20220664 Ver 2_CaseyCreek_100597_FDMP_2023_20231129

MITIGATION PLAN 
Draft Report for DMS 
October 2023 
CASEY CREEK MITIGATION SITE 
Wayne County, NC 
Neuse River Basin 
HUC 03020201 
USACE Action ID: SAW‐2022‐01239 
NCDWR ID No. 20220664 v2 
NCDEQ Contract No. 210201‐01 
RFP#: 16‐20210201 (Issued: 7/7/2021) 
DMS ID No. 100597 
PREPARED FOR: 
NC Department of Environmental Quality 
Division of Mitigation Services 
1652 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page i October 2023 

PREPARED BY: 
  Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
497 Bramson Court, Suite 104 
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 
(843) 277‐6221 

This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following: 
 Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) 
through (c)(14). 
 NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In‐Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010. 
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory 
mitigation. 
Contributing Staff: 
Chris Roessler, Project Manager 
John Hutton, Principal in Charge 
Win Taylor, PWS, Wetland Delineations 

Matthew Key, Designer 
Hunter Morgan, Designer 
Ty Williams, Construction Documents 
Daniel Johnson, MBA, PE, PH, Lead Quality Assurance

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  313 West Millbrook Rd., Suite 225  Raleigh, NC 27609

September 27, 2023 

NC Department of Environmental Quality 
Division of Mitigation Services 
1652 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652 

Attention:  Jeremiah Dow 

Subject: Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans Review Comment Response 
  Casey Creek Mitigation Site, Wayne County 
  Neuse River Basin HUC 03020201 
  DMS Project ID No. 100597/Contract No. 210201‐01 

Dear Jeremiah:  

We have reviewed DMS’s comments on the draft mitigation plan and draft construction documents for 
the Casey Creek Mitigation Site.  We have made the necessary revisions to the draft documents and we 
are submitting revised versions of the documents along with this letter.  Below are responses to each of 
DMS’s comments in your letter dated September 15, 2023.  Your original comments are provided below 
followed by our responses in bold italics.  
Specific Comments on Stream Mitigation Plan 
1. Section 2 – First sentence states “The Neuse 01 river basin is rural…” Since the Neuse 01 is a sub‐
basin of the Neuse River Basin, we recommend removing “01” or “river” depending on which you 
wish to reference. 
We removed the word “river”.  
2. Sections 3.1 & 3.3.1 – There are references to only one drain tile being found in these sections. In 
the post contract meeting minutes there was discussion of 2 drain tiles and a possible unknown 3rd 
drain tile. Was there an initial belief there were more drain tiles on site with further investigation 
indicating that they were not present? What was the reason that there were initially thought to be 
three? 

Based on landowner input, we believed there were another one or two drain tiles. The landowner 
is absentee and has never lived there. Wildlands and its surveyor looked extensively for the drain 
tiles and could not locate them.  
3. Section 3.3 – Many of the streams within the project appear (from maps and descriptions) to have 
been ditched in the past and some may still be maintained as ditches. Is this true from your 
observations? Ditching is mentioned in Martha Creek and Afton Creek. If most streams have been 
ditched or straightened, incision is the result of ditching rather than upstream migration of headcuts 
or from other processes, or not, please clarify. In most cases, these ditched streams may be 
2

aggrading (bank failure) as you suggest in tables 4‐8. Please add the past straightening and ditching 
context (which is mentioned in the hydrology subheading of the functional uplift section) to the 
existing streams section. 

We added that all Site reaches, except Casey Creek Reach 1, have been historically channelized.  

a. Table 4 – Please include the w/d ratio and BHR. 
Completed.  
4. Section 3.4 – Under the Nutrients and Fecal Coliform subheading a sentence states “…additional 
buffer ranging up to 500‐feet off the top of stream bank along the upstream reach of Casey Creek…” 
Should this reference the downstream reaches? Please clarify. 
Changed to reference Casey Creek R3.  
a. Please provide the method used to estimate annual TN and TP removal. 
Completed and added to citations. 
5. Section 6.3 – For the flood frequency analysis, nine of twelve gage sites have a drainage area much 
larger than the project reaches. The largest drainage area for the project reaches is Reach 4 of Casey 
Creek, which has a drainage area of 0.69 mi2. Please explain and justify the selection. 

This is one of many methods used to consider design discharge and gages tend to be on larger 
drainage areas. We’ve used these gages on other projects with good results.  
6. Section 6.4, Tables 15 to 19 – Please revise the parameter list from “Design Discharge…” to 
“Discharge…”        
Completed.   

7. Section 6.5 – The explanation of sediment transport and floodplain access does not consider the 
dynamics of finer sediment substrates (<=2mm). Consistent suspension and resuspension of sand 
and silt affect the boundary layer, thereby influencing boundary shear stress (although it may be 
minimal). Additionally, when flows leave the bankfull stage and access the floodplain, sand 
continues to be transported. It is suggested that competence is not usually concerning in restoration 
of sand bed streams; DMS agrees. The concern in finer‐grained mobile sediment beds with even a 
“moderate” upstream supply of sand, most of which is moving as bedload, is the export of too much 
material. Please address the issue of potential excess transport as it relates to sediment input, 
output, and storage. 
The design includes stream pattern and wide pools that will allow for storage of transported 
sediment on point bars. Point bars will form on inside bends and act as sediment storage 
locations. The potential erosion upstream of the project area may act as a beneficial sediment 
source that will help to maintain these point bars. 
Added this to Section 6.5.1 and the bulleted list in Section 6.5.3. 
8. Section 6.5.3 – second bullet states “Design includes lower width‐to‐depth ratio to maximize 
channel depth and transport capacity…” Is this referring to a lower design w/d ratio than would 
typically have been considered in this setting (design w/d ratios range from 13 to 14)? 
This bullet has been removed from the mitigation plan. 
3

9. Table 20 – Lists Shield’s movable particle as 8mm and greater for all reaches. If the bed is dominated 
by sand (and smaller) why will the stream be designed to move larger particles that may result in 
excess scour of the bed? Is the Shield’s estimate being used in the design? Both Shield’s and stream 
power or stream power only? Please clarify and reconcile with Page 24 discussion. 

The channel isn’t specifically designed to move larger particles but the shear stress resulting from 
the design will move larger particles. In other words, the design discharge is determined by factors 
other than the competency, but the resulting competency can move larger particles than those in 
the existing channel. The Shields numbers are being used in the design to make sure large enough 
particles are included in riffles to hold grade. Will need to build threshold riffles that include larger 
particles and logs. Added this sentence on page 24 'The Shield’s moveable particle sizes listed 
inform how large the material in a constructed riffles needs to be to prevent degradation. This is 
necessary because tree roots, which often provide grade control in Coastal Plain streams, will not 
be present right after construction.’ 
10. Table 22 – The first parameter includes A/B channels. Please remove, not applicable to this project. 
Completed. 
11. Section 9, Table 24 – Why were 6 riffle cross sections proposed and only 3 pool cross sections? The 
IRT’s 2016 guidance says cross sections should be approximately 50% riffle and 50% pool. Also, it is 
noted that there are no pool cross sections on either Martha Branch or Afton Branch. Please add 
pool cross sections to these tributaries or provide rationale for exclusion. 
A pool cross section has been added to both Martha Branch and Afton Branch and Table 24 and 
Figure 10 have been updated to reflect the addition.    
a. Table says there are 4 flow gauges in restoration reaches and it appears it should be 3 (2 on 
Martha Branch and 1 on Casey Creek Reach 2).  

Good catch, Table 24 will say 3 flow gauges on restoration reaches and 1 flow gauge on the 
preservation reach.  

During the IRT Post‐Contract Site Walk on July 27, 2022, it was requested that Wildlands 
install a flow gauge in the preservation section of upper Casey Creek to use as a reference 
against flow gauges on the restored Site. Wildlands therefore proposes a flow gauge on Casey 
Creek Reach 1. A flow gauge is also proposed on Casey Creek Reach 2, as it is an intermittent 
stream and restoration work will be performed.  

12. Section 11 – States that 4.4% of stream length has <50’ buffer width. This seems high (~228 lf). 
Where are these locations? 

Amended to be 4.3%. Most of this stream length is either on the upstream end of Reach 1 or in 
Reach 3 around the internal crossing or Highway 13. These areas are where the IRT allows for 5% 
of stream length with <50’ buffer widths.  
13.  Table 25 – Please report the Restoration lengths to the nearest whole foot, and ensure all credits are 
calculated from the nearest whole foot value. Only the calculated proposed credits should be taken 
to 3 decimals. 
4
We removed the decimal places from the restoration footage column. But we don’t understand 
the difference between calculated proposed credits and credits as referenced in the DMS 
comment.  
14.The mitigation plan does not include sediment distribution curves. Please add these curves.
These are existing sediment distributions by reach, right? These were provided to DMS
electronically but are not in the MP appendices. Wildlands added them to Appendix 4.
15.Figure 2 – Please add drain tile location to this map.
Added to Figure 2.  
a.On the figures, only XS4 and 5 are shown. Where are the other cross section locations?
Please also note the meaning of RAL. Are those cross sections as well?
The legend in Fig 2 shows cross sections. RAL is a naming convention that was used in the
project. These are the locations that match the cross sections provided in Appendix 5.
16.As a reminder if a performance bond has not yet been finalized, according to RFP 16‐20210201,
Section 4.6, “The performance bond must be for 55% of the total value of the PROJECT as
determined by the Mitigation Plan and must be in effect and submitted with the Task 3 deliverable
before DMS will authorize payment for that deliverable.”
Thanks for the reminder. Does this mean that 55% is calculated from the contract value? If not,
please specify.
5

Thanks very much for the mitigation plan feedback via the comments. Please contact me at 919.624.0905 
if you have any questions. 
Sincerely, 

Chris Roessler 
Project Manager 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page i October 2023 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 
2.0 Basin Characterization and Site Selection ................................................................................. 4 
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 5 
3.1 Watershed Conditions .................................................................................................................. 5 
3.2 Landscape Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 6 
3.3 Project Resources ......................................................................................................................... 8 
3.3.1 Existing Streams ........................................................................................................................ 8 
3.3.2 Existing Wetlands .................................................................................................................... 12 
3.4 Potential for Functional Lift ........................................................................................................ 13 
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift ........................................................................................... 14 
4.0 Regulatory Considerations ...................................................................................................... 15 
4.1 Biological and Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 15 
4.1.1 Cultural Resources / Conservation Lands / Natural Heritage ................................................. 15 
4.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................................... 15 
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 16 
4.3 401/404 ...................................................................................................................................... 16 
5.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 16 
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ............................................................................ 17 
6.1 Design Approach Overview ........................................................................................................ 17 
6.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 18 
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis ........................................................................................................... 19 
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 20 
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 23 
6.5.1 Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 23 
6.5.2 Competence Analysis .............................................................................................................. 24 
6.5.3 Sediment Transport Design Summary ..................................................................................... 24 
6.6 Stream Design Implementation .................................................................................................. 27 
6.6.1 Martha Branch ......................................................................................................................... 27 
6.6.2 Afton Branch ............................................................................................................................ 27 
6.6.3 Casey Creek Reach 2 ................................................................................................................ 27 
6.6.4 Casey Creek Reach 3 ................................................................................................................ 27 
6.6.5 Casey Creek Reach 4 ................................................................................................................ 27 
6.7 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management .................................................................... 28 
6.8 Utilities, Stream Crossings, and Site Access ............................................................................... 28 
6.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 29 
7.0 Performance Standards .......................................................................................................... 29 
8.0 Long‐Term Management Plan ................................................................................................. 30 
9.0 Monitoring Plan ...................................................................................................................... 31 
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................................................... 32 
11.0 Determination of Credits ........................................................................................................ 32 
12.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 34 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page ii October 2023 
TABLES 
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1 ......................................................................................................... 4 
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2 ......................................................................................................... 6 
Table 3: Project Soil Types ............................................................................................................................ 7 
Table 4: Casey Creek Reach 2 Attribute Table ............................................................................................ 10 
Table 5: Casey Creek Reach 3 Attribute Table ............................................................................................ 10 
Table 6: Casey Creek Reach 4 Attribute Table ............................................................................................ 11 
Table 7: Martha Branch Attribute Table ..................................................................................................... 11 
Table 8: Afton Branch Attribute Table ........................................................................................................ 12 
Table 9: Summary of Wetland Resources ................................................................................................... 12 
Table 10: Regulatory Considerations Attribute Table ................................................................................. 15 
Table 11: Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................. 17 
Table 12: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach .............................................................................. 18 
Table 13: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters ........................................ 19 
Table 14: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis ......................................................................... 20 
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Martha Branch ............................................. 21 
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Afton Branch ................................................ 21 
Table 17: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Casey Creek Reach 2 .................................... 22 
Table 18: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Casey Creek Reach 3 .................................... 22 
Table 19: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Casey Creek Reach 4 .................................... 23 
Table 20: Results of Competence and Capacity Analysis ............................................................................ 26 
Table 21: Crossings Summary ..................................................................................................................... 28 
Table 22: Summary of Performance Standards .......................................................................................... 29 
Table 23: Long‐term Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 31 
Table 24: Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................. 32 
Table 25: Project Asset Table ...................................................................................................................... 33 

FIGURES 
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 
Figure 2 Site Map 
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map 
Figure 4 Watershed Map 
Figure 5 Soils Map 
Figure 6 Reference Reach Map 
Figure 7 Design Discharge Analysis 
Figure 8 Concept Map 
Figure 9 Monitoring Components Map 

APPENDICES 
Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument 
Appendix 2  Historic Aerial Photos 
Appendix 3  DWR, NCSAM, and NCWAM Identification Forms 
Appendix 4  Supplementary Design Information 
Appendix 5  Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination  
Appendix 6  Categorical Exclusion and Resource Agency Correspondence 
Appendix 7  Invasive Species Plan 
Appendix 8  Maintenance Plan 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page iii October 2023 
Appendix 9  Credit Release Schedule 
Appendix 10 Financial Assurances 
Appendix 11 Preliminary Plans 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 4 October 2023 

1.0 Introduction 
The Casey Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is in Wayne County approximately one mile west of the town of 
Grantham (Figure 1). The project includes restoration and preservation of project streams, as well as 
restoration and preservation of riparian buffers. The Site is located within 14‐digit Hydrologic Unit Code 
(HUC 14) 03020201170010, North Carolina Division of Water Resources Sub‐basin 03‐04‐12, and is being 
submitted for mitigation credit in the Neuse River Basin Cataloging Unit (CU) 03020201. 
This Site is not located in a targeted resource area (TRA), local watershed plan (LWP) area, or regional 
watershed plan (RWP) area. However, stressors to the Site are documented in other watershed planning 
documents including the 2010 DMS Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP), the 2009 The 
Division of Water Resources (DWR) Neuse River Basin Water Quality Plan, and the 2015 Wildlife 
Resources Commission Wildlife Action Plan (WAP).  
The Site is primarily agricultural land used for row crops and the remaining area is primarily wooded. 
Site streams, as presented in Figure 2, are in various stages of degradation due to past agricultural 
practices, including land clearing and stream channelization. The project will restore 3,166 existing linear 
feet (LF) and preserve 1,982 LF of streams. The site is also proposed for riparian buffer mitigation and 
nutrient offset mitigation. The total area of riparian buffer mitigation will include 349,182 square feet 
(SF) of restoration and 117,325 SF of preservation. A 25.1‐acre conservation easement will protect the 
Site in perpetuity. The mitigation total for nutrient offset includes 175,913 SF, which will reduce nitrogen 
loading from agricultural runoff. The Site Protection Instrument detailing the terms and restrictions of 
the conservation easement is in Appendix 1. 
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1  
Project Information 
Project Name  Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
County Wayne 
Project Area (acres) 25.1 
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35° 17' 45.33"N, 78° 11' 06.29"W 
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted) 14 
2.0 Basin Characterization and Site Selection 
The Neuse 01 basin is rural and dominated by forest (50%) and agriculture (40%), with 10% of the land 
developed. In general, stream degradation and water quality issues within the Neuse 01 are primarily 
linked to development‐related and agricultural stressors.  
Several North Carolina agencies have conservation and watershed planning documents that outline 
stream and water quality conditions in the Neuse 01 and goals for improving noted deficiencies. DWR 
developed the 2009 Neuse River Basin Water Quality Plan which notes common watershed stressors are 
a result of new development contributions, industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste contributions, 
and agricultural and forestry practices. Primary stressors are identified as habitat degradation, nutrient 
loading, and turbidity. Degraded stream conditions such as moderate to severe stream bank erosion, 
stream channelization, and stream sedimentation are discussed. Stream restoration and riparian buffer 
establishment are discussed as potential processes for recovery. The Division of Mitigation Services 
(DMS) developed the 2010 DMS Neuse River RBRP document, and amended it in 2018, which identifies 
a pattern of habitat degradation across the Neuse 01. The RBRP presents broad basin water quality and 
restoration goals, which include: 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 5 October 2023 

 Reducing nutrient and sediment loading in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving 
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers; 
 Implementing targeted projects; 
 restoring water quality and aquatic habitat in impaired streams; 
 protecting high‐resource value waters; 
 continuing existing watershed restoration and protection efforts in the basin;  
 promoting nutrient reduction with stormwater management in BMPs in municipal areas; and 
 implementing agricultural BMPs to limit sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform to streams.  
The Neuse River Basin is also discussed in the 2015 Wildlife Resource Commission’s (WRC) Wildlife 
Action Plan (WAP). This report notes that sedimentation and changes in hydrology and geomorphology 
due to urban development, agriculture, and instream mining impacts streams in the basin. The report 
also notes that water quality is degraded by excessive nutrient and chemical inputs and agricultural 
runoff.  
The Site was selected to fulfill DMS’s mitigation need due to its ability to, directly and indirectly, address 
stressors identified in the RBRP and the WAP by creating stable stream banks and restoring a forest in 
agriculturally‐maintained buffer areas. These actions will reduce nutrient and sediment inputs to Casey 
Creek, and ultimately to Falling Creek and the Neuse River, as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial 
habitats on the Site. Restoration of the Site aligns with recommended management strategies outlined 
in the RBRP.  
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions 
3.1 Watershed Conditions 
The Site watershed (Table 2 and Figure 4) is in the southeast portion of the Neuse 01. It is situated in the 
rural countryside in Wayne County, approximately one mile west of the town of Grantham, NC.  
The proposed project is located on three parcels that contain tributaries to Falling Creek. For decades, a 
large portion of the properties has been used for row crop agriculture. The remaining acreage is 
primarily wooded with a mix of pines and hardwoods. Currently, the agricultural fields are used to grow 
a rotation of corn and soybeans with an occasional rotation of peanuts, cotton, or sweet potatoes. 
Cattle were grazed in the fields south of US Highway 13 (Highway 13) until 1982. Perennial and 
intermittent streams on the Site have been historically channelized to increase crop production. Aerial 
photography dating back to 1950 (Appendix 2) shows that the Site has remained in substantially the 
same configuration since that time.  
The Site’s watershed totals 0.684 square miles and is within North Carolina’s rolling coastal plain 
ecoregion. Casey Creek originates on an adjacent, non‐project property to the north, as an intermittent 
stream. It becomes perennial after its confluence with Martha Branch, another Site intermittent stream 
that flows from the west. After Casey Creek crosses under Highway 13, it is joined by Afton Branch near 
the southern and downstream limits of the project area. The Martha Branch watershed consists mostly 
of forest. The Casey Creek and Afton Branch watersheds are comprised of agricultural land as well as 
wooded areas. One drain tile for agricultural field drainage exists on site and ties into Casey Creek 
approximately 100 feet upstream from Highway 13.  
The Site and its watershed are not within a Wayne County zoning development district. It appears that 
the land use within the Site’s watershed will remain rural over the next ten years with development 
unlikely. No road improvements in the Site vicinity are recommended in the 2016 Wayne County 
Comprehensive Transportation Plan.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 6 October 2023 

Aerial photography (Appendix 2) dating back to 1950 shows that the Site has had limited changes to its 
riparian buffers and stream channels. Before 1983, there was no buffer on Martha Branch’s left bank. 
The 1983 aerial photograph shows new and clear stream channelization on Casey Creek Reaches 2 and 
3, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch. Since 2006, additional forestation has been allowed on upper 
Casey Creek. The streams and buffers have been in the same configuration since 2009.  
Falling Creek and its tributaries are classified as Class C, Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Class C uses include 
infrequent or unorganized wading and boating events, fishing and fish consumption, wildlife, aquatic 
life, and agriculture. The Nutrient Sensitive designation is to protect the Neuse River estuary from high 
nitrogen loading.  
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2  
Project Watershed Summary Information 
Physiographic Province Coastal Plain 
Ecoregion Rolling Coastal Plain 
River Basin Neuse River 
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit) 03020201, 03020201170010 
NCDWR Sub‐basin 03‐04‐12 
NCDWR Water Quality 
Classification C; NSW 
Stream Thermal Regime Warm 
 Casey Creek 
439 
Martha Branch 
82 
Afton Branch 
210 Drainage Area (acres) 
2019 NLCD Land Use Classification 
Forest 18% 46% 9% 
Agricultural 38% 16% 33% 
Grassland 4% 8% 3% 
Shrubland 12% 10% 12% 
Developed 9% 9% 9% 
Wetlands 18% 11% 34% 
Open Water <1% <1% <1% 
Notes: Land Use Source – National Land Cover Database 2019 (NLCD 2019), Multi‐Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) 
consortium, https://www.mrlc.gov/data and visual assessment of the 2020 aerial. 
3.2 Landscape Characteristics 
The Site is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The landscape of the Coastal Plain is 
characterized by flat lands to gently rolling hills and valleys. Elevations of the Coastal Plain range from 
sea level to 600 feet, and from 125 to 175 feet within the project vicinity. The Coastal Plain largely 
consists of marine sedimentary rocks comprised of sand, clay, and limestone that formed through the 
deposition of estuarine and marine sediments within the last 140 million years. According to the 
Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985), the underlying geology of the proposed Site is mapped as the 
Black Creek Formation (Kb) which is described as gray to brown lignitic clay that contains thin beds and 
laminae of fine‐grained micaceous sand and thick lenses of cross‐bedded sand. Glauconitic, fossiliferous 
clayey sand lenses are present in the upper portion of the unit. Bedrock was observed within the 
channel on Casey Creek Reach 3 but is not anticipated to be a constraint as it is below the proposed 
design depth. 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 7 October 2023 

The presence of erodible soils influenced the stream design, particularly in the slope of the stream 
banks, which have been laid back to encourage vegetation establishment. The predominant floodplain 
soils on site are described in Table 3 below and depicted in Figure 5. 
Table 3: Project Soil Types  
Soil Name Slopes Description 
We‐ Weston 
loamy sand 
(Woodington) 
0 to 2% slopes 
Deep, coarse‐loamy, poorly drained soil that occurs on gently rolling 
coastal plain uplands, flats, and stream terraces. Located along upper 
Casey Creek. 
Ke ‐ Kenansville 
loamy sand 0 to 3% slopes 
Well drained, loamy, and deep soils formed of marine and fluvial 
sediment. Kenansville occurs on level and gently sloping coastal plain 
uplands and stream terraces. Located along upper Casey Creek. 
Dr ‐ Dragston 
loamy sand 0 to 2% slopes Very deep, coarse‐loamy, and somewhat poorly drained found on marine 
terraces. Located along the middle portion of Casey Creek. 
NoB ‐ Norfolk 
loamy sand 2 to 6% slopes 
Well drained, fine‐loamy and very deep soils located on coastal plain 
uplands and marine terraces. A very small area of Norfolk is located near 
the middle portion of Casey Creek. 
Ly ‐ Lynchburg 
sandy loam 0 to 2% slopes Very deep, fine‐loamy, and somewhat poorly drained soils occurring on 
coastal plain flats and marine terraces. Located along Martha Branch. 
Ra ‐ Rains sandy 
loam 0 to 2% slopes 
Very deep, poorly drained, fine‐loamy soils with a shallow, persistent 
water table occurring on coastal plain flats and depressions. Located 
along lower Casey Creek. 
Source: Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina, USDA‐NRCS, 
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 
Casey Creek’s riparian buffer condition varies throughout 
the Site. Casey Creek Reach 1 possesses a forested buffer 
greater than 50 feet on both floodplains. Following its 
confluence with Martha Branch, Casey Creek Reach 2 
lacks a riparian buffer, with agricultural fields occupying 
the floodplain and a narrow community of winged sumac 
(Rhus copallinum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), blackberry (Rubus 
sp.), and rivercane (Arundinaria gigantea) mixed with 
annual herbaceous vegetation dispersed along its banks. 
Casey Creek Reach 3 is bordered by agricultural fields on 
either side, with annual herbaceous vegetation and 
occasional sweetgum, winged sumac, blackberry, and 
black willow (Salix nigra) stems scattered along its banks. Downstream from its confluence with Afton 
Branch, Casey Creek lacks a riparian buffer and agricultural fields occupy the floodplain. A mature forest 
is present 30 feet beyond the left bank of lower Casey Creek. Martha Branch has a forested riparian 
buffer greater than 50 feet on its left floodplain, while the right floodplain is used for growing row crops. 
Afton Branch lacks a forested buffer throughout the project extent, with row crops occupying its 
floodplain and occasional red maple (Acer rubrum) saplings, blackberry, rivercane, dogfennel 
(Eupatorium capillifolium) and other annual herbaceous vegetation dispersed across its banks. 
Within the forested area surrounding Casey Creek Reach 1 and the left floodplain of Martha Branch, 
there is a predominantly hardwood mix interspersed with occasional loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) within 
Headcut at beginning of Casey Creek – Reach 2 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 8 October 2023 

the first approximate 30‐50 feet from the stream. Typical overstory species include red maple, tulip 
poplar, water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and white oak (Quercus alba). The mid‐
story contains American holly (Ilex opaca), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), and a small amount of Chinese 
privet (Ligustrum sinense). Typical understory species include rivercane, slender woodoats 
(Chasmanthium laxum), and various fern species. Outside of the hardwood mix includes areas of forest 
dominated by loblolly pine. Typical species within the forested floodplain on the left side of lower Casey 
Creek (Reach 4) include willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak, sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia 
virginiana), and sweetgum, with rivercane and greenbriar (Smilax spp.) in the understory. 
3.3 Project Resources 
3.3.1 Existing Streams 
On September 24, 2021, all on‐site jurisdictional streams within the proposed project area streams were 
evaluated and scored. Casey Creek Reaches 2, 3, and 4 and Afton Branch were identified as perennial 
within the project limits. Casey Creek Reach 1 and Martha Branch were identified as intermittent 
streams. Jurisdictional stream features are shown on Figure 2 and supporting documentation is provided 
in Appendix 3.  
Geomorphic surveys were conducted on Site streams to characterize their existing condition. Existing 
streams and cross section locations are illustrated in Figure 2. NCDWR stream assessment forms are in 
Appendix 3 and reach specific cross sections and geomorphic summaries are provided in Appendix 4.  
Casey Creek 
Casey Creek flows south through the Site in a moderately sloped, unconfined valley with a mixture of 
mature vegetation and row crops in the riparian area. Crops are planted close to the top of the stream 
banks in Reaches 2, 3, and 4. Reach 1 is an intermittent, reference‐quality sand bed stream system with 
extensive grade control from mature vegetation. It has high bedform diversity and large woody debris 
throughout the reach. Reach 1 ends at a knickpoint that is held by a dense root system and drops 
approximately six feet to the start of Reach 2. 
Casey Creek Reach 2 begins as an intermittent stream but 
quickly changes to perennial near the confluence with Martha 
Branch. This reach is highly incised and bank erosion is 
prevalent. Row crops are planted close to the top of bank. It 
appears that this reach has been historically channelized and 
that is the main cause of the pronounced incision. This is true 
of all reaches on the Site with the exception of Casey Creek 
Reach 1.  
Reach 3 begins at the confluence with Martha Branch. A drain 
tile empties into Casey Creek from the east side approximately 100 feet upstream from the Highway 13 
culvert. No other drain tiles could be located and are presumed to be not present. The Highway 13 
culvert marks the reach end. 
Reaches 3 and 4 are perennial reaches that have incised, apparently because of channelization, to 
saprolite and downstream from the US Hwy 13 culvert this has slowed incision. Reach 3 transitions to 
Reach 4 at the Afton Branch confluence. The reaches are highly incised with measured bank height 
ratios ranging from 2.5 to 7.2 and entrenchment ratios of 1.1 to 3.0. Bank erosion is prevalent 
throughout the reaches and row crops are planted close to the top of bank. Reach 4 ends at the 
downstream property line. The property line is a short distance upstream from the farm road culvert.  
Erosion on Casey Creek Reach 2 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 9 October 2023 

Casey Creek is a sand‐dominated stream with bed material consisting of approximately 41% silt/clay and 
no gravel in Reach 1; no silt/clay and 3% gravel in Reach 2; and, 32% silt/clay and 2% gravel in Reach 3.  
Martha Branch 
Martha Branch becomes an intermittent stream where a 
ditch enters from the left bank. This point is approximately 
200 feet east of the property line. According to the 
landowners, the branch was ditched in the 1940s to improve 
drainage from the adjacent parcel. The stream is highly 
incised with a measured bank height ratios of 4.4 ‐ 4.5 and 
entrenchment ratios of 1.6 – 1.8 (Cross Sections RAL3 and 
XS5). Bank erosion is prevalent throughout this reach and 
row crops are planted close to the top of bank on the right 
side while the left side is forested. Martha Branch is a sand 
bed stream with 5% silt/clay and 2% gravel. The reach ends 
at the confluence with Casey Creek. 
There is an approximately 0.1‐acre pond located on the neighboring property approximately 170 linear 
feet upstream of this project reach. This small, off‐site pond lacks significant surface and groundwater 
connection with Martha Branch because a 12‐inch outfall pipe controls its drainage. Therefore, 
Wildlands expects this pond will affect the frequency, and to a lesser extent the volume, of hydrologic 
and sediment inputs. That is, low flow events will be slightly affected by attenuation, but high flow 
events will be similar to what would occur if the pond was not present. Should this minor pond breach, 
the forested area above Martha Branch is expected to serve as a sediment sink. The existing pond 
embankment is stable and not at risk of breaching.  
Afton Branch 
Afton Branch is a perennial stream that, according to the 
landowners, was excavated and straightened in the 1940s to 
improve drainage from the adjacent parcel and drain 
surrounding wetlands. The stream is highly incised with a 
measured bank height ratio of 2.4 and an entrenchment 
ratio of 1.8 (Cross Section RAL4). Bank erosion is prevalent 
throughout this reach and row crops are planted close to the 
top of bank. Afton Branch is a sand bed stream with 
approximately 22% silt/clay and 24% gravel. The reach ends 
at the confluence with Casey Creek. 
Afton Branch has an off‐site, 1.3‐acre pond approximately 760 feet upstream from the Site. This pond 
lies to the north of US Highway 13 and outfalls via an 18” HDPE pipe to the stormwater drainage ditch 
along the highway. The flow then continues approximately 50 linear feet to the east where it is routed 
south under Highway 13 via a 72” x 37” single concrete box culvert. The pond provides limited hydrology 
to the downstream receiving waters through discharge via a surface withdrawal standpipe. Rather than 
reducing the overall hydrologic input to the system, the pond serves as a source of attenuation. The 
attenuation effect causes a lateral shift in the hydrograph of Afton Branch in comparison to other 
restoration reaches. The peak flow into Afton Branch’s drainage area is not reduced, but rather flow 
from Afton Branch is delayed and staggered laterally in relation to peak flows from other surface water 
sources. The pond banks are heavily vegetated and stable, thus are at low risk of breach during the life 
of the project. Should the pond breach, the forested area above the Site is expected to serve as a 
Overview of Afton Branch (right) and lower 
Casey Creek (left and foreground) 
Martha Branch 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 10 October 2023 

sediment sink. Overall, Wildlands does not expect the pond to affect the volume or frequency of 
hydrologic inputs to Afton Branch.  

