20211423 Ver 1_Great Meadow Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mit Plan - Draft 11.2023-reduced_20231113

NUTRIENT OFFSET & GREAT MEADOW MITIGATION BANK PARCEL
Nash County, NC
BUFFER MITIGATION DWR Project Number 2021-1423 v1
PLAN Tar Pamlico River Basin
HUC 03020101
November 2023
PREPARED BY:
WILI)J,ANDS
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Tar -Pamlico River Basin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Project Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Parcel Description......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
Mitigation Project Summary.............................................................................................................1
2.1
Project Goals.................................................................................................................................1
2.2
Existing Parcel Conditions.............................................................................................................2
2.3
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Mitigation ..............................................
3
2.4
Alternative Mitigation...................................................................................................................4
2.5
Watershed Characterization.........................................................................................................4
2.6
Soils...............................................................................................................................................
5
2.7
Existing Vegetative Communities.................................................................................................
5
2.8
Threatened and Endangered Species...........................................................................................
5
2.9
Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................ 7
2.10
FEMA Floodplain Compliance.......................................................................................................
7
2.11
Parcel Location, Parcel Constraints, and Access...........................................................................8
2.12
Other Environmental Conditions..................................................................................................
8
3.0
Site Protection Instrument................................................................................................................8
4.0
Mitigation Work Plan........................................................................................................................8
4.1
Parcel Preparation........................................................................................................................ 8
4.2
Riparian Area Restoration Activities.............................................................................................
9
4.3
Riparian Area Enhancement Activities........................................................................................
10
4.4
Riparian Area Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion Activities.......................................................10
4.5
Riparian Area Preservation Activities..........................................................................................
10
4.6
NCDWR As -Built Evaluation........................................................................................................10
5.0
Monitoring and Maintenance Plan.................................................................................................11
5.1
Monitoring Protocol....................................................................................................................
11
5.2
Parcel Maintenance....................................................................................................................
11
5.3
Easement Boundaries.................................................................................................................
12
6.0
Financial Assurance and Long -Term Management.........................................................................
12
6.1
Financial Assurances...................................................................................................................
12
6.2
Long-term Management.............................................................................................................12
7.0
Potential Credit Generation............................................................................................................
12
8.0
References......................................................................................................................................16
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page i November 2023

TABLES
Table 1 Ecological and Water Quality Goals
Table 2 Buffer Project Attributes
Table 3 Project Features
Table 4 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Table 5 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 6 Existing Vegetation
Table 7 Site Protection Instrument
Table 8 Selected Tree Species
Table 9 Selected Wetland Tree Species
Table 10 Great Meadow Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank — Project Credit Table
Table 11 Great Meadow Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank —Total Area of Nutrient Offset
and Buffer Mitigation
FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Credit Service Area Map
Figure 3
Site Map
Figure 4
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 5
Watershed Map
Figure 6
1989 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 7
Buffer Credits Map
Figure 8
Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Figure 9
Monitoring Components Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Current Land Use Photographs — November 17, 2022, and August 4, 2023
Appendix B Historical Aerials
Appendix C On Site Determination of Applicability to Tar -Pamlico Buffer Rules — December 6, 2021
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Letter — May 12, 2022
Appendix D USFWS Correspondence
Phase I Archaeological Investigation report
EDR Radius Map Report, Executive Summary
Appendix E Great Meadow Mitigation Site Planting Plans
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page ii November 2023

Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Tar -Pamlico River Basin
Wildlands Holdings VIII
1.0 Project Introduction
The Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel (Parcel) is proposed under the terms and conditions of the
Great Meadow Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), to be made and entered into by Wildlands
Holdings VIII, LLC acting as Bank Sponsor (Sponsor) and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The Parcel shall be planned and
designed according to the MBI, 15A NCAC 02B .0703, and the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295. The Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan (Buffer Plan) has also been designed in
concurrence with the Wildlands Tar Pamlico 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Great Meadow Mitigation
Site (SAW-2021-01714, NCDWR ID 2021-1423 v1.)
The project is in Nash County approximately six miles northwest of Red Oak, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Directions are included on Figure 1. The Parcel creates a protected riparian area from top of bank and
out, up to 200 feet, along Swift Creek, Gideon Swamp, and three unnamed tributaries (Fisher Branch,
Shard Branch, and Fox Branch). The primary purpose of the project is to provide riparian buffer
mitigation credits and nutrient offset credits to compensate for unavoidable impacts in the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin 03020101 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) (Figure 2). The Parcel is located within the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin HUC 03020101130070 and NCDWR Subbasin 03-03-02 in Nash County.
1.1 Parcel Description
All project streams flow to Swift Creek, which is classified as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW),
Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW), and Class C water. Swift Creek flows into the Tar River approximately
30 river miles downstream of the Site.
This nutrient offset and buffer mitigation project will reduce sediment and nutrient loading, provide and
improve terrestrial and instream habitats, and improve stream and bank stability. The Parcel is located
on an active cattle farm and is currently occupied by areas of pasture grass and existing forest. See
Appendix A for August 2023 land use photographs. Restoring and enhancing the riparian area up to 200
feet from project streams will reduce nutrient and sediment inputs in Gideon Swamp and tributaries to
Swift Creek, and subsequently to the Tar River. The restored floodplain areas will filter sediment during
high rainfall events and provide cover and food for wildlife throughout the Parcel. Fencing out cattle will
protect the riparian areas from their impact and aid in the development of a functioning multi stratum
forest. Preventing cattle access to streams will also further reduce sediment and nutrient inputs by
improving stream bank stability.
2.0 Mitigation Project Summary
2.1 Project Goals
The major goals of the proposed nutrient offset and buffer mitigation project are to provide ecological
and water quality enhancements to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin by restoring, enhancing, and preserving,
the riparian area to create a functional riparian corridor. Specific enhancements to water quality and
ecological processes are outlined below in Table 1.
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03020101 Page 1 November 2023

Table 1: Ecological and Water Quality Goals
Goals
Objectives
Nutrient input will be decreased by filtering runoff from surrounding
Decrease nutrient levels.
agricultural fields through restored native vegetation. The off -site nutrient
input will also be absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored
floodplain areas, where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation.
Decrease sediment input.
Sediment from off -site sources will be captured by deposition on restored
floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
Decrease water
temperature and increase
Planted riparian trees will shade the project features as they mature, reducing
dissolved oxygen
thermal pollution.
concentrations.
Fecal coliform input will be reduced by preventing livestock waste deposition
Reduce fecal coliform
in project riparian areas and streams through the installation of fencing
around the conservation easement. Furthermore, livestock waste from
inputs.
surrounding agricultural fields will be filtered through restored and enhanced
floodplain areas.
Create appropriate
Riparian areas will be restored by treating invasive vegetation and planting
terrestrial habitat.
native vegetation.
Permanently protect the
project Parcel from
A conservation easement will be recorded on the Parcel.
harmful uses.
2.2 Existing Parcel Conditions
The proposed buffer mitigation and nutrient offset project includes approximately 42.5 acres of
livestock pasture and forest along Swift Creek, Gideon Swamp, and three unnamed tributaries to Swift
Creek. Livestock have access to most of the Parcel; exceptions include forested areas at the top of Fisher
Branch Reach 1 near the Parcel easement boundary, and an area of Fox Branch prior to its confluence
with Swift Creek. The Parcel easement boundary will extend from top of bank to at least 20 feet along
nearly all project streams and out to 200 feet where possible (Figure 3).
In general, project streams have a narrow, forested riparian corridor that varies in width and is then
surrounded by pasture grass. In most locations, Swift Creek has a limited wooded riparian area on the
left floodplain. Typically, the Swift Creek forested area width ranges between 5 and 30 feet. Gideon
Swamp's riparian condition varies, with some wooded riparian areas at least 50 feet wide and others as
narrow as 20 feet. Fisher Branch and Shard Branch have variable wooded riparian width on both sides,
ranging from a single row of trees, up to 100 feet wide. Parts of Fisher Branch lack any amount of forest
along the left floodplain. Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) dominates the mid -story along the middle
portion of Fisher Branch. The upstream portion of Shard Branch has little to no wooded riparian area on
the right floodplain. Below the lower Shard Branch crossing, near the confluence with Swift Creek, there
is a wooded riparian area at least 50 feet wide; however, Chinese privet dominates this portion of the
floodplain. Fox Branch's forested riparian width ranges between 20 feet to over 100 feet.
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03020101 Page 2 November 2023

In general, this part of Nash County has maintained its rural, farming character over the last 60 years
with only minor changes in land cover (see historical aerials in Appendix B). The consistency in land use
within the project watershed indicates that processes affecting hydrology, sediment supply, and
nutrient and pollutant delivery have not varied widely over this period. With a lack of developmental
pressure, watershed processes and stressors from outside the project limits are likely to remain
consistent throughout the implementation, monitoring, and closeout of this project.
Table 2: Buffer Project Attributes
Project Name
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Hydrologic Unit Code
03020101130070
River Basin
Tar -Pamlico
Credit Service Area
Tar -Pamlico
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
36.131215° N, 77.953729° W
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
To be recorded
Total Credits
389,424.178 ftz riparian buffer, 40,557.944 lbs. N offset
and 2,612.245 lbs. P offset
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer Credits and Nutrient Offset Credits
Buffer Plan Date
November 2023
Initial Planting Date
January 2025
Baseline Report Date
May 2025
MY1 Report Date
December 2025
MY2 Report Date
December 2026
MY3 Report Date
December 2027
MY4 Report Date
December 2028
MYS Report Date
December 2029
2.3 Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
On December 3, 2021, NCDWR assessed the project streams and issued the official Stream
Determination Letter on December 6, 2021. NCDWR also performed an onsite visit of the project area to
determine viability for buffer mitigation and nutrient offset on March 16, 2022 and issued a site viability
letter on May 12, 2022. Five features were assessed by NCDWR during the March 16th site visit and all
five were deemed viable for riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset credits. There have been no
changes to land use in the project area since NCDWR's 2022 site visits. A copy of both the "On -Site
Determination for Applicability to Tar -Pamlico Buffer Rules" and the "Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation
& Nutrient Offset" letters from NCDWR are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Project Features
Feature Name
Classification
Buffer Credit Viable
Nutrient Offset Viable
Gideon Swamp
Stream
Yes
Yes
(non -forested fields only)
Yes
Fisher Branch
Stream
Yes
(non -forested fields & areas
where privet is removed)
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
H U C 03020101
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Page 3 November 2023

Feature Name
Classification
Buffer Credit Viable
Nutrient Offset Viable
Yes
Shard Branch
Stream
Yes
(non -forested fields & areas
where privet is removed)
Yes
Fox Branch
Stream
Yes
(non -forested pasture and
partially forested pasture areas)
Yes
Swift Creek
Stream
Yes
(non -forested fields only)
2.4 Alternative Mitigation
In addition to riparian restoration and enhancement on subject streams, per the Consolidated Buffer
Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)), alternative mitigation is proposed on the Parcel in the form
of cattle exclusion enhancement of grazing areas adjacent to streams and riparian preservation on
subject streams. The proposed project complies in the following ways:
Cattle exclusion enhancement of grazing areas adjacent to streams (15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6):
• Grazing has been the predominant land use since the effective date of the applicable buffer rule
(See Appendix B for historical aerials).
• Mitigation work will include the permanent exclusion of grazing livestock and credit will be at a
2:1 ratio (See Tables 10 and 11 for credit calculations and Figure 7 for proposed fencing).
Riparian Preservation on subject streams (15A NCAC 02B. 0295 (o)(4) & (o)(5)):
• Both subject and non -subject streams were confirmed as intermittent or perennial streams by
Division staff certified per G.S. 143-214.25A using the Division publication, "Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (v.4.11, 2010)" (See
Appendix C for the On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Jordan Lake Buffer Rules
letter).
• The area of preservation credit will not comprise more than 25% of the total area of buffer
mitigation (See Tables 10 and 11 for credit calculations).
2.5 Watershed Characterization
The Parcel is located within the HUC 03020101130070. All project features flow to Swift Creek, which is
a tributary to the Tar River. The Tar River drains to the Pamlico River, which then drains into the Pamlico
Sound. which is classified as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW),
and Class C water.
Topography, as indicated on the Essex, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, shows rolling
topography and gentle valley slopes throughout the Parcel (Figure 4). Fischer Branch, Gideon Swamp,
Shard Branch, and Fox Branch are depicted as streams on the USGS Topographic Map. Drainage areas
for the project reaches were delineated using 2-foot contour intervals derived from the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program's 2007 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. Land uses draining to the
project reaches are primarily a mix of forested and agricultural lands. The watershed areas and current
land use around project streams are depicted in Figure 5, the current land use photographs in Appendix
A, and are summarized in Table 4 below.
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page 4 November 2023

Table 4: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach Name
Watershed Area
(acres)
Land Use
Gideon Swamp
2,937
71% forest, 24% pasture, 4% developed, 1% open water
Fisher Branch
326
56% forest, 40% pasture
Shard Branch
90
55% pasture, 44% forested
Fox Branch
220
87% forested, 12% pasture
2.6 Soils
The proposed Parcel is mapped by the Nash County Soil Survey. The project area soils are described
below in Table 5. All of the project features are depicted as streams on the 1989 NRCS Soil Survey
provided in Figure 6.
Table 5: Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
Wehadkee Loam
Deep loamy, poorly drained soil located in depressions and floodplains. It frequently
floods and ponds. Located on the majority of site floodplains.
Georgeville Loam
Deep loamy, well -drained soil that ranges in location from interfluves to hillslopes
and ridges depending on landform slope. Located on site hillsides.
Wickham Fine Sandy
Deep sandy loam, well -drained soil located on stream terraces. Located on the Swift
Loam
Creek and Fox Branch floodplains.
Goldsboro Fine Sandy
Deep sandy loam, well -drained soil located on level and gently sloping uplands.
Loam
Located on the Shard Branch floodplain.
Source: Soil Survey of Nash, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS
Web Soil Survey https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/AppIWebSoilSurvey.aspx
2.7 Existing Vegetative Communities
Existing vegetation within the Parcel is primarily comprised of pasture grass and existing forest. Existing
vegetation species across the project area are listed in Table 6. This is not an exhaustive list but gives ar
indication of types of species growing in the area.
Table 6: Existing Vegetation
Species
Common Name
Species
Common Name
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Aralia spinosa
Devil's Walking Stick
Quercus alba
White Oak
Betula nigra
River Birch
Oxydendrum arboretum
Sourwood
Carya glabra
Pignut Hickory
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Celtis occidentalis
Hackberry
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Magnolia virginiana
Sweetbay Magnolia
Ilex opaca
American Holly
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese Privet
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweetgum
2.8 Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlands searched the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data explorer for federally listed threatened and
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page 5 November 2023

endangered (T&E) plant and animal species within the project action area. During site evaluation, there
were seven species listed as federally protected within the Parcel: Neuse River waterdog (Necturus
lewisi), Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), yellow lance (Elliptio
lanceolata), and Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii). After the initial site assessment, the tricolored bat
(Perimyotis subflavus) (TCB) was proposed endangered in September 2022. Wildlands has completed
Section 7 consultation for the seven species officially listed and will continue to monitor the listing
status for TCB. Wildlands will re -initiate consultation with USFWS, as appropriate, in order to ensure ESA
compliance. An updated IPaC species list is included with the original correspondence in Appendix D.
USFWS responded to the Draft Prospectus for the associated stream mitigation project and requested
an aquatic species survey be conducted for the listed species due to the potential for suitable habitat on
site. Wildlands contracted with SEPI, Inc. to conduct the aquatic species survey. In January and June
2022, SEPI conducted a site assessment for suitable habitat. They determined that only Gideon Swamp
and the lower reach of Fox Branch provided suitable habitat for the listed species and recommended
aquatic surveys be conducted on these reaches. Results from the aquatic survey included one Neuse
River waterdog on Gideon Swamp above the existing crossing and beaver dam. No other listed species
were observed on Gideon Swamp or Fox Branch.
Wildlands submitted the SEPI Aquatic Survey Report with the above -mentioned findings and asked for
guidance from USFWS and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in a letter dated August 3,
2022. USFWS recommended USACE request formal consultation for authorization of work and
requested more information about the proposed work in Gideon Swamp via email on August 16, 2022. A
meeting between USFWS, USACE, and Wildlands to discuss next steps was held over the phone on
September 2, 2022. During the meeting, the group decided to present four possible approaches to
provide mitigation and protection of Gideon Swamp to the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(IRT). Wildlands supplied the list of options to USACE and noted which was preferred by USFWS. USACE
then presented these options to the IRT.
The option for work around Gideon Swamp that was preferred by USFWS, was approved by the IRT. This
option included removing the proposed crossing on Gideon Swamp from the project design, acquiring
additional land (2.8 ac) around the stream to widen the riparian buffer, and fencing to exclude cattle.
Additionally, trees will be planted where needed, invasive plant species will be treated, any beavers will
be trapped, and dams removed. Beaver management will continue throughout the monitoring period.
There will be no other in -stream work on Gideon Swamp.
Based on this plan of work, Wildlands requested USFWS concurrence with species determinations of
May affect, not likely to adversely affect for all aquatic species and No effect for Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii). In February 2023, USFWS concurred with these species' determinations with the following
commitments by Wildlands.
• Conduct work in Fisher Branch, Shard Branch, and Fox Branch in the dry, as much as possible.
• Avoid aerial drift of herbicides or pesticides by utilizing only target application, such as spot -
spraying, hack -and -squirt, basal bark injections, cut stump, or foliar spray on individual plants.
• Utilize a double row of silt fence, to ensure that erosion is captured effectively.
• Silt fence and other erosion control devises should not include outlets that discharge closer
than 50 feet to the top of Swift Creek.
• Silt fence outlets for each row of silt fence should be offset to provide additional retention of
water and sediment in the outer row.
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page 6 November 2023

• Conduct twice -weekly inspections of all erosion and sedimentation controls. In addition to
twice -weekly inspections, inspect also within 24-hours of rain events (including a 1-inch total
rain event or an event where rainfall rates are 0.3 inch/hour or greater). Inspect all of the
erosion and sedimentation controls to ensure the integrity of the devices.
• Maintain all controls as necessary to ensure proper installation and function. Repair and replace
sections of controls as needed to minimize the potential for failure.
• Revegetate with native species as soon as possible.
• Any spills of motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, or similar fluids into the riparian wetlands or
floodplain must be reported to the Corps and Service immediately.
• Educate the construction crew about the presence of sensitive species by providing information
or installing signs on the silt fence.
Along with USFWS concurrence on determinations for the listed species, it was noted that the TCB is
proposed endangered and will likely be listed before project construction. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has record of an identified tricolored bat within three miles of the site.
On July 20, 2023, a second pedestrian survey was conducted for the proposed endangered TCB and
possible habitat. Results indicate the project area provides suitable summer habitat in the form of roost
trees and one existing 42' culvert within the proposed conservation easement that will be replaced. No
roosts were observed. As stated above, once TCB is officially listed, Wildlands will re -initiate consultation
for TCB.
2.9 Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) responded to the public notice letter on January 12, 2022.
SHPO requested an archaeological study on the site as a result of a previously recorded archaeological
site (31NS21) within the project area to determine its eligibility for the National Register. Wildlands
contracted Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc (ACC) to conduct the survey. In addition to
the previously recorded site, ACC identified one new archaeological site (31NS218). Upon review of
ACC's initial report, SHPO requested shovel testing be conducted at a closer interval near the previously
recorded site (31NS21). Results from both of these assessments concluded that "no significant
archaeological resources will be impacted" by the proposed project. SHPO has concurred with ACC's
findings that the two sites "do not have potential to contain information pertinent to prehistoric or
historic research questions" and has accepted the archaeological report dated July 26, 2022 as the final
compliance report.
The Phase I Archaeological Investigation Report is included in Appendix D.
2.10 FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Swift Creek and Gideon Swamp are within flood hazard zone AE on Nash County FIRM panel 3806. Fisher
Branch Reaches 2 and 3 and Fox Branch Reach 2 are located within the mapped Zone AE boundary and
flood fringe of Swift Creek. No grading in the floodplain or channels will occur on Gideon Branch and
Swift Creek. The restoration of Fisher Branch Reach 3 will not affect flooding in Swift Creek. Wildlands
will coordinate with Nash County on any local permitting requirements. We do not expect any modeling
or a flood study to be required. All other reaches within the project limits are located in Zone X.
Wildlands will coordinate with the local floodplain administrator to make sure that all regulatory
requirements are met. The Parcel will be designed to avoid adverse floodplain impacts or hydrologic
trespass on adjacent properties or local roadways.
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
H U C 03020101
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Page 7 November 2023

