
0
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
9
4
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
5
3
.
7
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
8
9
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
8
8
.
7
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
8
2
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
2
0
.
7
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
7
6
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
6
0
.
4
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
6
7
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
8
6
.
4
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
5
9
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
0
6
.
7
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
3
7
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
3
7
.
6
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
0
3
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
8
7
.
7
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
9
3
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
1
4
.
1
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
9
4
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
3
0
.
3
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
9
2
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
5
0
.
6
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
8
9
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
8
4
.
9
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
8
3
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
3
7
.
2
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
7
2
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
7
4
.
3
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
6
4
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
0
9
.
6
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
5
6
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
4
4
.
2
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
9
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
6
8
.
7
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
4
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
9
0
.
4
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
0
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
1
1
.
9
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
3
5
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
4
3
.
9
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
9
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
6
5
.
1
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
4
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
8
4
.
2
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
0
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
0
6
.
8
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
1
6
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
2
7
.
8
5

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
1
2
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
4
9
.
3
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
0
7
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
8
4
.
7
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
0
0
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
1
8
.
1
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
9
3
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
5
5
.
4
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
8
5
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
8
2
.
7
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
7
3
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
0
2
.
9
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
5
1
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
3
4
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
1
7
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
8
2
.
4
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
6
1
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
1
9
.
0
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
9
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
3
5
.
1
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
9
2
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
5
4
.
6
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
8
9
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
9
1
.
0
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
8
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
4
5
.
4
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
7
2
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
8
3
.
9
5

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
6
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
2
0
.
9
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
5
6
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
5
2
.
6
5

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
9
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
7
7
.
3
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
9
8
.
6
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
0
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
2
1
.
0
9

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
3
5
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
5
0
.
6
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
9
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
7
3
.
4
9

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
9
2
.
3
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
0
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
1
3
.
5
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
1
6
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
3
4
.
3
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
1
2
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
5
8
.
1
5

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
0
7
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
4
+
9
2
.
7
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
0
0
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
2
3
.
3
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
9
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
6
5
.
5
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
8
5
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
5
+
9
0
.
1
5

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
7
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
1
0
.
4
9

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
5
1
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
4
1
.
3
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
1
7
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
9
3
.
0
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
6
1
-0.20%-0.21%-0.19%-0.24%-0.28%-0.30%-0.28%-0.32%-0.34%-0.35%-0.27%-0.33%-0.36%-0.30%-0.30%-0.33%-0.27%-0.25%-0.27%-0.66%-1.73%-1.43%-1.38%-0.84%
-0.21%
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
1
0
+
8
7
.
9
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
6
5
-0.15%-0.21%
-1.09%
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
KEYMAP
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S100 PLAN
S100 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
S100
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
6
+
8
4
SE
E

S
H
E
E
T

6
BEGIN HWV CONSTRUCTION S100-R1
STATION 9+78
5
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
REMOVE EXISTING 24" RCP
REMOVE EXISTING 24" RCP
AND FARM PATH. FARM PATH
TO BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S100-R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION S100-R2
STATION 17+03
D
I
T
C
H

2
5
0
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
500
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
500
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
500YR
5
0
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
10
0
Y
R
100YR
100
Y
R
10
0
Y
R
100YR
100YR
100YR
100Y
R
100
Y
R
10
0
Y
R
100YR
100YR
100
Y
R
100YR
10
0
Y
R
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
65
6
5
63
63
64
64
66
66
67
67
68
68
69
17
+
0
0
18+
0
0
1
9
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
21
+
0
0
2
1
+
5
4
40
50
60
70
80
40
50
60
70
80
16+50 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
8
7
.
7
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
9
3
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
1
1
.
1
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
6
8
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
3
4
.
9
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
4
2
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
5
5
.
7
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
1
9
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
7
9
.
5
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
4
.
7
9
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
2
8
.
1
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
9
6
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
6
9
.
0
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
1
6
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
2
9
.
6
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
2
.
0
3
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
5
1
.
4
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
1
.
5
6
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
7
8
.
6
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
0
.
9
7
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
8
2
.
4
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
6
1
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
0
3
.
1
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
5
2
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
2
7
.
2
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
2
7
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
4
9
.
9
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
0
5
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
7
4
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
6
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
9
5
.
9
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
1
1
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
2
3
.
5
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
4
.
7
6
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
4
0
.
9
4

E
L
E
V
=
6
4
.
3
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
6
3
.
3
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
9
9
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
8
2
.
1
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
6
0
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
0
1
.
8
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
2
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
2
3
.
7
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
2
.
8
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
4
6
.
1
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
2
.
3
8
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
7
3
.
4
5

E
L
E
V
=
6
1
.
7
9
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
6
+
9
3
.
0
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
6
1
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
1
9
.
1
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
3
2
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
4
2
.
6
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
0
7
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
6
1
.
5
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
8
5
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
7
+
8
5
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
5
.
4
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
1
3
.
2
9

E
L
E
V
=
6
4
.
9
1
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
3
2
.
7
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
4
.
5
6
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
5
5
.
4
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
4
.
1
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
7
4
.
7
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
7
9
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
8
+
9
6
.
3
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
4
0
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
1
5
.
9
8

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
0
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
3
5
.
5
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
2
.
6
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
5
6
.
7
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
2
.
1
8
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
9
+
8
3
.
8
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
1
.
5
9
-1.38%-0.84%-0.70%-0.17%-1.82%-2.88%-1.50%-2.60%-1.93%-2.62%-2.87%
-2.43%-2.32%
-2.66%
-1.82%
-1.09%
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
1
9
+
1
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
2
.
4
2
-1.09%
-1.82%
-2.17%
-2.32%
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
1
8
+
9
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
2
.
7
8
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
1
8
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
3
.
5
1
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
1
8
+
0
8
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
4
.
2
6
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
KEYMAP
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
6
+
8
4
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

5
S100
END STREAM PRESERVATION S100-R3
STATION 21+54
S100 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S100 PLAN
6
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
END CONSTRUCTION S100-R2
BEGIN STREAM PRESERVATION S100-R3
STATION 20+00
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S100-R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION S100-R2
STATION 17+03
75
75
80
80
80
80
7474
7
6
7
676
78 78
79
79
81
C
E
C
E
80
78
78
78
79
79
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+0
0
16+00
17+00
77
76
75
60
70
80
90
100
60
70
80
90
100
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
2
3
.
3
7

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
3
7
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
5
3
.
3
7

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
3
3
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
9
5
.
0
4

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
2
7
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
6
3
.
2
5

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
1
8
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
0
6
.
2
5

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
1
3
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
8
2
.
6
1

E
L
E
V
=
7
6
.
8
1
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
2
0
.
0
3

E
L
E
V
=
7
6
.
5
5
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
2
0
.
2
9

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
6
1
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
5
0
.
0
6

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
5
7
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
9
0
.
8
6

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
5
2
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
5
8
.
6
1

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
4
3
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
0
2
.
6
3

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
3
7
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
4
2
.
7
5

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
2
4
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
7
8
.
6
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
0
3
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
1
6
.
9
6

E
L
E
V
=
7
6
.
7
8
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
2
6
.
4
6

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
6
1
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
5
6
.
6
8

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
5
7
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
9
9
.
2
3

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
5
2
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
1
+
6
7
.
8
8

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
4
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
0
9
.
8
6

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
3
7
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
5
7
.
0
9

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
2
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
2
+
8
6
.
6
1

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
0
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
1
3
+
2
3
.
0
9

E
L
E
V
=
7
6
.
7
8
BE
G
I
N

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

S
T
A

=
1
0
+
0
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
6
5
-0.82%-0.83%-0.95%-0.69%-0.41%-0.16%-0.15%-0.16%-0.17%-0.17%
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
1
2
+
5
4
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
7
.
0
1
-0.13%-0.69%
PV
I

S
T
A
=
1
4
+
4
6
.
4
7

E
L
E
V
=
7
5
.
4
6
PV
I

S
T
A
=
1
6
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
4
.
4
4
-1.13%
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
KEYMAP
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
7
+
0
0
SE
E

S
H
E
E
T

8
S200
BEGIN HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R1
STATION 10+00
S200 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S200 PLAN
7
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R1
BEGIN HWV S200-R2 (MINIMAL CONSTRUCTION)
STATION 12+64
REMOVE SPOIL PILES AND PRIVET
ALONG DITCHES. USE SUITABLE
MATERIAL FOR CHANNEL PLUGS.
757
5
75
7373
7
4
7
4
74
74
74
74
74
1
7
+
0
0
1
8
+
0
0
19+00
20+00
21+00
22+00
23+00
24+00
50
60
70
80
90
50
60
70
80
90
17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00
PV
I

S
T
A
=
1
8
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
3
.
4
4
PV
I

S
T
A
=
2
0
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
2
.
4
6
PV
I

S
T
A
=
2
2
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
1
.
9
2
-0.50%
-0.27%
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
KEYMAP
MATC
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
7
+
0
0
SEE S
H
E
E
T

7
S200
S200 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S200 PLAN
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
4
+
0
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

9
8
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
END HWV S200-R2 (MINIMAL CONSTRUCTION)
BEGIN HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R3
STATION 18+70
REMOVE SPOIL PILES AND PRIVET
ALONG DITCHES. USE SUITABLE
MATERIAL FOR CHANNEL PLUGS
AND FILL AS SHOWN.
REMOVE PRIVET WITHIN
PROPOSED WETLAND AREAS.
7
1 717171
71
24+00
25+00
26+00
27+00
28+00
29+00 30+00
31+00
50
60
70
80
90
50
60
70
80
90
24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
0
+
9
1
.
5
7

E
L
E
V
=
7
0
.
2
9
-0.30%
PV
I

S
T
A
=
2
4
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
1
.
3
8
PV
I

S
T
A
=
2
6
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
0
.
8
4
PV
I

S
T
A
=
2
8
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
0
.
6
0
PV
I

S
T
A
=
3
0
+
5
0
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
7
0
.
3
8
-0.08%-0.11%
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
KEYMAP
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
1
+
0
0
SE
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
0
S200
S200 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S200 PLAN
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
4
+
0
0
SE
E

S
H
E
E
T

8
9
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R3
BEGIN HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R4
STATION 30+92
REMOVE PRIVET WITHIN
PROPOSED WETLAND AREAS.
DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING TREE
REMOVE SPOIL PILES AND PRIVET
ALONG DITCHES. USE SUITABLE
MATERIAL FOR CHANNEL PLUGS
AND FILL AS SHOWN.
70
68
686868 686868686868
69
696
9
6
9
6
96969
70
70
70
7070
70
70
70
70
68
68
6868
68
68
68
68
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
71
71
71
7171
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
73
73
32+00
33+00
34+00
35+00
36+00
37+00
38+00
50
60
70
80
90
50
60
70
80
90
31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
3
2
+
9
9
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
6
.
8
7
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
3
2
+
6
4
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
5
5
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
3
2
+
4
2
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
9
8
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
3
2
+
1
3
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
8
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
3
1
+
8
7
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
9
2
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
3
1
+
5
5
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
9
.
4
5
(P
O
O
L
)

S
T
A
=
3
1
+
0
3
.
0
0

E
L
E
V
=
6
9
.
7
9
-1.94%
-1.67%
-2.24%
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
1
+
3
9
.
5
5

E
L
E
V
=
6
9
.
9
2
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
1
+
7
9
.
1
7

E
L
E
V
=
6
9
.
3
8
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
2
+
0
4
.
3
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
9
6
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
2
+
3
0
.
1
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
4
4
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
2
+
5
5
.
7
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
0
3
(T
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
2
+
8
4
.
2
9

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
3
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
1
+
0
5
.
8
5

E
L
E
V
=
7
0
.
0
9
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
1
+
5
7
.
9
1

E
L
E
V
=
6
9
.
7
2
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
1
+
8
9
.
8
5

E
L
E
V
=
6
9
.
1
8
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
2
+
1
5
.
3
2

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
7
6
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
2
+
4
4
.
8
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
8
.
2
4
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
2
+
6
6
.
1
3

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
8
3
(H
O
R
)

S
T
A

=
3
3
+
0
1
.
8
6

E
L
E
V
=
6
7
.
1
3
-2.72%
-1.95%-2.17%-1.56%-1.57%-0.50%
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
KEYMAP
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
8
+
5
0
SE
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
1
S200/S300 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S200/S300 PLAN
MATC
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
1
+
0
0
SEE
S
H
E
E
T

9
S20
0
10
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
REMOVE EXISTING 18" CPP
REMOVE EXISTING 18" CPP
AND FARM PATH
END HWV CONSTRUCTION S200-R4
BEGIN GRADING NON-JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
STATION 33+02
70
70
68
69
71
39+00
40+
0
0
41+0
0
42+00
43+00
44+00
45+00
40
50
60
70
80
40
50
60
70
80
38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
KEYMAP
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

4
5
+
5
0
SE
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
2
S300
S300 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S300 PLAN
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
8
+
5
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
0
11
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
END GRADING NON-JURISDICTIONAL DITCH
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION S300
STATION 39+54
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
ALONG RIGHT BANK
REMOVE EXISTING SPOIL PILES
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING
VEGETATION UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
GRADE BANK AT 3:1 SLOPE.
SEED, MULCH, MAT, AND LIVE STAKE.
REMOVE PRIVET
REMOVE EXISTING FARM
PATH FROM THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
REMOVE DEAD TREE. GRADE
BANK AT 2:1 SLOPE. SEED,
MULCH, MAT, AND LIVE STAKE.
GRADE BANK AT 2:1 SLOPE. SEED,
MULCH, MAT, AND LIVE STAKE.
500Y
R
500YR
500
Y
R
500Y
R
10
0
Y
R
100Y
R
6
5
62
63
63
63
64
66
67
68
6969
69
CE
CE
CE
45+00
46+00
47+
0
0
48+00
49+00
50+00
51
+
0
0
52+00
53+00
40
50
60
70
80
40
50
60
70
80
45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 51+00 52+00
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
KEYMAP
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

5
2
+
5
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
3
S300
S300 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S300 PLAN
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

4
5
+
5
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
1
12
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
END CONSTRUCTION S300 ENHANCEMENT
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION S300 PRESERVATION
STATION 46+45
GRADE BANK AT 2:1 SLOPE. SEED,
MULCH, MAT, AND LIVE STAKE.GRADE BANK AT 2:1 SLOPE. SEED,
MULCH, MAT, AND LIVE STAKE.
REMOVE EXISTING BRIDGE.
GRADE BANK AT 2:1 SLOPE. SEED,
MULCH, MAT, AND LIVE STAKE.
REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURE
AND FARM PATH FROM THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
500
Y
R
500YR
500YR
500YR500YR500YR
500YR
500
Y
R
500YR
500YR500Y
R
500
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
500YR
50
0
Y
R
500YR
100YR 100YR
1
0
0
Y
R
100YR
100YR1
0
0
Y
R
100YR
1
0
0
Y
R
100YR
100YR
1
0
0
Y
R
10
0
Y
R
100YR 100Y
R 100YR
100YR
100
Y
R
61 61
61
6
16161
61
6
1
616
1
61
6
161
61
62
63
63
C
E
52
+
0
0
53+0
0
54+00
55+00
56+00
57+00
58+00
5
9
+
0
0
5
9
+
6
3
40
50
60
70
80
40
50
60
70
80
52+00 53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00 59+00 59+38
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

E
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
-
P
P
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
KEYMAP
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

5
2
+
5
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
2
S300
S300 PROFILE
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
01530 30 00
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
02.55 5
NORTH
00
SCALE IN FEET
01530 30
S300 PLAN
13
MITIGATION
BOUNDARY
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE
S
1
0
0
S
2
0
0
S300
STA 10+38.99DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
00
SCALE IN FEET
0400800 800
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
END CONSTRUCTION S300 PRESERVATION
STATION 59+63
NOW OR FORMERLY
PALUSTRINE GROUP, LLC
PIN: 4812-20-1970
DB 1733 PG 0006
NOW OR FORMERLY
TAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCY
PIN: 4812-33-5285
DB 1723 PG 0936
8
0
71 717
171
71
78
7
8
7
8
7
9
7
9
1
0
+
0
0
1
1
+
0
0
1
2
+
0
0
1
3
+
0
0
14
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
16
+
0
0
1
7
+
0
0
1
8
+
0
0
19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00
77
76
75
W01
W01
W02
W02
C
E
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
W02
W02W01
NORTH
S200
14
WE
T
L
A
N
D

G
R
A
D
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
03060 60
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
5
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RI
S TOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

F
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
W
E
T
L
A
N
D

G
R
A
D
I
N
G
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
NOW OR FORMERLY
PALUSTRINE GROUP, LLC
PIN: 4812-20-1970
DB 1733 PG 0006
7068686
868
6
8
6
868686868
69
6
96969696
9
6
9
71 717
171
71
70
7
0
70
70
6868
6
8
68
69
6
9
69
69
7
1
7
1
71
71
26+00 27+00 28+00
29+00
30+00
31+0
0
3
2
+
0
0
33
+
0
0
34
+
0
0
W02
W02
W03
W03
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
W03
W02
W02
NORTH 15
WE
T
L
A
N
D

G
R
A
D
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
03060 60
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
4
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RI
S TOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

F
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
W
E
T
L
A
N
D

G
R
A
D
I
N
G
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
S200
PLANTING NOTES
1. THE FOLLOWING TABLES LIST THE PROPOSED VEGETATION SPECIES SELECTIONFOR THE PROJECT REVEGETATION. THE TOTAL PLANTING AREA IS APPROXIMATELY109.1 AC (79.6 ACRES @ 680 STEMS/ACRE ARE WITHIN THE CREDITABLE 200 FTBUFFER OF THE STREAMS AND THE WETLAND AREAS. THE 29.5 ACRES OUTSIDE OFTHE CREDITABLE BUFFER WILL BE PLANTED @ 302 STEMS PER ACRE. THESE AREASWILL VARY BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS AND AREAS DISTURBED DURINGCONSTRUCTION.
2. FINAL VEGETATION SPECIES SELECTION MAY CHANGE DUE TO REFINEMENT ORSPECIES AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME OF PLANTING. SPECIES SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BECOORDINATED BETWEEN ENGINEER AND PLANTING CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THEPROCUREMENT OF PLANT/SEED STOCK.
3. IN GENERAL, WOODY SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED AT A DENSITY OF 680 STEMS PERACRE AND A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM THE TOP OF RESTORED STREAM BANKSAND TO THE REVEGETATION LIMITS. EXACT PLACEMENT OF THE SPECIES WILL BEDETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR’S VEGETATION SPECIALIST PRIOR TO SITEPLANTING AND BASED ON THE WETNESS CONDITIONS OF PLANTING LOCATIONS.
4. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT IN ANY DISTURBED AREAS USING NATIVE SPECIESVEGETATION DESCRIBED IN RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANT MIXTURE.
5. ANY INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION, SUCH AS CHINESE PRIVET (LIGUSTRUMSINENSE) AND MULTIFLORA ROSE (ROSA MULTIFLORA) WILL BE INITIALLY TREATEDAS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO PLANTINGACTIVITIES TO ALLOW NATIVE PLANTS TO BECOME ESTABLISHED WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT.
6. LARGER NATIVE TREE SPECIES TO BE PRESERVED WILL BE FLAGGED BY THEENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ANY TREES HARVESTED FORWOODY MATERIAL WILL BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDE BED AND BANK STABILIZATION,COVER AND/OR NESTING HABITAT.
7. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USING MULCHING AND SEEDING ASDEFINED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND THE APPROVEDSEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS.
8. ALL AREAS SHOWN AS BUFFER RESTORATION PLANTING SHALL BE RIPPED ORDISKED TO PREPARE GROUND FOR HERBACEOUS AND WOODY VEGETATION.
PROPOSED BUFFERRESTORATION PLANTING(680 STEMS/ACRE)
PLANTING LEGEND
16
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G

T
A
B
L
E
S

A
N
D

N
O
T
E
S
PLANTING SCHEDULE
PROPOSED BUFFERRESTORATION PLANTING(302 STEMS/ACRE)
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RI
S TOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

G
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
EXISTING FORESTED AREASUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING(AS NEEDED)
9
+
7
8
1
0
+
0
0
1
1
+
0
0
1
2
+
0
0
1
3
+
0
0
1
4
+
0
0
15+0
0
NOW OR FORMERLY
TAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCY
PIN: 4812-33-5285
DB 1723 PG 0936
NOW OR FORMERLY
PALUSTRINE GROUP, LLC
PIN: 4812-20-1970
DB 1733 PG 0006
5
0
0
Y
R
500Y
R
500YR
50
0
Y
R
500YR
10
0
Y
R
100Y
R
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
NORTH
S
1
0
0
17
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
04080 80
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
8
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 19
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RI
S TOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

G
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
12
+
0
0
13
+
0
0
14+
0
0
15+
0
0
16+
0
0
17
+
0
0
18
+
0
0
19+
0
0
20
+
0
0
21+
0
0
22
+
0
0
23+00
2
4
+
0
0
25+00
26
+
0
0
27
+
0
0
28+
0
0
2
9
+
0
0
3
0
+
0
0
3
1
+
0
0
32
+
0
0
77
7
6
7
5
NOW OR FORMERLY
PALUSTRINE GROUP, LLC
PIN: 4812-20-1970
DB 1733 PG 0006
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
NORTH
S
2
0
0
18
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
04080 80
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 20
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM.
IC
HER
SPREL
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CON
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

G
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
7
16
+
0
0
1
7
+
0
0
18
+
0
0
19+00
20+0
0
2
1
+
0
0
21+5
4
47+00
48+00
49+0
0
50+00
51+00
52+00
53+0
0
54+
0
0
55
+
0
0
NOW OR FORMERLY
PALUSTRINE GROUP, LLC
PIN: 4812-20-1970
DB 1733 PG 0006
50
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
500
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
500
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
500YR
5
0
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
500YR
50
0
Y
R
500Y
R
500YR
500YR
5
0
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
500
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
50
0
Y
R
5
0
0
Y
R
500YR
500YR500Y
R500YR
5
0
0
Y
R
10
0
Y
R
100
Y
R
100Y
R
10
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
10
0
Y
R
100YR
10
0
Y
R
10
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
100
Y
R
100YR
100YR
1
0
0
Y
R
100YR
10
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
10
0
Y
R
100YR
100YR
1
0
0
Y
R
100YR
10
0
Y
R
100Y
R
100YR
100Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
1
0
0
Y
R
100Y
R
100
Y
R
100YR
1
0
0
Y
R
100YR
100
Y
R
100YR
100YR
10
0
Y
R
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
NORTH
S10
0
19
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
04080 80
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

2
0
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 17
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RI
S TOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

G
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
S30
0
32
+
0
0
33+
0
0
34+
0
0
35+
0
0
36+
0
0
37+
0
0
38+
0
0
39+
0
0
40+00
41+00
42+00
43+0
0
44+
0
0
45+0
0
46+00
47+00
NOW OR FORMERLY
PALUSTRINE GROUP, LLC
PIN: 4812-20-1970
DB 1733 PG 0006
50
0
Y
R
500YR500YR
500Y
R
100YR
100YR 100Y
R
100
Y
R
100YR
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
NORTH 20
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
00
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
04080 80
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

1
9
MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 18
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RI
S TOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

G
-
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
_
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
S300
DE
T
A
I
L
S
21
HEADWATER STREAM VALLEY
SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
HEADWATER VALLEY BOTTOM WIDTH VARIES(APPROX. 15' TO 30')
MEAN CHANNEL DEPTH
(APPROX. 0.4' TO 0.7')
HEADWATER VALLEY SIDE
SLOPES VARY BASED ON
GRADING PLAN.
GRADED HEADWATER VALLEY
ELEVATION PRIOR TO ROUGHING
A
A
PLAN VIEW OF CHANNEL PATTERN
1. GRADE HEADWATER STREAM VALLEY AND
BOTTOM WIDTH TO DESIGN CONTOURS AS
SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN.
2. GRADE MICROTOPOGRAPHY USING
STANDARD TILLAGE EQUIPMENT AS
DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.
ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
3. THE HEADWATER STREAM VALLEY GRADING
SHALL BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER
FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE
MICROTOPOGRAPHY ROUGHENING.
4. THE HEADWATER STREAM VALLEY WILL BE
GRADED TO FORM SMOOTH TRANSITIONS AT
THE CONFLUENCE.
5. UPON GRADING COMPLETION OF THE
HEADWATER STREAM VALLEY, APPLY MULCH,
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS.
NOTES:
PRIMARY CHANNEL
PRIMARY CHANNEL
HEADWATER STREAM VALLEY
ALIGNMENT AND CENTERLINE
STATIONING
15+00
LC
RESTORED HEADWATER
VALLEY BOTTOM WIDTH
VARIES
FLOODPLAIN
DEPRESSION
VARIE
S
B
B
A
A
FL
O
W
COMPACTED WOODY
DEBRIS AND LOGS
BEGIN INVERT
ELEVATION
END INVERT
ELEVATION
HEADER LOGS
TO BE ANGLED
TOE OF STREAM BANK
TOP OF STREAM BANK
PLAN
NOTES:
1. WOODY DEBRIS DEPTH SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 24".
2. WOODY DEBRIS MATERIAL SHOULD BE A MIX OF SMALL AND LARGE LIMBS AND LOGS. LOGS SHALL BE
AT LEAST 4" IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10" AND EXTEND INTO THE BANK 3' ON EACH SIDE.
WOODY DEBRIS MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED.
3. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
4. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE PLACED WITH
MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON-SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN LOGS
AND WOODY DEBRIS BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.
5. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
CONSTRUCTED BRUSHY RIFFLE
NOT TO SCALE
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
TRANSPLANTS OR
LIVE STAKES
SET INVERT BASED ON
DESIGN PROFILE
BANKFULL STAGE
BASEFLOW
3' MINIMUM
BURIED
INTO BANK
3' MINIMUM
BURIED
INTO BANK
TOP OF STREAM BANK
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
SECTION A-A
4' MIN.
4' MIN.
NON-WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
(TYP.)
BACKFILL WITH
ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
BACKFILL WITH
ON-SITE ALLUVIUM 24" MIN. DEPTH
FLOW
STREA
M
B
E
D
BANKFULL
S
T
A
G
E
BASEFLOW
H ≤ 0.3'
H ≤ 0.3'
HEADER LOG
COMPACTED WOODY
DEBRIS AND LOGS
FOOTER LOG
SECTION B-B
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