Table 4: Casey Creek Reach 2 Attribute Table 
Reach Summary Information  
Parameters Casey Creek Reach 2 
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 479 
Valley confinement  
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined to Unconfined 
Drainage area (acres) 102 
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial 
NCSAM Score/Stream Function Low/Low 
NCDWR Water Quality Classification Class C; NSW 
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 20.3 
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 7.2 
Gradient (ft/ft) 0.0139 
Reachwide d50 (mm) 0.375 
Medium Sand 
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) Existing: G5 
Proposed: C5 
Evolutionary Trend 
IV – degradation above/stable 
below headcut and channel 
widening 
FEMA Zone Classification none 

Table 5: Casey Creek Reach 3 Attribute Table 
Reach Summary Information  
Parameters Casey Creek Reach 3 
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 1,514 
Valley confinement  
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined to Unconfined 
Drainage area (acres) 229 
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial 
NCSAM Score/Stream Function Low/Low 
NCDWR Water Quality Classification Class C; NSW 
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 6.2 ‐ 9.3 
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 2.5 ‐ 4.9 
Gradient (ft/ft) 0.0065 
Reachwide d50 (mm) 0.1875 
Fine Sand 
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) Existing: G5 
Proposed: C5 
Evolutionary Trend IV – bed stable but channel 
widening 
FEMA Zone Classification none 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 11 October 2023 

Table 6: Casey Creek Reach 4 Attribute Table 
Reach Summary Information  
Parameters Casey Creek Reach 4 
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 168 
Valley confinement  
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined 
Drainage area (acres) 439 
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial 
NCSAM Score/Stream Function Low/Low 
NCDWR Water Quality Classification Class C; NSW 
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 8.3 
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 1.8 
Gradient (ft/ft) 0.0132 
Reachwide d50 (mm) 0.1875 
Fine Sand 
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) Existing: G5 
Proposed: C5 
Evolutionary Trend IV – bed stable but channel 
widening 
FEMA Zone Classification none 

Table 7: Martha Branch Attribute Table 
Reach Summary Information 
Parameters Martha Branch 
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 507 
Valley confinement  
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined 
Drainage area (acres) 82 
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent 
NCSAM Score/Stream Function Low/Low 
NCDWR Water Quality Classification Class C; NSW 
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 6.2 ‐ 9.0 
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 4.4 ‐ 4.5 
Gradient (ft/ft) 0.0094 
Reachwide d50 (mm) 0.375 
Medium Sand 
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) Existing: G5 
Proposed: C5 
Evolutionary Trend 
IV – degradation above/stable 
below headcut and channel 
widening 
FEMA Zone Classification none 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 12 October 2023 

Table 8: Afton Branch Attribute Table 
Reach Summary Information 
Parameters Afton Branch 
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 533 
Valley confinement  
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined 
Drainage area (acres) 210 
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial 
NCSAM Score/Stream Function Low/Low 
NCDWR Water Quality Classification Class C; NSW 
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 5.7 
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 2.4 
Gradient (ft/ft) 0.00468 
Reachwide d50 (mm) 0.375 
Medium Sand 
Stream Classification  
(Existing and Proposed) 
Existing: G5 
Proposed: C5 
Evolutionary Trend IV – bed stable but  
channel widening 
FEMA Zone Classification none 

3.3.2 Existing Wetlands 
Wildlands investigated the extent of Waters of the United States within and immediately adjacent to the 
proposed project easement in November of 2022. All jurisdictional resources were located by sub‐meter 
GPS or conventional survey. USACE staff provided email concurrence with jurisdictional resource 
mapping on June 23, 2023. See Appendix 5 for supporting documentation. 
Wetlands within the conservation easement were classified using the North Carolina Wetland 
Assessment Method (NCWAM). There are two wetlands (Wetlands A and B) within the conservation 
easement area which were classified as Headwater Forests (HWF) and Bottomland Hardwood Forests 
(BLH). The distinguishing factor between BLH and HWF wetland types is the order of the most closely 
associated stream channel. Both features exhibited evidence of prolonged saturation within the upper 
12 inches of the soil profile through an umbric surface, wetland plant communities, and primary and 
secondary hydrology indicators. Hydrology indicators observed include sediment deposits, drift deposits, 
sparsely vegetated concave surfaces, drainage patterns, a positive FAC‐Neutral test, and geomorphic 
position. Plant species noted within wetlands A and B include, but are not limited to, Acer rubrum, 
Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus phellos, Pinus taeda, Ligustrum sinense, and Arundinaria tecta.  
Table 9: Summary of Wetland Resources 
Wetland Summary Information 
Parameter Wetland A Wetland B 
Size of Wetland (AC) 0.098 0.216 
Wetland Type  Headwater Forest Bottomland Hardwood Forest 
NCWAM Rating High Medium 
Mapped Soil Series Wehadkee Rains 
Drainage Class Poorly Drained Poorly Drained 
Soil Hydric Status Yes Yes 
Source of Hydrology Groundwater Groundwater 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 13 October 2023 

3.4 Potential for Functional Lift 
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore a high quality of ecological function to streams and riparian 
areas on this Site. The project design will be developed to avoid adverse impacts to existing streams, 
wetland resources, or mature wooded vegetation where possible. Management strategies for individual 
resources are tailored to their functional uplift potential. 
Non‐functioning Riparian Buffer 
The restoration reaches of Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch are row cropped up to the top 
of the stream banks, rendering the existing riparian zone non‐functional. Planting riparian buffers on 
project stream corridors will not only improve terrestrial habitat but will contribute to water quality 
improvements as well. North of Highway 13, planted riparian buffers will meet and often exceed the 
required 50‐foot minimum width. South of Highway 13, the entire 13.3‐acre parcel will be removed from 
row crop production, 9.5‐acres of which will be placed in conservation easement and planted with 
woody vegetation.  
Sediment 
A preliminary watershed analysis was performed to evaluate onsite and offsite sediment sources. 
Currently, sediment loading on Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch is largely dictated by 
onsite sources. These streams are impacted by sediment runoff from row crops, which are planted 
throughout the floodplains and up to the top of the stream banks. The lack of stabilizing streambank 
vegetation has also resulted in systemic streambank erosion and incision through the row crop fields. 
Both sources will be addressed through restoration of stable stream geomorphology and the riparian 
zone. Reconnection of these systems with flood relief areas will also allow the streams to use their 
floodprone areas for sediment storage from any remaining upstream sources.  
Nutrients and Fecal Coliform 
The annual rate of nutrient removal from buffer establishment is calculated by using the NC Division of 
Water Quality “Methodology and Calculations for determining nutrient reductions associated with 
riparian buffer establishment” (1998). Row cropping accounts for approximately 12 acres, or 47%, of the 
proposed 25.5‐acre conservation easement. The 13.3‐acre parcel south of Highway 13 will be 
completely removed from row crop production. The remaining 4.3 acres of converted row crops 
upstream of Highway 13 will continue to receive drainage from adjacent row crops. This 4.3 acres is 
estimated to remove 327 pounds of total nitrogen (TN) and 21 pounds of total phosphorus (TP) 
annually. Additionally, storm runoff from a cattle operation in Casey Creek’s watershed containing 
nutrients and fecal coliform will be treated via filtration on the enhanced and restored Casey Creek 
floodplain. Wildlands has included additional buffer, ranging up to 500 feet off the top of stream bank 
along Casey Creek Reach 3, to enhance these watershed treatment efforts.  
Hydrology 
Site streams slated for restoration are severely incised. Bank height ratios are greater than 1.8 on all 
restoration reaches and exceed 4 on Martha Branch and Casey Creek north of Highway 13. The current 
owners state that both Casey Creek and Afton Branch were ditched and straightened in the early 1940s 
to create larger fields and stated that Martha Branch was ditched at the edge of the property to prevent 
field flooding. It appears that Casey Creek was channelized again between 1973 and 1983. Peak flow 
confinement within these ditched channels has led to systemic scour, incision, and mass wasting of bank 
material. Restoration activities will be tailored to restore the hydrologic connection between the stream 
and floodplain on incised reaches with effort made to attain Priority 1 restoration. Downstream of 
Highway 13, topographic constraints necessitate a mostly Priority 2 restoration approach to create a 
new, stable floodplain elevation at a lower elevation. Raising the stream beds upstream of Highway 13 
and lowering the floodplain downstream of Highway 13 will improve floodplain connectivity, reduce the 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 14 October 2023 

erosive effects of peak flows, and decrease the drainage effect on surrounding wetlands. The existing 
channelized streams will be filled.  
One known length of drainage tile will be removed from within the conservation easement to prevent 
hydrologic bypass of the riparian zone. An ephemeral floodplain pool will be established near the 
easement edge to treat any remaining concentrated drainage as it enters the easement. Floodplain 
pools provide attenuation and treatment of surface water runoff, as well as habitat variety.  
Habitat 
The 6‐foot headcut/knickpoint between the preservation section of Casey Creek and the restoration 
reach and the 4‐ to 5‐inch drop from the Highway 13 culvert on Casey Creek impacts hydrologic 
connectivity and fragments habitat. Raising Casey Creek’s bed elevation in both locations will promote 
aquatic species passage.  
Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch all exhibit poor bedform diversity due to silted in pools 
and embedded riffles. The lack of stabilizing riparian vegetation and widespread stream bank erosion 
has also created a lack of bank habitats. Installing wood and rock step structures, as well as riffles and 
bank revetments, provide habitat for macroinvertebrates, catch debris for leaf packs, and create shelter 
for fish in undercut banks. A diverse bedform will be created in restoration reaches to provide habitat 
for an increased number of species of insects, fish, and amphibians.  
The restoration reaches also lack large woody debris and leaf and debris packs usually found in streams 
with ample riparian vegetation. Restoration efforts will incorporate woody material to seed channels 
with sources of carbon and to provide physical roughness to enhance retention of beneficial material. 
Planting the riparian buffers with woody vegetation will provide future sources of large woody debris for 
the streams.  
Summary 
The primary stressors on site are incision and entrenchment from channelization and a lack of riparian 
buffers. These stressors led to low NCSAM scores on all reaches proposed for restoration. Without 
intervention, Casey Creek, Afton Branch, and Martha Branch will continue to erode, contributing more 
sediment and embedding habitat in nutrient sensitive waters.  
Ultimately, functional uplift for this Site is linked to improvement in and maintenance of hydrologic 
connectivity between streams and floodplains. Additionally, establishing a riparian buffer will protect 
and enhance this connectivity. Functional uplift for the site will be achieved through the following: 
 Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and connecting these streams to a 
floodplain to improve hydrologic connectivity;  
 Eliminating bank erosion and associated pollutants; 
 Planting riparian buffers to shade streams, help stabilize stream banks, promote woody debris in 
system, and diffuse overland non‐point source pollutants from adjacent land use; 
 Protecting the Site with a conservation easement. 
These project components are described in Section 5 in terms of goals, objectives, and outcomes for the 
project and in greater detail in Section 6 through description of the design approach. 
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift 
One internal easement crossing is proposed at the Site to allow the tenant farmer to access fields 
without using Highway 13. A culvert is proposed at the internal easement crossing. The culvert will be 
designed with the restored stream bed profile to allow for aquatic organism passage. An external 
easement break is proposed to account for the Highway 13 right‐of‐way.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 15 October 2023 

The easement boundaries around streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required 50‐foot 
minimum riparian buffer for Coastal Plain streams and nutrient offset mitigation. The entire easement 
area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long‐term stewardship from Highway 13. 
4.0 Regulatory Considerations 
Table 10, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are 
expanded upon in Sections 4.1‐4.3. 
Table 10: Regulatory Considerations Attribute Table 
Regulatory Considerations 
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs? 
Water of the United States ‐ Section 404 Yes No PCN1 
Water of the United States ‐ Section 401 Yes No PCN1 
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 5 
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 5 
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A 
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No Yes2 N/A 
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A 
1: PJD approved by USACE on 6/23/23. PCN to be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan. 
2: Floodplain permit not required by Wayne County local floodplain administrator.  
4.1 Biological and Cultural Resources 
A Categorical Exclusion was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on October 27, 
2022. As part of the screening process to meet regulatory standards, Wildlands conducted an 
assessment within the project boundary for the presence of threatened and endangered (T&E) species 
protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and historical resources protected under the 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. As part of the Categorical Exclusion consultation process, 
scoping letters were submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina 
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). See Figure 1 
for locations of protected lands within proximity to the Site and Appendix 6 for the approved Categorical 
Exclusion and agency correspondence. 
4.1.1 Cultural Resources / Conservation Lands / Natural Heritage  
No historic resources are listed in the State Historic Preservation Office’s National Register on or in close 
proximity to the Site parcels. No other architectural structures or archaeological artifacts have been 
observed or noted on the site. The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Managed Areas references two 
Unique Places to Save Easements within one mile of the Site. There are no Managed or Significant 
Natural Areas within or adjacent to Site parcels. All appropriate cultural resource agencies have been 
contacted for their review and comment. There are no objections to the proposed project from SHPO. 
SHPO correspondence is included in Appendix 6.  
4.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species  
Wildlands searched the USFWS’ Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) and the NC Natural 
Heritage Program (NHP) data explorer for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal 
species within the project action area. There are currently three federally protected species listed for 
the proposed Site: red‐cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Neuse River waterdog (Necturus 
lewisi), and Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus). Additionally, the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) 
(TCB) was proposed endangered on September 14, 2022 after initial assessments were completed. The 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 16 October 2023 

TCB was not included on the original IPaC species list in the Categorical Exclusion. In anticipation of its 
formal listing, the species list was updated on July 6, 2023 and is included in Appendix 6.  
In a pedestrian survey conducted on August 16, 2022, no suitable habitat or individuals were observed 
for the federally listed threatened and endangered species. USFWS did not have any objections to the 
proposed activities in their response to the public notice (SAW‐2022‐001239) on August 12, 2022 and 
expected minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Additionally, NCWRC has no issue with 
the project as proposed.  
In anticipation of the final TCB ruling, Wildlands conducted a pedestrian survey on July 21, 2023. 
Pedestrian surveys identified suitable summer habitat for the TCB in the form of roost trees; however, 
the vast majority of the forested area is along the reach of the stream proposed for preservation. 
Additionally, there is a culvert bisecting the project as Casey Creek runs beneath Highway 13, also 
known as the Blue‐Gray Scenic Byway. Stream restoration will occur on both sides of the culvert but the 
culvert itself will remain as is. Per the NHP data explorer, there are no known occurrences of the TCB 
within 10‐miles of the project area. Wildlands will continue to monitor the listing status for TCB. If 
project construction activities are not complete once the listing becomes finalized, the project team will 
re‐initiate consultation with USFWS, as appropriate, in order to ensure ESA, Section 7 compliance. 
Results from pedestrian surveys and agency correspondence are located in Appendix 6. 
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass 
The Site is represented on the Wayne County Flood Map 3720254600J. There is no mapped floodplain or 
floodway on the Site. Wildlands contacted the Wayne County floodplain administrator on April 13, 2023 
and was told that a floodplain development permit would not be needed to meet local requirements. 
The project will be designed to avoid adverse floodplain impacts or hydrologic trespass on adjacent 
properties or local roadways. 
4.3 401/404 
Design of the Site prioritized avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands that currently provide 
appropriate function. Some wetland impacts are unavoidable and necessary to maximize ecological 
uplift potential to Casey Creek and its tributaries. One wetland area adjacent to Casey Creek (Wetland B) 
will have 0.012 acres permanently impacted during realignment of Casey Creek and 0.088 acres 
temporarily impacted for grading and construction access. The open water feature adjacent to Wetland 
B will be filled within 50 feet of the new channel. Additionally, the jurisdictional ditch (Ditch A) will be 
impacted. A swale with a small channel running through it will be constructed where the ditch currently 
exists. Wetlands within limits of disturbance will be shown on construction plans, erosion control and 
sediment control plan detail sheets, and avoidance procedures described in project specifications. Final 
impacts to jurisdictional resources will be provided in the Pre‐Construction Notification after proposed 
floodplain grading and the erosion control plan are complete. The Pre‐Construction Notification will be 
submitted to the IRT with the Final Mitigation Plan.  
5.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives 
The project will improve stream functions through the conversion of pasture and agricultural fields to 
riparian buffer, and through restoring streams throughout the entire Site. Within the project limits, 
Martha Branch, Afton Branch, and Casey Creek will be reconnected to floodplain. 
Project goals are desired project outcomes and are verifiable through measurement and/or visual 
assessment. Objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment of goals. The project will be 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 17 October 2023 

monitored after construction to evaluate performance as described in Section 8 of this report. The 
project goals and related objectives are described in Table 11.  
Table 11: Mitigation Goals and Objectives 
Goal Objective Expected Outcomes and RBRP Objectives 
Supported 
Restore and 
enhance native 
floodplain 
vegetation. 
Convert active agricultural fields to 
forested riparian buffers along all Site 
streams, which will slow and treat 
sediment laden runoff from adjacent 
pastures and fields before entering 
streams. Protect and enhance existing 
forested riparian buffers. Treat invasive 
species. 
 Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and 
runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and storage in 
floodplain. Provide riparian habitat. Add a source 
of LWD and organic material to stream. Support 
all stream functions. 
 Support RBRP objective of restoring riparian 
buffers. 
Improve the 
stability of 
stream 
channels. 
Reconstruct stream channels slated for 
restoration with stable dimensions and 
appropriate depth relative to the existing 
floodplain. Add bank revetments and 
instream structures to protect restored/ 
enhanced streams. 
 Reduce shear stress on channel boundary. 
Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion. 
 Support LWP/RBRP objective of reducing 
turbidity inputs and stabilizing streambanks. 
Improve 
instream 
habitat. 
Install habitat features such as 
constructed steps, cover logs, and brush 
toes on restored reaches. Add woody 
materials/ LWD to channel beds. 
Construct pools of varying depth. 
Remove aquatic habitat barrier. 
 Increase and diversify available habitats for 
macroinvertebrates, fish, and amphibians. 
Promote aquatic species migration and 
recolonization from refugia, leading to 
colonization and increase in biodiversity over 
time. Add complexity including LWD to the 
streams. 
Diffuse 
concentrated 
agricultural 
runoff. 
Remove drainage tiles to prevent 
hydrologic bypass of the riparian zone. 
Treat concentrated drainage tile runoff 
through floodplain pools. 
 Prevent hydrologic bypass of the buffer and treat 
concentrated runoff points thereby reducing 
agricultural and sediment inputs to the project, 
which will reduce likelihood of accumulated fines 
and excessive algal blooms from nutrients. 
Permanently 
protect the 
project site 
from harmful 
uses. 
Establish a conservation easement on the 
Site.  
 Protect Site from encroachment on the riparian 
corridor and direct impact to streams and 
wetlands. Support all stream functions. 
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan  
6.1 Design Approach Overview 
Wildlands designed and developed mitigation activities for this Site to meet the goals and objectives 
described in Section 5, which were formulated based on the potential for functional lift described in 
Section 3.4. Expected outcomes are identified in Section 5, though these are not tied to performance 
criteria.  
The design approach for this Site utilized a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream 
restoration. Reference reaches were identified, and these references serve as the basis for design 
parameter and design discharge determination. Wildlands then sized channels based on a determined 
design discharge. This approach has been used on other successful coastal plain stream restoration 
projects and is appropriate for the goals and objectives identified for this Site.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 18 October 2023 

The project streams proposed for restoration on the Site will be reconnected with their historic 
floodplain. Channels will be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile to transport the 
water and sediment delivered to the system. The design approach for project streams varies by reach 
and specific parameters were determined based on site data and design goals. The design approach 
maximizes (where feasible) a Priority 1 restoration approach that promotes frequent floodplain 
inundation. In circumstances where Priority 1 design is unachievable due to site constraints, the 
approach will shift to Priority 2. Details are provided for each stream reach in Section 6.6 and the extent 
of Priority 1 and 2 restoration is shown on Figure 9.  
Though the Priority 2 channels will meander, the floodplain bench surrounding it will be straight and not 
follow the channel meander. The floodplain bench will extend at least 10 feet past the outside meander 
bends and will gradually slope (5:1 or flatter) to existing grade. This approach was successfully employed 
by Wildlands at the nearby Grantham Branch Mitigation Site.  
The adjacent floodplain will be planted with native tree species. Instream structures will be constructed 
in the channels to help maintain stable channel morphology and improve aquatic habitat. The entire 
project area will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.  
Table 12: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach 
Design Reach Primary 
Stressors/Impairments Approach Mitigation Activities 
Martha 
Branch 
Severe erosion, severe 
incision, channelization, 
lack of buffer on right 
bank 
R Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting buffers 
Afton Branch 
Erosion, incision, 
channelization, lack of 
buffer  
R Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting buffers  
Casey Creek 
Reach 1 None P Protect with conservation easement 
Casey Creek 
Reach 2 
Severe erosion, severe 
incision, channelization, 
lack of buffer on left bank 
R Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting buffers 
Casey Creek 
Reach 3 
Bank erosion, incision, 
channelization, lack of 
buffer 
R Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting buffers 
Casey Creek 
Reach 4 
Bank scour, incision, 
channelization, lack of 
buffer 
R Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile, planting buffers  
6.2 Reference Streams  
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can inform the design of 
stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. A total of seven reference 
reaches were identified for this Site and used to support the design of Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and 
Afton Branch (Figure 7). These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site 
streams including drainage area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. The reference reaches are 
all located within the coastal plain region of North Carolina. The references to be used for each Site 
stream are listed in Table 13.   

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 19 October 2023 

Table 13: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters 
  Stream 
Type 
Martha 
Branch 
Afton 
Branch Casey Creek R2 Casey Creek R3  Casey Creek R4 
Scout East 1 E5b Q Q Q Q Q 
Scout West 1 E/C5b Q‐XS‐PRO Q‐PRO Q‐XS‐PRO Q‐PRO Q‐PRO 
Still Creek E5 Q‐PAT‐PRO ALL Q‐PAT‐PRO ALL ALL 
Casey Creek R1 C5 PAT PAT PAT PAT PAT 
Scout West 2 E5 ALL Q‐PAT‐PRO ALL Q‐PAT‐PRO Q‐PAT‐PRO 
Scout East 2 E5 Q‐PAT Q‐PAT Q‐PAT Q‐PAT Q‐PAT 
Johanna Creek E5/C5 Q‐PAT‐XS ALL Q‐PAT‐XS ALL ALL 
Cedar Creek E5 Q‐PAT‐PRO Q‐PAT Q‐PAT‐PRO Q‐PAT Q‐PAT 
Q – Discharge; PAT – Pattern; PRO – Profile; XS – Cross‐Section 
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis 
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates for the project reaches: the NC 
Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Doll et al., 2003), a Wildlands Regional USGS Flood Frequency Analysis, a 
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve, estimates of discharge at existing bankfull indicators, and data from 
previous successful restoration projects. The resulting values were compared and best professional 
judgment was used to determine the specific design discharge for each reach.  
Wildlands Regional USGS Flood Frequency Analysis 
Twelve U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage sites were identified within the southeast (Virginia to 
Georgia) coastal plain for use in development of a project specific regional flood frequency analysis. The 
gages used were:  
 USGS 02227422 – Crooked Creek near Bristol, GA (DA = 0.28 mi2) 
 USGS 0209173190 – Unnamed Tributary to Sandy Run near Lizzie, NC (DA = 0.57 mi2) 
 USGS 02227990 – Saltilla River Tributary 2 at Atkinson, GA (DA = 0.67 mi2) 
 USGS 02169960 – Lake Marion Tributary near Vance, SC (DA = 1.21 mi2) 
 USGS 01668300 – Farmers Hall Creek near Champlain, VA (DA = 2.18 mi2) 
 USGS 021355013 – Davis Branch near Sumter, SC (DA = 2.50 mi2) 
 USGS 02136361 – Turkey Creek near Maryville, SC (DA = 4.25 mi2) 
 USGS 021720725 – Canton Creek near Moncks Corner, SC (DA = 4.82 mi2) 
 USGS 02148090 – Swift Creek near Camden, SC (DA = 4.90 mi2) 
 USGS 02130800 – Back Swamp near Darlington, SC (DA = 6.22 mi2) 
 USGS 01661800 – Bush Mill Stream near Heathsville, VA (DA = 6.77 mi2) 
 USGS 02102908 – Flat Creek near Inverness, SC (DA = 7.63 mi2) 
Flood frequency curves were developed for the design discharges using the above gage data. These 
drainage area–discharge relationships were used to estimate discharges for the streams on Site. 
Discharge estimates for Martha Branch and Casey Creek Reach 2 using this tool were evaluated with 
caution since the drainage area for Martha Branch and Casey Creek Reach 2 falls outside the range of 
data used to develop the tool. 
Published Regional Curve Data 
Discharge was estimated using the published NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Doll et al., 2003). 
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 20 October 2023 

Site Specific Reference Reach Curve 
A local site‐specific reference reach curve, including seven reaches, was also used for design discharge 
estimates. The curve includes Scout West 1, Scout West 2, Scout East 1, Scout East 2, Still Creek, Johanna 
Creek, and Cedar Creek.  
Each reference reach was surveyed to develop information for hydrologic and geomorphic analyses. 
Stable cross‐sectional dimensions and channel slopes were used to compute a bankfull discharge with 
Manning’s equation for each reference reach. The resulting discharge values were plotted with drainage 
area and compared to the regional curve datasets described in previous sections.  
Design Discharge Analysis Summary 
In examining the different methods of determining discharge, the Wildlands USGS Flood Frequency 
Analysis for the 1.5‐year event had the highest estimations, and Coastal Plain Curve had the lowest. The 
site‐specific reference reach curve fell between the two but was closer to values predicted by the 
Coastal Plain Regional Curve. The design discharges selected for the project restoration reaches were at 
the upper end of the suitable range based on the data and fell between the Coastal Plain Regional Curve 
and predicted 1.2‐year event from the Wildlands USGS tool.  
Wildlands established slightly larger design discharges (relative to drainage areas) for the small 
tributaries so that slightly larger channels are constructed for these reaches. This design practice has 
produced successful results on past projects regarding stability and sustainable vegetation 
establishment in sandbed streams. Results of each method and the final design discharges are shown in 
Table 14 and illustrated in Figure 8.  
Table 14: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis 
 Martha 
Branch 
Afton 
Branch 
Casey Creek 
Reach 2 
Casey Creek 
Reach 3 
Casey Creek 
Reach 4 
DA (acres) 82 210 102 229 439 
DA (sq. mi.) 0.13 0.33 0.16 0.36 0.69 
USGS Flood Analysis, 1.2‐yr event 
(cfs) 6 11 11 11 16 
USGS Flood Analysis, 1.5‐yr event 
(cfs) 11 17 17 18 25 
NC Coastal Plain Curve (cfs) 4 7 4 8 13 
Site Specific Reference Reach 
Curve (cfs) 5 9 5 9 15 
 Final Design Q (cfs) 6 9 7 9 15 
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters 
Reference reach data, prior designed projects, and designer experience were used to develop design 
morphologic parameters for each of the restoration reaches. Key morphologic parameters are 
summarized in Tables 15‐19. Complete design morphologic parameters are included in Appendix 4.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 21 October 2023 

Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Martha Branch 
Parameter 
Existing 
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed 
Parameters 
Martha Branch Scout West 1 Scout West 2 Martha Branch 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 82 38 218 82 
Channel/Reach Classification G5c E/C5b E5 C5/E5 
Discharge Width (ft) 3.5 ‐ 4.8 2.6 – 6.3 5.6 – 7.6 6.8 
Discharge Depth (ft) 0.5 – 0.6 0.3 – 0.5 0.7 – 1.0 0.5 
Discharge Area (ft2) 1.9 ‐ 2.6  1.2 – 2 5.3 – 5.4 3.5 
Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 2.2 – 2.3 1.3 – 2.3 1.2 1.8 
Discharge (cfs) 4 – 6 2.6 6.4 6 
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0094 0.026 0.004 0.0056 – 0.0060 
Sinuosity 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio 6.2 – 9.0 5.4 – 19.9 5.7 ‐ 11 13 
Bank Height Ratio 4.4 – 4.5  1.1 – 1.3 1.1 – 1.2 1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 – 1.8  > 2.2 > 2.2 2.2 – 5.0 
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Afton Branch 
Parameter 
Existing 
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed 
Parameters 
Afton Branch Scout West 2 Still Creek Johanna 
Creek Afton Branch 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 210 218 224 576 210 
Channel/Reach Classification G5c E5 E5 E5/C5 C5/E5 
Discharge Width (ft) 5.0 5.6 – 7.6 6.8 – 8.0 9.7 8.5 
Discharge Depth (ft) 0.9 0.7 – 1.0 0.7 – 1.0 0.8 0.6 
Discharge Area (ft2) 4.3 5.3 – 5.4 5.7 – 6.7 7.2 – 7.8 5.2 
Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.8 – 1.9 1.8 
Discharge (cfs) 9.0 6.4 7.3 14 9.0 
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0047 0.004 0.0066 0.0022 0.0042 – 0.0050 
Sinuosity 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio 5.7 5.7 ‐ 11 7.4 – 11.3 10.1 – 
19.7 14.0 
Bank Height Ratio 2.4 1.1 – 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio 1.8 > 2.2 4.9 ‐ 13 >2.2 2.2 – 5.0 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 22 October 2023 

Table 17: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Casey Creek Reach 2 
Parameter 
Existing 
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed 
Parameters 
Casey Creek Reach 
2 Scout West 1 Scout West 2 Casey Creek 
Reach 2 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 102 38 218 102 
Channel/Reach Classification G5c E/C5b E5 C5/E5 
Discharge Width (ft) 5.7 2.6 – 6.3 5.6 – 7.6 7.0 
Discharge Depth (ft) 0.9 0.3 – 0.5 0.7 – 1.0 0.5 
Discharge Area (ft2) 5.3 1.2 – 2 5.3 – 5.4 3.7 
Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 2.2 1.3 – 2.3 1.2 2.0 
Discharge (cfs) 12.0 2.6 6.4 7 
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0139 0.026 0.004 0.0067 – 0.0076 
Sinuosity 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio 20.3 5.4 – 19.9 5.7 ‐ 11 13 
Bank Height Ratio 7.2 1.1 – 1.3 1.1 – 1.2 1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 > 2.2 > 2.2 2.2 – 5.0 

Table 18: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Casey Creek Reach 3 
Parameter 
Existing 
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed 
Parameters 
Casey Creek Reach 
3  
Scout 
West 2 Still Creek Johanna 
Creek 
Casey Creek 
Reach 3  
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 229 218 224 576 229 
Channel/Reach Classification G5c E5 E5 E5/C5 C5/E5 
Discharge Width (ft) 7.1 5.6 – 7.6 6.8 – 8.0 9.7 8.2 
Discharge Depth (ft) 0.8 0.7 – 1.0 0.7 – 1.0 0.8 0.6 
Discharge Area (ft2) 5.5 5.3 – 5.4 5.7 – 6.7 7.2 – 7.8 4.6 
Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.8 – 1.9 2.0 
Discharge (cfs) 11.0 6.4 7.3 14 9 
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0065 0.004 0.0066 0.0022 0.0057 – 0.0074 
Sinuosity 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 
Width/Depth Ratio 9.3 5.7 ‐ 11 7.4 – 11.3 10.1 – 19.7 14 
Bank Height Ratio 4.9 1.1 – 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 > 2.2 4.9 ‐ 13 >2.2 2.2 – 5.0 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 23 October 2023 

Table 19: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Casey Creek Reach 4 
Parameter 
Existing 
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed 
Parameters 
Casey Creek 
Reach 4 
Scout West 
2 Still Creek Johanna 
Creek 
Casey Creek 
Reach 4 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 439 218 224 576 439 
Channel/Reach Classification G5c E5 E5 E5/C5 E5/C5 
Discharge Width (ft) 8.5 5.6 – 7.6 6.8 – 8.0 9.7 10.2 
Discharge Depth (ft) 1.0 0.7 – 1.0 0.7 – 1.0 0.8 0.8 
Discharge Area (ft2) 8.8 5.3 – 5.4 5.7 – 6.7 7.2 – 7.8 7.9 
Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 2.4 1.2 1.2 1.8 – 1.9 1.9 
Discharge (cfs) 21.0 6.4 7.3 14 15 
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0132 0.004 0.0066 0.0022 0.0037 – 0.0048 
Sinuosity 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.25 
Width/Depth Ratio 8.3 5.7 ‐ 11 7.4 – 11.3 10.1 – 19.7 13 
Bank Height Ratio 1.8 1.1 – 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 > 2.2 4.9 ‐ 13 >2.2 2.2 – 5.0 
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis 
6.5.1 Capacity Analysis 
Given the observations of a moderate sediment supply within the project area, Wildlands used stream 
power to evaluate capacity of the design stream channels. The existing Casey Creek channel has stream 
banks that exceed 5 feet (in Reaches 2 and 3), and higher discharges are confined to a stream channel 
that can move excess material during and following periods of high sediment supply. There is limited 
evidence of aggradation of the existing, incised channel. The design channels will be roughly 1‐foot 
deep, and transport capacity will reach an inflection point at the bankfull stage, above which there will 
be diminished increase in transport capacity as flow spreads onto the design floodplain. 
During bankfull and larger storm events, much of the flow will be on the floodplain of the design 
channel. In such cases, the floodplain will serve as a sediment sink to accommodate the additional load 
that is in excess of the transport capacity of the design bankfull stream channel. Incorporation of a 
concave floodplain and flat point bars and riffle side slopes will all serve to minimize aggradation in the 
channel bed. 
To address the concern of the export of too much material given the moderate sediment supply, the 
design includes wide pools and stream pattern that will allow for storage of transported sediment on 
point bars. Point bars will form on the inside bends and act as sediment storage locations. The potential 
erosion upstream of the project area may act as a beneficial sediment source that will help to maintain 
these point bars. 
During bankfull design flow, the capacity of the design channel has been compared to the capacity of 
the existing channel to assess whether sufficient stream power is present to move sediment through the 
design channel. 
Table 20 lists the estimated existing and design stream power for all restoration reaches. At the design 
discharge, the stream power within the proposed bankfull channel is comparable to the stream power in 
the existing channel. The proposed channel has a smaller hydraulic radius for a given stage as compared 
to the existing channel, due to the gentle bank slopes, but the stream gradient has been increased 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 24 October 2023 

slightly to accommodate the increased influence of channel roughness on sediment transport capacity. 
Removing the headcut at the upper end of Reach 2 and the bed invert at the Highway 13 culvert raises 
the channel bed and increases the stream gradient.  
One exception is Martha Branch where, from the existing to the proposed conditions, stream power will 
decrease. Ultimately, a decrease in stream power between existing and proposed must be 
accommodated by the channel sinks (gentle riffle side slopes and flat point bars). Prior projects 
demonstrate that these are effective sinks of sediment and can serve to maintain the bankfull channel in 
a stable form. Martha Branch and other Site channels may narrow over time, as channel sinks are filled, 
and result in a lower width‐to‐depth ratio. This is not considered a trajectory towards instability. 
6.5.2 Competence Analysis 
In natural streams, shear stress increases with increasing discharge until the point at which the channel 
gains access to the floodplain. Floodplain access disperses the flow and reduces the rate of shear stress 
increase within the channel. This relationship of shear stress, channel dimension, and discharge 
influences erosion potential within the channel and the channel’s ability to transport certain sizes of 
sediment. The latter is a measure of stream competence, which is quantified by shear stress. 
In sand bed streams, competence is not typically a concern. The sediment sampling data indicate that 
particle sizes found in the stream are predominantly sands with some small and medium gravels, up to a 
maximum size diameter found of 28 mm. Wildlands’ calculations demonstrate that existing and design 
streams can readily mobilize nearly all sediment sizes sampled at the Site.  
In the proposed restoration, design riffles and grade control structures will rely on this competence 
analysis for sizing the material that will be used to build these. For newly constructed channels, it is 
often desirable to have a portion of the design riffle material be an immobile component, and/or to 
place grade control structures (e.g., logs) intermittently and often at the head of riffles. This approach 
helps maintain short and long‐term grade stabilization, allowing for the restored reach to remain 
vertically stable while more long‐term grade control establishes in the form of natural armoring, root 
masses, and woody material.  
Shield’s Curve is a relationship of streambed particle size to critical shear stress which mobilizes this 
particle. Calculating the shear stress at bankfull is an appropriate method, used here, to assess particle 
size mobility. Table 20 lists the estimated existing and design shear stress and corresponding movable 
particle size based on Shield’s relationship and the channel filling stage (which represents a much higher 
discharge for the existing condition versus the proposed). The Shield’s moveable particle sizes listed 
inform how large the material in a constructed riffles needs to be to prevent degradation. This is 
necessary because tree roots, which typically provide grade control in Coastal Plain streams, will not be 
present right after construction.  
The existing shear stress for channel filling flows is sufficient to move 20‐70 mm size particles; however, 
the maximum particle size found of 28 mm (but typically <10 mm) indicates that few if any particles in 
excess of this size are present within the Site. It is common for grade control in Coastal Plain streams to 
rely on roots and woody material, rather than native coarse sediment, and despite the low slope of the 
stream system, grade control will be necessary to help maintain stability in the restored channels. The 
design channel competence is sufficient to move 12‐15 mm particles, and addition of gravels in this 
range will supplement constructed riffles that include immoveable, larger stone. Alternatively, logs and 
brush may be used to serve this purpose. 
6.5.3 Sediment Transport Design Summary 
The proposed activities will reduce the volume of on‐site sediment (fines contributed from bank 
erosion), resulting in lower overall sediment inputs. As such, sediment supply is expected to be low. If 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 25 October 2023 

the design channels provide comparable stream power to existing conditions, it is proposed that the risk 
of aggradation will be low. As discussed in the design discharge section, a slightly larger channel was 
designed to maintain transport capacity while staying within an acceptable range of flood frequency and 
adequate floodplain connectivity. This will provide resiliency in the system for large storm events such 
as hurricanes. 
Competency analysis for Casey Creek within the project area indicates that both the existing and design 
channels are competent to move available sediment. The results presented in Table 13 show that, 
according to Shield Curve predictions, the entire bed is likely to be mobile at design discharge. Wildlands 
therefore determined that it will be important to provide adequate grade control in the design channel 
to limit the potential for incision. The design will incorporate less mobile material in the form of coarse 
gravel (greater than 25 mm) and wood structures such as angled log drops to mimic the common form 
of grade control in Coastal Plain streams.  
In summary, design considerations that focus on enhanced sediment transport include the following: 
 Selection of a design discharge to promote sediment transport rather than deposition; 
 Sediment storage features on the floodplain, point bars, and on streambanks (not ponded 
features); 
 Encourage point bar formation through wide pools and suitable stream pattern. Point bars will 
be maintained by transported material; 
 Roughen the floodplain to allow the channel to experience higher peak shear stresses and 
capacity during floodplain activating events. 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 26 October 2023 

Table 20: Results of Competence and Capacity Analysis 
Casey Creek R2 Casey Creek R3 Casey 
Creek R4 Martha Branch  Afton 
Branch   Ex. Cond. Cross Section XS RAL 1 XS RAL 2 XS 4 XS 5 XS RAL 4  
Ex. Cond. Sediment Sample D100 (mm) 4 28 8 4 8  
Existing Vertical Stability Conditions Degrading Stable Stable Degrading/Stable Stable  
Existing Conditions for Channel Filling Flow (at top of bank)  
Schan, existing (ft/ft) 1 0.0053 0.0046 0.0046 0.0094 0.0047  Mean Depth at top of bank (Dtob), 
existing (ft) 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.7 2.7 

Q at top of bank (Qtob), existing (cfs) 97.4 166.4 61.9 138.9 67.6  
Exist. Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) at Dtob 0.51 0.30 0.40 0.91 0.55  
Shields Movable particle size at Dtob (mm) 39 22 30 71 42  
Exist. Unit Stream Power (lb/ft/s) at tob 1.9 0.8 1.3 4.4 2.2  Existing Conditions for Approximate Design Discharge (bankfull)  
Schan, existing (ft/ft) 1 0.0053 0.0046 0.0046 0.0094 0.0047  
Mean Depth (Dbkf), existing (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.9  
Q, design, existing (cfs) 7.0 9.0 15.0 6.0 9.0  
Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) at Dbkf 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.29 0.20  
Shields Movable particle size (mm) 14 13 17 21 15  
Unit Stream Power (lb/ft/s) 0.36 0.34 0.49 0.65 0.39  
Proposed Conditions for Design Discharge (Typical Riffle at bankfull discharge) 
Schan, design (ft/ft) 0.0060 0.0062 0.0038 0.0060 0.0046 
Mean Depth (Dbkf), design (ft) 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6  
Q, design (cfs) 7.0 9.0 15.0 6.0 9.0  
Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.17  
Shields Movable particle size (mm) 14 15 13 13 12  
Unit Stream Power (lb/ft/s) 0.35 0.41 0.34 0.33 0.30  
1 The slopes listed are the prevailing slopes in the vicinity of the cross section.    