2.11 Parcel Location, Parcel Constraints, and Access
The Parcel is split into four easement areas, which are all accessible from Cooper Road (Figure 7). Four
internal easement breaks are proposed within the Parcel to maintain landowner access to adjoining
tracts. These four breaks include a culvert crossing on Fisher Branch, 2 culvert crossings on Shard
Branch, and a ford crossing on Fox Branch. The four internal crossings will have gates and cattle will be
permitted to cross only in these areas, per the conservation easement language.
2.12 Other Environmental Conditions
An EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered for the Parcel through Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. on August 2, 2021. Neither the target property nor the adjacent properties were listed in
any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental databases searched by EDR. There were no known or
potentially hazardous waste sites identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area. The
Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in Appendix D.
3.0 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for planting, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 7. The Parcel will remain in private ownership, protected in its
entirety by an approved NCDWR long term steward, and will be managed under the terms detailed in an
approved NCDWR conservation easement.
Table7: Site Protection Instrument
Deed Book
Acreage
Site Protection
Landowner
PIN
County
and Page
to be
Instrument
Number
Protected
380600870855U
Conservation
ToBe
Linda E. Fisher
380600991245U
Nash
42.5
Easement
Recorded
rded
380600869333U
4.0 Mitigation Work Plan
The project will restore and enhance agriculturally impacted land along Swift Creek and 4 tributaries on
the Parcel to a protected riparian corridor, improving the ecological function of the area. Figure 7
illustrates the nutrient offset credit areas and riparian buffer credit areas and conceptual design; Figure
8 depicts the riparian zones and designated widths for the Parcel.
4.1 Parcel Preparation
In general, riparian areas will either be restored, enhanced by installing fencing to exclude cattle,
enhanced through a lower density planting, or preserved with minimum widths of 20 feet from tops of
banks and maximum widths of 200 feet from tops of banks. Much of the land within 200 feet from top
of bank of the project features has either been cleared and maintained for active cattle pastures or has
remained forested. Areas slated for riparian restoration that are not impacted by the construction of the
stream mitigation project will require little site preparation including select herbicide treatments or
limited mechanical clearing to removed undesirable underbrush, invasive species, and fescue (Festuca
spp.). Other areas of the easement will be graded in accordance with the IRT approved stream
mitigation plan. Any haul roads or other areas of compacted soil including areas compacted by cattle
within the easement boundary will be ripped prior to planting. The specifics of the stream restoration
project are in the Great Meadow Stream Mitigation Plan. Section 6.6 of the Great Meadow Stream
Mitigation Plan contains information on grading. A 404 permit and 401 water quality certification will be
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page 8 November 2023

required for all stream restoration work and will be obtained before any work in the waters begins. All
activities associated with generating riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits will occur at the same
time as the stream mitigation activities and not before.
4.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
Riparian area restoration will involve planting appropriate native tree and shrub species along the
riparian corridor. Vegetation management and herbicide applications may be needed over the first few
years of tree establishment in the riparian restoration areas to prevent encroachment of undesirable
species that may out -compete the planted native vegetation. Tree and shrub species planted across the
riparian areas of the Parcel will include a mixture of the species listed in the Great Meadow Mitigation
Site Planting Tables, located in Appendix E. The primary species will include those listed in Table 8.
Table 8: Selected Tree Species
Species
Common Name
Composition
Forest Strata
Tree/Shrub
Acer negundo
Boxelder
5%
Subcanopy
Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
10%
Canopy
Tree
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut Hickory
5%
Canopy
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
8%
Canopy
Tree
Magnolia virginiana
Sweetbay Magnolia
8%
Subcanopy
Tree
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
8%
Canopy
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
11%
Canopy
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
8%
Canopy
Tree
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
9%
Canopy
Tree
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
8%
Canopy
Tree
Ulmus americana
American Elm
10%
Canopy
Tree
Morella cerifera
Waxmyrtle
5%
Shrub
Shrub
Viburnum dentatum
Southern Arrowwood
5%
Shrub
Shrub
Table 9: Selected Wetland Tree Species
Wetland Planting Zone
Species
Common Name
Composition
Forest Strata
Tree/Shrub
Betula nigra
River Birch
12%
Canopy
Tree
Magnolia virginiana
Sweetbay Magnolia
10%
Subcanopy
Tree
Nyssa biflora
Swamp Tupelo
10%
Canopy
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
10%
Canopy
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
12%
Canopy
Tree
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
10%
Canopy
Tree
Quercus bicolor
Swamp White Oak
8%
Subcanopy
Tree
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
8%
Canopy
Tree
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
H U C 03020101
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Page 9 November 2023

Wetland Planting Zone
Species
Common Name
Composition
Forest Strata
Tree/Shrub
Salix nigra
Black Willow
10%
Canopy
Tree
Morella cerifera
Waxmyrtle
5%
Shrub
Shrub
Ilex verticillata
Common Winterberry
5%
Shrub
Shrub
Trees and shrubs will be spaced at 6 feet by 12 feet during planting, which is equivalent to a stem
density of 521 stems per acre and is sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in the Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees and shrubs per acre at the end of five years. At least 8 species listed in
Table 8 will be planted. If a species is not available at the time of planting, the percentage composition
of one or more of the available species will be increased to ensure the same number of trees required to
meet the proposed density are planted. No one species will be planted at a composition higher than
15%. Stems will be well mixed prior to planting to ensure diversity of bare root species across the Parcel.
Due to the nature of random mixing, some stems of the same species might be planted together in
some areas. No one tree or shrub species will be greater than 50% of the established stems. The final
performance standard shall include a minimum of four native hardwood tree and native shrub species. A
regionally appropriate seed mix of warm season grasses and wildflowers will also be applied to provide
temporary and permanent ground cover for soil stabilization and reduction of sediment loss during rain
events in areas without existing herbaceous cover. The proposed planting area includes the areas
identified as Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credits and Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credits
on Figure 7. Planting is scheduled for January 2025.
4.3 Riparian Area Enhancement Activities
The revegetation plan for the buffer enhancement areas under 15A NCAC 02B .0295(n) will include
planting supplemental bare root trees listed in Table 8 and controlling invasive species growth. The
proposed supplemental planting area includes the area identified as Riparian Enhancement on Figure 7.
4.4 Riparian Area Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion Activities
For enhancement areas under NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6), cattle exclusion, planting isn't anticipated to be
needed except where required in the stream mitigation plan. Fencing will be installed throughout the
entirety of the easement to discontinue cattle access. A seed mix as identified in Appendix E will be
applied where livestock have created bare soils and sufficient sunlight is available to support the species
in the seed mix.
4.5 Riparian Area Preservation Activities
There will be no parcel preparation work done in the riparian preservation areas under 15NCAC 02B
.0295(o)(4) except as required in the stream mitigation plan. The area of preservation credit within the
buffer mitigation site is less than 25% of the total area of buffer mitigation, as shown in Table 10. The
preservation area will be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement
4.6 NCDWR As -Built Evaluation
Within 30 calendar days after completing the establishment of the buffer mitigation and nutrient offset
areas, the Sponsor will submit written notification to NCDWR documenting that all buffer mitigation and
nutrient offset activities have been completed, including the installation of fencing and adequate
marking of easement boundaries. In addition, all stream mitigation activities at the Great Meadow
Mitigation Site must be completed prior to the NCDWR as -built evaluation. Failure to submit written
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page 10 November 2023

notification within 30 days may result in a modified credit release schedule or a delay in the issuance of
credit releases.
5.0 Monitoring and Maintenance Plan
5.1 Monitoring Protocol
Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the riparian restoration areas to
measure the survival of the planted trees and shrubs. The plots will be randomly placed throughout the
planted riparian areas and will be representative of areas generating riparian buffer credits and nutrient
offset credits. A total of 15 fixed plots will be established within restoration areas and will be randomly
placed such that the plots are representative of the buffer mitigation credit areas (Figure 9). The size of
individual quadrants will be 100 square meters. Twelve of the 15 vegetation plots will be shared with
the stream mitigation bank.
Vegetation assessments will be conducted and follow the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2
Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al., 2008). A reference photo will be taken from the
southwestern corner of each of the 15 plots. Overview photos will be taken each monitoring year and
provided in the annual reports. All planted stems will be marked with flagging tape and recorded.
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. Species composition,
height, vigor, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot. The total number of
volunteer woody stems will also be documented and reported. The measure of vegetative success for
the Parcel will be the survival of at least four native hardwood tree and shrub species, where no one
species is greater than 50% of the established planted stems, and an established density of at least 260
planted trees and shrubs per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. Appropriate and desirable
native volunteer species may be included in the Parcel's density to meet the performance standards
with written NCDWR approval.
A visual assessment of the cattle exclusion areas within the conservation easement will also be
performed each year to confirm:
• Existing fencing is in good condition throughout the site;
• No cattle access within the conservation easement area;
• No encroachment has occurred;
• Diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement area; and
• There has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would
negatively affect the functioning of the buffer.
The Sponsor shall submit the annual monitoring report to NCDWR by December 315t of each year for five
consecutive years and will follow the terms and conditions of the MBI.
5.2 Parcel Maintenance
If the Parcel or a specific component of the Parcel fails to achieve the success criteria outlined in Section
5.1, adaptive measures will be developed and/or appropriate remedial actions will be implemented.
Maintenance will be performed to correct any identified problems on the Parcel that have a high
likelihood of affecting project success. Such items include, but are not limited to, fire, flooding, drought,
or insects that cause excess tree mortality. Any actions implemented will be designed to achieve the
success criteria and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria. A rigorous herbicide
schedule may need to be implemented in the first few years of tree establishment in the restoration
areas to prevent establishment of invasive species that may out -compete the planted native vegetation.
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03020101 Page 11 November 2023

The only herbicides used on the Parcel will be aquatic approved herbicides that will be applied in
accordance with North Carolina Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
The easement boundary will be checked annually as part of monitoring activities. The condition of
fencing will be assessed to ensure livestock do not have access to the easement. Easement boundary
conditions as well as any maintenance performed will be reported in the annual monitoring reports to
NCDWR.
5.3 Easement Boundaries
Easement boundaries will be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Parcel and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by marker, post, tree -blazing, or other means as
allowed by Parcel conditions and/or conservation easement prior to the NCDWR onsite As -Built
evaluation for Task 2 credit release. Boundary markers that have been disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis. Contact information for the
conservation easement holder will be included on easement markers.
6.0 Financial Assurance and Long -Term Management
6.1 Financial Assurances
Following approval of the Great Meadow Buffer Plan, the Sponsor shall provide a Performance Bond
from a surety that is rated no less than an "A-" as rated by A.M. Best. The Performance Bond amount
shall be 100% of the estimated cost for implementation of the project as described in the Buffer Plan,
but not less than $150,000.00. In lieu of posting the performance bond, the Sponsor may elect to
construct the project prior to the first credit release. In that case no performance bond will be
necessary.
After completion of the restoration/construction, a separate Performance/Maintenance Bond will be
secured for 100% of the estimated cost to implement the monitoring and maintenance plan but not less
than $100,000.00. The Performance/Maintenance Bond shall apply at the inception of the monitoring
period for a term of one year and be extended annually for a minimum of five years. Upon NCDWR
approval, this may be lowered each year based on the adjusted cost to complete the monitoring.
Performance bonds for monitoring shall be renewed at least annually to cover the next years 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.
6.2 Long-term Management
The Parcel will remain in private ownership, protected in its entirety by an approved NCDWR long term
stewardship, and will be managed under the terms detailed in an approved NCDWR conservation
easement. The long-term manager will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Parcel to ensure
that the restrictions documented in the recorded easement are upheld in perpetuity. No remaining
credits will be released for Monitoring Year 4 until the conservation easement has been assigned to an
approved land trust or stewardship.
7.0 Potential Credit Generation
Of the 42.5 acres protected under the conservation easement, the mitigation approach for 17.9 acres is
riparian restoration. Of the 17.9 acres of restoration, <0.1 acres are proposed for riparian buffer credit
and 17.9 acres are proposed for nutrient offset credit. Riparian buffer credits are also being generated
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page 12 November 2023

from enhancement, enhancement via cattle exclusion, and preservation, which total 0.1 acres, 17.7
acres, and 1.8 acres, respectively. Preservation credit within the buffer mitigation site is less than 25% of
the total area of buffer mitigation, as shown in table 10. Areas within the conservation easement where
credit is not claimed include internal crossings and areas where the riparian width is less than 20 feet or
exceeds 200 feet from tops of banks. All credit areas will be finalized in an As -Built Survey and will be
submitted in the As -Built report.
The credit calculations were derived based on Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum ecological
uplift. The management objectives, mitigation type, and proposed amount of buffer mitigation are
presented in Tables 10 and 11 below. The buffer mitigation credits will be derived from riparian areas
adjacent to mitigated streams. Credits will be determined based on existing riparian conditions on the
Parcel. The riparian restoration areas are viable for either riparian buffer credits or nutrient offset
credits, but not both. On this parcel, Wildlands is seeking riparian buffer credit from riparian restoration
within locations where the riparian area goes out to a maximum of 50 feet from the top of bank, and
therefore do not qualify for nutrient offset credits. These credits will not be convertible to nutrient
offset credits. Wildlands is seeking nutrient offset credits in riparian restoration areas that are at least 50
feet from the top of bank and up to 200 feet from top of bank along mitigated streams. Areas within 0-
100 foot zone that are at least 50 feet wide will be convertible to riparian buffer credit, while areas from
101-200 feet will not be convertible to riparian buffer credits, per the MBI. The total credit potential of
nutrient offset credit convertible to riparian buffer credit is represented in Table 10 below and will be
documented in the As -Built Report and will be supported by the As -Built survey. There will be four credit
ledgers for the project: Buffer Restoration, Buffer Enhancement (Enhancement and Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion) with Buffer Preservation, Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Credits and Phosphorus Nutrient
Offset Credits.
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
H U C 03020101 Page 13 November 2023

Table 10: Great Meadow Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank — Project Credit Table
Tar -Pamlico 03020101
Project Area
N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft'/pound)
19.16394
297.54099
Total
Subject?
Min -Max
(Creditable)
Initial
Final
Delivered
Delivered
(enter NO
Convertible
Riparian
Convertible
Feature
Buffer
Total Area
Area of
Credit
Credit
Nutrient
Nutrient
Credit Type
Location
if
Type
Mitigation Activity
Width
Feature Name
(ft2)
Buffer
Ratio
%Full Credit
Ratio
to Riparian
Buffer
to Nutrient
Offset: N
Offset: P
ephemeral
(ft)
Mitigation
(x:1)
(x:1)
Buffer?
Credits
Offset?
(Ibs)
(Ibs)
or ditch 1)
(ft2)
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Enhancement via
20-29
Shard Branch
26
26
2
75%
2.66667
Yes
9.750
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Gideon Swamp,
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Enhancement via
0-100
Swift Creek, Shard
745,530
745,530
2
100%
2.00000
Yes
372,765.000
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Branch Fisher
Branch, Fox Branch
Gideon Swamp,
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Enhancement via
101-200
Swift Creek, Fisher
24,372
24,372
2
33%
6.06061
Yes
4,021.377
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Branch, Fox Branch
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Enhancement
0-100
Fox Branch
4,419
4,419
2
100%
2.00000
Yes
2,209.500
No
—
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
20-29
Shard Branch
287
287
1
75%
1.33333
Yes
215.251
No
—
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
0-50
Shard Branch
2,336
2,336
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
2,336.000
No
—
—
Gideon Swamp,
Nutrient
Rural
Yes
I / P
Restoration
0-100
Swift Creek, Shard
674,008
-
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
674,008.000
Yes
35,170.638
2,265.261
Offset
Branch, Fisher
Branch, Fox Branch
Nutrient
Rural
Yes
I P
/
Restoration
101-200
Swift Creek, Gideon
103,242
-
1
33%
3.03030
No
—
Yes
5,387.306
346.984
Offset
Swamp, Fox Branch
Totals (ft2):
1,554,219
1,554,219
1,055,564.878 40,557.944 2,612.245
7761970
776,970
Total Buffer (ft2):
777,250
N/A
Total Nutrient Offset (ft2):
Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit: 0 0
Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft2): 213,911 0.0% Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM
Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2): 258,990 7.6% Preservation as %TABM
Total
Credit Type
Location
Subject?
Feature
Mitigation Activity
Min -Max Buffer Width (ft)
Feature Name
Total
(Creditable)
Initial Credit
% Full
Final Credit
Riparian Buffer
Type
Area (sf)
Area for Buffer
Ratio (x:1)
Credit
Ratio (xJ)
Credits
Mitigation (ft2)
Fox Branch, Shard Branch,
Rural
Yes
I / P
0-100
78,673
78,673
10
100%
10.00000
7,867.300
Swift Creek
Preservation Area Subtotals
(ft2):78,673 78,673
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
H U C 03020101
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Page 14 November 2023

Table 11: Great Meadow Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank - Total Area of Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoration:
2,622
2,551.251
Enhancement:
774,347
379,005.627
Preservation:
78,673
7,867.300
Total Riparian Buffer:
855,643
389,424.178
TOTAL NUTRIENT
OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient
Offset:
Nitrogen:
777,250
40,557.944
Phosphorus:
2,612.245
Upon submittal of the appropriate documentation by the Sponsor and subsequent approval by NCDWR, the mitigation credits associated with the Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel will be released as described in the MBI.
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
H U C 03020101
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Page 15 November 2023

8.0 References
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 2015. 15A NCAC 02B .0259 Mitigation
Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers.
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0295.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 2020. 15 NCAC 02B .0703 Nutrient Offset
Credit Trading.
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0703.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2021. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Wayne County, NC. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009. Mineral Resources.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineraIresources.htmI
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
H U C 03020101
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Page 16 November 2023

•c
Directions: From the City of Raleigh, take 1-87/
US-64-E for ten miles. Continue on US 64-E for
another 28 miles and take exit 459 for NC-58
toward Nashville. Turn left onto NC Hwy 58-N
and travel for 0.5 miles before turning right on
Taylor's Store Road. Continue for 8.9 miles
before turning right on Wheeless Cabin Road.
After three miles, turn left on Cooper Road and
the site will be in half a mile on the left.
l,Vf: Rp
GrdeQh Swamp
4
�i
W tltllardston Rd
' --' Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
t
* Great Meadow Bank Parcel Location
1
1
1�
�s401
N
�
0" NO n
Glq
R j
l: 1
Quarter R�
qkQ� r-
m a _
4 -
kv,WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 0.5 1 Miles
I I I I
a
E ^ooke�
r
a
C]
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC

Sappony Sdtsa ! Kerr Lake Statl
j Recreation Arej
I / 1
� I 1
ro 96 I 1
j � 1
Vance 1
en erson 1
j Oxford I 1
Granville
I �•
I
soy j
j Butner /
Creedmoor %
jLouisburg
Franr.
Durham ��•
Durham `% '�•_462ft
° •.,..
% Wake t
I50
I '-
Zebu
Cad' 0 Raleigh Knightdale Wendell�•'10
0
Apex
�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
i
1
L.._' County Boundaries
HUC 03020101 - Service Area for
ass IS Riparian Buffer Credits and
! Nutrient Offset Credits
Warren I 1 Great Meadow Bank Parcel
/ ^ Location
Neck ..�•.
HaliwaAponi Halifax
58 , .sa
0
1. ! •. a_ Enfield
r:
U j
Red Oak /•
i
i
Nashville %
Pockv Mount
Figure 2. Credit Service Area Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
0 4 8 Miles Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03020101)
1 1 1 1 I Nash County, NC

h•
IL
Project Location
Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
_ Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
x — x Existing Fence
+
Utility Line
Non -Project Stream
Y•
JIM
Existing Culvert
Figure 3. Site Map
W I L D L A N D 5
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
E N G I N E E R I N G
0 300 600 Feet
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC

r �
--- Bank Parcel Conservation Easement '
1 �
XI
If
1 •"1 i � +
S' 1
i
i
J r �
l � 1
NFL
ee
j,17
♦ _ � C
, 1
1
1
VIM
Essex and Red Oak USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles
Figure 4. USGS Topographic Map
W I L D L A N D 5 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
E N G I N E E R I N G Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
0 300 600 Feet Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
I I I1INash County, NC