H
_
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
L
_
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
FLOODPLAIN
DEPRESSION PER
LOCATIONS SHOWN ON
PLANS.
CHANNEL BLOCK
CHANNEL TO BE
RELOCATED
A
A
O
L
D

F
L
O
W
5
0
'
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
PLAN VIEW
PLACE UNCOMPACTED
FILL A MIN. 1.0' ABOVE
PROPOSED GRADE
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
NEW STREAMBANK
SHALL BE TREATED AS
SPECIFIED IN PLANS
CHANNEL BOTTOM/
INVERT ELEVATION
2
1
SECTION A-A 1. COMPACT CHANNEL BLOCK MATERIAL FOR BACKFILL
USING HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
2. CONSTRUCT CHANNEL BLOCK WITH COMPACTED SOIL USING
SUITABLE MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS.
3. PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS OR AS
DIRECTED BY ENGINEER TO ALLOW FOR SETTLING.
CHANNEL BLOCK
NOTES:
NEW TOP OF
STREAM BANK
NOT TO SCALE
FLOODPLAIN
DEPRESSION DEPTHS
SHALL NOT EXCEED
8"-12".
CHANNEL FILL
OLD FLOW
NEW FLOW
DIRECTION
DE
T
A
I
L
S
22
A
A
24" MAX. TYP. (TRENCH ONLY)TRENCH LIMITS
TOP OF STREAM BANK
SMALL MATTING STAKES 36" MAX. TYP.LARGE MATTING STAKES
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING TO BE
EXTENDED TO TOE OF
SLOPE. KEY IN NO
LESS THAN 5 INCHES.
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
INSTALL EDGE OF EROSION CONTROL
MATTING IN 6 INCH DEEP TRENCH, AND
SECURE BY STAKING, BACKFILL, AND
COMPACTING SOIL TO FINISH GRADE
TOP OF STREAM BANK
BANKFULL STAGE
TOE OF STREAM BANK
BANKFULL STAGE
SMALL MATTING STAKES (TYP.)
RESTORED STREAMBED
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AT
TOE OF SLOPE BY KEYING IN MATTING
NO LESS THAN 6 INCHES AND SECURING
WITH LARGE MATTING STAKES.
LARGE MATTING STAKES (TYP.)
SECTION A-A
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
2.5 INCH GALVANIZED
ROOFING NAIL
LENGTH 24.00 IN (60.96 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)
WIDTH 1.5 IN (3.81 CM)
THICKNESS 1.5 IN (3.81 CM)
LEG LENGTH 11.00 IN (27.94 CM)
HEAD WIDTH 1.25 IN (3.16 CM)
HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
LEG WIDTH 0.60 IN (1.52 CM) (TAPERED TO POINT)
LEG THICKNESS 0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
TOTAL LENGTH 12.00 IN (30.48 CM)
NOTES:
1. RESTORED STREAM BANKS MUST BE SEEDED AND
MULCHED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROL
MATTING.
2. SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATTING STAKE
SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
3. PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL MATTING SEAMS, IN
THE CENTER OF STREAM BANK, AND TOE OF SLOPE.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
NOT TO SCALE
DITCH BLOCK
AA
PLAN VIEW
2
1
SECTION A-A
DITCH TO BE FILLED
100'
MINIMUM
FINISHED GRADE
PLACE UNCOMPACTED
FILL 1.0' ABOVE
FINISHED GRADE
COMPACTED SUITABLE
BACKFILL MATERIAL
DITCH BOTTOM/
INVERT ELEVATION
1. COMPACT DITCH BLOCK MATERIAL FOR BACKFILL
USING HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
2. CONSTRUCT DITCH BLOCK WITH COMPACTED SOIL USING
SUITABLE MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
3. PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS OR
AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER TO ALLOW FOR SETTLING.
DITCH BLOCK WITH SUITABLE
COMPACTED BACKFILL
NOTES:
N.T.S
TOP OF DITCH
TOP OF BANK
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

H
_
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
L
_
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
A
AEDGE OF
WATER AT
NORMAL FLOW
PLAN
FLOW
POOL
POINT OF CURVATURE (PC)
FOOTER LOGS
(12"-18" DIA. MIN.)
RIPARIAN PLANTINGS
AND LIVE STAKES
RIPARIAN PLANTINGS
AND LIVE STAKES
TOE WOOD
(SEE NOTE 2)
POINT OF
TANGENCY (PT)
BANKFULL
1
8
"

M
I
N
.
4
'
-
6
'
FLOW TOE OF STREAM BANK
MINIMUM OF 20 TO 50 LIVE
BRANCHES PER SQ. YD.
(2.5 INCH MAX BRANCH
DIAMETER)
SECURE BIODEGRADABLE TWINE
OR ROPE TO DEAD STAKES
DEAD STAKES MAX
SPACING 3 FT O.C.
WOOD STAKE OPTIONS
2"X4"X18"
WOODEN
STAKE
NOTE:
STAKE MAY BE MADE
BY SAWING A 2X4
DIAGONALLY IN HALF
NOTES:
1. IF AN APPROVED ON-SITE SOURCE IS AVAILABLE, SOD MATS LAYERS MAY BE USED INSTEAD OF GEOLIFT. SOD MATS MAY ALSO BE
OBTAINED FROM CLEARING AND EXCAVATION WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THE NUMBER OF LAYERS OF GEOLIFT OR SOD
MATS MAY VARY WITH THE BANK HEIGHT.
2. TOE WOOD CONSISTS OF A MIX OF LOGS, BRANCHES, BRUSH, AND OTHER WOODY VEGETATION INSTALLED AT VARIOUS ANGLE, BUT NOT
PARALLEL TO THE FLOW. LAYER THE WOOD WITH LARGER MATERIAL ON THE BOTTOM AND A MAT OF BRANCHES AS THE TOP LAYER. THE
TOP LAYER OF TOE WOOD SHALL BE AT THE ESTABLISHED NORMAL FLOW ELEVATION.
3. LAYER GEOLIFTS AND CUTTINGS TO BANKFULL.
4. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE USED IN LIEU OF LIVE CUTTINGS IF CONSTRUCTION OCCURS OUTSIDE THE DORMANT PLANTING SEASON. LIVE
STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED AFTER GEOLFITS ARE CONSTRUCTED BUT DURING DORMANT PLANTING SEASON.
5. THE NUMBER OF GEOLIFTS DEPENDS ON THE HEIGHT OF THE STREAM BANK. MINIMALLY ONE (1) GEOLIFT SHALL BE INSTALLED.
GEOLIFT W/ TOE WOOD
NOT TO SCALE
EXISTING GROUND
NORMAL FLOW WATER SURFACE
(EL. OF DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE)
GEOLIFT
RESTORE DISTURBED AREA
WITH TOPSOIL, SEEDING,
MULCHING, AND PLANTING
LIVE STAKES (SEE NOTE 4)
BANKFULL (TOP OF REINFORCED EARTH)
12
1 2
TOE WOOD
(SEE NOTE 2)
EXCAVATION LIMITS
FOOTER LOGS
SECTION A-A
NOTE:
2"X2" WOODEN STAKE
TAPERED TO A POINT
2.5 INCH
GALVANIZED
ROOFING NAIL
GEOLIFT
WOOD STAKES
FOR ANCHORING
PLACE MULCH INSIDE
FABRIC WRAP
FABRIC WRAP
6" MIN.
LIVE STAKES
(SEE NOTE 4)
LIVE CUTTINGS
THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF TOE WOOD
SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT APPROXIMATELY 2
INCHES ABOVE THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE
ELEVATION. IF THE CHANNEL SIZE DOES NOT
ALLOW THIS THE ELEVATION CAN BE SET TO THE
SAME ELEVATION AS THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE.
DE
T
A
I
L
S
23
2"
BARE ROOT PLANTING DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
1. INSERT PLANTING BAR AS
SHOWN AND PULL HANDLE
TOWARD PLANTER.
PLANTING METHOD USING THE
PLANTING BAR
2. REMOVE PLANTING BAR AND
PLACE SEEDLING AT
CORRECT DEPTH.
3. INSERT PLANTING BAR
2 INCHES TOWARD
PLANTER FROM
SEEDLING.
4. PULL HANDLE OF BAR
TOWARD PLANTER,
FIRMING SOIL AT BOTTOM.
5. PUSH HANDLE FORWARD
FIRMING SOIL AT TOP.
6. LEAVE COMPACTION
HOLE OPEN. WATER
THOROUGHLY.
NOTES:
PLANTING BAG
PLANTING BAR
1. PLANT BARE ROOT VEGETATION TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFER/PLANTING ZONE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2. ALLOW FOR 8-15 FEET SPACING BETWEEN PLANTINGS, AS
DEFINED IN THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
3. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL.
4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR OR
OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
5. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J-ROOTING.
6. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP OR STRAW.
7. HEEL-IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO THE PROJECT SITE.
8. DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL BE KEPT IN A MOIST
CANVAS BAG OR SIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT ROOT
SYSTEMS FROM DYING.
9. PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS
SECTION AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4 INCHES WIDE AND 1
INCH THICK AT CENTER.
10. ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE PRUNED IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO
ROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10 INCHES BELOW THE ROOT
COLLAR.
HEALING IN
1. LOCATE A HEALING-IN SITE IN A SHADY, WELL
PROTECTED AREA.
2. EXCAVATE A FLAT BOTTOM TRENCH 12 INCHES
DEEP AND PROVIDE DRAINAGE.
3. BACKFILL TRENCH WITH 2 INCHES WELL ROTTED
SAWDUST. PLACE A 2 INCH LAYER OF WELL
ROTTED SAWDUST AT A SLOPING ANGLE AT ONE
END OF THE TRENCH.
4. PLACE A SINGLE LAYER OF PLANTS AGAINST
SLOPING END SO THAT THE ROOT COLLAR IS AT
GROUND LEVEL.
5. PLACE A 2 INCH LAYER OF WELL ROTTED
SAWDUST OVER THE ROOTS MAINTAINING A
SLOPING ANGLE.
6. REPEAT LAYERS OF PLANTS AND SAWDUST AS
NECESSARY AND WATER THOROUGHLY.
SW
I
F
T
I
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
PRO F E S SIONA
LSEAL
36916
ENGI N E E R
NO R T H C AROLINA
C
H
RISTOP A TOM
.
IC
HER
SPRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
PLA
N
S
NO
T

F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
N
G

S
E
R
V
I
C
E

P
R
O
V
I
D
E

B
Y
:
WL
S

E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G

P
L
L
C
6

D
U
L
A

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

R
D
.
,

W
E
A
V
E
R
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C

2
8
7
8
7
FI
R
M

L
I
C
E
N
S
E

N
O
.

P
-
1
4
8
0
77
2
1

S
i
x

F
o
r
k
s

R
d
.
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
3
0
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
1
5
(9
1
9
)
6
1
4
-
5
1
1
1
wa
t
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
c
o
m
WA
T
E
R

&

L
A
N
D

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
DR
A
W
I
N
G

I
N
F
O
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:

H
_
S
W
I
F
T
I
E
L
_
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
D
W
G
ED
G
E
C
O
M
B
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
SHEET NO.
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
A
M
E
SH
E
E
T

N
A
M
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N

B
Y
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D

B
Y
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
:
18
-
0
0
1
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
AS

N
O
T
E
D
CA
T
AL
JP
H
NO
.

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N

D
A
T
E
9-
1
5
-
2
0
2
3
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T

P
L
A
N
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
1
C
C
B B
A
A
POOL
POOL
POOL
POOL
FL
O
W
BANKFULL
ELEVATION
LARGE STONE
BANK PROTECTION
ANCHOR BOULDERS
BURY LOGS
INTO BANK
5' MIN. (TYP.)
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT
HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED AT THE HEAD OF RIFFLE ALONE
WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL
AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THE BANKS 5' ON EACH SIDE.
3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITH
BUCKET OF TRACK HOE.
4. EXCAVATE TRENCH BEHIND HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS AT HEAD OF RIFFLE TO
DEPTH OF BOTTOM OF FOOTER LOGS AND MINIMALLY 4' UPSTREAM.
5. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC BY OVERLAPPING ON TOP OF FOOTER LOG
APPROXIMATELY 4". EXTEND THE FABRIC DOWN TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM OF
THE FOOTER LOG AND UPSTREAM MINIMALLY 4'.
6. INSTALL SUBSTRATE RESTORATION TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER
LOG AND EXTENDING MINIMALLY 4' UPSTREAM.
7. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 8 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE.
8. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE
EROSION CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE
UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
9. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
10. SUBSTRATE RESTORATION MATERIAL SHALL BE USED IN THE RIFFLES TO CHINK GAPS
IN THE ANCHOR LOGS. ALLUVIUM FROM THE EXISTING STREAM BED MEETING THE
SIZE CLASSIFICATION IS ACCEPTABLE.
11. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE,
WITH THE ELEVATION OF THE BED BASED ON THE DESIGN PROFILE
12. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED
BY ENGINEER BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL
MATERIAL. RIFFLE STEP POOLS BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING
SLOPES EXCEED 10% AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
13. BOULDERS SHALL BE USED TO ANCHOR LOGS UNLESS DIRECTED BY ON-SITE
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
14. LOGS SILLS SHALL OVERLAP AND ANCHOR THE LOG SILL DIRECTLY UPSTREAM.
15. THE LOG SILLS SHALL ALL BE DESIGNED TO BE SUBMERGED OR COVERED AT LOW
FLOWS.
16. THE MAX DROP FROM ONE MINI-VANE TO THE NEXT SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 0.1
FT. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DROP OVER ALL MINI-VANES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE
AMOUNT OF DROP IN THE RIFFLE SLOPE.
17. ALL VANES SHALL BE EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE RIFFLE.
18. ALL MATERIALS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER OR ENGINEER'S ONSITE
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
19. ITEMS IN THIS DETAIL ARE A GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION AND DO NOT SPECIFY THE
ACTUAL QUANTITY OF MATERIALS (I.E. LOGS, BOULDERS, STONE, ETC.) TO BE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION.
SECTION A-A
0.10' MAX ABOVE
STREAM BED
HEADER AND FOOTER LOG TO
BE PLACED AT HEAD OF RIFFLE
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
TO EXTEND 4' MIN. UPSTREAM
SUBSTRATE RESTORATION TO
EXTEND 4' MIN. UPSTREAM
BANKFULL ELEVATION
2-4%
S
L
O
P
E
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
SECTION B-B
BANKFULL ELEVATION
BASEFLOW
SET INVERT ELEVATION
BASED ON DESIGN PROFILE
TRANSPLANTS OR
LIVE STAKES
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
1% - 2% CROSS SLOPEBURY LOGS
INTO BANK
5' MIN. (TYP.)
SECTION C-C
LOG RIFFLE
NOT TO SCALE
PLAN
A
A
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
LIVE STAKE
TOP OF
STREAMBANK
PLANT LIVE STAKES
FROM TOP OF STREAM
BANK TO TOE OF
STREAM BANK IN A
DIAMOND SHAPED,
STAGGERED PATTERN
TO SPECIFIED SPACING
RESTORED STREAMBED
TOE OF
STREAMBANK 6' SPACING 3' SPACING
NO LIVE STAKES ON POINT BAR
TOE OF STREAMBANK
TOP OF STREAMBANK
THALWEG
LIVE STAKE SPACING PLAN VIEW
BASE FLOW
RESTORED STREAMBED
TOE OF STREAMBANK
LIVE STAKE
BANKFULL STAGE
TOP OF STREAMBANK
SECTION A-A
SQUARE CUT TOP
BUDS FACING UPWARD
LIVE CUTTING
MINIMUM 1/2"
DIAMETER
ANGLE CUT 30 TO
45 DEGREES
2' TO 3' LENGTH
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
NOTES:
1. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
2. DO NOT INSTALL LIVE STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
3. LIVE STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
4. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK.
5. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FEET LONG.
6. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 1/5 OF THE LENGTH OF THE LIVE STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
LIVE STAKING
NOT TO SCALE
Appendix B - Existing Conditions Data
Swiftie Mitigation Project
Existing Cross-Section Data
Particle Size Distribution
Hydric Soils Report
Pre-restoration Gauge Data
NC DWR Stream Identification Forms
Reference Reach Survey Data
Cross Section XS-1
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
1.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)6.6 W flood prone area (ft)0.31 D50 Riffle (mm)
4.4 width (ft)1.5 entrenchment ratio 0.81 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.4 mean depth (ft)2.4 low bank height (ft)8 threshold grain size (mm):
0.5 max depth (ft)4.7 low bank height ratio
4.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
11.9 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
3.3 velocity (ft/s)0.020 Manning's roughness 0.79 channel slope (%)
5.3 discharge rate (cfs)0.07 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.17 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.98 Froude number 15.4 resistance factor u/u*0.30 shear velocity (ft/s)
138.3 relative roughness 0.59 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
90.5
91
91.5
92
92.5
93
93.5
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
0 20406080100120
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, S100
Cross Section XS-2
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
4.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)50.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.31 D50 Riffle (mm)
6.0 width (ft)8.3 entrenchment ratio 0.81 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.8 mean depth (ft)1.4 low bank height (ft)0 threshold grain size (mm):
1.4 max depth (ft)1.0 low bank height ratio
6.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
7.7 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.7 velocity (ft/s)0.014 Manning's roughness 0.007 channel slope (%)
3.2 discharge rate (cfs)0.03 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.00 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.15 Froude number 17.3 resistance factor u/u*0.04 shear velocity (ft/s)
293.4 relative roughness 0.0023 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
92.5
93
93.5
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, Ditch 4
Cross Section XS-3
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
0.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)88.5 W flood prone area (ft)0.31 D50 Riffle (mm)
6.5 width (ft)13.5 entrenchment ratio 0.81 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.1 mean depth (ft)0.6 low bank height (ft)--- threshold grain size (mm):
0.6 max depth (ft)1.0 low bank height ratio
6.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.1 hyd radi (ft)
51.4 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
--- velocity (ft/s)0.040 Manning's roughness --- channel slope (%)
--- discharge rate (cfs)0.37 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.--- shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
--- Froude number 13.8 resistance factor u/u*--- shear velocity (ft/s)
47.8 relative roughness --- unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
93.5
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, S200
Cross Section XS-4
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
4.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)5.8 W flood prone area (ft)0.31 D50 Riffle (mm)
5.6 width (ft)1.0 entrenchment ratio 0.81 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.7 mean depth (ft)3.7 low bank height (ft)0 threshold grain size (mm):
1.0 max depth (ft)3.7 low bank height ratio
6.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
7.8 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.3 velocity (ft/s)0.030 Manning's roughness 0.0055 channel slope (%)
1.1 discharge rate (cfs)0.12 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.00 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.06 Froude number 16.9 resistance factor u/u*0.03 shear velocity (ft/s)
267.2 relative roughness 0.00067 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, S300 (upper)
Cross Section XS-5
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
3.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)8.9 W flood prone area (ft)0.31 D50 Riffle (mm)
3.1 width (ft)2.9 entrenchment ratio 0.81 D84 Riffle (mm)
1.2 mean depth (ft)3.6 low bank height (ft)0 threshold grain size (mm):
1.6 max depth (ft)2.3 low bank height ratio
3.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0 hyd radi (ft)
2.6 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.2 velocity (ft/s)0.050 Manning's roughness 0.0038 channel slope (%)
0.7 discharge rate (cfs)0.29 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.00 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.03 Froude number 18.0 resistance factor u/u*0.03 shear velocity (ft/s)
457.3 relative roughness 0.00053 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, S300 (lower)
Cross Section XS-6
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
8.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)14.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.31 D50 Riffle (mm)
8.3 width (ft)1.7 entrenchment ratio 0.81 D84 Riffle (mm)
1.0 mean depth (ft)5.8 low bank height (ft)0 threshold grain size (mm):
1.6 max depth (ft)3.6 low bank height ratio
9.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9 hyd radi (ft)
8.6 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.3 velocity (ft/s)0.050 Manning's roughness 0.009 channel slope (%)
2.1 discharge rate (cfs)0.30 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.00 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.05 Froude number 17.9 resistance factor u/u*0.05 shear velocity (ft/s)
365.4 relative roughness 0.0014 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, S400 (no credit)
Cross Section XS-7
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
8.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)95.6 W flood prone area (ft)0.25 D50 Riffle (mm)
15.6 width (ft)6.1 entrenchment ratio 0.86 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.5 mean depth (ft)1.0 low bank height (ft)0 threshold grain size (mm):
1.0 max depth (ft)1.0 low bank height ratio
15.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
28.3 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.1 velocity (ft/s)0.045 Manning's roughness 0.0014 channel slope (%)
0.7 discharge rate (cfs)0.29 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.00 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.02 Froude number 16.5 resistance factor u/u*0.02 shear velocity (ft/s)
194.6 relative roughness 0.00004 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
53
53.5
54
54.5
55
55.5
56
0 20406080100120
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, S500
Cross Section XS-8
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
8.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)95.7 W flood prone area (ft)0.25 D50 Riffle (mm)
14.1 width (ft)6.8 entrenchment ratio 0.86 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.6 mean depth (ft)1.3 low bank height (ft)0 threshold grain size (mm):
1.3 max depth (ft)1.0 low bank height ratio
14.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
22.3 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.1 velocity (ft/s)0.045 Manning's roughness 0.0024 channel slope (%)
1.1 discharge rate (cfs)0.28 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.00 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.03 Froude number 16.9 resistance factor u/u*0.02 shear velocity (ft/s)
224.5 relative roughness 0.00011 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
50.5
51
51.5
52
52.5
53
53.5
54
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, S600
Cross Section XS-9
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
2.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)29.2 W flood prone area (ft)0.25 D50 Riffle (mm)
9.8 width (ft)3.0 entrenchment ratio 0.86 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.2 mean depth (ft)0.4 low bank height (ft)0 threshold grain size (mm):
0.4 max depth (ft)1.0 low bank height ratio
9.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.2 hyd radi (ft)
49.3 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.1 velocity (ft/s)0.045 Manning's roughness 0.006 channel slope (%)
0.2 discharge rate (cfs)0.40 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.00 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.03 Froude number 14.1 resistance factor u/u*0.02 shear velocity (ft/s)
70.8 relative roughness 0.000065 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
54.5
55
55.5
56
56.5
57
57.5
58
58.5
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Width
Swiftie, Riffle, S700
12%
12%
16%
21%
16%
11%
6%
2%
1%
1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Type
D16 0.078 mean 0.4 silt/clay 12%
D35 0.2 dispersion 4.5
sand 76%
D50 0.35 skewness 0.00 gravel
12%
D65 0.59 cobble 0%
D84 1.6 boulder 0%
D95 4.9
Size (mm) Size Distribution
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
we
i
g
h
t
e
d

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

i
n

r
a
n
g
e
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
Weighted pebble count by bed features Swiftie, S100
weighted percent Riffle Pool Run Glide # of particles
90% riffle 10% pool
14%
9%
12%
19%
20%
18%
4%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Type
D16 0.072 mean 0.3 silt/clay 14%
D35 0.25 dispersion 4.7
sand 78%
D50 0.43 skewness -0.10 gravel
8%
D65 0.73 cobble 0%
D84 1.5 boulder 0%
D95 3.4
Size (mm) Size Distribution
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
we
i
g
h
t
e
d

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

i
n

r
a
n
g
e
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
Weighted pebble count by bed features Swiftie, S200
weighted percent Riffle Pool Run Glide # of particles
90% riffle 10% pool
13%
10%
14%
24%
26%
13%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Type
D16 0.077 mean 0.3 silt/clay 13%
D35 0.23 dispersion 3.6
sand 87%
D50 0.36 skewness -0.13 gravel
0%
D65 0.56 cobble 0%
D84 0.92 boulder 0%
D95 1.5
Size (mm) Size Distribution
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
we
i
g
h
t
e
d

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

i
n

r
a
n
g
e
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
Weighted pebble count by bed features Swiftie, S300
weighted percent Riffle Pool Run Glide # of particles
80% riffle 20% pool

FINAL

Detailed Hydric Soils Study
Swiftie Mitigation Bank
Edgecombe County NC

Prepared for:
Catherine Roland
Water & Land Solutions
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615

Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS #1223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312

July 2023 Soil Scientist Seal

This report provided to Water & Land Solutions describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Swiftie Mitigation
Bank in Edgecombe County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete
report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments, and disclaimers.

FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 2 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the site soils and delineate the extent of hydric soils potentially
suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation. The capacity for hydrologic restoration is evaluated
considering both historic and existing land uses, current management, modifications of hydrology and
soils, and the potential for establishing a hydroperiod appropriate for its landscape setting and soils. This
evaluation focuses on the use of practical technical solutions to support re-establishing and enhancing the
natural hydrology at this site.

The potential for restoration assumes the ability to develop an appropriate design and capability to
construct site modifications necessary to restore adequate hydrology. Practical modifications may include,
but are not limited to reversal of drainage modifications such as plugging drainage ditches, removal of fill
materials, roughening surfaces, and creation/enhancement of existing depressions. Recommendation for
re-establishment and rehabilitation of wetland follows the Principles of Wetland Restoration (USEPA
2000) that promote successful development of a functioning wetland community by restoring ecological
integrity by re-establishment of natural structure and function. Based upon the three criteria for defining
wetlands, hydrology, soils, and vegetation, this report focuses on soils and their potential for supporting
hydrology and vegetation.

A detailed field investigation of soils for the purpose of confirming the presence of and delineating the
extent of hydric soil for the suitability for wetland mitigation was conducted at the Swiftie Mitigation
Bank (Swiftie Site). This report describes these findings, conclusions, and recommendations for wetland
re-establishment at the Swiftie Site. The observations and opinions stated in this report reflect conditions
apparent on the subject property at the time of the site evaluation. My findings, opinions, conclusions, and
recommendations are based on professional experience, observed soil morphology, landscape position,
drainage patterns, site conditions, and boundaries of the property as evident in the field.
Project Information and Background
The Swiftie Site is located approximately 7.5 miles northwest of Tarboro, NC. This site lies south of
Highway 33 and southeast of White Oak Swamp Road (SR 1428) (Figure 1). Land use of the contributing
watershed community is rural, consisting of agricultural farmland and undeveloped forest land (Figure 2).
Also, the site is adjacent to an existing mitigation bank to the south on the floodplain of Swift Creek. The
Swiftie Site extends from near Highway 33 south to the floodplain of Swift Creek. This report is limited
to approximately 45 acres closer to Highway 33 and does not address the portion of the project along
Swift Creek. The area evaluated includes the headwaters of an unnamed tributary to Swift Creek, forested
jurisdictional wetlands, and cultivated agricultural fields. A site soil evaluation such as described within
this report is necessary to determine soil characteristics relevant to the success of the desired land use.
The site evaluation and hydric soil delineation included both drained hydric soils and jurisdictional
wetlands within the project boundary. At the time of this report the jurisdictional wetland boundaries are
awaiting US Army Corps of Engineers concurrence.
NRCS Soil Mapping
The NRCS Soil Survey provides county level data that can be used in general planning for farms and
larger areas (NRCS). The soil survey provides maps displaying soil map units and gives a brief
description for each of the major soil types along with their characteristics. These descriptions are
produced at the county level that may give additional local management concerns. Soil mapping units
identify areas of soil having similarly defined soil properties and physical characteristics with similar
management criteria based upon these properties. Due to mapping scale, these soil map units cannot
completely describe a map unit, but provide general information related to management and potential use
limitations. Each unit describes a range of soils characteristics that may be found within a landscape or
landscape position characteristic of the region. A Soil Survey map unit often correlates closely with
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 3 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
general soil characteristics observed at a location, but have limitations because soils represent the natural
conditions and gradients that are influenced by geology, slope, and past land management practices. The
properties described provide a useful background for interpreting soil that may be encountered at the site
and are the starting point for this soil evaluation.
NRCS Map Units
This site is within the Southern Coastal Plain physiographic region (MLRA 133A). This MLRA is
bordered by the fall line to the west and it is an erosional landscape that formed as the ocean receded
during the Quaternary period. Subsequent changes in sea level created terraces in younger deposits,
creating a benched appearance (USDA-NRCS 2006). The topography consists of nearly level ridges with
gently undulating valleys with gently to steeply sloping uplands. Smaller, headwater streams are narrow
with larger streams becoming broad with meandering channels. The unconsolidated sediments underlying
the soils originated in the hills of the Piedmont to the west and are made up of unconsolidated coastal
plain sediments of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited from the west. Soils are formed within the
geologic materials present.

The site is below the crest of an interstream divide within a concave backwater on an old stream terrace
where shallow valleys converge. The project landscape is nearly level to concave. Soil mapping units in
the area generally follow landscape position and slope. Across most of the project the NRCS soil survey
has an extensive map unit of a poorly drained Roanoke (Ro) that is surrounded by well drained Wagram
(WaB) and Norfolk (NoB) soil upslope and well drained Conetoe (CeB) and State (StB) soils downslope.
Also located within the landscape is a moderately well drained Altivista (AaA) that may contain various
poorly drained inclusions. A poorly drained Rains (RaA) soils occupy similar landscape as the Roanoke,
but exhibits slightly more slope.

Most map units have potential inclusions of soils that may be better or poorer drained, often found where
slopes become more complex, textures differ, or there are changes in groundwater. Within the project,
Roanoke and Rains soils are classified as hydric by the NRCS. Better drained soils are not classified as
hydric, but may contain hydric inclusions. The Wagram map unit may contain wetter soils, often within
linear concave landforms that can transition into low gradient valleys. The soils present can potentially be
drained with ditching and limited surface contouring typical of agricultural practices. The dominate
NRCS Map Units are briefly described below.
Roanoke
The Roanoke map unit are locally mapped on slightly concave landforms of backswamps and depressions
on stream terraces. It is naturally wet and when drained, it is classified as Farmland of Statewide
Importance. Forming in clayey fluvial sediments, this soil typically has a dark grayish brown surface
higher in organics underlain by depleted, gray clay subsoils. Surfaces are loamy textures and underlain
with the clayey subsoil horizons commonly having redoximorphic mottles. They are naturally poorly
drained soils with the water table within 12 inches of the surface. They can be frequently flooded for brief
periods between November and May. A high water table and flooding are the main limitations for use
with drainage modifications a common management practice. Permeability ranges from moderately low
to moderately high and runoff is low.
Rains
The Rains map unit occurs on the nearly level to slightly depressional flatwoods of broad interstream
divides and along linear, concave, valley like features. Where drained, it is classified as Prime Farmland.
Forming in loamy marine deposits, surfaces are loamy textures with the clayey subsoil horizons. The
surface color is a very dark gray high in organics and is underlain by depleted, gray sandy clay loam
subsoils exhibiting yellowish brown and red redoximorphic concentrations of oxidized iron. This poorly
drained soil has a water table within 12 inches of the surface between November and April. Permeability
ranges from moderately high to high and runoff is naturally low unless ditched and crowned. A high
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 4 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
water table and flooding are the main limitations for use with drainage modifications a common
management practice.
Altivista
The Altivista map unit is found on stream terraces and is classified as Prime Farmland. Forming in fine
textured loamy alluvial sediments, this soil typically has a grayish brown loamy surface of mostly
unmasked soil particles. The surface is underlain by bright brownish yellow or yellowish-brown clay
loams. They are moderately well drained soils with a water table at 18 to 30 inches December through
March. Potential wetness is a moderate limitation for use and management with drainage modifications
common. Permeability ranges from moderately high to high and runoff is low. Within this unit are
potential inclusions of poorly drained Roanoke, Tomotley, Wehadkee, and Bibb. Additional upland soil
map units are on present surrounding the project, but are not discussed here. General characteristics of
these mapping units are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. NRCS Hydric Soil Map Units at the Swiftie Mitigation Bank.
Series Taxonomic
Class
Drainage
Class
Hydric
(Hydric Rating)
Landscape setting
(down across)
(Ro) Roanoke loam (Consociation)
Farmland of statewide importance – (Backswamps on stream terraces, depressions on stream terraces)
Parent material: old clayey alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Depth to water table: 0 to 12 inches
Flooding: none to occasional Ponding: rare
Roanoke (100%) Typic
Endoaquults poorly Yes
(C/D) concave - linear
(AaA) Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (Consociation)
Prime Farmland– (stream terraces, depression, floodplains, toe slopes)
Parent material: old loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Depth to water table: 18 to 30 inches
Flooding: rare Ponding: none
Altavista (91%) Aquic
Hapludults
moderately
well
No
(C) concave - linear
Roanoke (5%) Typic
Endoaquults
poorly
Yes
(C/D)
Tomotley (2%) Yes
(B/D)
linear - linear
Wehadkee (1%) Fluvaquentic
Endoaquepts concave - linear
Bibb (1%) Typic
Fluvaquents
Yes
(A/D)
(RaA) Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal Plain (Consociation)
Prime farmland if drained – (broad interstream divides on marine terraces, Carolina bays on marine
terraces, flats on marine terraces)
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Depth to water table: 0 to 12 inches
Flooding: none Ponding: none
Rains (86%) Typic
Paleaquults poorly Yes
(B/D) linear - linear
Pantego (6%) Umbric
Paleaquults very poorly Yes
(A/D) linear - concave
Source-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2023 06 13)
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 5 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Project Approach
A project goal is to enhance biological functions common to riparian wetland systems and improve
downstream water quality. The mitigation proposed is to re-establish and enhance the hydroperiod where
drainage conditions have been modified that reduce and remove wetland hydrology in hydric soils. A
hydric soil with restored hydrology should sustain hydroperiods appropriate for the landscape and
available hydrology sources. Soils were evaluated using visible morphologic features, landscape position,
and hydric soil indicators verifying the occurrence of historical or current hydroperiods common to
wetlands. Past land use and modifications to drainage are considered relative to the current hydroperiods
and the practicality of removing modifications to restore wetland hydrology. Potentially suitable sources
of hydrology were identified and evaluated for ability to construct and provide adequate hydrology.
Where the drainage has resulted in the complete loss of wetland hydroperiods, the area is considered
suitable for re-establishment. Where the modifications have reduced or limits a natural hydroperiod, the
mitigation is considered suitable for rehabilitation or enhancement.
Methodology
A detailed hydric soil investigation for the Swiftie site was completed in April of 2022. A series of
approximately 162 soil borings were performed across the site to described and verify the presence and
estimate the extent of hydric soil. Additionally, drainage modifications and potential for hydrologic
modifications were assessed. The site also contains areas with current wetland hydrology that have been
delineated. Within appropriate landscapes the soils were evaluated for potential to support a wetland
hydrology. Soil boring descriptions are not intended for classification to an individual soil series, but is
generally referenced to the local NRCS Soil Mapping Units.
Evaluation Criteria
Hydric soil indicators were evaluated using observed morphologic characteristics following criteria based
on "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2). Hydrology
was evaluated utilizing observed morphologic features, potential permeability, potential restrictive
horizons, current drainage modifications and professional experience. The presence of hydric soil
indicators may not reflective the current hydrology where drainage, surface contouring, and tillage have
and altered historic hydrologic condition changed soils morphology. This leads to a potentially relict
hydric indicator or the loss of indicators. The morphological interpretation of relict indicators follows
Vepraskas (1994). A hydroperiod success criteria is proposed based upon Corps mitigation guidelines
(US Army Corps of Engineers 2016) along with specific site conditions where appropriate. Hydric soil
indicators used are valid for the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0 within Major Land Resource Area
(MLRA) 136 (Southern Piedmont) and Land Resource Region (LRR) P - South Atlantic and Gulf Slope
Cash Crops, Forest, and Livestock Region.

Soil boring locations examined were approximately located using the Terrain Navigator Pro smart phone
application by Trimble and figures were produced from the same software (Figure 3). All boundaries
shown are based on the detailed field delineation. The delineated boundary points were located using EOS
Arrow 100Pro, a submeter GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System). An official concurrence with the
US Corps of Engineers is being sought to verify wetland boundaries.
Soil Evaluation
Hand auger soil borings were utilized to identify current soil characteristics and determine the extent of
soil suitable for re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement. Hydric indicators typically occur
within the upper 18 inches, but selected borings extended to greater than 40 inches in depth to evaluate
potential deeper drainage or locate restrictive horizons able to perch a water table.

FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 6 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
The current hydrologic condition was evaluated by:
• an assessment of the existing drainage modifications (both anthropogenic and natural),
• the visible pattern and presentation of soil color and mottles,
• existing vegetation and vegetation patterns,
• the current water table where observed,
• location within the landscape,
• soil surface shape and slope impacting flow paths

Borings can extend beyond the proposed project boundaries to evaluate the wider range of site conditions.

Soils suitable for wetland re-establishment or rehabilitation typically exhibit one or more hydric
indicators. These indicators persist and are considered active where hydrology is present and relict where
drainage is effective. Under the loss of suitable hydrologic conditions, redevelopment or maintaining
visible hydric indicators is difficult. A relict indicator occurs in areas where the historic hydrology has
been altered by drainage modifications and land surface disturbances. Hydric indicators are obscured or
lost due to long-term drainage conditions, tillage, and other earth work. General conditions and patterns
representative of this landscape were observed. Relevant soil characteristics, land management, and
current hydrology were noted and modifications that may affect potential hydrologic restoration were
evaluated. Representative profiles are described to document the range of characteristics observed
(Appendix A). Selected photographs of soils and the landscape are shown in Appendix B.

This report describes these findings, conclusions, and recommendation for wetland mitigation at the
Swiftie Site. The discussion identifies the observed relevant soil characteristics, current hydrology, and
land management with observed modifications that may affect potential hydrologic restoration.
Constraints on stream restoration may limit the extent of potential hydrologic restoration shown (property
boundaries, hydrologic trespass, design limitations, and constructability).
Results and Discussion
Landscape Setting
This project is in the Southeastern Plains physiographic region (ecoregion level III) and in the
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces level IV ecoregion (65p) where the riverine landscapes
provide important wildlife corridors and habitat. (USEPA 2003). Streams tend to be large, sluggish rivers
and backwaters with ponds, swamps, and oxbow lakes. The low terraces are mostly forested with
cropland or pasture occurring in areas that are better drained. Soils are mostly alluvial with terrace
deposits of sand, clay, and gravel. Highway 33 to the north is the general divide between this ecoregion
and the Rolling Coastal Plain (ecoregion 65m) to the north where the relief, elevation, dissection, and
stream gradients are generally greater and the soils tend to be better drained.

Geology within the project and surrounding area is sedimentary rocks of the Yorktown Formation. Soil
parent material of this geologic formation consists of fossiliferous clay with varying amounts of fine-
grained sand, bluish gray, shell material commonly concentrated in lenses. Soil of the project area are
derived from these geologic constituents through additional weathering and alluvial deposition. The Soil
Survey of Edgecombe County describes this area as nearly level and gently sloping on broad flats and
smooth to slightly rounded, low ridges and depressions. Soils are described to range from very poorly
drained, poorly drained, and well drained. On the stream terraces, soils have a clayey to sandy subsoil
(Soil Survey of Edgecombe County). The dominant soil orders in this MLRA (Southern Coastal Plain -
133A) are Ultisols, Entisols, and Inceptisols (USDA-NRCS 2006). Within the project boundary, soils are
mostly mapped as Roanoke, Conetoe and Portsmouth. Soil moisture within this region is sufficiently high
year-round in most years for good crop production with poorly drained landscapes developing hydric
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 7 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
indicators. Land use for most of the project area and the contributing watershed is in agricultural row
crops with patches of undeveloped forest land. Farm buildings and residential homes are scattered.
Site Conditions
The project site lies in a depressional landform of an old terrace where it receives hydrology along two
distinct drainage features. The area is an old backwater floodplain landscape that is now elevated above
the active floodplain of Swift Creek. Currently hydrology sources are a small stream that enters from the
northwest and what appears to be extensive areas of groundwater discharge along the toe of slope. Most
of the project is underlain by a dense, restrictive clayey subsoil that seasonally perched a water table prior
to drainage modifications for agricultural uses. To the north across Highway 33 is a nearly level ridge that
is the watershed for a small tributary to Swift Creek (S200) (Figure 2).

The S200 tributary begins to the northwest of the project below Highway 33 within a forested headwater
valley. There appears to be significant groundwater discharge along portion of the valley edges where
shallow ditches have been excavated to intercept runoff and discharge. A second, smaller, forested valley
to the east does not support a stream, but areas having groundwater discharge were observed. Wetlands
are present within the forested area, but evidence of old fencing suggest that the area was used for
livestock prior to regeneration of the trees. To the east is a cultivated field located within a shallow,
concave basin. Based on the ditching pattern, groundwater discharge is also occurring along the toe of
slope.

The wetlands were delineated prior to this field work and reverification by the Corps is anticipated. The
wetlands area is entirely within this forested landscape. The cultivated fields are used for row crops where
cotton was previously observed). The site has an extensive network of ditches draining both the forested
and cultivated landscapes. Larger channels within the project are three to five feet deep. The smaller
ditches located along the toe of slope intercept runoff and groundwater discharge, contributing to the low
water table and limits hydroperiods. Ditches within the fields are well maintained and vegetation is
limited to herbaceous species. Currently most of the flows exit the site to the southeast through an
excavated ditch, draining into S300. The S300 stream flows to the floodplain of Swift Creek to the south.
The floodplain of Swift Creek contains large areas of wetlands.

The historic soil disturbing activities included tree clearing and grubbing, the extensive ditching, and
crowning, or contouring to increase runoff to the ditches, along with other activities associated with
agricultural operations. These types of disturbances create a more uniform soil surface, smoothing the
transitions from higher elevations to lower elevations to improve surface runoff. This activity removes
typical landscape features of shallow depressions and hummocks. The observed modifications have
resulted in a loss of surface organic content due to increased oxidation of soil carbon, increased soil
temperature, and reduce organic inputs. This is easily observed within the cultivated areas. Increased
oxidation of organics due to the drainage appears to have resulted in the loss of some hydric indicators
and is prevalent along the edges of the historical wetland. This is observed in loss of black color in the
surface horizons and absence of redoximorphic features within the tilled/disturbed surface horizon.
Site Soils
The soils within this project have experienced various impacts due to manipulation and management. The
existing wetland adjacent to the cultivated field provides context to interpret potential impacts of
cultivation on soil. Relative to the wetland, the surface soils exhibit browner coloration due to loss of
organics. Wetland soil have a black surface horizon regardless of surface textures and depressional areas
may contain a mucky surface layer. Surface soils in cultivated areas were also found to be compacted and
difficult to auger when dry. A few borings along the edges of the hydric soils are underlain by deeper
sandy loams or sand, but generally the subsoils consist mostly a dense sandy clay loam or sandy clay that
is restrictive. These deeper sandy textures occur near the transition to the better drained soils of Conetoe.
This restrictive subsoil can perch a water table, but with the observed drainage modifications it is likely
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 8 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
subject to droughty periods late in the summer and fall once the available water has been transpired. The
subsoils are depleted throughout and contain redoximorphic mottles of dark yellowish brown and
yellowish-brown iron masses.

Project soils are within the observed range of characteristics corresponding to the NRCS mapping unit
descriptions of the Roanoke or Rains series. A loamy or sandy surface over a clayey textured subsoil is
characteristic of both the Roanoke and Rains soils. Representative soil profiles are shown in Appendix A.
The hydric indicators observed are common in concave landforms found on backwaters and depressional
areas of the project.
Hydric Soil Indicators
The most common hydric soil indicators across this site are the A11 – Depleted Below Dark Surface and
S7- Dark Surface. All hydric soil profiles recorded meet a dark surface indicator. In addition to these
indicators, soil borings exhibited multiple indicators including A9-1-cm muck, A12-Thick Dark Surface,
S5- Sandy Redox, F3 - Depleted Matrix, F6 - Redox Dark Surface, and F13 – Umbric Surface. Subsoils
below the dark surface often exhibited distinct redoximorphic mottles. The deep dark surfaces observed
contain high organic content and required long periods of saturation or inundation for development.

Historically shallow depressions and mucky textured surfaces were likely more common prior to
cultivation. To form thick black surfaces and mucky layer of these soil indicators suggest this site was
historically very wet and contained areas having long term seasonal saturation to semipermanently
flooded conditions. Drainage and tillage of soils results in increased aeration of surface horizons, leading
to higher soil temperatures that increase microbial oxidation of organic carbon. Cultivation destroys
indicators such as the A9, S5, and F6 indicators by destruction of mottles and mixing of thinner layers of
organic muck. Historically mucky textured surfaces were likely more common prior to cultivation due to
the concave topography of this site. The loss of soil organic material eventually results in a loss of the
darker surface color. This loss of organic matter was observed in the black surface color in the wetland
areas compared to soils found the field.
Current Hydrologic Alterations
Historically, the primary hydrology was a high groundwater table due to the nearly level to the concave
landscape and the restrictive, clayey subsoil perching a water table. In addition to a small unnamed
tributary (S200), the groundwater discharge along the toe of slope maintained a shallow groundwater
table in this landform. The extensive network of ditches was constructed to intercept the groundwater and
runoff, draining these soils to allow mechanized agriculture. In addition to the ditching, surface
smoothing and gentle contouring increase surface runoff.

In a natural, undrained condition, soils would have very slow runoff and the low gradient landscape
would have supported appropriate conditions for lengthy periods of saturation. Due soils having a
moderately low internal drainage (low Ksat), a more extensive ditch network is required to overcome the
wetness limitation. Within the cultivated fields, surface modifications include spreading of spoil/fill from
the ditch excavation and slight crowning to improve surface runoff from the fields.
Potential Hydroperiod for Restored Soils
The hydric soils at the site are characteristics of the NRCS Roanoke map unit. This soil forms in
conditions supporting long periods of saturation or inundation. Using the US Army Corps of Engineers
(2016) mitigation guidance for Common Coastal Plain Soil Series (associated with wetlands), the
Roanoke (Typic Endoaquults) is expected to have a natural hydroperiod of between 9 and 12 percent
during the growing season where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface (Table 2). Along the
edges of the toe of slope soils appear to be most similar to the Rains series. Mitigation guidance for a
Rains soil (Typic Paleaquults) is expected to have a natural hydroperiod of between 10 and 12 percent.

FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 9 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
After restoration, due to natural variations in local topography and internal drainage of soils in the
floodplain, a local hydroperiod slightly higher or lower than this guidance is expected. Areas having
slightly higher elevations may experience slightly lower hydroperiods while depressional areas should
exceed 16 percent. Localized hydroperiods will depend on surface topography, especially depressional
features, the project design approach, and construction practices. Near areas with groundwater discharge,
the hydroperiods may also exceed 16 percent depending on the seasonality of the discharge. The final
location and elevation of tributary may also significantly influence wetland hydrology and saturation
ranges of the surrounding landscape. Areas having existing wetland hydrology may show some increase
in hydroperiod, especially near to drainage features and plugged ditches. The surrounding upland soils are
not anticipated to have significant increases in hydroperiods.
Table 2. Swiftie Mitigation Bank Potential Hydrologic Success Criteria
Soil Series Taxonomic
Classification
Seasonal
High Water
Table
Topographic
Slope Setting
(down/across)
Drainage
Classification
*Hydroperiod
Range
Roanoke Typic
Endoaquults 0 to 12 inches concave - linear poorly 9-12%
Rains Typic
Paleaquults 0 to 12 inches linear - linear poorly 10-12%
Tomotley
(inclusion)
Typic
Endoaquults 0 to 12 inches concave - linear poorly 10-12%
Bibb
(inclusion)
Typic
Fluvaquents 0 to 12 inches concave - linear poorly 12-16%
Altavista Aquic
Hapludults
18 to 30
inches concave - linear moderately well 6-8%
*Hydroperiod follows US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016.

For the first year after construction, it is realistic to expect a shorter hydroperiod within the areas of re-
establishment, especially if rainfall patterns are below normal. The deeper soil horizons may take time to
become fully saturated and establish a high groundwater table. The potential hydroperiods in the Corps
guidance are subject to localized factors related to stream design and frequency of flooding, construction
practices, site specific topography, and drainage inputs after construction.
Functional Uplift from Hydric Soil Re-establishment
The stream and wetland mitigation proposed will restore a seasonally high local groundwater in drained
hydric soil, re-establishing a more natural hydrologic cycle and the associated functional uplift. The
watershed is primarily agricultural and sylvicultural land use with potential sediments, nutrients, and
pollutants entering the Swiftie site. There may be additional pollutants from Highway 33 just upslope of
the project boundary. Plugging excavated ditches, removal of spoil, and connecting the stream to the
floodplain will restore wetland functions, including the biogeochemical cycling processes across the site.
The presence of the existing wetland and drained hydric soil indicates a potential to rapidly restore natural
biological processes and chemical transformations of wetland soils. Successful hydrologic restoration at
this site will provide functional uplift related to soils that can improve downstream water quality. This
project will provide a more functional corridor between the existing stream and wetland complex, riparian
buffer, and the project, and the high-quality habitat found the in the Swift Creek floodplain.

Re-establishment of the appropriate hydroperiod will restore the important soil processes of oxidation-
reduction cycling, improve nutrient and chemical transformations (especially nitrates), and potentially
immobilize phosphorus. With re-establishment of an appropriate wetland vegetative community,
additional project benefits include protection of soil surfaces, reducing erosion, increase infiltration, and
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 10 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
raise available water capacity. Vegetative cover reduces soil temperatures leading to a slower oxidation of
organic matter and cooler water temperature in the stream.