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 27 October 2023 

6.6 Stream Design Implementation 
The streams slated for restoration will be raised using a Priority 1 approach to the maximum extent 
practicable, with Priority 2 where necessary to stably tie to existing grade such as the Highway 13 
culvert. This will raise the water table, improve hydrologic connectivity, allow for frequent inundation of 
the floodplain, and reduce shear stress on the channel. In sections of Priority 2 restoration, a floodplain 
will be graded at bankfull elevation.  
A variety of instream structures will be used in restoration reaches to promote water quality, increase 
bed and bank stabilization, provide bedform diversity, and promote increased aquatic and terrestrial 
habitat.  
Figure 9 illustrates the concept design; below are descriptions of the designs for each reach.  
6.6.1 Martha Branch 
While Martha Branch is an intermittent stream, the level of incision and bank erosion require 
restoration rather than enhancement to develop a stable system. Martha Branch will be built as a C/E 
stream type with design parameters primarily derived from previous project experience and the 
provided reference reaches. Design discharge closer to the higher results of the regional flood frequency 
analysis result in a larger cross‐sectional area which discourages instream vegetation encroachment.  
Above the point at which Martha Branch was determined to be an intermittent stream, Wildlands will 
convert the ditch to a swale that contains a pilot channel. The pilot channel will convey baseflow and the 
swale will serve to prevent erosion and slow storm runoff, promoting infiltration and plant uptake.  
6.6.2 Afton Branch 
Priority 2 restoration will be implemented throughout Afton Branch to avoid hydrologic trespass on the 
upstream landowner. A vegetated buffer will also be established in place of the active row crops that 
border the stream.  
6.6.3 Casey Creek Reach 2 
Casey Creek Reach 2 will be built as a C/E stream type using Priority 1 restoration.  
6.6.4 Casey Creek Reach 3 
Casey Creek Reach 3 begins at the confluence of Casey Creek Reach 2 with Martha Branch. Priority 1 
restoration will be continued until grade is dropped to reach the Highway 13 culvert invert elevation. 
This will require Priority 2 restoration so that the restored stream is not incised. Priority 2 restoration 
will also be needed below the Highway 13 culvert until the bed elevation can rise to an elevation where 
existing grade is the top of bank. A log step system is proposed to drop Reach 3 to tie to Afton Branch; 
this will also require Priority 2 restoration. The Priority 1 and 2 restoration extents are shown on Figure 
9.  
If drain tiles are discovered downstream of the confluence with Martha Branch, they will be removed 
from within the conservation easement to prevent hydrological bypass of the riparian zone. Wildlands 
has searched diligently for these and found only one. It will be removed from within the conservation 
easement.  
6.6.5 Casey Creek Reach 4 
Casey Creek Reach 4 begins after the confluence of Casey Creek Reach 3 and Afton Branch. Casey Creek 
Reach 4 is designed entirely with Priority 2 restoration to match Afton Branch. Reach 4 ends prior to the 
existing culvert, which is on the adjacent property. Grade control structures will be implemented to 
prevent a headcut from migrating into the Site.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 28 October 2023 

6.7 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management 
The objective of the planting plan is to establish, over time, a thriving riparian buffer composed of native 
species. The restored buffer will improve riparian and wetland habitat, enhance stream stability, shade 
the streams and wetlands, and provide a source of organic material. Non‐forested areas within the 
conservation easement will be planted with trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses, which includes additional 
buffer areas beyond the minimum requirement of 50 feet from top of bank. Riparian buffers will be 
planted with a mix of early and late successional species chosen to develop a forested riparian zone. The 
specific species composition to be planted was selected based on the existing plant community, 
anticipated Site conditions in the early years following project implementation, and best professional 
judgement on species establishment. Based on these factors, the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 
community type was identified as a model natural community and used as a reference for creating the 
site planting plan (Schafale, 2022). Coastal Plain small stream swamps are explicitly described as being 
highly varied in species composition, though Carolina Vegetation Survey data indicates that sweetgum, 
water oak, laurel oak, red maple, loblolly pine, tulip poplar, and swamp tupelo are most commonly the 
dominant canopy species (Schafale, 2022). The proposed species compositions for this Site reflect the 
existing native vegetation, which includes many of the indicator species for Coastal Plain small stream 
swamps. Some adaptations were made to target community species composition based on commercial 
availability, and to omit tree species (red maple, sweetgum, and loblolly pine) per agency guidance. 
Additionally, a few additional early successional species were included to help establish vegetative cover 
on the Site. Species chosen for the planting plan are listed in the draft plans located in Appendix 11.  
The riparian buffer will be planted with bare root seedlings. To help ensure tree growth and survival, soil 
tests may be performed across the Site and amendments may be applied during construction based on 
results. The stream banks will be planted with live stakes and multiple herbaceous species. Permanent 
herbaceous seed will be spread on streambanks, floodplain areas, and disturbed areas within the project 
easement. Bare root seedlings and live stakes will be planted in the dormant season. 
Invasive species, including multiflora rose and privet, will be treated during construction primarily by 
mechanical removal. The extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored, mapped, and controlled 
as necessary throughout the required monitoring period. Please refer to Appendix 7 for the post‐
construction invasive species treatment plan. Additional monitoring and maintenance issues regarding 
vegetation are in Sections 8 and 9 and Appendix 8.  
6.8 Utilities, Stream Crossings, and Site Access 
Table 21 summarizes the proposed crossings on the Site. No utilities cross the Site streams.  
The maintenance of the crossings will be the responsibility of the landowner once the project is closed 
by the NCIRT and transferred to NCDEQ stewardship.  
The easement area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long‐term stewardship US 
Highway 13.  
Table 21: Crossings Summary 
Reach Crossing Location (STA) Crossing Type Within Conservation 
Easement? 
Casey Creek Reach 3 130+07 – 130+67 Farm crossing to access fields 
on both sides of Casey Creek. Yes 
Casey Creek Reach 3 136+76 – 137+66 NCDOT right‐of‐way for US 
Highway 13 No 
Afton Branch Reach 1 300+00 – 300+41 Ford crossing to allow access 
to property south of branch. No 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 29 October 2023 

6.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties 
In general, this project has low risk. Potential risks include accidental encroachment, land clearing, 
hydraulic trespass, and beaver colonization. Each risk is addressed below.  
Much of the land adjacent to the Site is tended by tenant farmers. To prevent accidental encroachment, 
the conservation easement will be heavily posted with signs, as outlined in NC DMS’s 2018 guidance 
document to discourage accidental encroachment.  
Logging, and potentially subsequent land development, is a potential risk that could increase peak flows 
and sediment inputs. Much of Casey Creek headwaters (Reach 1) will be protected as part of this 
project. The headwaters of Martha Branch could be logged; however, grade control structures will 
prevent degradation, streambank revetments will provide resistance to erosion, and low‐sloped point 
bars will provide fine sediment storage.  
There is little to no risk of hydraulic trespass from the project due to the current and designed slopes of 
the project channels. Erosive soils were observed onsite and the design incorporates low sloped banks 
to mitigate this risk while vegetation and root mass establishes, which will increase the stability of the 
banks over time.  
All stream projects have some risk for beaver colonization. There is no evidence of current/past beaver 
activity on the Site. However, the area will be watched for beaver activity. If beaver become active on 
the Site, Wildlands will follow the Maintenance Plan (Appendix 8) to address the issue. Similarly, should 
utility/roadway maintenance work occur in the future and encroach within the conservation easement, 
Wildlands will follow the Maintenance Plan to repair disturbed signage or damaged stream areas.  
7.0 Performance Standards  
The stream performance standards for the project will follow approved performance standards 
presented in North Carolina Interagency Review Team’s (NCIRT) Monitoring Requirements and 
Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (February 2013) and the 
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT, October 2016). 
Annual monitoring and routine site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished 
project by a qualified scientist. Specific performance standards that apply to this project are those 
described in the 2016 Compensatory Mitigation Update including Vegetation (Section V, B, Items 1 
through 3) and Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Performance Standards (Section VI, B, 
Items 1 through 7). Table 22 summarizes performance standards. 
Table 22: Summary of Performance Standards 
Parameter Monitoring Feature Performance Standard 
Dimension Cross‐Section Survey BHR <1.2; ER >2.2 for C/E channels 
Pattern and Profile Visual Assessment Should indicate stream stability 
Photo 
Documentation 
 Cross‐Section Photos 
 Photo Points 
 Crossing Photos 
No excessive erosion or degradation of banks 
No mid‐channel bars, Stable grade control 
Hydrology Transducer 
Four bankfull events during the 7‐year period in separate years 
At least 30 consecutive days of flow on intermittent restoration 
and enhancement reaches 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 30 October 2023 

Parameter Monitoring Feature Performance Standard 
Vegetation Vegetation Plots 
MY3 success criteria: 320 planted stems per acre. 
MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre, average of 7 
feet in height in each plot. Subcanopy and shrub species will not 
be included in average height calculations. 
MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre, average of 10 
feet in height in each plot. Subcanopy and shrub species will not 
be included in average height calculations. 
Minimum of 4 native species with no single species comprising 
more than 50% of stems. 
Invasive Species Visual Assessment and 
GPS mapping 
Invasives no more than 5% by area in the conservation 
easement, and no kudzu. 
Visual Assessment CCPV Signs of encroachment, stream instability, invasive species. 
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a 
decrease in the width‐to‐depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. It is 
important to note that pools and bed forms (ripples, dunes, etc.) in sand bed channels may migrate over 
time as a natural function of the channel hydraulics. It is also of note that sand bed streams are highly 
mobile and movement of the bed material during storm events is not considered a sign of instability. 
This could lead to changes in pool depth from storm to storm. These sorts of bed changes do not 
constitute a problem or indicate a need for remedial actions. If channel changes indicate a movement 
toward stability, remedial action will not be taken. Sand bed streams do not require substrate 
monitoring so no pebble counts will be conducted. 
Exotic invasive vegetation will be mapped, photographed, and visually assessed annually. Exotic invasive 
species will be treated by mechanical and chemical methods so that exotic invasive species percent 
coverage does not exceed 5% of the total easement acreage and that there is no presence of kudzu. All 
herbicide applications will be performed in accordance with the product label and NC Department of 
Agriculture rules and regulations. Benthic data will be collected but no performance standard will be 
defined.  
8.0 Long‐Term Management Plan 
The Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long‐term steward for 
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the 
conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis 
until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an 
endowment system within the non‐reverting, interest‐bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund 
Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General 
Statue GS 113A‐232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of 
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.  
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as 
needed. Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the owner 
of the underlying fee to maintain. 
The Site Protection Instrument can be found in Appendix 1.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 31 October 2023 

Table 23: Long‐term Management Plan 
Long‐Term Management Activity Long‐Term Manager 
Responsibility Landowner Responsibility 
Signage will be installed and 
maintained along the Site 
boundary to denote the area 
protected by the recorded 
conservation easement. 
The long‐term steward will be 
responsible for inspecting the 
Site boundary during periodic 
inspections (every one to three 
years) and for maintaining or 
replacing signage to ensure that 
the conservation easement area 
is clearly marked. 

The landowner shall report damaged 
or missing signs to the long‐term 
manager, as well as contact the long‐
term manager if a boundary needs 
to be marked, or clarification is 
needed regarding a boundary 
location. If land use changes in 
future and fencing is required to 
protect the easement, the 
landowner is responsible for 
installing appropriate approved 
fencing. 
The Site will be protected in its 
entirety and managed under the 
terms outlined in the recorded 
conservation easement. 
The long‐term manager will be 
responsible for conducting 
periodic inspections (every one 
to three years) and for 
undertaking actions that are 
reasonably calculated to swiftly 
correct the conditions 
constituting a breach. The 
USACE, and their authorized 
agents, shall have the right to 
enter and inspect the Site and to 
take actions necessary to verify 
compliance with the 
conservation easement. 
The landowner shall contact the 
long‐term manager if clarification is 
needed regarding the restrictions 
associated with the recorded 
conservation easement. 
9.0 Monitoring Plan 
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are 
met, and project goals and objectives are achieved.  
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 24. Approximate locations of the 
proposed monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 10.   

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 32 October 2023 

Table 24: Monitoring Components 
Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity by Approach Frequency Notes Restoration Preservation 
Dimension Riffle Cross Sections 6 N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1, 2 Pool Cross Sections 5 N/A 
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A 3 Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A 
Hydrology Stream Gauge 1 Crest Gauge 
3 Flow Gauges 1 Flow Gauge Quarterly 4 
Vegetation 100 m2 Plot 9 Fixed, 2 
Random N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5 
Visual Assessment  1 Semi‐Annual 6 
Reference Photos Stream Photographs 21 Annual  
Crossing Photographs 2 N/A 
1. Cross sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks 
in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. 
2. Entrenchment ratios will be monitored but not provided in annual monitoring reports unless requested. 
3. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi‐annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as‐built 
baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey is warranted in additional 
years. Project streams are sand bed systems; thus, riffles and pools may vary over time. 
4. Stream gauges will be inspected and downloaded quarterly. Transducers will be set to record stage once every 2 hours. 
5. Vegetation monitoring will follow an IRT approved protocol. The number of vegetation plots was calculated based on sampling 
2% of the anticipated planting area.  
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation along with locations of vegetation damage or boundary encroachments will be 
mapped. 
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan 
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post‐construction monitoring 
defined in Sections 7 and 8. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to 
address minor issues as necessary (Appendix 9). If during annual monitoring it is determined the Site’s 
ability to achieve Site performance standards are jeopardized in any other way, Wildlands and DMS will 
notify the members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.  
11.0 Determination of Credits 
Mitigation credits presented in Table 25 are projections based upon the proposed design.  
The credit ratios proposed for the Site have been developed in consultation with the Interagency Review 
Team (IRT) as summarized in the IRT contracting meeting minutes dated July 27, 2022. This 
correspondence is included in Appendix 6.  
1. The requested stream restoration credit ratio is 1:1 for mitigation activities that include 
reconstruction of the channels to a stable form and connection of the channels to the adjacent 
floodplain.  
2. No direct stream credit is proposed for the swale and pilot channel immediately above the 
intermittent break on Martha Branch.  
An analysis of buffer width shows 4.3% of the project stream length has less than the 50‐foot standard 
buffer width for Coastal Plain streams. Most of this stream length is either on the upstream end of 
Reach 1 or in Reach 3 around the internal crossing or Highway 13. Since the project length with less than 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 33 October 2023 
50‐foot riparian buffers will be less than 5%, credit adjustments for buffer widths will not be required. In 
most cases, the buffer width far exceeds the standard.  
Table 25: Project Asset Table 
Project Components 
Project Component or 
Reach ID 
Existing 
Footage/ 
Acreage 
Restoration 
Footage/ 
Acreage 
Mitigation 
Category 
Restoration 
Level 
Priority 
Level 
Mitigation 
Ratio 
Proposed 
Credit1, 2 
Casey Creek Reach 1 1,982 1982 Warm P NA 10 198.200 
Casey Creek Reach 2 479 610 Warm R P1 1 610.000 
Casey Creek Reach 3 1,514 1758 Warm R P1, P2 1 1758.000 
Casey Creek Reach 4 168 262 Warm R P2 1 262.000 
Martha Branch 507 697 Warm R P1, P2 1 697.000 
Afton Branch  498 584 Warm R P2 1 584.000 
Project Credits 
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Rip 
Wetland 
Coastal 
Marsh Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non‐Riv 
Restoration 3,911.000 
Re‐establishment 
Rehabilitation 
Enhancement 
Enhancement I 
Enhancement II 
Creation 
Preservation  198.200
Totals 4,109.200 
Notes: 1.    Crossing lengths have been removed from restoration footage.  
2.No direct credit for BMPs.

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Draft Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 34 October 2023 

12.0 References 
Doll, B.A., Dobbins, A.D., Spooner, J., Clinton, D.R, and Bidelspach, D.A., 2003. Hydraulic Geometry 
Relationships for the Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain.  
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web Soil Survey. 
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm 
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2018 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 
(RBRP), accessed at:  
https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation‐services/dms‐planning/watershed‐planning‐
documents/neuse‐river‐basin‐documents 
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, 
accessed at: 
 https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water‐resources/water‐planning/basin‐planning/river‐
basin‐plans/neuse 
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications. 
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications 
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale. 
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.  
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 1998. Memorandum with title “Methodology and 
Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment”. 
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), 2013. Monitoring Requirements and Performance  
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina. 
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland  
Compensatory Mitigation Update. 
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database, 
Wayne County, NC.  
Schafale, M.P. 2022. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. 
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987. USACE of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. 
Technical Report Y‐87‐1. Vicksburg, MS. 143 pp. 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Regulatory Guidance Letter, August 2003 (RGL 
08‐03). 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland 
Compensatory Mitigation Update, North Carolina Interagency Review Team – October 24, 2106.  
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil 
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Wayne County, North Carolina. 
http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov 

Figures

Appendix 1: Site Protection Instrument

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Appendix 1 
DMS ID No.100597 Page 1 
Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument 
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes 
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. Parcels are optioned for easement purchase by Wildlands 
Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). Upon transfer of lands to Wildlands, a conservation easement will be 
recorded on the parcels and includes streams and wetlands being restored and preserved along with 
their corresponding riparian buffers.  
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument 
Current 
Landowner PIN County 
Under Option 
to Purchase 
by Wildlands?  
Memorandum of Option 
Conservation Easement 
Deed Book (DB) and Page 
Number (PG) 
Acreage to 
be 
Protected 
Martha C. 
Kornegay Trust 
2546314958 
2546229607 
2546335459 
Wayne Yes BK 3671 PG 511‐514 24.0 
Johnnie 
Mangrum Brock 2546248066 Wayne Yes BK 3671 PG 515 – 518 1.1 

All site protection instruments require 60‐day advance notification to the USACE and or DMS prior to 
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by 
the State.  

Appendix 2: Historic Aerials

6676512.5
2016
= 625'
6676512.5
2012
= 625'
6676512.5
2009
= 625'
6676512.5
2006
= 625'
6676512.5
1999
= 625'
6676512.5
1993
= 625'
6676512.5
1983
= 625'
6676512.5
1973
= 625'
6676512.5
1964
= 625'
6676512.5
1961
= 625'
6676512.5
1959
= 625'
6676512.5
1950
= 625'
Appendix 3: DWR, NCSAM, and NCWAM Forms
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Casey Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 11/14/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Falling Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.291162, -78.184589
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Afton Branch 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 500
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

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

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

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

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Casey Creek Mitigation Site Date of Assessment 11/14/2022
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering

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

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW (2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW (3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW (2) In-stream Habitat LOW (3) Baseflow HIGH (3) Substrate LOW (3) Stream Stability LOW (3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Casey Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 11/14/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Falling Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.296437, -78.184601
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Casey Reach 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,000
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 0.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

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

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

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

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Casey Creek Mitigation Site Date of Assessment 11/14/2022
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering

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

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

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Casey Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 11/14/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Falling Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.293072, -78.184402
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Casey Reach 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 800
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 25 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

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

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

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

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Casey Creek Mitigation Site Date of Assessment 11/14/2022
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering

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

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW (2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW (3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW (2) In-stream Habitat LOW (3) Baseflow HIGH (3) Substrate LOW (3) Stream Stability LOW (3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Casey Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 11/14/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Falling Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.291161, -78.184640
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Casey Reach 3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 600
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

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

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

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

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Casey Creek Mitigation Site Date of Assessment 11/14/2022
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering

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

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW (2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW (3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW (2) In-stream Habitat LOW (3) Baseflow HIGH (3) Substrate LOW (3) Stream Stability LOW (3) In-stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the “Notes/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Casey Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 11/14/2022
3. Applicant/owner name: NC DMS 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Wayne 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Falling Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.295129, -78.185460
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Martha Branch 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 500
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 13 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

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

6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
id
a
l

Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s

On
l
y

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

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Casey Creek Mitigation Site Date of Assessment 11/14/2022
Stream Category Ia2 Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering

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

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW (2) Baseflow LOW HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW LOW (3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW (4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW LOW
(4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow LOW HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW (3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW (2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance OMITTED NA (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW (2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW (3) Baseflow LOW HIGH (3) Substrate LOW LOW (3) Stream Stability LOW LOW (3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-01239 NCDWR# 2022-0664v2
Project Name Casey Creek Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 11/15/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland A
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization K.Hogarth/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Nearest Named Water Body Falling Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Wilmington
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.298390, -78.183244
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland A Date of Assessment 11/15/2022
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization K.Hogarth/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition MEDIUM

Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # SAW-2022-01239 NCDWR# 2022-0664v2
Project Name Casey Creek Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 11/15/2022
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland B
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization K. Hogarth/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Nearest Named Water Body Falling Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Wayne NCDWR Region Wilmington
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.2901961, -78.1850029
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Ca
n
o
p
y

Mi
d
-St
o
r
y

Sh
r
u
b

He
r
b

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland B Date of Assessment 11/15/2022
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization K. Hogarth/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition HIGH

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition HIGH

Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

Appendix 4: Supplementary Design Information

Cross Section Casey Creek R3, RAL1
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
5.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)17.1 W flood prone area (ft)---D50 (mm)
5.7 width (ft)3.0 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)
0.9 mean depth (ft)3.9 low bank height (ft)12 threshold grain size (mm):
1.6 max depth (ft)2.5 low bank height ratio
7.1 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---
6.2 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
2.2 velocity (ft/s)0.040 Manning's roughness 0.529 channel slope (%)
11.9 discharge rate (cfs)0.20 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.25 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.45 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*0.36 shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness 0.68 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50,
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
riffle
Elevation (ft)
Cross Section Casey Creek R3, RAL2
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
5.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)8.0 W flood prone area (ft)---D50 (mm)
7.1 width (ft)1.1 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)
0.8 mean depth (ft)4.6 low bank height (ft)10 threshold grain size (mm):
0.9 max depth (ft) 4.9 low bank height ratio
7.9 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---
9.3 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
2.0 velocity (ft/s)0.040 Manning's roughness 0.457 channel slope (%)
10.7 discharge rate (cfs)0.21 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.20 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.42 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*0.32 shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness 0.43 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50,
95.00
96.00
97.00
98.00
99.00
100.00
101.00
102.00
0 102030405060708090
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
riffle
Cross Section Martha Branch, RAL3
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
1.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)6.3 W flood prone area (ft)---D50 (mm)
3.5 width (ft)1.8 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)
0.6 mean depth (ft)3.5 low bank height (ft)14 threshold grain size (mm):
0.8 max depth (ft) 4.4 low bank height ratio
4.0 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---
6.2 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
2.2 velocity (ft/s)0.040 Manning's roughness 0.936 channel slope (%)
4.3 discharge rate (cfs)0.24 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.28 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.56 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*0.38 shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness 0.72 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50,
95.50
96.00
96.50
97.00
97.50
98.00
98.50
99.00
99.50
100.00
100.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
riffle
Cross Section Afton Branch, RAL4
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
4.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)9.2 W flood prone area (ft)---D50 (mm)
5.0 width (ft)1.8 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)
0.9 mean depth (ft)3.9 low bank height (ft)10 threshold grain size (mm):
1.6 max depth (ft) 2.4 low bank height ratio
6.5 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---
5.7 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
1.9 velocity (ft/s)0.040 Manning's roughness 0.468 channel slope (%)
8.5 discharge rate (cfs)0.21 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.19 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.42 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*0.32 shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness 0.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50,
94.00
95.00
96.00
97.00
98.00
99.00
100.00
101.00
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
riffle
Cross Section Casey Creek R4, XS4
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
8.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)--- W flood prone area (ft)---D50 (mm)
8.5 width (ft)--- entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)
1.0 mean depth (ft)2.4 low bank height (ft)13 threshold grain size (mm):
1.3 max depth (ft)1.8 low bank height ratio
9.4 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)---
8.3 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
2.4 velocity (ft/s)0.040 Manning's roughness 0.46 channel slope (%)
21.4 discharge rate (cfs)0.19 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.27 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.44 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*0.37 shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness 0.72 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50,
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
riffle
Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 5 (Martha Branch)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
2.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)7.8 W flood prone area (ft)---D50 (mm)
4.8 width (ft)1.6 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)
0.5 mean depth (ft)3.4 low bank height (ft)14 threshold grain size (mm):
0.8 max depth (ft) 4.5 low bank height ratio
5.2 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---
9.0 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
2.3 velocity (ft/s)0.040 Manning's roughness 0.94 channel slope (%)
5.8 discharge rate (cfs)0.23 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.29 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.57 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*0.39 shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness 0.7 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50,
136.5
137
137.5
138
138.5
139
139.5
140
140.5
141
141.5
142
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
riffle
Cross Section 6 (Casey Cr R2)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
3.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)12.4 W flood prone area (ft)---D50 (mm)
8.0 width (ft)1.6 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)
0.4 mean depth (ft)4.6 low bank height (ft)15 threshold grain size (mm):
0.6 max depth (ft) 7.2 low bank height ratio
8.1 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)c
20.3 width-depth ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power
2.2 velocity (ft/s)0.040 Manning's roughness 1.3 channel slope (%)
7.0 discharge rate (cfs)0.26 Darcy-Weisbach fric.0.31 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)
0.64 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u*0.40 shear velocity (ft/s)
--- relative roughness 0.72 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50,
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
riffle
Typical 
Section Values Min Max
Typical 
Section 
Values
Min Max
Typical 
Section 
Values
Min Max
Typical 
Section 
Values
Min Max
Typical 
Section 
Values
Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs 697915
bankfull cross‐
sectional area
Abkf SF 3.5 5.2 3.7 4.6 7.9
average velocity
during bankfull 
event
vbkf fps 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9
width at bankfull wbkf feet 6.8 8.5 7.0 8.2 10.2
maximum depth
at bankfull
dmax feet 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.3
mean depth at
bankfull
dbkf feet 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8
bankfull width to
depth ratio
wbkf/dbkf 13.0 14.0 13.0 14.0 13.0
depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7
bank height
ratio BHR 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
floodprone area
width
wfpa feet ‐15 34 ‐19 43 ‐15 35 ‐18 41 ‐22 51
entrenchment
ratio ER ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0
valley slope Svalley feet/ foot
channel slope Schnl feet/ foot ‐0.0056 0.0060 ‐0.0042 0.0050 ‐0.0067 0.0076 ‐0.0057 0.0074 ‐0.0037 0.0048
riffle slope Sriffle feet/ foot ‐0.0067 0.020 ‐0.0042 0.015 ‐0.0081 0.0260 ‐0.0057 0.0222 ‐0.0037 0.0144
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl ‐1.2 3.4 ‐1.0 3.0 ‐1.2 3.4 ‐1.0 3.0 ‐1.0 3.0
pool slope Sp feet/ foot ‐0.000 0.000 ‐0.000 0.000 ‐0.000 0.000 ‐0.000 0.000 ‐0.000 0.000
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl ‐0.0 0.0 ‐0.0 0.0 ‐0.0 0.0 ‐0.0 0.0 ‐0.0 0.0
pool‐to‐pool
spacing
Lp‐p feet ‐11 51 ‐14 51 ‐11 53 ‐13 55 ‐16 79
pool spacing
ratio
Lp‐p/wbkf ‐1.6 7.5 ‐1.6 6.0 ‐1.6 7.5 ‐1.6 6.8 ‐1.6 7.7
pool cross‐
sectional area
Apool SF ‐3.9 10.6 ‐5.7 18.2 ‐4.0 11.0 ‐5.1 16.2 ‐10.3 27.7
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐1.1 3.0 ‐1.1 3.5 ‐1.1 3.0 ‐1.1 3.5 ‐1.3 3.5
maximum pool
depth
dpool feet ‐0.8 2.1 ‐0.9 2.4 ‐0.8 2.1 ‐0.8 2.3 ‐1.2 3.1
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐1.5 4.0 ‐1.5 4.0 ‐1.5 4.0 ‐1.5 4.0 ‐1.5 4.0
pool width at
bankfull
wpool feet ‐8.2 10.9 ‐10.2 13.6 ‐8.4 11.2 ‐9.8 13.1 ‐12.2 16.3
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐1.2 1.6 ‐1.2 1.6 ‐1.2 1.6 ‐1.2 1.6 ‐1.2 1.6
sinuosity K ‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
belt width wblt feet ‐14 54 ‐17 56 ‐14 56 ‐16 54 ‐20 82
meander width
ratio
wblt/wbkf ‐2.0 8.0 ‐2.0 6.6 ‐2.0 8.0 ‐2.0 6.6 ‐2.0 8.0
linear wavelength 
(formerly 
meander length)
Lm feet ‐34 102 ‐42 102 ‐35 105 ‐40 111 ‐61 157
linear
wavelength ratio 
(formerly 
meander length 
ratio)
Lm/wbkf ‐5.0 15.0 ‐4.9 12.0 ‐5.0 15.0 ‐4.9 13.5 ‐6.0 15.4
Meander Length feet ‐41 122 ‐31 259 ‐42 126 ‐48 133 ‐77 196
Meander Length
Ratio ‐6.0 18.0 ‐3.6 30.5 ‐6.0 18.0 ‐5.9 16.2 ‐7.5 19.3
radius of
curvature Rc feet ‐14 34 ‐17 30 ‐14 35 ‐16 41 ‐20 51
radius of
curvature ratio
Rc/ wbkf ‐2.0 5.0 ‐2.0 3.5 ‐2.0 5.0 ‐2.0 5.0 ‐2.0 5.0
Restoration Reach Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Notation Units
Martha Branch Afton Branch Casey Creek R2 Casey Creek R3 Casey Creek R4
0.13 0.33 0.16 0.36 0.69
C5/E5 C5/E5 C5/E5 C5/E5 C5/E5
Cross Section
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
Slope
0.0072 0.0055 0.0084 0.0074 0.0048
Profile
Pattern
1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.25
Casey Creek Sediment Distribu.on Curves

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
 Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
 (%
)
Particle Class Size (mm)
Casey Cr Reach 1 Pebble Count Particle Distribution 
MY0‐11/2022
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
 Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
 (%
)
Particle Class Size (mm)
Casey Cr Reach 3 Pebble Count Particle Distribution 
MY0‐11/2022
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
 Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
 (%
)
Particle Class Size (mm)
Martha Branch Pebble Count Particle Distribution 
MY0‐11/2022
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
 Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
 (%
)
Particle Class Size (mm)
Afton Branch Cross Section Pebble Count Particle Distribution 
MY0‐11/2022
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock

Appendix 5: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination

1
Chris Roessler
From:Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, June 23, 2023 10:04 AM
To:Kaitlyn Hogarth
Subject:SAW-2022-01239 (NCDMS ILF - Casey Creek Mitigation Site)
Dear Kaitlyn (on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc.),

Reference is made to ORM ID SAW-2022-01239, please reference this number on any correspondence regarding this
action.

On May 24, 2012 we met at the proposed Casey Creek Mitigation site located adjacent to 3890 S US 13 HWY in
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina to review the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineation you submitted
March 24, 2023.

We have reviewed the information provided by you concerning the aquatic resources, and by copy of this e-mail, are
confirming that the aquatic resources delineation has been verified by the Corps to be a sufficiently accurate and reliable
representation of the location and extent of aquatic resources within the identified review area. The location and extent of
these aquatic resources are shown on the delineation map, labeled “Figure 3. Site Map” and provided on June 1, 2023
with revisions from the original submittal.

Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 16-01

https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll9/id/1256 provides guidance for Jurisdictional
Determinations (JD) and states “The Corps generally does not issue a JD of any type where no JD has been
requested”. At this time, we are only verifying the delineation. This delineation may be relied upon for use in the permit
evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. “This verification does not address nor include any
consideration for geographic jurisdiction on aquatic resources and shall not be interpreted as such. This delineation
verification is not an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) and is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process (33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an AJD, which is an appealable
action.

If you wish to receive a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD), or an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD)
please respond accordingly, otherwise nothing further is required and we will not provide any additional documentation.

The delineation included herein has been conducted to identify the location and extent of the aquatic resource boundaries
and/or the jurisdictional status of aquatic resources for purposes of the Clean Water Act for the particular site identified in
this request. This delineation may not be valid for the Wetland Conservation Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985,
as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you
should discuss the applicability of a certified wetland determination with the local USDA service center, prior to starting
work.

Sincerely,
Emily

Emily B. Thompson
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 W. 5th Street
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
[e-mail]

We at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch are committed to improving service to our customers. We
would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder Assign Action ID Number in ORM
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]:
2. Work Type: Private Institutional Government Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 – or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
7. Project Location – Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form B1b]:
8. Project Location – Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]:
9. Project Location – County [PCN Form A2b]:
10. Project Location – Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]:
11. Project Information – Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]:
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]:
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404 Section 10 and 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit Pre-Application Request
Nationwide Permit # Unauthorized Activity
Regional General Permit # Compliance
Jurisdictional Determination Request No Permit Required
Revised 20150602
SAW-2022-01239
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
✔
Stream mitigation site for NC Division of Mitigation Services.
See attached property owner table
Kaitlyn Hogarth Wildlands Engineering
35.2951103, -78.1851553
See attached property owner table
Wayne
Grantham
Falling Creek
Neuse 03020201
✔
✔
✔

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  Phone [phone]  312 W Millbrook Suite 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
March 24, 2023 

Kim Isenhour 
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office  
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 

Subject:  Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation and Request for Verification 
  Casey Creek Mitigation Site  
  Wayne County, North Carolina 

Dear Ms. Isenhour: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) is requesting written verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACE) regarding the extent of potential waters of the U.S. within the subject project area. The Casey Creek 
Mitigation Site is in Wayne County, NC approximately one mile west of Grantham, NC (Figure 1). The Casey 
Creek Mitigation Site is being developed to provide mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts that occur in the 
Neuse 01 River Basin (HUC 03020201). A draft mitigation plan is being developed and the design process is 
underway.   
Methodology 
Wildlands delineated potential waters of the U.S. within the proposed project area using the USACE Routine On‐
Site Determination Method defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and 
subsequent Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement Version 2.0 (2010). Wetland Determination 
Data Forms representative of on‐site wetland areas as well as upland areas are enclosed (DP1‐DP4).  
Non‐wetland waters (streams) were reviewed using USACE Ordinary High‐Water Marks guidance (2005) and 
classified using the North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) Methodology for Identification of 
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (Version 4.11, 2010). NCDWR Stream Classification Forms 
representative of on‐site stream channels are enclosed.   
Potential Waters of the United States 
The results of the on‐site field investigation indicate there are 3 streams and 2 wetlands located within the 
assessment area (Figure 3).  The primary project stream is previously unnamed tributary to Falling Creek and has 
2 additional previously unnamed tributaries within the project area. Names have been assigned to these 
streams for this project (Table 1). Falling Creek is Classified as a Class C and Nutrient Sensitive Waters. On‐Site 
stream channels are located within NCDWR Sub‐basin 03‐04‐12 of the Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020201). The 2 
wetlands were labeled A and B. Linear footage of streams and area of wetlands are summarized in Table 1. 
Streams 
Streams exhibited continuity of bed and bank, presence of an ordinary high‐water mark, and absence of in‐
channel vegetation. NCDWR Stream Identification form scores also supported determination of potentially 
jurisdictional stream channels. Most of the stream channels on site were straightforward in determining 
presence of a jurisdictional channel and points of origin. Martha Branch was the exception to this, as there is a 
non‐jurisdictional ditch which is connected to Martha Branch upstream of its intermittent origin point. The 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  Phone [phone]  312 W Millbrook Suite 225  Raleigh, NC 27609

origin was determined to be where the non‐jurisdictional ditch reaches a confluence with an ephemeral feature. 
NCDWR performed a stream determination on June 2, 2022, and concurred with the origin point determination. 
Written concurrence with stream determinations was provided by NCWDR and is enclosed within the appendix.  
Wetlands 
Wetland A was classified as a headwater forest wetland, while wetland B was classified as a bottomland 
hardwood forest wetland. These features were classified using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method 
(NCWAM) classification key and the evaluator’s best professional judgement. These features exhibited evidence 
of saturation within the first 12 inches via an umbric surface and wetland plant communities. Sediment and drift 
deposits, along with sparsely vegetated concave surfaces were present in wetland A. Wetland B is located within 
a depression.  
Table 1. Summary of Potential On‐Site Waters  
Feature Classification Length (lf) Area (ac) 
Casey Creek Intermittent/Perennial 4,145 ‐ 
Martha Branch Intermittent 510 ‐ 
Afton Branch Perennial 523 ‐ 
Wetland A Headwater Forest ‐ 0.098 
Wetland B Bottomland Hardwood Forest ‐ 0.216 
Total 5,178 0.314 
Soils 
NRCS soil mapping indicates the predominant soil type within the assessment area are the Rains and Dragston 
Loamy Sands series (Figure 4). Dragston Loamy Sands are very deep, somewhat poorly drained, fine‐loamy sand 
soils with a water table typically occurring within 12‐30 inches. Rains soils are very deep, poorly drained, sandy‐
loam soils with a shallow, persistent water table occurring on coastal plain flats and depressions.  
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 540‐907‐9432 or at [e-mail] should you have any 
questions regarding this request for jurisdictional verification. 
Sincerely, 

Kaitlyn Hogarth 
Environmental Scientist 

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 1

This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELDOFFICES
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina28801-5006
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGHREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina27587
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina27889
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
GeneralNumber:910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017 Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: _______________________________________________
City, State: _______________________________________________
County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B.REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C.PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
JurisdictionalDeterminationRequest
Version: May 2017
Page 3
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION
3,4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Print Name
Capacity: Owner Authorized Agent5
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST:(Check as many as applicable)
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources underCorpsauthority.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcelwhich may
require authorization from the Corps, andthe JDwould beusedto avoid and minimize
impacts tojurisdictional aquatic resources and as aninitialstep in a future permitting
process.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcelwhich may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
Other:___________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
4 If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
5 Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
ignature
Date
KaitlynHogarth
3/17/2023
Stream Mitigation Site
✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 4

F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of
the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
“preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United
States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected
party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
Size of Property or Review Area acres.
The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
~54.7
✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 5

H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________
Longitude: ______________________
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
ƒNorth Arrow
ƒGraphical Scale
ƒBoundary of Review Area
ƒDate
ƒLocation of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
ƒJurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
ƒJurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
ƒIsolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e.
“Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
ƒWetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
____________________________________________________________________________
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards.http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
35.2951103
-78.1851553✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 6

Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
x PJDs,please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
x AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
8
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
_____________________________________________________________________________
7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose:The information thatyouprovide will beusedinevaluating your requestto determine
whether thereareany aquatic resources within the project areasubjecttofederaljurisdictionunder the regulatory
authorities referencedabove.
RoutineUses:Thisinformation maybeshared with the Departmentof Justice andotherfederal, state,and local
government agencies, and the public,andmaybe made available aspartof a public notice as required byfederal
law. Your nameandproperty location wherefederal jurisdiction is to bedetermined will beincluded in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD),which will bemade available tothe public on the District's website
andontheHeadquartersUSAGEwebsite.
Disclosure:Submission ofrequested information is voluntary; however, ifinformation is notprovided, the
requestforanAJD cannot beevaluatednorcananAJD be issued.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
Casey
Creek (I)
35.297314 -78.184165 2,450 lf
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
of the US
Section 404
Casey
Creek (P)
35.293828 -78.184291 1,695 lf
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
of the US
Section 404
Martha
Branch 35.295008 -78.186169 510 lf
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
of the US
Section 404
Afton
Branch 35.291528 -78.183751 523 lf
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
of the US
Section 404
Wetland A
35.298390 -78.183244 0.098 ac
Potential Wetland Waters of
the US
Section 404
Wetland B 35.290605 -78.184799
0.216 ac Potential Wetland Waters of
the US
Section 404
Kaitlyn Hogarth 312 W Millbrook Rd Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609
NC Wayne Grantham
35.2951103 -78.1851553
Falling Creek
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit)or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date):BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
3243
nature and date of
Figure 3. Site Map
E BBBBBBBBxcerpted from Grantham 7.5 MinXte Topographic QuadBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Web Soil Survey
__ESR__I__World Imagery, 2019
Representative Site Photos, various dates
Table 1. Summary of On‐Site Jurisdictional Waters
Feature Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class Estimated Amount Of Aquatic 
Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource
Casey Creek (I)35.297314 ‐78.184165 Riverine ‐ Streambed 2,450 Potential Non‐Wetland Waters of the 
US
Casey Creek (P)35.293828 ‐78.184291 Riverine ‐ Unconsolidated 
Bottom 1,695 Potential Non‐Wetland Waters of the 
US
Martha Branch 35.295008 ‐78.186169 Riverine ‐ Streambed 510 Potential Non‐Wetland Waters of the 
US
Afton Branch 35.291528 ‐78.183751 Riverine ‐ Unconsolidated 
Bottom 523 Potential Non‐Wetland Waters of the 
US
Wetland A 35.298390 ‐78.183244 Palustrine ‐ Forested 0.098 Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Wetland B 35.290605 ‐78.184799 Palustrine ‐ Forested 0.216 Potential Wetland Waters of the US

Figures

0302020116001003020201140010
03020201200030
03020201150050
03020201170060
03020201170020
03020201170040
03020201170010
03020201170030
¹0 0.5 1 Miles
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit)
Site Coordinates:
35.2951103,
-78.1851553
PJD Assessment Area
¹
Wayne County, NC
Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
0 500250 Feet
Grantham USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle
DP 1
DP 2
DP 3 DP 4
Wetland A
Wetland B
Casey

C
r
e
e
k
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Afton

B
r
a
n
c
h
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Project Location
PJD Assessment Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
2' Topographic Contours
Data Points
0 300 600 Feet
Figure 3. Site Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County
2019 Aerial Photography
¹
Casey

C
r
e
e
k
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Afton

B
r
a
n
c
h
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Ch
NoB
Tr
KaD
Ln
Ly
Ly
W
WaB
KaD
Dr
NoA
Ln
Ke
Ra
Ke
NoC
GoA
WaB
Ke
Bb
Ke
NoA
Ra
Ra
Ra
Ra
Ra
NoA
NoA
Dr
Dr
We
We
PJD Assessment Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US
(Perennial)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US
(Intermittent)
Soils
Bb - Bibb Sandy Loam 0-2%
Ch - Chewacla Loam 0-2%
Dr - Dragston Loamy Sand 0-2%
GoA - Goldsboro Loamy Sand 0-2%
KaD - Kalmia Loamy Sand 10-15%
Ke - Kenansville Loamy Sand 0-3%
Ln - Leon Sand 0-2%
Ly - Lynchburg Sandy Loam 0-2%
NoA - Norfolk Loamy Sand 0-2%
NoB - Norfolk Loamy Sand 2-6%
NoC - Norfolk Loamy Sand 6-10%
Ra - Rains Sandy Loam 0-2%
Tr - Troup Sand 0-2%
WaB - Wagram Loamy Sand 0-6%
We - Weston Loamy Sand 0-2%
W - Water
0 300 600 Feet
Figure 4. Soils Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County
2019 Aerial Photography
¹
Landowner Map and Landowner Authorization
BROCK JOHNNIE MANGRUM
2546248066
KORNEGAY MARTHA C TRUSTEE
25463335459
KORNEGAY MARTHA C TRUSTEE
2546229607
KORNEGAY MARTHA C TRUSTEE
2546314958
Project Parcels
PJD Assessment Area
Figure 5. Property Owner Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC¹0 300 600 Feet
2019 Aerial Photography

                       Property Owner Table 
Parcel 
Identification 
Number (PIN) 
Property Owner Electronic Mail Address Telephone 
Number Mailing Address 
2546248066 Johnnie Mangrum 
Brock [e-mail] 919‐705‐3277 536 Paul Hare Road, Goldsboro, NC 
27530 
2546335459 Martha C. Kornegay, 
Trustee [e-mail] 757‐288‐4880 4200 Country Club Circle, Virginia Beach, 
VA 23455‐4414 
2546229607 Martha C. Kornegay, 
Trustee [e-mail] 757‐288‐4880 4200 Country Club Circle, Virginia Beach, 
VA 23455‐4414 
2546314958 Martha C. Kornegay, 
Trustee [e-mail] 757‐288‐4880 4200 Country Club Circle, Virginia Beach, 
VA 23455‐4414 

USACE Wetland Data Forms

Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X No
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Saturation (A3)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Yes
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
Surface Water Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Saturation Present?
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)Iron Deposits (B5)
Datum:
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Yes
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Field Observations:
Water Table Present? No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Weston Loamy Sand
35.2979250
The delineated wetland area begins where the Casey Creek channel is less defined and flows into a depositional area within the valley. This
depostional area has resulted in an area in which hydrology is allowed to connect to the floodplain resulting in this wetland.
11/14/2022
-78.1833981
No
HYDROLOGY
NAD 83
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Floodplain
Yes
LRR P, MLRA 133A
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
NWI classification:
Water Marks (B1)
Sampling Date:Grantham / Wayne
NCWildlands Engineering
Casey Creek Mitigation Site City/County:
Slope (%):
NA
Wet A DP1
Concave
Section, Township, Range:W. Taylor
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
<1Local relief (concave, convex, none):Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Yes
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals:(B)
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:X
1.X
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:X
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
VEGETATION (Five Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.Wet A DP1
Tree Stratum 30 )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Liquidambar styraciflua 25 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Woody Vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
Quercus phellos
5(B)
10 Yes FACW 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:35 =Total Cover
OBL species 2 2
18 7
FACU species 0
Ilex opaca
18767
Total % Cover of:
0
Multiply by:
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.79
UPL species 0 0
10 20
(A)
FAC species 55 16515 Yes FAC
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Ligustrum japonicum
Ligustrum japonicum 5YesFAC
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
25
10 Yes FAC
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woodwardia areolata 2NoOBL
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
5)
31
5=Total Cover
2=Total Cover
=Total Cover
11
)
15 )
15 )
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
5
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
=Total Cover
13 5
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)X
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Depth (inches):X
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
(MLRA 153B, 153D)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
(outside MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Hydric Soil Present?
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Histosol (A1)
Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
%
Matrix
Color (moist)Type1
Redox FeaturesDepth
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Loc2 Texture Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
%(inches) Color (moist)
0-36 10010YR 2/1
SOIL Sampling Point:
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
NoYes
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Wet A DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
(LRR S, T, U)
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
(MLRA 153B, 153D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Remarks:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
No X X
No X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X No X
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Saturation (A3)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Yes
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
Surface Water Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Saturation Present?
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)Iron Deposits (B5)
Datum:
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Yes
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Field Observations:
Water Table Present? No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Weston Loamy Sand
35.2979468
11/14/2022
-78.1834545
No
HYDROLOGY
NAD 83
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Floodplain
Yes
LRR P, MLRA 133A
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
NWI classification:
Water Marks (B1)
Sampling Date:Grantham / Wayne
NCWildlands Engineering
Casey Creek Mitigation Site City/County:
Slope (%):
NA
Upl DP2
Concave
Section, Township, Range:W. Taylor
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
<1Local relief (concave, convex, none):Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Yes
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals:(B)
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:X
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:X
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
VEGETATION (Five Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.Upl DP2
Tree Stratum 30 )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Liquidambar styraciflua 20 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Woody Vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
Quercus phellos
5(B)
10 Yes FACW 5 (A)
Pinus taeda 5NoFACTotal Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:35 =Total Cover
OBL species 0 0
18 7
FACU species 0
Ilex opaca
19571
Total % Cover of:
0
Multiply by:
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.75
UPL species 1 5
20 40
(A)
FAC species 50 15015 Yes FAC
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Ligustrum japonicum
Arundinaria tecta 5YesFACW
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
30
10 Yes FAC
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
Persea borbonia 5NoFACW
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Athyrium filix-femina 1NoUPL
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
5)
31
5=Total Cover
1=Total Cover
=Total Cover
11
)
15 )
15 )
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
5
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
=Total Cover
15 6
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Depth (inches):X
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
(MLRA 153B, 153D)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
(outside MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Hydric Soil Present?
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Histosol (A1)
Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
%
Matrix
Color (moist)Type1
Redox FeaturesDepth
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Loc2 Texture Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
%(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 3/2 1009-18
18-34 10YR 3/4
0-9 10010YR 2/2
SOIL Sampling Point:
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
NoYes
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Upl DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
100
(LRR S, T, U)
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
(MLRA 153B, 153D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Remarks:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
No X X
No X
X
Yes
Yes
Yes No X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
NWI classification:
Water Marks (B1)
Sampling Date:Wayne
NCWildlands Engineering
Casey Creek Mitigation Site City/County:
Slope (%):
DP 3
concave
Section, Township, Range:W. Taylor, K. Hogarth
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
1Local relief (concave, convex, none):Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Yes
Remarks:
Rains Sandy Loam
35.2901620
11/15/2022
78.1850256
No
HYDROLOGY
NAD 83
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
hillside
Yes
LRR P, MLRA 133A Datum:
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Yes
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Field Observations:
Water Table Present? No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Saturation Present?
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Saturation (A3)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Yes
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals:(B)
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:X
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:X
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
=Total Cover
10 4
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
)
15' )
15' )
30 =Total Cover
=Total Cover
15 6
Switch Cane 30 Yes FACW
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
5' )
21
3=Total Cover
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Liquidambar styraciflua 2NoFAC
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Yes
Acer rubrum
Gordonia lasianthus 3NoFACW
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
19
5Yes
FACW
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
Multiply by:
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.66
UPL species 0 0
43 86
(A)
FAC species 44 1327YesFAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:50 =Total Cover
OBL species 0 0
25 10
FACU species 40
Coastal Sweet-Pepperbush
Gordonia lasianthus 5
25897
Total % Cover of:
10
Liriodendron tulipifera 10 Yes FACU Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71.4%
Liquidambar styraciflua
Quercus phellos 5NoFACW 7(B)
10 Yes FAC 5 (A)
Acer rubrum 5NoFACTotal Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
VEGETATION (Five Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.DP 3
Tree Stratum 30' )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Pinus taeda 20 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Woody Vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Depth (inches):X
(LRR S, T, U)
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
(MLRA 153B, 153D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)Black Histic (A3)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Remarks:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
SOIL Sampling Point:
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
NoYes
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
DP 3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
100
10YR 3/1 100
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 3/3 1002-13
13-25 10YR 3/2
0-2 10010YR 2/2
Loamy/Clayey
Loc2 Texture Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
%
Histosol (A1)
Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
%
Matrix
25-35
Color (moist)Type1
Redox FeaturesDepth
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
(outside MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Hydric Soil Present?
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 153B)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
(MLRA 153B, 153D)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X No
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
NWI classification:
Water Marks (B1)
Sampling Date:Wayne
NCWildlands Engineering
Casey Creek Mitigaiton Site City/County:
Slope (%):
DP 4
concave
Section, Township, Range:K. Hogarth
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
1Local relief (concave, convex, none):Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Yes
Remarks:
Rains Sandy Loam
35.2901961
11/15/2022
-78.1850029
No
HYDROLOGY
NAD 83
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Toe of Slope
Yes
LRR P, MLRA 133A Datum:
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Yes
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Field Observations:
Water Table Present? No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
(includes capillary fringe)
8
Surface Water Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Saturation Present?
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Saturation (A3)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Yes
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain – Version 2.0

NCDWR Stream ID Forms

NCDWR Stream Determination Letter
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

August 10, 2022 DWR Project #20220664 Wayne County Chris Roessler Wildlands Engineering, Inc. [e-mail]
Subject: Determination for Applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0714
Project Name: Casey Creek Mitigation Project
Address: 3890 US Hwy 13 South, Goldsboro, NC 27530
Location: Lat., Long: 35.2934495, -78.1854881 Dear Mr. Roessler: On June 2, 2022, Shelton Sullivan of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) conducted an on-site review of features located on the Casey Creek Mitigation Project site at the request of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to determine the applicability of features on the site to the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules, Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 02B .0714. The enclosed map(s), provided by Wildlands Engineering, Inc., depict the feature(s) evaluated and this information is also summarized in the table below. Streams were evaluated for being ephemeral, at least intermittent, and for subjectivity to the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules. Streams that are considered “Subject” have been located on the most recently published NRCS Soil Survey of Johnston 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, not present on the property, or not depicted on the required maps.
This determination only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules within the
proposed project and property boundaries as presented by Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
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 appear or do not appear on the
DocuSign Envelope ID: C32E4ACD-CC96-466F-B802-745366749B3E
Page 2 of 3 Casey Creek Mitigation Project DWR# 20220664

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 observed and rated during the DWR site visit. Feature ID Feature Type: stream (E, I, P,), ditch, swale, wetland, other Subject to Buffer Rules Start @ Stop @ Depicted on Soil Survey Depicted on USGS Topo
Martha Branch Stream, at least I No Start Point as indicated on map
Continues downstream, along wood line and field to confluence with Casey Creek No No
Casey Creek Stream, at least I Yes Starts at least at the northern property and easement boundary; See Map
Continues downstream, under Hwy. 13, and beyond the property and easement boundary
Yes Yes
Afton Branch Stream, at least I Yes Starts at least at the southeastern property and easement boundary; See Map
Confluence with Casey Creek Yes Yes
* E: Ephemeral, I: Intermittent, P: Perennial
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute this determination made by the DWR may
request an appeal determination by the Director of Water Resources. 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: Paul Wojoski - DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Supervisor 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.) Paul Wojoski - 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 of the date of this letter.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C32E4ACD-CC96-466F-B802-745366749B3E
Page 3 of 3 Casey Creek Mitigation Project DWR# 20220664

If you have any additional questions or require additional information, please contact Shelton Sullivan at [e-mail] or 919-707-3636. This determination is subject to review as provided in G.S. 150B. Sincerely, Paul Wojoski, Supervisor 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Attachments provided by Wildlands Engineering, Inc.: Site Map with DWR Labels, NRCS Soil Survey, USGS Topographical Map cc: Martha Kornegay, 4200 Country Club Circle, Virginia Beach, VA 23455-4414 Johnnie Mangrum Brock, [e-mail] Carolyn Lanza, Wildlands Engineering, Inc., [e-mail] 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Laserfiche File DWR Washington Regional Office Filename: 20220664_Casey Creek _DWR_StreamCalls_8-10-22
DocuSign Envelope ID: C32E4ACD-CC96-466F-B802-745366749B3E
Casey Creek Stream Calls 6/2/22 Shelton Sullivan

Ditch feature and pond
above start point
Martha Branch, Start
Point
Stream; Not Buffered; At
least Intermittent at this
point; Continues
downstream
35.294769; -78.186614

Afton Branch
Stream; Buffered; At least
Intermittent at property
and easement boundary;
Continues downstream
Casey Creek
Stream; Buffered; At least
Intermittent at property
and easement boundary;
Continues downstream
DocuSign Envelope ID: C32E4ACD-CC96-466F-B802-745366749B3E
ir' rrL, .. .f..r... v. .;. JL v. ,1v{L •
r` • - ' iV.y{X ¢ yr,
LProject LocationKe
71 kr r } '
r.
rf• . r '
r _ .. • ,
1}} k•
rr -
F•{'•`-1•!• __ sr•.: rf +
c 1:.:.
r: '•.v r
ti kr: .i...' •{fir#7.
r'. r?J •. - .ry r •, $
r ' .I}i: r'
1
r ryr.
Ke
Ae
11FIR
4 •} }:
i - L-'vrh?•- r•: •'• ram.; 1
o- ti,-.k. .ti.tir rti_=A.',: '• r:. f
r.
r .fir rl.
rr •• r 7 •' •r r
f ' ' ' , '{ tirf
r •'-+
rrs 'r •f
rti -
r —
r`rr r •
ny _ •
rf• {
1. - .:
L rw ih.: .r ;:}rri' -• '•, r v~i' r{ ,
ern - ' • _ ~' - • . •
r ti,
irk
V •.. .. - • - •" if
6-
r
r .. .
7r
r•
k•'Cr. .A-.
lot
Ile
ti:. ?f Ky . r err ti•. • "•J' 'y'+` ' y' =: •. . .
7A }
fF#7S(
L }lrti::f_:• •
v c . f.
r
4r ,,+ r
fry ; A x
5'
r• . rr {'f••: " '
1 f •r r •r • •n •_ rr'
Y'
yG f,4,r. ti'•• , •. ?1r s'• •.•
51}L:
r
ti1•- _: •:
e
f•
f • ..
i-r ••r'1f• }'' •'f:r.{Ir•i••
f•'
r .rf +'
1974 NRCS Soil Survey of Wayne County - Sheet 29
Figure 6b 1974 NRCS Soil Survey MapON.WILDLANDS 0 250 500 Feet Casey Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I IIi I Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
DocuSign Envelope ID: C32E4ACD-CC96-466F-B802-745366749B3E
i
Grantham USGS 7.5 Minute
Topographic Quadrangle
1 5
I'
1 I'IJORI
a.
i
Aft -.--
Proposed Conservation Easement
r
is
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Casey Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
DocuSign Envelope ID: C32E4ACD-CC96-466F-B802-745366749B3E
Antecedent Precipitation Tool Output
Apr
2022
May
2022
Jun
2022
Jul
2022
Aug
2022
Sep
2022
Oct
2022
Nov
2022
Dec
2022
Jan
2023
Feb
2023
Mar
2023
0
2
4
6
8
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
2022-11-14
2022-10-15
2022-09-15
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product
2022-11-14 1.59685 4.368504 3.492126 Normal 2 3 6
2022-10-15 3.092126 4.37874 5.188977 Wet 3 2 6
2022-09-15 3.155512 5.88504 4.330709 Normal 2 1 2
Result Normal Conditions - 14
Coordinates 35.294804, -78.184666
Observation Date 2022-11-14
Elevation (ft)143.56
Drought Index (PDSI)Moderate drought
WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent
SMITHFIELD 35.5175, -78.3444 149.934 17.823 6.374 8.134 10897 60
SMITHFIELD 2.8 SE 35.4762, -78.3122 130.906 3.38 19.028 1.585 5 0
SELMA 2.3 N 35.5707, -78.2869 194.882 4.895 44.948 2.423 288 30
CLAYTON 5.7 SSE 35.5724, -78.4154 209.974 5.506 60.04 2.808 131 0
CLAYTON 6.8 ESE 35.6194, -78.3411 167.979 7.043 18.045 3.296 31 0
CLAYTON WTP 35.6408, -78.4633 299.869 10.827 149.935 6.495 1 0

Representative Site Photographs 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
Representative Site Photographs

Casey Creek ‐ Intermittent (3/14/2023) Casey Creek ‐ Perennial (3/14/2023) 

Martha Branch (3/14/2023) Martha Branch Origin (3/14/2023) 

Afton Branch (3/14/2023) Afton Branch (3/14/2023) 
 Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
Representative Site Photographs

Wetland A – DP 1 (11/16/2022) Wetland B – DP 4 (11/16/2022) 

DP 2 ‐ Upland (11/16/2022) DP 3 ‐ Upland (01/09/2023) 

Appendix 6: Categorial Exclusion and Resource Agency Correspondence

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation Services Projects
Version 2
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental
document.
Part 1: General Project Information Project Name: County Name: DMS Number: Project Sponsor: Project Contact Name: Project Contact Address: Project Contact E-mail: DMS Project Manager: Project Description
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
[e-mail]
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Wayne
Jeremiah Dow
The site is being developed to provide stream, buffer, and nutrient mitigation within the Neuse River Basin. The project will include
the restoration of Casey Creek R2 & R3, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch. Casey Creek R1 is slated for preservation. Current land
use consists of row crop production with a mix of pines and hardwoods. The major goals of the proposed stream, buffer, and nutrient
offset mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the Neuse River Basin while creating a
functional riparian corridor at the site level. The project design will avoid major adverse impacts to existing streams, wetland
resources, and existing forested areas. This will be accomplished by restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, creating
stable stream banks, improving stream habitat, and protecting the Site in perpetuity through establishing a conservation easement.
100597
10/28/2022
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1.Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9

Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
Categorical Exclusion 
SUMMARY 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a 
Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous‐waste sites as well as 
accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the 
environment.  
As the Casey Creek Mitigation Site is a full‐delivery project, an EDR Radius Map Report with 
Geocheck was ordered for the site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc on September 24, 
2021. The target property was not listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental 
databases searched by the EDR. However, several sites were mapped within 0.25‐0.5 miles of the 
project area, all with a lower relative elevation than the proposed project. 
 Three Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) incidents within 0.125 & 0.25 miles of the 
property – GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE HARDWARE and GRANTHAM SUPPLY & 
SUPERMARKET; 
 One Underground Storage Tank (UST) within 0.25 miles of the property – DANNIE’S GAS & 
GROCERY; 
 One State and Tribal Institutional Control (INST) within 0.5 miles of the property – 
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE HARDWARE; and 
 Two records in the Incident Management Database (IMD) within 0.5 miles of the property – 
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE HARDWARE and CASEY’S 76 GROCERY. 
The Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in the Appendix. The full report is available 
upon request. 
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) 
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect, 
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in 
American architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal 
agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is 
eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. 
A scoping letter was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requesting 
comment on the Casey Creek Mitigation Site on August 23, 2022. SHPO responded on September 1, 
2022 and said they were “aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project” 
and would have no further comment. All correspondence related to Section 106 is included in the 
Appendix. 
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) 
These acts, collectively known as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of 
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non‐profit associations, or farms by federal and 
federally‐assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies. 
The Casey Creek Mitigation Site is a full‐delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification 
of the fair market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by 
Wildlands was included in the signed Option Agreement for the project properties. A copy of the 
relevant section of each of the Option Agreements are included in the Appendix. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the 
Secretary of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, 
fund or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. 
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation 
database (IPaC) list of endangered species for the site includes the following species: Red‐cockaded 
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi), and the Carolina Madtom 
(Noturus furiosus). The USFWS does not currently list any Critical Habitat Designations for the 
Federally listed species within the project site. Results from the pedestrian survey conducted on 
August 16, 2022 indicated that the project area does not contain suitable habitat for any of the 
federally listed species.  
USFWS responded to the public notice (SAW‐2022‐001239) on August 12, 2022 and does not have 
any objections to the activity and expects minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. 
Please refer to the Appendix for all USFWS correspondence and the species conclusion table. 
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) 
The FPPA requires that, before taking or approving any federal action that would result in 
conversion of farmland, the agency must examine the effects of the action using the criteria set 
forth in the FPPA, and, if there are adverse effects, must consider alternatives to lessen them. 
The Casey Creek Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD‐1006 
was completed and submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on September 
12, 2022. The completed form and correspondence documenting its submittal is included in the 
Appendix. 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency on 
projects that alter or modify a water body. Reports and recommendations prepared by these 
agencies document project effects on wildlife and identify measures that may be adopted to 
prevent loss or damage to wildlife resources. 
Wildlands requested comment on the project from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 
Commission (NCWRC) on October 7, 2022 and received correspondence from USFWS through the 
public notice advertisement (SAW‐2022‐001239). The USFWS and NCWRC do not have any concerns 
with the proposed mitigation project. All correspondence with the two agencies is included in the 
Appendix. 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, 
import, or export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs 
is covered by the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a 
taking. 
Wildlands received correspondence from USFWS through the public notice advertisement (SAW‐
2022‐001239) regarding MBTA. USFWS does not have any concern in regard to migratory birds 
associated with the proposed mitigation project. All correspondence with USFWS is included in the 
Appendix. 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
Categorical Exclusion 
APPENDIX 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

August 23, 2022
Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Submitted via email: [e-mail]
Subject: Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Wayne County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream, buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation
project on the Casey Creek Mitigation Site (Site) located in Wayne County, NC. The Site is located approximately
one mile west of the Town of Grantham, NC. The project is funded by North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS). A Site Overview Map and a USGS Topographic Map showing the approximate project area are
enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Grantham 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle, and
the Site is located at latitude 35.2946770, longitude -78.1833726.
The Casey Creek Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream, buffer, and nutrient mitigation within the
Neuse River Basin. The project will include the restoration of Casey Creek Reaches 2 and 3, Martha Branch, and
Afton Branch. Casey Creek Reach 1 is slated for preservation. Site stressors include stream incision, active stream
erosion including mass wasting, nutrient inputs from adjacent agricultural fields, lack of riparian buffers, and areas
of limited to absent bedform diversity. The Site is located on four parcels that contain tributaries to Falling Creek. A
large portion of the properties (over 40 acres) have been used for row crop production for decades. The remaining
acreage is primarily wooded with a mix of pines and hardwoods. Currently, the agricultural fields are used to grow
a rotation of corn and soybeans with an occasional rotation of peanuts, cotton, and sweet potatoes.
The major goals of the proposed stream, buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation project are to provide ecological
and water quality enhancements to the Neuse River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the Site
level. The project design will avoid major adverse impacts to existing streams, wetland resources, and existing
forested areas. This will be accomplished by restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, creating stable
stream banks, improving stream habitat, and protecting the Site in perpetuity through establishing a conservation
easement.
There are no surveyed sites listed on the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) national register
of historic places within nor in close proximity to the Site. Two R5-rated managed areas (Unique Places to Save
Easements) are located within one mile of the Site. No other architectural structures or archaeological artifacts
have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes . We ask that you
review the Site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of Site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Tasha King, Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
805.895.3304
Attachments: Figure 1 Overview Site Map, Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

September 1, 2022

Kim Isenhour [e-mail]
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC

Re: Casey Creek mitigation site, 35.2938, -78.1859, Wayne County, ER 22-2015

Dear Ms. Isenhour:

Thank you for your email of August 12, 2022, regarding the above-referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.