Figure 5. Watershed Map
W I L D L A N D S Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
F N G I N F F R I N G Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
0 1,800 3,600 Feet Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
1 1 1 I Nosh County, NC

I 1
E r Project Location
1 Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
1 a 1
joA
1
Gee '
r
GeC
C'.o A
10").2 1 i
�♦
♦ ► 1 ! �? t•
r t 00
,
,,r ♦ -of
1 1
GeC
AjA '
�J
r`r
W k A
1
GeC �►
N r a
1989 NRCS Soil Survey of Nash County - Sheets 2 and 4
Figure 6. 1989 NRCS Soil Survey Map
I W I L D L A N D S Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
E N G I N E E R I N G Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
0 300 600 Feet
Nosh County, NC

Figure 7. Buffer Credits Map
Oft,WILDLANDS Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
ENGINEERING 0 350 700 Feet Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
I I I 1 1 Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC

I
�\X
I
0 WTLDLANDS
ENGINEERING
9
0 350 700 Feet
I I I I I
Q Project Location
' Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
- Stream Mitigation
30' from Top of Bank
50' from Top of Bank
Q 100' from Top of Bank
200' from Top of Bank
Mitigation Approach
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (29'-30')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (0'-50')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion for Buffer Credits
® (29'-30')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion for Buffer Credits
(0'-100')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion for Buffer Credits
(101'-200')
Riparian Enhancement for Buffer Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credits (101'-200')
Not for Credit
Non -Project Streams
Figure 8. Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
P Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC

Figure 9. Monitoring Components Map
W I L D L A N D S Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 350 700 Feet Tar -Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC

Appendix A:
Current Land Use Photographs

CURRENT LAND USE PHOTOGRAPHS
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel

Fisher Branch
Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023)
Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023)
Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023) Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023)
Adjacent Forested Area (0810412023)
Adjacent Forested Area (0810412023)
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
HUC 03020101

Adjacent Forested Area (0810412023)
Shard Branch
Adjacent Forested Area (0810412023)
Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023) Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023)
Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023) I Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023)
` Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
'�► HUC 03020101

Fox Branch
Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023) Adjacent Pasture Area (0810412023) 1
Adjacent Forested Area (0810412023)
Adjacent Forested Area (0810412023)
Adjacent Forested Area (0810412023) 1
WGreat Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
HUC 03020101

Gideon Swamp
Adjacent Forested Area (1111712022)
Swift Creek
Adjacent Forested Area (1111712022)
Adjacent Forested Area (1111712022) 1 Adjacent Forested Area (1111712022)
` Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
'�► HUC 03020101

Appendix B:
Historical Aerials

; y1pw; 1 T7

I NOU I RY k 6434713.1
YEAR: 1994
750 (rEDR

INQUIRY k 6434713.1
YEAR: 2006
750, (rEDR

n1i

{ yr � i f J` liT 4 �` {• 'iRlj
of �` ,3+tA c r `•,� �d �� � �i'f�y�,
T �'��.�it, � . i,""''S. } .:�1 ?� {j7ei�i' �} +�. j�F P �. •' ,� ��4 8� i
+Pi
r f�� y,. Y• � r
'.Ltd' � '� r, � r�� ;r� f ���� ',� i•
i • � i • S� • h r ���� T
t
l�
INQUIRY #: 6434713.1 1 N
YEAR: 2012 jI Jr'
= 750'EDR

Y;
w o-

Appendix C:
On Site Determination of Applicability to Tar -Pamlico Buffer Rules
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Letter

DocuSign Envelope ID: B425EC8C-532D-4A54-BF7B-FAF86F98B1F0
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITE-[
Director
Linda Fisher
(via email to [e-mail])
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
December 6, 2021
DWR Project # 20211645
Nash County
Subject: On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Tar -Pamlico Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B
.0734)
Project Name: Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Address / Location: 11901 Cooper Road, Red Oak, NC 27856
Determination Date: December 3, 2021
Ms. Fisher,
Staff: Rick Trone
On December 3, 2021, Rick Trone of the Division of Water Resources conducted an on -site review of
features located on the subject property at the request of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to determine
the applicability to the Tar -Pamlico River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0734).
The enclosed map(s) depict the feature(s) evaluated. This information is also summarized in the
table below. Streams that are considered "Subject" have been located on the most recently
published NRCS Soil Survey of Nash County and/or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic
(at 1:24,000 scale) map(s), have been located on the ground at the site, and possess characteristics
that qualify them to be at least intermittent streams. Features that are considered "Not Subject"
have been determined to not be at least intermittent or not present on the property or not
depicted on the required maps.
This determination only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any
activity within buffers or within waters of the state. There may be other streams or features
located on the property that do not appear on the maps referenced above. Any of the features
on the site may be considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and
subject to the Clean Water Act.
The following table addresses the features rated during the DWR site visit:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1650 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1650
o. . . ..�i%r„�,nm­i�� 919,707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: B425EC8C-532D-4A54-BF7B-FAF86F98B1F0
Feature
Depicted
Depicted on
ID
Type'
Subject
Start @
Stop @
on
USGS Topo
Soil Survey
Gideon
P
X
Throughout Project Area
X
X
Swamp
Fisher
P
X
Throughout Project Area
X
X
Branch
Shard
I
X
Throughout Project Area
X
X
Branch
Fox
P
X
Throughout Project Area
X
X
Branch
Swift
P
X
Throughout Project Area
X
X
Creek
(1) E = Ephemeral, I = Intermittent, P = Perennial, NP = Not Present, NE=Not Evaluated, D = Ditch
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or
affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination by
the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of this
letter to the Director in writing.
If sending via U.S. Postal Service:
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Supervisor
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.)
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Supervisor
512 N Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding as detailed above unless an appeal is requested within sixty
(60) calendar days.
This letter only addresses the features on the subject property and within the proposed project
easement and does not approve any activity within buffers or within waters of the state. If you
have any additional questions or require additional information, please contact Rick Trone at (919)
707-3631 or [e-mail]. This determination is subject to review as provided in Articles
3 & 4 of G.S. 150B.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
Pe W1o0.—
949D918A53EF4E0...
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Enclosures: USGS Topographical Map, NRCS Soil Survey, Site Map
cc: Chris Roessler, Wildlands Engineering (via email to [e-mail])
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch files
�FQ:���
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
�7_�D 512 North Salisbury Street 1 1650 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
919,707.9000

i
a9 i Reach 11 y\ '
' A0
"_�` °�� $XS`?'�� '\ �\ �, Reach 1 t a •`+y � � � t
ReacIF
h
<a
\ Reach:4 {. Reach 2" j.—
Vk
\ y`�
4
ReachC
,- \ \ \,
N�� \ \\ ` Al
00
i
t
i
!,
� is W� ---•—�
t.,r. •' r Proposed Cons
L
{: Project Locatic
Parcels
Livestock Acce
. Existing Wetlai

DocuSign Envelope ID: B425EC8C-532D-4A54-BF7B-FAF86F98B1F0
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Nash County, NC-DWR Project # 20211645
Shard Branch -Subject throughout
project area
9
Gr� r--I'
Fisher Branch -Subject throughout
project area
Fox Branch -Subject throughout
project area
r
Gideon Swamp -Subject through-
out project area
Swift Creek -Subject throughout
project area
NRCS Soil Survey Sheet 2 5r,Ta
Nash Co NC 1989 Locations are approximate
and are provided for refer -
Legend:
ence only
-property boundary ,R,,V. I
4u,M

DocuSign Envelope ID: B425EC8C-532D-4A54-BF7B-FAF86F98B1F0
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Nash County, NC-DWR Project # 20211645
Fisher Branch -Subject throughout f Shard Branch -Subject throughout
project area r project area
M
k r
k i
Gideon Swamp -Subject through-
out project area
Fox Branch -Subject throughout
J g
project area
r
Swift Creek -Subject throughout
project area
Coopers
q&
USGS Topographical Map r�5rA?Z
Essex and Red Oak Quadrangles 2019 :: Locations are approximate
and are provided for refer -
Legend: ence only
{ y::
-property boundary Q

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
£nvironmentat Quality
May 12, 2022
Chris Roessler
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
(via electronic mail: Croesslernawildlandseng.com )
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Great Meadow Site
Near 36.128526,-77.956686 off Cooper Rd in Nashville, NC
Tar Pamlico 03020101
Nash County
Dear Mr. Roessler,
On March 16, 2022, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request
from you on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands) for a site visit near the above -
referenced site in the Tar Pamlico River Basin within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020101.
The site visit was to determine the potential for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset within a
proposed conservation easement boundary, which is more accurately depicted in the attached map
labeled "Figure 1" prepared by Wildlands. This site is also being proposed as a stream mitigation
site and therefore stream bank instability or presence of erosional rills within riparian areas were not
addressed. On April 11, 2022, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of the subject site. Staff with
Wildlands 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 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(effective November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703.
D � ��� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH MofErNA 919.707.9000
oeparimem of Fmironmentni wai�

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Great Meadow Site
Wildlands
May 12, 2022
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
'Nutrient
','Mitigation Type Determination w/in
to
riparian areas
onsite
adjacent to Feature
Credit
Offset Viable
At 2,273.02 -
Buffer
0( 200,)
Viable
Rule
N lbs/acre
Gideon
Stream
Yes
Non -forested agricultural
7Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
Swamp
fields and forested pasture.
forested fields
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
only)
Forested Pasture — Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Swift Creek
Stream
Yes
Mostly a combination of
2,7Yes
Yes (non-
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
forested and non -forested
forested fields
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
pasture. Downstream
only)
above confluence with Fox
Forested Pasture — Enhancement Site
Branch there is no cattle
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
access and riparian
conditions are mixed
Forested non -pasture areas —
between non -forested and
Preservation Site per 15A NCAC 02B
forested areas (see map)
.0295 (o)(5)
Fisher
Stream
Yes
Non -forested agricultural
2,7Yes
Yes (only
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
Branch
fields and forested pasture.
non -forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
fields & areas
Upstream of Reach 1 (see
where privet
Forested Pasture — Enhancement Site
map) = heavily dense privet
is removed)
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
stands make up entire
understory just above
Forested non -pasture areas —
Reach 1. Forested areas at
Preservation Site per 15A NCAC 02B
top of reach 1 near project
.0295 (o)(5)
boundary do not have cattle
access and historical cattle
Privet Stand - Restoration Site per 15A
access was limited (see
NCAC 02B .0295 (n) if removed, treated,
Map). An old farm road
planted with natives, and a commitment
was observed along the
for active management is provided during
right bank of Reach 1.
monitoring years.
A semi braided stream
system was observed
between Reach 1 and Reach
2
Shard
Stream
Yes
Non -forested agricultural
7Yes
Yes (only
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
Branch
fields and a combination of
non -forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
forested and partially
fields & areas
forested pasture.
where privet
Forested Pasture — Enhancement Site
is removed)
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Reach 2 (see map) _
partially forested pasture
Partially Forested Pasture -
with areas of dense privet
Enhancement Site per 15A NCAC 02B
in the understory
.0295 (n) requires supplemental planting
Privet Stand - Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (n) if removed, treated,
planted with natives, and a commitment
for active management is provided during
monitoring years.
Page 2 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Great Meadow Site
Wildlands
May 12, 2022
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
'Nutrient
",'Mitigation Type Determination w/in
onsite
to
riparian areas
adjacent to Feature
Credit
Offset Viable
At 2,273.02 -
Buffer
0( 2001
Viable
Rule
N lbs/acre
Fox Branch
Stream
Yes
Non -forested agricultural
2,7Yes
Yes (only
Non -forested fields - Restoration Site
fields and a combination of
non -forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
forested and partially
pasture and
forested pasture.
partially
Forested Pasture — Enhancement Site
forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Downstream & at
pasture areas)
confluence with Swift
Partially Forested Pasture -
Creek there is no cattle
Enhancement Site per 15A NCAC 02B
access and riparian
.0295 (n) requires supplemental planting
conditions are forested (see
map)
Forested non -pasture areas & timbered
areas — Preservation Site per 15A
Conservation easement
NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
boundary may not
adequately represent parcel
boundary, and portions of
the left side (beyond 50'
buffer) may include areas
that were timbered
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondences dated December 6, 2021 (DWR# 2021-1645) using the
1:24,000 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 for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment
4 Determinations made for this Site are determined 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 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
7The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule.
Determinations provided in the table above were made using a proposed easement boundary showing
proposed mitigation areas and features shown in Figure 1. The map representing the proposal for the
site is attached to this letter and initialed by Ms. Merritt on May 12, 2022. Substantial changes to the
proposed easement boundary or proposed stream mitigation 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 15A 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, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
Page 3 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Great Meadow Site
Wildlands
May 12, 2022
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation 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 support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0703.
This viability assessment will expire on May 12, 2024 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,
PW/kym
Attachments: Figure 1,
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DOCUSSignee�d/by: '
�LtW(i 10
949D91 BA53EF4E0...
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 4 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Privet Stand
Semi -braided
Stream System
4
N., VA
Proposed Conservation Easement
a�
Project Location j
;W/ Internal Crossings
aRiparian Restoration
pr Riparian Enhancement
Riparian Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion
Riparian Preservation
No Riparian Buffer or Nutrient Offset Credit
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Streams �
OO Reach Break
r k
a�
4 r
f '
Survey of existing fence
to be Preservation - Cattle
Exclusion or Restoration
boundary
FIN
Conservation
Easement - -
,�ir: TOB Swift Creek
y.
j
IMF-
70-
y
1"
Survey of existing fence
to be Preservation - Cattle
Exclusion boundary
Privet
Stand
it
y
Q
L � Goo
1tv,WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
FIGURE 1: Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Concept - No Wetlands
0 350 700 Feet Great Meadows Mitigation Site
Tar Pamlico River Basin (03020101)
Nash County, NC
Date: 511212022

Appendix D:
USFWS Correspondence
Phase I Archaeological Investigation Report
EDR Radius Map Report, Executive Summary

Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From: Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:23 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Browning, Kimberly D
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Chris Roessler; Ellis, John
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [EXTERNAL] Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI - Great Meadows Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus Review
Thanks for the opportunity to go onsite at this proposed mitigation site. The USFWS is excited about the opportunities
for enhancement, restoration, and preservation. We walked most of the site during our field meeting, and the USFWS
agrees that most of the tributary reaches will benefit from restoration or enhancement. Swift Creek will also greatly
benefit from the proposed restoration, enhancement, and protection of buffers. We have the following comments on
the project, most of which we discussed last week on site.
1. The project encompasses portions of four tributaries to Swift Creek in the Tar River basin. In the project area, Swift
Creek has known occurrences of the following federally listed species:
Neuse River Waterdog (aquatic salamander) - threatened
Carolina Madtom (fish) - endangered
Yellow Lance (mussel) - threatened
Tar River Spinymussel - endangered
Atlantic Pigtoe (mussel) - proposed threatened
Swift Creek in the project area is also designated critical habitat for Neuse River Waterdog, Carolina Madtom, and Yellow
Lance, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic Pigtoe. Tar River Spinymussel does not have any designated critical
habitat. Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Endangered Species Act. It is specific geographic areas that
contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special
management and protection. Critical habitat may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species but
will be needed for its recovery. In this case, all of the critical habitat in the project area is known to be occupied by the
species.
2. We recommend that the Corp request initiation of formal consultation when complete information is available for the
project (draft mitigation plans and sediment and erosion control plans); however, we also recommend close
coordination as necessary prior to any significant decisions on restoration vs. enhancement, stream crossings, etc. If we
have the opportunity to review decisions as they come along, perhaps there will be no outstanding issues at the time of
the draft plan.
Complete information will be necessary prior to initiating formal consultation so that we can negotiate terms and
conditions and draft the biological opinion. Please see our web site for an overview of consultation and an explanation
of what is typically provided in a biological assessment. If the info in the mitigation plans and erosion control plans is
complete enough, a separate BA shouldn't be necessary. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_consultation.html
<Blockedhttps://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_consultation.htmI>
3. We recommend that the number of stream crossings be limited to the extent possible, and that any perched culverts
be removed. Replacement culverts should be designed to provide appropriate flow and aquatic species movement in
low -flow conditions (in perennial streams).

4. We agree that most of the tributaries on the site do not have suitable habitat for listed species, particularly in the
upper reaches. However, Gideon Swamp, particularly downstream of the beaver dam, appears to have suitable habitat
for multiple species. We recommend that a qualified, permitted mussel biologist conduct suitable habitat surveys in
Gideon Swamp and the lower reaches of the other 3 tributaries to the Swift. If suitable habitat is present, then we can
either assume that the species are present, or surveys may be conducted. Depending on the results, salvage (relocation
surveys) may be needed prior to earth -moving work on the site.
5. We encourage the mitigation provider to approach the landowner(s) along the south bank of Swift Creek to see if they
would be willing to buffer the stream and wetlands on that side of Swift Creek. Swift Creek in this area is a high quality
resource, and the USFWS would be willing to provide better credit ratios for preservation credit.
6. Please coordinate with us on the plans for beaver dam removal in Gideon Swamp.
7. The USFWS understands that the owner sometimes pumps water from Swift Creek when flows are low, to irrigate
pumpkin seeds. This may not be directly related to the mitigation project, but please provide us with the typical amount
of water that is removed from the stream (we recall that the seeds are irrigated with one inch of water), and the typical
time of year.
Thanks again for the opportunity to coordinate on this project. We look forward to consultation. Have a good week,
Please note that I am teleworking almost exclusively. Email is the best way to reach me. Thanks,
Kathy Matthews
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator &
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4520, x. 27
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Kimberly.D.Brown [e-mail]>; Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI - Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus
Review
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or
responding.

IRT Members,
Wildlands Engineering has provided us with a Draft Prospectus of a new Umbrella Mitigation Bank in the Tar Pamlico 01
HUCT. The Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Site is included in the submittal as the first site for the bank. The Draft
Prospectus has been uploaded to RIBITS, and we are initiating the 30-day review of the Draft Prospectus with this email.
Information about the proposed bank is below:
Umbrella Bank Name: Wildlands Tar Pamlico UMB
Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Contact: Chris Roessler)
Location: 36.1288,-77.9508 Nash county, 03020101 HUC
USACE Action ID: SAW-2021-01714
USACE Bank PM: Todd Tugwell
Deadline for comments on the Draft Prospectus: Oct. 27, 2021
I would also like to go ahead and schedule a time for a review of the site — Oct. 20th is the next available open IRT
meeting day, so please reserve the morning of the 20th for the meeting and I will provide more information as we get
closer. In the meantime, please let me know if you need a hard copy of the Draft Prospectus and I will arrange to have a
copy delivered. As note that this is still the Draft stage, so the project has not been put on Public Notice as of yet. Also,
because the site meeting is more than 30 days out, I have set the deadline for comments as one week after the site
meeting (Oct. 27th) .
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[phone]

From: Matthews, Kathryn H
To: Tasha Kina
Cc: Samantha.J.Dailey(a usace.army.mil; Browning. Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jeff Keaton; Chris
Roessler; Kirsten Gimbert; Ellis, John; Archambault, Jennifer M
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Great Meadow Mitigation Site SAW-2021-01714 - Request for Aquatic Survey Report Review
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:47:06 PM
Attachments: Great Meadow Mitigation Site - SAW-2021-01714.pdf
Hi Tasha,
Thanks for the aquatic survey report and other information. We've reviewed the additional
info and discussed internally, and have the following comments and questions:
• The Service still recommends that the Corps request formal consultation for
authorization of work in Gideon Swamp as well as for potential impacts to Swift Creek
from work upstream in the tributaries.
• The Service recommends that the Corps and Wildlands work with us on the mitigation
plans and plans for maintenance, monitoring, and management of the site.
• Did SEPI provide a more detailed survey report, or any additional information? If so,
please provide it.
• We can assist the Corps and/or project proponent in drafting a Biological Assessment
(BA), which should provide all the information we need to conduct formal consultation.
The BA should be based upon the final mitigation plan, since the Biological Opinion is
intended to provide coverage for the actions that the Corps authorizes. Along with
detailed mitigation plans, information that is still needed includes:
o A figure showing all NRWD trap locations with respect to the beaver dam and
with respect to the proposed ford crossing
o A more specific explanation of where the NRWD and Elliptios were found -
Upstream or downstream of the dam, or both? What types of habitat were
present in the areas where NRWD and Elliptios were found?
o A more specific discussion of work to be conducted, especially for Gideon Swamp,
including: stream cross -sections in the area of the ford and other proposed work,
construction materials and methods, equipment, sediment and erosion controls,
time of year when work is proposed, and measures to avoid and minimize impacts
to the waterbody. Photos of the area for the ford on Gideon Swamp may be
helpful, also. This information may be more than you typically provide in a
mitigation plan.
o Is dam removal or beaver management proposed? If so, what are those plans?
o What exactly is proposed for Enhancement II on Gideon Swamp?
o Did Wildlands look into the possibility of acquiring additional easement along
Cooper Road to avoid the Gideon Swamp crossing (as mentioned in the
November 23, 2021 prospectus)? How does the landowner currently access the
west side of the parcel? What was the reasoning for the siting of the ford in the
proposed location?