The project is expected to increase organic carbon sequestration and improve diversity of beneficial
microbial and fungal populations essential for wetland soil health. Healthy microbial populations in fully
functioning wetlands mediate many important biogeochemical processes such as biochemical
transformations of ammonia, molecular nitrogen, nitrite and nitrate and other complex organic substances.
Large scale benefits are peak flood control, diversify and increase wildlife habitat, and provide
connectivity of existing natural aquatic communities. The inclusion of the existing wetland communities
within the project provides a readily available pool of appropriate soil fungal and microbial species,
macroinvertebrates, and seeds while increasing habitat connectivity.
Recommendations
This site has excellent potential to restore an appropriate hydrology to large areas in this landscape. It
provides opportunities for Wetland Re-establishment, Wetland Rehabilitation, and Wetland Enhancement.
Practical methods for hydrologic restoration and enhancement would include raising of local ground
water table. Plugging/filling the ditch network, removal of spoil berms, creation of a rough surfaces, and
the enhancement/creation of small depressions will further enhance the hydrologic cycling. Establishing
an appropriate vegetative community will provide many additional benefits such as reducing soil
temperatures, stabilization of soils, and enhancing soil microbiological diversity and geochemical process.
Based on the soil properties, a general hydroperiod success criterion of 10 to 12 percent may be expected.

Where possible, all heavy equipment and construction schedules should be limited to dryer periods or the
use of tracked equipment to limit compaction, especially within any existing wetland. In the agricultural
fields, shallow ripping to at least 12 inches along the contours is needed to improve infiltration and
improve planting survival. The wetland and stream design should promote floodplain and stream
connectivity with enhancement of surface storage.

Due to the current drainage modifications, it may take up to a year for the site to become completely
saturated and reach the target hydroperiods. For at least the first year after construction, in the drained soil
it may be reasonable to expect a hydroperiod between 9 and 10 percent, depending on timing of final
construction and rainfall patterns (assuming at least average seasonal rainfall, antecedent conditions, and
over bank flow frequency).
Summary Observations
The Swiftie Site is located within a suitable landscape position within the concave backwaters of a
floodplain terrace. It supports small, unnamed tributaries and appears to have significant groundwater
discharge. A large, contiguous area of hydric soil was delineated. This area contained existing wetlands
that is fragmented from the original wetland community. At the project site, stream excavation/incision,
and ditching for agricultural have lowered the water table. Within agricultural fields, crowing and surface
modification have increased the rates of runoff. Other observed hydrologic modifications include, shallow
ditches that improve drainage, spoil berms, and compacted soil surfaces. Drainage appears to be effective
due to an extensive network of ditches and surface crowning. The existing wetland abuts the drained
hydric soil and is a fragment of the historical wetland that covered this site.

The soil surfaces are typically a thicker, very dark gray to black surface with a sandy or loamy texture and
high in accumulated organic matter. The most common hydric soil indicators observed are the A11 -
Depleted Below Dark Surface and the S7- Dark Surface, with many soil borings exhibited two or more
indicators. The surfaces are mostly underlain by a restrictive clayey horizon below 12 inches that extends
typically extend greater than 24 inches. Extended periods of saturation or inundation are required for the
development for the accumulation of organics that create the dark surfaces. The subsoils have a more
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 11 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
restrictive sandy clay loam or sandy clay that perches a water table. The NRCS soil mapping indicates a
high potential for the occurrence of hydric soils in this landscape that includes a hydric Roanoke and
Rains with adjacent soils having hydric inclusions.

The Swiftie Site will provide a consistent source of hydrology after the removal of the drainage
modifications. Potential sources of hydrological include a small tributary and groundwater discharge
along the toe of slope.
Conclusions
At the Swiftie Site, the topographic and landscape setting have a hydric soil appropriate for a successful
hydrologic mitigation project. The hydric soil indicators observed across this floodplain reflect
historically wet conditions prior to conversion to agricultural use. Stream restoration and other practical
drainage modifications can raise the local groundwater. This project can restore lost and degraded aquatic
resources. This project can provide significant functional uplift, establish natural habitat, and restore a
large historical wetland community.

Given the observed hydric soil characteristics within a favorable landscape position, this site is suitable
for hydrologic Wetland Re-establishment, Wetland Rehabilitation, and Wetland Enhancement of degraded
aquatic resources. Not discussed in this report is the potential for Wetland Preservation along the
floodplain of Swift Creek just south of the area discussed and to which this project is hydrologically
connected. Based upon this detailed study of soils and current conditions observed at this site, this
appears to be a site with appropriate conditions for Wetland Mitigation.

This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Swiftie Site in Edgecombe
County, NC. Any subsequent transfer of the report by the user shall be made by transferring the complete
report, including figures, maps, appendices, all attachments, and disclaimers.
References
NTCHS. 2003. Technical Note 13: Altered Hydric Soils. Deliberation of: National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils.
Soil Survey Staff. USDA-NRCS. Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed [June/2023].
Swanson, Kratz, Caine, and Woodmansee. 1988. Landform Effects on Ecosystem Patterns and
Processes. Bioscience -Volume 38: 91-98.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team - October 24, 2016. SAW-2013-00668-PN
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
USDA-SCS 1985. Soil Survey of Edgecombe County North Carolina. (November 1979).
USDA-NRCS. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
USDA-NRCS. 2017. Soil Survey Manual 4th Edition. USDA Handbook 18. Soil Survey Division Staff.
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 12 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
USDA-NRCS. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils
Vepraskas, M. J. 1994. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Tech. Bulletin 301.
North Carolina Ag. Research Service, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA. 2000. Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. EPA841-F-00-003.
Office of Water (4501F). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 4 pp.
(https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/principles-wetland-restoration).
USEPA. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. G. E. Griffith et. al. EPA, USDA, NRCS Regional
collaborative. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-state.
August 31, 2002.
FINAL - Detailed Hydric Soils Study – Swiftie Mitigation Bank
July 2023
Page 13 of 13
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

FIGURES

APPENDICES

Appendix A Soil Boring Log
Appendix B Photos
Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Report

SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Miles
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
Declination
MN 9.89° WGN 1.52° W

MNGN
Legend
Project Area - Proposed Easement
Map Name: DRAUGHN Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.Base Map Scale: 24,000
Figure 1. USGS Vicinity Map
Swiftie Mitigation Bank
Edgecombe County, NC
Prepared for Water and Land Solutions
SCALE 1:3000
0 1000
Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2
Miles
5
01
5 06
5 12
5
16
5 20
5 17
5
47
5 101
5 102
5
103-B
5
182
5 183
5
184
Yj
Yj
YjYj
Yj
Yj
Yj
YjYj
Yj
Yj
Yj
Yj
S200
WA
WA
HS
HS
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement
Stream
Ditch
Wetland Jurisdictional
Potential Wetland Reestablishement
p Groundwater Discharge Area (potentia
5 Soil Boring-Profile
Scale: 1 inch = 250 ft.Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 2. Project Aerial Overview
Swiftie Mitigation Bank
Edgecombe County, NC
Produced for Water and Land Solutions
SCALE 1:3000
0 1000
Feet
0.0 0.1 0.2
Miles
402403
407
408
414
415
499
4100
4103
4105
41064107410841094110
4111 4116
41174118
41214122 4124
41254126
4127
4128413041314132
4134413541364139
4142
41434144
4146
414841494151 415241534154
4156
4157
4159
41614162
4163
4164
41664167
4168
4170
4171
4173
41744175417641774178
4179
41804181
422
423
425
426
427
428429
430
434
441
442
445
446
448
450
451
452
453454
455
456457
459
460
461
463
464
465
466
468
469
470 471
473
475
476
477
478
481
482
705
709710
711
713
7104
71127113 7114 7115
71197120 7123
71297133
7137
7138 7140 7141
7145
7147
7150
7155
7158
7160
7165
7169
7172
718
719
721
724735
736
737
738 739 740
743 744
749
758
762
767
772
774
779
780
784
5 01
5
06
5
12
5 16
5 20
5 17
5 47
5
101
5
102
5 103-B
5 182
5
183
5 184
Yj
Yj
YjYj
Yj
Yj
Yj
YjYj
Yj
Yj
Yj
Yj
S200
WA
WA
HS
HS
(C) Copyright 2016, Trimble Navigation Limited, OpenStreetMap contributors
NE
SESW
NW
N
E
S
W
LEGEND
Proposed Easement
Stream
Ditch
Wetland Jurisdictional
Potential Wetland Reestablishement
p Groundwater Discharge Area (potentia
5 Soil Boring-Profile
4 Soil Boring-Hydric
7 Soil Boring-Non-Hydric
Scale: 1 inch = 250 ft.Horizontal Datum: WGS84
Figure 3. Soil Boring Locations
Swiftie Mitigation Bank
Edgecombe County, NC
Produced for Water and Land Solutions
Appendix A
Swiftie Mitigation Bank, Edgecombe County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
June 2023
Representative Soil Profiles at the Swiftie Mitigation Bank Site (Grouped by map unit)
Depth
(inches)
Color Mottle Percentage
(Location*) Texture** Notes
Matrix Mottle

SB 01 - (HS 1)
July 26, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface
S7- Dark Surface
0-4 10 YR 3/1 LS low organic content due to
drainage& tillage 4-8 10 YR 3/1 LS
8-14 10 YR 5/1 10 YR 3/2 20% (PL) LS
14-18 10 YR 5/1 SL no redox features observed
18-22 10 YR 5/1 10 YR 4/6 25% (PL) SL
SB 06 - (HS 1)
July 26, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface
S7- Dark Surface
0-11 10 YR 3/1 LS
11-14 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 5/2 20% (PL) LS
14-18 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 4/1 20% (PL) LS
18-21 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 4/1
10 YR 4/6
20% (PL)
5% (PL) SCL
SB 12 - (HS 1)
July 26, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface
S7- Dark Surface
0-11 10 YR 3/1 LS plow layer
11-16 10 YR 4/1 LS
16-20 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/8 5% (PL) SCL
20-24 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 5/8 20% (PL) SC
SB 16 - (HS 1)
July 26, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface
S7- Dark Surface
0-16 10 YR 3/1 LS
16-25 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 4/6 10% (PL) SCL
SB 17 - (HS 1)
July 26, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface
S7- Dark Surface
0-9 10 YR 3/1 LS
9-19 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 3/1 10% (PL) LS
19-25 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 4/4 15% (PL) SC
Appendix A
Swiftie Mitigation Bank, Edgecombe County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
June 2023
Representative Soil Profiles at the Swiftie Mitigation Bank Site (Grouped by map unit)
Depth
(inches)
Color Mottle Percentage
(Location*) Texture** Notes
Matrix Mottle

SB 20 - (HS 1)
July 26, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A12-Thick Dark Surface
S7- Dark Surface
0-14 10 YR 3/1 LS
14-18 10 YR 5/1 10 YR 4/2 15% (PL) SL
SB 47 - (Wetland)
July 26, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-3 10 YR 2/1 L
3-11 10 YR 5/2 10 YR 4/4 5% (PL) SL
11-21 10 YR 6/1 10 YR 5/8 20% (M) SCL restrictive
SB 101 - (WA)
March 1, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT -9"
A12-Thick Dark Surface
S7- Dark Surface
0-3 10 YR 2/1 SL
3-14 10 YR 3/1 LS
14-25 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 3/3 10% (PL) S
SB 102 - (HS 1)
March 1, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface (relict)
S5-Sandy Redox
S7- Dark Surface (relict)
0-4 10 YR 3/2 LS
4-7 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 3/4 5% (PL) LS
7-12 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 3/4 2% (PL) LS
12-24 10 YR 5/6 SC
SB 103B - (HS 1) (in field)
April 12, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface (relict)
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-6 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 4/6 3% (PL) SL
6-14 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 5/8 5% (PL) SL
14-21 10 YR 5/1 10 YR 5/8 10% (PL) SL
SB 182 - (HS 1) (in field)
April 25, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3-Depleted Matrix
0-10 10 YR 2/1 SL
10-17 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 4/6 5% (PL) SC restrictive
17-27 10 YR 4/1 10 YR 5/6
10 YR 5/1
8% (PL)
5% (PL) SC restrictive
Appendix A
Swiftie Mitigation Bank, Edgecombe County NC
Soil Boring Descriptions
Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
June 2023
Representative Soil Profiles at the Swiftie Mitigation Bank Site (Grouped by map unit)
Depth
(inches)
Color Mottle Percentage
(Location*) Texture** Notes
Matrix Mottle

SB 183 - (HS 1) (in field)
April 25, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT Not observed
A12-Thick Dark Surface
F6-Redox Dark Surface
0-8 10 YR 3/1 LS
8-18 10 YR 3/1 10 YR 5/6 4% (PL) SC restrictive
18-30 10 YR 3/1 10 YR 4/6 8% (PL) SC restrictive-massive structure
SB 184 - (WA) (forested)
April 25, 2023
Hydric Indicators WT -29"
A9-1 cm muck
A12-Thick Dark Surface
F13- Umbric Surface
0-1 10 YR 2/1 muck
1-5 10 YR 3/1 SL
5-10 10 YR 2/1 SL
10-30 10 YR 2/1 10 YR 4/6
10 YR 5/1
15% (PL)
15% (PL) SCL
»Indicators valid for NRCS Land Resource Region 136 (Southern Piedmont) and Land Resource Region P.
WT = observed apparent water table
*PL =pore lining, M = matrix, UCSG = uncoated sand grains
**Texture (follows USDA textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
f = fine, c = coarse (textural modifiers for sandy soils)

Soil Scientist Seal
Appendix B
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Site – Edgecombe County, NC
Photo Log
April 2023
B-1

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

1. Hydric profile (wetland WA). Meets A11-Depleted Below Dark Surface the and F3-Depleted Matrix
indicators. SB#47.

2. Landscape looking across wetland toward field below Highway 33. SB#47. 9
Appendix B
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Site – Edgecombe County, NC
Photo Log
April 2023
B-2

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

3. Hydric profile (wetland WA). Meets the A12-Thick Dark Surface and S7- Dark Surface indicators.
SB#101.

4. Landscape looking across floodplain toward UT S200. SB#101.
Appendix B
Swiftie Mitigation Bank Site – Edgecombe County, NC
Photo Log
April 2023
B-3

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

5. Hydric profile. Meets A12-Thick Dark Surface and F6-Redox Dark Surface indicators. SB#183.

6. Landscape facing across field south toward Swift Creek. Ditch located at near line of trees. SB#183.
Soil Map—Edgecombe County, North Carolina
(Swiftie Mitigation Bank)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/13/2023
Page 1 of 3
39
8
5
6
0
0
39
8
6
0
0
0
39
8
6
4
0
0
39
8
6
8
0
0
39
8
7
2
0
0
39
8
7
6
0
0
39
8
8
0
0
0
39
8
5
6
0
0
39
8
6
0
0
0
39
8
6
4
0
0
39
8
6
8
0
0
39
8
7
2
0
0
39
8
7
6
0
0
263700 264100 264500 264900 265300 265700 266100 266500 266900 267300
263700 264100 264500 264900 265300 265700 266100 266500 266900 267300
36° 0' 28'' N
77
°

3
7
'

1
9
'
'

W
36° 0' 28'' N
77
°

3
4
'

4
8
'
'

W
35° 59' 9'' N
77
°

3
7
'

1
9
'
'

W
35° 59' 9'' N
77
°

3
4
'

4
8
'
'

W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 250 500 1000 1500
Meters
Map Scale: 1:17,300 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 8, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 9, 2022—Jun 5,
2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Edgecombe County, North Carolina
(Swiftie Mitigation Bank)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/13/2023
Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
AaA Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to
3 percent slopes
145.2 10.9%
Ba Ballahack fine sandy loam 14.9 1.1%
BB Bibb soils 5.5 0.4%
Ca Cape Fear loam 3.6 0.3%
Cc Chewacla silt loam 33.0 2.5%
CeB Conetoe loamy sand, 0 to 4
percent slopes
66.4 5.0%
DgA Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes
122.5 9.2%
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes
32.6 2.4%
LyA Lynchburg fine sandy loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes,
Southern Coastal Plain
12.1 0.9%
NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
18.7 1.4%
NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
11.6 0.9%
RaA Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, Southern
Coastal Plain
24.3 1.8%
Ro Roanoke loam 360.2 27.0%
StB State loamy sand, 0 to 4
percent slopes
44.9 3.4%
TaB Tarboro loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
236.0 17.7%
W Water 4.6 0.3%
WaB Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
97.0 7.3%
We Wahee fine sandy loam 31.4 2.4%
Wh Wehadkee silt loam 41.7 3.1%
WkB Wickham sandy loam, 0 to 4
percent slopes
28.6 2.1%
Totals for Area of Interest 1,334.8 100.0%
Soil Map—Edgecombe County, North Carolina Swiftie Mitigation Bank
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/13/2023
Page 3 of 3

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
3/
8
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
5
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
7
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
Da
i
l
y

R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Swiftie GW-1
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
Maximum Consecutive Hydroperiod
1 days, 0.4% of Growing Season
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
3/
8
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
5
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
7
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
Da
i
l
y

R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Swiftie GW-2
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
Maximum Consecutive Hydroperiod
68 days, 26.7% of Growing Season

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
3/
8
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
5
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
7
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
Da
i
l
y

R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Swiftie GW-3
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
Maximum Consecutive Hydroperiod
20 days, 7.8% of Growing Season
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
3/
8
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
5
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
7
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
Da
i
l
y

R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Swiftie GW-4
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
Maximum Consecutive Hydroperiod
22 days, 8.6% of Growing Season

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
3/
8
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
5
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
7
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
Da
i
l
y

R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Swiftie GW-5
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
Maximum Consecutive Hydroperiod
5 days, 1% of Growing Season
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
33
W01 W02
W03
W04
W05
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
S20
0
S10
0
GW-4
GW-5GW-3
GW-2
GW-1
FigureXPre-existing
Monitoring
Well Locations
Date: 8/31/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing Roads
!.Pre-Restoration Wells
Existing Stream
Existing Ditches
Wetland Mitigation
Existing Wetland
Existing Hydric Soil
Open Water Feature
´0 750 1,500375
Feet
1 inch = 750 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name: Hornpipe Branch
Reach Name: South Reference Reach
Profile Name: South RefReach Long Pro
Survey Date: 01/08/2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey Data
DIST CH WS BKF P1 P2 P3 P4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 94.63
3 93.65
4.9 94.65
7.3 93.69
11.4 93.75
16 93.85
19.5 93.45
26 93.85
32 94.2
36 94.23
42 93.6
50 93.55
57 93.95
64 93.8
66.7 93.1
69 93.55
73 92.65
79 92.51
84 92.8
90 93.05
100 92.85
105 92.8
106 92.55
109.5 92.71
113 92.68
120 92.8
123 92.79
123.5 92.3
125 92.8
127 92.76
131 92
139 92.58
148 92.5
158 92.3
164 92.2
168 92.81
172 91.9
176.5 91.37
180 90.55
189 91
193 91.4
198 91.53
Cross Section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
XS @ STA 100.8 Riffle XS 100.8
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull Slope: 0
Variable Min Avg Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle 0 0 0
S pool 0 0 0
S run 0 0 0
S glide 0 0 0
S step 0 0 0
P - P 0 0 0
Pool length 0 0 0
Riffle length 0 0 0
Dmax riffle 0 0 0
Dmax pool 0 0 0
Dmax run 0 0 0
Dmax glide 0 0 0
Dmax step 0 0 0
Low bank ht 0 0 0
Length and depth measurements in feet, slopes in ft/ft.
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name: Hornpipe Branch
Reach Name: South Reference Reach
Profile Name: South RefReach Long Pro
Survey Date: 01/08/2020
DIST Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 TW# max p
4.9 log inv
7.3 TW# max p
11.4 TOP RIF
16 END RIF
19.5 TW# max p
26 Top RIF
32 TW#
36 step
42 TOP RIF
50 TW#
57 END RIF
64 TW#
66.7 TW# max p
69 TOP RIF
73 TW# pool
79 TW# pool
84 TW#
90 TOP RIF
100 TW# rif
105 END RIF
106 TW# max pool
109.5 TW#
113 TW#
120 TW#
123 END RIF
123.5 TW# max pool
125 TOP RIF
127 END RIF
131 TW# max pool
139 TOP RIF
148
158
164
168
172
176.5
180
189
193
198
TW# riff
TW#
TW#
step/head pool
TW#
TW# max pool
TW#
TW 8.42
TOP RIF
END RIF
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name:Hornpipe Branch
Reach Name:South Reference Reach
Cross Section Name: XS @ STA 100.8
Survey Date: 01/08/2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation:50 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 50 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 4.21 95.79 LEP
6 5.22 94.78
14 5.55 94.45
19 6.15 93.85
26 6.31 93.69
28 6.35 93.65
31 6.36 93.64
31.5 6.8 93.2
32.5 7 93
33.5 6.8 93.2
34.3 6.4 93.6
36.5 5.8 94.2 high spot between braided channel
39.3 6.2 93.8
41 6.5 93.5 BKF - LB
41.9 6.95 93.05 LEC
43 7.03 92.97 TW
44 6.73 93.27 REC
44.9 6.33 93.67 RB
47 5.95 94.05 FP
51 5.35 94.65
60 4.45 95.55
65 4.22 95.78 REP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 94.03 94.03 94.03
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 93.5 93.5 93.5
Floodprone Width (ft) 27.58 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.46 3.23 10.13
Entrenchment Ratio 4.27 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft)0.33 0.32 0.34
Maximum Depth (ft)0.53 0.5 0.53
Width/Depth Ratio 19.58 10.09 29.79
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 2.12 0.94 1.18
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 6.88 3.16 3.72
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.31 0.3 0.32
Begin BKF Station 31.16 31.16 41
End BKF Station 44.52 34.1 44.52
South Ref Reach Long Pro
CH
WS
BKF
P1
P2
P3
P4
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance along stream (ft)
90
91
92
93
94
95
0 50 100 150 200
XS

@

S
T
A

1
0
0
.
8
SOUTH REF REACH XS @ STA 100.8
Ground Points Bankfull Indicators Water Surface Points
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Horizontal Distance (ft)
92.0
95.3
15.0 58.6
Wbkf = 6.46 Dbkf = .33 Abkf = 2.12
reach 0.98 ---222.5 (40.4 channel widths)---------
riffle 2.35 (1.8 - 2.9) 2.4 (1.8 - 3)-16.2 (8 - 23)2.7 (1.5 - 4.2)------
pool 0.2 (0 - 3.2)0.2 (0 - 3.3)13.0 (11 - 17)2.4 (2 - 3.1)19.0 (14 - 25) 3.5 (2.5 - 4.5)
run 1.3 (2.3 - 5.5) 1.3 (2.3 - 5.6 7.0 (4 - 8)1.3 (0.7 - 1.5)------
glide 1.2 (0.7 - 2.1) 1.2 (0.7 - 2.1 9.0 (5 - 11)1.6 (0.9 - 2)------
p-p ratiopool-pool spacing (ft)slope (%)slope ratio length (ft)length ratio
193.186.546.4
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Channel Distance (ft)
Turtle Creek: S300 Ref Reach - Longitudinal Profile
bed water srf bankfull x-section riffle crest pool run glide LTB RTB c
Meander Pattern - Channel Plan Form
Dimensions (ft) Ratios
Bankfull Width: 5.5 Sinuosity: 1.2
Meander Length: 32 (24 - 39 ) Meander Length Ratio: 5.8 (4.4 - 7.1 )
Belt Width: 16 (13 - 19 ) Meander Width Ratio: 2.9 (2.4 - 3.5 )
Radius of Curvature: 11 (7 - 17 )Radius / BkF Width: 2 (1.3 - 3.1 )
434360
434380
434400
434420
434440
434460
434480
434500
434520
434540
2424860 2424880 2424900 2424920 2424940 2424960 2424980 2425000 2425020
No
r
t
h

S
o
u
t
h

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
East West Distance
18%
9%
14%
24%
22%
13%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Type
D16 0.062 mean 0.2 silt/clay 18%
D35 0.19 dispersion 4.0
sand 82%
D50 0.32 skewness -0.12 gravel
0%
D65 0.5 cobble 0%
D84 0.91 boulder 0%
D95 1.5
Size (mm) Size Distribution
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
we
i
g
h
t
e
d

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

i
n

r
a
n
g
e
pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

t
h
a
n
particle size (mm)
Weighted pebble count by bed features S300 Ref Reach
weighted percent Riffle Pool Run Glide # of particles
70% riffle 30% pool
Cross Section XSP1
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
7.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)33.0 W flood prone area (ft)0.33 D50 Bed (mm)
8.3 width (ft)4.0 entrenchment ratio 0.85 D84 Bed (mm)
0.9 mean depth (ft)1.5 low bank height (ft)24 threshold grain size (mm):
1.5 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio
9.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
9.1 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
1.8 velocity (ft/s)0.070 Manning's roughness 0.94 channel slope (%)
13.5 discharge rate (cfs)0.61 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.48 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.35 Froude number 17.6 resistance factor u/u*0.50 shear velocity (ft/s)
324.1 relative roughness 0.96 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
60
61
62
63
64
65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
0 + 85 S300 Ref Reach, pool
Cross Section XSR1
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
2.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)8.8 W flood prone area (ft)0.33 D50 Bed (mm)
5.6 width (ft)1.6 entrenchment ratio 0.85 D84 Bed (mm)
0.5 mean depth (ft)0.9 low bank height (ft)15 threshold grain size (mm):
0.9 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio
6.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
11.0 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
1.3 velocity (ft/s)0.070 Manning's roughness 0.98 channel slope (%)
3.8 discharge rate (cfs)0.72 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.30 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.33 Froude number 16.2 resistance factor u/u*0.39 shear velocity (ft/s)
184.4 relative roughness 0.41 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
1 + 93 S300 Ref Reach, riffle
Elevation (ft)
Cross Section XSR2
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
4.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)19.6 W flood prone area (ft)0.33 D50 Bed (mm)
5.3 width (ft)3.7 entrenchment ratio 0.85 D84 Bed (mm)
0.9 mean depth (ft)1.3 low bank height (ft)22 threshold grain size (mm):
1.3 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio
6.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
5.9 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
1.7 velocity (ft/s)0.070 Manning's roughness 0.94 channel slope (%)
8.1 discharge rate (cfs)0.62 D'Arcy-Weisbach fric.0.45 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.35 Froude number 17.3 resistance factor u/u*0.48 shear velocity (ft/s)
320.1 relative roughness 0.91 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
0 + 50 S300 Ref Reach, riffle
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
8/
1
/
2
0
1
9
8/
3
/
2
0
1
9
8/
5
/
2
0
1
9
8/
7
/
2
0
1
9
8/
9
/
2
0
1
9
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Daily Rainfall -Cherry Research Station
0
0.2
0.4
0.60.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.61.8
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
8/
1
/
2
0
1
9
8/
3
/
2
0
1
9
8/
5
/
2
0
1
9
8/
7
/
2
0
1
9
8/
9
/
2
0
1
9
Wa
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
e
e
t
)
Hollowell -Flow Gage 1 (HF1)
Water Depth (feet)Thalweg
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
8/
1
/
2
0
1
9
8/
3
/
2
0
1
9
8/
5
/
2
0
1
9
8/
7
/
2
0
1
9
8/
9
/
2
0
1
9
Wa
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
e
e
t
)
Hollowell - Flow Gage 2 (HF2)
Thalweg Water Depth (feet)
Referance Wetland Data- Hollowell
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
8/
1
/
2
0
1
9
8/
3
/
2
0
1
9
8/
5
/
2
0
1
9
8/
7
/
2
0
1
9
8/
9
/
2
0
1
9
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Hollowell - Groundwater Gage 1 (HW1)
Groundwater Depth (inches)Ground Level Cutoff
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
8/
1
/
2
0
1
9
8/
3
/
2
0
1
9
8/
5
/
2
0
1
9
8/
7
/
2
0
1
9
8/
9
/
2
0
1
9
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Hollowell - Groundwater Gage 2 (HW2)
Groundwater Depth (inches)Ground Level Cutoff
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
6/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
6/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
0
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
4
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
6
/
2
0
1
9
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
8/
1
/
2
0
1
9
8/
3
/
2
0
1
9
8/
5
/
2
0
1
9
8/
7
/
2
0
1
9
8/
9
/
2
0
1
9
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Hollowell - Groundwater Gage 3 (HW3)
Groundwater Depth (inches)Ground Level Cutoff
Referance Wetland Data- Hollowell
Appendix C - Site Analysis Data
Swiftie Mitigation Project
Stream Design Parameters and Morphology Tables
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Comparison
NC Coastal Plain Headwater Channel Form Comparison
Bankfull Velocity and Discharge Estimates
Sediment Transport Calculations
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)------
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)------
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)------
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)------
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)------
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)10.0 15.0
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)------16.0 46.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)2.2 >2.2 3.9 11.2
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)------
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)1.1 1.5
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)------
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)1.0 1.1
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)N/A N/A ------28.76 57.51
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 14.0 7.00 14.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)N/A N/A ------8.22 12.32
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 3.0 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)N/A N/A ------14.38 32.86
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 8.0 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) 1.20 1.60
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ------
Riffle Slope, Sriff ------------0.0037 0.0060
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan ------1.2 1.7 1.1 1.8
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)------------0.0000 0.0013
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan ------0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)------------
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)------1.5 3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)------------
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)------1.2 1.70
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)------------14.4 28.8
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)------3.5 7.0 3.5 7.0
D50 (mm)
Swiftie - S100 Reach 1 Existing Stream Values Composite Reference Values Proposed Stream Values
668 ---703
0.04 ---0.04
G5 DA/E5 DA
1.50 1.50
1.60 1.25
0.94 1.20
4.40 4.11
0.36 0.30
12.10 13.5
6.60
1.50
0.50 0.43
1.38 1.40
3.50
2.40 0.43
4.80 1.00
1.00 1.06
0.0058 0.0060
0.0034 0.0034
1.07
6.98
1.70
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)------
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)------
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)------
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)------
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)------
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)10.0 15.0
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)------50.8 61.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)12.4 14.8
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)------
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)1.1 1.5
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)------
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)1.0 1.1
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)N/A N/A ------28.76 57.51
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 14.0 7.00 14.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)N/A N/A ------8.22 12.32
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 3.0 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)N/A N/A ------14.38 32.86
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 8.0 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) 1.20 1.60
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ------
Riffle Slope, Sriff ------------0.0195 0.0243
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan ------1.2 1.7 1.2 1.5
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)------------0.0000 0.0032
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan ------0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)------------
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)------1.5 3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)------------
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)------1.2 1.7
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)------------14.4 28.8
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)------3.5 7.0 3.5 7.0
D50 (mm)
Swiftie - S100 Reach 2 Existing Stream Values Composite Reference Values Proposed Stream Values
272 ---297
0.050 ---0.050
G5 E5/C5 C
1.50 1.5
1.60 1.25
0.94 1.20
1.38 1.40
4.40 4.11
0.36 0.30
12.10 13.5
6.60
1.50 >2.2
0.50 0.43
3.5
2.40 0.43
4.80 1.00
1.13 1.23
0.0207 0.0207
0.0165 0.0162
1.1
7.0
1.7
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)------
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)------
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)------
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)------
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)------
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)10.0 15.0
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)------59.0 87.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)2.2 >2.2 11.0 16.3
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)------
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)1.1 1.5
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)------
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)1.0 1.1
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)N/A N/A ------37.44 74.87
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 14.0 7.00 14.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)N/A N/A ------10.70 16.04
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 3.0 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)N/A N/A ------18.72 42.78
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 8.0 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) 1.20 1.60
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ------
Riffle Slope, Sriff ------------0.0175 0.0218
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan ------1.2 1.7 1.20 1.50
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)------------0.0000 0.0029
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan ------0.0 0.2 0.00 0.20
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)------------
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)------1.5 3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)------------
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)------1.2 1.70
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)------------6.4 9.1
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)------3.5 7.0 1.2 1.7
D50 (mm)
9.09
1.70
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0
0.0107 0.0190
0.0070 0.0146
1.44
3.50
0.64 0.56
1.00 1.00
1.02 1.00
88.50
13.62
0.640 0.56
5.20 1.35
6.50 5.35
0.12 0.41
52.81 13.0
3.50 3.50
0.80 2.20
4.38 1.59
0.17 ---0.17
G5/DA DA/E5 DA
Swiftie - S200 Reach 1 Existing Stream Values Composite Reference Values Proposed Stream Values
287 ---264
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)------
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)------
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)------
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)------
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)------
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)10.0 15.0
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)------41.0 94.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)2.2 >2.2 6.3 14.5
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)------
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)1.1 1.5
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)------
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)1.0 1.1
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)N/A N/A ------45.37 90.73
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 14.0 7.00 14.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)N/A N/A ------12.96 19.44
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 3.0 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)N/A N/A ------22.68 51.85
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)N/A N/A N/A 8.0 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan) 1.20 1.60
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)0.0050 0.0150
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) ------
Riffle Slope, Sriff ------------0.0046 0.0058
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan ------1.2 1.7 1.20 1.50
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)------------0.0000 0.0008
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan ------0.0 0.2 0.00 0.20
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)------------
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)------1.5 3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)------------
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)------1.2 1.70
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)------------3.2 32.4
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)------3.5 7.0 0.5 5.0
D50 (mm)
11.02
1.70
<2.0 <2.0 <2.0
0.0021 0.0021
0.0043 0.0038
1.89
3.50
0.64 0.73
1.00 1.00
1.02 1.02
88.50
13.62
0.640 0.73
5.20 1.35
6.50 6.48
0.12 0.54
52.81 12.0
4.00 4.00
0.80 3.50
5.00 1.14
0.20 ---0.20
G5/DA DA/E5 DA
Swiftie - S200 Reach 3/4 Existing Stream Values Composite Reference Values Proposed Stream Values
1439 ---1432
y = 14.52x0.66
R² = 0.88
y = 9.43x 0.74
R² = 0.9
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Ba
n
k
f
u
l
l

X
-
S
e
c
.

A
r
e
a

(S
q
.

F
t
.
)
Drainage Area
(Sq. Mi.)
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve
Doll, et al. (2003)
Sweet and Geratz (2003)
S100-R1
S100-R2
S200-R1
S200-R2
S200 R3-4
S300
S400
S500
S600
S700
TURTLE CREEK S300 REF
Power (Doll, et al. (2003))
Power (Sweet and Geratz (2003))
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.02
0.022
0.024
10 100 1000
Va
l
l
e
y

S
l
o
p
e

(
f
t
/
f
t
)
Drainage Area (acres)
Poorly Defined Moderately Defined Well Defined Mill Swamp-UT1a
Mill Swamp-UT1b Mill Swamp-UT1c UTJR-UT1a UTJR-UT1b
UTJR-UT1c Duke Swamp-UT1a UTHB South Ref Reach U/S UTHB North Ref Reach U/S
UTHB North Ref Reach D/S Turtle Crk S300 REF SWIFTIE S100 SWIFTIE S200
SWIFTIE S300 SWIFTIE S400
Channel Form Data Comparisons for CP Headwater Stream References
Moderately Defined 
Channels
Well Defined 
Channels
Poorly Defined 
Channels
Ref Reach
S200S100
S300 S400
Ref Reach
Ref Reach
Site Description:
Drainage % Impervious I24H50Y
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.04 0.55 7.79
Retun Interval (yr)Peak Discharge (cfs)Notes
1.0 1.41 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
1.2 3.32 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
1.5 5.65 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
2 10.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 18.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 25.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 34.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 41.3 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 49.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 57.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 68.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
Swiftie S100-R1
y = 10.473ln(x) + 1.408
1.0
10.0
100.0
1 10 100 1000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
c
f
s
)
Return Interval (years)
Peak Discharge Estimate versus Return Interval
Site Description:
Drainage % Impervious I24H50Y
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.05 0.45 7.79
Retun Interval (yr)Peak Discharge (cfs)Notes
1.0 1.38 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
1.2 3.58 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
1.5 6.26 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
2 11.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 21.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 28.4 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 38.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 47.2 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 56.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 65.5 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 78.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
Swiftie S100-R2
y = 12.044ln(x) + 1.3792
1.0
10.0
100.0
1 10 100 1000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
c
f
s
)
Return Interval (years)
Peak Discharge Estimate versus Return Interval
Site Description:
Drainage % Impervious I24H50Y
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.17 1.49 7.78
Retun Interval (yr)Peak Discharge (cfs)Notes
1.0 2.50 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
1.2 7.26 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
1.5 13.08 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
2 24.6 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 45.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 61.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 83.5 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 101.6 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 120.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 141.5 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 169.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
Swiftie S200-R1_R2
y = 26.108ln(x) + 2.4991
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
1 10 100 1000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
c
f
s
)
Return Interval (years)
Peak Discharge Estimate versus Return Interval
Site Description:
Drainage % Impervious I24H50Y
Drainage Area (sq mi):0.20 1.29 7.78
Retun Interval (yr)Peak Discharge (cfs)Notes
1.0 2.15 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
1.2 7.43 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
1.5 13.89 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.
2 26.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
5 49.3 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
10 67.0 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
25 91.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
50 111.9 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
100 133.3 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
200 156.3 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
500 187.1 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR4, 0.10≤53.5 sq. mi.)
Swiftie S200-R3-4
y = 28.95ln(x) + 2.1525
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
1 10 100 1000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
c
f
s
)
Return Interval (years)
Peak Discharge Estimate versus Return Interval
y = -1280x + 13.7
R2 = 0.57
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
W/

D

R
a
t
i
o
Slope (ft/ft)
CP Sand Bed Reference Reaches
Swiftie S100-R1
Swiftie S100-R2
Swiftie S200-R1
Swiftie S200-R3/R4
Width to Depth Ratio (W/D) Versus Channel Slope
y = 37.55x + 0.03
R2 = 0.96
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Sh
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
l
b
/
f
t
^
2
)
Slope (ft/ft)
CP Sand Bed Reference Reaches
Swiftie S100-R1
Swiftie S100-R2
Swiftie S200-R1
Swiftie S200-R3/R4
Bankfull Shear Stress Versus Channel Slope
y = 1941.8x - 0.92R2= 0.90
0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
St
r
e
a
m

P
o
w
e
r

(
W
/
m
^
2
)
Slope (ft/ft)
CP Sand Bed Reference Reaches
Swiftie S100-R1
Swiftie S100-R2
Swiftie S200-R1
Swiftie S200-R3/R4
Stream Power Versus Channel Slope
Appendix D - Site Protection Instrument
Swiftie Mitigation Project
Property General Warranty Deed
Long-term Steward Engagement Letter & Fee Breakdown
Conservation Easement Template

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made
this day ____ of _______________, 202__ by _______________ and between
(“Grantor”) and _______________ (“Grantee”).

The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said
parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated,
lying and being in _______________ County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”);

WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational
corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of
the Internal Revenue Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the purposes
or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) – (d) listed below;

(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space aspects of
real property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational,
educational, or open-space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic,
natural, or aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the
following natural communities: [add or delete as appropriate: coastal wetlands,
non-riparian wetlands, riparian wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams
and riparian buffers]. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain
streams, wetlands and riparian resources and other natural values of
approximately _______________ acres, more or less, and being more
particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated fully herein
by reference (the “Conservation Easement Area”), and prevent the use or
development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose or in any
manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.

WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the _______________
Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-
_______________, entitled “Agreement to Establish the _______________
Mitigation Bank in the _______________ River Basin within the State of North
Carolina”, entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name], acting as the
Bank Sponsor, and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The
_______________ Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as
a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts
authorized by DA permits.

WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is also a condition of the approval of the
_______________ Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) and Bank Parcel Development Package (BPDP) or
Mitigation Plan for the_______________ Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Bank, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
Project ID# _______________, which was approved by the NCDWR, and will
be made and entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name], acting as
the Bank Sponsor, and the NCDWR. The _______________ Riparian Buffer
and Nutrient Offset Site is intended to be used to compensate for riparian
buffer and nutrient impacts to surface waters.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (“Third-
Parties,” to include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through the
appropriate enforcement agencies of the United States and the State of North
Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the rights of
enforcement under the NCDWR Project ID# _______________ and the
Department of the Army instrument number SAW-_______________
(“Mitigation Banking Instrument”), or any permit or certification issued by the
Third-Parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the
extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area described on
Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:

ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT

This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation
Easement is an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by
Grantee against Grantor, Grantor’s personal representatives, heirs, successors
and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.

ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent
with the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The
Conservation Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and
restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities
and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated
hereunder:

A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance,
alteration or impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement
Area or any introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is
prohibited.

B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any
building, mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other
advertising display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock
or any other temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the
Conservation Easement Area, except as set forth in item F of Article II.

C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential
and/or commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes
are prohibited.

D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing,
animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area
are prohibited.

E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction,
harming, cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan and
BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and item F of Article II. Mowing of invasive and
herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees
and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan and BPDP/Mitigation Plan is
allowable once a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on
page 1 of this Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively
impact vegetation or disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by
[enter Sponsor name] and shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II.

F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or
walkways on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or
modification to existing roads, trails or walkways, except that the Grantor
reserves the right to establish natural surface trails in the Conservation
Easement Area for the purpose of hiking and non-motorized bicycling. Natural
surface trails are defined as having tread that is the product of shaping the
native mineral soils. All trail work involving soil disturbance must follow best
practices for sustainable trail design and must have prior written approval by
the Corps.

Natural surface trails must be located a minimum distance of 30 feet from
the top of the bank of all streams and ponds, unless such locations are
physically impracticable, and must be located so as not to impair the
conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area, and in a manner that
complies with the Mitigation Plan. When required by the terrain, natural surface
trails may include boardwalks, footbridges, ramps, and handrails to the extent
necessary. Grantor must have prior written approval by the Corps before
constructing boardwalks, footbridges, ramps, and handrails that cross wetlands,
streams or ponds.

The Grantor may also install and maintain park benches, litter receptables,
and trail/feature signs along natural surface trails. All necessary care shall be
taken to establish and maintain such features and natural surface trails in a
manner so as not to impair any conservation values of the Conservation
Easement Area, and to comply with the Mitigation Plan.

G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation
Easement Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying
the conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving
directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the
Conservation Easement Area.

H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes,
garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous
substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or
aboveground storage tanks or other materials on the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.

I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand,
gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography
of the land in any manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to
restore natural topography or drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and
enhancing streams and wetlands within the Conservation Easement Area,
[enter Sponsor name] is allowed to perform grading, filling, and excavation
associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities as
described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by Department of the Army
Nationwide Permit 27.

J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking,
draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related
activities, or altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or
disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns.
In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or
underground water into, within or out of the easement area by any means,
removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or
wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.

K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been
encumbered or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be
transferred pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme or cluster
development arrangement or otherwise.

[Not required, but may be added if Grantor and Grantee agree:]
L. Subdivision. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the Conservation
Easement Area currently consists of _______________ within
_______________ separate parcels. The Grantor may not further subdivide the
Conservation Easement Area, except with the prior written consent of the
Grantee. If Grantor elects to further subdivide any portion of the Conservation
Easement Area, Grantor must provide the Grantee the name, address, and
telephone number of new owner(s) of all property within the Conservation
Easement Area, if different from Grantor. No subdivision of the Conservation
Easement Area shall limit the right of ingress and egress over and across the
Property for the purposes set forth herein. Further, in the event of any
subdivision of the Property (whether inside or outside of the Conservation
Easement Area) provision shall be made to preserve not only Grantee’s
perpetual rights of access to the Conservation Easement Area, as defined
herein, but also Grantee’s right of perpetual access to any conservation
easements on properties adjacent to the Property which form a part of or are
included in the Mitigation Plan or BPDP/Mitigation Plan. Creation of a
condominium or any de facto division of the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited. Lot line adjustments or lot consolidation without the prior written
consent of the Grantee is prohibited. The Grantor may convey undivided
interests in the real property underlying the Conservation Easement Area. The
Grantor shall notify the Grantee immediately of the name, address, and
telephone number of any grantee of an undivided interest in any property within
the Conservation Easement Area.

M. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is
prohibited other than for temporary or occasional access by the [enter Sponsor
name], the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors, assigns, NCDWR,
and the Corps for purposes of constructing, maintaining and monitoring the
restoration, enhancement and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian
areas within the Conservation Easement Area. The use of mechanized
vehicles for monitoring purposes is limited to only existing roads and trails as
shown in the approved in the Mitigation Plan and BPDP/Mitigation Plan.

N. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the
Conservation Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the
purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental
systems, is prohibited.

ARTICLE III.
GRANTOR’S RESERVED RIGHTS

The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation
Easement Area for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the
Conservation Easement Area, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to
hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement Area, the right to sell,
transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement Area, in whole or
in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.

The Grantor reserves the right to allow public access and use of the
Conservation Easement Area for the purpose of passive recreational activities
that are not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, including [enter Sponsor name] acting as the Bank
Sponsor, the right to construct and perform activities related to the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within
the Conservation Easement Area in accordance with the approved
_______________ Mitigation Plan, the approved _______________
BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and the two Mitigation Banking Instruments described in
the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as “Internal
Crossing” on the plat [insert plat name and recorded plat book page number] in
the Conservation Easement Area: vehicular access, livestock access, irrigation
piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal Crossings that allow livestock
access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a culvert.

ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS

The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns,
the Corps and NCDWR, shall have the right to enter the Property and
Conservation Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to determine if the Grantor, or his
personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the
terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement.
The Grantee, [enter Sponsor name], and its authorized representatives,
successors and assigns, the Corps and NCDWR shall also have the right to
enter and go upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making
scientific or educational observations and studies, and taking samples.

Grantee is granted and shall have a perpetual, non-exclusive right of
access, ingress, and regress to and from the Conservation Easement over and
across the area labeled as “________________________” and that area
labeled as “____________________” on the Plat of record referenced in
Exhibit B.

ARTICLE V.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps,
and NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation
Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to
require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement
Area that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the
terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of
the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The
Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions
constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the
Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal
proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a
temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the breach of
the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or otherwise
materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement.
The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances damage
to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate.
The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition
to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in
connection with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction
or restoration, including the Grantee’s expenses, court costs, and attorneys’
fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be
responsible for the breach. The Corps and the NCDWR shall have the same
rights and privileges as the said Grantee to enforce the terms and conditions of
this Conservation Easement.

B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other
covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce
the same in the event of a subsequent breach or default.

C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be
construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or
change in the Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor’s control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of
God or third parties, except Grantor’s lessees or invitees; or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from such causes.

ARTICLE VI.
MISCELLANEOUS

A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns
the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the
Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement
or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other
interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this
Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the
use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this
Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the
Property against the claims of all persons.

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms
of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that
transfers any interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area.
The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60)
days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the
terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and
easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any portion thereof
and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written
consent and approval of the Corps.

C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of
this Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however
that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or
assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will
be a qualified holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34
et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or
assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.

D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The combined Mitigation
Banking Instruments: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and MBI with
corresponding BPDP/Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation Easement sets
forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation
Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings
or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found
to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
shall continue in full force and effect.

E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate
taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall
keep the Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations
incurred by Grantor, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are
expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

F. Long-Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.

G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.

H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.

I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property
interest immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the
Conservation Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted
following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall
be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation Easement as
determined at the time of the extinguishment or condemnation.

J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other
communication required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such
address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):

To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Sponsor:

To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

To NCDEQ -DWR:
NCDEQ – Division of Water Resources 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to
enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified
grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of
these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this
Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s interest shall become vested in
another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a
court of competent jurisdiction.

L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but
only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment
does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of
the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation
purposes of this grant.

M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The
wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of
the Conservation Easement Area, and its current use and state of
improvement, are described in Section _____ of the Mitigation Plan, prepared
by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and
accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of the
Mitigation Plan. The Conservation Easement Area’s characteristics, its current
use, and its state of improvement are also described in a Baseline
Documentation Report (“BDR”), which report has been prepared by Grantee.
Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of the BDR. Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that Section ____ of the Mitigation Plan and the BDR will be used
by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use of the Conservation
Easement Area will be consistent with the terms of this Conservation
Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the use of other
evidence to establish the present condition of the Conservation Easement Area
if there is a controversy over its use.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually
unto Grantee for the aforesaid purposes.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and
seal, the day and year first above written.

[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
Appendix E - USACE Assessment Forms
Swiftie Mitigation Project
NC SAM Forms
NC WAM Forms
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Swiftie Mitigation Project – S100 2. Date of evaluation:9-15-2022
3. Applicant/owner name:Water and Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization:Daniel Ingram
5. County:Edgecombe 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Swift Creek 7. River basin:White Oak
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):36.000434, -77.605733
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):S100 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):315
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):2.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam?Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9.Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other: Did not have YSI Sensor
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Swiftie Mitigation Project –
S100 Date of Assessment 9-15-2022
Stream Category la1 Assessor Name/Organization Daniel Ingram
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall LOW LOW
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Swiftie Mitigation Project - S200-
Lower 2. Date of evaluation:9-15-2022
3. Applicant/owner name:Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization:Daniel Ingram
5. County:Edgecombe 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:Swift Creek 7. River basin:White Oak
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):36.002093°, -77.601302°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):S200 - upper 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):380
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam?Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9.Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Swiftie Mitigation Project -
S200-Lower Date of Assessment 9-15-2022
Stream Category Ia1 Assessor Name/Organization Daniel Ingram
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall MEDIUM MEDIUM
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Swiftie Mitigation Project - S200-
Upper 2. Date of evaluation:9-15-2022
3. Applicant/owner name:Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization:Daniel Ingram
5. County:Edgecombe 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:Swift Creek 7. River basin:White Oak
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):36.003311°, -77.600513°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):S200 - upper 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):330
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):1.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam?Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9.Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Swiftie Mitigation Project -
S200-Upper Date of Assessment 9-15-2022
Stream Category Ia1 Assessor Name/Organization Daniel Ingram
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall MEDIUM MEDIUM
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Swiftie Mitigation Project - S300-lower 2. Date of evaluation: 9-15-2022
3. Applicant/owner name:Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization:Daniel Ingram
5. County:Edgecombe 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:Swift Creek 7. River basin:White Oak
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):35.994990°, -77.603146°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):S300-lower 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):3.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam?Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9.Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Swiftie Mitigation Project -
S300-lower Date of Assessment 9-15-2022
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization Daniel Ingram
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Swiftie Mitigation Project - S300-
upper 2. Date of evaluation: 9-15-2022
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Daniel Ingram
5. County: Edgecombe 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Swift Creek 7. River basin: White Oak
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.002093°, -77.601302°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S200 - upper 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 830
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable

6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9.Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Swiftie Mitigation Project -
S300-upper Date of Assessment 9-15-2022
Stream Category Ia1 Assessor Name/Organization Daniel Ingram
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4)Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2)Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall LOW LOW
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Swiftie Mitigation Project - S500 2. Date of evaluation:9-15-2022
3. Applicant/owner name:Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization:Daniel Ingram
5. County:Edgecombe 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:Swift Creek 7. River basin:White Oak
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):35.995367°, -77.606366°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):S500 10.Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):1.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank (feet):10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam?Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9.Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Swiftie Mitigation Project -
S500 Date of Assessment 9-15-2022
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization Daniel Ingram
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Swiftie Mitigation Project - S600 2. Date of evaluation:9-15-2022
3. Applicant/owner name:Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization:Daniel Ingram
5. County:Edgecombe 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:Swift Creek 7. River basin:White Oak
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):35.991081°, -77.610516°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):S600 10.Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):1.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank (feet):10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam?Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9.Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Swiftie Mitigation Project -
S600 Date of Assessment 9-15-2022
Stream Category Ia3 Assessor Name/Organization Daniel Ingram

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Flood Flow HIGH (3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH (4) Microtopography HIGH (3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH (3) Thermoregulation HIGH (2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance NA (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH (2) In-stream Habitat HIGH (3) Baseflow HIGH (3) Substrate HIGH (3) Stream Stability HIGH (3) In-stream Habitat HIGH (2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH (3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Swiftie Mitigation Project - S700 2. Date of evaluation:9-15-2022
3. Applicant/owner name:Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization:Daniel Ingram
5. County:Edgecombe 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:Swift Creek 7. River basin:White Oak
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):35.996781°, -77.614483°
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):S700 10.Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank (feet):8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam?Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9.Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Swiftie Mitigation Project -
S700 Date of Assessment 9-15-2022
Stream Category Ia1 Assessor Name/Organization Daniel Ingram
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH HIGH
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH HIGH
(4) Microtopography HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat HIGH HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall HIGH HIGH

Appendix F - WOTUS Information

Swiftie Mitigation Project

Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2019-00631 County: EDGECOMBE U.S.G.S. Quad: DRAUGHN

NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Requestor: Palustrine Group, LLC
Address: Post Office Box 603
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312

Size (acres) ~593 Nearest Town Leggett
Nearest Waterway White Oak Swamp River Basin Tar River
USGS HUC 03020101 Coordinates Latitude: 36.997454
Longitude: -77.606565

Location description: The project area is identified as an approximate 593 acre tract of land, located between NC
Highway 97 and NC Highway 33, near Leggett, Edgecombe County, North Carolina. Waters on-site drain into White
Oak Swamp and Swift Creek; all tributaries of the Tar River (8-digit HUC: 03020101)

Indicate Which of the Following Apply:

A. Preliminary Determination

X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all
waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.

There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area, which is
not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the
waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.

B. Approved Determination

There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC

§ 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

There are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2019-00631 SWIFT CREEK MITIGATION SITE

The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.

The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit
may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Ms. Samantha
Dailey at 919-554-4884, ext. 22 or by email at [e-mail].

C. Basis For Determination: N/A. An Approved JD has not been completed.

D. Remarks: Refer to the enclosed Preliminary JD Form, and the enclosed Figure 6. Jurisdictional
Waters Map for a detailed evaluation of the aquatic resources on-site.

E. Attention USDA Program Participants

This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.

F. Appeals Information for Approved Jurisdiction Determinations (as indicated in Section B. above)

If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request
to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:

US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801

In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by .

SAW-2019-00631 SWIFT CREEK MITIGATION SITE

It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.

Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________

Date: April 15, 2019 Expiration Date: N/A

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.

DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J
.1387567948
Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
Date: 2019.04.15 11:41:38 -04'00'
SAW-2019-00631 SWIFT CREEK MITIGATION SITE

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Palustrine Group, LLC File Number: SAW-2019-00631 Date: April 15, 2019
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
x OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
x APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
x ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
x APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
SAW-2019-00631 SWIFT CREEK MITIGATION SITE

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or
the appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Samantha Dailey
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also
contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

________________________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date: Telephone number:

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Ms. Samantha Dailey, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403

For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:

Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPENDIX 2

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
April 15, 2019

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:

Requestor: Palustrine Group, LLC
Address: Post Office Box 603
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Swift Creek Mitigation Site, Palustrine
Group, LLC, Edgecombe County, SAW-2019-00631

D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Edgecombe County City: Leggett
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.997454°N, Long. -77.606565° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest water body: Tar River (8-digit HUC: 03020101)

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLIES):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: April 15, 2019
Field Determination. Date(s): January 2017

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this
PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed
decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.

2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other
general permit verification requiring “pre-construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made
aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms
and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever
mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)whether the applicant elects to
use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and
all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be” navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and
identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply): Checked items should be included in
subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:

1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Palustrine Group, LLC submitted a
jurisdictional determination to our office in May 2017.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
Corps navigable waters’ study: .
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K, NC-Draughn
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey: January 2017.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Corps of Engineers SimSuite – January 2017.
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): .
or Other (Name & Date): .
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: .
Other information (please specify): .

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should
not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.

_________________________ __________________________
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED) (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
Impracticable)
DAILEY.SAMA
NTHA.J.138756
7948
Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.138
7567948
Date: 2019.04.15 11:39:46
-04'00'
Waters_Name Cowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude
Wetland 1 PFO DEPRESS Area 12.65 ACRE DELINEATE 36.00189266 -77.60004634
Wetland 2 PFO DEPRESS Area 2.83 ACRE DELINEATE 36.00538919 -77.60662202
Wetland 6 PFO DEPRESS Area 164.81 ACRE DELINEATE 35.99874203 -77.60965487
Wetland 7 PFO DEPRESS Area 3.17 ACRE DELINEATE 35.99886832 -77.6150322
Wetland 8 PFO DEPRESS Area 0.17 ACRE DELINEATE 35.99353759 -77.60954705
UT-A R4 RIVERINE Linear 6761 FOOT DELINEATE 36.003274 -77.60762
UT-A2 R4 RIVERINE Linear 962 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99522873 -77.60655554
UT-A2a R6 RIVERINE Linear 1107 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99202743 -77.60785587
UT-A3 R4 RIVERINE Linear 1390 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99038359 -77.60938663
UT-B R3 RIVERINE Linear 1662 FOOT DELINEATE 36.002349 -77.61214
UT-C R4 RIVERINE Linear 473 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99916105 -77.60590432
UT-D R4 RIVERINE Linear 2619 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99666818 -77.60185663
UT-E R4 RIVERINE Linear 582 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00363082 -77.60052288
UT-F R6 RIVERINE Linear 787 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99162254 -77.61091152
UT-G R6 RIVERINE Linear 1082 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99350434 -77.60990616
UT-H (14)R4 RIVERINE Linear 642 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99487031 -77.59821667
UT-I R4 RIVERINE Linear 477 FOOT DELINEATE 36.004962 -77.60754
UT-J R4 RIVERINE Linear 802 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99693689 -77.6135545
UT-K1 R3 RIVERINE Linear 598 FOOT DELINEATE 36.000804 -77.61376
UT-K2 R3 RIVERINE Linear 151 FOOT DELINEATE 36.000326 -77.61407
Ditch 1 R6 RIVERINE Linear 830 FOOT DELINEATE 36.005191 -77.60412
Ditch 2 R6 RIVERINE Linear 673 FOOT DELINEATE 36.004419 -77.60358
Ditch 3 R6 RIVERINE Linear 700 FOOT DELINEATE 36.002813 -77.60934
Ditch 4 R6 RIVERINE Linear 344 FOOT DELINEATE 36.003294 -77.60921
Ditch 5 R6 RIVERINE Linear 1186 FOOT DELINEATE 36.001178 -77.61057
Ditch 6 R6 RIVERINE Linear 1453 FOOT DELINEATE 35.999089 -77.60769
Ditch 7 R6 RIVERINE Linear 512 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00149647 -77.60510101
Ditch 8 R6 RIVERINE Linear 1496 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00061605 -77.60563947
Ditch 9 R6 RIVERINE Linear 1104 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99820554 -77.60591717
Ditch 10 R6 RIVERINE Linear 1137 FOOT DELINEATE 35.994827 -77.60838197
Ditch 11 R6 RIVERINE Linear 94 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99513972 -77.60960731
Ditch 12 R6 RIVERINE Linear 158 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99444705 -77.60923373
Ditch 13 R6 RIVERINE Linear 261 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99470117 -77.60778056
Ditch 14 R6 RIVERINE Linear 1648 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99200564 -77.60591366
Ditch 15 R6 RIVERINE Linear 2379 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00074164 -77.60087448
Ditch 16 R6 RIVERINE Linear 694 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00178872 -77.60261636
Ditch 17 R6 RIVERINE Linear 598 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00099793 -77.60270194
Ditch 18 R6 RIVERINE Linear 1437 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00208248 -77.60093925
Ditch 19 R6 RIVERINE Linear 742 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00146481 -77.59925073
Ditch 21 R6 RIVERINE Linear 870 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00120284 -77.59642404
Ditch 22 R6 RIVERINE Linear 867 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00005797 -77.59714172
Ditch 23 R6 RIVERINE Linear 511 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00097489 -77.59720966
Ditch 24 R6 RIVERINE Linear 481 FOOT DELINEATE 36.00038377 -77.59789421
Ditch 25 R6 RIVERINE Linear 789 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99953176 -77.59658245
Ditch 26 R6 RIVERINE Linear 934 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99861452 -77.59698282
Ditch 27 (11a)R6 RIVERINE Linear 768 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99598738 -77.59744274
Ditch 28 R6 RIVERINE Linear 2161 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99776809 -77.6123882
Ditch 29 R6 RIVERINE Linear 247 FOOT DELINEATE 35.998514 -77.61199
Ditch 30 R6 RIVERINE Linear 212 FOOT DELINEATE 35.998147 -77.61228
Ditch 31 R6 RIVERINE Linear 454 FOOT DELINEATE 35.997846 -77.61143
Ditch 32 R6 RIVERINE Linear 570 FOOT DELINEATE 35.9988321 -77.60662375
Ditch 33 R6 RIVERINE Linear 160 FOOT DELINEATE 36.004583 -77.60697
Ditch 34 R6 RIVERINE Linear 640 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99621958 -77.60534943
Ditch 35 R6 RIVERINE Linear 841 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99290386 -77.610531
White Oak Swamp R3 RIVERINE Linear 2294 FOOT DELINEATE 35.99455507 -77.61517552
Swift Creek R3 RIVERINE Linear 3298 FOOT DELINEATE 35.98937583 -77.61340567
UT-

K
-2
U
T-B
U T -B
UT-
B
U T -C
UT -I
U
T

-

E
UT

-

K
-
1
U
T
-
J
UT

-
H
UT -F
UT

-
GW
H
I
T
E
O
A
K
S
WAMP
W
H
I
T
E
OA
K
S
W
A
M
P
UT-A
U
T-
A
UT

-
A
U
T-D
UT-D
UT-D
S
WIFTCR E E K
SWIFTCREEK SWIFT CREEK
UT-A
UT
-
A
U
T
-
A
U T -A
UT

-

A
Dit
ch2
0
D
i
t
c
h

1
1
Ditc
h

1
2
Ditch

3
3
Ditch30
Ditch2
9
Di
t
c
h

1
3
Ditc
h
9
D
i
t
c
h
4
Ditch

3
1
Ditch24
Ditch

2
3
Ditc
h

7
Ditch

3
2
D i t c h 1 7
Ditch

2
D i t c h 1 6
Ditch

3
Dit
c
h
19
Ditch27
Dit
c
h

2
5
Ditch
1
Ditc
h
22
Ditch 21
Ditch 26
Ditch14
Ditc
h
8
Dit c h 10
Ditch

5
Ditch 1 8
Ditch 6
D i t c h 2 8
Ditch 15
Wetland
No. 1
Wetland
No. 2
Wetland
No. 6
Wetland
No. 6
Wetland
No. 6
Wetland
No. 6
Wetland
No. 7
Wetland
No. 7
Wetland
No. 8
I 0 0.50.25
Miles
Legend
APPROXIMATE PROJECT
BOUNDARY
EVALUATED WETLANDS (5-11-2017)
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
(~183.6 Acres)
EVALUATED STREAMS (5-11-2017)
JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS
(~22,054 Feet)
EXISTING DITCHES (~25,056 Feet)
Imagery Source: USDA NAIP 2015
I 0 105
Miles
P:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
2
0
1
2

+

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
0
1
2
7

-

P
a
l
u
s
t
r
i
n
e

G
r
o
u
p
P
R
M

-
C
C
X
\
G
I
S
\
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p
s

-

R
a
l
e
i
g
h
\
6
_
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

W
a
t
e
r
s

M
ap
.
m
x
d
Waters of the U.S. Disclaimer: This
drawing represents the jurisdictional
waters boundary identified in the field by
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment &
Infrastructure. All jurisdictional boundaries
are subject to verification by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This
map should be used for preliminary
planning purposes only.
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Job No. 6250170127
Drawn By: WAR
Reviewed By: RH
Date: 05/15/2017
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use withAmec Foster Wheeler
project number 6250170127.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
Figure 6. Jurisdictional Waters
Map
AREA FEATURE TYPE
WetlandNo.1 Jurisdictional Wetland 12.65 Acres
WetlandNo.2 Jurisdictional Wetland 2.43 Acres
WetlandNo.3 Jurisdictional Wetland 0.01 Acres
WetlandNo.4 Jurisdictional Wetland 0.06 Acres
WetlandNo.5 Jurisdictional Wetland 0.34 Acres
WetlandNo.6 Jurisdictional Wetland 164.81 Acres
WetlandNo.7 Jurisdictional Wetland 3.17 Acres
WetlandNo.8 Jurisdictional Wetland 0.17 Acres
UT- A Intermittent/Perennial RPW 6,761 Feet
UT- B Perennial RPW 1,662 Feet
UT- C Intermittent/Perennial RPW 473 Feet
UT- D Intermittent/Perennial RPW 2,619 Feet
UT- E Intermittent/Perennial RPW 582 Feet
UT- F Perennial RPW 787 Feet
UT- G Perennial RPW 1,075 Feet
UT- H Perennial RPW 642 Feet
UT- I Intermittent/Perennial RPW 477 Feet
UT- J Perennial RPW 635 Feet
UT- K-1 Perennial RPW 598 Feet
UT- K-2 Perennial RPW 151 Feet
White Oak Swamp Perennial RPW 2,294 Feet
SwiftCreek Perennial RPW 3,298 Feet
Ditch 1 830 Feet
Ditch 2 673 Feet
Ditch 3 700 Feet
Ditch 4 344 Feet
Ditch 5 1,186 Feet
Ditch 6 1,453 Feet
Ditch 7 512 Feet
Ditch 8 1,496 Feet
Ditch 9 300 Feet
Ditch 10 1,137 Feet
Ditch 11 94 Feet
Ditch 12 158 Feet
Ditch 13 261 Feet
Ditch 14 952 Feet
Ditch 15 2,379 Feet
Ditch 16 694 Feet
Ditch 17 598 Feet
Ditch 18 1,437 Feet
Ditch 19 742 Feet
Ditch 20 86 Feet
Ditch 21 870 Feet
Ditch 22 867 Feet
Ditch 23 511 Feet
Ditch 24 481 Feet
Ditch 25 789 Feet
Ditch 26 934 Feet
Ditch 27 768 Feet
Ditch 28 2,161 Feet
Ditch 29 247 Feet
Ditch 30 212 Feet
Ditch 31 454 Feet
Ditch 32 570 Feet
Ditch 33 160 Feet
Uplands ~409.4 Acres
Total Easement Acreage ~593 Acres
ACREAGE/LINEAR FEET
~183.6 ac./~22,054 LFTotal Jurisdictional Wetlands
Total Ditches 25,056 LF
Wetland No. 3
Wetland No. 4
Wetland No. 5

Appendix G - Agency Correspondence

Swiftie Mitigation Project

Initial Evaluation Letter
Meeting Minutes- NCIRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting
Floodplain Coordination with Edgecombe County Planning Director

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
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.
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
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,
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division - Wilmington District
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
For

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898
February 23, 2023

Kim Isenhour [e-mail]
The Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

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 [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

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 L eggett, 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 (C orps)
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." I n general, the Service will
2

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 hard er 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). I nspect 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.
3

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 kathryn_matthews@fw s.gov.

Sincerely,

Pete Benjamin,
Field Supervisor

waterlandsolutions.com | 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 | 919-614-5111
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 10:00am 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.
S100
• The meeting started with S100, 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.
S500
• The group then drove down to S500 and stopped at the first existing culvert.
• There was discussion about the removal of the two culvert crossings and limited ditch fill
along S500. 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. In the mitigation plan WLS should call out the stations in the text and write an
explanation

waterlandsolutions.com | 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 | 919-614-5111
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 diches 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 | 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 | 919-614-5111
S200
• The group walked along the drainage swale towards S200. The IRT agreed to the
enhancement approach for the bottom of S200 and also agreed to the headwater restoration
approach and connection with lower S200 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.

IRT Meeting Minute Comments

• Please note that credit ratios are not agreed on until the draft MP stage.
• IRT would like to see a flow gauge on S200.
• IRT requested a lateral drainage effect analysis on the ditch to remain open adjacent to W02/03.
• 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 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.

From:Katina Braswell
To:Christopher Tomsic
Cc:Catherine Roland; Kayne Van Stell; Jordan Hessler
Subject:Re: Stream Mitigation Project
Date:Tuesday, August 22, 2023 12:00:14 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Outlook-crqsp01k.png
Chris,
Thanks for sharing the attached information. I agree it's important to bring awareness to the
jurisdiction where project is located. No questions or concerns at this time.
Take care,
Katina Braswell, CFM
Edgecombe County
Planning Director
201 St Andrew St
Suite 205
PO Box 10
Tarboro, NC 27886
(p)252-641-7808
www.edgecombecountync.gov
From: Christopher Tomsic <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:41 AM
To: Katina Braswell <[e-mail]>
Cc: Catherine Roland <[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell
<[e-mail]>; Jordan Hessler <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Stream Mitigation Project

Your attachment(s) were cleaned by Check Point Sandblast Threat Extraction.
Click here to restore the original(s) or contact your system administrator.
You may be required to authenticate, in that case follow these instructions:
1. You will be directed to a page where you would be requested to specify your email address.
2. An email with verification code will be sent to you.
3. Copy the code and return to the attachment recovery page.
4. The email with original attachments will be released to your mailbox.
Please exercise discretion when requesting to release suspicious attachments.
Katina,
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me as well. As mentioned on the phone my company is
working on a stream/wetland mitigation project close to Leggett, NC off of NC Hwy 33. The project
involves restoring, enhancing, and protecting both streams and wetlands on the subject parcel. Our
work is close to the Swift Creek regulatory floodplain. However, none our work (design or
construction) will impact the Swift Creek regulatory floodplain.

I wanted to contact you to inform you of the work occurring in you jurisdiction. Please review the
attached documents and let me know if you have any questions or additional information requests.

Take Care,

CHRISTOPHER TOMSIC
SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, PE, CFM
[e-mail]
+ 1 [phone]
6 Dula Springs Road
Weaverville, NC 28787
United States
www.waterlandsolutions.com

From: Katina Braswell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:12 AM
To: Christopher Tomsic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stream Mitigation Project

Chris,

It was a pleasure speaking with you earlier. I look forward to receiving additional information
on the above referenced project.

Thank you,
Katina Braswell, CFM
Edgecombe County
Planning Director
201 St Andrew St
Suite 205
PO Box 10
Tarboro, NC 27886
(p)252-641-7808
www.edgecombecountync.gov

This email message, and any attachment(s), as well as any email message(s) that may be sent in
response to it, may be considered Public Record per NC General Statute §132, and may be released
to third parties without prior notice.

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to
report this email as spam.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
This email message, and any attachment(s), as well as any email message(s) that may be sent
in response to it, may be considered Public Record per NC General Statute §132, and may be
released to third parties without prior notice.

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to
report this email as spam.

August 22, 2023
Edgecombe County Attn: Katin a Braswell, Planning Director 201 St Andrew St, Suite 205 PO Box 10 Tarboro, NC 27886 Dear Ms. Braswell: I am a duly qualified engineer registered to practice engineering in the State of North Carolina (license # 036916). My company Water and Land Solutions will be constructing a Stream and Wetland Mitigation project adjacent to Swift Creek in the Town of Leggett, NC. This project involves restoring, enhancing, and preserving both streams and wetlands within a permanent 326-acre conservation easement (Figure 1). The conservation easement will incorporate some of the Swift Creek Floodplain/Floodway. Although this project will increase local groundwater tables adjacent to Swift Creek thereby restoring/enhancing wetland hydrology and will allow previously incised streams access to newly constructed floodplains, there will be no impacts or adverse effects to the Swift Creek floodplain/floodway on the affected parcel. Should you have any questions about this determination please contact me via phone at 828-493-3287 or by email at [e-mail]. Sincerely, Christopher A. Tomsic, PE, CFM Senior Project Engineer CC: Catherine Roland Kayne Van Stell Jordan Hessler
White OakSwamp Rd
33
W01 W02
W03
W04W06
W05
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
Wh
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Figure1Proposed Mitigation
Features Map
Date: 8/16/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
Enhancement
Preservation
No Credit
Existing Ditches
Wetland Mitigation
Non-riparian Wetland
Re-establishment
Riparian Wetland
Enhancement
Non-riparian Wetland
Enhancement
Preservation
FEMA Floodzone
100-yr (Zone AE)
Floodway (Zone AE)
500-yr (Zone X)
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina

Appendix H - Site Photographes

Swiftie Mitigation Project

S100 looking downstream showing channelization and adjacent
agricultural fields with lack of native buffer vegetation S200 looking upstream towards restoration section showing
ditched conditions with poor bed and bank definition
S200 looking downstream towards enhancement section showing
ditched conditions with poor bed and bank definition S300 looking upstream at enhancement section showing
incised channel conditions
S300 looking upstream within preservation area S400 looking upstream showing channelization with wooded
buffer
S500 road crossing and culvert S500 looking upstream showing stable, meandering channel
S600 looking downstream demonstrating native woody
vegetation and stable stream channel
S700 looking downstream showing vegetated buffer
Ditch 2 looking downstream to confluence with S100.Ditch 12 looking downstream to transition to S300.

Appendix I – DWR Buffer Mitigation and
Nutrient Offset Plan

Swiftie Mitigation Project

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Riparian Buffer & Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank
DWR #20230026 v1
Edgecombe, North Carolina
Tar River Basin (HUC 03020101)
DRAFT September 2023
Prepared by:
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 4
2 Project Area - Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Reach Descriptions ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Existing Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Existing Vegetative Communities ................................................................................................. 8
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 9
2.6 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.7 Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.8 FEMA Floodplain / Floodway Mapping ....................................................................................... 10
3 Proposed Tar-Pamlico Buffer & Nutrient Offset Restoration Plan .......................................................... 10
3.1 Parcel Preparation ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Riparian Restoration ................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Riparian Preservation .................................................................................................................. 12
3.6 Planting ....................................................................................................................................... 12
4 Monitoring and Maintenance Plan .......................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Monitoring Protocol .................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Performance Standards for Vegetation Adjacent to Single-Thread Streams ............................. 14
4.3 Performance Standards for Vegetation Adjacent to Coastal Headwater Streams ..................... 14
4.4 Performance Standard for Coastal Headwater Streams ............................................................. 14
4.5 Photo Reference Stations ........................................................................................................... 15
4.6 Visual Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 15
4.7 Reporting Performance Criteria .................................................................................................. 16
4.8 Adaptive Management Plan........................................................................................................ 16
4.9 Conservation Easement and Long-Term Management Plan ...................................................... 16
4.10 Financial Assurances ................................................................................................................... 17
5 Credit Release Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 18
6 Mitigation Potential ................................................................................................................................. 19
7 Citations ................................................................................................................................................... 22

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 3

Figures
Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................... Service Area Map
Figure 2 ......................................................................................................................... Project Location Map
Figure 3 .................................................................................................................................. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4 .................................................................................................................................. Floodplain Map
Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................. Existing Conditions
Figure 6 ................................................................................ Proposed Buffer and Nutrient Restoration Plan
Figure 7 ............................................................................. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conceptual Plan
Figure 8 ................................................................................................................ Proposed Monitoring Map

Attachments
Attachment A ........................................................................................... DWR Determinations and Viability
Attachment B .................................................................................................................................. Photo Log

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 4
1 Introduction
The Swiftie Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel (“Parcel”) is proposed under the terms and
conditions of the Swiftie Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), made and
entered into by Water and Land Solutions, LLC (WLS), acting as Bank Sponsor (“Sponsor”), and the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR). The Parcel
shall be planned and designed according to the MBI, 15A NCAC 02B .0240, and the Consolidated Buffer
Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, which became effective on November 1, 2015. The Buffer Mitigation
& Nutrient Offset Plan (“Plan”) will be designed in concurrence with the Swiftie Mitigation Bank (SAW-
2019-00631). The mitigation plan for the Swiftie Mitigation Bank has been submitted to the Interagency
Review Team and a prospectus has been approved.