We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

cc: Tasha King, Wildlands Engineering [e-mail]

DocuSign Envelope ID: FAB56FB2-8CA4-4871-9CE6-9DD6A7DDA1AB
[e-mail]
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAB56FB2-8CA4-4871-9CE6-9DD6A7DDA1AB
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5D580D32-68D0-4C62-924A-02984B6A3749
Version 5.12.2022 Page 1

PUBLIC NOTICE

Issue Date: August 12, 2022
Comment Deadline: September 11, 2022
Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2022-01239

The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) seeking Department of the Army
authorization to modify the In-Lieu Fee Instrument for the addition of a 24-acre site,
known as Casey Creek Mitigation Site, which will be used to generate compensatory
mitigation credits in Wayne County, North Carolina.

Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached
plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the RIBITS Site at:
https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:622:13369073933002::NO Filter to the
Wilmington District on the left hand side of the home page and select the Public Notices
tab.

Applicant: N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Marc Recktenwald
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

This public notice does not imply, on the part of the Corps of Engineers or other
agencies, either favorable or unfavorable opinion of the work to be performed, but is
issued to solicit comments regarding the factors on which final decisions will be based.

Authority

The Corps evaluates this application and decides whether to issue, conditionally issue,
or deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of the following Statutory
Authorities:

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)

Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1413)

US Army Corps
Of Engineers
Wilmington District

Version 5.12.2022 Page 2

Location

Location Description:
The Casey Creek Mitigation Site is in Wayne County approximately one mile west of the
town of Grantham off US Highway 13 S. The project is located within Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) 03020201170010 and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Neuse
River Basin Catalog Unit 03020201.

Project Area (acres): 24.0 Nearest Town: Grantham
Nearest Waterway: Kelley Creek River Basin: Neuse River
Latitude and Longitude: 35.2938 °N, -78.1859 °W USGS Quad: Grantham

Existing Site Conditions

The proposed project is located on four parcels that contain tributaries to Falling Creek.
A large portion of the properties (over 40 acres) has been used for row crop agriculture
for decades. The remaining acreage is primarily wooded with a mix of pines and
hardwoods. Currently, the agricultural fields are used to grow a rotation of corn and
soybeans with an occasional rotation of peanuts, cotton, and sweet potatoes. Cattle
were grazed in the fields south of US Hwy 13 until 1982. The fields are drained by drain
tiles, perennial, and intermittent streams on the Site have clearly been channelized and
relocated to increase crop production.

Applicant’s Stated Purpose

The purpose of the proposal is the modification of the Division of Mitigation Services In-
Lieu-Fee Program Instrument to add an additional mitigation site to generate mitigation
credits that may be used to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
streams associated with Department of the Army permit authorizations pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Project Description

The Casey Creek Mitigation Site proposes the restoration of 3,577 linear feet (LF) of
stream and preservation of approximately 1,734 LF of stream. Stream restoration
activities will include restoring appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile with Priority 1
and Priority 2 restoration where applicable. Stabilization structures will be installed,
which will also provide habitat. Native riparian buffers will be established in excess of 50
feet on either side of each stream reach.

The sponsor has signed option agreements with the land owners to record a
conservation easement on all land located within the site boundary. The easement will
be conveyed to the State of North Carolina (NCDEQ Stewardship) who will serve as
long-term manager for the mitigation property.

Version 5.12.2022 Page 3

Prospectus:
This Public Notice document is available on the RIBITS web site at:
https://ribits.usace.army.mil
To access the public notices, first select the Wilmington District from the Filter View
drop-down menu in the lower left-hand corner, and then select the Bank & ILF
Establishment tab.
This mitigation site may be considered one of a number of practicable alternatives
available to applicants to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts
associated with permits issued under the authority of Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean
Water Act for projects located within the prescribed geographic service area.
Oversight of this mitigation proposal will be by a group of federal and state agency
representatives collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team (IRT). The IRT
shall be chaired by the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is
comprised of representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, N.C. Division of Water Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office, NOAA, and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
The actual approval of the use of this mitigation site for a specific project is the decision
of the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps provides no
guarantee that any particular individual or general permit will be granted authorization to
use this stream compensatory mitigation site to compensate for unavoidable stream
impacts associated with a proposed permit, even though mitigation from this site may
be available.

Essential Fish Habitat

The Corps’ determination is that the proposed project would not affect EFH or
associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Implementation of the proposed project would impact (CHOOSE ALL THAT
APPLY- marine substrate, estuarine substrate, water columns, emergent
wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, artificial reefs, hardbottoms) (see
project description) utilized by various life stages of the following species: coastal
migratory pelagics and Atlantic highly migratory species. Our initial
determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial individual
or cumulative adverse impact on EFH or fisheries managed by Fishery
Management Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Our
final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation
measures is subject to review by and coordination with the NMFS.

The Corps will consult under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and will not make a
permit decision until the consultation process is complete.

Version 5.12.2022 Page 4

The Corps has initiated consultation the Magnuson-Stevens Act and will not
make a permit decision until the consultation process is complete.

Cultural Resources

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Appendix C
of 33 CFR Part 325, and the 2005 Revised Interim Guidance for Implementing Appendix
C, the District Engineer consulted district files and records and the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places and initially determines that:

Should historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National
Register, be present within the Corps’ permit area; the proposed activity requiring
the DA permit (the undertaking) is a type of activity that will have no potential to
cause an effect to an historic properties.

No historic properties, nor properties eligible for inclusion in the National
Register, are present within the Corps’ permit area; therefore, there will be no
historic properties affected. The Corps subsequently requests concurrence from
the SHPO (or THPO).

Properties ineligible for inclusion in the National Register are present within the
Corps’ permit area; there will be no historic properties affected by the proposed
work. The Corps subsequently requests concurrence from the SHPO (or THPO).

Historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register, are
present within the Corps’ permit area; however, the undertaking will have no
adverse effect on these historic properties. The Corps subsequently requests
concurrence from the SHPO (or THPO).

Historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register, are
present within the Corps’ permit area; moreover, the undertaking may have an
adverse effect on these historic properties. The Corps subsequently initiates
consultation with the SHPO (or THPO).

The proposed work takes place in an area known to have the potential for the
presence of prehistoric and historic cultural resources; however, the area has not
been formally surveyed for the presence of cultural resources. No sites eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are known to be present
in the vicinity of the proposed work. Additional work may be necessary to identify
and assess any historic or prehistoric resources that may be present.

The District Engineer’s final eligibility and effect determination will be based upon
coordination with the SHPO and/or THPO, as appropriate and required, and with full
consideration given to the proposed undertaking’s potential direct and indirect effects on
historic properties within the Corps-indentified permit area.

Version 5.12.2022 Page 5

Endangered Species

Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Corps reviewed the project area,
examined all information provided by the applicant and consulted the latest North
Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information:

The Corps determines that the proposed project would not affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.

The Corps determines that the proposed project may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.

By copy of this public notice, the Corps initiates consultation under Section 7
of the ESA and will not make a permit decision until the consultation process is
complete.

The Corps will consult under Section 7 of the ESA and will not make a permit
decision until the consultation process is complete.

The Corps has initiated consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and will not
make a permit decision until the consultation process is complete.

The Corps determines that the proposed project may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
Consultation has been completed for this type of activity and the effects of the
proposed activity have been evaluated and/or authorized by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion or its
associated documents, including 7(a)(2) & 7(d) analyses and Critical Habitat
assessments. A copy of this public notice will be sent to the NMFS.

The Corps is not aware of the presence of species listed as threatened or
endangered or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the project area. The Corps will
make a final determination on the effects of the proposed project upon additional
review of the project and completion of any necessary biological assessment
and/or consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National
Marine Fisheries Service.

Other Required Authorizations

The Corps forwards this notice and all applicable application materials to the
appropriate State agencies for review.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR):

Version 5.12.2022 Page 6

The applicant did not provide or satisfy all the elements required for a complete
401 certification request. Therefore, the 401 Certification process has not
started. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the
NCDWR issues, denies, or waives the state Certification as required by Section
401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500).

The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the NCDWR
issues, denies, or waives the state Certification as required by Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and this public
notice, combined with the appropriate application fee, at the NCDWR Central
Office in Raleigh constitutes initial receipt of an application for a 401
Certification. Unless NCDWR is granted a time review extension, a waiver will
be deemed to occur if the NCDWR fails to act on this request for certification
within 120 days of the date of this public notice. Additional information regarding
the 401 Certification may be reviewed at the NCDWR Central Office,
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for a 401 Certification should do so, in writing, to:

NCDWR Central Office
Attention: Mr. Paul Wojowski, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
(USPS mailing address): 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-
1617

Or,

(physical address): 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina
27604

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM):

The application did not include a certification that the proposed work complies
with and would be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2
(b)(2) the Corps cannot issue a Department of Army (DA) permit for the proposed
work until the applicant submits such a certification to the Corps and the
NCDCM, and the NCDCM notifies the Corps that it concurs with the applicant’s
consistency certification. As the application did not include the consistency
certification, the Corps will request, upon receipt,, concurrence or objection from
the NCDCM.

Based upon all available information, the Corps determines that this application
for a Department of Army (DA) permit does not involve an activity which would
affect the coastal zone, which is defined by the Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Act (16 U.S.C. § 1453).

Version 5.12.2022 Page 7

Evaluation

The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest.
That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation,
water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the
people. For activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the
United States, the evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will
include application of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 404(b)(1) guidelines.

Commenting Information

The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials, including any consolidated State Viewpoint or written position of
the Governor; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be
considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition,
or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess
impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general
environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.

Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a
public hearing will be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues
raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.

The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District will receive written comments pertinent to
the proposed work, as outlined above, until 5pm, September 11, 2022. Comments
should be submitted to Kim (Browning) Isenhour, Regulatory Division, 3331 Heritage
Trade Drive, Suite 105,Wake Forest, NC 27587 or , at [phone]. Comments may
also be submitted to [e-mail].
®q
®q
Conservation Reserve EnhancementProgram Easement
Conservation Trust for North Carolina Preserve
USFWS Critical Habitat - Neuse River Waterdog
Mill Creek Aquatic Habitat
Neu
s
e

R
i
v
e
r
F
a
l
l
i
n
g

C
r
e
e
k
Falling Creek
Cox-Grantham Airfield
Scottbrook Farm
Project Location
£¤13
£¤13
Grantham
JOHN
S
T
O
N
WAYN
E
BentonvilleBattlefield (NHL)
Stevens Mill
Falling Cre
e
k
Grantham BranchMitigation Bank
Falling CreekMitigation Bank
03020201170010
03020201170030
03020201150050
03020201140010
03020201170020
03020201160010
03020201170040
03020201200030
03020201170060
03030007010010
03020201140020
03030006090010
03030007010010
03020201170050
¹
Wayne County, NC
Figure 1a Vicinity Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
0 1.50.75 Miles
Project Location
5 Mile Radius
County Boundary
Municipality
8-Digit HUC
Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit)
Local Watershed Plans
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Nat. Heritage Program Managed Areas
!(!(!(
!(!(!(Water Supply Watershed
Targeted Local Watersheds
NC Historic Preservation Areas
Wildlands Mitigation Banks
303d Listed Streams
®q Airports
Proposed Casey CreekMitigation Site
Grantham BranchMitigation Bank
Falling CreekMitigation Bank
NC Dept. of AgricultureCREP Easement
03020201
03030006
Falling Creek
03020201170010
03020201170030
03020201150050
03020201170040
03020201150040
03020201170020
03030006090010
03020201170050
03020201170060
0303000701001003030006090030
03020201140010 03020201160010
03030007010010
03020201200030
03030007020010
Figure 1b Site Proximity Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2017 Aerial Photography
¹Wayne County, NC
8-Digit HUC
14-Digit HUC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Conservation Easements
Streams
!(Animal Operations (2019)
0 10.5 Miles
!P
!P
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Casey C
r
e
e
k
Martha
B
r
a
n
c
h
Afton B
r
a
n
c
h
XS
3
XS1
XS2
X
S
4
Casey CreekReach 1
Casey CreekReach 2
Casey CreekReach 3
Figure 2 Site Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2017 Aerial Photography
¹Wayne County, NC
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Incision
Erosion
Cross Section
Existing Drain Tiles
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
!(Bedrock
XY Headcut
!P Reach Break
0 300150 Feet
¹
Wayne County, NC
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
0 500250 Feet
Grantham USGS 7.5 MinuteTopographic Quadrangle
Proposed Conservation Easement
¹
Wayne County, NC
Figure 4 Lidar Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
0 500250 Feet
Elevation (Feet)
High : 175
Low : 125
Proposed Conservation Easement
Cas
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Casey

C
r
e
e
k
Afton Br
a
n
c
h
Martha B
r
a
n
c
h
Ra
KaD
Dr
NoBLy
Ra
We
Ke Ke
Ke
Ra
¹
Wayne County, NC
Figure 6a Soils Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
0 500250 Feet
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Dr- Dragston Loamy Sand
KaD- Kalmia Loamy Sand, 10-15% Slopes (Winton)
Ke- Kenansville Loamy Sand
Ly- Lynchburg Sandy Loam, 0-2% Slopes
NoB- Norfolk Loamy Sand, 2-6% Slopes
Ra- Rains Sandy Loam, 0-2% Slopes
We- Weston Loamy Sand (Woodington)
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
2017 Aerial Photography
!P
!P
^_^_
^_
Cas
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Casey

C
r
e
e
k
Martha

B
r
a
n
c
h
Afton Br
a
n
c
h
Casey CreekReach 1
Casey CreekReach 2
Casey CreekReach 3
¬«1
¬«2
Figure 7 Concept Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2017 Aerial Photography
¹Wayne County, NC
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (0-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (0-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credit (101'-200')
No Credit
Proposed Internal Crossing
Existing External Crossing
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Preservation
Existing Drain Tiles To Be Removed
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
^_Floodplain Pools
0 300150 Feet
¬«#
¬«#

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Date: 08/29/2022

Species / Resource
Name
Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle
Act Determination
Notes / Documentation
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides
borealis)
No suitable habitat
present
No effect A field survey was conducted by Wildlands on August 16, 2022. No suitable
habitat was found in the form of old pine cavity trees, open pine woodlands with
little to no hardwoods, or pine savannahs. No critical habitat has been
designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known
element occurrences exist within a one-mile radius of the proposed project
area, or within the project area.
Neuse River Waterdog
(Necturus lewisi)
No suitable habitat
present
No effect A field survey was conducted by Wildlands on August 16, 2022. The Neuse
River Waterdog’s required habitat of clean, flowing water characterized by high
dissolved oxygen concentrations was not found on site. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within a one-mile radius of the
proposed project area, or within the project area.
Carolina Madtom
(Noturus furiosus)
No suitable habitat
present
No effect A field survey was conducted by Wildlands on August 16, 2022. No suitable
habitat was found in the project area. Due to incision and erosion present in
much of the project streams, silt-free and stable substrate was not present. Per
NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within a one-mile
radius of the proposed project area, or within the project area.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
Unlikely to disturb nesting
bald eagles.
No Eagle Act Permit
Required
A field survey was conducted by Wildlands on August 16, 2022. No bald eagles
were present or nesting on the site, and no suitable foraging or nesting habitat
was found. The site Is greater than 660 ft from the nearest, large body of water.
Per NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within a one-
mile radius of the proposed project area, or within the project area.
Critical Habitat No critical habitats
present within the project
area.
Final critical habitat is designated for the Neuse River Waterdog and the
Carolina Madtom; however, critical habitat for these species is not found within
the project area.
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.

08/29/2022
_______________________________________________________________ ___________________________
Rebecca Hogarth / Environmental Scientist Date

August 12, 2022

Kim Isenhour
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Re: Casey Creek Mitigation Site / SAW-2022-01239/ Wayne County

Dear Ms. Isenhour:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The project, as advertised, is expected to have minimal adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, we have no objection to the activity as
described in the permit application.

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to
adversely affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We
believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project.
Please remember that obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
identifies impacts of this action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the
identified action.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Kathy Matthews at
[e-mail].

Sincerely,

Pete Benjamin,
Field Supervisor

cc (via email):
EPA, Atlanta, GA
NCWRC, Raleigh

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County and State
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By
NRCS
Person Completing Form:
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
Acres Irrigated

Average Farm Size

Major Crop(s)

Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: %
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name of Land Evaluation System Used

Name of State or Local Site Assessment System

Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Site Rating PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106)
Maximum
Points Site A Site B Site C Site D
1. Area In Non-urban Use (15)
2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10)
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20)
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)
6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15)
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10)
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5)
10. On-Farm Investments (20)
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10)
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10)
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

Site Selected:

Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES NO
Reason For Selection:

Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)

The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture’s
Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC).

An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer, and Lender
September 15, 2022

Kirsten Gimbert - Senior Environmental Scientist
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.941.9093

Dear Kirsten Gimbert:

The following information is in response to your request soliciting comments regarding the
Casey Creek Mitigation Site in Wayne County, NC.

Projects are subject to Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements if they may irreversibly
convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a Federal agency
or with assistance from a Federal agency.

For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide
or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for
cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section 1540(c)(1) of the Act or
farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or unit of local government agency or agencies
with concurrence of the Secretary to be farmland of statewide of local importance.

“Farmland'' does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage.
Farmland ``already in'' urban development or water storage includes all such land with a density of
30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland already in urban development also includes lands identified
as ``urbanized area'' (UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a ``tint overprint''
on the USGS topographical maps, or as ``urban-built-up'' on the USDA Important Farmland Maps.
See over for more information.

The area in question does include land classified as Prime Farmland. In accordance with
the Code of Federal Regulations 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection Policy Act, the AD-1006
was initiated. NRCS has completed Parts II, IV, V of the form, and returned for completion
by the requesting agency.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Ryan Janway

Ryan Janway
Natural Resource Specialist

cc:
Andrew Faison, supervisory soil conservationist, NRCS, Goldsboro, NC
Michael Jones, state soil scientist, Raleigh, NC

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

North Carolina
State Office

4407 Bland Rd.
Suite 117
Raleigh
North Carolina 27609
Voice [phone]
Fax [phone]
1
Kirsten Gimbert
From:Kirsten Gimbert
Sent:Friday, October 21, 2022 9:53 AM
To:'Janway, Ryan - FPAC-NRCS, RALEIGH, NC'
Cc:Jones, Michael - NRCS, Raleigh, NC; Muzzy, Laura - FPAC-NRCS, RALEIGH, NC; Faison, Andrew -
NRCS, Goldsboro, NC
Subject:RE: Casey Creek Mitigation Site - FPPA Package
Attachments:Casey Creek AD-1006 Form 10.21.2022.pdf
Ryan, 

Please find attached the final AD‐1006 Form for the Casey Creek Mitigation Site located in Wayne County, NC.  Please let 
me know if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 
Kirsten Gimbert  | Senior Environmental Scientist 
M: 704.941.9093 

From: Janway, Ryan ‐ FPAC‐NRCS, RALEIGH, NC <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:40 AM 
To: Kirsten Gimbert <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Jones, Michael ‐ NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>; Muzzy, Laura ‐ FPAC‐NRCS, RALEIGH, NC 
<[e-mail]>; Faison, Andrew ‐ NRCS, Goldsboro, NC <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Casey Creek Mitigation Site ‐ FPPA Package 

Good morning Kirsten, 

Thank you for your communication regarding the Casey Creek Mitigation Site in Wayne County, NC. I was assigned this 
FPPA request, please see the attached AD‐1006 form and letter from NRCS.  

Let me know if you have any questions, 

Ryan Janway
USDA-NRCS
Natural Resource Specialist
4407 Bland Rd
Raleigh, NC 27609
[e-mail]

From: Kirsten Gimbert <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 3:32 PM 
To: Muzzy, Laura ‐ FPAC‐NRCS, RALEIGH, NC <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External Email]Casey Creek Mitigation Site ‐ FPPA Package 

Hi Laura, 
2

Please find attached to this email information related to the FPPA for your review regarding the Casey Creek Mitigation 
Site located in Wayne County, NC. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.   

Thank You, 
Kirsten Gimbert  | Senior Environmental Scientist 
M: 704.941.9093 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104  
Charlotte, NC 28203 

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any 
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and 
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender and delete the email immediately.  

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
August 23, 2022

Gabriela Garrison
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Sandhills Depot
PO Box 149
Hoffman, NC 28347
Submitted via email: [e-mail]

Subject: Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Wayne County, North Carolina

Dear Ms. Garrison,

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential stream, buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation project on the
Casey Creek Mitigation Site (Site) located in Wayne County, NC. The Site is located approximately one mile west of
the Town of Grantham, NC. The project is funded by North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). A Site
Overview Map and a USGS Topographic Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Grantham 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle, and the Site is located at
latitude 35.2946770, longitude -78.1833726.
The Casey Creek Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream, buffer, and nutrient mitigation within the
Neuse River Basin. The project will include the restoration of Casey Creek Reaches 2 and 3, Martha Branch, and
Afton Branch. Casey Creek Reach 1 is slated for preservation. The Site is located on four parcels that contain
tributaries to Falling Creek. A large portion of the properties (over 40 acres) ha ve been used for row crop
production for decades. The remaining acreage is primarily wooded with a mix of pines and hardwoods. Currently,
the agricultural fields are used to grow a rotation of corn and soybeans with an occasional rotation of peanuts,
cotton, and sweet potatoes. Site stressors include stream incision, active stream erosion including mass wasting,
nutrient inputs from adjacent agricultural fields, lack of riparian buffers , and areas of limited to absent bedform
diversity.
The major goals of the proposed stream, buffer, and nut rient offset mitigation project are to provide ecological
and water quality enhancements to the Neuse River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the Site
level. The project design will avoid major adverse impacts to existing streams, wetl and resources, and existing
forested areas. This will be accomplished by restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, creating stable
stream banks, improving stream habitat, and protecting the Site in perpetuity through establishing a conservation
easement. Construction of this project will affect Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and require Section 404/401
permitting.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of Site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Tasha King, Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
805.895.3304
Attachments: Figure 1 Site Overview Map, Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
1
Tasha King
From:Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, October 7, 2022 9:58 AM
To:Tasha King
Subject:RE: [External] Casey Creek Mitigation Site for Review - Follow Up
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi Tasha,  
Apologies for the delay in response.   
We have no issue or concern with this project.  
Thank you,  
Gabriela  

Gabriela Garrison 
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator 

NC Wildlife Resources Commission 
Sandhills Depot, P.O. Box 149 
Hoffman, NC  28347 
Office and Cell: 910‐409‐7350    
[e-mail] 

www.ncwildlife.org 

From: Tasha King <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 7:45 AM 
To: Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] Casey Creek Mitigation Site for Review ‐ Follow Up 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
Report Spam. 

Good morning, 

I am following up on the email I submitted below with attachment on August 23rd requesting comment on the Casey Creek 
Mitigation Site. Is there any other information you need us to provide for your review or a time when we should expect a reply? 

We appreciate your time and assistance. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. 

Kind regards, 
Tasha 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tasha King  |  Environmental Scientist 
O: 919.851.9986  x116 
2

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 
Raleigh, NC 27609 

From: Tasha King 
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 3:02 PM 
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Casey Creek Mitigation Site for Review  

Good afternoon, 

Wildlands Engineering would like to request review and comment on Casey Creek Mitigation Site with regards to 
possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife. Attached is a letter with more detailed information 
about the site and figures of the location.  

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. We appreciate your help in this matter. 

Kind regards, 
Tasha 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Tasha King  |  Environmental Scientist 
O: 919.851.9986  x116 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 
Raleigh, NC 27609 

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Afton

B
r
a
n
c
h
Case
y

C
r
e
e
k
Case
y

C
r
e
e
k
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
0 250 500 Feet ¹Figure 1 Site Overview Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
2021 Aerial Photography
¹
Wayne County, NC
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
0 500250 Feet
Grantham USGS 7.5-Minute
Topographic Quadrangle
Proposed Conservation Easement
July 06, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2022-0069753
Project Name: Casey Creek Mitigation Site

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
07/06/2023   2

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.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
07/06/2023   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
07/06/2023   1

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]
07/06/2023   2

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:2022-0069753
Project Name:Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Project Type:Restoration / Enhancement of Waterbody
Project Description:Casey Creek is a stream and buffer mitigation site in Wayne County, NC.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@35.29160225,-78.18408811296098,14z
Counties:Wayne County, North Carolina
07/06/2023   3

1.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 5 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
Fisheries , 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 subflavus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
Proposed
Endangered
BIRDS
NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Endangered
AMPHIBIANS
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Threatened
FISHES
NAME STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528
Endangered
1
07/06/2023   4

INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
07/06/2023   1

1.
2.
3.
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
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.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
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 BREEDING SEASON
American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9587
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 31
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
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.
1
2
07/06/2023   2

1.
2.
3.
 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
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.
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.
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 ()
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 ()
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.
07/06/2023   3

▪
▪
▪
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
American Kestrel
BCC - BCR
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/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
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
(BCC) 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?
07/06/2023   4

1.
2.
3.
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
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:
"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);
"BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
"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.
07/06/2023   5

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 Loring.
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.
07/06/2023   6

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:Wildlands Engineering
Name:Kaitlyn Hogarth
Address:312 West Millbrook Road
Address Line 2:Suite 225
City:Raleigh
State:NC
Zip:27609
Email [e-mail]
Phone:[phone]
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency:Department of Transportation

MEETING NOTES

MEETING:  IRT Post‐contract Site Walk 
      Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
      Neuse River Basin CU 03020201; Wayne County, NC 
      USACE Action ID: SAW‐2022‐01239 
      DWR# 20220664 v2 

DATE:    Wednesday, July 27, 2022 

LOCATION:  US Highway 13 
Grantham, NC 

Attendees 
Kim Browning, USACE 
Erin Davis, DWR 
Travis Wilson, WRC 
Lindsay Crocker, NCDMS 
Jeremiah Dow, NCDMS 
John Hutton, Wildlands 
Chris Roessler, Wildlands 

Materials 
 Wildlands Engineering Casey Creek Mitigation Site NCDMS Proposal 
 Maps of existing and proposed conditions for the site and proposed easements 

Meeting Notes 
The primary purpose of this site visit was to provide an opportunity for the IRT members to see the site and for 
Wildlands staff to explain the various components of the project. The site is on an active row crop farm and will 
include stream restoration and preservation. 

Riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits will also be developed. Wildlands will coordinate with NCDWR 
separately on that. The draft mitigation plan for stream and wetland mitigation should include a draft of the 
riparian buffer and nutrient offset mitigation plan in the appendix, as well as a map that shows all credits 
sought.  

This meeting summary is organized by stream reach. A concept map with comments added from this site visit is 
attached.   

Casey Creek 
 The IRT agreed with the stream approaches and had the following comments: 
o Restoration on the upper end of Casey Creek should begin where degradation starts; at the site 
visit, that was about 100 feet above the existing headcut/knickpoint.   

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 2 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
July 27, 2022 IRT Post‐Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes 
 Two lower drain tiles will outlet on floodplain. Pools at outlets should be 18” maximum depth and need 
to dry annually. Third drain tile is unknown at this time. Ideally it would be removed but Wildlands may 
need to install it so that it can outlet on floodplain and not directly in restored channel.  
 Different vegetation communities were noted on the upstream and downstream ends of Casey Creek. 
The mitigation plan should note that the upper end is not reference quality because it has too many 
pines. The different vegetation communities on the site should be described in the mitigation plan. 
Wildlands staff will explore the floodplain of Reach 1 to determine whether any reference vegetation 
communities exist and will document the species composition if any are located.  
 Wildlands should install a flow gage in the preservation section of upper Casey Creek. This is mostly for 
reference on flow relative to other reaches/gages on the restored site. 
 Casey Creek Reach 3 (below US Hwy 13) is on bedrock or saprolite. It will be raised using Priority 2 
initially as it transitions to Priority 1. The bed material in the restored channel should not degrade so 
that it returns to bedrock. Pool scour may be dynamic but riffles should hold grade.  
 The group discussed the borrow pond at the bottom of Casey Creek and whether that should be 
included in the conservation easement. The first 50 feet of area beyond the left bank of Casey Creek will 
be filled and planted. The rest of the existing borrow pond will be excluded from the CE. Easement signs 
will be placed frequently around the woodline so that any ditch/pond maintenance would not be done 
within the CE.  
 The group discussed the culvert at the lower end of Casey Creek. It may need to be replaced and set at a 
different elevation to achieve optimal restoration grades upstream. The culvert should not be left 
perched on the downstream end. It may be necessary for Wildlands to obtain a temporary construction 
easement to install structures to stably drop the profile on the downstream end. For permitting 
purposes, the TCE area should be included within the limits of disturbance.  
 Wildlands should coordinate with DOT about the pipe under US Hwy 13. It’s currently slightly perched. 
Travis said that if it was designed and installed correctly it can be backwatered by 20%. Raising Casey 
Creek to this level below the culvert would reduce the stream length needed to attain Priority 1 
restoration. Daniel Taylor from Wildlands knows the DOT District Engineer and can inquire about how 
the culvert was designed and installed.  
Martha Branch 
 Restoration will begin with a short Priority 2 section and transition to Priority 1. The IRT agreed with the 
stream approach and had the following comments: 
o Stream credit should begin where the stream is classified as intermittent. A map from the DWR 
site assessment was delivered to Wildlands on July 26, 2022 showing this point approximately 
150 feet below the upstream property line. Latitude and longitude coordinate were provided 
with the DWR map.  
o Gages will be installed toward the upstream and downstream ends on Martha Branch. Martha 
Branch is the only intermittent reach within the project. Cumulative days and consecutive days 
of flow should be included in the post‐construction monitoring reports.  
o A BMP may be needed as the channel transitions from ephemeral to intermittent flow on upper 
Martha Branch. The BMP will likely not detain flow since there is an existing pond above the Site 
that provides detention. The constructed BMP would likely promote braided streamflow and 
wetland interaction.  

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 3 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
July 27, 2022 IRT Post‐Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes 

Afton Branch 
 Wildlands proposed mostly Priority 2 restoration on this reach This should result in similar appearance 
to the nearby Grantham Branch restoration, which has gentle slopes and good vegetation establishment 
and growth. The IRT agreed with the stream approach.  
General Discussion 
 JD wetlands should be shown on the existing conditions and concept maps in the mitigation plan. 
 Culverts preferred in sand bed streams because fords aren’t stable. No smooth inner surface on culverts. 
 Priority 1 and 2 restoration should be shown on the concept map in the mitigation plan by different line 
types. Wildlands will include percentages of Priority 1 and 2 in the mitigation plan text.  
 The IRT would like to see more wood than rock used for structures.  
 Any intermittent reaches on project should have flow gages, and cumulative and consecutive flow data 
should be provided in the monitoring reports. As stated above, it appears Martha Branch in the only 
intermittent reach.  
 Kim reported that Kathy Matthews didn’t see a potential problem with endangered species but will wait 
for the official public notice to comment.  
 Chris should provide proposal parts, including location and existing and proposed conditions, to Kim for 
the public notice.   
 Wildlands should document the 9‐step checklist for ESA in the Categorical Exclusion.  
Summary        
At the conclusion of the site visit the IRT indicated that they approved of the site and had no issues with the 
proposed approaches and had no objections to the minor changes to the plan discussed.   
These meeting notes were prepared by Chris Roessler on July 28, 2022 and reviewed by John Hutton on August 12, 2022 and 
represent the authors’ interpretation of the visit. 

!P
!P
^_^_
^_
Cas
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Casey

C
r
e
e
k
Martha

B
r
a
n
c
h
Afton Br
a
n
c
h
Casey CreekReach 1
Casey CreekReach 2
Casey CreekReach 3
¬«1
¬«2
Figure 7 Concept Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2017 Aerial Photography
¹Wayne County, NC
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (0-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (0-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credit (101'-200')
No Credit
Proposed Internal Crossing
Existing External Crossing
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Preservation
Existing Drain Tiles To Be Removed
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
^_Floodplain Pools
0 300150 Feet
¬«#
¬«#

Appendix 7: Invasive Species Plan

Casey Creek Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 1

Appendix 7 Invasive Vegetation Treatment Plan
A goal of this project is to treat and reduce the exotic species found on site. The presence and extents of
invasive species will be monitored, and treatment of invasive species will continue as necessary
throughout the life of the project to ensure project stability and success of the riparian and streambank
vegetation. Regular site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The
presence of invasive species on Casey Creek Mitigation Site is scarce throughout the majority of riparian
buffers and increases in density along the eastern border of the wooded preservation areas in the
northern portion of the project. The most prevalent species, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), is
scattered throughout this area and will require ongoing treatment.
Generally, the treatment plan shall follow the below guidelines in Table 1 for invasive species found on
the site; however, the treatment may be changed based on professional judgement and resources. All
invasive species treatments will be reported in each monitoring report.
Table 1. Invasive Species Treatment Techniques
Invasive Species Recommended Treatment Technique
Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum
sinense)
Use a foliar treatment on seedlings (under 2’ tall) using a 3% triclopyr, as the triethylamine
salt, or 3% glyphosate plus 0.5% non-ionic surfactant solution.
For stems too tall for foliar application and/or when safety to surrounding vegetation is
desired, cut stems low to the ground and immediately treat cut surfaces with a 25-50%
glyphosate or triclopyr, as the triethylamine salt, solution.
For large diameter stems, apply stem injections or hack-and-squirt techniques using a 25-
50% triclopyr, as the triethylamine salt, or glyphosate solution year-round, though early
spring (March and April) may be less effective. An EZ-Ject tree injector can help reach the
lower part of the main stem; otherwise, every branching trunk can be treated using the
hack-and-squirt method.
Basal bark applications are suitable for large diameter stems in upland areas and can be
applied in the winter when the bark is dry and above freezing and below 85°F. Basal bark
applications are not aquatic-safe and somewhat less effective on stems greater that 6”
DBH. Apply full coverage of a chemical solution to the bottom 10”-18" of a stem using a 20-
30% triclopyr ester solution or a 6-8% imazapyr solution in a carrier oil, such as basal oil or
kerosene.

Invasive species management will be conducted and monitored by Wildlands Engineering’s Stewardship
team with cooperation and assistance from the project engineer and environmental science teams. This
management plan outlines timing and details of planned management actions throughout the length of
the project along with an identification of species found on the project site. The management plan can
be found below in Table 2.

Table 2. Invasive Species Management Plan
Treatment Season Recommended Treatment Technique
During Construction • Mechanically remove privet within the limits of disturbance as applicable.
• Manage privet treatment efforts on enhancement/preservation reaches.
Summer/Spring 2025 • Monitor for emergence of invasive species

Casey Creek Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 2

Treatment Season Recommended Treatment Technique
Fall/Winter 2025 - 2026 • Monitor emergence of invasive species where previous invasive species
populations existed before construction. Treat, as necessary.
Summer 2026 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.

Winter 2026 - 2027 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Summer 2027 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Winter 2027 - 2028 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Summer 2028 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Winter 2028 - 2029 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Summer 2029 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Winter 2029 - 2030 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Summer 2030 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Winter 2030 - 2031 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Summer 2031 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.
Winter 2031 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants, as necessary.

Appendix 8: Maintenance Plan

Casey Creek Mitigation Site Appendix 8
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 1

Appendix 8 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following:
Table 1. Maintenance Plan
Component/ Feature Maintenance through project close-out

Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance
to prevent bank erosion. If beaver become active on the site, Wildlands will contract
with the USDA to trap the beaver and remove the dams.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Invasive plant species
requiring treatment per the Invasive Species Treatment Plan (Appendix 7) shall be
treated in accordance with that plan and with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA)
rules and regulations.
Site boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence,
marker, bollard, post, tree-blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions
and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed
will be repaired and/or replaced on an as-needed basis.

Appendix 9: Credit Release Schedule

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Appendix 9 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 1  
Appendix 9   Credit Release Schedule and Supporting Information 

All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as‐built survey of the 
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary 
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District 
Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA 
authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the 
Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently 
to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards 
have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may 
be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the 
specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as 
follows: 
Table A: Credit Release Schedule – Stream Credits  
Credit 
Release 
Milestone 
Monitoring 
Year Credit Release Activity Interim 
Release 
Total 
Released 
1 0 Site Establishment  0% 0% 
2 0 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made 
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan – see requirements below 30% 30% 
3 1 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 
interim performance standards have been met 10% 40% 
4 2 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 
interim performance standards have been met 10% 50%  
5 3 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 
interim performance standards have been met 10% 60%  
6 4* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 
interim performance standards have been met 5% 65% 
(75%**) 
7 5 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 
interim performance standards have been met 10% 75% 
(85%**) 
8 6* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 
interim performance standards have been met 5% 80% 
(90%**) 
9 7 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 
interim performance standards have been met 10% 90% 
(100%**) 
*Vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years unless 
otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.  
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met 

1.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits 
For this NCDMS project, no initial release of credits is provided. To account for this, the 15% credit 
release typically associated with the site establishment is held until completion of all initial physical and 
biological improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan. In order for NCDMS to receive the 30% 
release (shown in Tables A and B as Milestone 2), they must comply with the credit release 
requirements stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS instrument.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Appendix 9 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 2  
1.2 Subsequent Credit Releases  
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a 
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. 
The following conditions apply to credit release schedules: 
a. A reserve of 10% of site’s total stream credits will be release after four bankfull events have 
occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards 
are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, 
release of these reserve credits is at the discretion of the NCIRT.  
b. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis, 
assuming that the annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with 
Section IV (General Monitoring Requirements) of this document, and that the monitoring report 
demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other concerns 
have been identified on‐site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require written 
approval from the USACE.  
c. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a 
determination by the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in 
the Mitigation Plan.  
As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the DMS will submit a request for credit 
release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release 
to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report. 

Appendix 10: Financial Assurances

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Appendix 10 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 1  
Appendix 10   Financial Assurances 
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service’s In‐Lieu Fee Instrument 
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided 
the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to 
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all 
mitigation projects implemented by the program. 

Title Sheet 0.1
General Notes & Symbols 0.2
Project Overview 0.3
Casey Creek Stream Plan & Profile 1.1 - 1.7
Martha Branch Stream Plan & Profile 1.8 - 2.0
Afton Branch Stream Plan & Profile 2.1 - 2.2
Planting Tables 3.1
Planting Plan Overview 3.2
Erosion and Sediment Control Overview Not Included
Details 5.1 - 5.4
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
IT'S THE LAW!
CALL 1-800-632-4949N.C. ONE-CALL CENTER
Sheet Index
Project Directory
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-
T
i
t
l
e

S
h
e
e
t
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ti
t
l
e

S
h
e
e
t
02
1
9
6
MK AACR
0.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
N
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-851-9986
Chris Roessler, Project Manager
Daniel Johnson, MBA, PE, PH, Project Engineer
Surveying:
K2 Design Group
774 S. Beston Road
La Grange, NC 28551
252-582-3097
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
for NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services Neuse River Basin 03020201
Wayne County, North Carolina
Draft Mitigation Plan Submittal
October 24, 2023
USACE Action ID No: SAW-2022-01239
NCDWR ID No: 202202664 v2
NCDEQ Contract No. 210201-01
RFP#: 16-20210201 (Issued 7/7/2021)
NCDMS ID No. 100597
PROJECT LOCATION
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

N
o
t
e
s

&

S
y
m
b
o
l
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AA
DH
J
0.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

N
o
t
e
s

a
n
d

S
y
m
b
o
l
s
General Notes
(To be included with final plans.)
Construction Sequence
(To be included with final plans.)
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
Existing Thalweg
Existing Top of Bank
Existing Property Line
Existing Major Contour
Existing Minor Contour
Existing Overhead Electric
Existing Fence
Existing Culvert
Existing Treeline
Existing Road
Existing Tree
Existing Telephone Box
Existing Wetland
Existing Open Water Feature
10+00
ELEC ELEC
100
Existing Features Proposed Features
Proposed Thalweg Alignment
Proposed Bankfull
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Conservation Easement Internal Crossing
Proposed Culvert
X X X
TB TB
CE CE CE
CE-IX CE-IX
Proposed Constructed Riffles Per Plans
See Details 1, 2, & 3 Sheet 5.1
Proposed Angled Log Sill
See Detail 4, Sheet 5.1
Proposed Log J-Hook
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.2
Proposed Brush Toe
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.2
Proposed Structures
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
T
B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
T B TBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
T B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELECUS HIGHWAY 13 (60
'

R
/
W
)
D.B. 882, PG. 33
BEST
D.B. 1823 PG. 155, TRACT 3
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY, TRUSTEE
D.B. 1334 PG. 655
ALBERTSON
D.B. 2040,
PG. 673
BEST
P.C. E, SL. 272
M.B. 11. PG. 35
3
D.B. 1823 PG. 155, TRACT 2
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY
P.C. E, SL. 272
M.B. 11. PG. 35
2
D.B. 1823 PG. 155, TRACT 1
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY, TRUSTEE
P.C. E, SL. 271
M.B. 11. PG. 34
1
D.B. 967 PG. 728
JOHNNIE MANGRUM BROCK
D.B. 1418 PG. 164, FIRST TRACT
JOYCE CASEY PATE
P.C. E, SL. 271
M.B. 11. PG. 34
2
D.B. 3332, PG. 839
BRASWELL
W.B. 0013E PG. 513
ALBERTSON
D.B. 972 PG. 397
GREEN
D.B. 1823 PG. 155, TRACT 2
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY
P.C. E, SL. 272
M.B. 11. PG. 35
2
MARTHA B
R
A
N
C
H
AFTO
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
SH
E
E
T

1
.
1
SH
E
E
T

1
.
2
S
H
E
E
T

1
.
3
SH
E
E
T

1
.
4
S
H
E
E
T

1
.
5
SH
E
E
T

1
.
6
SHEE
T

1
.
8
SHEET 1.9
SHEET

2
.
1
SHEET 2
.
2
US HWY 13
SHE
E
T

1
.
7
S
H
E
E
T

2
.
0
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
CE-I
X
CE-I
X
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CECE
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
N
0' 150' 300' 450'
1" = 150'
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
0.
3
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
135
140
145
150
135
140
145
150
119+70 120+00 120+50 121+00 121+50 122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 123+70
-0.4%-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.4%-2.3%
-0.4%-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.4%-2.3%
-0.2%
ST
A

=

1
1
9
+
8
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
4
5
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
0
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
3
6
STA = 120+07
ELEV = 141.52
STA = 120+20
ELEV = 141.52
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
2
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
3
6
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
4
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
2
8
STA = 120+54
ELEV = 141.73
STA = 120+61
ELEV = 141.73
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
6
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
2
8
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
8
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
2
2
STA = 120+87
ELEV = 141.37
STA = 120+92
ELEV = 141.37
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
9
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
2
2
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
1
3
STA = 121+19
ELEV = 141.59
STA = 121+33
ELEV = 141.59
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
4
0
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
1
3
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
6
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
9
9
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
8
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
8
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
9
5
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
8
ST
A

=

1
2
2
+
0
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
9
9
ST
A

=

1
2
2
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
9
1
STA = 122+27
ELEV = 141.37
STA = 122+42
ELEV = 141.37
STA = 122+50
ELEV = 141.91
ST
A

=

1
2
2
+
8
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
7
7
ST
A

=

1
2
2
+
9
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
9
4
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
0
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
9
4
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
7
7
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
3
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
2
5
STA = 123+39
ELEV = 140.54
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
6
4
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
5
4
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T B
T B TB
TB
TB TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B T
B
T B
T B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TBTB
TB
T
B
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T
B
T B
T B
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
STA: 119+82
END CASEY CREEK REACH 1 (PRESERVATION)
BEING CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
1
1
9
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
121+
0
0
122
+
0
0
123+00
124+
0
0
CASEY CREEK
REACH 1
EXISTING DRAINAGE TO
BE CONNECTED TO
NEW CHANNEL
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
145
1
4
4
145
143
14
3
142
141
14
3
145
14
3
14
0
140
144
143
140
14
1
142
136
141
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
3
+
7
0
3.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 7'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.2'
2.4'3.6'
3:1 2:1
3.05'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.5'
1.5'5.25'
3.5:1 1:1
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

1

&

2
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-CH
130
135
140
145
130
135
140
145
123+70 124+00 124+50 125+00 125+50 126+00 126+50 127+00 127+50 128+00 128+20
-2.0%
-2.2%
-2.4%
-2.3%
-2.2%
-1.6%
-1.8%
-1.0%-1.3%-1.0%
-2.0%
-2.2%
-2.4%
-2.3%
-2.2%
-1.6%
-1.8%
-1.0%-1.3%-1.0%
-1.0%
-0.4%
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
7
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
5
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
9
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
7
3
STA = 124+05
ELEV = 140.30
STA = 124+11
ELEV = 140.30
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
7
3
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
3
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
4
3
STA = 124+32
ELEV = 139.63
STA = 124+49
ELEV = 139.63
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
5
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
3
3
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
7
0
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
4
STA = 124+70
ELEV = 139.24
STA = 124+87
ELEV = 139.24
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
9
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
9
4
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
1
0
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
5
9
STA = 125+16
ELEV = 139.15
STA = 125+23
ELEV = 139.15
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
2
9
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
5
9
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
4
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
2
5
STA = 125+45
ELEV = 138.47
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
6
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
4
7
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
7
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
1
5
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
9
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
8
2
STA = 125+93
ELEV = 137.80
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
2
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
8
0
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
4
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
8
2
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
6
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
3
5
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
7
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
7
9
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
8
9
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
7
9
STA = 127+00
ELEV = 138.35
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
1
9
STA = 127+16
ELEV = 137.30
STA = 127+29
ELEV = 137.30
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
3
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
1
9
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
5
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
9
8
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
6
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
1
2
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
7
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
1
2
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
8
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
9
7
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
7
8
STA = 128+06
ELEV = 136.90PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
T B
T B
T B
T
B T B
T B TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T
B
TB
TB
TB TB TB TB TB TB TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
STA: 125+92
END CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
209+34
20
8
+
0
0
20
9
+
0
0
123+00
12
4
+
0
0
125
+
0
0
126+0
0
127
+
0
0
1
2
8
+
0
0
129+00
MA
R
T
H
A

B
R
A
N
C
H
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
141
143
143
140
14
2
1
4
1
142
141
140
141
13
5
140
137
13
6
136
14
0
14
0
140
140
13
8
135
137
14
1
140
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
3
+
7
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
8
+
2
0
3.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 7'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.2'
2.4'3.6'
3:1 2:1
3.05'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.5'
1.5'5.25'
3.5:1 1:1
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

2

&

3
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CR-ALR
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
NOTE:
1. REFER TO SHEET 1.3 FOR CASEY CREEK REACH 3 TYPICAL
SECTION.
130
135
140
145
130
135
140
145
128+20 128+50 129+00 129+50 130+00 130+50 131+00 131+50 132+00 132+50 132+70
-0.4%-0.9%-0.9%-1.0%-0.6%-0.4%-1.2%
-0.9%-0.7%
STA = 130+17
ELEV = 136.99
STA = 130+57
ELEV = 136.82
INTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 130+07
INTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 130+67
STA = 128+21
ELEV = 136.90
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
3
0
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
7
8
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
4
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
6
2
STA = 128+54
ELEV = 137.02
STA = 128+59
ELEV = 137.02
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
6
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
6
2
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
8
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
4
4
STA = 128+92
ELEV = 136.56
STA = 128+99
ELEV = 136.56
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
0
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
4
4
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
2
3
STA = 129+28
ELEV = 136.66
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
4
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
6
6
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
5
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
2
3
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
8
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
0
8
STA = 129+89
ELEV = 136.17
STA = 129+94
ELEV = 136.17
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
9
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
0
8
ST
A

=

1
3
0
+
6
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
7
9
STA = 130+87
ELEV = 135.82
ST
A

=

1
3
0
+
9
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
7
9
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
4
9
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
3
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
6
4
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
4
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
6
4
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
5
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
4
9
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
8
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
2
3
STA = 131+86
ELEV = 135.68
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
1
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
6
8
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
2
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
2
3
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
4
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
0
7
STA = 132+55
ELEV = 135.17
STA = 132+61
ELEV = 135.17
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
6
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
0
7
STA = 130+63
ELEV = 135.82
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
48" CMP
PROPOSED CULVERT
INV: 135.99
PROPOSED CULVERT
INV: 135.82
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB TB T B T B
TB
T B TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
128
+
0
0
12
9
+
0
0
130+00
13
1
+
0
0
132+0
0
133+
0
0
STA: 130+07
BEGIN INTERNAL EASEMENT CROSSING STA: 130+67
END INTERNAL EASEMENT CROSSING
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
14
1
135
140
1
3
7
140
141
140 139
138
13
7
137
139
140
138
134
135 137
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
8
+
2
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
2
+
7
0
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.2'
Dmax = 0.8'
2.4'2.4'
3:1 3:1
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'
3.5:1
2:1
1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
4:1 1.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
3
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CR-NM
CR-ALR
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
NOTE:
1. PROFILE INCLUDES ELEVATION FOR CENTRAL
CULVERT PIPE ONLY. REFER TO DETAIL 1, SHEET 5.4
FOR ADDITIONAL CULVERT INFORMATION.
125
130
135
140
125
130
135
140
132+70 133+00 133+50 134+00 134+50 135+00 135+50 136+00 136+50 137+00137+00
-1.1%
-2.2%
-2.0%
-2.7%
-2.6%
-2.3%
-3.1%
-3.0%
-1.9%
-1.1%
-1.9%
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
9
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
7
4
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
1
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
2
6
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
2
6
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
4
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
7
4
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
6
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
2
5
STA = 133+70
ELEV = 134.42
STA = 133+76
ELEV = 134.42
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
8
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
2
5
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
0
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
4
.
7
7
STA = 134+06
ELEV = 133.92
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
2
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
3
.
9
2
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
3
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
4
.
6
7
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
5
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
4
.
1
5
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
6
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
3
.
4
1
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
7
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
3
.
4
1
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
8
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
4
.
1
5
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
1
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
3
.
2
9
STA = 135+14
ELEV = 132.39
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
3
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
2
.
3
9
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
4
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
2
.
9
9
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
6
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
2
.
5
4
STA = 135+62
ELEV = 131.53
STA = 135+74
ELEV = 131.53
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
8
0
EL
E
V

=

1
3
2
.
2
4
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
9
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
1
.
8
6
STA = 135+93
ELEV = 130.91
STA = 136+08
ELEV = 130.91
ST
A

=

1
3
6
+
1
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
1
.
5
6
ST
A

=

1
3
6
+
3
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
1
.
0
1
STA = 136+34
ELEV = 130.09
ST
A

=

1
3
6
+
5
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
0
9
STA = 136+60
ELEV = 130.71
ST
A

=

1
3
6
+
7
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
4
0
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
EX. 48" RCP
EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 136+71
EXISTING CULVERT
INV: 129.60
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T B
T B TB TB
TB
T
B
TB
T B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
T B
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
U
S

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
3

(
6
0
'

R
/
W
)
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
13
2
+
0
0
13
3
+
0
0
134
+
0
0
135+
0
0
136+00
137+00
48" RCP
CASEY CR
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
IE: 129.60
IE: 129.92
137
13
8
137
13
6
136
135
1
3
7
13
6
1
3
8
1
3
4
13
5
132
1
3
9
1
3
3
1
3
3
STA: 136+71
BEGIN EXTERNAL CROSSING
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
2
+
7
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
7
+
0
0
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.2'
Dmax = 0.8'
2.4'2.4'
3:1 3:1
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'
3.5:1
2:1
1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
4:1 1.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
4
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CR-ALR
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
123
125
130
135
140
123
125
130
135
140
137+00 137+50 138+00 138+50 139+00 139+50 140+00 140+50 141+00 141+30
-0.1%-0.5%-0.6%-0.7%-0.7%-0.7%-0.5%-0.7%
-0.1%
-0.2%
STA = 137+42
ELEV = 130.34
STA = 137+42
ELEV = 129.30
ST
A

=

1
3
7
+
8
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
3
0
ST
A

=

1
3
7
+
9
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
2
0
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
2
0
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
0
9
STA = 138+27
ELEV = 129.47
STA = 138+34
ELEV = 129.47
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
4
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
0
9
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
5
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
9
9
STA = 138+65
ELEV = 129.08
STA = 138+72
ELEV = 129.08
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
8
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
9
9
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
9
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
8
7
STA = 138+96
ELEV = 128.97
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
2
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
9
7
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
3
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
8
5
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
5
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
7
0
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
7
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
1
1
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
8
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
1
1
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
9
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
7
0
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
1
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
5
9
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
2
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
6
9
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
3
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
6
9
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
4
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
5
9
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
7
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
4
5
STA = 140+72
ELEV = 128.84
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
9
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
8
4
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
9
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
4
5
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
2
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
3
0
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
US HWY 13
EX. 48" RCP
EXISTING CULVERT
INV: 129.92
EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 137+66
B
T
B T B
TB TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
T
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
US

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
3

(
6
0
'

R
/
W
)
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
136
+
0
0
137+00 13
8
+
0
0
13
9
+
0
0
140
+
0
0
141+00
1
4
2
+
0
0
48" RCP
CASEY
C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
IE: 129.60
IE: 129.92
13
7
13
6
13
8
13
4
13
9
13
3
13
2
13
1
133
1
3
3
130
129
128
STA: 137+66
END EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA: 136+71
BEGIN EXTERNAL CROSSING
MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
7
+
0
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
1
+
3
0
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.2'
Dmax = 0.8'
2.4'2.4'
3:1 3:1
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'
3.5:1
2:1
1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
4:1 1.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
5
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
120
125
130
135
120
125
130
135
141+30 141+50 142+00 142+50 143+00 143+50 144+00 144+50 145+00 145+50 145+80
-0.7%-0.5%-0.5%-1.0%-0.9%-0.5%
-1.1%
-0.5%
-2.6%
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
3
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
7
1
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
4
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
7
1
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
6
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
3
0
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
7
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
1
7
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
8
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
5
8
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
9
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
5
8
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
0
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
1
7
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
2
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
0
8
STA = 142+34
ELEV = 128.16
STA = 142+40
ELEV = 128.16
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
4
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
0
8
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
6
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
9
5
STA = 142+70
ELEV = 128.05
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
8
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
0
5
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
9
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
9
5
ST
A

=

1
4
3
+
2
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
7
4
STA = 143+28
ELEV = 128.16
STA = 143+36
ELEV = 128.16
ST
A

=

1
4
3
+
4
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
7
4
ST
A

=

1
4
3
+
6
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
5
2
STA = 143+68
ELEV = 127.94
STA = 143+83
ELEV = 127.94
ST
A

=

1
4
3
+
9
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
5
2
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
4
5
STA = 144+11
ELEV = 127.25
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
0
6
STA = 144+24
ELEV = 126.86
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
3
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
7
2
STA = 144+37
ELEV = 126.22
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
4
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
3
9
STA = 144+50
ELEV = 125.89
STA = 145+05
ELEV = 124.53
STA = 145+38
ELEV = 124.53
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
4
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
3
8
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
7
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
1
1
STA = 145+70
ELEV = 124.37
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
5
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
0
5
STA = 144+63
ELEV = 125.55
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
7
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
7
1
STA = 144+76
ELEV = 125.21
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
8
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
3
7
STA = 144+89
ELEV = 124.87
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
9
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
3
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
4
3
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
4
3
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TB
TB
TB
TBT
BTB
TB
TB
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T
B
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
STA: 145+05
END CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
306+26
3
0
6
+
0
0
141
+
0
0
142+00
143
+
0
0
144
+
0
0
145+00
1
4
6
+
0
0
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
1
3
1
128
131
130
1
2
9
130
130
127
126
126
129
127
126
125
12
8
129
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
1
+
3
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
5
+
8
0
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.2'
Dmax = 0.8'
2.4'2.4'
3:1 3:1
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'
3.5:1
2:1
1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
4:1 1.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
6
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3

&

4
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
118
120
125
130
135
118
120
125
130
135
145+80 146+00 146+50 147+00 147+50 147+76
-0.6%-0.8%-0.3%
-0.3%
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
9
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
3
7
ST
A

=

1
4
6
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
1
2
ST
A

=

1
4
6
+
3
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
9
5
STA = 146+44
ELEV = 124.18
STA = 146+52
ELEV = 124.18
ST
A

=

1
4
6
+
6
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
9
5
ST
A

=

1
4
6
+
8
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
7
6
STA = 146+86
ELEV = 124.01
ST
A

=

1
4
7
+
1
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
0
1
ST
A

=

1
4
7
+
2
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
7
6
ST
A

=

1
4
7
+
6
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
6
2
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
STA: 147+67
END CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
306+26
30
5
+
0
0
3
0
6
+
0
0
14
4
+
0
0
145+00
14
6
+
0
0
147+00
42
"

C
M
P
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
15"

C
P
P
AF
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
IE: 122.69
IE: 123.08
12
9
130
127
126
129 127
126
125
1
2
8
128
126
127
128
126
127
128
133
129
128
128
125125
129
12
7
12
9
129
EXISTING CULVERT
TO BE REMOVED
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
5
+
8
0
3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 10.2'
Dmax = 1.2'
3.6'3.6'
3:1 3:1
4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.8'
Dmax = 1.6'
3.2'5.6'
2:1
1.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.8'
Dmax = 2'
3'8'
4:1
1.5:1
3.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
7
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

4
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 145+05 TO 147+67
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 145+05 TO 147+67
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 145+05 TO 147+67
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
135
140
145
150
135
140
145
150
200+00 200+50 201+00 201+50 202+00 202+50 203+00 203+50 204+00 204+30
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.7%
-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.4%
ST
A

=

2
0
2
+
3
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
4
1
ST
A

=

2
0
2
+
5
3
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
3
5
STA = 202+57
ELEV = 140.35
STA = 202+61
ELEV = 140.35
ST
A

=

2
0
2
+
6
4
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
3
5
ST
A

=

2
0
2
+
9
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
2
2
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
0
3
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
6
5
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
6
5
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
2
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
2
2
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
5
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
2
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
6
0
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
1
4
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
6
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
1
4
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
7
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
2
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
9
7
STA = 204+28
ELEV = 140.40PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
T B
TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
STA: 202+37
END SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
BEGIN MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
200
+
0
0
201
+
0
0
202+00
203+00
2
0
4
+
0
0
MARTHA BRANCH
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
14
4
145
145
14
5
145
144
144
1
4
4
144
144
142
140
143
141
144
STA: 200+57
BEGIN SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
4
+
3
0
3.3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 6.8'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'
3:1
2:1
1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'
3.5:1
1:1
2.5'
WIDTH VARIES PER PLANS
Dmax = 1.1'
8:1 8:1
1:
1 1:1PROPOSED GRADE
TIE TO EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF
BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TIE TO EXISTING GRADE
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
8
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ma
r
t
h
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
MARTHA BRANCH
COASTAL PLAIN SWALE - PILOT CHANNEL TYPICAL SECTION
STA: 200+57 TO 202+37
CR-NM CR-NM CR-NM
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
135
140
145
150
135
140
145
150
204+30 204+50 205+00 205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00 207+50 207+70
-0.5%-0.5%-0.6%-4.5
%
-0.8%-0.7%-1.3%-1.7%
-0.3%
-0.4%
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
3
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
4
0
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
5
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
9
7
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
6
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
8
9
STA = 204+75
ELEV = 140.30
STA = 204+81
ELEV = 140.30
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
8
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
8
9
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
1
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
7
8
STA = 205+12
ELEV = 140.19
STA = 205+22
ELEV = 140.19
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
7
8
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
5
3
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
6
2
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
6
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
6
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
7
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
6
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
9
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
6
2
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
1
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
4
6
STA = 206+12
ELEV = 139.89
STA = 206+27
ELEV = 139.89
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
3
5
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
4
6
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
6
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
2
7
STA = 206+69
ELEV = 139.71
STA = 206+77
ELEV = 139.71
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
8
5
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
2
7
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
0
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
4
STA = 207+09
ELEV = 139.11
STA = 207+17
ELEV = 139.11
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
2
5
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
4
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
4
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
7
7
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
5
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
2
6
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
6
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
2
6
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TBTB
TB
T
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
MARTHA BRANCH
203+00
204+
0
0
205+00
2
0
6
+
0
0
20
7
+
0
0
208+00
209+
0
0
124
+
0
0
1
2
5
+
0
0
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
1
4
3
14
0
142
136
1
3
6
140
140
144
142
140
143
141
14
3
142
1
4
3
1
4
2
14
3
144
1
4
1
14
1
14
0
140
140
139
138
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
4
+
3
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
7
+
7
0
3.3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 6.8'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'
3:1
2:1
1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'
3.5:1
1:1PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
9
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ma
r
t
h
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NMCR-NM
132
135
140
145
132
135
140
145
207+70 208+00 208+50 209+00 209+34
-0.6%
-1.2%-1.5%-1.0%-0.6%
STA = 207+71
ELEV = 139.77
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
8
9
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
5
6
STA = 207+95
ELEV = 138.61
STA = 208+01
ELEV = 138.61
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
0
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
5
6
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
2
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
3
3
STA = 208+30
ELEV = 138.41
STA = 208+37
ELEV = 138.41
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
4
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
3
3
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
7
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
0
3
STA = 208+77
ELEV = 138.09
STA = 208+90
ELEV = 138.09
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
9
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
0
3
STA = 209+34
ELEV = 138.82
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TB
TB
T
B
T
BTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE CE CE
CASEY C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
STA: 209+34
END MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
209+34
206+00
20
7
+
0
0
208
+
0
0
209+
0
0
125+00
126+
0
0
127+00
128
+
0
0
MARTH
A

B
R
A
N
C
H
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

2
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
143
1
4
0
142
14
1
140
135
140
1
3
7
1
3
6
13
6
140
140
135
142
143
142
141
1
4
1
1
4
0
140
140
138
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
7
+
7
0
3.3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 6.8'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'
3:1
2:1
1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'
3.5:1
1:1PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
2.
0
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ma
r
t
h
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
120
125
130
135
120
125
130
135
300+00 300+50 301+00 301+50 302+00 302+50 303+00 303+50 304+00 304+20
-0.3%-0.4%-0.4%-0.4%-0.8%-0.7%-0.7%-0.6%
-0.2%
-0.3%
STA = 300+00
ELEV = 127.16
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
0
7
STA = 300+27
ELEV = 126.37
STA = 300+39
ELEV = 126.37
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
4
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
0
7
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
7
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
9
6
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
8
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
7
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
9
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
7
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
0
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
9
6
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
8
7
STA = 301+34
ELEV = 125.77
STA = 301+41
ELEV = 125.77
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
4
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
8
7
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
8
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
7
2
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
9
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
5
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
0
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
5
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
7
2
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
3
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
6
0
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
4
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
5
2
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
5
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
5
2
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
6
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
6
0
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
9
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
4
0
STA = 302+91
ELEV = 125.34
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
1
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
3
4
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
2
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
4
0
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
5
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
2
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
6
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
5
6
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
7
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
5
6
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
8
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
2
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
1
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
6
STA = 304+20
ELEV = 125.38
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED BANKFULL
T B T B
T B T B TB TB
TB T B
TB T B
T B T B TB T B
T B
T B T B
TBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
STA: 300+41
BEGIN AFTON BRANCH (RESTORATION)
300+00
301+
0
0
302+00
303+
0
0
304+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
AFTON BRANCH FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL134133132
131
130
13
0
131
132
133
130
127
126
128
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
4
+
2
0
4.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.5'
Dmax = 0.8'
2'
2.5:1
4.15'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.5'
3'5.25'
3.5:1
2:1
1.95'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.9'
2.85'7.6'
4:1
1.5:1
2'
2.5:
1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
2.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Af
t
o
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 300+00 TO 306+26
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 300+00 TO 306+26
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 300+00 TO 306+26
CR-NM CR-NM CR-NM
CR-NM
120
125
130
135
120
125
130
135
304+20 304+50 305+00 305+50 306+00 306+26
-0.4%
-0.8%-0.6%-0.6%-0.6%-0.4%
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
2
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
3
8
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
3
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
6
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
5
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
9
1
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
6
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
8
4
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
7
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
8
4
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
8
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
9
1
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
0
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
7
8
STA = 305+13
ELEV = 125.10 STA = 305+20
ELEV = 125.10
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
2
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
7
8
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
5
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
6
2
STA = 305+59
ELEV = 124.53
STA = 305+66
ELEV = 124.53
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
7
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
6
2
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
9
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
4
7
STA = 306+03
ELEV = 124.38
STA = 306+09
ELEV = 124.38
ST
A

=

3
0
6
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
4
7
STA = 306+26
ELEV = 125.43
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
T B
T B
T B T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B TB T B
T B TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B TB
T B T B T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
B
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
STA: 306+26
END AFTON BRANCH (RESTORATION)
306+26
303+0
0
304+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
30
6
+
0
0
145+00
146+00
147
+
0
0
AFTON BRANCH
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
129
13
0
12
6
129
12
7
12
6
125
1
2
8
12
6
12
7
12
8
128
128
125125
1
2
9
133
132
131
13
0
131
126
128
CASEY

C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

4
CA
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
R
E
A
C
H

3
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
4
+
2
0
4.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.5'
Dmax = 0.8'
2'
2.5:1
4.15'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.5'
3'5.25'
3.5:1
2:1
1.95'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.9'
2.85'7.6'
4:1
1.5:1
2'
2.5:
1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
2.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Af
t
o
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 300+41 TO 306+26
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 300+41 TO 306+26
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 300+41 TO 306+26
CR-NM
CR-NM CR-NM
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

T
a
b
l
e
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
3.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g