Thanks for continuing to coordinate on this project. We look forward to working with you.
Please note that I am teleworking Wednesday through Friday, every week. Email is the best
way to reach me. Thanks,
Kathy Matthews
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator &
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4520, x. 27
From: Tasha King <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 11:15 AM
To: Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jeff Keaton
<[e-mail]>; Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>; Kirsten Gimbert
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Great Meadow Mitigation Site SAW-2021-01714 - Request for Aquatic Survey
Report Review
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on
links, opening attachments, or responding.
Good morning,
Wildlands would like to request review and comment on the enclosed Aquatic Survey Report for Great
Meadow Mitigation Site (SAW-2021-01714). We ask that you provide guidance on next steps for this
mitigation project as it relates to the federally listed mussel species and amphibian. Attached is a letter
with more detailed information about the site, an updated concept map, and the aquatic survey
report.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have or to set up a phone meeting to discuss.
We appreciate your help in this matter.
Kind regards,
Tasha

Tasha King I Environmental Scientist
0:919.851.9986 x116
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Aquatic Survey Report
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Nash County, North Carolina
Downstream facing view of Gideon Swamp where Neuse River Waterdog was observed
Prepared For:
W
WILDLANDS
ENGIMEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Chris Roessler
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
August 2022

Prepared by:
SEPI
1 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27603
Contact Person:
Chris Sheats
[e-mail]
919-417-2732

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Survey Efforts................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Neuse River Waterdog Survey Methodology..................................................................1
2.2 Freshwater Mussel and Carolina Madtom Survey Methodology....................................1
3.0 Results.......................................................................................................................... 2
Appendix A.
-Survey Location Map
-Photos

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. proposes to conduct stream enhancement and restoration to four
tributaries to Swift Creek (Gideon Swamp, Fisher Branch, Shard Branch, and Fox Branch) in Nash
County, North Carolina. According to the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) GIS planning tool, four freshwater mussel species (Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni),
Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Parvaspina
steinstansana), and Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata)), one fish (Carolina Madtom (Noturus
furiosus)), and one amphibian (Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)) could be affected by
the project (Table 1). SEPI was contracted by Wildlands Engineering to conduct a habitat
assessment for these species. Suitable habitat was not observed within Fisher Branch, Shard
Branch, and the upper reach of Fox Branch where stream mitigation is proposed. Surveys were
recommended for Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch. These surveys are required as part of
the permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related impacts to
federally protected species.
2.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
NRWD surveys were conducted in Gideon Swamp by Chris Sheats (ES Permit # 22-ES00558, 22-
SFC00249) and Tori Fowler from January 24 — 28, 2022. Traps 1-10 were set on Monday,
January 24, and checked on January 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2022. Freshwater mussel and Carolina
Madtom Surveys were conducted in Gideon Swamp by Chris Sheats, Tori Fowler, and David
Moose on June 28, 2022. Freshwater mussel surveys were conducted in lower Fox Branch on
June 28, 2022.
2.1 Neuse River Waterdog Survey Methodology
Ten traps (Traps 1-10) were set to soak for four consecutive nights in Gideon Swamp between
the confluence of Swift Creek and the Cooper Road bridge crossing. Trap sites were selected
based on best available habitat conditions and were baited with a combination of chicken livers
and chicken hotdogs. Traps were checked daily and rebaited as needed, and all species
observed were recorded and returned to the stream.
2.2 Freshwater Mussel and Carolina Madtom Survey Methodology
Freshwater mussel and Carolina Madtom surveys were conducted in conjunction in Gideon
Swamp between the confluence of Swift Creek and the Cooper Road bridge crossing. The
freshwater mussel survey reach length for Fox Branch extended from the confluence of Swift
Creek to approximately 400 feet upstream. During the surveys, the survey team spread out
across the creek into survey lanes. Visual and tactile surveys were conducted to search for
freshwater mussels, while dip netting methods were used to survey for the Carolina Madtom,
as well as searching beneath rocks, bottles, and woody debris. All species observed were
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 1

recorded and returned to the stream. Survey efforts were timed to provide a Catch Per Unit
Effort (CPUE) for each freshwater mussel species. Abundance was estimated for fish species
and other mollusks observed.
3.0 RESULTS
Gideon Swamp
During the Neuse River Waterdog surveys, one adult Neuse River Waterdog (6.25 inch length)
was observed in a minnow trap (Trap #5) approximately 750 feet upstream (36.1261422, -
77.9532424) of the confluence with Swift Creek (Appendix A). The substrate was dominated
with unconsolidated silt, sand, and detritus. A beaver dam was located approximate 200 feet
downstream (36.1257807,-77.9532820) and was impounding flow at the waterdog observation
location. Pirate Perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), Yellow Bullhead Catfish (Ameiurus natalis),
Margined Madtom (Noturus insignis), Redfin Pickerel (Esox americanus), Bluegill Sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus), and Variable Crayfish (Cambarus latimanus) were also observed in
Gideon Swamp during the Neuse River Waterdog surveys (Table 1).
Table 1. Neuse River Waterdog Survey Results (ONLY Gideon Swamp Surveyed; January 25-28,
2022)
Trap
#
Day 1
(1/25/22)
Day 2
(1/26/22)
Day 3
(1/27/22)
Day 4
(1/28/22)
1
0
2 Yellow Bullhead Catfish
0
0
2
0
1 Variable Crayfish
0
0
3
0
1 Margined Madtom
0
0
4
1 Pirate Perch
1 Pirate Perch
0
1 Pirate Perch
5
0
1 Neuse River Waterdog
0
0
6
0
0
0
1 Bluegill Sunfish
7
0
1 Redfin Pickerel
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
10
0
1 Tadpole
0
0
During the freshwater mussel and Carolina Madtom Surveys, the beaver dam was intact and
impounding flow. Downstream of the dam, the substrate was unconsolidated sand, silt and
detritus. The banks were undercut, with some unstable eroded areas. Upstream of the beaver
dam impoundment effects, the stream substrate continued to consist of unconsolidated silt and
sand throughout the survey reach with cattle impacts. Only one freshwater mussel species was
observed (Eastern Elliptio (Elliptic, complanata)) (Photo 3). A total of seven individuals; four
were found in the banks downstream of the beaver dam, and three were found in the banks
upstream of the beaver dam. All individuals were found either visually or tactilely in stream
banks with a clay component. One clam species (Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea)) was
observed, but only with the first two hundred feet from the confluence of Swift Creek. One
snail species (Pointed Campeloma (Campeloma decisum)) was also observed but it was rare
throughout the survey reach. Four fish species (Yellow Bullhead, Pirate Perch, Margined
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 2

Madtom, and Eastern Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)) were observed in low numbers during
the surveys (Table 2).
The Carolina Madtom, Atlantic Pigtoe, Dwarf Wedgemussel, Tar River Spinymussel, and Yellow
Lance was not observed in Gideon Swamp. The survey efforts detailed in this memorandum
serve to update species information within this segment of Gideon Swamp.
Fox Branch
Based on the habitat assessment recommendations, only freshwater mussel surveys were
conducted in the lower segment of Fox Branch. In -stream substrate was dominated by silt and
sand, and detritus. Flow was slow to absent, however, turbidity was low. No freshwater
mussels, clams, or snails were observed. The Eastern Mosquitofish and Tessellated Darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi) was observed (Table 2).
Table 2. Freshwater Mussel and Carolina Madtom Survey Results -Gideon Swamp (6 Total
Person Hours); Fox Branch (2.5 Total Person Hours); June 28, 2022)
Scientific Name
Common Name
# Live or Species Abundance
CPUE
Gideon Swamp
Elliptio complanata
Eastern Elliptio
7 (50-100 mm size class)
1.16
Campeloma decisum
Pointed Campeloma
Patchy Common
N/A
Corbicula fluminea
Asian Clam
Uncommon*
N/A
Ameiurus natalis
Yellow Bullhead
Uncommon
N/A
Aphredoderus sayanus
Pirate Perch
Common
N/A
Noturus insignis
Margined Madtom
Uncommon
N/A
Gambusia affinis
Eastern Mosquitofish
Uncommon
N/A
Fox Branch
No Freshwater mussels, clams, or snails observed
Gambusia affinis
Eastern Mosquitofish
Uncommon
N/A
Etheostoma olmstedi
Tesselated Darter
Rare (1 dead individual observed)
N/A
* Only observed within 100 feet of Swift Creek confluence
The Neuse River Waterdog, Carolina Madtom, Atlantic Pigtoe, Dwarf Wedgemussel, Tar River
Spinymussel, and Yellow Lance was not observed in Fox Branch. The survey efforts detailed in
this memorandum serve to update species information within this segment of the Fox Branch.
Fisher Branch and Shard Branch
Habitat for the Neuse River Waterdog, Carolina Madtom, Atlantic Pigtoe, Dwarf Wedgemussel,
Tar River Spinymussel, and Yellow Lance was not observed in Fisher Branch and Shard Branch
where mitigation is proposed. The survey efforts detailed in this memorandum serve to update
species information within this segment of the Fisher Branch and Shard Branch.
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 3

Appendix A.
Survey Site Map and Site Photos
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 4

-d
� +t
4 yrr.
Neuse River Waterdog
Observation Site
61inno,,:-rap LocationsAiL r`
Approximate Beaver Dam Location f
N'Internal Easement Ford Grassing S=-m:s. Esri, r: Aar,we�E,e, Ear Ns tar M.
u8D E^S, L.gc-3:�1D. Iv , - - mu
Prepared By:
S E P I
Prepared For:
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Gideon S}nrarn p-
Aquatic Surveys Site Map
Nash County, North Carolina
vmxOs•,
--.iD
v tx yaw.
r
Figure
�ky,4,.
D 5D 'y=
�--=

EPADI .3,
f IF
10) op
70
le
te A A.

Photo 3. Eastern Elliptios observed in Gideon Swamp.
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 7

%4,W*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
January 30, 2023
Kathryn Matthews
US Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Submitted via email: [e-mail]
Subject: Great Meadow Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2021-01714
Nash County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Matthews,
Below, Wildlands is pleased to provide a revised plan of work for Gideon Swamp and the conservation
easement surrounding the site of the observed Neuse River waterdog at Great Meadow Mitigation Site.
Also enclosed are an updated concept map for the project, an official species list, species conclusion
table, and correspondence associated with the Great Meadow stream, riparian buffer, and wetland
restoration project located in Nash County, NC. This mitigation bank is within the Tar -Pam 01 River Basin
and will provide stream restoration and enhancement, as well as wetland rehabilitation, enhancement,
re-establishment, and creation on an active cattle farm. The site is located at latitude 36.131215,
longitude-77.953729.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded to the Draft Prospectus for the project with
concerns about possible suitable habitat for listed species. Certified biologists from SEPI, Inc. were
contracted to conduct aquatic species surveys. Biologists did not observe suitable habitat on the lower
portions of Fisher and Shard Branch nor on the upper reach of Fox Branch where mitigation is proposed
so no surveys were conducted in those areas. Suitable habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and the
lower reach of Fox Branch so aquatic surveys were conducted in January and June 2022. One Neuse
River waterdog was observed on Gideon Swamp above the existing crossing and beaver dam. None of
the other listed species were observed on Gideon Swamp, nor on Fox Branch.
Wildlands previously submitted the SEPI Aquatic Survey Report with the above -mentioned findings and
asked for guidance from USFWS and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in a letter dated
August 3, 2022. USFWS recommended USACE request formal consultation for authorization of work and
requested more information about the proposed work in Gideon Swamp via email on August 16, 2022. A
meeting between USFWS, USACE, and Wildlands to discuss next steps was held over the phone on
September 2, 2022. During the meeting, the group decided to present four possible approaches to
provide mitigation and protection of Gideon Swamp to the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(IRT). Wildlands supplied the list of options to USACE and noted which was preferred by USFWS. USACE
then presented these options to the IRT.
The option for work around Gideon Swamp that was preferred by USFWS, was approved by the IRT (see
enclosed correspondence). This option includes removing the proposed crossing on Gideon Swamp
from the project design, acquiring additional land (2.8 ac) around the stream to widen the riparian
buffer, and fencing to exclude cattle. Additionally, trees will be planted where needed, invasive plant
species will be treated, any beavers will be trapped, and dams removed. Beaver management will
continue through the life of the project. There will be no other in -stream work on Gideon Swamp.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

%�Vv
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
The landowner has recently agreed to sell the additional 2.8 acres that would make this option viable,
and the option agreement has been amended. With this new plan of action for Gideon Swamp and the
surrounding area, we respectfully request USFWS provide concurrence with the determinations of May
affect, not likely to adversely affect for all aquatic species and No effect for Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii). For reference, the species conclusion table and the official list of the federally listed species
associated with Great Meadow Mitigation Site are enclosed below.
We appreciate your time and guidance. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may
have.
Sincerely,
TV,,, 7-�
Tasha King, Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
805.895.3304
CC:
Samantha Dailey ([e-mail]),
Kimberly Isenhour ([e-mail])
Attachments:
Revised Concept Map,
Official Species List,
Species Conclusion Table,
Correspondence
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Revised Concept Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 350 700 Feet Great Meadow Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I i I i I Tar Pamlico River Basin (03020101)
Nash County, NC

i�c
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
03�/ Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2022-0040633
Project Name: Great Meadows Mitigation Site
May 09, 2022
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If your project area
contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species on this species list, the proposed
action has the potential to adversely affect those species. If suitable habitat is present, surveys
should be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The
use of this species list and/or North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered

05/09/2022
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.govibirds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

05/09/2022
3
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
■ Official Species List
• Migratory Birds

05/09/2022
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

05/09/2022
Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0040633
Event Code:
None
Project Name:
Great Meadows Mitigation Site
Project Type:
Mitigation Development/Review - Mitigation or Conservation Bank
Project Description:
The project is in northern Nash County approximately six miles northwest
of Red Oak. Project streams drain to Swift Creek which drains to the Tar
River. The project includes stream restoration and enhancement, as well
as wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, enhancement, and creation.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/036.1303938,-77.94897858451333,14z
Counties: Nash County, North Carolina

05/09/2022 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 8 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Amphibians
NAME
611KIW R
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi Threatened
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Fishes
NAME
STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528

05/09/2022
Clams
NAME
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Tar River Spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1392
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
Insects
NAME
4
STATUS
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Endangered
Critical habitats
There are 4 critical habitats wholly or partially within your project area under this office's
jurisdiction.
NAME
STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Final
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164#crithab
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus
Final
htWs:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528#crithab
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
Final
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772#crithab
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
Final
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511#crithab

05/09/2022
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
THERE ARE NO FWS MIGRATORY BIRDS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE VICINITY OF YOUR PROJECT
AREA.
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCQ and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.

05/09/2022
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical

05/09/2022 3
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Lorin.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Great Meadows Mitigation Site
Date: January 27, 2023
Species 1 Resource Name
Conclusion
ESA Section 7 I Eagle Act
Notes I Documentation
Determination
Neuse River Waterdog
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI January 24-28, 2022 and
(Necturus lewisi)
one individual present on
adversely affect
suitable habitat was found as well as one individual of the species on
Gideon Swamp
Gideon Swamp. However, the only work in the Gideon Swamp
channel will be to remove the ford crossing and beaver dam. Both of
which are located downstream of the observation site of the individual.
Additional buffer area around the stream will be added to the
conservation easement to help protect the individual and habitat into
perpetuity. The proposed project drains to and borders the critical
habitat area designated by USFWS for this species. No in -stream
channel work will occur within approximately 100 feet of the
designated area and the approved erosion and sediment control plan
will be followed. NCNHP data explorer also lists known element
occurrences within the proposed project area.
Carolina Madtom
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
(Noturus furiosus)
no individuals present
adversely affect
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp, however no individuals were
found. The proposed project drains to and borders the critical habitat
area designated by USFWS for this species. No in -stream channel
work will occur within approximately 100 feet of the designated area
and the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed.
Although none were found by certified SEPI biologists during the
survey, NCNHP data explorer lists known element occurrences within
the ro osedproject area.
Atlantic Pigtoe
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
(Fusconaia masons)
no individuals present
adversely affect
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch,
however no individuals were found. The proposed project drains to
and borders the critical habitat area designated by USFWS for this
species. No in -stream channel work will occur within approximately
100 feet of the designated area and the approved erosion and
sediment control plan will be followed. Although none were found by
certified SEPI biologists during the survey, NCNHP data explorer lists
known element occurrences within the proposed project area.
Dwarf Wedgemussel
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
(Alasmidonta heterodon)
no individuals present
adversely affect
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch,
however no individuals were found. No critical habitat has been
designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no
known element occurrences exist within the proposed project area.