This Parcel is proposed to provide riparian buffer and nutrient offset mitigation credits for unavoidable
impacts due to development in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 8-digit
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020101. The Parcel service area is depicted in Figure 1.
1.1 Project Location
The Parcel (35.9984° N, -77.6062° W) is located in Edgecombe County, North Carolina (Figure 2) within
the Upper Tar River Basin (8-digit HUC 03020101). The Parcel will have an estimated conservation
easement of 327 acres. The Parcel is located directly adjacent to and on the same property as the Swift
Creek Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) project (SAW-2016-02338). The Swift Creek PRM site is
being used to mitigate impacts associated with the CSX Transportation, Inc’s Carolina Connector
Intermodal Terminal project, located along the western edge of Edgecombe County and north of the City
of Rocky Mount.
To access the site from Raleigh, NC, follow I-40 East, take exit 14 for US-64 E/US-264 E toward Rocky
Mt/Wilson, then continue onto I-87. Continue onto US-64 E, take exit 470 for NC-97/Atlantic Ave, turn
right onto NC-97 E/Atlantic Ave, then turn right onto NC-97 E. Turn left onto New Hope Church Rd, turn
right onto Battleboro-Leggett Rd, turn left onto Speights Chapel Rd, turn right onto White Oak Swamp Rd,
and finally turn right onto NC-33 E. The site will be on the right in four miles between the existing CSX
mainline and Old Battleboro Road.
1.2 Project Description
The Parcel encompasses land along unnamed tributaries to the Tar-Pamlico River in Edgecombe County,
NC and is in row crop agricultural and silvicultural land use. Historically, the project stream reaches have
been extensively ditched to promote rapid drainage from the adjacent farm fields. This disturbance has
resulted in stream channel incision and a permanent disconnection from the streams’ relic floodplain.
Most of the project stream reaches have been completely or partially cleared with some areas of forested
or successional riparian buffer. Currently, the project reaches act as significant sources of nutrient
contamination to the project watershed and Swift Creek.
The project will restore Tar-Pamlico buffers and other riparian areas in order to reduce non-point source
discharge of contaminants into streams and agricultural ditch channels within the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
The project area is comprised of two easement sections and is approximately 327 acres, which includes
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 5

the stream and wetland mitigation areas. The Parcel streams drain directly to White Oak Swamp and Swift
Creek which are listed as ‘WS-IV’ and ‘NSW’ (Water Supply, Nutrient Sensitive Waters) waters according
to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) (2018).
Out of the 327 acres, 26.7 acres will be restored for Tar-Pamlico buffer credit and 24.1 acres will be
restored for nutrient offset restoration credit. In general, Tar-Pamlico buffer widths will extend a
minimum width of 50 feet from the top of stream banks, while nutrient offset restoration area widths will
extend out to a maximum of 200 feet from the top of the channel or ditch bank. The buffer restoration
credit adjacent to coastal headwater stream mitigation is classified as alternative mitigation under Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(2) and is discussed in Section 3.2. The DWR performed an onsite Site Viability for
Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset on March 8, 2023 (letter dated June 26, 2023) for the Parcel
(Attachment A). The buffer mitigation and nutrient offset viability will be based on the proposed site
conditions.
2 Project Area - Existing Conditions
2.1 Reach Descriptions
S100: S100 is a small headwater tributary that has been historically manipulated and channelized;
however, appears to generally be within the natural valley/low point along most of its length. The valley
slope is approximately 0.8 percent, and the drainage area is 41 acres. The majority of the drainage area
for S100 is in active agricultural management. The riparian buffer along upper S100 is actively maintained
within agricultural fields and woody vegetation in the lower end. The lower section in the wooded area
has downcut to the natural floodplain elevation but remains mostly stable. S100 drains into the PRM
project easement.
S200: S200 is a small headwater tributary that begins at an existing culvert crossing under NC Hwy 33 and
flows southeast as an intermittent headwater tributary. S200 has a valley slope of 0.7 percent and
drainage area of 90 acres. Based on field observations, the headwater channel and floodplain have been
ditched in an attempt to drain surface hydrology for agricultural use. The historic channel manipulation in
the upper section has led to poor bedform diversity. The lower reach is mostly stable with limited bank
erosion observed in a few localized areas. Successional native woody vegetation was observed along most
of this reach; however, Chinese privet was also documented along the reach.
S300: S300 is a headwater tributary that originates from a heavily ditched area containing hydric soils.
The stream has been channelized and straightened along its upper length. The upper portion of S300 is
highly incised and lacks natural bedform features. The valley slope is approximately 0.5 percent, and the
natural drainage area is 44 acres which excludes the ditched non-riparian wetland area. Although the
lower reach is moderately incised, it is mostly stable and experiencing minimal lateral instability and bank
erosion. The riparian buffer along the entire length of S300 is partially to mostly wooded, and the
understory contains limited invasive species vegetation, mainly Chinese privet.
S400: S400 begins downstream of an existing culvert under a farm access road. S400 has been channelized
and straightened along much of its length, as evidenced by the spoil piles and levees along the floodplain.
S400 lacks natural bedform features until the stream begins downcutting towards the Swift Creek
floodplain and meander cutoff. This reach exhibits localized streambank erosion and associated soil loss.
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 6
The valley slope is approximately 0.9 percent, and the drainage area is 468 acres. The majority of the
drainage area for S400 is within active agricultural fields with an adjacent forested area. The riparian
buffer along the entire length is partially wooded. This reach is not proposed for stream mitigation credit.
S500: S500 begins immediately downstream of the PRM project boundary and connects with a restored
stream system that flows towards the Swift Creek floodplain. S500 has a valley slope of 0.3 percent and
drainage area of 279 acres. Based on field observations, the channel gently meanders across relic meander
cutoffs and backwater sloughs, although portions of the channel and floodplain areas appear to have been
historically ditched. The reach is stable and native woody vegetation was observed along a majority of this
area.
S600: S600 continues downstream of S500 and eventually flows off the project boundary towards its
confluence with Swift Creek. S600 has a valley slope of 0.3 percent and drainage area of 348 acres. Similar
to S500, the channel gently meanders across relic meander cutoffs and backwater sloughs, although some
channel and floodplain areas appear to have been historically ditched. The reach is stable and native
woody vegetation was observed along most of this section.
S700: S700 is a small headwater tributary that flows directly into White Oak Swamp. The valley slope is
approximately 0.9 percent, and the drainage area is 33 acres. The reach is stable and exhibits minimal
bank erosion. The channel appears to be within its natural valley and the existing buffer is well vegetated.
This headwater stream and wetland system is considered to be high functioning and the existing riparian
buffer helps to filter pollutants (nutrients) that would otherwise drain to White Oak Swamp.
2.2 Existing Wetlands
Based on preliminary site investigations, including hand-augered soil borings, it is likely that jurisdictional
wetlands were once present throughout the headwater stream valleys. The extent of the existing wetland
areas was determined by the valley crenulations and overall bottom widths. When on-site streams were
straightened and/or dredged, groundwater elevations were altered such that many of the historic
wetlands along the stream fringe were drained and lost. These areas have been utilized for agriculture
(row crop) production over the past fifty years and have lost most of their historic wetland function. A
preliminary jurisdictional determination package is provided in Appendix F of the Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan.
2.3 Soils
The Parcel is located in the Inner Coastal Plain Physiographic Region. As shown on the NRCS Soils Map
(Figure 3), there are fifteen main soil types on the Parcel: Altavista fine sandy loam (AaA), Ballahack fine
sandy loam (Ba, hydric), Chewacla silt loam (Cc), Conetoe loamy sand (CeB), Dogue fine sandy loam (DgA),
Goldsboro fine sandy loam (GoA), Norfolk loamy sand (NoB), Rains fine sandy loam (RaA, hydric), Roanoke
loam (Ro, hydric), State loamy sand (StB), Tarboro loamy sand (TaB), Wagram loamy sand (WaB), Wahee
fine sandy loam (We), Wehadkee silt loam (Wh, hydric), and Wickham sandy loam (WkB). The Parcel soils
are commonly defined by a sandy loam surface layer, with predominantly sandy and loamy subsoil
alluvium located along floodplains and stream terraces.
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 7

Table 1. Project Soil Types
Soil Name Hydric % of
easement Description
Altavista fine
sandy loam (AaA) No 9.2
Moderately well drained soil on stream terraces. Slopes
from 0 to 3 percent. Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG): C and
runoff class is low.
Ballahack fine
sandy loam (Ba) Yes 2.3
Very poorly drained soil in floodplains and flats on stream
terraces. Slopes from 0 to 2 percent. HSG: B/D and runoff
class is very high.
Chewacla silt loam
(Cc) No 9.7
Somewhat poorly drained soil in floodplains. Slopes from
0 to 2 percent HSG: B/D and runoff class is low. Can have
frequent flooding.
Conetoe loamy
sand (CeB) No 4.8 Well drained soil on ridges of stream terraces. Slopes
from 0 to 4 percent HSG: A and runoff class is very low.
Dogue fine sandy
loam (DgA) No 7.1
Moderately well drained soil on flats of stream and
marine terraces. Slopes from 0 to 3 percent. HSG: C and
runoff class is low.
Goldsboro fine
sandy loam (GoA) No 0.3
Moderately well drained soil on broad interstream
divides & flats of marine terraces. Slopes from 0 to 2
percent. HSG: B and runoff class is low.
Norfolk loamy
sand (NoB) No 0.9
Well drained soil on broad interstream divides & flats of
marine terraces. Slopes from 2 to 6 percent. HSG: A and
runoff class is medium.
Rains fine sandy
loam, Southern
Coastal Plain (RaA)
Yes 0.1
Poorly drained soil on broad interstream divides, Carolina
bays, & flats of marine terraces. Slopes from 0 to 2
percent. HSG: B/D and runoff class is low.
Roanoke loam (Ro) Yes 33.0
Poorly drained soil on backswamps and depressions of
stream terraces. Slopes from 0 to 2 percent. HSG: C/D
and runoff class is low. Frequent ponding for brief periods
is common.
State loamy sand
(StB) No 3.9 Well drained soil on stream terraces. Slopes from 0 to 4
percent. HSG: B and runoff class is low.
Tarboro loamy
sand (TaB) No 19.6
Somewhat excessively drained soil on ridges of stream
terraces. Slopes from 0 to 6 percent. HSG: A and runoff
class is very low.
Wagram loamy
sand (WaB) No 1.6
Well drained soil on ridges & broad interstream divides of
marine terraces. Slopes from 0 to 6 percent. HSG: A and
runoff class is low.
Wahee fine sandy
loam (We) No 1.8
Somewhat poorly drained soil on flats of marine & stream
terraces. Slopes from 0 to 2 percent. HSG: C/D and runoff
class is very high.
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 8
Wehadkee silt
loam (Wh) Yes 3.0
Poorly drained soil in depressions on floodplains. Slopes
from 0 to 2 percent. HSG: B/D and runoff class is very
high. Frequently flooded.
Wickham sandy
loam (WkB) No 0.9 Well drained soil on stream terraces. Slopes from 0 to 4
percent. HSG: B and runoff class is low.
2.4 Existing Vegetative Communities
The current use within the project area is primarily agriculture fields and forested wetlands. The
northeastern portion on the site closest to Highway 33 has a horseshoe-shaped area of forested wetlands
that encompasses S200. The natural community in the agricultural fields adjacent to the project area has
been effectively removed through tillage, ditching, agriculture, and silviculture. These practices have
removed native vegetation and altered the hydrology of the site in order for row-crops to be successful.
The southwestern portion of the proposed easement includes large wetlands, located within the
floodplain of Swift Creek & White Oak Swamp. Prior to anthropogenic land disturbances, the riparian
vegetation community likely consisted of Bottomland Hardwoods in the floodplain of Swift Creek/White
Oak Swamp and a Mesic Mixed Hardwood community in the existing agricultural fields and forested area
encompassing S200 (Schafale, 2012).

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 9

Table 2. Existing Site Vegetation
Common Name Scientific Name
Canopy Vegetation
Red maple Acer rubrum
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
River birch Betula nigra
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra
Understory & Woody
Shrubs
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
Red maple Acer rubrum
Southern wax myrtle Morella cerifera
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis
River birch Betula nigra
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra
White oak Quercus alba
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense

Herbaceous & Vines
Giant cane Arundinaria gigantea
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum
Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum
Roundleaf greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Cinnamon fern Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica
Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Invasives Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense

Invasive Species
There is not a significant presence of invasive species vegetation in the buffer and nutrient credit areas.
Within the wooded areas there are small clusters of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). After restoration,
these areas will be monitored, and any invasive plants found within the project boundary will be treated
to prevent expansion and establishment of a substantial invasive community. This will allow for a healthy,
native riparian and upland plant community to dominate the area and help prevent future establishment
of invasive species vegetation.
2.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on a review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database and IPAC, there are currently five
federally listed threatened and endangered species known to occur in Edgecombe County: Neuse River
Waterdog (Necturus lewisi), Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus), Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Tar
River Spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana), and Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata). The Neuse River
Waterdog and the Carolina Madtom are present in Swift Creek adjacent to the Bank, and there is the
potential for both species to be found in the lower tributaries of the Bank. The stretch of Swift Creek
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 10
adjacent to the Bank is also critical habitat for the Neuse River Waterdog and Carolina Madtom. A net
survey in July 2018 captured a Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) near the Bank bounday. The Tricolored
bat is proposed for listing as an endangered species and a decision to list may be made as soon as
September 2023. If the Tricolored bat is listed prior to the construction of the Bank, WLS will reinitiate the
consultation of USFWS. Project implementation is not anticipated to have a negative impact on these
listed species.
2.6 Cultural Resources
In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, WLS investigated and confirmed that the
proposed project area and property do not contain, nor are they adjacent to, any properties listed in the
National Register of Historic Places or the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO).
The nearest site is the Edward Cotton House (HPO Site ID: ED0721) which is approximately 0.8 miles from
the project site. On-site investigations and discussions with the previous landowners have not disclosed
any potential resources or occurrences of this type on the property. Therefore, the proposed project
activities should have no effect on any historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register, and
SHPO did not have any comments.
2.7 Constraints
The Bank conservation easement is located on the same parcel as the conservation easement of the Swift
Creek Mitigation Bank. The Swiftie Bank easement will abut the Swift Creek Bank easement in a few areas.
There are no existing utility corridors on the Parcel. There is an overhead powerline easement located
outside of the conservation easement at the top of S200.
2.8 FEMA Floodplain / Floodway Mapping
A majority of the Parcel is located within a FEMA regulated floodplain (Zone ‘AE’ and the Floodway) (Figure
4). While it is not anticipated that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation,
WLS will coordinate with the local floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required
documentation to obtain approval for any FEMA regulated impacts. In addition, the project will be
designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained within the project boundary and will not impact
adjacent landowners; therefore, hydrologic trespass will not be a concern.
3 Proposed Tar-Pamlico Buffer & Nutrient Offset Restoration Plan
Riparian restoration adjacent to the streams was approved by the DWR in their letter dated June 26, 2023
(Attachment A). This site is also being proposed as a stream and wetland mitigation bank, and restoration
of riparian areas will be accomplished through the goals and methods outlined by the Swiftie Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI), Swiftie Mitigation Plan (SAW-2019-00631) and the Swiftie Riparian Buffer and
Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking Instrument. All riparian restoration mitigation activities along channels
will begin from the tops of the banks and extend a maximum of 200 feet perpendicular to the stream
channel where possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and for nutrient
offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 11

All applicable federal, state, and local documentation, permits, and/or authorizations will be acquired as
part of implementing the above-mentioned mitigation plan and will be provided to DWR as part of the
As-Built Report, including Section 401, Section 404 and Sediment and Erosion Control permits. The
restoration of the Parcel will require converting existing agriculture land use practices within riparian
areas adjacent to streams and ditches into a dense and diverse vegetated riparian forest. The riparian
areas will be replanted with appropriate native tree species. The restoration of the riparian buffer will
provide stabilization and improve water quality to tributaries that drain directly to Swift Creek and White
Oak Swamp.
3.1 Parcel Preparation
The current land uses adjacent to the streams and ditches proposed for riparian restoration are primarily
non-forested croplands (Figure 5). The riparian restoration areas will require limited site preparation in
addition to the stream and wetland construction. Headwater stream restoration activities will include
excavating a broader floodplain at or slightly above the existing bed elevation and will seek to restore
groundwater hydrology and connection of surface flows. The design concept will address the current
channel’s dimension, pattern, and profile to create stable conditions. Wetland restoration activities will
include minimal grading and blending of microtopography.

After construction activities, the subsoil will be ripped and disked, and the topsoil will be placed back over
the site. Site preparation will also include select herbicide treatments or mechanical clearing to remove
undesirable underbrush or invasive species as needed. Diffuse flow will be maintained in the buffers.

The Sponsor might utilize mechanical equipment periodically in the first few years after planting to
enhance vegetative growth. Mowing will not take place within the first 50 feet (Zone A) of restored buffer
after planting unless absolutely necessary. Additionally, selective applications of a pre-emergent herbicide
will be used to control weedy competition.
3.3 Riparian Restoration
A coastal headwater valley restoration approach is proposed for S100 and S200. Headwater stream
restoration activities will seek to restore groundwater hydrology and connection of surface flows. All
existing ditches within the buffer and nutrient offset areas will be filled such that diffuse flow and positive
site drainage will be maintained as shown on the proposed grading plan in the Mitigation Plan. The coastal
headwater valley restoration of S100 will end near the field edge as the valley turns southwest towards
White Oak Swamp. At this location, the channel will gradually transition into a single thread channel. On
S200, coastal headwater valley restoration will end as the stream flows into Ditch 3. At the end of Ditch
3, the S300 channel transitions into a single thread channel.
At the bottom of S100, the stream will transition into a ‘C5’ stream type using appropriate riffle-pool
morphology and grade control to accommodate vertical drops towards the remnant meander cutoff
Starting at the upstream end of S300, structures such as geolifts with brush toes and brushy riffles in
combination with bank grading will be strategically placed along the reach to stabilize the banks and
stream. Ditches 1, 2, 3, and 4 are viable for nutrient offset credits per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(8). Figure 6
depicts the nutrient and buffer restoration plan based on existing top of bank conditions. Figure 7 depicts
the stream and wetland conceptual plan. The riparian buffer credits that are located adjacent to coastal
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 12
headwater valley restoration will be based on the centerline of the channel and will be reported in the
As-Built Report. These credits will be withheld until the As-Built survey has been finalized.
The revegetation plan for the entire riparian restoration area will include permanent seeding, planting
bare root trees, live stakes, and controlling invasive species growth. If temporary seeding is applied from
November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre. If applied
from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate of 40
pounds per acre. The permanent seed mix will consist of a riparian seed mix and wetland seed mix. The
riparian restoration efforts along the project streams will be adjacent to reconstructed stream banks and
will extend perpendicular from top of bank a minimum of 50 feet to a maximum of 200 feet. The riparian
restoration efforts along the project ditches will extend perpendicular from top of bank a minimum width
of 50 feet to a maximum width of 200 feet. Riparian buffer restoration efforts along ditches will be less
than 50 feet in width.
The riparian restoration activities will occur at the same time as the stream mitigation activities and not
before. Therefore, the mitigation area where riparian restoration is being performed may be altered
slightly depending on the implementation of the Swiftie Mitigation Bank. The riparian restoration areas
will be surveyed, and the resulting information provided in the As-Built report and As-Built Survey. The
As-Built report will also include any deviations that were made to the approved BPDP.
3.4 Riparian Preservation
Riparian buffer preservation will include permanently protecting existing forested riparian areas with a
conservation easement. This will include the left and right bank on the bottom section of S100, the left
and right bank of the bottom of S300 and the left bank of S400.

No more than 25 percent of the total area of buffer mitigation will be used for preservation credit pursuant
to 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4), and preservation buffer areas in excess will be
protected in the conservation easement and not applied for credit. Buffer preservation can only generate
buffer mitigation credit and is not transferrable into nutrient offset credits.
3.6 Planting
The specific species composition to be planted was selected based on the community type, observation
of occurrence of species in riparian buffers adjacent to the Parcel, and best professional judgement on
species establishment and anticipated site conditions in the early years following project implementation.

Trees will be planted at a density sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in Rule 15A NCAC
02B 0295 of 260 hardwood trees per acre at the end of five years for the nutrient offset areas. The
performance standards for the buffer restoration areas on the coastal headwater streams will be 210
hardwood trees per acre at the end of seven years. No one tree species will be greater than 50 percent of
the established stems. An appropriate riparian seed mix will also be applied to provide temporary ground
cover for soil stabilization and reduction of sediment loss during rain events in areas disturbed by stream
and wetland construction as necessary. This will be followed by an appropriate permanent seed mixture.
Planting is scheduled for Winter 2025 and the list of species proposed are shown in Table 3; however, the
actual planting list will be provided in the As-Built report.

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 13

Table 3. Tree Planting and Seed Mix List
Scientific Name Common Name Tree Type Wetland Tolerance
Riparian Bare Root Plantings – Primary Species List
(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Betula nigra River birch Canopy FACW
Nyssa sylvatica Black gum Canopy FAC
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Canopy FACW
Ulmus americana American elm Canopy FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar Canopy FACU
Quercus alba White oak Canopy FACU
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak Canopy FACW
Quercus phellos Willow oak Canopy FACW
Quercus nigra Water oak Canopy FAC
Taxodium distichum Bald cypress Canopy OBL
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak Canopy OBL
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Canopy FACW
Asimina triloba Pawpaw Canopy FAC
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Canopy FAC
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Tolerance Seeding Rate (lb/acre)
Permanent Seed Mix
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass OBL 1.5
Dichanthelium
clandestinum
Deer tongue FACW 1.5
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye FAC 1.5
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass FAC 2.5
Schizachyrium scoparium Little blue stem FACU 2.5
Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed susan FACU 1.5
Echinacea purpurea Coneflower NI 1.5
Juncus effusus Soft rush OBL 1.0
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of seeding
stock.
4 Monitoring and Maintenance Plan
4.1 Monitoring Protocol
Permanent vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the buffer restoration
and/or nutrient offset areas to measure the survival of the planted trees. Riparian buffer vegetation
monitoring will be based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey-Ecosystem Enhancement Program Protocol
for Recording Vegetation: Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only Version 4.2 (Lee, 2006). Annual vegetation
monitoring will occur each year for a minimum of five years on the nutrient offset areas and seven years
on the coastal headwater buffer restoration areas and will be conducted during the fall season with the
first year occurring at least five months from initial planting. Twenty-seven vegetation monitoring plots
will be installed, and will be 100 meters squared in size, and will cover at least two percent of the riparian
restoration area. Plots will be randomly placed throughout the planted riparian areas. The approximate
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 14
location of the plots is shown in Figure 8. Photos will be taken from all photo points each monitoring year
and provided in the annual reports. All planted stems will be marked with flagging tape and recorded. All
of the vegetation plots in Figure 8 will be monitored for both the buffer/nutrient bank and the
stream/wetland bank. There will be additional vegetation plots for the stream/wetland bank.

Planting is scheduled for winter 2025. The first annual monitoring activities will commence at the end of
the first growing season, at least five months after planting has been completed and no earlier than the
fall season. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species, common name, height,
planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. The total number of volunteer woody stems will also be
documented and reported.
4.2 Performance Standards for Vegetation Adjacent to Single-Thread Streams
The measures of vegetative success for the Parcel will be the survival of at least four native hardwood
tree species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of the established stems, established at a
density of at least 260 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5. Appropriate native volunteer stems of
native hardwood tree species may be included to meet the performance standards upon DWR approval.
The Sponsor shall submit the annual monitoring report to DWR by December 31st of each year for five
consecutive years and will follow the terms and conditions of the MBI.
4.3 Performance Standards for Vegetation Adjacent to Coastal Headwater Streams
The measures of vegetative success for the Parcel will be the survival of at least four native hardwood
tree species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of the established stems, established at a
density of at least 260 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 and 210 hardwood trees per acre at the
end of Year 7 for riparian restoration areas adjacent to coastal headwater stream restoration. The seven
years of monitoring only applies to the areas receiving credit under Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(2) for
buffer mitigation. Appropriate native volunteer stems of native hardwood tree species may be included
to meet the performance standards upon DWR approval. The Sponsor shall submit the annual monitoring
report to DWR by December 31st of each year for seven consecutive years and will follow the terms and
conditions of the MBI.
4.4 Performance Standard for Coastal Headwater Streams
The performance standards for the coastal headwater streams will be detailed in the Stream Mitigation
Plan in Sections 8.2 and 9.1.4. Performance standards must be met each monitoring year for a minimum
of seven years to comply with 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(2) for buffer mitigation. Confirmation from the
USACE that stream performance standards have been met will need to be provided to DWR by the Bank
Sponsor prior to issuance of credit releases for riparian buffer credit along the coastal headwater streams.
The success criteria for the coastal headwater streams include channel formation within the valley or
crenulation that must be documented through identification of field indicators consistent with those listed
below, and continuous surface water flow within the valley or crenulation must be documented to occur
every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the prescribed monitoring period.

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 15

Headwater Stream Monitoring
Channel Formation: During monitoring years 1 through 4, the preponderance of evidence must
demonstrate a concentration of flow indicative of channel formation within the topographic low point of
the valley or crenulation as documented by the following indicators:
• Scour (indicating sediment transport by flowing water)
• Sediment deposition (accumulations of sediment and/or formation ripples)
• Sediment sorting (sediment sorting indicated by grain-size distribution with the primary path of
flow)
• Multiple observed flow events (must be documented by gauge data and/or photographs)
• Destruction of terrestrial vegetation
• Presence of litter and debris
• Wracking (deposits of drift material indicating surface water flow)
• Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent (herbaceous or otherwise)
• Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
During monitoring years 5 through 7, the stream must successfully meet the requirements above and the
preponderance of evidence must demonstrate the development of stream bed and banks as documented
by the following indicators:
• Bed and banks (may include the formation of stream bed and banks, development of channel
pattern such as meander bends and/or braiding at natural topographic breaks, woody debris, or
plant root systems)
• Natural line impressed on the bank (visible high-water mark)
• Shelving (shelving of sediment depositions indicating transport)
• Water staining (staining of rooted vegetation)
• Change in plant community (transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long
duration, including hydrophytes)
• Changes in character of soil (texture and/or chroma changes when compared to the soils abutting
the primary path of flow).
4.5 Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be taken within the project area once a year to visually document stability for five years
following construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so that
the same locations and view directions on the Parcel are photographed each year. Visual inspections and
photos will be taken to ensure that restored riparian areas are being maintained and compliant.
4.6 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above. Visual assessments will be performed within the Parcel on a semi-annual basis during the five-year
monitoring period. Problem areas with vegetative health will be noted (e.g., low stem density, vegetation
mortality, invasive species, or encroachment). Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed
accompanied by a written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 16
each subsequent visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be
provided in the annual monitoring report.
4.7 Reporting Performance Criteria
Within 30 calendar days after the Parcel has been completed and all buffer and nutrient offset areas have
been planted, WLS will submit a written notification to NCDWR that documents that all buffer and nutrient
offset activities have been completed and that the conservation easement has been marked. The
documentation will include the following:
• Short summary of activities completed as required per the approved BPDP;
• Figures representing all riparian restoration, riparian enhancement and riparian preservation
activities where applicable;
• Figures representing location of all monitoring plots installed;
• Detailed planting plan- including type of species planted, density of species planted, and any
modifications to the planting plan from what was approved in the BPDP;
• Description of how the conservation easement boundaries were marked;
• Any major changes to the conservation easement boundary or to the amount of Nutrient
Offset Credits from what was proposed in the approved in the BPDP.
Complete monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each monitoring year and submitted to
NCDWR. Annual monitoring reports will be based on the most recent NCDWR Template. The monitoring
period will extend five years beyond the completion of site planting or until performance criteria have
been met.
4.8 Adaptive Management Plan
In the event the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the necessary performance
standards as specified in the approved Plan, the Sponsor shall notify and coordinate with NCDWR to
develop a remedial action plan. The remedial action plan should describe the source or reason for the
failure, a concise description of the corrective measures that are proposed, and a time frame for the
implementation of the corrective measures.
4.9 Conservation Easement and Long-Term Management Plan
The Bank Parcel will be protected in perpetuity by a recorded conservation easement. The conservation
easement is designed to ensure that Ditches 1, 2, 3 and 4 remain hydrologically connected to Streams
S100, S200, S300 and S400. The conservation easement will allow for annual monitoring and maintenance
of the Project during the monitoring phase. Upon DWR issuance of the final credit release as described in
the credit release schedule of the MBI, the Project stewardship will be transferred to a DWR approved
long-term steward. WLS has partnered with Tar River Land Conservancy (TRLC) as the long-term steward
for the Project site (See Appendix D of the Swiftie Mitigation Plan for conservation easement template
and long term stewardship agreement letter).

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 17

Tar River Land Conservancy
Attn: Derek Halberg
121 N. Main Street
P.O. Box 1161
Louisburg, NC 27549

This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will
conduct periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement are upheld. Any endowment funds for the conservation easement and deed restrictions shall
be negotiated prior to transfer to the responsible party. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party
on a yearly basis until such time and endowments are established. The use of funds from the Endowment
Account is governed by NC General Statute GS 113A-232(d) (3). Payments and interest gained by the
endowment fund may be used only for stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable. The management activities will be conducted in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the approved MBI as agreed to by WLS.
The conservation easement plat will depict all relevant ditch centerlines, top of banks, and riparian zones.
The conservation easement boundaries will be identified in the field to ensure a clear distinction between
the Bank Parcel and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by a fence, marker, bollard, post,
tree blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundaries will
be marked with signs identifying the property as a conservation site and will include the name of the long-
term steward. All boundary markers will be installed prior to the submittal of Task 2 of the MBI. The
easement boundary will be checked annually as part of monitoring activities, and the conditions, as well
as any maintenance performed, will be reported in the annual monitoring reports.

The land required for riparian area planting, management, and stewardship of the project includes
portions of the parcel listed in Table 4. Palustrine Group LLC owns the property. WLS will place a
conservation easement of 327 acres on the parcel and it will be recorded at the Edgecombe County
Register of Deeds. TRLC will be noted on the conservation easement as the Grantee.

Table 4. Existing Property Owner
Owner of Record
N/F
PIN County Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book
and Page
Numbers
Acreage
Protected
Palustrine Group LLC
(Owned by WLS) 4812-20-1970 Edgecombe Conservation
Easement
Book: 1773
Page: 0006
327
4.10 Financial Assurances
Following approval of the BPDP, WLS will provide financial assurances in the form of a Performance Bond
from a surety that is rated no less than “A-” as rated by A.M. Best. Financial assurances will be payable at
the direction of the NCDWR to its designee or to a standby trust. The initial performance bond will be for
100 percent of the implementation costs, but not less than $150,000. In lieu of posting the performance
bond, the Sponsor may elect to construct the project prior to the first credit release.

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 18
After completion of the construction and monitoring devices, a monitoring bond for $100,000 will be
secured to implement the monitoring and maintenance of the riparian restoration areas for a minimum
of seven years.

Performance bonds for monitoring shall be renewed to cover the next year’s monitoring period, with
confirmation of renewal provided to NCDWR with each annual monitoring report when applicable.
NCDWR reserves the right to alter the credit release schedule if monitoring reports are submitted without
proof of bond renewals when applicable.
5 Credit Release Schedule
Upon submittal of all appropriate documentation by the Sponsor, and subsequent approval by DWR, it is
agreed that the mitigation credits associated with the Parcel will be released as described in the MBI and
Table 5. The total buffer credits proposed adjacent to constructed coastal headwater valley streams will
be dependent on the approval of the IRT to construct. The stream site will have to be constructed in its
entirety and an As-Built Report and survey submitted to the IRT prior to DWR granting approval to
generate buffer credits under Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(2). The area of the buffer credits shall be
measured perpendicular to the length of the valley being restored.

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 19

Table 5. Credit Release Schedule for Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Credits
Task Project Milestone
% Nutrient
Offset and
Riparian
Buffer
Credit
Release
% Riparian
Buffer Credit
Release within
Coastal
Headwater
Areas
1
Instrument and Plan Approved by DWR, Conservation
Easement Recorded and Assigned*, Financial Assurance
Posted, and Draft Stream & Wetland Mitigation Plan
Approved by IRT
25 No Credit
2
Mitigation Site Earthwork, Planting and Installation of
Monitoring Devices Completed, and all Applicable Permits
Obtained
20 No Credit
3 Monitoring Financial Assurance Posted and Approval of As-
Built Report 10 30
4 Monitoring Report #1 Approved by the DWR** and financial
assurance renewed 10 10
5 Monitoring Report #2 Approved by the DWR** and financial
assurance renewed 10 10
6 Monitoring Report #3 Approved by the DWR** and financial
assurance renewed 10 5
7 Monitoring Report #4 Approved by the DWR** and financial
assurance renewed 5 5
8
Monitoring Report #5 Approved by the DWR*, financial
assurance renewed for coastal headwater buffer areas, and
final site visit by DWR has been conducted for nutrient offset
areas
10 20
9 Monitoring Report #6 Approved by the DWR** and financial
assurance renewed for coastal headwater buffer areas N/A 10
10
Monitoring Report #7 Approved by the DWR** and final site
visit by DWR has been conducted for coastal headwater buffer
areas
N/A 10
Total 100 100
* For specification, please see Section V of the MBI
**DWR approval provided upon a determination that the site is meeting success criteria contained within the approved Plan
6 Mitigation Potential
Out of 327 acres that will be protected with a permanent conservation easement, 26.7acres (1,164,026
ft²) are proposed to generate riparian buffer credits, and 24.1 acres (59,504.310 lbs. Nitrogen and
3,832.538 lbs. Phosphorus) are proposed to generate nutrient offset credits. Of the 24.1 acres proposed
for nutrient offset credits, 2.1 acres are suitable for buffer mitigation credits at a ratio of 1:1 and at 100%
full credit. The Sponsor may use the 2.1 acres of riparian restoration mentioned above for either nutrient
offset credit or buffer mitigation credit, but not both. The remaining acres within the Conservation
Easement will be used for wetland and stream mitigation pursuant to the Swiftie Mitigation Bank.

Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 20
The Sponsor must request and receive approval from DWR prior to any credit conversions and transfers
to the credit ledgers. With each conversion and transfer request submitted to the DWR, the Sponsor will
provide all updated credit ledgers showing all transactions that have occurred up to the date of the
request.

The Sponsor will maintain two credit ledgers: one for coastal headwater buffer credits and one for
Nitrogen nutrient offset credits and buffer credits. The total potential nutrient offset mitigation credits
and riparian buffer credits that the Parcel will generate is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. [Swiftie Mitigation Bank], [20230026 v1], Project Credits
Project Area
N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
Credit Type Location
Subject? (enter
NO if
ephemeral or
ditch 1)
Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer
Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (ft2)
Total (Creditable)
Area of Buffer
Mitigation (ft2)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Convertible to
Riparian
Buffer?
Riparian Buffer
Credits
Convertible to
Nutrient Offset?
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: N (lbs)
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: P (lbs)
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ephemeral Restoration 0-100 Ditch 1 81,991 81,991 1 100%1.00000 No —Yes 4,278.400 275.562
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ephemeral Restoration 101-200 Ditch 1 101,356 101,356 1 33%3.03030 No —Yes 5,288.892 340.646
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 0-100 Ditch 2 97,359 97,359 1 100%1.00000 No —Yes 5,080.323 327.212
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 101-200 Ditch 2 105,531 105,531 1 33%3.03030 No —Yes 5,506.749 354.677
Buffer Rural Yes Coastal
Headwater Restoration 0-100 S100 140,381 140,381 1 100%1.00000 Yes 140,381.000 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes Coastal
Headwater Restoration 101-200 S100 116,031 116,031 1 33%3.03030 Yes 38,290.268 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0-100 S100 17,102 17,102 1 100%1.00000 Yes 17,102.000 Yes 892.405 57.478
Nutrient Offset Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101-200 S100 21,062 21,062 1 33%3.03030 Yes 6,950.467 Yes 1,099.043 70.787
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 0-100 Ditch 3 95,108 95,108 1 100%1.00000 No —Yes 4,962.863 319.647
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 101-200 Ditch 3 117,412 117,412 1 33%3.03030 No —Yes 6,126.715 394.608
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0-100 S300 73,707 73,707 1 100%1.00000 Yes 73,707.000 Yes 3,846.130 247.720
Nutrient Offset Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101-200 S300 153,927 153,927 1 33%3.03030 Yes 50,795.961 Yes 8,032.117 517.330
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 0-100 Ditch 4 118,526 118,526 1 100%1.00000 No —Yes 6,184.845 398.352
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 0-100 Ditch 4 157,256 157,256 1 100%1.00000 No —Yes 8,205.828 528.519
Buffer Rural Yes Coastal
Headwater Restoration 0-100 S200 3,421 3,421 1 100%1.00000 Yes 3,421.000 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes Coastal
Headwater Restoration 101-200 S200 121,073 121,073 1 33%3.03030 Yes 39,954.130 No ——
———
———
———
Totals (ft2):1,521,243 1,521,243 370,601.826 59,504.310 3,832.538
Total Buffer (ft2):471,715 471,715
Total Nutrient Offset (ft2):1,049,528 N/A
Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit:0 0
Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft2):291,007 0.0%Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM
Enter Preservation Credits Below Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2):157,238 110.1%Preservation as % TABM
Credit Type Location Subject?Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer
Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (sf)
Total (Creditable)
Area for Buffer
Mitigation (ft2)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Riparian
Buffer Credits
Buffer Rural Yes I / P 0-100 S300 277,452 277,452 10 100%10.00000 27,745.200
Rural Yes I / P 101-200 S300 202,656 202,656 10 33%30.30303 6,687.648
Rural Yes I / P 0-100 S400 84,140 84,140 10 100%10.00000 8,414.000
Rural Yes I / P 101-200 S400 93,599 93,599 10 33%30.30303 3,088.767
Rural Yes I / P 0-100 S100 12,962 12,962 10 100%10.00000 1,296.200
Rural Yes I / P 101-200 S100 21,502 21,502 10 33%30.30303 709.566
Preservation Area Subtotals (ft2):692,311 692,311
Square Feet Credits
471,715 312,855.398
0 0.000
692,311 47,941.381
1,164,026 360,796.779
Square Feet Credits
Nitrogen:54,765.775
Phosphorus:3,527.3401,049,528
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Nutrient Offset:
Preservation:
Total Riparian Buffer:
Tar-Pamlico 03020101
19.16394
297.54099
Restoration:
Enhancement:
Mitigation Totals
1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allow some ditches to be classified as subject according to 15A NCAC 02B .0250 (5)(a).
last updated 08/03/2020
Swiftie Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset Plan
Page 22
7 Citations
Lee, T.L, Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., and Wentworth, T.R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocolv4.2- lev1-2.pdf.
NC Environmental Management Commission. 2014. Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0295 - Mitigation Program
Requirements for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil
Survey Division. 1979. Soil Survey, Edgecombe County, NC.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina (County Listing). Edgecombe County. 2023.

Figures
Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................... Service Area Map
Figure 2 ......................................................................................................................... Project Location Map
Figure 3 .................................................................................................................................. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4 .................................................................................................................................. Floodplain Map
Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................. Existing Conditions
Figure 6 ................................................................................ Proposed Buffer and Nutrient Restoration Plan
Figure 7 ............................................................................. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conceptual Plan
Figure 8 ................................................................................................................ Proposed Monitoring Map

!(
SiteLocation
Figure1Service
Area Map
Date: 9/1/2023
!(Site Location
Service Area (HUC8 - 03020101)
´0 10 205
Miles
1 inch = 10 miles
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Palustrine Group LLC
4812-20-1970
Tar River Land Conservancy
4812-33-5285
±0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Figure2Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_NC_FIPS_3200_Feet
Project
Location Map
!(
o
o
PITT CO
HALIFAX CO
NASH CO
MARTIN CO
EDGECOMBE CO
Lower Tar03020103
Fishing03020102
Upper Tar03020101
Lower Roanoke03010107
Contentnea03020203
Proposed Conservation Easement
Parcel Boundary
!(Project Location
Vicinity Streams (NHD)
HUC-8
5-Mile Aviation Zone
o Airport
Edgecombe County
NC Counties
0 5 10
Miles075150Miles
Project is located in:
HUC8 - 03020101
HUC12 - 030201010803
Date: 9/8/2023
Legend
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
36.00490, -77.60111
Figure3NRCS Soil
Survey Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Imagery data source: EDR
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
White OakSwamp Rd
33
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
Wh
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Figure4FEMA
Floodplain Map
Date: 9/8/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing Stream
FEMA Floodzone
100-yr (Zone AE)
Floodway (Zone AE)
500-yr (Zone X)
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
"/"
"/"
White OakSwamp Rd
33
W01
W04
W02
W06
W05
Hydric Soil(W03)
Ditc
h

3
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
Wh
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Dit
c
h

4
Ditch 2
D
i
t
c
h

1
Figure5Existing
Conditions Map
Date: 9/19/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing Roads
Existing Stream
Existing Ditches
Existing Wetland (verified)
Existing Hydric Soil
Open Water Feature
"/"Existing Culverts
Existing Utility (powerline)
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
White OakSwamp Rd
33
W01
W02
W03
W04W06
W05
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
Wh
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Figure6Proposed
Buffer Map
Date: 9/18/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel BoundaryStream Mitigation
Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement
Preservation
No Credit
Existing Ditches
Buffer and Nutrient Mitigation
Coastal HWV Buffer Restoration 0-100 ft
Coastal HWV Buffer Restoration 101-200 ft
Buffer Restoration 0-100 ft
Buffer Preservation 0-100ft
Buffer Preservation 101-200ft
Nutrient 0-100 ft
Nutrient 101-200 ft
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
"/"
"/"
White OakSwamp Rd
33
W01 W02
W03
W04W06
W05
Swift Creek MitigationBank As-built Stream
S300
S6
0
0
Swift Cr
e
e
k
S500
S400
Wh
i
t
e

O
a
k

S
w
a
m
p
S700
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Figure7Proposed Mitigation
Features Map
Date: 9/18/2023
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Existing Utility (powerline)
"/"Existing Culverts (to remain)
Existing Roads
Existing Ditches
Open Water Feature
Wetland Mitigation
Riparian Enhancement
Non-Riparian Enhancement
Riparian Re-establishment
Non-Riparian Re-establishment
Preservation
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement
Preservation
No Credit
´0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Swift Creek Mitigation Bank Easement Boundary
Swift Creek Mitigation Bank As-built Stream
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!.
!.
!.
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
33
W01
W02
W03
W04
S300
S500
S400
S20
0
S
1
0
0
Figure8Proposed
Monitoring Map
Date: 9/19/2023
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
HWV Restoration
Enhancement
Preservation
No Credit
Existing Ditches
Buffer and Nutrient Mitigation
Coastal HWV Buffer Restoration 0-100 ft
Coastal HWV Buffer Restoration 101-200 ft
Buffer Restoration 0-100 ft
Buffer Preservation 0-100ft
Buffer Preservation 101-200ft
Nutrient 0-100 ft
Nutrient 101-200 ft
Wetland Mitigation
Riparian Enhancement
Non-Riparian Enhancement
Riparian Re-establishment
Non-Riparian Re-establishment
Preservation
´0 500 1,000250
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet
Swiftie Mitigation Project
HUC8 Tar-Pam 01 - 03020101
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Approximate Project Boundary
Parcel BoundaryProposed Vegetation Plots
")Fixed Vegetation Plots (7)
")Fixed Additional DWR
Vegetation Plots (20)
!.Flow Gauge
!!Groundwater Gauge
!.Crest GaugeCross Section
Headwater Valley
Riffle
Pool
Attachment A – DWR Determination and Viability
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secrerary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR . NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality D/recror
June 26, 2023
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Attn: Catherine Roland
(via electronic mail: cat herine(a),waterl an dsolutions.com )
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset -Swiftie Site
Near 35.996211, -77.6053 located off NC 33W in Tarboro, NC
Tar-Pamlico 03020101
Edgecombe County
Dear Ms. Roland,
On February l, 2023, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request
from you on behalf of Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) for a site visit near the above-referenced
site in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020 IO I. The site visit
was to determine the potential for nutrient offset and buffer mitigation within a proposed
conservation easement boundary, which is more accurately depicted in the attached map labeled
"Figure 9 -Proposed Buffer Map" (Figure 9) prepared by WLS and edited by DWR. The proposed
easement boundary on the Figure 9, includes all riparian areas intended to be proposed as part of the
mitigation site. This site is also being proposed as a stream and wetland mitigation site and therefore
stream bank instability or presence of erosional rills within riparian areas were not addressed. Figure
1 labeled "Existing Aquatic Resources Map" prepared by WLS and edited by DWR was also used
for this site viability assessment and is attached to this letter. On March 8, 2023, Ms. Merritt
performed a site assessment of the subject site. Staff with WLS were also present.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to I SA NCAC 02B .0295 and for
nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703 using I SA NCAC 02B .0295 to define the
mitigation type determinations. North C'arol111a D�partment of l·m 1ron111ental Qualtt) I DI\ ision of Water Hes ourc·es 512 North Salisbul) St reet I 1611 Mail Sm ice ( enter I Ralei gh North Carolina 27 69Q-1611 919 707 90()() DocuSign Envelope ID: 445ACE81-B3B0-4327-9B65-22142C79D570
Feature Classification Subject onsite !Q Buffer
Rule 1
DI Ephemeral No
D2 Ditch <3' No
SI00 Stream Yes
(starts at
confluence
w/DI &
D2)
S200 Stream No
D3 Ditch >3' No
Ends at
S300 origin
S300 Stream Yes
(see map)
D4 Ditch >3' No
Ril!arian Land uses Buffer
adjacent to Feature Credit
(0-200') Viable
Non-forested agricultural Yes6
fields
Non-forested agricultural *see note
fields
Mostly non-forested Yes 2
agricultural fields;
Forested at field edge to
W04 label
Combination of mature Yes2
forest with row crop
agriculture beyond the
wood line. A benn and
lateral ditches are present
that require removal (see
maps)
Existing utility line is
present
Non-forested agricultural No
fields
Combination of non-Yes2
forested agricultural fields
and forested areas
Combination of non-No
forested agricultural fields
and mature forest (see
map)
Page 2 of 4
Nutrient
Offset
Viable3
Yes
Yes
Yes (non-
forested ag
fields only)
Yes (non-
forested ag
fields only)
Yes
Yes (non-
forested ag
fields only)
Yes (non-
forested ag
fields only)
Swiftie Site EBX
June 26, 2023
Miti�ation T:rne Determination w/in
riparian areas 4•5•8
Non-forested fields -Restoration Site
per I SA NCAC 028 .0295 (o)(7)
Non-forested fields -Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 028 .0295 (0)(8)
*Buffer Mitigation Note -Assessment
concludes the ditch meets I SA NCAC
028 .0295 (0)(8) (A, B, C, D & E). More
infonnation is required to be provided in
a mitigation plan for complete
assessment. See rule.
Non-forested fields -Restoration Site
per ISA NCAC 028 .0295 (n)
Forested areas -Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
Non-forested fields -Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 028 .0295 (o)(3)
Forested areas -Preservation Site per
ISA NCAC 028 .0295 (o)(4)
Viable for generating only if berm is
graded down and ditches within riparian
areas are fi lied and planted. No credits
within existing utility line.
Non-forested fields -Restoration Site
per I SA NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Non-forested fields -Restoration Site
per I SA NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Forested areas -Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 028 .0295 (o)(5)
Non-forested fields -Restoration Site
per I SA NCAC 028 .0295 (n)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 445ACE81-B3B0-4327-9B65-22142C79D570
Feature Classification Subject Riparian Land uses onsite !Q adjacent to Feature
Buffer (0-200')
Rule 1
S400 Stream Yes Right Bank is forested;
Left Bank in non-forested
agricultural fields but is
not included in the project
Buffer Nutrient
Credit Offset
Viable Viable3
Yes2 No
Swiftie Site
EBX
June 26, 2023
Miti11ation T:rne Determination w/in
riparian areas 4•5•8
Preservation Site per I SA NCAC 02B
.0295 (o)(5)
1Subjectivity calls and stream origins for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated May 3, 2017 (DWR# 2016-
1271) and June 16, 2017 using the I :24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version
of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS. 2The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
3NC Division of Water Resources -Methodology and Calculations/or determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment 4 Determinations made for this Site are detennined based on the proposal provided in maps and figures submitted with the request.5 All features proposed for buffer mitigation or nutrient offset, must have a planted conservation easement established that includes the
tops of channel banks when being measured perpendicular and landward from the banks, even if no credit is viable within that riparian
area. 6The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per I SA NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7). 7The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and detennined to comply with all of I SA NCAC 02B .0295(0)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule. 8The confluence of a ditch to a stream is required to be secured with a conservation easement to preserve the hydrologic connectivity of
ditches to streams to be viable to generate buffer and/or nutrient offset credits
Determinations provided in the table above were made using a proposed easement boundary showing
proposed mitigation areas and features shown on Figure 9 and Figure 1. The maps representing the
proposal for the site are attached to this letter and initialed by Ms. Merritt on June 26, 2023.
Substantial changes to the proposed easement boundary as well as any site constraints identified in
this letter, could affect the Site's potential to generate buffer mitigation and nutrient offset credits.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this Site to generate buffer and nutrient offset credits.
Pursuant to I SA NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to
DWR for written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters for buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703, a proposal regarding a
proposed nutrient load-reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for
approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, perfotmance criteria and other mitigation requirements for ripa1ian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in I SA NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mjtigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to suppo11 estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with I SA NCAC 02B .0703.
Page 3 of 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 445ACE81-B3B0-4327-9B65-22142C79D570
Swiftie Site EBX
June 26, 2023
This viability assessment will expire on June 26, 2025 or upon approval of a mitigation plan by
the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in any nutrient offset, buffer,
stream or wetland mitigation plan for this Site.
Please contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Goss, Supervisor
40 I and Buffer Permitting Branch
Attachments: Figure I -Existing Aquatic Resources Map (edited by DWR); Figure 9-Proposed
Buffer Map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Page 4 of 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 445ACE81-B3B0-4327-9B65-22142C79D570
500 1,000 2,000
---c::::===:1-----•Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Existing Aquatic
Resources Map
Figure
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 445ACE81-B3B0-4327-9B65-22142C79D570
Riparian Restoration
Riparian Restoration
Riparian Restoration
Riparian Preservation
Riparian Preservation
0
Map Projection: NAO_ 1983_StatePlane_Nor1h_Carobna_FIPS_3200_Feet
500 1,000
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Proposed
Buffer Map
Date: 1/2512023
2,000
� Feet
N
Figure
9
DocuSign Envelope ID: 445ACE81-B3B0-4327-9B65-22142C79D570
Attachment B – Photo Log

Ditch 1 looking downstream at transition to S100.Ditch 2 looking downstream at confluence with S100.
Ditch 3 looking downstream at transition to S300.Ditch 4 looking downstream towards S400.