T
a
b
l
e
s
Streambank Planting Zone 1
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Stems
Salix nigra Black Willow 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Canopy OBL 40%
Salix sericea Silky Willow 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Subcanopy OBL 30%
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Subcanopy FACW 10%
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub OBL 10%
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub FACW 10%
Total 100%
Herbaceous Plugs
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Plugs
Juncus effusus Soft Rush 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 40%
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 20%
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb FACW 20%
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 15%
Hibiscus moschuetos Crimson-Eyed Rosemallow 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 5%
Total 100%
Streambank Planting Zone 2
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Stems
Salix sericea Silky Willow 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Subcanopy OBL 50%
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Subcanopy FACW 20%
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub OBL 15%
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub FACW 15%
Total 100%
Herbaceous Plugs
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Plugs
Juncus effusus Soft Rush 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 40%
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 20%
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb FACW 20%
Carex lupulina Shallow Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 15%
Hibiscus moschuetos Crimson-Eyed Rosemallow 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 5%
Total 100%
Buffer Planting Zone
Bare Root
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Caliper Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Stems
Quercus alba White Oak 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 5%
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 8%
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 10%
Ulmus americana American Elm 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 5%
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Subcanopy FACW 10%
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 8%
Quercus nigra Water Oak 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 7%
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 7%
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy OBL 10%
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy OBL 5%
Acer negundo Boxelder 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Subcanopy FAC 6%
Betula nigra River Birch 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 10%
Ulmus alata Winged Elm 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 3%
Morella cerifera Common Waxmyrtle 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FAC 3%
Hamamelis virginiana American Witch-hazel 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FACU 3%
Total 100%
*Only canopy species will be included in the average height calculation
Permanent Riparian Seeding
Pure Live Seed (20 lbs/acre)
Approved Dates Species Name Common Name Stratum Wetland Indicator Status lbs/acre
All Year Elymus virginicus Virginia Wildrye Herb FAC 3.5
All Year Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Herb FAC 2.5
All Year Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem Herb FACU 2.0
All Year Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern Gamagrass Herb FAC 0.5
All Year Dichanthelium clandestinum Deertongue Herb FACW 3.0
All Year Coleataenia anceps Beaked Panicgrass Herb FAC 0.25
All Year Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass Herb FACU 1.5
All Year Juncus tenuis Path Rush Herb FAC 0.5
All Year Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan Herb FACU 1.25
All Year Bidens aristosa Bur Marigold Herb FACW 1.375
All Year Helianthus angustifolius Swamp Sunflower Herb FACW 0.5
All Year Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf Coreopsis Herb UPL 1.375
All Year Chamaecrista fasciculata var. fasciculata Partridge Pea Herb FACU 1.50
All Year Chasmanthium laxum Slender Woodoats Herb FACW 0.250
Total 20.0
Temporary Seeding
Pure Live Seed
Approved Dates Species Name Common Name Stratum Density (lbs/acre)
August 15 - April 15 Secale cereale Rye Grain Herb 90
August 15 - April 15 Avena sativa Winter Oats Herb 30
April 15 - August 15 Setaria italica German Millet Herb 90
April 15 - August 15 Fagopyrum esculentum Buckwheat Herb 30
All Year Trifolium incarnatum Crimson Clover Herb 5
All Year Trifolium repens Ladino Clover Herb 5
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Approved Dates Species Name Common Name Stratum Density (lbs/acre)Percentage
All Year Lolium arundinaceum Tall Fescue Herb 10 100%
Total 100%
Casey Creek R2, Martha Branch
Casey Creek R3, Casey Creek R4, Afton Branch
X
TB T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T
B
TB
TB TB
TB
TB T B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TBTB
TB T B T B
T B
TB
T B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
BTBTBTBTB
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T B
TB
T B TB
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTB
TB TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
US

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
3

(
6
0
'

R
/
W
)
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
CE CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
N
0' 150' 300' 450'
1" = 150'
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
3.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g

P
l
a
n

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
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.
Streambank Planting Zone 2
Casey Creek R2, Martha Branch
Streambank Planting Zone 1
Casey Creek R3, Casey Creek R4, Afton Branch
Buffer Planting Zone
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
De
t
a
i
l
s
02
1
9
6
MK AACR
5.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
CR-ALRAngled Log Riffle
Not to Scale
Plan View
Profile View
A-A'
2% - 4%
NOTES:
1. MINIMUM THREE LOGS PER STRUCTURE.
2. PLUGS TO BE PLACED DOWNSTREAM OF EACH
LOG ON LOW SIDE AT TOE OF SLOPE.
3. LOGS MUST BE BURIED A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET
INTO BANK.
Log Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK
FL
O
W
55° TO 65°
(TYP.
A'
0.
5
'

M
A
X
.
5' MIN.
(TYP)
FLOW
1
5.1
B'
B
A
FL
O
W
THALWEG
TOP OF BANK
NORMAL WATER
SURFACE
REFER TO RIFFLE
MATERIAL TABLE
BURY INTO BANK
ACCORDING TO NOTE 3
BANKFULL
8" DIAMETER OR
GREATER (TYP.)
REFER TO RIFFLE
MATERIAL TABLE
THALWEG 0.1-0.2' DEEPER
THAN REST OF RIFFLE TO
PROVIDE LOW FLOW PATH
PLACE LOG AT END OF RIFFLE
WHERE THERE IS A DROP OVER
DOWNSTREAM POOL. THIS LOG
MUST HAVE A FOOTER.
EXCAVATE SMALL POOLS
0.3' IN DEPTH DOWNSTREAM
OF IMBEDDED LOGS
TOE OF
SLOPE
NON-WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
PLUG (TYP.)
PLUG (TYP.)
1.5X Riffle Dmax ADD STONE ON TOE OF
SLOPE IMMEDIATELY
DOWNSTREAM OF SILLS
CR-CH Chunky Riffle
Not to Scale
2
5.1
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
Profile A-A'
Plan View
A A'
B'
0"-8" MAX
B
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN SIZE 0.5'x1'x1.5'
TAIL OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
COBBLE/GRAVEL BED.
KEY LARGER MATERIAL INTO BANKS
INTERMITTENTLY ALONG RIFFLE LENGTH
TO PREVENT PREFERENTIAL FLOW ALONG TOE OF SLOPE.
FLOW
FLOW
Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
SEE PLAN/PROFILE FOR
RIFFLE ELEVATION
OTHER LARGER
MATERIAL MIN. 18"
FROM
TOE OF SLOPERIFFLE MATERIAL: PLACE TO
MAINTAIN THALWEG WITHIN
CENTRAL 2/3 OF CHANNEL
3"

M
A
X
KEY LARGER MATERIAL
INTERMITTENTLY ALONG
RIFFLE LENGTH
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL UP
BANK. SEE NOTE.
3
5.1
Native Material Constructed Riffle
Not to Scale
RI
F
F
L
E

B
O
T
T
O
M
WI
D
T
H

P
E
R
TY
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Plan View
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
Profile A-A'
Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
BED MATERIAL
D50 MIN: TBD
D50 MAX: TBD
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
BED MATERIAL
D50 MIN: TBD
D50 MAX: TBD
x.
x
"

M
I
N
.
FLOW A A'
B'
B
FLOW
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL
3" UP SIDE SLOPES FOR
TOE PROTECTION
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL
3" UP SIDE SLOPES FOR
TOE PROTECTION
CR-NM
Profile View
Section A - A'
STREAMBED
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC 5'
MIN. UPSTREAM
EMBED LOG
TO BANKFULL
OR 5' (MIN.)
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER
EXCAVATED
SCOUR POOL
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILECOBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC TO
BE INSTALLED TO TWICE
THE RIFFLE DEPTH OR A
MINIMUM OF 3'
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
4
5.1
Angled Log Sill
Not to Scale
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
A'
Plan View
FLOW
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
10° - 15° ANGLE
BACKFILL
A
POOL
EXCAVATE BANK AROUND POOL
25% OF BANKFULL WIDTH AND ADD
ROOT WAD, BRUSH TOE, OR ROCK
TOE TO STREAMS WITH RIFFLE
BOTTOM WIDTH GREATHER THAN
2FT OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
HEADER AND FOOTER LOG SHOULD
BE THE SAME LENGTH. THEY SHOULD
EXTEND TO THE BANKFULL OR 5' PAST
THE BOTTOM OF BANK WHICHEVER
IS GREATER. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD
EXTEND THE FULL WIDTH OF THE SILL.
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8" IN DIAMETER.
2. FOOTER LOGS TO BE ADDED AS NECESSARY WHERE POOL DEPTH IS MORE
THAN HEADER LOG DIAMETER.
3. ONE 16"-18" LOG MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TWO 8" LOGS.
4. STONE FOOTER MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR FOOTER LOG.
5. HEADER LOG TO BE NOTCHED TO A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 0.2 FT AND
APPROXIMATELY 1
2 CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH. NOTCHED DEPTH AT
CENTER OF CHANNEL SHALL MATCH PROFILE ELEVATION.
6. PLUGS TO BE INSTALLED ABUTTING LOG AT TOE OF SLOPE UP AND
DOWNSTREAM OF LOG DROP.
7. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF LOG SILLS.
DOWNSTREAM EDGE OF FILTER FABIC SHALL BE FOLDED UNDERNEATH
PRECEDING FABRIC AND NAILED INTO LOG USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED
NAILS OR STANDARD 3" ROOFING NAILS AT 12 MAX SPACING.
SPLASH ROCK
NOTES:
1. CHUNKY MATERIAL ELEVATION SHALL BE 0"-8"
ABOVE RIFFLE MATERIAL OR PER ENGINEER'S
DISCRETION.
2. EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL 0.6' UP BANK ON THE
CASEY CREEK REACH 3, REACH 4, AND AFTON
BRANCH AND 0.3' ON MARTHA BRANCH AND
CASEY CREEK REACH 2.
3. THE MAXIMUM DIMENSION OF THE BOULDER
SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES ITS MINIMUM
DIMENSION.
4. THE LAYOUT OF THE BOULDERS IS SHOWN IN
THE DETAIL. MAXIMUM 3" OF BOULDERS
PROTRUSION ABOVE THE RIFFLE BED MATERIAL
TO CREATE CONCENTRATED FLOW PATHS AND
MICRO-POOLS THROUGH THE RIFFLE TO
ENHANCE INSTREAM HABITAT.
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
De
t
a
i
l
s
02
1
9
6
MK AACR
5.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
1
5.2
Log J-Hook
Not to Scale
FLOW
A
A'
Plan View
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
TOP O
F

B
A
N
K

(
T
Y
P
)
TOE O
F

S
L
O
P
E

(
T
Y
P
)
TOE O
F

S
L
O
P
E

(
T
Y
P
)
TOP O
F

B
A
N
K

(
T
Y
P
)
DENSELY PACKED WOODY DEBRIS
BRUSH MATERIAL TO BE INSTALLED
FLUSH WITH BANK
Section A-A'
DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BACKFILL
TOE OF SLOPE
3'
NATIVE SOILELEV. 6" BELOW
POOL DEPTH
ELEV. 6" ABOVE
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
NOTES:
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL
CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON-SITE AND
SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY
DEBRIS LAYER.
3. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND
IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
4. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER ACCORDING
TO TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
6. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND BANK
STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
FILTER FABRIC
WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
6"
Brush Toe - Small Streams
Not to Scale
3
5.2
TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)
2
5.2
Erosion Control Matting
Not to Scale
Section View
Plan View Typical Ecostake - Internal
2' M
A
X
.
SPAC
I
N
G
1' MIN. OVERLAP IN
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION
AT MAT ENDS
11
"
1"
0.6"
1.25"
0.4"
2" STAKE
(TYP)
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
TOE OF SLOPE
INTERNAL ECOSTAKE (TYP)
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING (TYP)
TOP OF BANK
Materials
Coir Fiber Matting is to be machine-produced mat made of
100% coconut fiber and must adhere to the specifications
listed in the table above. A 18"x2"x2" hardwood stake shall
be used to secure matting at the top of bank and toe of
slope. Hardwood Eco-STAKE™ or similar biodegradable stakes
shall be used to secure matting along the face of the bank.
No metal staples will be used on this project.
Construction Methods
The Contractor will install Coir Fiber Matting in locations and
to the widths and lengths as shown on the plans and details
or as directed. Prior to mat placement, proposed grades shall
be achieved and no voids will occur in the slope. The ground
shall be cleared of any roots and large stones. The area will
be treated with soil amendments and seeding as specified
elsewhere in the plans and specifications. Straw mulch will be
used to cover the finished grade to achieve a 60% coverage
on the soil.
Coir Fiber Matting will be secured with wooden stakes and
installed at three (3) feet on center in offset rows to affect a
diamond pattern. Overlap the Coir Fiber Matting at seams a
minimum of one foot. Coir Fiber Matting will be overlapped
so that the upstream mat end is on top of the downstream
mat start. Stakes will secure matting at two foot spacing on
the overlapping seams. Coir Fiber Matting will be dry when
installed placed on slopes not too loosely but not in tension.
Maintenance
1. Inspect coir fiber matting at least weekly and after
each significant 1
2 inch rain event and repair
immediately.
2. Good contact with the ground must be maintained
and erosion must not occur beneath the matting
3. Any areas of the matting that are damaged or not in
close contact with the ground shall be repaired and
staked.
4. If erosion occurs due to poorly controlled drainage,
the problem shall be fixed and the eroded area
protected.
5. Monitor and repair matting as necessary until ground
cover is established.
Coir Fiber Matting Specifications
Property Requirement Test Method
matrix 100% coconut fiber ECTC*
roll size 6.6 feet x 164 feet ECTC*
thickness 0.30 inches (minimum)ASTM D5199
elongation 34% x 38% (maximum)ECTC*
flexibility 65030 x 29590 mg cm ECTC*
mass per unit area 20 ounces per square yard (minimum)ASTM D5261
stable flow velocity 11 feet per second (minimum)ECTC*
open area (measured)50% (maximum)ECTC*
tensile strength 1348 x 626 pounds per foot ASTM D5035
'C' factor 0.002 ASTM D5035
*Testing methods specified by Erosion Control Technology Council (ECTC) guidelines.
Typical 2" Stake - Top and Bottom Rows
18
"
2"
2"
TYPICAL 2" STAKE
3' O.C.
3' O.C.
Y
20
°
-
3
0
°
SCOUR
POOL
FLOW
Plan View TOE OF SLOPE
FILTER FABRIC
EXTENDS 5' MIN.
Section B-B'
Section A-A'
A'
A
B'
B
H
TOP OF BANK
OFFSET HEADER LOG
0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
OF FOOTER LOG
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
FLOW 3%-5%
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
PLACE HEADER BOULDER
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
ANGLED LOG SILL
ANCHORED INTO
OPPOSITE BANK.
VANE

A
R
M
LENG
T
H
(X)
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
De
t
a
i
l
s
02
1
9
6
MK AACR
5.
3
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN
INTO THE SOIL TO THE
FULL DEPTH OF THE BLADE
AND PULL BACK ON THE
HANDLE TO OPEN THE
PLANTING HOLE. (DO NOT
ROCK THE SHOVEL BACK
AND FORTH AS THIS
CAUSES SOIL IN THE
PLANTING HOLE TO BE
COMPACTED, INHIBITING
ROOT GROWTH.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP
INTO THE PLANTING HOLE.
PULL THE SEEDLING BACK
UP TO THE CORRECT
PLANTING DEPTH (THE
ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE 1
TO 3 INCHES BELOW THE
SOIL SURFACE). GENTLY
SHAKE THE SEEDLING TO
ALLOW THE ROOTS TO
STRAIGHTEN OUT. DO NOT
TWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE
ROOTS J-ROOTED.
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES
IN FRONT OF THE
SEEDLING AND PUSH THE
BLADE HALFWAY INTO
THE SOIL. TWIST AND
PUSH THE HANDLE
FORWARD TO CLOSE THE
TOP OF THE SLIT TO HOLD
THE SEEDLING IN PLACE.
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, DOWN TO
THE FULL DEPTH OF
THE BLADE.
PULL BACK ON THE
HANDLE TO CLOSE THE
BOTTOM OF THE
PLANTING HOLD. THEN
PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE
THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR
POCKETS AROUND THE
ROOT.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND
FIRM UP THE OPENING
WITH YOUR HEEL. BE
CAREFUL TO AVOID
DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
NOTES:
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER PLANTING AREA SHALL
BE DISKED, AS REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING.
2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY HANDLED PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION TO INSURE SURVIVAL.
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR
CROSS-SECTION, AND SHALL
BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4 INCHES
WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK AT
CENTER.
ROOTING PRUNING
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE
PRUNED TO AN APPORIATE
LENGTH TO PREVENT
J-ROOTING.
RESTORED
CHANNEL
BANKFULL
BUFFER WIDTH
VARIES
SPACING PER
PLANTING PLAN Section View
1
5.3
Bare Root Planting
Not to Scale
TOP OF BANK
LIVE STAKE (TYP)
SEE PLAN VIEW
FOR SPACING
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
(SEE DETAIL)
Plan View - Zone 2
2'

T
O

3
'

L
I
V
E

S
T
A
K
E
TA
P
E
R
E
D

A
T

B
O
T
T
O
M
1/2" TO 2"
DIAMETER
Live Stake Detail
NOTE:
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS
AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DIRECTED
BY THE ENGINEER.
TOE OF SLOPE
PLUG (TYP)
6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
3' - 5' SPACING FOR PLUGS
3' OUTSIDE TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
Plan View - Zone 1
6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
3' - 5' SPACING FOR PLUGS
2 - 3' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
Section View - Zone 1
TOP OF BANK
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
(SEE DETAIL)
TOE OF SLOPE
PLUG (TYP)
Section View - Zone 2
LIVE STAKE (TYP)
SEE PLAN VIEW
FOR SPACING
3'
2
5.3
Live Staking and Plugs
Not to Scale
48" CMP CULVERT WITH BAFFLES
INV. EL: 135.99' U/S
INV. EL: 135.82' D/S
24" CMP CULVERT
INV. EL: 137.79' U/S
INV. EL: 137.62' D/S
24" CMP CULVERT
INV. EL: 137.79' U/S
INV. EL: 137.62' D/S
OVERFLOW EL. 139.60
EMBED CULVERT 12" BEHIND
CULVERT BAFFLES AS SHOWN ON
PROFILE. BACKFILL WITH 50/50
MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP MATERIAL
SELECT FILL AS APPROVED
BY THE DESIGNER/ENGINEER
TIE ROAD TO EXISTING GRADETIE ROAD TO EXISTING GRADE
TOP 4" ABC STONE
TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
CREST EL. 141.00
1' DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
25' OVERFLOW CHANNEL ROAD CREST 30'
6" MIN. BEDDING
#57 STONE
MINIMUM 12" TOTAL
COVER OVER PIPE
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX
CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CLASS A & B OUTLET STABILIZATION
MAXIMUM 2(H):1(V) SIDE SLOPES
COVERED IN MINIMUM CLASS B STONE
MAXIMUM 2(H):1(V) SIDE SLOPES
COVERED IN MINIMUM CLASS B STONE
CREST EL. 141.0
24" CMP CULVERT
INV. EL: 137.79' U/S
INV. EL: 137.62' D/S
48" CMP CULVERT WITH BAFFLES
INV. EL: 135.99' U/S
INV. EL: 135.82' D/S
INLET STATION 130+17
OUTLET STATION 130+57
OVERFLOW CHANNEL (TYP)
SEE CROSS-SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS ROAD TOP WIDTH = 26'
24" CMP CULVERT
INV. EL: 137.79' U/S
INV. EL: 137.62' D/S
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
N
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

D
e
t
a
i
l
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
5.
4
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
De
t
a
i
l
s
Casey Creek - Internal Culvert Crossing
Not to Scale
1
5.4

Appendix 11:  Design Plans 

Title Sheet 0.1
General Notes & Symbols 0.2
Project Overview 0.3
Casey Creek Stream Plan & Profile 1.1 - 1.7
Martha Branch Stream Plan & Profile 1.8 - 2.0
Afton Branch Stream Plan & Profile 2.1 - 2.2
Planting Tables 3.1
Planting Plan Overview 3.2
Erosion and Sediment Control Overview Not Included
Details 5.1 - 5.4
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
IT'S THE LAW!
CALL 1-800-632-4949N.C. ONE-CALL CENTER
Sheet Index
Project Directory
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-
T
i
t
l
e

S
h
e
e
t
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ti
t
l
e

S
h
e
e
t
02
1
9
6
MK AACR
0.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
N
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-851-9986
Chris Roessler, Project Manager
Daniel Johnson, MBA, PE, PH, Project Engineer
Surveying:
K2 Design Group
774 S. Beston Road
La Grange, NC 28551
252-582-3097
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
for NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services Neuse River Basin 03020201
Wayne County, North Carolina
Draft Mitigation Plan Submittal
October 24, 2023
USACE Action ID No: SAW-2022-01239
NCDWR ID No: 202202664 v2
NCDEQ Contract No. 210201-01
RFP#: 16-20210201 (Issued 7/7/2021)
NCDMS ID No. 100597
PROJECT LOCATION
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

N
o
t
e
s

&

S
y
m
b
o
l
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AA
DH
J
0.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

N
o
t
e
s

a
n
d

S
y
m
b
o
l
s
General Notes
(To be included with final plans.)
Construction Sequence
(To be included with final plans.)
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
Existing Thalweg
Existing Top of Bank
Existing Property Line
Existing Major Contour
Existing Minor Contour
Existing Overhead Electric
Existing Fence
Existing Culvert
Existing Treeline
Existing Road
Existing Tree
Existing Telephone Box
Existing Wetland
Existing Open Water Feature
10+00
ELEC ELEC
100
Existing Features Proposed Features
Proposed Thalweg Alignment
Proposed Bankfull
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Conservation Easement Internal Crossing
Proposed Culvert
X X X
TB TB
CE CE CE
CE-IX CE-IX
Proposed Constructed Riffles Per Plans
See Details 1, 2, & 3 Sheet 5.1
Proposed Angled Log Sill
See Detail 4, Sheet 5.1
Proposed Log J-Hook
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.2
Proposed Brush Toe
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.2
Proposed Structures
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
T
B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
T B TBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
T B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELECUS HIGHWAY 13 (60
'

R
/
W
)
D.B. 882, PG. 33
BEST
D.B. 1823 PG. 155, TRACT 3
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY, TRUSTEE
D.B. 1334 PG. 655
ALBERTSON
D.B. 2040,
PG. 673
BEST
P.C. E, SL. 272
M.B. 11. PG. 35
3
D.B. 1823 PG. 155, TRACT 2
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY
P.C. E, SL. 272
M.B. 11. PG. 35
2
D.B. 1823 PG. 155, TRACT 1
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY, TRUSTEE
P.C. E, SL. 271
M.B. 11. PG. 34
1
D.B. 967 PG. 728
JOHNNIE MANGRUM BROCK
D.B. 1418 PG. 164, FIRST TRACT
JOYCE CASEY PATE
P.C. E, SL. 271
M.B. 11. PG. 34
2
D.B. 3332, PG. 839
BRASWELL
W.B. 0013E PG. 513
ALBERTSON
D.B. 972 PG. 397
GREEN
D.B. 1823 PG. 155, TRACT 2
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY
P.C. E, SL. 272
M.B. 11. PG. 35
2
MARTHA B
R
A
N
C
H
AFTO
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
SH
E
E
T

1
.
1
SH
E
E
T

1
.
2
S
H
E
E
T

1
.
3
SH
E
E
T

1
.
4
S
H
E
E
T

1
.
5
SH
E
E
T

1
.
6
SHEE
T

1
.
8
SHEET 1.9
SHEET

2
.
1
SHEET 2
.
2
US HWY 13
SHE
E
T

1
.
7
S
H
E
E
T

2
.
0
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
CE-I
X
CE-I
X
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CECE
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
N
0' 150' 300' 450'
1" = 150'
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
0.
3
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
135
140
145
150
135
140
145
150
119+70 120+00 120+50 121+00 121+50 122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 123+70
-0.4%-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.4%-2.3%
-0.4%-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.4%-2.3%
-0.2%
ST
A

=

1
1
9
+
8
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
4
5
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
0
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
3
6
STA = 120+07
ELEV = 141.52
STA = 120+20
ELEV = 141.52
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
2
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
3
6
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
4
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
2
8
STA = 120+54
ELEV = 141.73
STA = 120+61
ELEV = 141.73
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
6
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
2
8
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
8
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
2
2
STA = 120+87
ELEV = 141.37
STA = 120+92
ELEV = 141.37
ST
A

=

1
2
0
+
9
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
2
2
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
1
3
STA = 121+19
ELEV = 141.59
STA = 121+33
ELEV = 141.59
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
4
0
EL
E
V

=

1
4
2
.
1
3
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
6
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
9
9
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
8
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
8
ST
A

=

1
2
1
+
9
5
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
8
ST
A

=

1
2
2
+
0
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
9
9
ST
A

=

1
2
2
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
9
1
STA = 122+27
ELEV = 141.37
STA = 122+42
ELEV = 141.37
STA = 122+50
ELEV = 141.91
ST
A

=

1
2
2
+
8
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
7
7
ST
A

=

1
2
2
+
9
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
9
4
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
0
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
9
4
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
7
7
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
3
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
2
5
STA = 123+39
ELEV = 140.54
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
6
4
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
5
4
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T B
T B TB
TB
TB TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B T
B
T B
T B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TBTB
TB
T
B
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T
B
T B
T B
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
STA: 119+82
END CASEY CREEK REACH 1 (PRESERVATION)
BEING CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
1
1
9
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
121+
0
0
122
+
0
0
123+00
124+
0
0
CASEY CREEK
REACH 1
EXISTING DRAINAGE TO
BE CONNECTED TO
NEW CHANNEL
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
145
1
4
4
145
143
14
3
142
141
14
3
145
14
3
14
0
140
144
143
140
14
1
142
136
141
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
3
+
7
0
3.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 7'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.2'
2.4'3.6'
3:1 2:1
3.05'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.5'
1.5'5.25'
3.5:1 1:1
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

1

&

2
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-CH
130
135
140
145
130
135
140
145
123+70 124+00 124+50 125+00 125+50 126+00 126+50 127+00 127+50 128+00 128+20
-2.0%
-2.2%
-2.4%
-2.3%
-2.2%
-1.6%
-1.8%
-1.0%-1.3%-1.0%
-2.0%
-2.2%
-2.4%
-2.3%
-2.2%
-1.6%
-1.8%
-1.0%-1.3%-1.0%
-1.0%
-0.4%
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
7
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
5
ST
A

=

1
2
3
+
9
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
7
3
STA = 124+05
ELEV = 140.30
STA = 124+11
ELEV = 140.30
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
7
3
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
3
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
4
3
STA = 124+32
ELEV = 139.63
STA = 124+49
ELEV = 139.63
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
5
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
3
3
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
7
0
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
4
STA = 124+70
ELEV = 139.24
STA = 124+87
ELEV = 139.24
ST
A

=

1
2
4
+
9
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
9
4
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
1
0
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
5
9
STA = 125+16
ELEV = 139.15
STA = 125+23
ELEV = 139.15
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
2
9
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
5
9
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
4
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
2
5
STA = 125+45
ELEV = 138.47
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
6
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
4
7
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
7
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
1
5
ST
A

=

1
2
5
+
9
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
8
2
STA = 125+93
ELEV = 137.80
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
2
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
8
0
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
4
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
8
2
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
6
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
3
5
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
7
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
7
9
ST
A

=

1
2
6
+
8
9
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
7
9
STA = 127+00
ELEV = 138.35
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
1
9
STA = 127+16
ELEV = 137.30
STA = 127+29
ELEV = 137.30
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
3
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
8
.
1
9
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
5
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
9
8
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
6
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
1
2
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
7
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
1
2
ST
A

=

1
2
7
+
8
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
9
7
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
7
8
STA = 128+06
ELEV = 136.90PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
T B
T B
T B
T
B T B
T B TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T
B
TB
TB
TB TB TB TB TB TB TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
STA: 125+92
END CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
209+34
20
8
+
0
0
20
9
+
0
0
123+00
12
4
+
0
0
125
+
0
0
126+0
0
127
+
0
0
1
2
8
+
0
0
129+00
MA
R
T
H
A

B
R
A
N
C
H
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
141
143
143
140
14
2
1
4
1
142
141
140
141
13
5
140
137
13
6
136
14
0
14
0
140
140
13
8
135
137
14
1
140
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
3
+
7
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
8
+
2
0
3.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 7'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.2'
2.4'3.6'
3:1 2:1
3.05'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.5'
1.5'5.25'
3.5:1 1:1
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

2

&

3
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 119+82 TO 125+92
CR-ALR
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
NOTE:
1. REFER TO SHEET 1.3 FOR CASEY CREEK REACH 3 TYPICAL
SECTION.
130
135
140
145
130
135
140
145
128+20 128+50 129+00 129+50 130+00 130+50 131+00 131+50 132+00 132+50 132+70
-0.4%-0.9%-0.9%-1.0%-0.6%-0.4%-1.2%
-0.9%-0.7%
STA = 130+17
ELEV = 136.99
STA = 130+57
ELEV = 136.82
INTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 130+07
INTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 130+67
STA = 128+21
ELEV = 136.90
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
3
0
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
7
8
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
4
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
6
2
STA = 128+54
ELEV = 137.02
STA = 128+59
ELEV = 137.02
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
6
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
6
2
ST
A

=

1
2
8
+
8
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
4
4
STA = 128+92
ELEV = 136.56
STA = 128+99
ELEV = 136.56
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
0
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
4
4
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
2
3
STA = 129+28
ELEV = 136.66
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
4
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
6
6
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
5
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
2
3
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
8
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
0
8
STA = 129+89
ELEV = 136.17
STA = 129+94
ELEV = 136.17
ST
A

=

1
2
9
+
9
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
7
.
0
8
ST
A

=

1
3
0
+
6
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
7
9
STA = 130+87
ELEV = 135.82
ST
A

=

1
3
0
+
9
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
7
9
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
4
9
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
3
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
6
4
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
4
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
6
4
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
5
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
4
9
ST
A

=

1
3
1
+
8
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
2
3
STA = 131+86
ELEV = 135.68
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
1
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
6
8
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
2
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
2
3
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
4
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
0
7
STA = 132+55
ELEV = 135.17
STA = 132+61
ELEV = 135.17
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
6
8
EL
E
V

=

1
3
6
.
0
7
STA = 130+63
ELEV = 135.82
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
48" CMP
PROPOSED CULVERT
INV: 135.99
PROPOSED CULVERT
INV: 135.82
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB TB T B T B
TB
T B TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
128
+
0
0
12
9
+
0
0
130+00
13
1
+
0
0
132+0
0
133+
0
0
STA: 130+07
BEGIN INTERNAL EASEMENT CROSSING STA: 130+67
END INTERNAL EASEMENT CROSSING
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
14
1
135
140
1
3
7
140
141
140 139
138
13
7
137
139
140
138
134
135 137
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
8
+
2
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
2
+
7
0
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.2'
Dmax = 0.8'
2.4'2.4'
3:1 3:1
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'
3.5:1
2:1
1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
4:1 1.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
3
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CR-NM
CR-ALR
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
NOTE:
1. PROFILE INCLUDES ELEVATION FOR CENTRAL
CULVERT PIPE ONLY. REFER TO DETAIL 1, SHEET 5.4
FOR ADDITIONAL CULVERT INFORMATION.
125
130
135
140
125
130
135
140
132+70 133+00 133+50 134+00 134+50 135+00 135+50 136+00 136+50 137+00137+00
-1.1%
-2.2%
-2.0%
-2.7%
-2.6%
-2.3%
-3.1%
-3.0%
-1.9%
-1.1%
-1.9%
ST
A

=

1
3
2
+
9
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
7
4
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
1
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
2
6
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
2
6
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
4
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
7
4
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
6
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
2
5
STA = 133+70
ELEV = 134.42
STA = 133+76
ELEV = 134.42
ST
A

=

1
3
3
+
8
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
5
.
2
5
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
0
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
4
.
7
7
STA = 134+06
ELEV = 133.92
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
2
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
3
.
9
2
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
3
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
4
.
6
7
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
5
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
4
.
1
5
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
6
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
3
.
4
1
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
7
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
3
.
4
1
ST
A

=

1
3
4
+
8
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
4
.
1
5
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
1
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
3
.
2
9
STA = 135+14
ELEV = 132.39
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
3
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
2
.
3
9
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
4
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
2
.
9
9
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
6
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
2
.
5
4
STA = 135+62
ELEV = 131.53
STA = 135+74
ELEV = 131.53
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
8
0
EL
E
V

=

1
3
2
.
2
4
ST
A

=

1
3
5
+
9
3
EL
E
V

=

1
3
1
.
8
6
STA = 135+93
ELEV = 130.91
STA = 136+08
ELEV = 130.91
ST
A

=

1
3
6
+
1
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
1
.
5
6
ST
A

=

1
3
6
+
3
4
EL
E
V

=

1
3
1
.
0
1
STA = 136+34
ELEV = 130.09
ST
A

=

1
3
6
+
5
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
0
9
STA = 136+60
ELEV = 130.71
ST
A

=

1
3
6
+
7
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
4
0
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
EX. 48" RCP
EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 136+71
EXISTING CULVERT
INV: 129.60
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T B
T B TB TB
TB
T
B
TB
T B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
T B
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
U
S

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
3

(
6
0
'

R
/
W
)
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
13
2
+
0
0
13
3
+
0
0
134
+
0
0
135+
0
0
136+00
137+00
48" RCP
CASEY CR
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
IE: 129.60
IE: 129.92
137
13
8
137
13
6
136
135
1
3
7
13
6
1
3
8
1
3
4
13
5
132
1
3
9
1
3
3
1
3
3
STA: 136+71
BEGIN EXTERNAL CROSSING
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
2
+
7
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
7
+
0
0
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.2'
Dmax = 0.8'
2.4'2.4'
3:1 3:1
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'
3.5:1
2:1
1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
4:1 1.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
4
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CR-ALR
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
CR-CH
123
125
130
135
140
123
125
130
135
140
137+00 137+50 138+00 138+50 139+00 139+50 140+00 140+50 141+00 141+30
-0.1%-0.5%-0.6%-0.7%-0.7%-0.7%-0.5%-0.7%
-0.1%
-0.2%
STA = 137+42
ELEV = 130.34
STA = 137+42
ELEV = 129.30
ST
A

=

1
3
7
+
8
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
3
0
ST
A

=

1
3
7
+
9
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
2
0
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
2
0
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
0
9
STA = 138+27
ELEV = 129.47
STA = 138+34
ELEV = 129.47
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
4
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
0
.
0
9
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
5
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
9
9
STA = 138+65
ELEV = 129.08
STA = 138+72
ELEV = 129.08
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
8
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
9
9
ST
A

=

1
3
8
+
9
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
8
7
STA = 138+96
ELEV = 128.97
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
2
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
9
7
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
3
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
8
5
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
5
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
7
0
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
7
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
1
1
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
8
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
1
1
ST
A

=

1
3
9
+
9
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
7
0
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
1
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
5
9
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
2
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
6
9
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
3
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
6
9
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
4
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
5
9
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
7
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
4
5
STA = 140+72
ELEV = 128.84
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
9
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
8
4
ST
A

=

1
4
0
+
9
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
4
5
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
2
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
3
0
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
US HWY 13
EX. 48" RCP
EXISTING CULVERT
INV: 129.92
EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 137+66
B
T
B T B
TB TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
T
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
EL
E
C
US

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
3

(
6
0
'