Species I Resource Name
Conclusion
ESA Section 7 I Eagle Act
Notes I Documentation
Determination
Tar River Spinymussel
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
(Elliptio steinstansana)
no individuals present
adversely affect
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch,
however no individuals were found. No critical habitat has been
designated by USFWS for this species. Although none were found by
certified SEPI biologists during the survey, NCNHP data explorer lists
known element occurrences within the proposed project area.
Yellow Lance
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
(Elliptio lanceolata)
no individuals present
adversely affect
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch,
however no individuals were found. The proposed project drains to
and borders the critical habitat area designated by USFWS for this
species. No in -stream channel work will occur within approximately
100 feet of the designated area and the approved erosion and
sediment control plan will be followed. Although none were found by
certified SEPI biologists during the survey, NCNHP data explorer lists
known element occurrences within the proposed project area.
Michaux's Sumac
No suitable habitat
No effect
A Field Survey was conducted by Wildlands Engineering on August 3,
(Rhus michauxii)
present, no individuals
2022 during the blooming window (May -October). No suitable habitat
present
was found due to a lack of sandy or rocky open woods in association
with basic soils. No individuals of the species were found. No critical
habitat has been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP
data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the
ro osed ro.ect area.
Bald Eagle
Unlikely to disturb
No Eagle Act Permit
A Field Survey was conducted by Wildlands Engineering on August 3,
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
nesting bald eagles
Required
2022. No bald eagles were present or nesting on the site. The closest,
large body of water is approximately 15 mi. from the site. Per NCNHP
data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the
ro osed ro.ect area.
Critical Habitat
Present
May affect, not likely to
Final critical habitat is designated for the Atlantic pigtoe, Carolina
adversely affect
madtom, Neuse river waterlog, and Yellow lance. The project area
drains to and borders the critical habitat area designated by USFWS.
However, no in -stream channel work will occur within approximately
100 feet of the designated area and the approved erosion and
sediment control plan will be followed.
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an informed decision about
impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.
Tasha King / Environmental Scientist
1 /27/2023
Signature /Title Date

Tasha King
From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 8:49 AM
To: Jeff Keaton; Tasha King; John Hutton; Chris Roessler
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Erin
Davis; [e-mail]; Bowers, Todd; Matthews, Kathryn
Subject: FW: SAW-2021-01714 Wildlands Tar -Pam 01, Great Meadow - Gideon Swamp T&E Discussion
Attachments: Great Meadow -Figure 1 - Original Gideon Swamp Concept.pdf; Great Meadow_Figure 2 - Revised
Gideon Swamp Concept Options.pdf
Good morning Jeff,
I have coordinated your proposal with the IRT and they are in favor of Option 4 and receiving a 2.5:1 ratio for Gideon
Swamp given there are known listed T&E species in this reach and given the additional enhancement measures you have
proposed (widening of buffers, removal of crossing and beaver dam, etc.).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Sam Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, Raleigh Field Office
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 12:46 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Erin Davis <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Matthews, Kathryn
<[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2021-01714 Wildlands Tar -Pam 01, Great Meadow - Gideon Swamp T&E Discussion
Good afternoon,
This email is in reference to the Wildlands Tar -Pam 01, Great Meadow Site, located adjacent to Swift Creek, which is
critical habitat for Neuse River waterdog (NRWD), Carolina madtom, and yellow lance. Swift Creek adjacent to the site
has known populations of those species, as well as Atlantic pigtoe and Tar River spinymussel. In response to a request
from Kathy (USFWS), Wildlands conducted NRWD surveys and mussel surveys in Gideon Swamp, and a NRWD was
caught above the beaver dam within the project reach. Several mussels were also documented in Gideon Swamp, but
no other listed species. Considering there are known listed species occurrences in Gideon Swamp and critical habitat just
downstream, Kathy has requested that Wildlands conduct the MINIMUM amount of work necessary in Gideon Swamp,
with the preference being no physical work. Kathy stated that Gideon Swamp is already a high quality system and any in -
stream work would potentially jeopardize the species in this system. The prospectus stated the following in conjunction
with Ell work in Gideon Swamp with a 2.5:1 ratio proposed:

"Reaches slated for Enhancement II approach include Fisher Branch Reaches 2 and 4; Fox Branch Reach 2; and Gideon
Swamp Reaches 1 and 2. These reaches are geomorphically stable in their current condition and generally have lower
bank height ratios, low bank slopes, and a lesser degree of erosion. There is a varying degree of wooden riparian buffer
on these reaches. Most reaches have at least a single line of trees on one bank. Many of the existing wooded areas are
dominated by Chinese privet. Livestock have access to all Enhancement II reaches. The primary enhancement activities
include the exclusion of livestock, the reestablishment of a wooded riparian buffer, the treating of Chinese privet in
established riparian buffers, and the use of in stream and bank structures to treat headcuts and localized scour."
Considering Kathy's request to eliminate any in -stream work along Gideon Swamp, Wildlands is proposing to purchase
an adjacent parcel to widen the buffer in this reach, remove the existing crossing, and remove and manage beavers,
while still obtaining a 2.5:1 ratio. Kathy further reiterated that she believes a 2.5:1 ratio is appropriate, given the quality
of Gideon Swamp and the protection the project would provide to the T&E species in this reach. I also agree with this
approach and believe Wildlands is proposing additional measures to enhance this area, in -lieu of in -stream work.
Wildlands has provided the below options regarding work in Gideon Swamp, with Option 4 being preferred by both
Wildlands and Kathy. Kathy also prefers Option 1 over the Options 2 and 3, and supports a 2.5:1 ratio for any of the
options, due to the removal of the existing unimproved vehicle crossing, and other proposed activities. The enclosed
maps show the existing proposed concept for Gideon Swamp (Figure 1) and a general concept of Option 4 (Figure 2).
Option 1: Remove crossing from project. Buy additional land (2.8 ac) to put under conservation easement. Fence out
cattle. Treat invasives. Do no other instream work.
Option 2: Remove crossing from project. Buy additional land (2.8 ac) to put under conservation easement. Fence out
cattle. Treat invasives. Perform bank grading on upper third of the reach to stabilize banks and prevent additional
erosion. Mussel relocation will be performed if needed.
Option 3: Remove crossing from project. Buy additional land (2.8 ac) to put under conservation easement. Fence out
cattle. Treat invasives. Perform bank grading on upper third of the reach to stabilize banks and prevent additional
erosion. Remove beaver dam and trap beavers. Beaver management will continue through the life of the project.
Option 4: Remove crossing from project. Buy additional land (2.8 ac) to put under conservation easement. Fence out
cattle. Treat invasives. Remove beaver dam and trap beavers. Beaver management will continue through the life of
the project. Do no other instream work.
I'm happy to set up a call with Wildlands and the IRT to discuss matters further, if necessary. If you would, please reply
to this email indicating you are either in favor of, or against the revised approach in Gideon Swamp. These changes will
be implemented in the draft mitigation plan.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best Regards,
Sam Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, Raleigh Field Office
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh E5 Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 9, 2023
Tasha King, Environmental Scientist
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.; Great Meadow Mitigation Site/ SAW-2021-01714
USFWS Project Code 2022-0040633
Nash County
Dear Ms. King:
Thank you for your January 30, 2023 letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
requesting concurrence with the species determinations for the proposed activities at the Great
Meadow Mitigation Site, in Nash County, North Carolina. The Service has reviewed the
November 2021 mitigation prospectus for the site, and staff visited the site with the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team on October 20, 2021. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. proposes
a wetland and stream mitigation project along Swift Creek, northwest of Red Oak in the Tar
River basin.
The site includes occupied habitat for the Neuse River waterdog (NRWD), Carolina madtom,
yellow lance, Atlantic pigtoe, and Tar River spinymussel, as well as critical habitat for NRWD,
Carolina madtom, and yellow lance. A NRWD was captured in Gideon Swamp on the site,
during trapping surveys in January 2022. In order to avoid impacts to the NRWD, Wildlands
has modified the planned activities on Gideon Swamp. Wildlands proposes to remove the
proposed crossing on Gideon Swamp from the project design, acquire additional land (2.8 ac)
around the stream to widen the riparian buffer, and fence the stream buffer to exclude cattle.
Additionally, trees will be planted where needed, invasive plant species will be treated, any
beavers will be trapped, and dams removed. Beaver management is proposed to continue through
the life of the project. There will be no other in -stream work on Gideon Swamp.
The Service is pleased to see the proposed changes to activities conducted in Gideon Swamp. If
the stringent erosion control measures listed below are incorporated into the mitigation plan, the
Service can concur with the determination of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the listed
aquatic species.
• Conduct work in Fisher Branch, Shard Branch, and Fox Branch in the dry, as much as
possible.
• Avoid aerial drift of herbicides or pesticides by utilizing only targeted application,
such as spot -spraying, hack -and -squirt, basal bark injections, cut -stump, or foliar
spray on individual plants.
• Utilize 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 Swift Creek.
• Silt fence outlets for each row of silt fence should be offset to provide additional
retention of water and sediment in the outer row.
• Conduct twice -weekly inspections of all erosion and sedimentation controls. In
addition to twice -weekly inspections, inspect also within 24-hours of rain events
(including a 1-inch total rain event or an event where rainfall rates are 0.3 inch/hour
or greater). Inspect all of the erosion and sedimentation controls to ensure the
integrity of the devices.
• Maintain all controls as necessary to ensure proper installation and function. Repair
and replace sections of controls as needed to minimize the potential for failure.
• Revegetate with native species as soon as possible.
• Any spills of motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, or similar fluids into the riparian
wetlands or floodplain must be reported to the Corps and Service immediately.
• Educate the construction crew about the presence of sensitive species by providing
information or installing signs on the silt fence. Attached is an example of such a
sign.
Tricolored Bat
Surveys conducted by North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in November 2019
identified tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) (TCB) within three miles of the site. The TCB is
proposed for listing as endangered and a decision to list may be made as soon as September
2023. If work is not completed (particularly tree removal and any culvert modification/removal)
before the listing decision, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) will need to consult with
the Service on impacts from the project construction to TCB. The prospectus and mitigation
plan should document the occurrence of TCB within three miles of the site 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 caves,
mines, culverts, and potentially bridges year-round. It is not well-known whether they may come
out of the hibernacula or roost on warm winter nights, or whether they may roost in trees for any
part of the winter. Tree removal and culvert removal or modification may affect TCB if
individuals of the species are present. Until we have more information, we will probably treat
the TCB similar to the northern long-eared bat in the piedmont and rangewide. This means (if
and when it is listed) that there will be time of year restrictions on tree -cutting and also probably
an acreage threshold in order to make a determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect." In general, the Service will expect tree cutting to avoid the late spring/summer pupping
season.
2

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the mitigation site
prospectus. Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Kathy
Matthews at [e-mail].
Attachment
cc (via email):
USACE, Raleigh, NC
USEPA, Atlanta, GA
NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
NCWRC, Washington, NC
NCDWR, Raleigh, NC
Sincerely,
for Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
3

Tasha King
From: Tasha King
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 3:13 PM
To: Matthews, Kathryn H
Cc: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); [e-mail]; Ellis, John;
Mann, Leigh; Dunn, Maria T.; Wilson, Travis W.; Merritt, Katie; Bowers, Todd
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Great Meadow Mitigation Site SAW-2021-01714 (USFWS Project Code
2022-0040633)
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your prompt review of the proposed changes in concept for the Great Meadow Mitigation Site and
accompanying species determinations. We appreciate your response and guidance. I have spoken with the project team
and we will incorporate the stringent erosion control measures as requested.
We are aware of the impending changes in the status of the tricolored bat (TCB) and are in the process of reviewing all
our proposed mitigation sites. The elaboration on how the TCB may be treated in the future is very helpful for planning
purposes. We will include information in the Great Meadow Mitigation Plan about the TCB occurrence within 3 miles
and understand we may need to reinitiate consultation.
Kind Regards,
Tasha King
From: Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:18 AM
To: Tasha King <[e-mail]>
Cc: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Ellis, John <[e-mail]>; Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>; Dunn, Maria
T. <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Great Meadow Mitigation Site SAW-2021-01714 (USFWS Project Code 2022-0040633)
Hi Tasha, Please find attached a letter for the Great Meadow Project. Let me know if you have any
questions. Have a good weekend.
Please note that 1 am teleworking Wednesday through Friday, every week. Email is the best way to reach
me. Thanks,
Kathy Matthews
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator &
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4520, x. 27

i�c
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
03�/ Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2022-0040633
Project Name: Great Meadows Mitigation Site
July 07, 2023
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If your project area
contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species on this species list, the proposed
action has the potential to adversely affect those species. If suitable habitat is present, surveys
should be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The
use of this species list and/or North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered

07/07/2023
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.govibirds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

07/07/2023
3
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
■ Official Species List
• Migratory Birds

07/07/2023
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

07/07/2023
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:
2022-0040633
Project Name:
Great Meadows Mitigation Site
Project Type:
Mitigation Development/Review - Mitigation or Conservation Bank
Project Description:
The project is in northern Nash County approximately six miles northwest
of Red Oak. Project streams drain to Swift Creek which drains to the Tar
River. The project includes stream restoration and enhancement, as well
as wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, enhancement, and creation.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/036.1304057,-77.94896410235364,14z
Counties: Nash County, North Carolina

07/07/2023 3
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus Proposed
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Endangered
Species profile: httpss://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
AMPHIBIANS
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi Threatened
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
FISHES
NAME STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528

07/07/2023
4
CLAMS
NAME
STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Threatened
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon
Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Tar River Spinymussel Parvaspina steinstansana
Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1392
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
Threatened
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Endangered
CRITICAL HABITATS
There are 4 critical habitats wholly or partially within your project area under this office's
jurisdiction.
NAME
STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Final
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164#crithab
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus
Final
htWs:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528#crithab
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
Final
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772#crithab
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
Final
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511#crithab

07/07/2023
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this
list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location,
nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact
locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project
area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species
on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing
the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to
additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your
migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be
found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (SCRs) in the continental USA
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul
15
Breeds Mar 15 to
Aug 25
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental 31
USA and Alaska.

07/07/2023
10 FA LVA ICI
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul
31
Breeds May 10 to
Sep 10
Breeds May 10 to
Aug 31
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season( )

07/07/2023 3
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Brown -headed ---- _--- I gill
Nuthatch — — — -
- — — -
- — — -
- — — -
---
BCC -BCR
SwiftChimney BCC Rangewide
---- ---- —III IIII IIII IIII IIII
(CON)
Prairie Warbler 'IIII IIII IIII
BCC Rangewide
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
(CON)
Prothonotary ---- Warbler — —-- — — — —
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Woodpecker — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
-
BCCRangewide III IIII IIII IIII (CON)
WoodWood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
---- — — — — — — — — ---1
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
■ Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
■ Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/librarT�/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds

07/07/2023 4
■ Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
MIGRATORY BIRDS FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCQ and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information
Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look

07/07/2023
5
at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each
bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated
with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
within the timeframe specified. If 'Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not
breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. 'BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. 'BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Lorin.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be

07/07/2023
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
January 12, 2022
Todd Tugwell
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Great Meadow mitigation site, Nash County, ER 21-3197
Dear Mr. Tugwell:
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
todd.tugwellkusace.army.mil
Thank you for your December 9, 2021, submission concerning the above -referenced project. We have
reviewed the materials provided and offer the following comments.
One archaeological site (31NS21) is recorded in the project area. This American Indian site has not been
assessed to determine if it is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As site 31NS21
has not been systematically delineated, the extent of any archaeological deposits in the project area is
unknown.
We recommend that prior to any ground disturbing activities within the project area, an archaeological
survey of the project area be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of this survey will be
to identify and evaluate the significance of any archaeological sites that may be damaged or destroyed by
the proposed project.
Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation. You can
find the Review Archaeologist for your region at htlps:Harchaeologyy.ncdcr.gov/about/contact.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists
listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
One paper and one digital copy of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one digital copy of the
North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology
through this office for review and comment as soon as they are available and in advance of any
construction or ground disturbance activities. Office of State Archaeology report guidelines are available at
hgps:Hfiles.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA Guidelines Dec20l7.pdf.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review(c nncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the
Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
ER 21-3197
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
July 2022

Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the
Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
ER 21-3197
Prepared for
Wildlands Engineering
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared by
Abigail McCoy
Archaeologist
and
I
Dawn Reid
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
July 2022
2

Management Summary
On the 8t1i through 10'1i of June 2022, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted an
archaeological survey of the proposed Great Meadow mitigation tract in Nash County, North Carolina. This
archaeological investigation was undertaken on behalf of Wildlands Engineering. A letter from the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 12 January 2022 (ER 21-3197) requested that an archaeological
survey of the project tract be conducted. The primary goals of this investigation were to identify all
archaeological resources located within the survey area, assess those resources for eligibility to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations, as appropriate.
The project tract encompasses approximately 50 acres (20.2 ha) and is situated within the northwestern
portion of Nash County. The tract is largely characterized by pastures, some with overgrown brush or large
hardwoods scattered throughout, and a few small areas of mixed hardwood and pine forests, generally along
the drainages. There are farm roads present throughout the tract. The tract's southwestern boundary is
defined by Cooper Road (SR 1403). Swift Creek defines the tract's southern boundary.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina site files located at the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. Four historic resources are located within 1.6 kilometers of the project
tract. These resources consist of dwellings dating from the eighteenth and twentieth centuries and one
school from the early twentieth century. Two of the dwellings are listed as Survey Only. The eighteenth -
century house and the twentieth century school have been added to the Study List. Six previously recorded
archaeological sites are located within 1.6 kilometers of the project tract consisting of both prehistoric and
historic components. All sites but 31NS71 are unassessed for NRHP eligibility, while 31NS71 is
recommended as requiring no further work. One of these sites, 31NS21, is located within the project tract
and was relocated during this project.
The archaeological survey consisted of excavating shovel tests at 30-meter intervals along parallel
transects spaced 30 meters apart in portions of the project area considered to have high potential for the
presence of archaeological deposits. In addition, the immediate vicinity of previously recorded site 31NS21
was surveyed with shovel tests excavated at 15-meter intervals. Areas with steep slope or saturated and
poorly drained soils were covered with pedestrian survey and judgmentally placed shovel tests. One new
archaeological site, 31NS218, and one previously recorded archaeological site, 31NS21, were identified in
the project tract. Site 31NS218 is a Woodland artifact scatter that does not meet NRHP eligibility criteria.
Site 31NS21 is a Middle Woodland ceramic scatter. While the eastern boundaries for site 31NS21 could
not be formally defined due to its proximity to the project area's boundary, steep slope is present beyond
the boundary, and it is unlikely that additional deposits are present. This site is also recommended not
eligible for the NRHP due to the lack of subsurface deposits. As no significant archaeological resources
will be impacted by this proposed undertaking, no further archaeological work is advocated.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Table of Contents
ManagementSummary.................................................................................................................................. i
Tableof Contents..........................................................................................................................................
ii
Listof Figures..............................................................................................................................................
iii
Listof Tables...............................................................................................................................................iii
Chapter1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
ProjectArea.....................................................................................................................................
I
InvestigationMethod.......................................................................................................................
2
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview.................................................................................
7
Environmental Overview.................................................................................................................
7
CulturalOverview..........................................................................................................................10
Chapter 3. Investigation Results...........................................................................................................18
Background Research Results........................................................................................................18
FieldSurvey Results......................................................................................................................19
Recommendations..........................................................................................................................
24
ReferencesCited.........................................................................................................................................25
Appendix A. Artifact Catalog
Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 11
Nash County, North Carolina

List of Figures
Figure 1.1.
Map showing location of the project area.............................................................................1
Figure 1.2.
Topographic map showing the project tract..........................................................................
2
Figure 1.3.
Aerial view of the project area..............................................................................................
3
Figure 1.4.
General view of the project tract, looking south...................................................................
3
Figure 1.5.
View of drainage and trees in project tract, looking east ......................................................
4
Figure 1.6.
LiDAR map showing the defined high potential areas within the project area ................
5
Figure 2.1.
Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project tract ..................
7
Figure 2.2.
Map showing the project area within the Tar River Basin ....................................................
8
Figure 2.3.
Map showing soil types present in the project area..............................................................
9
Figure 3.1.
Map of the showing previously recorded cultural resources within 1.6 kilometers of
the
project area..
18
Figure 3.2.
Map of showing survey coverage of the project area..........................................................20
Figure 3.3.
Map of archaeological sites in the project tract..................................................................
21
Figure 3.4.
Plan map, site setting, and soil profile at site 31NS21........................................................
22
Figure 3.5.
Plan map, site setting, and soil profile at site 31NS218......................................................
23
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract..................................................................... 9
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Northern North Carolina Coastal
Plain....................................................................................................................................11
Table 3.1. Summary of Historic Resources Located in the Project Vicinity.......................................19
Table 3.2. Summary of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity................19
Table 3.3. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Site 31NS218........................................................ 23
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 111
Nash County, North Carolina

Chapter 1. Introduction
On the June 8 — 10, 2022, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted an
archaeological survey of the proposed Great Meadow mitigation tract in Nash County, North Carolina
(Figure 1.1). This archaeological investigation was undertaken on behalf of Wildlands Engineering. A letter
from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 12 January 2022 (ER 21-3197) requested that an
archaeological survey of the project tract be conducted. The primary goals of this investigation were to
identify all archaeological resources located within the survey area, assess those resources for eligibility to
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations, as
appropriate. Ms. Dawn Reid served as the Principal Investigator. Ms. Abigail McCoy was Field Director.
She was assisted by Mr. Richard M. McCoy. The fieldwork required five person days to complete.
Project Area
The project
tract encompasses
approximately 50 acres
(20.2 ha) in the
northwestern portion of
Nash County (Figure
1.1). The tract's
southwestern boundary
is defined by Cooper
Road (SR 1403). Swift
Creek defines the tract's
southern boundary.
There are several
smaller drainages
running throughout the
project area, including
Fisher Branch in the
western portion, Shard
Branch in the central
portion, Fox Branch in
the eastern portion, and
Gideon Swamp in the
southern portion.
(Figure 1.2).
The tract is largely
characterized by
pastures, some with
r -
ProjectAr®a «o
f Dash County
{
a .y, .. 6 12
Kilometers
overgrown brush or Figure 1.1. Map showing location of the project area.
large hardwoods
scattered throughout, and a few small areas of mixed hardwood and pine forests, generally along the
drainages (Figure 1.3 — Figure 1.5). There were some areas with surface visibility, which generally exposed
red clay at the surface.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 1
Nash County, North Carolina

Investigation Method
This investigation was comprised of four separate tasks: Background Research, Field Investigation,
Laboratory Analysis, and Report Production. Each of these tasks is described below.
Background Research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file
at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. This review served to identify
previously recorded archaeological resources in the project vicinity and provided data on the prehistoric
and historic context of the project tract. The Nash County soil survey (on-line version) was consulted to
determine soil types and general environmental information on the project area. Historic maps of the county
were examined to determine historic land use in the project vicinity. These maps included the 1963 and
1998 topographic maps, as well as the Nash County soil and highway maps, and aerial images dating from
1956 to 2018.
r
--s
15 a"f.X
4- e; Great Meadows Mitigation
MProject Tract
iJ
4 0 90 180 270 360
Meters °'
Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project tract (1998 Essex, NC and 1963 Red Oak, NC
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles).
Inc. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 2
Nash County, North Carolina

t" Great Meadows Mitigation
St- Rd1404 wneeiesaanmea Project Tract Road
- s
0 90 180 270 360 tLq
J Meters L
Figure 1.3. Aerial view of the project area.
Figure 1.4. General view of the project tract, looking south.
Inc. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 1.5. View of drainage and trees in project tract, looking east.
Field Survey. Prior to initiating the archaeological survey, environmental data such as soil type, percent
slope, landforms, and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) images were reviewed to determine areas of
with high potential for the presence of archaeological remains. Based on these data, approximately 13 acres
(5.3 ha) were determined to have high potential (Figure 1.6). High potential areas were surveyed by
excavating shovel tests at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart. The remaining
37 acres (15 ha) of the tract contains poorly drained soils or wetlands and were considered to have low
archaeological potential. These areas were investigated through pedestrian walkover and judgmentally
placed shovel tests where accessible. In addition, shovel tests in the immediate vicinity of previously
recorded site 31NS21 were excavated at 15-meter intervals. This survey strategy was approved by Ms.
Mary Beth Fitts, Assistant State Archaeologist.
Shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated to 10 centimeters
into subsoil or to the water table. Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25-inch (6.4-mm) wire mesh.
Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts were collected
and placed in plastic bags labeled with the date, field site number, grid point locations (i.e., shovel
test/transect or north/east coordinate), depth of artifacts, and initials of the excavator.
A site is defined as an area with the presence of artifacts or where surface or subsurface cultural
features are present. Artifacts and/or features less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site
without a specific research or management reason. Site boundaries were established by excavating shovel
tests at 15-meter intervals across the site area until two negative shovel tests were encountered. In some
instances, the landform (e.g., wetland) was also used to define the site boundary. Additional shorter (5-
meter) interval shovel tests were excavated in areas of interest with select sites. Site settings were
photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field showing the locations of shovel
tests and surface finds. The locations of all archaeological sites were recorded using a Trimble Pathfinder
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 4
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 1.6. LiDAR map showing the defined high potential areas within the project
area.
Geo 7x Global Positioning System (GPS) unit capable of sub -meter accuracy. These GPS data have been
relayed onto project maps.
Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways, and
its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria that must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 5
Nash County, North Carolina

association" and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of history; B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C) embodies distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents work of a master, possesses high
artistic values or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or D) has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Archaeological sites are most frequently evaluated pursuant to Criterion D. However, all archaeological
sites can be considered under all four criteria.
The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Although the determination of the site significance is made
by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data were gathered to allow us to make a significance
recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for
the NRHP, and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at
the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is advocated. It
is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively determine that a
site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended eligible for the
NRHP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not possible, mitigation options
(e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.
Diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were compared to published type descriptions (e.g., Charles and Moore
2018; Coe 1964; Herbert 2009; Oliver 1999; Peck 1982; Sassaman 1993; Ward and Davis 1999; Whatley
2002) and cataloged by type when possible. Lithics artifacts were examined in detail and classified by
artifact type and raw material.
All artifacts were placed in acid -free resealable plastic bags with acid -free labels listing the
provenience and field identification information. Upon acceptance of the final project report, all analysis
sheets, field notes, photographs, maps, and artifacts will be prepared according to federal guidelines. A
Deed of Gift request was sent to the property owner on 20 October 2021 concerning the transference of
collected artifacts to OSA for final curation. The property owner has yet to respond. If he/she has not
responded by July 20, 2022, the artifacts will be returned to them.
Report Production. Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the
previous tasks. This report includes a discussion of the investigation methods, background findings, field
survey results, and management recommendations. Each individual site is discussed and shown on a variety
of project maps. The data obtained from laboratory analyses, background research, and field investigations
is included in the site discussions. Finally, the report includes an assessment of the NRHP eligibility of each
archaeological site recorded during the investigation.
Laboratory Analysis. All recovered cultural material was processed in the Clayton laboratory facilities
of ACC. All artifacts were washed in warm soapy water and allowed to thoroughly air dry. A provenience
number, based on artifact contexts (i.e., grid coordinate, depth, etc.), was assigned to each positive
excavation location. Within each provenience, individual artifacts or artifact classes were then assigned a
catalog number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material
in the case of lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 6
Nash County, North Carolina

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
The natural environment, technological development, and ideological values are all intertwined in
shaping the way humans live. In this chapter, details about the local environment and cultural development
in the region are presented.
Environmental Overview
Nash County is located in the Fall Line region of North Carolina, on the boundary of the Upper
Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces (Figure 2.1). The western portion of the county is in
the Piedmont where the topography is comprised of narrow ridges and floodplains. The eastern portion of
the county is made up of the Coastal Plain with broad flat uplands and drainageways. The project tract falls
within the Piedmont portion of Nash County. Elevations in the county range from 150 to 270 feet above
mean sea level (amsl; Allison 1989). In the project tract, elevations range from 160 to 200 feet amsl.
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
Kilometers
Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project tract.
Climate
The climate of Nash County is characterized by generally hot and humid summers and cool short
winters. The average summer temperature is 77 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average winter temperature is
41 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation averages 44.5 inches, with the majority falling during the
growing season between April and September. Snowfall in the county averages 6 inches per year (Allison
1989).
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 7
Nash County, North Carolina

Geology
The project area is underlain primarily by the Cape Fear Formation. This formation is the product of
non -marine delta formation during the Upper Cretaceous period. It is comprised of bedded sand, sandstone,
and mudstone (Sohl and Owens 1991). The lithic material in the project vicinity, as in much of the Coastal
Plain, in all probability originates in the Carolina Slate Belt in the Piedmont. Rivers flowing out of the
Piedmont likely transported the material, including metavolcanics and quartz, into the Coastal Plain where
it was deposited as gravels and formed cobble bars.
Hydrology
The project tract falls within the Upper Tar River drainage subbasin (Figure 2.2). The tract itself is
drained by small tributaries of Swift Creek, including Fisher Branch, Shard Branch, Fox Branch, and
Gideon Swamp. Swift Creek flows into the Tar River north of the city of Tarboro. The Tar River becomes
the Pamlico River at Washington, North Carolina and flows into Pamlico Sound.
Project Area
Legend
Upper Tar River Subbasin
N
o s 10 15 za zs
ti
Miles
Figure 2.2. Map showing the project area within the Tar River Basin.
Soil
There are five soil types present in the project tract (Figure 2.3; Table 2.1). Georgeville soils form
in the Piedmont from the underlying fine grained metavolcanic rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt. Goldsboro
soils form on uplands from marine and fluviomarine deposits. Wehadkee soils form primarily in floodplains
of streams that drain from the mountains and Piedmont. Wickham soils form on stream and marine terraces
from fluviomarine deposits (USDA 2022).
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 8
Nash County, North Carolina

cgl,
NIH
n Rd
Soil Type
Georgeville loam (GeB; GeC; GeE)
Goldsboro fine sandy loam (GoA)
1 Norfolk, Georgeville, Facevilie soils (NrB)
Wehadkee loam (Wh)
Wickham fine sandy loam (WkA)
Diu)
MeadowsI , - No
Great
r fProject Tract -...
�r2-ft Contour
0 225 300 .+F
Meters
Figure 2.3. Map showing soil types present in the project area.
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Proiect Tract (USDA 2022).
Soil -Type
Description
%Area
Georgeville loam GeB, GeC, GeE
Well drained, 2-6%, 6-10%, and 10-25% sloe
3
Goldsboro fine sandy loam GoA
Moderately well drained, 0-2% sloe
2.9
Norfolk, Georgeville, and Faceville soils (NrB)
Well drained, 2-8% slopes
0.9
Wehadkee loam Wh
Poorly drained, 0-2% slopes
66.9
Wickham fine sandy loam (WAA)
Well drained, 0-3% slopes
15.4
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 9
Nash County, North Carolina

Paleoenvironment
Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000
years (the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) including a general warming trend, melting
of the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin glaciation, and an associated rise in sea level. About 12,000 years
ago the ocean was located 50 to 100 miles east of its present position, and the project area was probably a
rather unremarkable interriverine Coastal Plain flatwoods. During the last 5,000 years there has apparently
been a 400- to 500-year cycle of sea level fluctuations of about two meters (Brooks et al. 1989; Colquhoun
et al. 1981).
The general warming trend that led to the melting of glacial ice and the rise in sea level greatly
affected vegetation communities in the Southeast. During the late Wisconsin glacial period, until about
12,000 years ago, boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce covered most of the Southeast. Approximately
10,000 years ago, a modern, somewhat xeric, forest developed and covered much of the Southeastern
United States (Kuchler 1964; Wharton 1989). As the climate continued to warm, increased moisture
augmented the northward advance of the oak -hickory forest (Delcourt 1979). In a study by Sheehan et al.
(1985), palynological evidence suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly decreased in importance
between 9,000 and 4,000 years before present (BP). By the mid -Holocene, the oak -hickory forest was
gradually being replaced by a pine dominated woodland (Wharton 1989:12).
From 4,000 years BP to the present, the upland vegetation of the Southeast was characterized by a
thinning of the deciduous forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1987). Hickory and gums were generally less
important, with alder and ragweed increasing in representation in the palynological record (Delcourt 1979;
Sheehan et al. 1985). This forest thinning suggests an increase in human related landscape modifications
(i.e., timbering, farming). Similarly, the importance and overall increase in pine species in the forest during
this time would have depended on several factors, including fire, land clearing, and soil erosion (Plummer
1975; Sheldon 1983). Since that time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward slightly
cooler and moister conditions, leading to the development of the present Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest
as defined by Quarterman and Keever (1962).
Faunal communities have also changed dramatically over time. A number of large mammal species
(e.g., mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct towards the end of the glacial period
12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Human groups, which for subsistence had focused on hunting these large
mammals, readapted their strategy to exploitation of smaller mammals, primarily deer in the Southeast.
Current Environmental Conditions
The Great Meadow tract is currently made up of grassy pastures, some of which are overgrown with
shrub and briars with larger hardwoods scattered throughout, and mixed pine and hardwood forests
generally surrounding the drainages. The land was actively used for agricultural practices throughout the
1970s. The entire tract is currently used as pastures for cows. In some areas, especially on the higher part
of the ridges, there was some ground surface exposure, which generally consisted of red clay on the surface.
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into three general eras: Pre -Contact, Contact,
and Post -Contact. The Pre -Contact era includes primarily the Native American groups and cultures that
were present for at least 12,000 years prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Contact era is the time of
exploration and initial European settlement on the continent. The Post -Contact era is the time after the
establishment of European settlements, when Native American populations were generally in rapid decline.
Within these eras, finer temporal and cultural subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions of
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 10
Nash County, North Carolina

particular events and the lifeways of the peoples who inhabited North America at that time. The following
discussion summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in the Southeastern Coastal Plain
of North Carolina, emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function throughout prehistory.
Overview of Regional Native American Settlement
Ward and Davis (1999) provide a comprehensive cultural overview of the project region. This
overview has been used to construct Table 2.2, which provides a brief chronology of Native American
occupation in the project region. Each temporal period is briefly discussed below.
Cable 2.2. Native American Archaeological
Chronology for the Northern North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Temporal
Phase
Diagnostic Artifacts
Settlement
Subsistence
Period
Paleoindian
Clovis
large, triangular, fluted or side -notched
small, seasonal camps
intensive foraging,
(10,000-8,000 BC)
projectile points
focus on large fauna
Dalton
Archaic
Taylor
side -notched projectile points
larger, seasonal camps;
intensive foraging
(8,000-1,000 BC)
Kirk/Palmer
corner --notched projectile points
base camps
Lecroy
stemmed points
Morrow Mtn.
Guilford
Savannah River
large Savannah River Points
first shell middens in the
use of marine resources
Stallings Island fiber tempered and Thom's
Carolinas
Creek sand tempered ceramics in southern part
of NC coast
Woodland
Deep Creek
large triangular points (Roanoke Triangular)
small, dispersed villages;
intensive foraging
(1,000 BC- 1710 AD)
sand tempered pottery
focus on flood plain areas
supplemented by
cord marked surface treatments
horticulture;
agriculture; continued
flexed burials and
focus on shellfish
Mt. Pleasant /
sand tempered ceramics with fabric and cord
cremations
Cape Fear
marked surface decorations; small triangular
projectile points
large, permanent villages;
European trade
Cashie /
pebble tempered pottery (Tuscarora Indians)
deer skin trade
intensive agriculture,
Collington
focus remains on corn;
shell tempered pottery (Pamlico Indians?)
supplemented by
Tuscarora War
European grains
Brady and Lautzenheiser (1999); Ward and Davis (1999); Phelps (1983)
Pre -Contact Period
Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter -gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent during
the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades has begun
to cast doubt on this theory.
In the past two decades, investigations at Paleoindian sites have produced radiocarbon dates predating
12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer
et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 11
Nash County, North Carolina

BC. Current research conducted at the Topper Site indicates occupations dating between 15,000 and 19,000
(or more) years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar
dates. One contentious point about these early sites is that the occupations predate what has been recognized
asthe earliest New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts identified at pre -Clovis sites include flake tools and
blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and lanceolate -like points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2006; Johnson
1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; and McDonald 2000).
The major artifact marker for the Clovis period is the Clovis lanceolate -fluted point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been recovered throughout
the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in the eastern United States
(Ward and Davis 1999). Most Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, although some
sites (e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined subsurface Cloviscontexts.
The identification of pre -Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the United
States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last glaciation),
and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type has led some researchers to hypothesize other avenues of
New World migration (see Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories contend that the
influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice -free corridor 12,000 years ago and that multiple
migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the one presumed to
have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific
rim (see Stanford 2006). Coastal migration theories envision seafaring people using boats to make the
journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).
In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate spear
points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983). Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United
States (Ward and Davis 1999); this indicates that population density was extremely low during this period
and that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were
probably well scheduled, and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate
arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
O'Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, while later sites were distributed widely in the
uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for
the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on
smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been afactor.
Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Sites dating to this period are ubiquitous in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe and
McCormick 1970). Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures.
Coe's excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont established a chronological
sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. The Archaic period has been divided into three
subperiods: Early (8000 - 6000 BC), Middle (6000 - 3500 BC), and Late (3500 - 1000 BC) (Coe 1964).
Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and Kirk
Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner notched
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 12
Nash County, North Carolina

points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points),
but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as
representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1985). The Early Archaic points of
the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although occasional chert,
quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.
Claggett et al. (1982) use a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980), toclassify
late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical." Logistical task groups, in this definition, target
a particular resource or set of subsistence or technological resources for collection and use at a residential base
camp. Their analysis identifies an increase in residential mobility beginning in the Early Archaic and extending
into the Middle Archaic (Claggett et al. 1982). Early Archaic peoples transitioned from logistical orientation
to foraging. Foraging refers to a generalized resource procurement strategy enacted in closer proximity to
a base camp. Subsistence remains recovered from Early Archaic sites in southern Virginia include fish,
turtle, turkey, small mammals, and deer, as well as a wide variety of nuts (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).
Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of increased
population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories; this increase in population led to increasing
social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled aggregation for mate exchange. In
Sassaman's view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly expedient; this is reflected in an almost
exclusive use of local resources, especially lithic material. The appearance/introduction of Stanly points, a
broad -bladed stemmed form defines the transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod. These were followed
by Morrow Mountain points, which are characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered
from numerous small sites throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often
made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence. Morrow Mountain and Guilford
points were the most frequently recovered projectile point types in the Jordan Lake survey area (Coe and
McCormick1970). The latter were typically found on low knolls or ridge toes overlooking perennial streams
(Autry 1976).
The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe 1964). This
large, broad -bladed and stemmed point type is found widely over the eastern United States and in nearly every
setting during the Jordan Lake survey (Autry 1976). It is associated with Late Archaic occupations in the
mountains and uplands as well as at coastal midden sites of the period. Also, the earliest ceramics produced
in North America are associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and date to around 2000 BC. These
ceramics are Stallings Island Fiber Tempered and are primarily a coastal phenomenon, stretching from
northern Florida to southern North Carolina.
Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier sites
(Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are typically in riverine
settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to reflect greatly increased sedentism during the Late
Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and floodplain resources. Small Late Archaic sites in the uplands of
the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical collection and hunting camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988). Abbott
et al. (1986) have speculated that an increase in population during the Late Archaic led to a restriction in
resource ranges and an increase in trade networks.
More recent work on lithic sourcing has shed light on potential Late Archaic resource rounds.
Steponaitis et al. (2006) conducted chemical analysis on Late Archaic artifacts recovered from archaeological
sites on Fort Bragg and samples recovered from prehistoric quarries in the Uwharrie Mountains and in Orange,
Chatham, and Person counties. Several of the artifacts generally matched the chemical signatures from the
Uwharrie quarries and others were similar to the Tillery Formation material present in Orange and Chatham
counties. Their conclusions suggested that, despite the trend towards increased sedentism, Late Archaic
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 13
Nash County, North Carolina

peoples were traveling long distances to obtain good quality stone and crossing drainages rather than
confining their travels along drainages.
Woodland Period (1000 BC -1600 AD). A transition between the predominantly preceramic Archaic
cultures and the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy
triangular point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Other cultural expressions
of the Early Woodland are the ceramics and projectile points of the Badin culture. These points are generally
crude triangulars while the ceramics are heavily tempered and undecorated. Unlike Oliver, Miller (1962)
notes little change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland transition other than the
addition of pottery. Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between Archaic and Woodland
occupations, also describes little technological or subsistence change other than ceramics.
Ceramic technology evolved from Badin styles into the Yadkin Phase wares during the Middle
Woodland subperiod (300 BC - 1000 AD). Yadkin ceramics have crushed quartz temper and are either cord
marked or fabric impressed. Occasionally, Yadkin ceramics contain grog (i.e., crushed fired clay) temper,
suggesting the influence of coastal populations who more commonly utilized grog temper in their ceramics
(Coe 1964). Yadkin phase projectile points differ from the Badin styles in that they reflect significantly
better workmanship (Coe 1964) and are more suited to the newly adopted bow and arrow technology. The
introduction of the bow and arrow necessitated significant changes in hunting strategies, allowing for more
independent procurement of animals rather than the group hunts generally associated with spear hunting.
Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period, so subsistence strategies remained focused on hunting
animals and gathering wild plants.
In the study area, the Late Woodland subperiod (1000 —1600 AD) is represented by the Uwharrie,
Haw River, and Hillsboro phases. The Uwharrie Phase projectile points have small triangular forms.
Uwharrie ceramics are heavily tempered with crushed quartz and predominantly net impressed with scraped
interiors (Eastman 1991). Woodall (1988) notes an increased emphasis on cooking and the use of ceramic
decoration to differentiate social standing at Yadkin village sites he investigated on the Yadkin River, east
of the project area. During the Haw River Phase, evidence for the use of horticulture in addition to native
plants can be seen through storage pits containing maize kernels, beans, squash seeds, and sunflower seeds
(Gremillion 1989; Ward and Davis 1993). This mixed subsistence strategy continued through the Hillsboro
Phase, as seen at the Wall Site (Ward and Davis 1999).
Agriculture was initially a supplement to Native American subsistence strategies during this period
but became increasingly important over time. Corn, beans, squash, sunflowers, and fruit were cultivated
with the aid of stone hoes and wooden implements, and settlement patterns indicate conditions favorable to
agriculture were significant to decision -making i.e. broad floodplains (Hantman and Klein 1992; Ward 1983;
Ward and Davis1993).
Historic Indian / Protohistoric Period
The first European exploration along the coast of North Carolina was in 1524 by Giovanni da
Verrazano, who sailed under the flag of France. He commented on the Native Americans he encountered
but made no attempt at settlement in the area. In 1526, Luis Vasquez de Ayllon led a Spanish expedition
attempting to establish a settlement near the River Jordan, which is believed to be in the vicinity of the Cape
Fear River. His party included approximately 500 men, women, and children, a few slaves, and 90 horses.
Bad weather, hunger, and malaria took a toll on the settlers. Upon Ayllon's death, the 150 surviving settlers
returned to Santo Domingo.
Spain initiated the exploration ofthe southeastern United States in the hopes ofpreserving their claims
to American lands west of the Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation. Hernando de Soto (1539-1543)
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 14
Nash County, North Carolina