R
/
W
)
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
136
+
0
0
137+00 13
8
+
0
0
13
9
+
0
0
140
+
0
0
141+00
1
4
2
+
0
0
48" RCP
CASEY
C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
IE: 129.60
IE: 129.92
13
7
13
6
13
8
13
4
13
9
13
3
13
2
13
1
133
1
3
3
130
129
128
STA: 137+66
END EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA: 136+71
BEGIN EXTERNAL CROSSING
MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
7
+
0
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
1
+
3
0
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.2'
Dmax = 0.8'
2.4'2.4'
3:1 3:1
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'
3.5:1
2:1
1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
4:1 1.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
5
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
120
125
130
135
120
125
130
135
141+30 141+50 142+00 142+50 143+00 143+50 144+00 144+50 145+00 145+50 145+80
-0.7%-0.5%-0.5%-1.0%-0.9%-0.5%
-1.1%
-0.5%
-2.6%
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
3
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
7
1
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
4
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
7
1
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
6
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
3
0
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
7
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
1
7
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
8
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
5
8
ST
A

=

1
4
1
+
9
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
5
8
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
0
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
1
7
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
2
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
0
8
STA = 142+34
ELEV = 128.16
STA = 142+40
ELEV = 128.16
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
4
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
9
.
0
8
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
6
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
9
5
STA = 142+70
ELEV = 128.05
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
8
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
0
5
ST
A

=

1
4
2
+
9
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
9
5
ST
A

=

1
4
3
+
2
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
7
4
STA = 143+28
ELEV = 128.16
STA = 143+36
ELEV = 128.16
ST
A

=

1
4
3
+
4
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
7
4
ST
A

=

1
4
3
+
6
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
5
2
STA = 143+68
ELEV = 127.94
STA = 143+83
ELEV = 127.94
ST
A

=

1
4
3
+
9
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
5
2
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
4
5
STA = 144+11
ELEV = 127.25
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
0
6
STA = 144+24
ELEV = 126.86
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
3
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
7
2
STA = 144+37
ELEV = 126.22
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
4
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
3
9
STA = 144+50
ELEV = 125.89
STA = 145+05
ELEV = 124.53
STA = 145+38
ELEV = 124.53
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
4
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
3
8
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
7
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
1
1
STA = 145+70
ELEV = 124.37
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
5
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
0
5
STA = 144+63
ELEV = 125.55
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
7
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
7
1
STA = 144+76
ELEV = 125.21
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
8
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
3
7
STA = 144+89
ELEV = 124.87
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
9
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
3
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
4
3
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
4
3
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TB
TB
TB
TBT
BTB
TB
TB
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T
B
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
STA: 145+05
END CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
306+26
3
0
6
+
0
0
141
+
0
0
142+00
143
+
0
0
144
+
0
0
145+00
1
4
6
+
0
0
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
1
3
1
128
131
130
1
2
9
130
130
127
126
126
129
127
126
125
12
8
129
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
1
+
3
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
5
+
8
0
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.2'
Dmax = 0.8'
2.4'2.4'
3:1 3:1
3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'
3.5:1
2:1
1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
4:1 1.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
6
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

3

&

4
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 125+92 TO 145+05
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
118
120
125
130
135
118
120
125
130
135
145+80 146+00 146+50 147+00 147+50 147+76
-0.6%-0.8%-0.3%
-0.3%
ST
A

=

1
4
5
+
9
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
3
7
ST
A

=

1
4
6
+
0
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
1
2
ST
A

=

1
4
6
+
3
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
9
5
STA = 146+44
ELEV = 124.18
STA = 146+52
ELEV = 124.18
ST
A

=

1
4
6
+
6
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
9
5
ST
A

=

1
4
6
+
8
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
7
6
STA = 146+86
ELEV = 124.01
ST
A

=

1
4
7
+
1
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
0
1
ST
A

=

1
4
7
+
2
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
7
6
ST
A

=

1
4
7
+
6
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
6
2
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
STA: 147+67
END CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
306+26
30
5
+
0
0
3
0
6
+
0
0
14
4
+
0
0
145+00
14
6
+
0
0
147+00
42
"

C
M
P
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
15"

C
P
P
AF
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
IE: 122.69
IE: 123.08
12
9
130
127
126
129 127
126
125
1
2
8
128
126
127
128
126
127
128
133
129
128
128
125125
129
12
7
12
9
129
EXISTING CULVERT
TO BE REMOVED
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
5
+
8
0
3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 10.2'
Dmax = 1.2'
3.6'3.6'
3:1 3:1
4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.8'
Dmax = 1.6'
3.2'5.6'
2:1
1.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.8'
Dmax = 2'
3'8'
4:1
1.5:1
3.5:1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
7
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

R
e
a
c
h

4
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 145+05 TO 147+67
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 145+05 TO 147+67
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 145+05 TO 147+67
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
135
140
145
150
135
140
145
150
200+00 200+50 201+00 201+50 202+00 202+50 203+00 203+50 204+00 204+30
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.7%
-0.4%-0.5%-0.4%-0.4%
ST
A

=

2
0
2
+
3
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
4
1
ST
A

=

2
0
2
+
5
3
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
3
5
STA = 202+57
ELEV = 140.35
STA = 202+61
ELEV = 140.35
ST
A

=

2
0
2
+
6
4
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
3
5
ST
A

=

2
0
2
+
9
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
2
2
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
0
3
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
6
5
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
6
5
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
2
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
2
2
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
5
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
2
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
6
0
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
1
4
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
6
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
1
4
ST
A

=

2
0
3
+
7
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
1
.
1
2
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
9
7
STA = 204+28
ELEV = 140.40PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
T B
TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
STA: 202+37
END SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
BEGIN MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
200
+
0
0
201
+
0
0
202+00
203+00
2
0
4
+
0
0
MARTHA BRANCH
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
14
4
145
145
14
5
145
144
144
1
4
4
144
144
142
140
143
141
144
STA: 200+57
BEGIN SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
4
+
3
0
3.3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 6.8'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'
3:1
2:1
1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'
3.5:1
1:1
2.5'
WIDTH VARIES PER PLANS
Dmax = 1.1'
8:1 8:1
1:
1 1:1PROPOSED GRADE
TIE TO EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF
BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TIE TO EXISTING GRADE
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
8
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ma
r
t
h
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
MARTHA BRANCH
COASTAL PLAIN SWALE - PILOT CHANNEL TYPICAL SECTION
STA: 200+57 TO 202+37
CR-NM CR-NM CR-NM
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
135
140
145
150
135
140
145
150
204+30 204+50 205+00 205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00 207+50 207+70
-0.5%-0.5%-0.6%-4.5
%
-0.8%-0.7%-1.3%-1.7%
-0.3%
-0.4%
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
3
9
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
4
0
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
5
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
9
7
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
6
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
8
9
STA = 204+75
ELEV = 140.30
STA = 204+81
ELEV = 140.30
ST
A

=

2
0
4
+
8
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
8
9
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
1
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
7
8
STA = 205+12
ELEV = 140.19
STA = 205+22
ELEV = 140.19
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
7
8
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
5
3
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
6
2
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
6
6
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
6
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
7
8
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
6
ST
A

=

2
0
5
+
9
1
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
6
2
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
1
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
4
6
STA = 206+12
ELEV = 139.89
STA = 206+27
ELEV = 139.89
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
3
5
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
4
6
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
6
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
2
7
STA = 206+69
ELEV = 139.71
STA = 206+77
ELEV = 139.71
ST
A

=

2
0
6
+
8
5
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
2
7
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
0
2
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
4
STA = 207+09
ELEV = 139.11
STA = 207+17
ELEV = 139.11
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
2
5
EL
E
V

=

1
4
0
.
0
4
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
4
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
7
7
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
5
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
2
6
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
6
1
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
2
6
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TBTB
TB
T
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
MARTHA BRANCH
203+00
204+
0
0
205+00
2
0
6
+
0
0
20
7
+
0
0
208+00
209+
0
0
124
+
0
0
1
2
5
+
0
0
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
1
4
3
14
0
142
136
1
3
6
140
140
144
142
140
143
141
14
3
142
1
4
3
1
4
2
14
3
144
1
4
1
14
1
14
0
140
140
139
138
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
4
+
3
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
7
+
7
0
3.3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 6.8'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'
3:1
2:1
1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'
3.5:1
1:1PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
1.
9
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ma
r
t
h
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NMCR-NM
132
135
140
145
132
135
140
145
207+70 208+00 208+50 209+00 209+34
-0.6%
-1.2%-1.5%-1.0%-0.6%
STA = 207+71
ELEV = 139.77
ST
A

=

2
0
7
+
8
9
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
5
6
STA = 207+95
ELEV = 138.61
STA = 208+01
ELEV = 138.61
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
0
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
5
6
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
2
2
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
3
3
STA = 208+30
ELEV = 138.41
STA = 208+37
ELEV = 138.41
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
4
5
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
3
3
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
7
6
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
0
3
STA = 208+77
ELEV = 138.09
STA = 208+90
ELEV = 138.09
ST
A

=

2
0
8
+
9
7
EL
E
V

=

1
3
9
.
0
3
STA = 209+34
ELEV = 138.82
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TB
TB
T
B
T
BTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE CE CE
CASEY C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
STA: 209+34
END MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
209+34
206+00
20
7
+
0
0
208
+
0
0
209+
0
0
125+00
126+
0
0
127+00
128
+
0
0
MARTH
A

B
R
A
N
C
H
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

2
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
143
1
4
0
142
14
1
140
135
140
1
3
7
1
3
6
13
6
140
140
135
142
143
142
141
1
4
1
1
4
0
140
140
138
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
7
+
7
0
3.3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 6.8'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'
3:1
2:1
1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'
3.5:1
1:1PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
2.
0
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Ma
r
t
h
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
MARTHA BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 202+37 TO 209+34
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
120
125
130
135
120
125
130
135
300+00 300+50 301+00 301+50 302+00 302+50 303+00 303+50 304+00 304+20
-0.3%-0.4%-0.4%-0.4%-0.8%-0.7%-0.7%-0.6%
-0.2%
-0.3%
STA = 300+00
ELEV = 127.16
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
0
7
STA = 300+27
ELEV = 126.37
STA = 300+39
ELEV = 126.37
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
4
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
0
7
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
7
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
9
6
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
8
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
7
ST
A

=

3
0
0
+
9
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
7
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
0
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
9
6
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
2
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
8
7
STA = 301+34
ELEV = 125.77
STA = 301+41
ELEV = 125.77
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
4
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
8
7
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
8
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
7
2
ST
A

=

3
0
1
+
9
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
5
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
0
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
5
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
1
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
7
2
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
3
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
6
0
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
4
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
5
2
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
5
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
5
2
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
6
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
6
0
ST
A

=

3
0
2
+
9
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
4
0
STA = 302+91
ELEV = 125.34
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
1
4
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
3
4
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
2
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
4
0
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
5
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
2
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
6
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
5
6
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
7
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
5
6
ST
A

=

3
0
3
+
8
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
2
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
1
1
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
6
STA = 304+20
ELEV = 125.38
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED BANKFULL
T B T B
T B T B TB TB
TB T B
TB T B
T B T B TB T B
T B
T B T B
TBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
STA: 300+41
BEGIN AFTON BRANCH (RESTORATION)
300+00
301+
0
0
302+00
303+
0
0
304+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
AFTON BRANCH FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL134133132
131
130
13
0
131
132
133
130
127
126
128
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
4
+
2
0
4.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.5'
Dmax = 0.8'
2'
2.5:1
4.15'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.5'
3'5.25'
3.5:1
2:1
1.95'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.9'
2.85'7.6'
4:1
1.5:1
2'
2.5:
1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
2.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Af
t
o
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 300+00 TO 306+26
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 300+00 TO 306+26
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 300+00 TO 306+26
CR-NM CR-NM CR-NM
CR-NM
120
125
130
135
120
125
130
135
304+20 304+50 305+00 305+50 306+00 306+26
-0.4%
-0.8%-0.6%-0.6%-0.6%-0.4%
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
2
9
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
3
8
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
3
8
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
0
6
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
5
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
9
1
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
6
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
8
4
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
7
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
4
.
8
4
ST
A

=

3
0
4
+
8
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
9
1
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
0
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
7
8
STA = 305+13
ELEV = 125.10 STA = 305+20
ELEV = 125.10
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
2
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
7
8
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
5
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
6
2
STA = 305+59
ELEV = 124.53
STA = 305+66
ELEV = 124.53
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
7
3
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
6
2
ST
A

=

3
0
5
+
9
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
4
7
STA = 306+03
ELEV = 124.38
STA = 306+09
ELEV = 124.38
ST
A

=

3
0
6
+
1
6
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
4
7
STA = 306+26
ELEV = 125.43
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
T B
T B
T B T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B TB T B
T B TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B TB
T B T B T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
B
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
STA: 306+26
END AFTON BRANCH (RESTORATION)
306+26
303+0
0
304+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
30
6
+
0
0
145+00
146+00
147
+
0
0
AFTON BRANCH
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
129
13
0
12
6
129
12
7
12
6
125
1
2
8
12
6
12
7
12
8
128
128
125125
1
2
9
133
132
131
13
0
131
126
128
CASEY

C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

4
CA
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
R
E
A
C
H

3
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
4
+
2
0
4.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.5'
Dmax = 0.8'
2'
2.5:1
4.15'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.5'
3'5.25'
3.5:1
2:1
1.95'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.9'
2.85'7.6'
4:1
1.5:1
2'
2.5:
1
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED BANKFULL
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
N
0'2'4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
2.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Af
t
o
n

B
r
a
n
c
h
St
r
e
a
m

P
l
a
n

&

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 300+41 TO 306+26
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: STANDARD POOL
STA: 300+41 TO 306+26
AFTON BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: DEEP POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 300+41 TO 306+26
CR-NM
CR-NM CR-NM
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

T
a
b
l
e
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
3.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g

T
a
b
l
e
s
Streambank Planting Zone 1
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Stems
Salix nigra Black Willow 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Canopy OBL 40%
Salix sericea Silky Willow 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Subcanopy OBL 30%
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Subcanopy FACW 10%
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub OBL 10%
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub FACW 10%
Total 100%
Herbaceous Plugs
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Plugs
Juncus effusus Soft Rush 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 40%
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 20%
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb FACW 20%
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 15%
Hibiscus moschuetos Crimson-Eyed Rosemallow 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 5%
Total 100%
Streambank Planting Zone 2
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Stems
Salix sericea Silky Willow 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Subcanopy OBL 50%
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal.Subcanopy FACW 20%
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub OBL 15%
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 3-6 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub FACW 15%
Total 100%
Herbaceous Plugs
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Plugs
Juncus effusus Soft Rush 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 40%
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 20%
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb FACW 20%
Carex lupulina Shallow Sedge 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 15%
Hibiscus moschuetos Crimson-Eyed Rosemallow 4 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb OBL 5%
Total 100%
Buffer Planting Zone
Bare Root
Species Common Name Indiv. Spacing Caliper Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status % of Stems
Quercus alba White Oak 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 5%
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 8%
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 10%
Ulmus americana American Elm 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 5%
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Subcanopy FACW 10%
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 8%
Quercus nigra Water Oak 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 7%
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 7%
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy OBL 10%
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy OBL 5%
Acer negundo Boxelder 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Subcanopy FAC 6%
Betula nigra River Birch 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 10%
Ulmus alata Winged Elm 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 3%
Morella cerifera Common Waxmyrtle 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FAC 3%
Hamamelis virginiana American Witch-hazel 6-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FACU 3%
Total 100%
*Only canopy species will be included in the average height calculation
Permanent Riparian Seeding
Pure Live Seed (20 lbs/acre)
Approved Dates Species Name Common Name Stratum Wetland Indicator Status lbs/acre
All Year Elymus virginicus Virginia Wildrye Herb FAC 3.5
All Year Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Herb FAC 2.5
All Year Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem Herb FACU 2.0
All Year Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern Gamagrass Herb FAC 0.5
All Year Dichanthelium clandestinum Deertongue Herb FACW 3.0
All Year Coleataenia anceps Beaked Panicgrass Herb FAC 0.25
All Year Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass Herb FACU 1.5
All Year Juncus tenuis Path Rush Herb FAC 0.5
All Year Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan Herb FACU 1.25
All Year Bidens aristosa Bur Marigold Herb FACW 1.375
All Year Helianthus angustifolius Swamp Sunflower Herb FACW 0.5
All Year Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf Coreopsis Herb UPL 1.375
All Year Chamaecrista fasciculata var. fasciculata Partridge Pea Herb FACU 1.50
All Year Chasmanthium laxum Slender Woodoats Herb FACW 0.250
Total 20.0
Temporary Seeding
Pure Live Seed
Approved Dates Species Name Common Name Stratum Density (lbs/acre)
August 15 - April 15 Secale cereale Rye Grain Herb 90
August 15 - April 15 Avena sativa Winter Oats Herb 30
April 15 - August 15 Setaria italica German Millet Herb 90
April 15 - August 15 Fagopyrum esculentum Buckwheat Herb 30
All Year Trifolium incarnatum Crimson Clover Herb 5
All Year Trifolium repens Ladino Clover Herb 5
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Approved Dates Species Name Common Name Stratum Density (lbs/acre)Percentage
All Year Lolium arundinaceum Tall Fescue Herb 10 100%
Total 100%
Casey Creek R2, Martha Branch
Casey Creek R3, Casey Creek R4, Afton Branch
X
TB T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
T
B
TB
TB TB
TB
TB T B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TBTB
TB T B T B
T B
TB
T B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
BTBTBTBTB
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T B
TB
T B TB
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTB
TB TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
E
L
E
C
US

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

1
3

(
6
0
'

R
/
W
)
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
CE CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
N
0' 150' 300' 450'
1" = 150'
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
3.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g

P
l
a
n

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
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.
Streambank Planting Zone 2
Casey Creek R2, Martha Branch
Streambank Planting Zone 1
Casey Creek R3, Casey Creek R4, Afton Branch
Buffer Planting Zone
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
De
t
a
i
l
s
02
1
9
6
MK AACR
5.
1
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
CR-ALRAngled Log Riffle
Not to Scale
Plan View
Profile View
A-A'
2% - 4%
NOTES:
1. MINIMUM THREE LOGS PER STRUCTURE.
2. PLUGS TO BE PLACED DOWNSTREAM OF EACH
LOG ON LOW SIDE AT TOE OF SLOPE.
3. LOGS MUST BE BURIED A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET
INTO BANK.
Log Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK
FL
O
W
55° TO 65°
(TYP.
A'
0.
5
'

M
A
X
.
5' MIN.
(TYP)
FLOW
1
5.1
B'
B
A
FL
O
W
THALWEG
TOP OF BANK
NORMAL WATER
SURFACE
REFER TO RIFFLE
MATERIAL TABLE
BURY INTO BANK
ACCORDING TO NOTE 3
BANKFULL
8" DIAMETER OR
GREATER (TYP.)
REFER TO RIFFLE
MATERIAL TABLE
THALWEG 0.1-0.2' DEEPER
THAN REST OF RIFFLE TO
PROVIDE LOW FLOW PATH
PLACE LOG AT END OF RIFFLE
WHERE THERE IS A DROP OVER
DOWNSTREAM POOL. THIS LOG
MUST HAVE A FOOTER.
EXCAVATE SMALL POOLS
0.3' IN DEPTH DOWNSTREAM
OF IMBEDDED LOGS
TOE OF
SLOPE
NON-WOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
PLUG (TYP.)
PLUG (TYP.)
1.5X Riffle Dmax ADD STONE ON TOE OF
SLOPE IMMEDIATELY
DOWNSTREAM OF SILLS
CR-CH Chunky Riffle
Not to Scale
2
5.1
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
Profile A-A'
Plan View
A A'
B'
0"-8" MAX
B
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN SIZE 0.5'x1'x1.5'
TAIL OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
COBBLE/GRAVEL BED.
KEY LARGER MATERIAL INTO BANKS
INTERMITTENTLY ALONG RIFFLE LENGTH
TO PREVENT PREFERENTIAL FLOW ALONG TOE OF SLOPE.
FLOW
FLOW
Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
SEE PLAN/PROFILE FOR
RIFFLE ELEVATION
OTHER LARGER
MATERIAL MIN. 18"
FROM
TOE OF SLOPERIFFLE MATERIAL: PLACE TO
MAINTAIN THALWEG WITHIN
CENTRAL 2/3 OF CHANNEL
3"

M
A
X
KEY LARGER MATERIAL
INTERMITTENTLY ALONG
RIFFLE LENGTH
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL UP
BANK. SEE NOTE.
3
5.1
Native Material Constructed Riffle
Not to Scale
RI
F
F
L
E

B
O
T
T
O
M
WI
D
T
H

P
E
R
TY
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Plan View
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
Profile A-A'
Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
BED MATERIAL
D50 MIN: TBD
D50 MAX: TBD
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
BED MATERIAL
D50 MIN: TBD
D50 MAX: TBD
x.
x
"

M
I
N
.
FLOW A A'
B'
B
FLOW
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL
3" UP SIDE SLOPES FOR
TOE PROTECTION
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL
3" UP SIDE SLOPES FOR
TOE PROTECTION
CR-NM
Profile View
Section A - A'
STREAMBED
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC 5'
MIN. UPSTREAM
EMBED LOG
TO BANKFULL
OR 5' (MIN.)
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER
EXCAVATED
SCOUR POOL
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILECOBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC TO
BE INSTALLED TO TWICE
THE RIFFLE DEPTH OR A
MINIMUM OF 3'
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
4
5.1
Angled Log Sill
Not to Scale
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
A'
Plan View
FLOW
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
10° - 15° ANGLE
BACKFILL
A
POOL
EXCAVATE BANK AROUND POOL
25% OF BANKFULL WIDTH AND ADD
ROOT WAD, BRUSH TOE, OR ROCK
TOE TO STREAMS WITH RIFFLE
BOTTOM WIDTH GREATHER THAN
2FT OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
HEADER AND FOOTER LOG SHOULD
BE THE SAME LENGTH. THEY SHOULD
EXTEND TO THE BANKFULL OR 5' PAST
THE BOTTOM OF BANK WHICHEVER
IS GREATER. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD
EXTEND THE FULL WIDTH OF THE SILL.
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8" IN DIAMETER.
2. FOOTER LOGS TO BE ADDED AS NECESSARY WHERE POOL DEPTH IS MORE
THAN HEADER LOG DIAMETER.
3. ONE 16"-18" LOG MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TWO 8" LOGS.
4. STONE FOOTER MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR FOOTER LOG.
5. HEADER LOG TO BE NOTCHED TO A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 0.2 FT AND
APPROXIMATELY 1
2 CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH. NOTCHED DEPTH AT
CENTER OF CHANNEL SHALL MATCH PROFILE ELEVATION.
6. PLUGS TO BE INSTALLED ABUTTING LOG AT TOE OF SLOPE UP AND
DOWNSTREAM OF LOG DROP.
7. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF LOG SILLS.
DOWNSTREAM EDGE OF FILTER FABIC SHALL BE FOLDED UNDERNEATH
PRECEDING FABRIC AND NAILED INTO LOG USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED
NAILS OR STANDARD 3" ROOFING NAILS AT 12 MAX SPACING.
SPLASH ROCK
NOTES:
1. CHUNKY MATERIAL ELEVATION SHALL BE 0"-8"
ABOVE RIFFLE MATERIAL OR PER ENGINEER'S
DISCRETION.
2. EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL 0.6' UP BANK ON THE
CASEY CREEK REACH 3, REACH 4, AND AFTON
BRANCH AND 0.3' ON MARTHA BRANCH AND
CASEY CREEK REACH 2.
3. THE MAXIMUM DIMENSION OF THE BOULDER
SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES ITS MINIMUM
DIMENSION.
4. THE LAYOUT OF THE BOULDERS IS SHOWN IN
THE DETAIL. MAXIMUM 3" OF BOULDERS
PROTRUSION ABOVE THE RIFFLE BED MATERIAL
TO CREATE CONCENTRATED FLOW PATHS AND
MICRO-POOLS THROUGH THE RIFFLE TO
ENHANCE INSTREAM HABITAT.
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
De
t
a
i
l
s
02
1
9
6
MK AACR
5.
2
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
1
5.2
Log J-Hook
Not to Scale
FLOW
A
A'
Plan View
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
TOP O
F

B
A
N
K

(
T
Y
P
)
TOE O
F

S
L
O
P
E

(
T
Y
P
)
TOE O
F

S
L
O
P
E

(
T
Y
P
)
TOP O
F

B
A
N
K

(
T
Y
P
)
DENSELY PACKED WOODY DEBRIS
BRUSH MATERIAL TO BE INSTALLED
FLUSH WITH BANK
Section A-A'
DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BACKFILL
TOE OF SLOPE
3'
NATIVE SOILELEV. 6" BELOW
POOL DEPTH
ELEV. 6" ABOVE
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
NOTES:
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL
CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON-SITE AND
SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY
DEBRIS LAYER.
3. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND
IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
4. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER ACCORDING
TO TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
6. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND BANK
STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
FILTER FABRIC
WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
6"
Brush Toe - Small Streams
Not to Scale
3
5.2
TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)
2
5.2
Erosion Control Matting
Not to Scale
Section View
Plan View Typical Ecostake - Internal
2' M
A
X
.
SPAC
I
N
G
1' MIN. OVERLAP IN
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION
AT MAT ENDS
11
"
1"
0.6"
1.25"
0.4"
2" STAKE
(TYP)
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
TOE OF SLOPE
INTERNAL ECOSTAKE (TYP)
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING (TYP)
TOP OF BANK
Materials
Coir Fiber Matting is to be machine-produced mat made of
100% coconut fiber and must adhere to the specifications
listed in the table above. A 18"x2"x2" hardwood stake shall
be used to secure matting at the top of bank and toe of
slope. Hardwood Eco-STAKE™ or similar biodegradable stakes
shall be used to secure matting along the face of the bank.
No metal staples will be used on this project.
Construction Methods
The Contractor will install Coir Fiber Matting in locations and
to the widths and lengths as shown on the plans and details
or as directed. Prior to mat placement, proposed grades shall
be achieved and no voids will occur in the slope. The ground
shall be cleared of any roots and large stones. The area will
be treated with soil amendments and seeding as specified
elsewhere in the plans and specifications. Straw mulch will be
used to cover the finished grade to achieve a 60% coverage
on the soil.
Coir Fiber Matting will be secured with wooden stakes and
installed at three (3) feet on center in offset rows to affect a
diamond pattern. Overlap the Coir Fiber Matting at seams a
minimum of one foot. Coir Fiber Matting will be overlapped
so that the upstream mat end is on top of the downstream
mat start. Stakes will secure matting at two foot spacing on
the overlapping seams. Coir Fiber Matting will be dry when
installed placed on slopes not too loosely but not in tension.
Maintenance
1. Inspect coir fiber matting at least weekly and after
each significant 1
2 inch rain event and repair
immediately.
2. Good contact with the ground must be maintained
and erosion must not occur beneath the matting
3. Any areas of the matting that are damaged or not in
close contact with the ground shall be repaired and
staked.
4. If erosion occurs due to poorly controlled drainage,
the problem shall be fixed and the eroded area
protected.
5. Monitor and repair matting as necessary until ground
cover is established.
Coir Fiber Matting Specifications
Property Requirement Test Method
matrix 100% coconut fiber ECTC*
roll size 6.6 feet x 164 feet ECTC*
thickness 0.30 inches (minimum)ASTM D5199
elongation 34% x 38% (maximum)ECTC*
flexibility 65030 x 29590 mg cm ECTC*
mass per unit area 20 ounces per square yard (minimum)ASTM D5261
stable flow velocity 11 feet per second (minimum)ECTC*
open area (measured)50% (maximum)ECTC*
tensile strength 1348 x 626 pounds per foot ASTM D5035
'C' factor 0.002 ASTM D5035
*Testing methods specified by Erosion Control Technology Council (ECTC) guidelines.
Typical 2" Stake - Top and Bottom Rows
18
"
2"
2"
TYPICAL 2" STAKE
3' O.C.
3' O.C.
Y
20
°
-
3
0
°
SCOUR
POOL
FLOW
Plan View TOE OF SLOPE
FILTER FABRIC
EXTENDS 5' MIN.
Section B-B'
Section A-A'
A'
A
B'
B
H
TOP OF BANK
OFFSET HEADER LOG
0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
OF FOOTER LOG
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
FLOW 3%-5%
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
PLACE HEADER BOULDER
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
ANGLED LOG SILL
ANCHORED INTO
OPPOSITE BANK.
VANE

A
R
M
LENG
T
H
(X)
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
De
t
a
i
l
s
02
1
9
6
MK AACR
5.
3
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN
INTO THE SOIL TO THE
FULL DEPTH OF THE BLADE
AND PULL BACK ON THE
HANDLE TO OPEN THE
PLANTING HOLE. (DO NOT
ROCK THE SHOVEL BACK
AND FORTH AS THIS
CAUSES SOIL IN THE
PLANTING HOLE TO BE
COMPACTED, INHIBITING
ROOT GROWTH.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP
INTO THE PLANTING HOLE.
PULL THE SEEDLING BACK
UP TO THE CORRECT
PLANTING DEPTH (THE
ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE 1
TO 3 INCHES BELOW THE
SOIL SURFACE). GENTLY
SHAKE THE SEEDLING TO
ALLOW THE ROOTS TO
STRAIGHTEN OUT. DO NOT
TWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE
ROOTS J-ROOTED.
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES
IN FRONT OF THE
SEEDLING AND PUSH THE
BLADE HALFWAY INTO
THE SOIL. TWIST AND
PUSH THE HANDLE
FORWARD TO CLOSE THE
TOP OF THE SLIT TO HOLD
THE SEEDLING IN PLACE.
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, DOWN TO
THE FULL DEPTH OF
THE BLADE.
PULL BACK ON THE
HANDLE TO CLOSE THE
BOTTOM OF THE
PLANTING HOLD. THEN
PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE
THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR
POCKETS AROUND THE
ROOT.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND
FIRM UP THE OPENING
WITH YOUR HEEL. BE
CAREFUL TO AVOID
DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
NOTES:
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER PLANTING AREA SHALL
BE DISKED, AS REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING.
2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY HANDLED PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION TO INSURE SURVIVAL.
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR
CROSS-SECTION, AND SHALL
BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4 INCHES
WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK AT
CENTER.
ROOTING PRUNING
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE
PRUNED TO AN APPORIATE
LENGTH TO PREVENT
J-ROOTING.
RESTORED
CHANNEL
BANKFULL
BUFFER WIDTH
VARIES
SPACING PER
PLANTING PLAN Section View
1
5.3
Bare Root Planting
Not to Scale
TOP OF BANK
LIVE STAKE (TYP)
SEE PLAN VIEW
FOR SPACING
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
(SEE DETAIL)
Plan View - Zone 2
2'

T
O

3
'

L
I
V
E

S
T
A
K
E
TA
P
E
R
E
D

A
T

B
O
T
T
O
M
1/2" TO 2"
DIAMETER
Live Stake Detail
NOTE:
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS
AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DIRECTED
BY THE ENGINEER.
TOE OF SLOPE
PLUG (TYP)
6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
3' - 5' SPACING FOR PLUGS
3' OUTSIDE TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
Plan View - Zone 1
6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
3' - 5' SPACING FOR PLUGS
2 - 3' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
Section View - Zone 1
TOP OF BANK
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
(SEE DETAIL)
TOE OF SLOPE
PLUG (TYP)
Section View - Zone 2
LIVE STAKE (TYP)
SEE PLAN VIEW
FOR SPACING
3'
2
5.3
Live Staking and Plugs
Not to Scale
48" CMP CULVERT WITH BAFFLES
INV. EL: 135.99' U/S
INV. EL: 135.82' D/S
24" CMP CULVERT
INV. EL: 137.79' U/S
INV. EL: 137.62' D/S
24" CMP CULVERT
INV. EL: 137.79' U/S
INV. EL: 137.62' D/S
OVERFLOW EL. 139.60
EMBED CULVERT 12" BEHIND
CULVERT BAFFLES AS SHOWN ON
PROFILE. BACKFILL WITH 50/50
MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP MATERIAL
SELECT FILL AS APPROVED
BY THE DESIGNER/ENGINEER
TIE ROAD TO EXISTING GRADETIE ROAD TO EXISTING GRADE
TOP 4" ABC STONE
TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
CREST EL. 141.00
1' DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
25' OVERFLOW CHANNEL ROAD CREST 30'
6" MIN. BEDDING
#57 STONE
MINIMUM 12" TOTAL
COVER OVER PIPE
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX
CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CLASS A & B OUTLET STABILIZATION
MAXIMUM 2(H):1(V) SIDE SLOPES
COVERED IN MINIMUM CLASS B STONE
MAXIMUM 2(H):1(V) SIDE SLOPES
COVERED IN MINIMUM CLASS B STONE
CREST EL. 141.0
24" CMP CULVERT
INV. EL: 137.79' U/S
INV. EL: 137.62' D/S
48" CMP CULVERT WITH BAFFLES
INV. EL: 135.99' U/S
INV. EL: 135.82' D/S
INLET STATION 130+17
OUTLET STATION 130+57
OVERFLOW CHANNEL (TYP)
SEE CROSS-SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS ROAD TOP WIDTH = 26'
24" CMP CULVERT
INV. EL: 137.79' U/S
INV. EL: 137.62' D/S
Sh
e
e
t
Ch
e
c
k
e
d

B
y
:
Jo
b

N
u
m
b
e
r
:
Dr
a
w
n

B
y
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
:
Da
t
e
:
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
:
49
7

B
r
a
m
s
o
n

C
t
,

S
u
i
t
e

1
0
4
Mo
u
n
t

P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
,

S
C

2
9
4
6
4
Te
l
:

8
4
3
.
2
7
7
.
6
2
2
1
DRA
F
T
N
X:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
W
0
2
1
9
6
_
C
a
s
e
y
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
a
d
d
\
P
l
a
n
s
\
0
2
1
9
6

-

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

D
e
t
a
i
l
.
d
w
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r

2
5
,

2
0
2
3
02
1
9
6
MK
AACR
5.
4
10
.
2
4
.
2
0
2
3
Ca
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e
Wa
y
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
De
t
a
i
l
s
Casey Creek - Internal Culvert Crossing
Not to Scale
1
5.4