and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of North
Carolina during the mid -sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages near
the present- day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Moore 2006).
The Spanish also built garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury (Moore 2006). Recent work
at the Berry site in Burke County identified the remains of the Spanish garrison of Xualla (also called Joara)
visited by de Soto in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s. Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not
be sustained despite their best attempts to establish a permanent presence with interior outposts and coastal
settlements. Mounting pressure from hostile Native Americans and English privateers also contributed to
their withdrawal to St. Augustine in 1587 (South 1980). Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought
disastrous effects on contemporary Native American peoples, causing populations to collapsed and entire
communities to disappear.
Sir Walter Raleigh heavily promoted England's interest in the New World. In 1585, Raleigh used
his position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I to secure backing to outfit an English attempt at colonizing
the Atlantic coast (Powell 1989). Although this effort failed, Raleigh's single-minded ambition led to the
establishment of a colony on the James River in 1607 (Noel Hume 1994).
The first years of settlement at Jamestown were hampered by disastrous mismanagement resulting
in starvation, loss of life, and hostilities with neighboring Powhatan. In 1624 the Crown revoked the
Virginia Company's charter and established a royal government (Noel Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the
civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, these authorities showed little interest in
the area that was to become North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period traders, hunters, trappers,
rogues, and tax evaders began living in the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina
(Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-
reliant.
During the early years of contact, European trade goods are scarce at sites throughout the Piedmont,
making it likely that these items were exchanged from tribe to tribe following a traditional trade network.
As time went on, the number of European trade goods dramatically increased.
Information regarding the Mitchum and Jenrette Phases was obtained from two separate sites.
Evidence of trade with Europeans was found in the form glass beads and brass items which were common
trade items as well as peach pits. At the Mitchum and Jenrette sites, large numbers of clay pipes that
resembled European kaolin pipes were found alongside traditional pipes, suggesting a change in smoking
habits (Ward and Davis 1999). The two sites were both relatively small but enclose with a palisade.
Historic Period
Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and distributed rewards to loyal Royalist supporters.
Seven supporters were awarded the charter to establish a proprietary colony south of Virginia. The boundaries
of this deed were set to include the Albemarle Sound settlement of Charles Town south to the frontier of
Spanish -held La Florida. Proprietors maintained control over a single Carolina until 1712, when the colonies
were separated. After the Yamasee War, the colonists pleaded with the crown to take over the settlement of
the colony. The proprietors subsequently forfeited control to the Crown. That divestment forced the
Proprietors' sale of their North Carolina charter to King George II in 1729 (Powell 1989).
John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project area.
In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the Pacific
Ocean (Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South Carolina.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 15
Nash County, North Carolina

During this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Saura, Catawba and Waxhaw.
The Catawba Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South Carolina.
Inspired by Lederer, John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South Carolina through the North
Carolina Piedmont to Pamlico Sound. Lawson's 1700-1701 excursion followed a well -established Native
American trading path that passed near present day Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967).
Lawson's journey took him through Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would
soon come into close contact with European colonists. The Native Americans who lived near this area at the
time were believed to be largely Siouan speakers, the majority of whom refused to join the Tuscarora in
their efforts to push back white settlers as they were benefitting from the fur trade with the colonists.
The principle economic focus ofthe Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade. This
trade revolved around the exchange ofEuropean manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and slaves. It drew
Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing intertribal hostilities.
Itinerant traders based in Charleston (South Carolina), and Virginia vied for clients among the North Carolina
Piedmont settlements (Oberg and Moore 2017; Powell 1989).
The Lords Proprietors gave colonists permission to deal with the natives as they saw fit, and
colonists continued to encroach upon native lands with little or no compensation. The open and illegal trade
of Native American slaves compounded the problem. The Tuscaroras sought permission to move to
Pennsylvania but were denied when North Carolina failed to certify past good behavior of the Tuscaroras.
Seeing no alternative, on September 22, 1711, the Tuscarora killed 130 colonists who had settled on their
land. The Tuscarora War lasted three and half years and left 200 colonists and 1,000 Native Americans
dead, and approximately 1,000 more Native Americans sold into slavery (Ward and Davis 1999:274). Many
Tuscarora were forced from their homes and placed on reservations or migrated to Pennsylvania and New
York. The Carolina colonies were left in dire financial straits but now the inner part of North Carolina was
open for European settlers. These conditions persisted until the Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their
holdings in the Carolinas tothe Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989).
During the Revolutionary War, many Nash County (then Edgecombe County) residents joined the
independence movement. No major fighting occurred in Edgecombe County during the war but several
skirmishes took place. In 1777, British loyalists led by John Llewelyn tried to take over Tarboro but were
driven back by local Whigs supporting independence. Control of Tarboro was only relinquished in early
May 1781 when Cornwallis's advance guard occupied the town. Skirmishes between local loyalist and
Whig supporters continued through the end of the war (Watson 1979).
Although the first land grants in the area were granted in the 1740s, Nash County wasn't established
until 1777. It was formed from the western portion of Edgecombe County in order to allow for the
establishment of centralized services on both sides of the Tar River, which was difficult to cross for those
living west of the Tar River falls. The county was named for General Francis Nash, who had recently died
in the Revolutionary War Battle of Germantown (Allison 1989). Nashville was made the county seat in
1780 (Nash County 2020) but Rocky Mount was, and still is, the largest community in the county largely
due to its location on the Tar River and along the railroad route. Rocky Mount was incorporated in 1867
and straddles the line between Nash and Edgecombe counties (City of Rocky Mount 2020).
Nash County has been largely agricultural throughout its history. Prior to the Civil War, the largest
economic crop was cotton. The county's first cotton mill was built at the Falls of the Tar River in Rocky
Mount in 1818. The Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, the area's first railroad, was completed in 1840,
allowing better access to Rocky Mount and Tarboro and speeding the transportation of crops (Allison 1989).
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 16
Nash County, North Carolina

Following the Civil War, farmers began to diversify their crops, planting cotton, corn, and tobacco.
Tobacco rose in popularity due to lowering prices of cotton, and by the nineteenth century tobacco joined
cotton as a major cash crop. Farm size also began to decline during this time period as tenancy increased
(Piehl 1979). The tenant farmer system led to economic and social problems in the region, and many African
American laborers migrated to other areas. This migration began at the end of the 1870s and continued
through the 1890s (Watson 1979). Growth in Nash County following the Civil War was slow. It wasn't
until the 1880s that tobacco began to be produced commercially. By 1887, Rocky Mount had two tobacco
warehouses and a bank.
Mechanization and the consolidation of farms after World War II reduced the number of farm
operators significantly in the southeast. The number of tenant farmers was reduced by 370,000 throughout
the southeast between 1935 and 1940 alone. In Nash County, cotton production was largely replaced by
peanuts and livestock.
Today, agriculture is still important to the local economy of Nash County, but manufacturing now
accounts for the largest industry, followed by health care and retail sales (No Author 2020a). The county is
known as the birthplace of Hardee's, the fast-food restaurant chain and as the home of such notables as Kay
Kiser, Thelonious Monk, and current state governor, Roy Cooper (No Author 2020b).
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 17
Nash County, North Carolina

Chapter 3. Investigation Results
Background Research Results
Archaeological background research was conducted at the North Carolina site files located at the
Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. Four historic resources are located within 1.6 kilometers of
the project tract (Figure 3.1; Table 3.1). These resources consist of a dwelling dating to the 1780s that is a
Georgian frame house. Another of the resources is a 1923 two -room frame constructed Rosenwald school.
Both of these resources have been placed on the Study List. The two remaining resources are houses that
were surveyed in 1984 and are listed as Survey Only and.
Six previously recorded archaeological sites are located within 1.6 kilometers of the project area
(see Figure 3.1; Table 3.2). Five of these sites prehistoric artifact scatters recorded by Dan Simpkins in
1975 based solely on surface collection of artifacts. All are unassessed for potential National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. The sites range in occupation date from the Late Paleoindian to the
Woodland Period. Site 31NS71 is a Middle Archaic lithic scatter recorded by Gerald Glover with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation in 1993. Glover recommended no further work at this site. One of
these sites, 31NS21, is located within the project area and a second site, 31NS27, is directly adjacent to the
project area boundary.
31N326
N51099 �
N50523
NS0526
31NS27
31N521
N50531
31NS29 /
31N328
" 31N371 �
Great Meadows Mitigation
Project Tract • Archaeofogical Site
Mile Buffer ♦ Historic Resource
0 300 600 900 1,200
Meters r
Figure 3.1. Map of the showing previously recorded cultural resources within 1.6 kilometers
of the project area (1998 Essex, NC and 1963 Red Oak, NC USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangles).
Inc. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 18
Nash County, North Carolina

Table 3.1. Summary of Historic Resources Located in the Project Vicinity
Resource
I Description
NRHP Status
NS0523
Redin Fox House
Survey Only
NS0526
T.E. Ricks House
Surveyed Only
NS0531
Battle -Cooper -Hicks House
Study List
NS 1099
Avent School
Stud List
Table 3.2. Summary of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity
Site Number
Description
NRHP Status
31NS21
Woodland Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
31NS26
Archaic Lithic Scatter
Unassessed
31NS27
Late Paleoindian to Woodland Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
31NS28
Late Paleoindian to Woodland Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
31NS29
Unknown Lithic Scatter
Unassessed
31NS71
Middle Archaic Lithic Scatter
Not Eligible
A review of historic maps was conducted to determine the potential for historic buildings or
structures within the project tract. These maps included the 1963 and 1998 topographic maps as well as the
Nash County soil and highway maps. As previously noted, aerial images dating back to 1956 were also
examined. No buildings or structures are reflected within the project tract.
Field Survey Results
This investigation resulted in the comprehensive survey of the approximately 50-acre Great
Meadow mitigation tract. In total, 175 shovel tests were excavated within the project tract. In high potential
areas, shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart (see
Figure 3.1). Areas with steep slope or saturated and poorly drained soils were covered with pedestrian
survey and judgmental shovel tests. Shorter interval (15-meters) shovel tests were excavated in the
immediate vicinity of previously recorded site 31NS21. Figure 3.2 shows the survey coverage in the project
area.
Two archaeological sites, 31NS21 and 31NS218, were delineated and assessed during this
investigation (Figure 3.3). These sites are discussed in more detail below. Previously recorded site 31NS27
is located just outside the project area boundaries. No associated deposits were identified within the project
area.
Site 31NS21
Site Type: Woodland Ceramic Scatter; Historic Isolate UTM (NAD 83): 234179 E 4002465 N
Component: Middle Woodland; Unknown Historic USGS Quad: Essex, NC
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Wehadkee loam
Site 31NS21 was originally recorded in 1975 as a surface scatter of prehistoric sherds, points, and a
stone hatchet fragment located in active farmland. It was recorded by Dan Simpkins during student research
for a class being taught by Joffre Coe. This site was relocated in the western portion of the project area
(Figure 3.3). The site is situated on a discrete terrace overlooking Fisher Branch. The area is within a grassy
pasture with several large hardwood trees scattered throughout the area.
A total of 21 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals in the site vicinity; several of which
spanned the Fisher Branch channel. Seven additional shovel tests were excavated at 5-meter intervals
surrounding the single positive shovel test. Site dimensions of 15 by 15 meters were established based on
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 19
Nash County, North Carolina

WI
0
31NS21
1
Great Meadows Mitigation
High Potential, 1 5m interval
High Potential, 30m interval
�p," '•-,
2-ft Contour
•0 180 270 360
Meters
Figure 3.2. Map of showing survey coverage of the project area.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
20

1
t
f I
31Ns21
tSk
4
0. Great Meadows Mitigation
4� 31 N5218 i J Project Tract
_ _ _ � 0 Archaepkogical Site s
k* . j , 0 120 240 asa 480
Y
01
Meters
Figure 3.3. Map of archaeological sites in the project tract (1998 Essex, NC and 1963 Red Oak, NC
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles).
the single positive shovel test. The eastern boundary of the site was not able to be defined by shovel testing
as it would have been outside of the tract boundary but the land slopes steeply away from the site area and
it is unlikely that deposits are present. Shovel test soil profiles consisted of 5 centimeters of dark gray
(10YR4/1) silty loam followed by brown (10YR 4/3) silty loam overlying strong brown (7.5YR4/6) silty
loamy clay subsoil. Figure 3.4 presents a site plan map and views of the site setting and shovel test profile.
Three artifacts were recovered from the site. These consist of one brick fragment (n=5.2g) and two
Mount Pleasant Cordmarked body sherds with coarse sand temper. These sherds date to the Middle
Woodland subperiod. All artifacts were recovered in the upper 20 centimeters of soil
Site 31NS21 is a Middle Woodland ceramic scatter with an intrusive brick fragment. The site has
been disturbed from past plowing and farming activities and no evidence of cultural features or organic
preservation were present. Although not noted on the site form, presumably the site area afforded Simpkins
with a high degree of ground surface exposure. Little surface exposure was available during this
investigation. Subsurface artifacts were confined to a single shovel test. Few artifacts were recovered from
this site. Although the site could not be fully delineated to the east due to its proximity to the project area
boundary, the site is situated in a low area at the base of a steep slope on the east. It is unlikely that additional
deposits are present on the slope. In addition, the soil type is currently classified in the site area as frequently
flooded, and there was no evidence of cultural features, intact cultural deposits, or intact stratigraphy. Due
Inc. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 21
Nash County, North Carolina

1
1
1
1
I
31 NS21 Revisit
Site Plan ; ' 30�
ao
O Negative Shovel Test 7
• Positive Shovel Test
A Datum: N500 E500
O 15 30
metefs
Project Boundar,
O O O
Site Boundary
1 O \
Wte,Oak Tree
O o 0 oZ*Q
o n o
O o�Pasoturewit(h)*'��
Occasional Hardwood-,
• O
Figure 3.4. Plan map, site setting, and soil profile at site 31NS21.
19
a0
to these factors as well as the paucity of artifacts and their mixed contexts, this site has no further research
potential and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31NS218
Site Type: Prehistoric Artifact Scatter UTM (NAD 83): 234178 E 4001903 N
Component: Woodland USGS Quad: Essex, NC
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Wickham fine sandy loam
Site 31NS218 is a Woodland artifact scatter located in the southern end of the project tract (see
Figure 3.3). The site is situated in an overgrown pasture on a narrow, well-defined ridge that overlooks
Gideon Swamp to its north.
Inc. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 22
Nash County, North Carolina

A total of 20 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals within the site. Site dimensions of
15 by 60 meters were established based on four positive shovel tests. Shovel test soil profiles within the
site consisted of 10 to 15 centimeters of brown (10YR4/3) silty loam followed by 10 centimeters of
yellowish brown (10YR5/4) silty loam overlying yellowish red (IOYR 5/6) silty loamy clay subsoil. Figure
3.5 presents an overview of the project area, a picture of the representative shovel test profile, and the site
map.
Tree Line — _
' Wood S
Property Boundary
O
Pasture and Scrub
- 0 O O spa
` + 4.1
0 0 I • O
Site Boundary ---�
0 0 I e I O sru
l 2A
• �• . O O 1 • O +ao
0 1.1
O .�o
31NS218
Site Plan '
o Negative Shovel Test �o
• Positive Shovel Test
7Datum: N500 E500
0 5 3o s
O 5 5 S 541
Figure 3.5. Plan map, site setting, and soil profile at site 31NS218.
A total of 10 artifacts were recovered from this site (Error! Not a valid bookmark self -
reference.). These artifacts consist of three metavolcanic flakes/flake fragments, one quartz flake/flake
fragment, one piece of quartz shatter, and four residual sherds. The sherds can only be dated to the general
Woodland Period. The lithics are not temporally diagnostic.
Table 3.3. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Site 31NS218.
rtifact
I Count
Icomment
ithics:
etavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1
Quartz Shatter
1
Ceramics:
esidual Sherd
4
on -diagnostic
Site 31NS218 is a Woodland artifact scatter. The artifact density at this site is relatively low. All
artifacts were recovered from the highest point of the landform, which is small and well defined. The site
area has been disturbed by past agricultural activities and no evidence of cultural features or organic
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 23
Nash County, North Carolina

preservation were present. The site lacks integrity and has no further research potential. This site is
recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Recommendations
One new archaeological site, 31NS218, and one previously recorded archaeological site, 31NS21,
were identified in the project area. Site 31NS218 is a Woodland artifact scatter that does not meet NRHP
eligibility criteria. Site 31NS21 is a Middle Woodland ceramic scatter. While the eastern boundaries for
site 31NS21 could not be formally defined due to its proximity to the project area's boundaries, steep slope
is present beyond the boundary and it is therefore unlikely that additional deposits are present. This site is
also recommended not eligible for the NRHP due to the lack of subsurface deposits. As no significant
archaeological resources will be impacted by this proposed undertaking, no further archaeological work is
advocated.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 24
Nash County, North Carolina

References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology's Greatest Mystery. Random House. New
York.
Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist 19:
317-41.
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah
River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Allison, John B.
1989 Nash County Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.
Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper, eds.
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Brady, Ellen M. and Loertta Lautzenheiser
1999 Archaeological Testing of Sites 31PM38 and 31PM42, Pamlico County, North Carolina.
Coastal Carolina Research, Tarboro, NC.
Brooks, M.J., P.A. Stone, D.J. Colquhoun and J.G. Brown
1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period
Subsistence -Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. In Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 91-100.
The University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological
Studies 9. Columbia.
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown, WV.
Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principle Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics for Identification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series
15.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States, James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 312-321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 25
Nash County, North Carolina

Charles, Tommy and Christopher R. Moore
2018 Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tools of South Carolina. Piedmont Archaeological Studies Trust,
Inc., Glendale, SC.
City of Rocky Mount
2020 About Rocky Mount. Electronic document, rockymountnc.gov.
Claggett, Stephen R., John S. Cable, and Curtis E. Larsen
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 54(5).
Coe, Joffre Lanning, and Olin F. McCormick
1970 Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill, NC.
Colquhoun, Donald R., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. Abbott, Frank W. Stapor, Walter H.
Newman, and Richard R. Pardi
1981 Location of archeological sites with respect to sea level in the Southeastern United States. In
Striae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14, edited by L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo, pp. 144-
150.
Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent Cumberland
Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1987 Long -Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late Quaternary
Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies 63. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Dillehay, T. D., editor
1997 Monte Verde -A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological Context
and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Driver, J. C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada, 11,000 to
9,000 FP. Quaternary International 49:141-150.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/
histarch/gallery_types/
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 26
Nash County, North Carolina

Gardner, William
1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper No. 1. Washington,
D.C.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Gremillion, Kristen Johnson
1989 Late Prehistoric and Historic Period Paleoethnobotany of the North Carolina Piedmont. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175-191.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and
Michael R. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Hantman, J. L., and M. J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137-164. Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication, 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Cortland.
Herbert, Joseph M.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hudson, Charles M
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser,
eds., pp. 74-103. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E.C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C 1 Dating of the Foothills Erractics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:73-
94.
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapter—
ASV's 1993 and 1995 Excavation. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus
Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, eds. DHR Research Report,
8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 27
Nash County, North Carolina

Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.
Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183.
Magid, Barbara H.
2010 Alexandria Archaeology Laboratory Reference Book. City of Alexandria, Virginia
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. Academic Press, New York.
McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No 8.
McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia with Special Attention
to a Bone Tool. Jeffersonia 9:1-59.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory
2:1-53.
Meltzer, David J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A. W. Barker, D. F. Dincause, C. V. Haynes, F. Mena, L.
Nunez, and D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity
44(1):172-179.
Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River Virginia -North Carolina.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin,182. River Basin Surveys Papers. Government Printing
Office, Washington DC.
Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew D. Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29(1):1-22.
Moore, David G.
2005 Catawba Indians; De Soto Expedition, Estatoe Path; Pardo Expeditions. Inc The
Encyclopedia of North Carolina, edited by William S. Powell, University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Nash County
2020 History of Nash County. Electronic document, nashcountync.gov.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 28
Nash County, North Carolina

No Author
2020a Nash Ct., NC. Electronic document, datausa.io/profile/geo/nash-county-nc/.
2020b Notables. Electronic document, explorenascounty.com.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Oberg, Michael Leroy and David Moore
2017 Voyages to Carolinas: Europeans in the Indian's Old World. In New Voyages to Carolina:
Reinterpreting North Carolina History, Larry E. Tise and Jeffrey J. Crow, eds., University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Oliver, Billy
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, University.
1999 Uwharrie Lithics Conference: Projectile Point Chronology Workbook. North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC.
Peck, Rodney M.
1982Indian Projectile Point Types from Virginia and the Carolinas. Privately printed.
Phelps, David S.
1981 Archaeological Survey of Four Watersheds in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. North
Carolina Archaeological Council. Raleigh, NC.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plains: Problems and Hypotheses.
In The Prehistory of North Carolina. Eds. Mark Mathis and Jeffrey Crow. North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Piehl, Charles
1979 White Society in the Black Belt, 1870-1920: A Study of Four North Carolina Counties. Ph.D.
dissertation. Washington University. St. Louis, MO.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh, NC.
Plummer, Gayther L.
1975 Eighteenth Century Forests in Georgia. Bulletin ofthe Georgia Academy of Science 33:1-19.
Quarterman, Elsie and Katherine Keever
1962 Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecological
Monographs 32:167-185.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 29
Nash County, North Carolina

Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Master's Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sheehan, Mark C., Donald R. Whitehead, and Stephen T. Jackson
1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.
Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.
Sheldon, Elizabeth S.
1983 Vegetational History of the Wallace Reservoir. Early Georgia 11(1-2):19-31.
South, Stanley
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series, 165. South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Stanford, Dennis
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, D. Gentry Steele, and Bradley T
Lepper, eds., pp. 313-353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Steponaitis, Vincas P., Jeffrey D. Irwin, Theresa E. McReynolds, and Christopher R. Moore, eds.
2006 Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt. Research Report No. 25, Research
Laboratory of Archaeology. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2022 Web Soil Survey, Electronic Document. https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/
HomePage.htm.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1998 Essex, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
1963 Red Oak, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History, The Archaeology of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 30
Nash County, North Carolina

Watson, Alan D.
1979 Edgecombe County: A Brief History. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Department of Cultural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Whatley, John S.
2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. In Early Georgia
30(1): 7-133.
Ine. Great Meadow Mitigation Tract 31
Nash County, North Carolina

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog

Artifact Catalog
Great Meadow
Site Number 31NS21
Provenience Number: 1.1 31NS21 Revisit, 50ON 500E, 0-20cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description Comments
1 ml 1 5.2 Brick Fragment
2 p2 2 7 Coarse Sand Temper Mount Pleasant Cord Some pebble inclusions; 2 mend
Marked Body Sherd
Site Number 31NS218
Provenience Number:
1.1
Site 1, 485N 500E, 0-20cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
ml
2
0.8 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
p2
3
6.4 Residual Sherd
2 mend
Provenience
Number:
2.1
Site 1, 50ON 500E, 0-30cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
m3
1
8.5 Quartz Shatter
2
p4
1
1.4 Residual Sherd
Provenience
Number:
3.1
Site 1, 515N 500E, 0-20cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
m5
1
0.8 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience Number: 4.1 Site 1, 530N 500E, 0-20cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description Comments
1 m6 1 8.8 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Page 1 of 1

Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator

DAWN M. REID
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[phone] Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - July 2008 to present
Vice President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - 2003 to July 2008
President, Heritage Partners, LLC. - 2007 to present
Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator, Brockington and Associates, Inc. - 1993 to 2003
EDUCATION
B.S. in Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1992
M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Client and Agency Consultations for Planning and Development
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) Society for American Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Mid -Atlantic Archaeology Conference
Archaeological Society of South Carolina Council of South Carolina
Archaeologists
North Carolina Archaeological Society North Carolina Council of
Archaeologists
Professional
Professional
Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase n and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II) - Representative Examples
• Airport Expansions for Concord Regional Airport (Cabarrus County), Hickory Regional Airport (Burke
County)
• Greenways for Appomattox County, Virginia (Appomattox Heritage Trail), Isle of Wight County (Fort
Huger)
• Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), BREMCO (Asheville), SCE&G
(Columbia), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Transco Pipeline (Houston), ANR Pipeline (Detroit), and
others
• Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina Department
of Transportation (Columbia), North Carolina Department of Transportation (Raleigh)
• Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies
including the USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Mobile and Wilmington Districts)
Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) - Representative Examples
Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA
Prehistoric village (31ON1578) and late 18'h/early 19' century plantation (31ON1582) for R.A.
Management, Charlotte, NC
18' century residence (38BU1650) for Meggett, LLC, Bluffton, SC

Prehistoric camps/villages (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) for Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club,
Myrtle Beach, SC
EXPERIENCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES
Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia; Townsend Bombing Range, McIntosh County, Georgia; Fort Bragg, Fayetteville,
North Carolina; Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina; Fort Jackson, Columbia, South Carolina; Fort
Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
Georgia Power Company -Flint River Hydroelectric Project
Duke Energy - Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina; Fishing Creek, South Carolina
*A detailed listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
August 29, 2022
Dawn Reid
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
dawnreid&archcon. org
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Re: Great Meadow mitigation site, 36.131215,-77.953729, Nash County, ER 21-3197
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for your letter of July 26, 2022, submitting a revised archaeological survey report for the above -
referenced undertaking. We have reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.
We concur that the following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the
reasons outlined in the report:
Sites 31NS21 and 31NS218 do not have the potential to contain information pertinent to prehistoric or
historic research questions.
We note that the recommended field work has now been completed and that final artifact disposition has
been clarified. We have accepted the submitted document as the final compliance report for this
archaeological survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review(cncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
� Ramona Bartos, Deputy
{j State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
January 13, 2022,
Attention: Todd Tugwell
Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
2022-56-7 SAW-2021-01714 Wildlands Tar Pamlico 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Dear Mr. Tugwell,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Great Meadows
Cooper Road
Whitakers, NC 27891
Inquiry Number: 6602411.2s
August 02, 2021
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDR . Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
FORM-LBE-MGA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary
ES1
OverviewMap-----------------------------------------------------------
2
DetailMap--------------------------------------------------------------
3
Map Findings Summary
4
MapFindings------------------------------------------------------------
8
Orphan Summary---------------------------------------------------------
9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum
A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary
A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map -------------------------------------------
A-5
Physical Setting Source Map------------------------------------------------
A-14
Physical Setting Source Map Findings
A-16
Physical Setting Source Records Searched
PSGR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2020 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC6602411.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
COOPER ROAD
WHITAKERS, NC 27891
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
36.1295870 - 36' 7' 46.51 "
77.9523140 - 77° 57' 8.33"
Zone 18
234308.5
4002159.0
143 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5945845 ESSEX, NC
Version Date: 2013
South Map: 5946153 RED OAK, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20140616, 20140524
Source: USDA
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
COOPER ROAD
WHITAKERS, NC 27891
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
DATABASE ACRONYMS
RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ELEVATION DIRECTION
6602411.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL---------------- Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY---------. Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------ RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-VSQG RCRA - Very Small Quantity Generators (Formerly Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators)
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS------------------------ Land Use Control Information System
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US ENG CONTROLS --------- Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROLS Institutional Controls Sites List
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
DEBRIS______________________ Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
LCID Land -Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST ------------------------- Regional UST Database
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST ----------------- State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST__________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP__________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS---------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF______________________
Solid Waste Facility Listing
SWRCY
Recycling Center Listing
INDIAN ODI
Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9-----------
Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI
Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS
Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL---------------- Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS_______________________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS
Spills Incident Listing
IMD
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90--------------------
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR---------------
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION
2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS-------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD ________________
Records Of Decision
RMP
Risk Management Plans
RAATS
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP__________________________
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS_________________________
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _. Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER
PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO____________________
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT___________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INDIAN RESERV_____________
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS____________
Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES
Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES________
Abandoned Mines
FINDS
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
UXO
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
ECHO ------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
DOCKET HWC
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS_________________________
Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS
ASBESTOS
COAL ASH
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS--------------
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC---------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP
Animal Operation Permits Listing
PCSRP
Petroleum -Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
SEPT HAULERS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
CCB
Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) Listing
MINES MRDS
Mineral Resources Data System
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP____________________ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS-------------------- Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 6602411.2S
Target Property
o 114 1@ 1 ones
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
Special Flood Hazard Area (1 %) Disposal Sites
the target property
1
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Manufactured Gas Plants
.
National Wetland Inventory
L
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Great Meadows CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: Cooper Road CONTACT: Carolyn Lanza
Whitakers NC 27891 INQUIRY #: 6602411.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.129587 / 77.952314 DATE: August 02, 2021 3:17 pm
Copyright m 2021 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TornTom Rel. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 6602411.2S
Target Property
0 1/a 114
1@Miles
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Indian Reservations BIA
Hazardous Substance
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
Special Flood Hazard Area (1 %)
Disposal Sites
the target property
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Wetland Inventory
r
Sensitive Receptors
State Wetlands
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Great Meadows CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: Cooper Road CONTACT: Carolyn Lanza
Whitakers NC 27891 INQUIRY #: 6602411.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.129587 / 77.952314 DATE: August 02, 2021 3:19 pm
Copyright m 2021 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TornTom Rel. 2015.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Proposed NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NPL LIENS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEMS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-SQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-VSQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
LUCIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US INST CONTROLS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DEBRIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
OLI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LCID 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TC6602411.2s Page 4

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LAST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST TRUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN VCP 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SWRCY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN ODI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ODI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
IHS OPEN DUMPS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US CDL TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SPILLS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
IMD 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TC6602411.2s Page 5

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database
(Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8 - 1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
SPILLS 90
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SPILLS 80
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US FIN ASSUR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EPA WATCH LIST
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
2020 COR ACTION
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
TSCA
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TRIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SSTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ROD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
RMP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RAATS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PRP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PADS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ICIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
MILTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH DOE
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH EPA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
PCB TRANSFORMER
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RADINFO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
HIST FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DOT OPS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
CONSENT
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
INDIAN RESERV
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
FUSRAP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
UMTRA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LEAD SMELTERS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US AIRS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
ABANDONED MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
FINDS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UXO
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
ECHO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DOCKET HWC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FUELS PROGRAM
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AIRS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ASBESTOS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DRYCLEANERS
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Financial Assurance
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NPDES
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
UIC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
AOP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PCSRP
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEPT HAULERS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TC6602411.2s Page 6

Database
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target Total
(Miles) Property < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
CCB 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
MINES MRDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP
1.000
EDR Hist Auto
0.125
EDR Hist Cleaner
0.125
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS
TP
RGA LF
TP
RGA LUST
TP
Totals -- 0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 NR NR NR NR 0
0 NR NR NR NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
TC6602411.2s Page 7

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
NO SITES FOUND
TC6602411.2s Page 8

Count: 0 records.
ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
NO SITES FOUND
TC6602411.2s Page 9

Appendix E:
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Planting
Plans

s Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
y (See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
9
4D YCttYt I UAL
PERMANENT
ACCESS EASEMENT
PER D.B. 1375, PG. 537
EEK
APPROXIMATE 30'
UTILITY EASEMENT
19/FSA��e�'Y
GB�ic� gO90
0' 200' 400' 600'
(HORIZONTAL)

s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
FISHER BRANCH
I
I
I
I
I
w�
�o N
o
z
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL) y Z F '�

/XY, , /
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
— — — — — Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
OF
MM_ =
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL
wP-4

ryb
/
X� / 45'PERPETUAL
PERMANENT
ACCESS EASEMENT
PER D.B. 1375, PG. 537
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
I yb�
ab\
r MATCHLINE - 1020+00
SEE SHEET 4.7 4�4
l
- FEMPFP _ FEMA FP FEMPFP
_ FEMAFP - FEMAFP
-FEMPFP
FEMAFP FEMAFP
FEMAFP FEMA P
FEMPFP----------------' ""�„
-_-_--
�Cii11i'Ii- z ."'► '�oil lE II 111li ii 11 Ii
IIII�IIC1611IZ°'"�� .. ii1� IIIIiii1i1C1iliEiiilEliiilCll
I 1C11illililllllClllil1111C11
°;i111E1CIIIIIIIiiilli�lE111i1��1� ■® li Iii 11 Ig i� ■i ll®IIEE'
�e__�q IC wi aCiilii��. 1i 11 11 II 11� 1�
S1C��1@��Ii�li1Cll� • II IC ii'�® .i 11 11 � IIi�illillileilil���.
IC 11 IC �■ IE IC IC .11 IC 11 11 ��
v IC IC ICo1Cil11ii111C1iiili��<<ii11111iiiilllil ,IIICIIII�Iia
1i IE ii.-
.Iliilli� CICIi111C11ii1iii1i111iii1110Elii�iiE1 �iiilii
�C IC 11. 11 li ii IC IC 11 IC II IC it
ICICI�Ii�'�; . �Cii111i11111Clilili1111Ii1i11iiiilllil�► �i -,
:, ,SIC,Iili11l1iiliiilliiliiiii1C111iliilliii111e �i
,, e� + � •�!� IC IC 11 IC li 11 li IC IC IC ► A
�S II 11 fl IC 11 li 11 11 11 11
i ,rs � ° . �� 'ICiifliC ii111111C1i111i1111ii1i111ilili ili 1► II
6VV3a �3nw3d C%) r
�.0' �i�J \ \130+00 \ / - - G " - ,--' - --/ I M N do mnwad
d3 � �Ly3d�\i \\ \ `i ��di bW3i'\ dr'13.--I.� di bW3i �� h'3Y �i O iV
` \ -131+00 3
w
W }r
LU
g iLn
a3aw3a — di vW
w
3e — a nw33J �� 77 a I J w
;,":ate: %=' 3 dd
U
---------- -- _
I
I
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
FW F'-I
y

s
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
— — — — — Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
v?
g
�
CyK
aW
ryry N � O
Y'. UMW
"AAz�z
Ln
I+00
ax
W
y�N3
ION
h
Z
o
z
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTALS
o o

s
3J �37`\y
�30-
Ln I
R.
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
METAL
BUILDING
RJ�
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
o
o
z
z;

s
CE XX
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
METAL
BUILDING
�q\c
\FFj.
\
------------ 1----------
r \
\
`
A
�
\
� PFP \
i \
y'vwaa dvw3d—
dyb
dd
0
�a
�e
/ 44'
\ 44
5
LOB
o �M i A
Z '
o
z
0' 40' 80' 120'
�F a
(HORIZONTAL) y Z F '�

s
� 3J
/ 3J_` 3J FOX B8
------------
`-- -
--------------------
_
E -
-- "' 305+0 <<
^\\30\ -
6+00 - -
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
a`
p
I
I�
1 "*
IC
H
la
I�
IW
_z
=
U FEMAFP
Q ��PFQ
IS0- ----3
3J--------------- - I
-f
00 ,
3'l�x
_ / O 1
JJ
aa'd�N33-�-_ - - - `' - -- --- //tlCN3a ��
—_- ---- f -
`
_
__E
I E — CE —� CE � CE � '� ;;- �------------ --If I
i
I
Z�
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL
o 00
o
z
azE �6
y

s
/
OX/
1; /
/
I
I�
PFP
FEt�`
FEMPFP /
/FEMAFP FEMAFP
4�
i
a
� 3J-3D-3D-3D-3D� ;-----
f
FP N__----__
FP FEMAFP
ESP
-FEMA F O 7 - -- -
FEMAFP 1 FE MAFP FEMAFP FP _---- -
AFP FE �- FEMA , ___
_
_
` '------ - '
_
}3
a
3J �
3J tt
3J 32
33 -
_
r / CFO
r
d ,
i� yw A
r
r
EE_MA FP -FEMA FPr
i
r
r
_
by/y
i
,
_
,
f
/ _
-- -- - — - —
/ o `. -' I yw. �I ,mr. � yur. � �w. ,mr. ilw. ,mr. ilw. ,mr. i i
cF �, 0
n - ---- 35+00
o1- .
i'
0°- -
/ 313+o —'
yo
/
A,
_ - -----
----_
FF
mow°'
_
3VW3 -
x
,
c - - MY03i bk3y JibN3d _
3i b `
j
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
MAFP
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
/
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
to target density. Buffer
0
plantedas needed achieveplanting will occur
plof Disturbance
IX
�pS3
/ �0
/
tixpO /
'`AP
FEMPFP
... � - FEMe ._
W
FEMPFP J
/
4a
�P
FQ
a,P
/ z
g
r
w 0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
a
y

NCDOT
BRIDGE
R/W
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
-- _ - KI
ROW
R/`N
U?
QZ
W
y�N3
�
h
yr �
1�5,c4-
2
g
B
z
0' 40' 80' 120'
�F
(HORIZONTAL) y Z F '�

S �rbh9
y \
� dy ew
3y
2 wH \ di VW3i ddtlW3d
F"tess
0/6y pqR 1SS. ' 14 04 ROAD
A, \ \ o
F O O �\
m�9q OGF Oyu
G�
APPROXIMATE 30'
UTILITY EASEMENT c
O
O I
I \ I
9
n a
m
o�
al U�Z'4?
y I;r
NCDOT
BRIDGE
I � \
I - c
MATCH LINE -
o \ 100
------ \
411+00,
Q + .. --
C
B`
i
I ' r
i
__—_
pO ,
- I
I
d,I��OI
I ��OI
► S
to
I(+D
I�
C
I-i
ILn
Iw
I= IU
I�
I�
- `.
=
-
__
------------
;
--- —' -
-------------
/
0+00 _ 1001+00 1002+00
1003 a
+00
xp
1pp$ /
FED
P
— I — _ —
1004— 100 100
1007+00
— _ — _ —
I — I —
. —
A
SWIFT CREEK
— —TB — — — — — TB — TB — — — — — TB — — — — — TB —
— — — — TB— — — — — TB — — — — — TB —
— — — —T B————— TB — — — — — TB — — — — — TB— — — — — TB — —
— — — TB----J-B
/
«Q
SP
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
— — — — — — — — — Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
o
z
0' 40' 80' 120' 1 .�
1 1 �F a
(HORIZONTALS y Z F '�

s
\ FFM
9Fp
I
91
A
/ a
/ d�WFA
E_\ dj tlW3j7,
FP � FEMA Py/9
1o11+0o — —+ — — SWIFT CRI,
1012+00 — _+ — . — —
10To — — . — I
� — — -
—TB---
TB
—T----
't/ TB B
--TB---
— TB — — — — —
TB -----
TB---
TB----- TB/ — — — — TB — — — —
FEMA FEMA FP
FEMA FP
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
N
/ FQ
P
P
PFp/
FEtJ`
e � 9
F
� FEMAFP�4
DD
a3
aD
a3
/ a /
DDa
w /O�
a / X
— TB — — — — — TB — — — — — TB
\ TB
F
— --i — 1018+00
`SP MQ
--— TB — — — — — TB — — — — — TB—————TB—----TB — — — —— TB � 7,00
\ Joo/
�a
\ � m
-A N \
P
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)

i------ , __ --- --- --- - - - - -
/'
FEM
FEMAFP-���
�— pF '"FEMAFP "-__-� --------------" -
i
-PEMA FP M--- FEMAFP "JF€MA FP i - -
i
--------------
FQ
// `� /
��
/ EP
A�b i
Streambank Planting Zone 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12)
Buffer/Upland Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet Zone 6.12)
Wetland & Floodplain Planting
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12)
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL