20220664 Ver 2_CaseyCreek_100597_MP_2024_20240610

MITIGATION PLAN 
Final Report for DMS 
June 2024 
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 

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

June 4, 2024 

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

Attention:  Erin Davis 

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 Erin:  

We have reviewed the IRT’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 the IRT’s comments in your memo dated March 28, 2024.  Your original comments are provided 
below followed by our responses in bold italics.  
Specific Comments on Stream Mitigation Plan 
Maria Polizzi, NCDWR 
1. Please include a list of all soil amendments used on site in the As‐built and subsequent monitoring 
reports if applied. Soil test results are also a welcome inclusion in the appendix.  
Wildlands will seek to do this.  
2. DWR also recommends incorporating organic matter prior to planting, if possible, especially in areas 
with P2 cuts.  

Wildlands agrees and plans to incorporate organic matter, especially in areas with P2 cut. Soil 
amendments have been included in the General Notes of the plan sheets included with the final 
mitigation plan. 
3. DWR recommends that the performance standard for flow on intermittent channels be 60 
consecutive days of flow during the growing season. 

Wildlands will follow the updated guidance provided Erin Davis via email on May 8, 2024. This 
requires 90 consecutive days of streamflow for intermittent streams which can occur outside of 
the growing season. 30 consecutive days of streamflow is acceptable if benthic macroinvertebrate 
monitoring shows presence of benthos in the intermittent reaches proposed for credit. Last, on 
2
Erin’s advice, a statement was added to Section 10.0 Adaptive Management Plan that an 
alternative protocol may be proposed during the monitoring phase to still achieve the intermittent 
performance standard.  
4.Section 11.0: DWR would like more information about why 50 ft. buffer widths cannot be provided
across the entirety of the site. Although the 2016 guidance does not require a credit adjustment
under 5%, this is not ideal and buffer widths should (be) 50 ft or wider on all project streams unless
there is a significant constraint that prevents this from being possible. DWR also does not consider
wider buffers in other areas to be adequate justification, since these areas are proposed for
buffer/nutrient offset credit.
All of these areas are close to crossings or termini, such as Highway 13, the Casey Creek Reach 3
crossing, and the downstream project extent. This is necessary because streams meander and
approach the CE boundaries in the vicinity of the crossings and termini. So often the limiting CE
boundary is not the one parallel to the general direction of streamflow. Additionally, landowners
require a simplified CE with straight lines. This is the reason for the 2016 guidance and 5%
allowance.
5.Please include the buffer mitigation plan as an amendment to the draft plan.
It has been included as an appendix in the final mitigation plan.
6.Please note that these comments are only regarding the Stream and Wetland portion of this project.
Kate Merritt (DWR) will be reviewing the Appendix I‐Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Plan
separately. Additionally, all project components (stream/wetland and nutrient/buffer) must be
constructed simultaneously. The approval of one plan before the other does not allow for separate
construction timelines.
Wildlands is aware of this.  
7.DWR appreciates that the project area is shown on the historical aerials.
Thanks for the compliment.
8.Please include a figure showing all mitigation credit types on one map (stream/wetland and
buffer/NO). This should be included in the Figures section of the Appendix.
This figure has been added.
9.IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes: The IRT recommended culvert crossings on sand bed streams;
however, the Afton Branch crossing is proposed as a ford. Why was a culvert not proposed for this
crossing? There is also no specification provided for this ford.
This is not an active crossing, but rather the terminus to the project intended to not create an
isolated parcel on the south side. Nevertheless, to avoid future construction on the channel, we’ve
added a ford crossing to the middle of the riffle that was shown on the preliminary plan sheet.
This will allow for the sand bedload to pass through the system. A culvert would clog more easily
and potentially cause hydrologic trespass on the adjacent property immediately upstream. It’s
very likely that this crossing will be seldom used and certainly not by livestock.
10.DWR appreciates the diversity of species proposed for the buffer planting zone.
3

Thanks for the compliment.    

11. Consider installing a crest gage on Afton Branch. 
Wildlands will install a crest gage on Afton Branch.  
12. Section 6.3, Page 20: WEI states that slightly larger design discharges are proposed, leading to larger 
channels, which has been successful on past projects. What is the reasoning for this? What benefits 
have been found and what risks does WEI foresee if a smaller channel/discharge was proposed? It 
seems like higher discharge would be riskier, especially in a system with only moderate sediment 
inputs and a sand bed system with smaller particles.  
One of the benefits of slightly larger channels is reduced growth of vegetation within the channel. 
If vegetation becomes too thick, we have to treat it with herbicide, which is generally undesirable. 
One downside to a larger channel is difficulty with attaining bankfull flows. However, we believe 
the Casey Creek channels are only slightly oversized and will not have difficulty meeting the 
bankfull discharge requirements.  
13. Section 6.5.3, Page 25: This section explains that higher design discharge is proposed to maintain 
transport capacity, but aggradation is not currently an issue and sediment inputs are expected to go 
down as a result of the project. If degradation is a current problem, wouldn’t it be preferable to 
decrease the discharge? DWR is unsure whether hurricane resiliency is worth an increased need to 
armor the channel with larger rock. Won’t activated floodplains also help to improve hurricane 
resiliency without direct channel discharge needing to be this high?  
The unit stream power, which is a measure of transport capacity, is generally lower for the 
proposed conditions than the existing conditions at the proposed design discharge. As such, the 
channels are not oversized and should move the available sediment without aggrading or 
degrading. The hurricane resiliency comes from floodplain interaction.  

14. Design Sheet 1.1: An “existing drainage” is shown connecting to Casey Creek at STA 122+00 but is 
not shown on other maps or figures. What is the condition of this drainage? Could a BMP of some 
kind be utilized in this location? Please be sure to show drainages/ditches like this on the site map.  

This is a very shallow ditch and it will be planted within the conservation easement area.  
15. Design Sheet 5.1:  
a. Please provide more information about the Native Material Constructed Riffle. Will all 
material for this structure type be sources on site? Is it all stone material? Sizing is TBD, 
which makes it difficult to evaluate whether this structure type is appropriate for the 
location/ecoregion, especially if material will not be source locally. 
It is unlikely that material used in the Native Material Constructed Riffle will be found 
onsite.  The soil descriptions in the project area do not list any gravels or cobbles suitable 
for construction activities.   Riffle material will be sourced from nearby sand and gravel 
mines and will consist of a mixture of sand and gravel with the largest particles slightly 
exceeding the largest movable particles shown in the sediment transport section of the 
mitigation plan. 
As described in the May 8, 2024 IRT Teams call meeting minutes: 
4

John Hutton explained that in steeper sand bed systems like this, Wildlands has learned 
that using rock to provide grade control is the safest approach to maintaining system 
stability. Reference reaches in the area rely on dense networks of tree roots that can’t be 
created during construction. That requires several decades and the rock riffles will help it 
get there. Additionally, Wildlands expects that the riffles will embed with sand to some 
degree and that will provide a more natural appearance.  
Language to this effect has been added to the mitigation plan in Sections 6.1 (fifth 
paragraph) and 6.5.2 (last paragraph).  
b. There are multiple references to a riffle material table, but no table was found. DWR would 
like to review the sizing of the riffle material, so please include that in the final plan or 
provide a page number if it has been overlooked somewhere.  

The details have been changed to include riffle material sizing for all structures (angled log 
and native material constructed riffles). The D50 for the proposed riffles is 1‐3” and the 
largest material is Class A (2‐6”). A riffle material size table has been added to Sheet 5.2 of 
the plan set. 

16. Design Plans General: 
a. There are very few angled log riffles, and a lot of stone‐based riffles. Could more woody 
structure types be incorporated? From the particle size analysis, the largest diameter 
particles in the current system are 28 mm, and most are much smaller. DWR is concerned 
that the amount of rock proposed for this project will make the system less natural from 
that perspective. DWR is not opposed to occasional “immovable larger stone” in riffles but 
wants to avoid a significant replacement of native bed material with larger particle 
diameters.  

Although there are not many angled log riffles in the project, there are numerous log sills, 
many of which are directly below constructed riffles.  These sills will help to minimize 
downstream movement of riffle material as well as encourage scour below the sills to 
improve bedform diversity.  The rock used in the riffles will be sourced from nearby gravel 
and rock mines and consist of a mixture of sand and larger gravel particles.  The sand bed 
load will continue to move downstream through the project and will likely settle in with 
the riffle stone and function more like a typical sand bed system.  Note that although the 
largest particle size found was 28 mm, many of the sections had downcut to a dense 
clay/saprolite feature that is currently holding grade.  This material shows up as fine 
sediment in pebble counts which results in the small particle size.  The riffles used in the 
project will serve as grade control while functioning more naturally than the existing 
grade control features.   

b. Some riffles are not labeled on the plans and since the symbology is the same for all riffles, it 
is unclear what type of riffles these are.  
The riffles are now correctly labeled on the plan and profile sheets.  
c. There are several riffles that are quite long (~40 ft.), which feel like they are functioning 
more as channel hardening rather than creating bedform diversity. Is there a reason for 
these extra long riffles? Would a sequence of structures be able to provide similar function 
with greater uplift potential?  
5
The length of the riffles do not violate our design criteria, which consider ranges for stable 
pattern. Longer riffles are common in a sand bed system. There are about three riffles that 
are just under 40’, two of which are on Martha Branch. One is at the confluence with 
Casey Creek and the other spans the existing channel. 
d.It would be helpful if more grading details were shown on the plans. This would provide the
IRT with a better understanding of where P2 cuts are located, as well as their shape and size.
Grading is shown on the plan set with the final mitigation plan.
17.Is there a reason why Casey Creek Reach 1 is only a reference for pattern and not for profile,
discharge, etc.? It seems that this feature would be the most relevant reference since it is directly
upstream of the restoration reach.
Casey Creek Reach 1 is a bit incised. We know this because when using the existing TOB for
calculating design discharge, we get higher estimates than other sources. Also, tree roots are
frequently visible within the channel. If the channel is slightly incised, we’d rather not use that for
profile either.
18.Would it be possible to fully incorporate Wetland B in the conservation easement? This would help
prevent any future land uses from degrading the wetland and/or water quality in this area.
More than 200 feet of wetland B has been included perpendicular to lower Casey Creek and we
feel that is ample buffer to the stream channel.
Erin Davis, USACE 
1.Page 5, Section 3.1 – Thank you for investigating multiple planning resources to inform on potential
future project vicinity and watershed development.
2.Page 15, Section 3.5 – This section states that easement boundaries provide the required 50‐ft
minimum stream buffer. However, Section 11 identifies 4.3% of the site as having less than the 50‐ft
standard stream buffer width. Please make sure section information is consistent. Additionally,
Section 3.4 hydrology subsection asserts that site constraints necessitated the stream restoration be
designed as Priority 2, which has an affect on the potential functional uplift of the site and should be
discussed in Section 3.5 as a limited factor for achieving Priority 1 restoration.
Please see response above to DWR comment 4.
Added that in the vicinity of crossings, some buffer widths are not 50 feet. Added a discussion of
Priority 2 in Section 3.5.
3.Page 27, Section 6.6.4 –
a.The IRT site walk meeting minutes dated July 27, 2022, included a recommendation to
coordinate with NC DOT on a perched culvert under Highway 13 to allow a degree of
6

backwater which would aid in aquatic species passage and potentially reduce the 
amount of Priority 2 restoration. Please include a brief discussion on coordination with 
NC DOT.  
That has been added. Wildlands coordinated with NC DOT and determined the culvert 
design sizing includes 20% for baseflow. Consequently, Wildlands designed the stream 
invert below the culvert to create this effect and make the profile as high as possible.  

b. Typically, we ask that Priority 2 restoration be limited to tie‐in areas and that widening 
of the stream buffer be the first choice considered to reduce the risk of hydrologic 
trespass, which is based on Priority 2 restoration having functional uplift limitations. 
However, we also have concerns about the long term stability of a series of log drop 
structures as grade control in certain stream systems. Casey Creek Reach 3 appears to 
have a middle section of approximately 250 feet of Priority 1 restoration followed by a 
100‐foot straight channel log step system. What is the worst‐case scenario if the log 
step system fails after project closeout? What is the potential likelihood of 
structure/system failure. Would the log step system be necessary if the short section of 
Priority 1 was adjusted to a continuation of Priority 2?  

As discussed on the May 8, 2024 IRT Teams call and subsequently showed on the plan 
sheets, we replaced the log step system with a section that spreads the three feet of 
drop over a sequence of riffles that end in log steps. This will require fewer structures 
and is more stable.  
4. Page 27, Section 6.6.5 – During the IRT site walk, the IRT expressed concerns about the culvert just 
downstream of the project terminus. The meeting minutes note that it may be necessary for 
Wildlands to obtain a temporary construction easement to install a stable connection. Has this 
action been coordinated?  
Yes, we tried to do this. It turns out that the downstream landowner, who owns the land that 
includes the culvert and the entry road, lives out of state and is non‐responsive to all inquiries 
about the project. Consequently, we had to give up the thoughts of using that property at all and 
obtaining a temporary construction easement.  

5. Sheets 1.1 – 2.2 – The lack of approximate proposed grading contours and limits of disturbance lines 
made this review difficult, especially given considerable amounts of Priority 2 restoration. This 
information is required in the Final Mitigation Plan and since that will be the first opportunity the 
IRT has to review this information, it may result in additional questions/comments. Moving forward 
we recommend inclusion of rough/approx. grading and limit of disturbance lines in draft mitigation 
plans.  
The grading model is completed after the mitigation plan is submitted for review, or more or less 
simultaneous to the IRT review. We included the approximate limits on the concept map, as 
requested at the Site Visit. Grading is shown on the plan set with the final mitigation plan.  

7

6. Sheet 1.5 – What is the rationale for shifting the section of Casey Creek Reach 3 approximately 80 
feet to the east? Is this additional linear footage needed to achieve the downstream section of 
Priority 1 restoration?  
We shifted the section of Casey Creek Reach 3 80 feet to the east so that the alignment follows a 
path where the existing grade was slightly lower and aligns with existing drainage patterns. One 
added benefit is it increases the size of the conservation easement.  

7. Sheet 1.7 – Please callout the roadside ditch top of bank. Is the ditch running between the mapped 
wetland area and road fully excluded from the conservation easement? If not, will a portion of the 
ditch be filled? Will allowable ditch maintenance and offset boundary signage be address in the 
easement agreement and plat?  
The roadside ditch top of bank is shown on the plans with the TB label, as shown for other ditches 
and channels. The western side of the ditch aligns with the edge of the conservation easement. 
Grading to the ditch is not anticipated and it will not be maintained in the future. We will place 
regular signage so the adjacent landowner knows it should not be maintained.   
8. Sheet 5.1 – Chunky riffle is proposed constructed riffle type included in the design details. However, 
all of the project streams have been identified as sand bed systems. Were boulders and 20‐ft long 
cobble/gravel riffles observed in reference sand bed streams of similar watershed size and slope? 
What functions will these structures be providing? Have chunky riffles been successful in other sand 
bed stream restoration projects? 
Per the May 8, 2024 IRT Teams call, Wildlands removed chunky riffles in favor of native material 
riffles. Also, a sandbed system will have active bedload and this may embed the riffle; however, 
the coarser rock will remain, potentially providing habitat for macroinvertebrates. 
9. Sheet 5.3 – Please provide a detail for the proposed swale with pilot channel, including dimensions 
and materials.  
We provided a typical section, which includes dimensions, and a detail for buried log sills. This is 
all that’s needed for the contractor to build the proposed swale with pilot channel. It is very simple 
and should remain stable without matting. 
10. Figures – Please include a figure showing all mitigation credit types on one map, including all 
proposed stream and buffer/nutrient offset assets.  
We will do that.  
11. Figure 10 –  
a. Please shift the upstream flow gauge on Martha Branch further up to the photo point 
location. 
The change has been made. 
b. Please shift two fixed veg plots based on the figure markup provided. And due to 
concerns regarding vegetation establishment on Priority 2 bench and slope areas, please 
change the division of veg plot type to 3 random plots and 8 fixed plots.  
The changes have been made.  
c. Please add a photo point at the start of the BMP on Martha Branch, and shift photo 
points upstream and downstream of the culvert crossing (#1) closer to the structure. 
A photo point has been added to the start of the BMP on Martha Branch. Photo points 
upstream and downstream of the culvert crossing (#1) were not shifted. Wildlands will 
8

be collecting outlet and inlet photos of culvert crossing (#1) in addition to the photo 
points located upstream and downstream and will include these photographs within a 
separate log in baseline and annual monitoring reports.  

12. While we did not reiterate all concerns noted by DWR, we support their comments included above.  

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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page i June 2024 

PREPARED BY: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 
Raleigh, NC 27609 
(919) 851‐9986 

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 
Kaitlyn Hogarth, Lead Scientist 
Ty Williams, Construction Documents 
Angela Allen, PE, Lead Quality Assurance
Casey Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page i June 2024 
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 ...................................................................................... 16 
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 16 
4.3 401/404 ...................................................................................................................................... 16 
5.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 17 
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ............................................................................ 18 
6.1 Design Approach Overview ........................................................................................................ 18 
6.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 19 
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis ........................................................................................................... 19 
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 21 
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 24 
6.5.1 Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 24 
6.5.2 Competence Analysis .............................................................................................................. 24 
6.5.3 Sediment Transport Design Summary ..................................................................................... 25 
6.6 Stream Design Implementation .................................................................................................. 26 
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 .................................................................... 27 
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 ................................................................................................. 31 
9.0 Monitoring Plan ...................................................................................................................... 32 
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................................................... 32 
11.0 Determination of Credits ........................................................................................................ 33 
12.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 34 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page ii June 2024 
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 ......................................................................... 21 
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Martha Branch ............................................. 21 
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Afton Branch ................................................ 22 
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 .................................... 23 
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 .......................................................................................... 30 
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 Lidar Map 
Figure 5 Watershed Map 
Figure 6 Soils Map 
Figure 7 Reference Reach Map 
Figure 8 Design Discharge Analysis 
Figure 9a Concept Map 
Figure 9b Concept Map with Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Credits 
Figure 10 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 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page iii June 2024 
Appendix 7  Invasive Species Plan 
Appendix 8  Maintenance Plan 
Appendix 9  Credit Release Schedule 
Appendix 10 Financial Assurances 
Appendix 11 Buffer Mitigation Plan  
Appendix 12 Preliminary Plans 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 4 June 2024 
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 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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 5 June 2024 
 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 5) 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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 6 June 2024 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 7 June 2024 
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 6. 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 8 June 2024 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 9 June 2024 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 10 June 2024 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 11 June 2024 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 12 June 2024 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 13 June 2024 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 14 June 2024 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 15 June 2024 
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. There are limited 
exceptions to the 50‐foot buffer in the vicinity of crossings and conservation easement termini, such as 
the project downstream extent. 
The elevation of the Highway 13 culvert necessitates the use of Priority 2 restoration going into and out 
of that crossing. Afton Branch and the lower end of Casey Creek also require Priority 2 restoration 
because starting and ending elevations cannot be controlled. Wildlands has designed the Priority 2 
restoration in such a way that provides adequate floodplain width and interaction. Nearby Grantham 
Branch was constructed this way and is meeting performance and stability standards in the areas with 
Priority 2 restoration.  
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 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 16 June 2024 
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 
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.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 17 June 2024 
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 
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. 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 18 June 2024 
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.  
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 9a.  
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.  
Wildlands will employ rock riffles to provide grade control on the Site even though this is a sand bed 
system. Reference reaches in the area rely on dense networks of tree roots that can’t be created during 
construction. Root systems require several decades to form, and the rock riffles will provide grade 
control in the meantime. Additionally, Wildlands expects that the riffles will embed with sand to some 
degree and that will provide a more natural appearance. The material used on Site will be sourced from, 
in order of preference, local pea gravel mines that have larger waste material, nearby mitigation sites in 
the eastern Piedmont, and quarry‐sourced stone.  
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 Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 19 June 2024 
Design 
Reach 
Primary 
Stressors/Impairments Approach Mitigation Activities 
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.  
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) 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 20 June 2024 
 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 
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.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 21 June 2024 
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.  
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 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 22 June 2024 
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 

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 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 23 June 2024 
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 
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 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 24 June 2024 
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 
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.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 25 June 2024 
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. 
Some sections of the design, such as lower Casey Reach 3 where the stream transitions from Priority 1 
to existing grade, include steeper riffles with profile slopes that are 3 percent. For this, the riffle material 
includes a portion of Class A stone (2‐6 inches) to ensure stream stability. A riffle stone size table is 
included on Sheet 5.2 of the plan set.  
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 
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.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 26 June 2024 
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. 
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.  
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.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 27 June 2024 
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 9a 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 
9a.  
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.  
Wildlands coordinated with NC DOT to determine the culvert design includes 20% of its capacity is for 
baseflow. Consequently, Wildlands designed the stream invert below the culvert to create this effect 
and make the profile as high as possible.  
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.  
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 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 28 June 2024 
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 construction 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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 29 June 2024 
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. 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 30 June 2024 
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 90 consecutive days of flow on intermittent restoration and 
enhancement reaches or 30 consecutive days if benthic 
macroinvertebrate monitoring shows presence of benthos in the 
intermittent reaches proposed for credit. See Section 10.0 Adaptive 
Management for possibility of a future alternative protocol.  
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.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 31 June 2024 
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.  
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. 

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 32 June 2024 
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.  
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 2 Crest Gauges 
3 Flow Gauges 1 Flow Gauge Quarterly 4 
Vegetation 100 m2 Plot 8 Fixed, 
3 Random N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 
5, and 7 5 
Visual Assessment  1 Semi‐Annual 6 
Reference Photos Stream Photographs 22 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. 
This procedure will hold true for any future problems related to the Priority 2 drop in Casey Creek Reach 
3 and other locations that have higher slopes for a sand bed system.  
Based on benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring before construction at Casey Creek, only one benthic 
macroinvertebrate was found in a downstream, perennial reach. Consequently, there are low 
expectations for finding benthos in the post‐restoration intermittent channels. As such, there may be an 
alternative protocol proposed during the monitoring phase to still achieve the intermittent stream 
performance standard.  

Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 33 June 2024 
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 
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  Final Mitigation Plan 
DMS ID No. 100597 Page 34 June 2024 
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 

!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!P
!P
!P
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Case
y

C
r
e
e
k
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Afton

B
r
a
n
c
h
A
B
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
RAL1
RAL4
RAL2
RAL3
XS4
XS5
XS6
13
13
U S H i g h w a y 1 3 S
13
13
U S H i g h w a y 1 3 S
ÛÚ
ÛÚ
Figure 2 Site Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2021 Aerial Photography
¹Wayne County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland
Existing Open Water Feature
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Ditch
Non-Project Stream
Cross Section
Existing Drain Tile
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
ÛÚ Existing Culvert
!(Bedrock
0 300150 Feet

!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
!P
!P
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Case
y

C
r
e
e
k
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Afton B
r
a
n
c
h
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
BMP
B
A
Reach 4
13
13
US

H
i ghwa y

1
3

S
13
13
US

H
i ghway

1
3

S
¬«1
¬«2
Figure 10 Monitoring Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2021 Aerial Photography
¹Wayne County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland
Proposed Internal Crossing
Proposed External Crossing
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Preservation
No Stream Credit
Proposed BMP
Non-Project Stream
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
Proposed Monitoring Components
Fixed Vegetation Plot
Random Vegetation Plot
Cross Section
GF Photo Point
!A Flow Gauge
!A Crest Gauge
0 300150 Feet
¬«1
¬«2

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, NCSM, 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
Casey Creek Sediment DistribuƟon 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
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

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
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 

FORM-LBD-MGA
®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Cotton Creek Mitigation Site
US Hwy 13
Goldsboro, NC 27530
Inquiry Number: 6676512.2s
September 24, 2021
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary 20
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting Source Map A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched PSGR-1
TC6676512.2s Page 1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2020 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6676512.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
US HWY 13
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530
COORDINATES
35.2967260 - 35˚ 17’ 48.21’’Latitude (North):
78.1835440 - 78˚ 11’ 0.75’’Longitude (West):
Zone 17Universal Tranverse Mercator:
756115.6UTM X (Meters):
3909390.2UTM Y (Meters):
151 ft. above sea levelElevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
5947410 GRANTHAM, NCTarget Property Map:
2013Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
20141018Portions of Photo from:
USDASource:
6676512.2s Page 2
B5 CASEY’S 76 GROCERY 3605 HWY 13 SOUTH IMD Lower 1076, 0.204, SW
B4 DANNIE’S GAS & GROCE 3590 US 13 SOUTH UST Lower 875, 0.166, SW
A3 GRANTHAM SUPPLY & SU 3388 US HWY 13 SOUTH LUST Lower 705, 0.134, SE
A2 GRANTHAM TRUE VALUE 3396 U.S. HIGHWAY 13 LUST, INST CONTROL Lower 703, 0.133, SE
A1 GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE 3396 US HWY 13 S. LUST, IMD Lower 593, 0.112, SSE
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
US HWY 13
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6676512.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-VSQG RCRA - Very Small Quantity Generators (Formerly Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators)
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6676512.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROLS Institutional Controls Sites List
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
DEBRIS Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
LCID Land-Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
SWRCY Recycling Center Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6676512.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
ODI Open Dump Inventory
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS Spills Incident Listing
SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80 SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD Records Of Decision
RMP Risk Management Plans
RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS PCB Activity Database System
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES Abandoned Mines
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6676512.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites
ECHO Enforcement & Compliance History Information
FUELS PROGRAM EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS ASBESTOS
COAL ASH Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP Animal Operation Permits Listing
MINES MRDS Mineral Resources Data System
PCSRP Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
SEPT HAULERS Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
CCB Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases.
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6676512.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents Management Database contains an inventory
of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environment, &
Natural Resources’ Incidents by Address.
A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/30/2021 has revealed that there are 3
LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE 3396 US HWY 13 S. SSE 0 - 1/8 (0.112 mi.) A1 8
Incident Phase: Closed Out
Product Type: PETROLEUM
Incident Number: 13426
Current Status: File Located in Archives
GRANTHAM TRUE VALUE 3396 U.S. HIGHWAY 13 SE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.133 mi.) A2 11
Incident Phase: Closed Out
Product Type: PETROLEUM
Incident Number: 16371
Current Status: File Located in Archives
GRANTHAM SUPPLY & SU 3388 US HWY 13 SOUTH SE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.134 mi.) A3 13
Incident Phase: Closed Out
Product Type: PETROLEUM
Incident Number: 47028
Current Status: File Located in House
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under
Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data come from the Department of
Environment & Natural Resources’ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database.
A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/30/2021 has revealed that there is 1 UST
site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____
DANNIE’S GAS & GROCE 3590 US 13 SOUTH SW 1/8 - 1/4 (0.166 mi.) B4 15
Tank Status: Current
Tank Status: Removed
Facility Id: 00-0-0000027577
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring.
A review of the INST CONTROL list, as provided by EDR, and dated 09/04/2020 has revealed that there
is 1 INST CONTROL site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____
GRANTHAM TRUE VALUE 3396 U.S. HIGHWAY 13 SE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.133 mi.) A2 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6676512.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Records of Emergency Release Reports
IMD: Incident Management Database.
A review of the IMD list, as provided by EDR, and dated 07/30/2021 has revealed that there are 2 IMD
sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE 3396 US HWY 13 S. SSE 0 - 1/8 (0.112 mi.) A1 8
Facility Id: 13426
CASEY’S 76 GROCERY 3605 HWY 13 SOUTH SW 1/8 - 1/4 (0.204 mi.) B5 18
Facility Id: 00-0-0000003732
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6676512.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 5 records.
Site Name Database(s)____________ ____________
SOLA ELECTRIC (HEVI-DUTY) (DOWZER PRP
NC NATURAL GAS/GOLDSBORO CONSTRUCT LUST
N.C. NATURAL GAS CORP. LUST TRUST
STACKHOUSE, INC. LUST TRUST
HIGHWAY 70 PHILLIPS 66 LUST TRUST
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
1 60
1
6
0
1
60
1
20
160
6
1
60
1 6 0
1 6 0
1 60
16

0
160
1 6 0
1
6
0
160
16 0
1
6 0
1
60
1 6 0
1 60160
1
6
0
160
1 2 0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1 20
2 0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1 20
1 2 0
120
120
120
16
0
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
1 6 0
160
1 60
1
6
0
160
16
0
1
6
0
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NPL
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Proposed NPL
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NPL LIENS
Federal Delisted NPL site list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Delisted NPL
Federal CERCLIS list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500FEDERAL FACILITY
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SEMS
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SEMS-ARCHIVE
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CORRACTS
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500RCRA-TSDF
Federal RCRA generators list
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-LQG
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-SQG
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-VSQG
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LUCIS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US ENG CONTROLS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US INST CONTROLS
Federal ERNS list
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPERNS
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NC HSDS
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000SHWS
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWF/LF
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500OLI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DEBRIS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LCID
TC6676512.2s Page 4
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
3 NR NR 0 2 1 0.500LUST
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LAST
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN LUST
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LUST TRUST
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FEMA UST
1 NR NR NR 1 0 0.250UST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250AST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250INDIAN UST
State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
1 NR NR 0 1 0 0.500INST CONTROL
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500VCP
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN VCP
State and tribal Brownfields sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500BROWNFIELDS
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US BROWNFIELDS
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500HIST LF
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWRCY
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN ODI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500ODI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DEBRIS REGION 9
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500IHS OPEN DUMPS
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS HIST CDL
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS CDL
Local Land Records
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPLIENS 2
Records of Emergency Release Reports
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPHMIRS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSPILLS
2 NR NR 0 1 1 0.500IMD
TC6676512.2s Page 5
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSPILLS 90
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSPILLS 80
Other Ascertainable Records
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA NonGen / NLR
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUDS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000DOD
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS FIN ASSUR
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPEPA WATCH LIST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.2502020 COR ACTION
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPTSCA
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPTRIS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSSTS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000ROD
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRMP
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRAATS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPPRP
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPPADS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPICIS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPFTTS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPMLTS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPCOAL ASH DOE
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500COAL ASH EPA
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPPCB TRANSFORMER
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRADINFO
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPHIST FTTS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPDOT OPS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CONSENT
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000INDIAN RESERV
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUSRAP
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500UMTRA
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPLEAD SMELTERS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS AIRS
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250US MINES
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250ABANDONED MINES
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPFINDS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPDOCKET HWC
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000UXO
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPECHO
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FUELS PROGRAM
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPAIRS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPASBESTOS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500COAL ASH
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250DRYCLEANERS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPFinancial Assurance
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPNPDES
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUIC
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPAOP
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPMINES MRDS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500PCSRP
TC6676512.2s Page 6
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSEPT HAULERS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500CCB
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000EDR MGP
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.125EDR Hist Auto
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.125EDR Hist Cleaner
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRGA HWS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRGA LF
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRGA LUST
7 0 0 0 5 2 0- Totals --
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC6676512.2s Page 7
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
3396 US HWY 13 S.RP Address:
9196892985Telephone:
JIM GRANTHAMContact Person:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE H.Company:
WASRegion:
WRCRegional Officer Project Mgr:
Not reportedTestlat:
35.2972 -78.1652Lat/Long Decimal:
FalseValid:
NError Code:
0Error Flag:
TrueRPOP:
TrueRPOW:
0Reel Num:
147CD Num:
FalseRPL:
3PETOPT:
Cleanups to 2L.0202 standardsRBCA GW:
File Located in ArchivesCurrent Status:
0Release Detection:
Not reportedLUR Filed:
NoFlag1:
NoFlag:
YesMTBE1:
NoMTBE:
ResidentialLand Use:
Not reportedSite Risk Reason:
Not reportedPhase Of LSA Req:
Not reportedSite Priority:
Not reportedNORR Issue Date:
Not reportedNOV Issue Date:
Not reportedCorrective Action Plan Type:
LRisk Class Based On Review:
LRisk Classification:
COMMERCIALCommercial/NonCommercial UST Site:
0# Of Supply Wells:
REGULATEDTank Regulated Status:
ResidentialLevel Of Soil Cleanup Achieved:
02/23/1995Close Out:
Not reportedClosure Request:
12/29/1994Cleanup:
12/29/1994Date Occur:
02/23/1995Date Reported:
PETROLEUMProduct Type:
Leak-undergroundSource Type:
Groundwater/BothContamination Type:
13426Incident Number:
WA-1152UST Number:
00-0-000Facility ID:
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530City,State,Zip:
3396 US HWY 13 S.Address:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE H.Name:
LUST:
593 ft. Site 1 of 3 in cluster A
0.112 mi.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
145 ft.

< 1/8 GOLDSBORO, NC 27530
SSE IMD3396 US HWY 13 S. N/A
A1 LUSTGRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE H. S102868347
TC6676512.2s Page 8
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Not reportedIncident ID:
Not reportedUST ID:
JIM GRANTHAMOperator:
SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN DURING CLOSURE CONFIRMED MAJOR SOIL CONTAMINATION.Incident Desc:
2/23/1995Submit Date:
12/29/1994Date Occurred:
GOLDSBORO, NCCity,State,Zip:
3396 US HWY 13 S.Address:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE H.Name:
13426Facility ID:
IMD:
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
2/23/1995Close-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Signed:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
Not reportedNORR Issued:
2/21/1995NOV Issued:
Closed OutIncident Phase:
2/12/1999Last Modified:
Not reportedUst Number:
Not reportedSource:
Not reportedCause:
Not reportedErr Type:
PirfSource Code:
Q330Release Code:
Not reportedPirf/Min Soil:
15 Minute Quad:
37#5 Minute Quad:
0Samples Include:
Not reportedWells Affected Y/N:
Not reportedPriority Update:
Not reportedSite Priority:
1Location:
5Type:
6Operation Type:
4Ownership:
JIM GRANTHAMOwner/Operator:
SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN DURING CLOSURE CONFIRMED MAJOR SOIL CONTAMINATION.Description Of Incident:
2/23/1995Date Reported:
12/29/1994Date Occurred:
13426Facility Id:
PIRF:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
6/4/02and 6/6/02
NFA issued May 8, 2002and public notification receipts received
SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN DURING CLOSURE CONFIRMED MAJOR SOIL CONTAMINATION.Comments:
WAYNERP County:
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530RP City,St,Zip:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE H. (Continued) S102868347
TC6676512.2s Page 9
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Not reportedRP Operator?:
Not reportedRP Owner?:
Not reportedReference Number for Media Disk for Archived Record:
Not reportedPollutant Type Present:
Not reportedRBCA GW:
Not reportedRBCA GW Codes:
Not reportedRecord Status:
Not reportedDate Cleanup Initiated:
Not reportedDate Land Use Restriction Filed:
Not reportedMTBE in Groundwater Y/N/U Yes, No or Unknown:
Not reportedFacility Phone Number:
Not reportedMTBE in Well Y/N/U Yes, No or Unknown:
Not reportedNumber of Supply Wells Located on Property:
Not reportedExtent of Contamination:
Not reportedDate Case Closed:
Not reportedDate Close Review Requested From RP or Owner:
Not reportedRBCA:
Not reportedCorrective Action Plan Selected - up to 5:
Not reportedUse of Land, Industrial:
-78.16527777Longitude:
35.29722222Latitude:
Not reportedIntermediate Condition Present:
Q3305 Min Quad:
Not reported7.5 Min Quad:
Not reportedInitial reported risk of incident (never changes):
1Samples Include:
3Sampled By:
Not reportedCurrent Risk Condition:
FacilityLocation:
GASOLINE/DIESELType:
Not reportedSite Priority:
0Num Affected:
Not reportedPhase 1 or Phase 2:
Not reportedNotice of Violation:
Not reportedWells Affected:
Not reportedNotice of Regulatory Requirement:
Not reportedPriority Update:
Not reportedWhether Tank is Regulated:
Not reportedSite Priority:
Not reportedWhether Tank is Commercial or Non Commercial:
Not reportedDate Incident Reported:
Not reportedPetroleum Type:
1Location:
3Type:
3Source:
GASOLINE/DIESEL/KEROSENESource of Contamination:
Not reportedResponsible Party County:
CommercialOperation Type:
PrivateOwnership:
Not reportedResponsible Party City,State,Zip:
Not reportedResponsible Party Mailing Address:
6Operation:
Not reportedResponsible Party Contact Name:
4Ownership:
Not reportedResponsible Party/Company Name:
Not reportedRegional Office:
Not reportedInitials of UST Regional Contact:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE H. (Continued)S102868347
TC6676512.2s Page 10
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
1995-02-23 00:00:00Close-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Sighned:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
Not reportedNORR Issued:
1995-02-21 00:00:00NOV Issued:
COIncident Phase:
1999-02-12 00:00:00Last Modified:
13426Facility ID:
Status:
Not reportedRP Landowner?:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY TRUE VALUE H. (Continued) S102868347
0Release Detection:
04/26/2002LUR Filed:
NoFlag1:
NoFlag:
YesMTBE1:
NoMTBE:
ResidentialLand Use:
Not reportedSite Risk Reason:
Not reportedPhase Of LSA Req:
Not reportedSite Priority:
Not reportedNORR Issue Date:
Not reportedNOV Issue Date:
Not reportedCorrective Action Plan Type:
LRisk Class Based On Review:
LRisk Classification:
COMMERCIALCommercial/NonCommercial UST Site:
0# Of Supply Wells:
REGULATEDTank Regulated Status:
ResidentialLevel Of Soil Cleanup Achieved:
05/08/2002Close Out:
Not reportedClosure Request:
07/19/1996Cleanup:
07/19/1996Date Occur:
07/19/1996Date Reported:
PETROLEUMProduct Type:
Leak-undergroundSource Type:
Groundwater/BothContamination Type:
16371Incident Number:
WA-27029UST Number:
00-0-000Facility ID:
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530City,State,Zip:
3396 U.S. HIGHWAY 13 SOUTHAddress:
GRANTHAM TRUE VALUE HARDWAREName:
LUST:
703 ft. Site 2 of 3 in cluster A
0.133 mi.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
147 ft.

1/8-1/4 GOLDSBORO, NC 27530
SE INST CONTROL3396 U.S. HIGHWAY 13 SOUTH N/A
A2 LUSTGRANTHAM TRUE VALUE HARDWARE S111161149
TC6676512.2s Page 11
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Signed:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
Not reportedNORR Issued:
Not reportedNOV Issued:
Closed OutIncident Phase:
5/8/2002Last Modified:
Not reportedUst Number:
Not reportedSource:
Not reportedCause:
Not reportedErr Type:
PirfSource Code:
Q32ORelease Code:
Not reportedPirf/Min Soil:
15 Minute Quad:
47#5 Minute Quad:
0Samples Include:
NWells Affected Y/N:
7/29/1999Priority Update:
160HSite Priority:
1Location:
3Type:
6Operation Type:
4Ownership:
JAMES H. GRANTHAMOwner/Operator:
FREE PRODUCT AND SOIL CONTAM. HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED ON-SITE.Description Of Incident:
10/11/1996Date Reported:
3/15/1996Date Occurred:
16371Facility Id:
PIRF:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
SENT FOR ARCHIVING MAY 2015;Comments:
Not reportedRP County:
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530RP City,St,Zip:
3396 US HIGHWAY 13 SOUTHRP Address:
Not reportedTelephone:
JIM GRANTHAMContact Person:
GRANTHAM TRUE VALUE HARDWARECompany:
WASRegion:
RMBRegional Officer Project Mgr:
Not reportedTestlat:
35.2972 -78.1641Lat/Long Decimal:
FalseValid:
NError Code:
0Error Flag:
TrueRPOP:
TrueRPOW:
0Reel Num:
570CD Num:
TrueRPL:
3PETOPT:
Cleanups to alternate standardsRBCA GW:
File Located in ArchivesCurrent Status:
GRANTHAM TRUE VALUE HARDWARE (Continued)S111161149
TC6676512.2s Page 12
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
564168.81116Y Coord:
2249394.4481X Coord:
Not reportedPlat Date:
Not reportedPlat:
Recorded 4-25-2002Deed Date:
Not reportedDeed:
Notice and RestrictionInstrument:
Not reportedPlat PG:
Not reportedPlat BK:
Not reportedDeed PG:
Not reportedDeed BK:
EffectiveInstrument Status:
Not reportedPlant Reception Date:
NoneCertification:
Media Restrictions OnlyAllowed Use:
Multi-MediaRestricted Media:
4/25/2002Received Date:
UST SystemContamination Source:
Multi COCCOC:
No Further ActionProject Status:
Underground Storage Tank SectionDWM Program:
Washington Regional Office [phone]DWM Contact:
2557Object ID:
WA-27029Project Number:
GOLDSBORO, NCCity,State,Zip:
3396 U.S. HIGHWAY 13 SOUTHAddress:
GRANTHAM TRUE VALUE HARDWAREName:
INST CONTROL:
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
5/8/2002Close-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
GRANTHAM TRUE VALUE HARDWARE (Continued) S111161149
REGULATEDTank Regulated Status:
Soil to GroundwaterLevel Of Soil Cleanup Achieved:
10/12/2020Close Out:
Not reportedClosure Request:
04/17/2020Cleanup:
04/17/2020Date Occur:
05/12/2020Date Reported:
PETROLEUMProduct Type:
Leak-undergroundSource Type:
Groundwater/BothContamination Type:
47028Incident Number:
WA-27712UST Number:
00-0-000Facility ID:
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530City,State,Zip:
3388 US HWY 13 SOUTHAddress:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY & SUPERMARKETName:
LUST:
705 ft. Site 3 of 3 in cluster A
0.134 mi.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
147 ft.

1/8-1/4 GOLDSBORO, NC 27530
SE 3388 US HWY 13 SOUTH N/A
A3 LUSTGRANTHAM SUPPLY & SUPERMARKET S126204874
TC6676512.2s Page 13
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
3Type:
6Operation Type:
4Ownership:
Not reportedOwner/Operator:
New Release.
Failed Gas UST spill bucket, GW Benzene 2x closure levels for 16371.Description Of Incident:
Not reportedDate Reported:
Not reportedDate Occurred:
47028Facility Id:
PIRF:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
requirement.
existing NRP (Book 1940, pages 507-510). CNFA sent 8/5/2020 with PN
evidence of a new release. Survey documents Low risk. Closed via
and other constituents not seen in 2002 (TAA ,TBA, etc.). Recorded as
impacts, with benzene > 2x levels seen at 2002 LSA for Incident 16371
Check used existing MW for GW check in April 2020. Detected GW
failed for gas UST spill bucket July 2018. Repaired Aug 2018. Site
See earlier incidents at this site: 13426 and 16371. Hydrostatic testComments:
Not reportedRP County:
Goldsboro, NC 27530RP City,St,Zip:
3396 US Hwy 13 SRP Address:
9199201613Telephone:
Ted GranthamContact Person:
Grantham Supply & SupermarketCompany:
WASRegion:
JMERegional Officer Project Mgr:
Not reportedTestlat:
35.2971 -78.1644Lat/Long Decimal:
FalseValid:
NError Code:
Not reportedError Flag:
TrueRPOP:
TrueRPOW:
Not reportedReel Num:
Not reportedCD Num:
TrueRPL:
3PETOPT:
Cleanups to alternate standardsRBCA GW:
File Located in HouseCurrent Status:
Not reportedRelease Detection:
04/26/2002LUR Filed:
Not reportedFlag1:
NoFlag:
UnknownMTBE1:
NoMTBE:
ResidentialLand Use:
Not reportedSite Risk Reason:
1Phase Of LSA Req:
Not reportedSite Priority:
Not reportedNORR Issue Date:
Not reportedNOV Issue Date:
Not reportedCorrective Action Plan Type:
LRisk Class Based On Review:
URisk Classification:
COMMERCIALCommercial/NonCommercial UST Site:
0# Of Supply Wells:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY & SUPERMARKET (Continued) S126204874
TC6676512.2s Page 14
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
Not reportedClose-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Signed:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
Not reportedNORR Issued:
Not reportedNOV Issued:
Closed OutIncident Phase:
10/12/2020Last Modified:
2Ust Number:
FSource:
9Cause:
7Err Type:
Not reportedSource Code:
Not reportedRelease Code:
Not reportedPirf/Min Soil:
Not reported5 Minute Quad:
Y7#5 Minute Quad:
Not reportedSamples Include:
NWells Affected Y/N:
Not reportedPriority Update:
Not reportedSite Priority:
1Location:
GRANTHAM SUPPLY & SUPERMARKET (Continued) S126204874
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
4000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
Not reportedPerm Close Date:
09/23/1983Installed Date:
CurrentTank Status:
1Tank Id:
-78.17264Longitude:
35.29504Latitude:
WayneFIPS County Desc:
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530Contact City/State/Zip:
Not reportedContact Address2:
3590 US 13 SOUTHContact Address1:
DANNIE . FAIRCLOTHContact:
00-0-0000027577Facility Id:
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530City,State,Zip:
3590 US 13 SOUTHAddress:
DANNIE’S GAS & GROCERYName:
UST:
875 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster B
0.166 mi.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
145 ft.

1/8-1/4 GOLDSBORO, NC 27530
SW 3590 US 13 SOUTH N/A
B4 USTDANNIE’S GAS & GROCERY U001203672
TC6676512.2s Page 15
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
Not reportedLeak Detection Name:
Catchment BasinSpill Protection Name:
Auto Shutoff DeviceOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
0Manifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
4000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
Not reportedPerm Close Date:
09/23/1983Installed Date:
CurrentTank Status:
3Tank Id:
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
Not reportedLeak Detection Name:
Catchment BasinSpill Protection Name:
Auto Shutoff DeviceOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
0Manifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
4000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
Not reportedPerm Close Date:
09/23/1983Installed Date:
CurrentTank Status:
2Tank Id:
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
Not reportedLeak Detection Name:
Catchment BasinSpill Protection Name:
Auto Shutoff DeviceOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
0Manifold Tank:
DANNIE’S GAS & GROCERY (Continued) U001203672
TC6676512.2s Page 16
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
4000Tank Capacity:
DieselProduct Name:
Not reportedPerm Close Date:
09/23/1983Installed Date:
CurrentTank Status:
6Tank Id:
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
UnknownLeak Detection Name:
UnknownSpill Protection Name:
UnknownOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
Not reportedManifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
550Tank Capacity:
Kerosene, Kero MixProduct Name:
12/31/1990Perm Close Date:
09/23/1983Installed Date:
RemovedTank Status:
5Tank Id:
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
Not reportedLeak Detection Name:
Catchment BasinSpill Protection Name:
Auto Shutoff DeviceOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
0Manifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
4000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
Not reportedPerm Close Date:
09/23/1983Installed Date:
CurrentTank Status:
4Tank Id:
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
DANNIE’S GAS & GROCERY (Continued) U001203672
TC6676512.2s Page 17
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Click here to access the North Carolina DEQ records for this facility:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
Not reportedLeak Detection Name:
Catchment BasinSpill Protection Name:
Auto Shutoff DeviceOverfill Protection Name:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
0Manifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
DANNIE’S GAS & GROCERY (Continued) U001203672
Not reportedSite Priority:
Not reportedNum Affected:
Not reportedPhase 1 or Phase 2:
Not reportedNotice of Violation:
Not reportedWells Affected:
Not reportedNotice of Regulatory Requirement:
Not reportedPriority Update:
REGULATEDWhether Tank is Regulated:
Not reportedSite Priority:
COMMERCIALWhether Tank is Commercial or Non Commercial:
1993-10-25 00:00:00Date Incident Reported:
PETROLEUMPetroleum Type:
Not reportedLocation:
Not reportedType:
3Source:
GASOLINE/DIESEL/KEROSENESource of Contamination:
Not reportedResponsible Party County:
Not reportedOperation Type:
Not reportedOwnership:
GOLDSBORO, NC 27530Responsible Party City,State,Zip:
906 S GEORGE STResponsible Party Mailing Address:
Not reportedOperation:
Not reportedResponsible Party Contact Name:
Not reportedOwnership:
DUMAS OIL COMPANYResponsible Party/Company Name:
WASRegional Office:
EDPInitials of UST Regional Contact:
Not reportedIncident ID:
WA-25743UST ID:
Not reportedOperator:
Not reportedIncident Desc:
Not reportedSubmit Date:
Not reportedDate Occurred:
GRANTHAM, NC 27530City,State,Zip:
3605 HWY 13 SOUTHAddress:
CASEY’S 76 GROCERYName:
00-0-0000003732Facility ID:
IMD:
1076 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster B
0.204 mi.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
142 ft.

1/8-1/4 GRANTHAM, NC 27530
SW 3605 HWY 13 SOUTH N/A
B5 IMDCASEY’S 76 GROCERY S127487007
TC6676512.2s Page 18
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
FalseRP Landowner?:
TrueRP Operator?:
TrueRP Owner?:
69Reference Number for Media Disk for Archived Record:
GASOLINE/DIESEL/KEROSENEPollutant Type Present:
Not reportedRBCA GW:
Not reportedRBCA GW Codes:
ARCHIVED RECORDRecord Status:
Not reportedDate Cleanup Initiated:
Not reportedDate Land Use Restriction Filed:
UMTBE in Groundwater Y/N/U Yes, No or Unknown:
8004865925Facility Phone Number:
0MTBE in Well Y/N/U Yes, No or Unknown:
0Number of Supply Wells Located on Property:
NoneExtent of Contamination:
1993-10-25 00:00:00Date Case Closed:
Not reportedDate Close Review Requested From RP or Owner:
Not reportedRBCA:
Not reportedCorrective Action Plan Selected - up to 5:
Not reportedUse of Land, Industrial:
0Longitude:
0Latitude:
Not reportedIntermediate Condition Present:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
Not reported7.5 Min Quad:
LInitial reported risk of incident (never changes):
Not reportedSamples Include:
Not reportedSampled By:
Not reportedCurrent Risk Condition:
Not reportedLocation:
Not reportedType:
CASEY’S 76 GROCERY (Continued)S127487007
TC6676512.2s Page 19

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 MapCasey Creek Mitigation SiteNeuse 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 MapCasey Creek Mitigation SiteNeuse 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 MapCasey Creek Mitigation SiteNeuse 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 MapCasey Creek Mitigation SiteNeuse River Basin (03020201)0 500250 Feet
Grantham USGS 7.5 MinuteTopographic Quadrangle
Proposed Conservation Easement
¹
Wayne County, NC
Figure 4 Lidar MapCasey Creek Mitigation SiteNeuse 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 MapCasey Creek Mitigation SiteNeuse 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 MapCasey Creek Mitigation SiteNeuse 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 draft Mitigation Plan comments call 
      Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
      Neuse River Basin CU 03020201; Wayne County, NC 
      USACE Action ID: SAW‐2022‐01239 
      DWR# 20220664 v2 

DATE:    Wednesday, May 8, 2024 

LOCATION:  US Highway 13 
Grantham, NC 

Attendees 
Erin Davis, USACE 
Maria Polizzi, DWR 
Travis Wilson, WRC 
Todd Tugwell, USACE 
Jeremiah Dow, NCDMS 
John Hutton, Wildlands 
Chris Roessler, Wildlands 

Materials 
 Wildlands Engineering Casey Creek Draft Mitigation Plan 
 Wildlands Comment‐Response Letter 
 90% Plan Sheets 
 Mitigation Plan Concept Map 

Meeting Notes 
The primary purpose of this meeting was to go over questions and concerns that remained after the IRT 
considered the draft mitigation plan comment‐response letter. The three main topics were: 
 Monitoring requirements 
 Use of long riffles with larger rock 
 Design for Casey Creek R3 
For monitoring requirements, the IRT has developed some guidance for requiring minimal flow on intermittent 
channels. This requirement is on a case‐by‐case basis but would apply to Casey Creek. Erin Davis has provided 
the written documentation to Wildlands so it can be included in the final Mitigation Plan.  

Also, the IRT suggested that Wildlands consider a crest gage on Afton Branch. John Hutton said we would install 
one since this isn’t a resource‐intensive requirement.  

The IRT requested an explanation of why longer riffles with material that’s coarser than what is observed in the 
existing channels is used. They would prefer a more natural approach that focuses on wood. John Hutton 
explained that in steeper sand bed systems like this, Wildlands has learned that using rock to provide grade 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 2 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
May 8, 2024 IRT Discussion of Draft MP 
control is the safest approach to maintaining system stability. Reference reaches in the area rely on dense 
networks of tree roots that can’t be created during construction. That requires several decades and the rock 
riffles will help it get there. Additionally, Wildlands expects that the riffles will embed with sand to some degree 
and that will provide a more natural appearance. Wildlands agreed to remove the chunky riffles from the plan 
set and replace them with native material riffles. The material used on site will be sourced from a combination 
of local pea gravel mines and an eastern Piedmont mitigation site. The pea gravel mines sometimes have larger 
waste material that would be good for the site. Absent that, rock mined from nearby mitigation sites will be 
used. This will be a mix of more native‐appearing stone. Finally, it’s possible a small amount of quarry‐sourced 
class A & B rock will be used if that is not obtainable from the other sources; this would be to ensure suitable 
grade control. Wildlands will provide the IRT photos of stone selected for Casey Creek prior to construction 
commencement.  

Also, John explained that riffle length is a function of the channel geometry, which is dependent on the drainage 
area and channel size.  

Last, Erin Davis communicated that the IRT has seen problems with log drop sequences such as used at the 
downstream end of Casey Creek Reach 3. As a result, she wondered if relying on more of a Priority 2 approach 
would be preferable. John agreed that the log drop sequence is cause for concern and Wildlands will replace 
that with a riffle‐log drop sequence that spreads the 3 feet of drop over the riffles and logs. This will require 
fewer structures and be more stable. The combination of Priority 1.5 restoration just below Highway 13 and 
more like 350‐400 feet of Priority 1 restoration, coupled with a more stable drop sequence makes the current 
profile likely to be acceptable.  

Katie Merritt had questions about the pilot channel at the upper end of Martha Branch, the ditch leading into 
Casey Creek R2, the wetland on Casey Creek R1, and the ditch along western property boundary, south of Hwy 
13. Wildlands described those areas to help Katie get a picture of what is present and planned. Wildlands plans 
to plant both of the ditches discussed (one entering R2 and one along property boundary that joins at project 
terminus).  
Next Steps 
Wildlands has revised the drop section on Casey Creek Reach 3 and the sheet for that is included below, as well 
as the previous version. The IRT will review this before Wildlands submits the final Mitigation Plan. The final MP 
will include some description of the use of stone and its sizing in sand bed systems with significant slope. It will 
also include a statement in the adaptive management section about how to manage future problems related to 
the Priority 2 drop and higher slopes in a sand bed system.  

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%
-3.0%
-1.1%
-3.0%
-3.0%
-3.0%
-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
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
3
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
7
4
STA = 144+30
ELEV = 126.69
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
4
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
3
4
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
STA = 144+80
ELEV = 125.40
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
9
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
8
0
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
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
5
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
9
7
STA = 144+55
ELEV = 126.06
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
6
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
5
7
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
8
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
0
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
8
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
0
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
5
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
9
1
STA = 144+05
ELEV = 127.33
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
1
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
1
1
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
1
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
1
1
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
131
131
130
126
127 128 129
1
2
9
128
126
127
126
1
2
5
131
131
130
12
9
128
129
1
2
8
127
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
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
TB
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
130
129
306+26
3
0
6
+
0
0
14
1
+
0
0
142+00
143
+
0
0
144
+
0
0
145+00
1
4
6
+
0
0
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
126
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
STA: 145+05
END CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
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'
2.4'2.4'3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
3:1
3:1 3.5:1
2:1 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
DR
A
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
Ma
y

1
3
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
6
05
.
1
0
.
2
0
2
4
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
CR-NM
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
131
131
130
126
127 128 129
1
2
9
128
126
127
126
1
2
5
131
131
130
12
9
128
129
1
2
8
127
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
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
TB
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
130
129
STA: 145+05
END CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
306+26
3
0
6
+
0
0
14
1
+
0
0
142+00
143
+
0
0
144
+
0
0
145+00
1
4
6
+
0
0
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
126
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
2.4'2.4'3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
3:1
3:1 3.5:1
2:1 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
Ap
r
i
l

1
0
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
6
04
.
1
0
.
2
0
2
4
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

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. 

Appendix 11:  Buffer Mitigation Plan 

NUTRIENT OFFSET & 
BUFFER MITIGATION 
PLAN 

June 2024 
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 

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

June 4, 2024 

Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator 
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality  
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620 

Attention:  Katie Merritt 

Subject: DWR Casey Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan Comment Response 
  Casey Creek Mitigation Site, Wayne County 
  Neuse River Basin HUC 03020201 
  DMS Project ID No. 100597/Contract No. 210201‐01 

Dear Ms. Merritt:  

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Water Resources (DWR) comments 
dated May 16th, 2024, for the draft Casey Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan (Plan). We 
have made the necessary revisions to the draft documents and are submitting revised versions along with 
this letter. DWR’s comments are provided below followed by Wildlands’ responses in bold italics. Please 
note that there was an adjustment between the draft Plan submittal and the final Plan submittal to the 
Casey Creek stream design shortly upstream of its confluence with Afton Branch. This resulted in a slight 
change to the designed top of bank and, therefore, the proposed riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset 
credits. Updated figures and credit totals can be found within the final Plan. 
1. Section 1.0 
a. clarify what is meant by “Site” here?  
The word “Site” was referring to the Casey Creek nutrient offset and riparian buffer 
mitigation project (Riparian Restoration Project). Rather than using the term “Site”, 
the Plan now uses “Riparian Restoration Project” throughout to reference the Casey 
Creek nutrient offset and riparian buffer mitigation project. 
b. throughout the Plan, there is inconsistency on what project is being referenced. there is 
usage of "Site", "Project", "riparian mitigation project", riparian buffer mitigation 
project, nutrient offset and buffer project, etc.  address the inconsistencies.  
recommended to say "nutrient offset & buffer mitigation project (hereinafter referred 
to as "riparian restoration project") or something similar. 
The Plan now uses “Riparian Restoration Project” throughout to reference the Casey 
Creek nutrient offset and riparian buffer mitigation project. 
c. Add the appendix that this plan is located within the stream plan 
The addition has been made.  
d. DWR assumes based on maps and tables that the minimum width of 50' from top of 
banks is being achieved on all features across the whole site.  however, it was noted in 
IRT comments from Maria w/ DWR commend 2 (d) that there is about 4% of riparian 
2

buffers that are less than 50'?  explain the discrepancy here and why the tables and 
figures don't represent areas less than 50.   

Areas less than 50' are not convertible to nutrient offset and must be called out and 
differentiated from the other width categories in the credit table 
There are three areas where the minimum width of 50’ from the top of banks is not 
being met: along Casey Creek upstream and downstream of US Highway 13, and along 
Ditch B, just after the feature enters the easement. These areas not being included 
within the draft Plan were an error. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. These 
areas are now called out in Figure 7 and included in Table 10. The area less than 50 
feet along Ditch B is not included for credit while the areas less than 50 feet along 
Casey Creek are proposed for riparian buffer credit but are not listed as convertible to 
nutrient offset credit.  
e. Acknowledge that this is a DMS project somewhere in Section 1.0 including the DMS ID# 
Section 1.0 now states that the Riparian Restoration Project is a DMS project and 
includes the DMS ID#.  
2. Section 1.1 – is “project” referenced here different that the “riparian mitigation project” 
referenced in the second paragraph of section 1.1? explain and clarify the reference. 
No, “project” was referring to the Riparian Restoration Project. “Project” is now replaced with 
“Riparian Restoration Project”.  
3. Section 2.1 – in section 1.0 this is referred to as “riparian buffer mitigation project”. 
 The project is now referred to as Riparian Restoration Project. 
4. Section 2.2 
a. This project was referred to on page 1 as “nutrient offset and buffer mitigation project” 
not “buffer mitigation and nutrient offset project”.  
Be consistent throughout on the naming conventions (same as previous comment on 
page 1). 
The project is now referred to as Riparian Restoration Project throughout the Plan. 
b. I don't mind the 14 digit HUC but it shouldn't be more than 12 digits represented in this 
table.  We don’t' use the 14 digit HUC layer on our DWR GIS maps for the Neuse River 
Basin so I’m not sure how the 14 digit HUC was determined for this site.  Either way, 
remove to include only the 12 digit. 
The fourteen‐digit HUC was replaced with the twelve‐digit HUC. 
5. Section 2.3 
a. This memo should be attached to the Plan in an appendix and then referenced 
accordingly. 
The memo has been added to Appendix E of the Plan and is referenced where 
applicable throughout the Plan.  
b. Ditch B was determined to be viable for NOC in the field based on existing conditions.  If 
Ditch B is going to be modified to carry water in a different direction than how it 
3

currently carries water to Meeting Branch, then the ditch is no longer viable.  Altering 
the connection of a ditch to the Stream on any project can kick a ditch out from viable 
for credits. 
Ditch B modifications will not change the flow direction. Ditch B will still be carrying 
water downstream to Martha Branch. To clarify this, text has been added to Section 
4.1.  
6. Section 2.4 – Site? What is meant by “Site”? 
The word “Site” within the referenced sentence had been used to describe the Riparian 
Restoration Project. “Site” has now been replaced with “Riparian Restoration Project”.  
7. Section 4.1 
a. There were drain tiles called out on the viability letter.  Explain how drain tiles will be 
removed and where they are located.  
There is only one known drain tile along Casey Creek. At the time of the site viability 
letter, Wildlands believed additional drain tiles might be along Casey Creek. This was 
due to conversations with the landowner, who indicated they did not know how many 
drain tiles were on‐site. Wildlands performed multiple site assessments, during which 
we extensively searched for additional drain tiles. Only one drain tile was found during 
these visits. Additionally, the contracted land surveyor did not locate any additional 
drain tiles.  
The drain tile is located along Casey Creek approximately 100 feet upstream of the 
Highway 13 crossing, within an area proposed for priority 2 restoration. Where 
floodplain grading occurs for priority 2 restoration, the tile will be excavated. The 
length of the drain tile past the conservation easement is unknown; therefore, 
Wildlands does not intend to excavate the entirety of the drain tile. If following 
excavation of the drain tile within the priority 2 area, a portion of the drain tile 
remains in the conservation easement, its outlet will be plugged with concrete and 
buried to ensure it does not carry concentrated flow into easement. If additional drain 
tiles are discovered along Casey Creek during construction, Wildlands will follow the 
same procedure.  
b. Creation of an internal crossing needs to be referenced, is it culverted or a ford, any 
culvert removals? 
Section 4.1 has been updated to include the creation of the internal crossing along 
Casey Creek, which will be a culvert crossing.  
An existing culvert located between the old borrow pit and the bottom of Casey Creek 
will be removed. Information on the culvert removal has been added to Section 4.1 
and called out in Figure 7. 
c. if the minimum widths are 50, which is implied by the credit table and corresponding 
figures, why does it cite 20' here? Explain and address accordingly as noted in previous 
comments about widths. 
There are three locations where the riparian width is less than 50 feet, directly 
upstream and downstream of US Highway 13 and where Ditch B enters the easement. 
4

It was an error not to list these areas within the draft Plan. Details have been added to 
Section 9.0, Figure 7, and Table 10, which has been corrected to show these areas.  
d. Include details on what is being used to fill the borrow pit, how big is the borrow pit, 
how is this area going to be stabilized, will there be stems planted in this borrow pit 
footprint? 
The portion of the old borrow pit that is within 50 feet from the top of bank of Casey 
Creek will be filled with material generated from earthwork related to stream 
mitigation activities. The existing size of the borrow pit is 0.07 acres. Once the portion 
of the old borrow pit is filled its size will be reduced to approximately 0.06 acres. Bare 
root stems will be planted where the old borrow pit will be filled. The area not filled 
will be cut out of riparian buffer credit and will not be planted. Additional details on 
work done within the old borrow pit have been added to Section 4.1.  
e. Explain in Detail in Section 4.1 of this Plan, how Ditch B is being modified from its 
current condition and why (existing ditch depth, constructed ditch depth, existing width 
of ditch, constructed width of ditch, etc.  The stream plan calls this area out as a 
"Coastal Plain Swale", but this reference is not used in this Plan.  Why? Explain what a 
Coastal Plain Swale is. 

Reference plan sheet 1.8 from the stream plan which shows the intended asbuilt design, 
add 1.8 to Appendix E and reference it accordingly in section 4.1.  When DWR staff met 
with Wildlands at an IRT mtg recently, Wildlands explained that the ditch was not being 
modified to redirect flows away from the stream and is not being modified in a way that 
changes the ditch's existing top of bank locations or channel "length".  This needs to be 
explained in detail in 4.1 (or add it's own section if needed).  

Keep in mind that ditches must remain in their existing footprint from Viability letter to 
As‐built in order to remain viable to generate nutrient offset credits.  Therefore, in order 
for this ditch to generate nutrient offset credits, the EXISTING top of bank of Ditch B is 
required to be used to determine credits generated off Ditch B.  This area cannot change 
at As‐built.  Wherever the Top of bank measurement is at Plan stage, even if top of bank 
changes slightly during construction of the Coastal Plain Swale, the credits cannot be 
larger than they were at Plan stage. Explain how this will be achieved and how it is 
represented in the table.   

DWR is not opposed to the proposal of Ditch B to a Coastal Plan Swale.  But without the 
specific details of how this is being achieved, DWR cannot approve the Plan 
Details have been added to Section 4.1 explaining how Ditch B is being converted to a 
coastal plain swale, a shallow feature that conveys baseflow. Converting the ditch to a 
coastal plain swale just upstream of Martha Branch will help stabilize the banks of the 
feature and will allow stormflow from Ditch B to better access the floodplain, thereby 
reducing velocity as water flows from Ditch B to Martha Branch. Not referencing the 
feature as a coastal plain swale in the Plan was an error. The feature is now 
referenced as a coastal plain swale throughout the Plan.  
References to Plan Sheet 1.8 have been added to Section 4.1 and Plan Sheet 1.8 has 
been added to Appendix F within the Plan. Details regarding the coastal plain swale 
design have been added to Section 4.1.  
5

The coastal plain swale will remain within the Ditch B existing footprint. The existing 
top of bank of Ditch B was used to calculate credits generated within the Plan and the 
existing top of bank of Ditch B will be used to calculate credits at as‐built. A sentence 
stating this information has been added to Section 9.0. Since the existing top of bank 
of Ditch B was used to calculate nutrient offset credits in the Plan, its credit amount 
was included in the same row as the remainder of the Ditch B nutrient offset credits. 
The feature is shown separately in figures as a coastal plain swale to show where 
work is proposed on Ditch B; however, the top of bank depicted on figures is still the 
existing surveyed top of bank of Ditch B.  
8. Section 4.1 
a. There is a ditch coming into Casey Creek on the map (see Figure 7 for comments) and 
DWR did not see this ditch.  Explain its existing hydrological connection (or not) to Casey 
Creek and what is being proposed on this ditch as part of the buffer and stream plans. 
No comments were seen on Figure 7 related to a ditch that was not assessed during 
the site viability visit. If the feature in reference is one called out on Figure 3, then it is 
not a ditch. On aerial imagery, there is a dark line bordering an area of existing forest 
running northwest that appears to potentially be a ditch. However, Wildlands 
investigated the area during the Plan development, and no ditch was found. The area 
might have been temporarily saturated when the aerial photograph was taken, 
making it appear as a ditch.  
If the comment refers to Ditch C, existing conditions assessments indicate it likely 
occasionally carries storm flow to Casey Creek. Furthermore, its profile slopes toward 
Casey Creek; however, high accumulations of leaf litter and vegetation growth within 
the channel suggest infrequent flow. The feature will remain after construction and 
will be connected to Casey Creek so that stormflow can still be conveyed to Casey 
Creek through it. This feature is located within the stream construction plans at station 
122+00, which is now included in Appendix F.  
b. Bald cypress is not a hardwood species and doesn't meet the rule requirement of 
"hardwood trees".  Remove from the table, or select this tree as being proposed to be 
planted but not counted towards performance criteria of stems per acre. 
Bald cypress is now proposed in the Plan to be included but not counted toward 
performance standards. Additionally, its percent composition was reduced from 10% 
to 3%. To accommodate this, the percent compositions of species that can be counted 
toward performance standards have been increased. This change is reflected in Table 
8.  
c. The composition of the species in this table is 100%, but the statement about only 
planting 8 species would not yield 100%.  Include the 8 that Wildlands intends to plant if 
available (include their composition up to 100%) and include the remaining stems as 
"possible substitutions" indicating what the composition will be of each substitution in 
the case they are used for planting. 
Wildlands intends to plant each of the 15 species listed in Table 8. Alternate species 
have been added along with their intended compositions.  
d. While DWR does appreciate the language regarding 15% will be the max composition of 
any one stem planted, and that none will be over 50%, this has been determined to not 
6

fulfill the intent of a proposed planting plan.  DWR needs to know the exact stems and # 
intended to plant shall all things work in your favor, and then any remaining stems 
desired to plant in case there is a need for substitutions.  Modify text and table 
accordingly and corresponding plan sheet. 
Text that lists 15% as the max composition has been removed from Section 4.1. 
Wildlands intends to plant all 15 species with the compositions listed in Table 8. Plan 
sheet 3.1 has also been updated. 
e. Figure 7 shows a small ag field where restoration for both buffer and nutrient offset 
along Casey Creek (see comment on figure 7) is being proposed.  However, this area is 
not shown in Appendix E on plan sheet 3.2 as being proposed to be planted.  Explain 
and address accordingly. 
The area in reference not included on Plan Sheet 3.2 was an oversight. Thank you for 
catching this. The area is now shown on Plan Sheet 3.2 as being planted.  
9. Section 5.0 – Site? Does this include the stream components too? 
DWR’s performance standards will only apply to the Riparian Restoration Project. “Site” was 
replaced with “Riparian Restoration Project” to clarify this.  
10. Section 5.1 – What is the Planted Area? 
The planted area that will be used to generate riparian buffer credits or nutrient offset credits 
is 12.0 acres. This area has been added to Section 5.1 as well as the formula used to determine 
the number of vegetation plots.  
11. Section 5.4 – How is data collected and reported in the Plan? Provide the tool being used to 
export data for reports.  
Data will be collected following the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2 Protocol for 
Recording Vegetation. The CVS database will be used for data entry and to export tables for 
the baseline and annual monitoring reports. Text that details this has been added to Section 
5.4.  
12. Section 9.0 
a. Do you mean Project? Site? Etc.?? 
Within the referenced sentence, we were discussing the Riparian Restoration Project. 
“Nutrient offset and buffer mitigation site” has been replaced with “Riparian 
Restoration Project” in this sentence.  
b. Add the appendix reference.  
The appendix reference was added.   
c. Explain how much ft2 is being deducted off each ditch for non‐diffused flow. Show the 
calculation depicting how you got the total number in the project credit table of 2793 
From Ditch B, 813 square feet are deducted while 1,980 square feet are deducted from 
Ditch C for non‐diffused flow. The calculation showing how these two values total 
2,793 has been added to the Mitigation Plan. The individual non‐diffuse flow 
deduction areas were calculated in GIS using the methodology specified in the Buffer 
Interpretation/Clarification Memo #2008‐019 (i.e., 50 feet) measured along the ditch's 
centerline starting where the ditch enters the easement. From that point, a 60‐degree 
7

angle was formed that points landward and back toward the conservation easement. 
The area occupied by the resulting triangle was then removed from crediting. 
Additional text has been added to Section 9.0. 
d. Acknowledge whether non‐std buffers are being applied for the stream credits.  
If there are any areas <50, they must be called out here. 
Text has been added to Section 9.0 stating that the Wilmington District Stream Buffer 
Credit Calculator for extra wide buffers is not being applied to the Casey Creek Stream 
Mitigation Site. Areas of riparian width less than 50 feet have been added to Section 
9.0. 
13. Table 10  
a. Identify the ditches where this is being applied.  
The change has been made. 
b. Add a separate row for the borrow pit footprint which was not in agricultural use and is 
not convertible to noc. Just viable for RBC. 
The change has been made.  
14. Table 11 – This should be table 10. The project credit table is not intended to be split into two 
tables, but represented as one table as a whole.  
Tables 10 and 11 have been combined and listed as one table, Table 10. Throughout the plan, 
references to Table 11 have been replaced with Table 10.  
15. Figure 3 
a. Locate drain tiles. 
The drain tile along Casey Creek has been added to Figure 3. 
b. Is this a ditch? It was described in the stream plan sheets? 
The feature in reference is not a ditch. On aerial imagery, there is a dark line bordering 
an area of existing forest running northwest that appears to potentially be a ditch. 
However, Wildlands investigated the area during the Plan development, and no ditch 
was found. The area might have been temporarily saturated when the aerial 
photograph was taken, making it appear as a ditch. The feature was not called out on 
the stream plan sheets. 
c. Call out any culverts that will be replaced or removed? 
Culverts that will be removed have been called out on Figure 3. No culvert 
replacements are proposed. 
d. There is no figure labeled "Existing Conditions".  Does this map portray existing 
conditions? If not, add another map that depicts existing conditions. 
Figure 3 portrays existing conditions and has been renamed “Existing Conditions Map” 
for clarity.  
16. Figure 7 
a. Is Ditch A in or out of the Easement boundary? 
8

Ditch A is partially within the easement boundary. Its origin is completely within the 
conservation easement; however, portions of its right side extend past the easement 
boundary. While Ditch A is cut out of riparian buffer and nutrient offset crediting, it 
will be planted where it exists within the easement area for purposes of the Casey 
Creek Stream Mitigation Site. Wildlands expects adequate stem survival within the 
feature. 
b. The footprint of the borrow pit is not in agriculture and cannot be converted to nutrient 
offset as implied in the credits table but accurately depicted in this figure.  Call out the 
borrow pit footprint in the project credit table and cite "no" for not convertible to NOC, 
and in Section 9.0 
The old borrow pit footprint has been added to Table 10 and is cited as not convertible 
to nutrient offset credit in Section 9.0. 
c. Remove the Orange representing restoration for noc in this area.  This area was not in 
agricultural landuses and are not viable for noc, only buffer.  Update and modify the 
plan and tables accordingly. 
The orange polygon representing restoration for nutrient offset credit has been 
replaced with a blue polygon representing restoration for riparian buffer credits. The 
Plan and tables have been updated accordingly. 
17. Figure 9 
a. Are all these plots DWR only plots or are some or all of these plots also being shared 
with the USACE? 
All vegetation plots on Figure 9 will be used for both the Riparian Restoration Project 
and the USACE Casey Creek Stream Mitigation Site. 
b. Call out this feature consistent with stream plan 
The feature in reference is not actually a ditch and is not referenced in the stream 
plan. Wildlands suspects DWR is confusing the feature with Ditch C, located on Plan 
Sheet 1.1 and at Station 122+00. Plan Sheet 1.1 has been added to Appendix F.  
18. Planting plan overview – this area is proposed for riparian restoration credits but is not 
proposed for planting. Explain and update accordingly in the Plan.  
The area not shown as planted on Plan Sheet 3.2 was an oversight. It is now shown as planted.  

Thanks very much for the Plan feedback via the comments. Please contact me at 540‐907‐9432 if you have 
any questions. 
Sincerely, 

Kaitlyn Hogarth 
Environmental Scientist 

MITIGATION PLAN 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
Wayne County, NC 
NCDEQ Contract No. 210201‐01 
DMS ID No. 100597 

Neuse River Basin 
HUC 03020201 

PREPARED FOR: 

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

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225 
Raleigh, NC 27609 
Phone (919) 851‐9986 

This Mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following: 
 15A NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian 
Buffers. 
 15A NCAC O2B .0703, Nutrient Offset Credit Trading Rule, amended effective April 1, 2020 
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory 
mitigation. 
Contributing Staff: 
Chris Roessler, Project Manager 
John Hutton, Principal in Charge 
Kaitlyn Hogarth, Mitigation Plan Development 
Daniel Taylor, Construction Administrator 
Kaitlyn Hogarth, Monitoring Lead 
Andrea Eckardt, Lead Quality Assurance 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page i June 2024 
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
Neuse River Basin 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1.0 Project Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1  Site Description ............................................................................................................................. 1 
2.0 Mitigation Project Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 
2.1  Project Goals ................................................................................................................................. 1 
2.2 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................................. 2 
2.3  Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Mitigation .............................................. 3 
2.4 Alternative Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 4 
2.5 Watershed Characterization ......................................................................................................... 4 
2.6 Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 5 
2.7 Existing Vegetative Communities ................................................................................................. 5 
2.8 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 5 
2.9 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 6 
2.10 FEMA Floodplain Compliance ....................................................................................................... 6 
2.11 Site Location, Site Constraints, and Access ................................................................................... 6 
2.12 Other Environmental Conditions .................................................................................................. 6 
3.0  Site Protection Instrument ................................................................................................................ 7 
4.0 Mitigation Work Plan ........................................................................................................................ 7 
4.1 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 7 
4.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities ............................................................................................. 8 
4.3 Riparian Area Preservation Activities ............................................................................................ 9 
5.0 Performance Standards .................................................................................................................... 9 
5.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 10 
5.2 Reference Photographs .............................................................................................................. 10 
5.3 Visual Assessments ..................................................................................................................... 10 
5.4 Reporting Performance Criteria .................................................................................................. 10 
5.5 Maintenance and Contingency Plans .......................................................................................... 10 
6.0 Monitoring Plan .............................................................................................................................. 11 
6.1 Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................. 11 
7.0 Long‐Term Management ................................................................................................................ 11 
8.0 Adaptive Management Plan ........................................................................................................... 11 
9.0 Potential Credit Generation ............................................................................................................ 12 
11.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 15 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page ii June 2024 
TABLES 
Table 1 Ecological and Water Quality Goals 
Table 2 Buffer Project Attributes 
Table 3 Project Features  
Table 4 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use 
Table 5  Project Soil Types and Descriptions 
Table 6 Existing Vegetation 
Table 7 Site Protection Instrument 
Table 8 Selected Tree Species 
Table 9                Monitoring Components 
Table 10 Casey Creek Mitigation Site – Project Credit Table 
FIGURES 
Figure 1 Vicinity Map  
Figure 2 Credit Service Area Map 
Figure 3 Existing Conditions Map 
Figure 4 USGS Topographic Map 
Figure 5  Watershed Map 
Figure 6 NRCS 1974 NRCS Soil Survey Map  
Figure 7               Buffer Mitigation Concept Map 
Figure 8               Riparian Buffer Zones Map 
Figure 9 Monitoring Components Map 

APPENDICES  
Appendix A Current Land Use Photographs – June 29, 2023 
Appendix B Historical Aerials  
Appendix C On‐Site Determination of Applicability to Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules – August 10, 2022 
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Letter – February 28, 2023 
Appendix D Categorical Exclusion – October 31, 2022, and Supporting Documentation 
Appendix E         Buffer Interpretation/Clarification Memo #2008‐019 
Appendix F         Casey Creek Mitigation Site Excerpted Plan Sheets 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 1 June 2024 

Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
Neuse River Basin 
1.0 Project Introduction 
The Casey Creek Mitigation Site is a North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of 
Mitigation Services (DMS) nutrient offset and riparian buffer mitigation project, hereinafter referred to 
as “Riparian Restoration Project” (DMS ID No. 100597). The Riparian Restoration Project is designed and 
to be constructed in conjunction with the Casey Creek Stream Mitigation Project (USACE Action ID SAW‐
2022‐01239, NCDWR ID No. 2022‐0664 v2). Additionally, the Riparian Restoration Project shall be 
planned and designed according to the Nutrient Offset Trading Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0703 and the Buffer 
Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295. This Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan (Plan) is in 
Appendix 12 of the Casey Creek Stream Mitigation Plan.  
The Riparian Restoration Project is in Wayne County, approximately one mile west of the town of 
Grantham (Figure 1). Directions are included in Figure 1. The Riparian Restoration Project creates a 
protected riparian area from top of bank out to a minimum of 20 feet and a maximum of 200 feet along 
three unnamed tributaries (Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and Afton Branch) and one ditch (Ditch B). The 
primary purpose of the Riparian Restoration Project is to provide riparian buffer mitigation credits and 
nutrient offset credits to compensate for unavoidable impacts in the Neuse River Basin 03020201 
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) outside of the Falls Lake Watershed (Figure 2). The Riparian Restoration 
Project is located within the Neuse River Basin HUC 030202011700 and NCDWR Subbasin 03‐04‐12 in 
Wayne County.  
1.1  Site Description 
The Riparian Restoration Project contains three unnamed tributaries (Casey Creek, Martha Branch, and 
Afton Branch), one project Ditch (Ditch B), and two non‐project ditches (Ditches A and C). All project 
features flow to Casey Creek, which eventually flows to Falling Creek. Falling Creek flows into the Neuse 
River. Falling Creek is classified as Class C Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW).  
This Riparian Restoration Project will reduce sediment and nutrient loading, provide and improve 
terrestrial and instream habitats, and improve stream and bank stability by restoring and preserving the 
riparian areas adjacent to mitigated streams. The Riparian Restoration Project is currently occupied by 
areas of row crop fields and existing forests. See Appendix A for June 2023 current land use 
photographs. Restoring and preserving the riparian area up to 200 feet from the streams will reduce 
nutrient and sediment inputs to the tributaries of Falling Creek and, subsequently, to the Neuse River. 
The restored floodplain areas will filter sediment during high rainfall events and provide cover and food 
for wildlife.  
2.0 Mitigation Project Summary 
2.1  Project Goals 
The primary goals of the proposed Riparian Restoration Project are to provide ecological and water 
quality enhancements to the Neuse River Basin by restoring and preserving the riparian area to create a 
functional riparian corridor. Specific enhancements to water quality and ecological processes are 
outlined below in Table 1. 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 2 June 2024 

Table 1: Ecological and Water Quality Goals  
Goals Objectives 
Decrease nutrient levels. 
Nutrient input will be decreased by filtering runoff from surrounding 
agricultural fields through restored native vegetation. The off‐site nutrient 
input will also be absorbed on‐site by filtering flood flows through restored 
floodplain areas, where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation. 
Decrease sediment input. Sediment from off‐site sources will be captured by deposition on restored 
floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities. 
Decrease water 
temperature and increase 
dissolved oxygen 
concentrations. 
Planted riparian trees will shade the project features as they mature, reducing 
thermal pollution. 
Create appropriate 
terrestrial habitat. 
Riparian areas will be restored by treating invasive vegetation and planting 
native vegetation.  
Permanently protect the 
project Site from harmful 
uses. 
A conservation easement will be recorded on the Site. 
2.2 Existing Site Conditions 
The proposed Riparian Restoration Project includes approximately 25.1 acres of row crop agriculture 
and forest along Casey Creek, Martha Branch, Afton Branch, and the right bank of Ditch B. The easement 
boundary will extend from the top of bank to at least 20 feet along nearly all project streams and out to 
200 feet where possible (Figure 3).  
In general, project streams have minimal forested buffers with row crops planted to the top of bank. 
Casey Creek originates as an intermittent stream off the project property and becomes perennial near 
the confluence with Martha Branch. Mature forest borders Casey Creek until its confluence with Martha 
Branch. Below Martha Branch, row crops extend to the top of both banks. Martha Branch is an 
intermittent stream flowing east with row crops planted to the top of the right bank and a forested 
buffer greater than 200 feet on the left side. Afton Branch is a perennial stream that flows west to meet 
Casey Creek. Row crops are planted to the top of bank for the entirety of Afton Branch. The Site 
topography consists of gently sloped valleys. 
In general, this area has maintained its rural farming character over the last 40 years with only minor 
changes in land cover (see historical aerials in Appendix B). The consistency in land use within the 
project watershed indicates that processes affecting hydrology, sediment supply, and nutrient and 
pollutant delivery have not varied widely over this period. With a lack of developmental pressure, 
watershed processes and stressors from outside the project limits are likely to remain consistent 
throughout the implementation, monitoring, and closeout of this project. 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 3 June 2024 
Table 2: Buffer Project Attributes  
Project Name Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
Hydrologic Unit Code 030202011700 
River Basin Neuse 
Credit Service Area Outside of Falls Lake Watershed 
Geographic Location (Lat, Long) 35°17'45.33"N, 78°11'06.29"W 
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG) To be recorded 
Total Credits 362,646.603 ft2 riparian buffer and 9,079.292 lbs N offset 
Types of Credits Riparian Buffer Credits and Nutrient Offset Credits 
Plan Date June 2024 
Initial Planting Date December 2024 
Baseline Report Date April 2025 
MY1 Report Date December 2025 
MY2 Report Date December 2026 
MY3 Report Date December 2027 
MY4 Report Date December 2028 
MY5 Report Date December 2029 
2.3  Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Mitigation 
On June 2, 2022, NCDWR assessed the project streams and issued the official Stream Determination 
Letter on August 10, 2022. NCDWR also visited the project area onsite to determine viability for buffer 
mitigation and nutrient offset on November 2, 2022 and issued a site viability letter on February 28, 
2023. NCDWR assessed five features during the November 2nd site visit, the results of which are shown 
in Table 3 below. The Buffer Interpretation/Clarification Memo #2008‐019 applies to Ditch B and non‐
project Ditch C, where maintenance of diffuse flow into the conservation easement is unattainable 
(Appendix F). The reduction in credit from the memo being applied is documented in Table 10 below 
and Figure 7. There have been no changes to land use in the project area since NCDWR’s 2022 site visits. 
A copy of both the “On‐Site (Stream Origin) Determination for Applicability to Neuse Buffer Rules” and 
the “Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset” letters from NCDWR are included in Appendix 
C. 
Table 3: Project Features  
Feature Name* Classification Buffer Credit Viable Nutrient Offset Viable 
Casey Creek Stream Yes  Yes  
(non‐forested areas only) 
Martha Branch  Stream Yes Yes  
(non‐forested areas only) 
Afton Branch Stream Yes Yes  
(non‐forested areas only) 
A Roadside ditch No No 
B Ditch No Yes  
(right bank only) 
*Ditch C was not assessed during the November 2nd NCDWR Site Viability Visit and was not included in the 
project crediting 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 4 June 2024 
2.4 Alternative Mitigation 
In addition to riparian restoration on subject streams, per the Buffer Mitigation Rules(15A NCAC 02B 
0.0295 (o)), alternative mitigation is proposed for the Riparian Restoration Project in the form of riparian 
restoration on non‐subject streams and riparian preservation of forested land on subject streams. The 
proposed project is in compliance in the following ways: 
Riparian Restoration on Non‐Subject Streams (15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)): 
 The non‐subject streams were confirmed as intermittent or perennial streams by Division staff 
certified per G.S. 143‐214.25A using the Division publication, “Methodology for Identification of 
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (v.4.11, 2010)” (See Appendix C for the 
On‐Site Determination for Applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules letter).  
Preservation on Subject Streams (15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5): 
 The buffer width is at least 30 feet from the stream (See Figure 8 for buffer zones). 
 The area meets the requirements of 15A NCAC 02R 0.0403(c)(7), (8), and (11) with no known 
structures, infrastructure, hazardous substances, solid waste, or encumbrances within the 
mitigation boundary (See Section 2.21 and Appendix D for an EDR Radius Report summary). 
 Mitigation credits for preservation are being requested on no more than 25% of the total area of 
buffer mitigation (See Table 10 for credit calculations).  
2.5 Watershed Characterization 
The Site is located within the HUC 03020201170010. All project features flow to Falling Creek, which is a 
tributary to the Neuse River. The Neuse River is classified as WS‐IV and NSW by NCDWR. WS‐IV waters 
are water supply waters used for drinking water, culinary, or food processing where a WS‐I, II, or III 
classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses (recreational use, 
agriculture, fishing and fish consumption, and the maintenance of biological integrity for wildlife). The 
NSW designation applies to surface waters that are experiencing excessive growth of microscopic or 
macroscopic vegetation.  
Topography, as indicated on the Grantham USGS 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangle, shows gently 
sloped areas throughout the Site (Figure 4). Casey Creek and Afton Branch are depicted as streams on 
the USGS Topographic Map. Drainage areas were delineated using the USGS Stream Stats website and 
the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program’s 2014‐2015 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. 
Land uses draining to the project streams are primarily a combination of agricultural and forested land. 
The watershed areas and current land use around project streams are depicted in Figure 5, the current 
land use photographs in Appendix A, and are summarized in Table 4 below.  
Table 4: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use  
Reach Name Watershed Area 
(acres) Land Use 
Casey Creek 439 42% cultivated crops and hay; 44% forest; 3% shrubland; 
9% developed; >1% grassland; >1% open water 
Martha Branch 82 10% cultivated crops and hay; 76% forested; 3% shrubland; 
10% developed 
Afton Branch 210 38% cultivated crops and hay; 49% forested; 9% 
developed; 2% shrubland; >1% grassland; >1% open water 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 5 June 2024 
2.6 Soils 
The proposed Site is mapped by the Wayne County Soil Survey. The project area soils are described 
below in Table 5.  Casey Creek and Afton Branch are depicted as streams on the 1974 NRCS Soil Survey 
provided in Figure 6. 
Table 5: Project Soil Types and Descriptions  
Soil Name Description 
We‐ Weston loamy sand 
(Woodington) 
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 
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 Very deep, coarse‐loamy, and somewhat poorly drained found on marine terraces. 
Located along the middle portion of Casey Creek. 
NoB ‐ Norfolk loamy sand 
Well drained, fine‐loamy and very deep soils located on coastal plain uplands and 
marine terraces. A very small area of Norfolk is located near the middle portion of 
Casey Creek. 
Ly ‐ Lynchburg sandy loam 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 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: Web Soil Survey https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 
2.7 Existing Vegetative Communities 
The existing vegetation within the Riparian Restoration Project is primarily comprised of row crops and 
forest. Table 6 lists the species of existing vegetation across the project area. This is not an exhaustive 
list, but it gives an indication of the types of species growing in the area.  
Table 6: Existing Vegetation 
Species Common Name Species Common Name 
Acer rubrum Red Maple Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet 
Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum 
Rubus occidentalis Blackberry Quercus phellos Willow Oak 
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 
Nyssa sylvatica Swamp Tupelo Quercus alba White Oak 
Ilex opaca American Holly Salix nigra Black Willow 
2.8 Threatened and Endangered Species 
According to the Official Species List provided by the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 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 TCB 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 6 June 2024 
was not included on the original IPaC species list in the Categorical Exclusion. On July 6, 2023 in 
anticipation of its formal listing, the species list was updated and is included in Appendix D.  
USFWS did not object 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. In a 
pedestrian survey conducted on August 16, 2022, no suitable habitat or individuals were observed for 
the listed threatened and endangered species. Additionally, NCWRC has no issue with the project as 
proposed. 
After the initial T&E site evaluation was completed, the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) (TCB) was 
proposed for listing as a federally endangered species on September 14, 2022. The project area provides 
suitable summer habitat in the form of roost trees; however, the majority of the forested area is along 
the reach of stream proposed for preservation. No channel work will be done in the preservation area. 
Additionally, a culvert bisects the project as Casey Creek runs beneath US 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 the 
project area or within 10‐miles of the project area.  
In anticipation of the final TCB ruling, Wildlands will commit to the tree‐clearing moratoria (April 1 – 
October 14) during the TCB active season as recommended by USFWS. Wildlands will reinitiate 
consultation with USFWS if the TCB is listed prior to completion of the project tree clearing.   
Results from pedestrian surveys and agency correspondence are located in Appendix D. 
2.9 Cultural Resources 
There are no existing structures in the project area. The Riparian Restoration Project is not located near 
any sites listed on the National Register with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO was 
contacted with a request for review and comment on August 23, 2022. SHPO responded on September 
1, 2022, that they “are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project” and have 
no comment on the project as it is currently proposed. The SHPO request and response are included in 
Appendix D. 
2.10 FEMA Floodplain Compliance 
The Riparian Restoration Project 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. 
2.11 Site Location, Site Constraints, and Access 
The project area is bisected by US Highway 13 and is accessible via the highway. The portion of the 
Riparian Restoration Project north of Highway 13 contains one internal culvert crossing, while the 
portion south of Highway 13 contains no crossings.  
2.12 Other Environmental Conditions 
An EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered for the Riparian Restoration Project through 
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. on September 24, 2021. Neither the target property nor the 
adjacent properties were listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental databases searched 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 7 June 2024 
by EDR. No known or potentially hazardous waste sites were identified within or immediately adjacent 
to the project area. The Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in Appendix D. 
3.0  Site Protection Instrument 
The land required for the Riparian Restoration Project's planting, management, and stewardship 
includes portions of the parcels listed in Table 7. The property owners have signed an option agreement 
for the project area, and a Memorandum of Option has been recorded at the Wayne County Register of 
Deeds (DB 3671; PG 511‐514, PG 515‐518). The proposed conservation easement on this property has 
not yet been recorded. 
Table 7: Site Protection Instrument  
Landowner PIN County Site Protection 
Instrument 
Deed Book and 
Page Number 
Acreage 
to be Protected 
Martha Kornegay and Bernard 
Kornegay 
2546335459 
2546229607 
2546314958 
Wayne Conservation 
Easement To Be Recorded 24.0 
Johnnie Mangrum Brock 2546248066 Wayne Conservation 
Easement To Be Recorded 1.1 
4.0 Mitigation Work Plan 
The project will restore and enhance agriculturally impacted land along three streams and one ditch to a 
protected riparian corridor, improving the area's ecological function. Figure 7 illustrates the nutrient 
offset credit areas, riparian buffer credit areas, and conceptual design; Figure 8 depicts the riparian 
zones and designated widths for the Site. 
4.1 Site Preparation 
In general, riparian areas will either be restored or preserved with minimum widths of 20 feet from the 
tops of banks and maximum widths of 200 feet from the tops of banks. Much of the land within 200 feet 
from the top of the bank of the project features has either been cleared and maintained for row crop 
production or has remained forested. Areas slated for riparian restoration that are not impacted by the 
construction of the stream mitigation project will require little site preparation, including select 
herbicide treatments or limited mechanical clearing to remove undesirable underbrush and invasive 
species. Other easement areas will be graded per the IRT‐approved Casey Creek Stream Mitigation 
Plan. Any haul roads or other areas of compacted soil within the easement boundary will be ripped 
before planting.  
A drain tile empties into Casey Creek from the east side approximately 100 feet upstream from the 
Highway 13 culvert crossing within an area proposed for priority 2 restoration (Figure 3). Where 
floodplain grading occurs for priority 2 restoration, the tile will be excavated. The length of the drain tile 
past the conservation easement is not known; therefore, Wildlands does not intend to excavate the 
entirety of the drain tile. If, following excavation of the drain tile within the priority 2 area, a portion of 
the drain tile remains in the conservation easement, its outlet will be plugged with concrete and buried 
to ensure it does not carry concentrated flow into the easement. At the time of the site viability 
assessment, Wildlands believed multiple drain tiles might be feeding into Casey Creek. No other drain 
tiles were found during the site assessments performed by Wildlands or the existing conditions survey 
conducted by the contracted land surveyor. Wildlands, therefore, believes that only one drain tile exists. 
If additional drain tiles are discovered during construction, they will be removed to prevent 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 8 June 2024 
concentrated flow from entering the easement. An internal culvert crossing is proposed along Casey 
Creek (Figure 7).  
An old borrow pit 0.07 acres in size that currently contains standing water is adjacent to the bottom of 
Casey Creek and will be filled within the first 50 feet from the top of bank of Casey Creek. This area of fill 
will be approximately 255 square feet. Fill material will be generated from earthwork related to the 
stream restoration activities. Once the portion of the old borrow pit has been filled, straw, seed, and 
coir matting will be applied to provide ground cover and prevent erosion. Lastly the filled area will be 
planted with bare root stems listed in Table 8 below. A culvert connecting the old borrow pit to Casey 
Creek will also be removed. The portion of the old borrow pit that is not being filled will remain an 
unplanted area of open water, which will be cut out of riparian buffer crediting.  
A portion of Ditch B will be converted to a coastal plain swale containing a pilot channel. This will be 
done by grading the ditch’s banks at an 8:1 ratio and leaving a small channel with a maximum depth of 
1.1 feet running through the swale to convey baseflow. The channel will be within the existing footprint 
of Ditch B. Grading at the 8:1 ratio will begin at the bankfull depth of the 1.1‐foot‐deep channel and 
extend until the existing floodplain elevation is met. The alignment of the coastal plain swale will match 
the existing alignment of Ditch B in this area, and the length of the feature will remain the same as the 
existing Ditch B. Flow will be carried from Ditch B through the pilot channel and to Martha Branch. This 
matches the existing flow path of Ditch B in this area. Plan sheet 1.8 from the Casey Creek Stream 
Mitigation Plan displays further design information for the coastal plain swale (Appendix F). Additional 
specifics of the stream mitigation project are in the Casey Creek Stream Mitigation Plan. Section 6.6 of 
the Casey Creek Stream Mitigation Plan contains information on grading. A 401 & 404 permit will be 
required for all stream restoration work and will be obtained before any work in the riparian areas or 
waters begins.  
4.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities 
Riparian area restoration will involve planting appropriate native tree species along the riparian corridor. 
Vegetation management and herbicide applications may be needed over the first few years of tree 
establishment in riparian restoration areas to prevent encroachment of undesirable species that may 
out‐compete the planted native vegetation. Tree and shrub species planted across the riparian areas of 
the Site will include a mixture of the species listed in the Casey Creek Mitigation Site Planting Tables, 
located in Appendix F. The species planted within riparian restoration for nutrient offset credit or 
riparian buffer credit will include the species listed in Table 8. Bald cypress will not be counted toward 
performance standards. All activities associated with generating riparian buffer and nutrient offset 
credits will occur simultaneously with the stream mitigation activities and not before.     
Table 8: Selected Tree Species  
Species Common Name Composition Forest Strata Tree/Shrub 
Quercus alba White Oak 5% Canopy Tree 
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 8% Canopy Tree 
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 10% Canopy Tree 
Ulmus americana American Elm 6% Canopy Tree 
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 10% SubCanopy Tree 
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 8% Canopy Tree 
Quercus nigra Water Oak 9% Canopy Tree 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 9 June 2024 
Trees and shrubs will be spaced at 7 feet by 12 feet during planting, which is equivalent to a stem 
density of 521 stems per acre and is sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in the Rule 
15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 planted trees and shrubs per acre at the end of five years. Stems will be well 
mixed prior to planting to ensure diversity of bare root species across the Site. Due to the nature of 
random mixing, some stems of the same species might be planted together in some areas. A regionally 
appropriate seed mix of warm season grasses and wildflowers will also be applied to provide temporary 
and permanent ground cover for soil stabilization and reduction of sediment loss during rain events in 
areas without existing herbaceous cover. The proposed planting area includes the areas identified as 
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credits and Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credits on Figure 7. 
Planting is scheduled for December 2024.   
4.3 Riparian Area Preservation Activities 
There will be no site preparation work done in the riparian preservation areas under 15NCAC 02B 
.0295(o)(4) except as required in the Casey Creek Stream Mitigation Plan. The area of preservation 
credit within the Riparian Restoration Project is less than 25% of the total area of riparian buffer 
mitigation, as shown in Table 10.  The preservation area will be protected in perpetuity under a 
conservation easement. 
5.0 Performance Standards 
The performance criteria for the Riparian Restoration Project will follow the approved performance 
criteria presented in the guidance documents outlined in RFP 16‐20210201 and the Buffer Mitigation 
Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295). Annual monitoring and semi‐annual site visits will be conducted to assess 
the condition of the finished project. The buffer restoration project will be assigned specific 
performance criteria components for vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the 
five‐year post‐construction monitoring. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.   
Species Common Name Composition Forest Strata Tree/Shrub 
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 9% Canopy Tree 
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 3% Canopy Tree 
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 5% Canopy Tree 
Acer negundo Boxelder 6% SubCanopy Tree 
Betula nigra River Birch 10% Canopy Tree 
Ulmus alata Winged Elm 5% Canopy Tree 
Morella cerifera Common Waxmyrtle 3% SubCanopy Shrub 
Hamamelis virginiana American Witch‐hazel 3% SubCanopy Shrub 
Possible Substitutions 
Species Common Name Composition Forest Strata Habit 
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 10% Canopy Tree 
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak  10% Canopy Tree 
Morus rubra Red Mulberry 10% Subcanopy Shrub 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 10 June 2024 
5.1 Vegetation  
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the 
fifth year of monitoring, with a minimum of four native hardwood trees and shrubs where no one 
species comprises more than 50 percent of stems. Vigor, height, species composition, and density will all 
be assessed. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary 
throughout the required monitoring period.   
Permanent vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the riparian restoration 
areas to measure the survival of the planted trees and shrubs. The plots will be randomly placed 
throughout the planted riparian areas.  A total of 10 plots will be established within the riparian 
restoration areas, making up at least 2% of the planted area used to generate riparian buffer credits and 
nutrient offset credits (Figure 10). The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters. The 
equation used to calculate the number of plots needed is as follows:  
12.0018 acres x 0.02 = 0.2400 acres 
0.2400 acres/0.0247 acres = 9.7166 vegetation plots 
Vegetation assessments will be conducted and follow the DMS‐approved protocol outlined in the DMS 
Monitoring Report Template (October 2020). A reference photo will be taken from the southwestern 
corner of each of the 7 plots. Photos will be taken from all photo points each monitoring year and 
provided in the annual reports. All planted stems will be marked with flagging tape and recorded.  
5.2 Reference Photographs 
Overview photographs will be taken within the project area once a year to visually document vegetation 
growth for five years following construction.  
5.3 Visual Assessments  
Visual assessments will be performed within the Site semi‐annually during the five‐year monitoring 
period. Problem areas with vegetative health will be noted (e.g., low stem density, vegetation mortality, 
invasive species, or encroachment). Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed, and a written 
description will be included in the annual report. Problem areas will be re‐evaluated during each 
subsequent visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided 
in the annual monitoring report.  
5.4 Reporting Performance Criteria  
Using the DMS Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline and Annual Monitoring Report 
Template version 2.0 (May 2017), a baseline monitoring document and as‐built record drawings of the 
project will be developed for the constructed Site. Complete monitoring reports will be prepared in the 
fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS. Vegetation assessments will follow the Carolina 
Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al., 2008). The CVS database 
will also be used to generate vegetation tables for reports. Annual monitoring report documents will be 
based on the above referenced DMS Template (May 2017). The monitoring period will extend five years 
beyond the completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met.   
5.5 Maintenance and Contingency Plans  
Wildlands will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial actions in the 
event that the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined 
above. The project‐specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an 
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 11 June 2024 
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously and will include a work 
schedule and updated monitoring criteria (if applicable). 
6.0 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. The monitoring report shall provide project data 
chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS 
databases for analysis and research purposes and assist in close‐out decision making.  
6.1 Monitoring Components 
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 9 and Figure 9.  
Table 9: Monitoring Components  
Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity  Frequency 
Vegetation 100 m2 Plot 10 Annual 
Visual Assessment  Y Semi‐Annual 
Exotic and nuisance 
vegetation   Y Semi‐Annual 
Project Boundary   Y Semi‐Annual 
Reference Photos Overview Photographs Y Annual 
7.0 Long‐Term Management 
The Riparian Restoration Project 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 inspections of the Riparian Restoration Project 
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 additional signage as needed to identify boundary 
markings. Internal easement crossings planned for the project area will be the responsibility of the 
landowner to maintain. The Site Protection Instrument can be found in Appendix D.  
8.0 Adaptive Management Plan 
Upon completion of construction, Wildlands will implement the post‐construction monitoring defined in 
Section 6. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to address minor issues 
as necessary. If, during annual monitoring it is determined the Riparian Restoration Project’s ability to 
achieve performance standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will notify the members of DMS/NCDWR and 
work with the DMS/NCDWR to develop contingency plans and remedial actions. Any actions 
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously and will include a work 
schedule and updated monitoring criteria (if applicable). 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 12 June 2024 
9.0 Credit Determination 
Of the 25.1 acres protected under the conservation easement, the mitigation approach for 12.0 acres is 
riparian restoration. Of the 12.0 acres of restoration, 8.0 acres are proposed for riparian buffer credit 
and 4.0 acres are proposed for nutrient offset credit. Riparian buffer credits are also being generated 
from 2.7 acres of preservation. Preservation credit within the Riparian Restoration Project is equivalent 
to 25% of the total area of riparian buffer mitigation, as shown in Table 10.  
The Buffer Interpretation/Clarification Memo #2008‐019 applies to Ditches B and C where maintenance 
of diffuse flow into the easement is unattainable (Appendix E). Due to the non‐diffuse flow deduction, 
813 square feet and 1,980 square feet are being removed from credit along Ditch B and Ditch C, 
respectively. Together they total 2,793 square feet. These areas were calculated using the methodology 
specified in Appendix E. More specifically, 50 feet was measured along the centerline of the applicable 
ditch starting where the ditch enters the easement. From that point, a 60‐degree angle was formed that 
points landward and back toward the conservation easement. The area occupied by the resulting 
triangle was then removed from crediting.  
Other areas within the conservation easement where credit is not claimed include an internal crossing 
and areas where the riparian width exceeds 200 feet. There are three locations where the riparian width 
is less than 50 feet, which include directly upstream and downstream of US Highway 13, and where 
Ditch B enters the conservation easement. Areas less than 50 feet along Casey Creek are proposed for 
riparian buffer credit but are not convertible to nutrient offset credits. Where the riparian width is less 
than 50 feet along Ditch B, no credit is claimed. Where the old borrow pit is being filled and planted, 
riparian buffer credits are proposed; this area is not convertible to nutrient offset credit. The area of 
riparian restoration located between the old borrow pit and the conservation easement is also proposed 
for riparian buffer credits and is not convertible to nutrient offset credits. Along Ditch B where the 
feature is being graded to a coastal plain swale, the existing top of bank of the ditch was used to 
calculate proposed nutrient offset credits and will also be used at as‐built to calculate nutrient offset 
credits. Further details on crediting can be found in Table 10 below. The Wilmington District Stream 
Buffer Credit Calculator for extra wide buffers is not being applied to the Casey Creek Stream Mitigation 
Site. All credit areas will be finalized in an As‐Built Survey and will be submitted in the As‐Built report.  
The management objectives, mitigation type, and proposed amount of riparian buffer mitigation are 
presented in Table 10 below. The riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits will be derived from riparian 
areas adjacent to mitigated streams. Credits will be determined based on existing riparian conditions on 
the Parcel.  Areas that are convertible to Nutrient Offset Credit or Riparian Buffer Credit are specified in 
Table 10 below. Credit conversions must be calculated using the guidance provided in the Clarified 
Procedures for Calculating Buffer Mitigation Credits and Nutrient Offset Credits letter issued by the 
NCDWR in 2019. 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 13 June 2024 
Table 10: Casey Creek Mitigation Site – Project Credit Table 
Neuse 03020201 ‐ Outside Falls Lake Project Area  
19.16394 N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)  
N/A P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)  
Credit Type Location 
Subject? (enter 
NO if 
ephemeral or 
ditch 1) 
Feature Type Mitigation 
Activity 
Min‐Max Buffer 
Width (ft) Feature Name Total Area 
(ft2) 
Total 
(Creditable) 
Area of Buffer 
Mitigation (ft2) 
Initial Credit 
Ratio (x:1) % Full Credit  Final Credit 
Ratio (x:1)  
 Convertible 
to Riparian 
Buffer?  
 Riparian 
Buffer 
Credits  
 Convertible 
to Nutrient 
Offset?  
 Delivered 
Nutrient 
Offset: N 
(lbs)  
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 20‐29 Casey Creek 1,510 1,510 1 75% 1.33333 Yes 1,132.503 No — 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0‐50 Casey Creek 1,354 1,354 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 1,354.000 No — 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0‐50 Casey Creek ‐ Old 
Borrow Pit 255 255 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 255.000 No — 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0‐100 Casey Creek, Afton 
Branch 313,750 313,750 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 313,750.000 Yes 16,371.894 
Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐100 Martha Branch 31,834 31,834 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 31,834.000 Yes 1,661.141 
Nutrient Offset Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0‐100 Casey Creek, Afton 
Branch 73,822 73,822 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 73,822.000 Yes 3,852.131 
Nutrient Offset Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101‐200 Casey Creek, Afton 
Branch 83,576 83,576 1 33% 3.03030 Yes 27,580.108 Yes 4,361.107 
Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 0‐100 Ditch B 16,597   1 100%   No — Yes 866.054 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101‐200 Casey Creek ‐ Farm 
Path 100 100 1 33% 3.03030 Yes 33.000 No — 
Buffer Rural No Ditch Restoration 0‐50 
Non‐Diffuse Flow 
Deduction ‐ Ditch 
B, Ditch C 
2,793   1 100%    No — No  — 
  Totals (ft2): 525,591 506,201     449,760.610   27,112.327 
  Total Buffer (ft2): 351,596 348,803  
Total Nutrient 
Offset (ft2): 173,995 N/A  

   Total Ephemeral Area 
(ft2) for Credit: 0 0   
   Total Eligible 
Ephemeral Area (ft2): 117,199 0.0%   
Enter Preservation Credits Below   Total Eligible for 
Preservation (ft2): 117,199 25.0% Preservation as % TABM  
Credit Type Location Subject? Feature Type Mitigation 
Activity 
Min‐Max 
Buffer Width 
(ft) 
Feature Name  Total Area (sf)  
Total 
(Creditable) 
Area for Buffer 
Mitigation (ft2) 
Initial Credit Ratio (x:1) % Full Credit  Final Credit Ratio 
(x:1)  
 Riparian Buffer 
Credits  
Buffer Rural Yes I / P   0‐100 Casey Creek 375,605 91,517 10 100% 10.00000 9,151.700 
 Rural No I / P   0‐100 Martha Branch 25,682 25,682 5 100% 5.00000 5,136.400 
 Rural Yes I / P   101‐200 Casey Creek 67,668 0 10 33%   — 
    Preservation Area 
Subtotals (ft2): 468,955 117,199  

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 14 June 2024 

TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM) 
Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits 
Restoration: 348,803 348,358.503 
Enhancement: 0 0.000 
Preservation: 117,199 14,288.100 
Total Riparian Buffer: 466,002 362,646.603 
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION 
Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits 
Nutrient 
Offset: 
Nitrogen: 
173,995 
9,079.292 
Phosphorus: 0.000 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 DMS ID No. 100597  Page 15 June 2024 
11.0 References 
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation 
Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐2.pdf 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey of Caswell County. 
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm 
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 2015. 15A NCAC 02B .0259 Mitigation 
Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers. 
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20‐
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20‐
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0295.pdf 
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 2020. 15 NCAC 02B .0703 Nutrient Offset 
Credit Trading.  
 http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20‐
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20‐
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0703.pdf 
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2008. Buffer Interpretation/Clarification #2008‐ 
019 – Memorandum. 
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/401/Buffer%20Clar
ification%20Memos/Diffuse‐Flow‐for‐Buffer‐Mitigation‐Sites‐Buffer‐Clarification‐Memo‐
20080819.pdf 
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications. 
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications 
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2021. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database, 
Wayne County, NC. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/ 
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009. Mineral Resources. 
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.html 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2021. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal 
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Caswell County, NC. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ 


Figures
^_
13
U S

H
igh wa y

1
3

S
Pa
ul

H
are
Rd
Conservation Easement
^_Project Location
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
¹0 10.5 Miles
Directions: From the City of Raleigh, travel
east on I-40 for approximately 42 miles.
Take exit 341 for NC-50/NC-55 towards
US13/Newton Grove. Keep left at the fork,
follow signs for Newton Grove. Turn left
onto NC-50 S/NC-55 E. At the traffic circle,
take the 4th exit onto US-13 N/Goldsboro
Street. Continue on US-13 for
approximately 10 miles. The Site will be
located on the left.
^_
County Boundaries
HUC 03020201
Service Area for Riparian Buffer Credits and Nutrient Offset Credits
^_Project Location
0 5 10 Miles ¹Figure 2. Credit Service Area Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
03020201
ÛÚÛÚ
ÛÚ
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Afton

B
r
a
n
c
h
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Case
y

C
r
e
e
k
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
D
i
t
c
h

B
Di
t
c
h

A
Ditch C
Existing Culvert to be
Removed
Existing Culvert to be
Remain
Existing Culvert to be
Remain
Existing Drain Tile to
be Removed and
Plugged
Figure 3 Existing Conditions Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2019 Aerial Photography
¹Wayne County, NC
Project Location
Conservation Easement
NCDOT Right of Way
Existing Wetlands
Old Borrow Pit
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Project Ditch
Non-Project Ditch
Non-Project Streams
Utility Line
Existing Drain Tile
ÛÚ Existing Culverts
0 450225 Feet
0 250 500 Feet ¹Figure 4. USGS Topographic Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
Grantham USGS 7.5 Minute
Topographic Quadrangle
Project Location
Conservation Easement
C
a
s
e
y
C
r
e
e
k
Afton
Branc
h
Marth
a
Branc
h
Di
t
c
h

B
Di
t
c
h

A
Ditch C
Figure 5 Watershed Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2019 Aerial Photography
¹
Wayne County, NC
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Project Ditch
Non-Project Ditch
Casey Creek Watershed
Sub-Watershed
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contour 2'
0 950475 Feet
Conservation Easement
1974 NRCS Soil Survey of Wayne County - Sheet 29
Project Location
Conservation Easement
¹Figure 6. 1974 NRCS Soils Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC
0 250 500 Feet
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Afton

B
r
a
n
c
h
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Case
y

C
r
e
e
k
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Di
t
c
h

B
Di
t
c
h

A
Ditch C
13
13
US

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

1
3

S
13
US

H
ighway

1
3

S
50'
100'
50'50'
100'
50'
200'
100'
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Di
t
c
h

B
50'
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
30'
30'50'
50'
Casey Cr
e
e
k
50'
Old Borrow Pit
to be filled and
planted within
50' of Casey
Creek
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
NCDOT Right of Way
Stream Mitigation
Coastal Plain Swale
Ditch
Non-Project Ditch
Old Borrow Pit
Riparian Restoration for Buffer
Credit (20'-30')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer
Credit (31'-50')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer
Credit (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer
Credit (101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credit (0'-100')
Ripairan Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credit (101'-200')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer
Credit (within 25% TABM) (0'-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer
Credit (within 25% TABM)
(101'-200')
Not for Credit
Not for Credit (Non-Diffuse Flow
Deduction)
Surveyed Tree Line
Utility Line
Non-Project Streams
Figure 7. Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Concept Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC¹0 250 500 Feet
2019 Aerial Photography
13
13
US

H
ighwa y

1
3

S
13
US

H
i ghway

1
3

S
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Afton

B
r
a
n
c
h
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Case
y

C
r
e
e
k
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Di
t
c
h

B
Di
t
c
h

A
Ditch C
Project Location
Conservation Easement
NCDOT Right of Way
Old Borrow Pit
Stream Mitigation
Coastal Plain Swale
Ditch
Non-Project Ditch
30' from Top of Bank
50' from Top of Bank
100' from Top of Bank
200' from Top of Bank
Utility Line
Non-Project Streams
Figure 8. Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC¹0 250 500 Feet
2019 Aerial Photography
13
13
US

H
ighw ay

1
3
S
13
US

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

1
3 S
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Afton

B
r
a
n
c
h
Marth
a

B
r
a
n
c
h
Case
y

C
r
e
e
k
C
a
s
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Di
t
c
h

B
Di
t
c
h

A
Ditch C
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
NCDOT Right of Way
Stream Mitigation
Coastal Plain Swale
Ditch
Non-Project Ditch
Old Borrow Pit
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (20'-30')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (31'-50')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit
(101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credit
(0'-100')
Ripairan Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credit
(101'-200')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (within
25% TABM) (0'-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (within
25% TABM) (101'-200')
Not for Credit
Not for Credit (Non-Diffuse Flow Deduction)
Vegetation Plot
Surveyed Tree Line
Utility Line
Non-Project Streams
Figure 9. Monitoring Components Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Wayne County, NC¹0 250 500 Feet
2019 Aerial Photography

Appendix A: 
Current Land Use Photographs 

CURRENT LAND USE PHOTOGRAPHS 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 

 Casey Creek Mitigation Site
HUC 03020201
Casey Creek 

Reach 1 – Adjacent Riparian Area (06/29/2023) Reach 1 – Adjacent Riparian Area (06/29/2023) 

Reach 3 – Downstream (06/29/2023) Reach 3 – Upstream (06/29/2023)

Reach 3 ‐ Downstream (06/29/2023) Reach 3 ‐ Upstream (06/29/2023) 
 Casey Creek Mitigation Site
HUC 03020201

Reach 4 (06/29/2023) 
Martha Branch 

(06/29/2023) (06/29/2023) 
Afton Branch 

 (06/29/2023)  (06/29/2023) 

Appendix B:  
Historical Aerials 

6676512.5
1999
= 625'
6676512.5
1993
= 625'
6676512.5
1983
= 625'
6676512.5
1973
= 625'
6676512.5
1964
= 625'
6676512.5
1959
= 625'
Appendix C:  
On Site Determination of Applicability to Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules  
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset 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
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000

February 28, 2023

Wildlands Engineering, LLC
Attn: Chris Roessler
(via electronic mail: [e-mail] )

Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset – Casey Creek Site
Near 35.293101, -78.184393 located near 3890 US Hwy 13S in Goldsboro, NC
Neuse 03020201
Wayne County

Dear Mr. Roessler,

On August 12, 2022, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request
from you on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, LLC (Wildlands) for a site visit near the above-
referenced site in the Neuse River Basin within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. The site
visit was to determine the potential for nutrient offset and buffer mitigation within a proposed
conservation easement boundary, which is more accurately depicted in the attached map labeled
“Site Map” prepared by Wildlands. The proposed easement boundary on the Site Map, includes all
riparian areas intended to be proposed as part of the mitigation site. This site is also being proposed
as a stream mitigation site and therefore stream bank instability or presence of erosional rills within
riparian areas were not addressed. On November 2, 2022, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of
the subject site. Staff with Wildlands were also present.

Ms. Merritt’s evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200’ from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 and for
nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703 using 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to define the
mitigation type determinations.

Casey Creek Site
Wildlands
February 28, 2023

Page 2 of 3
1Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondences dated August 10, 2022 (DWR# 2022-0664) using the
1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by
the NRCS .
2The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
3NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment
4 Determinations made for this Site are determined based on the proposal provided in maps and figures submitted with the request.
5 All features proposed for buffer mitigation or nutrient offset, must have a planted conservation easement established that includes the
tops of channel banks when being measured perpendicular and landward from the banks, even if no credit is viable within that riparian
area.
6The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
7The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule.

Feature Classification
onsite
1Subject
to
Buffer
Rule
Riparian Land uses
adjacent to Feature
(0-200’)
Buffer
Credit
Viable
3Nutrient
Offset Viable
At 2,273.02
lbs/acre
4,5Mitigation Type Determination w/in
riparian areas
Casey
Creek
Stream Yes Combination of non-
forested agricultural fields
and mature forest

3 Drain tiles are present
within riparian areas

2Yes Yes (non
forested areas
only)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)

Forested areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)

Drain tiles must be removed and/or
relocated to be outside of the riparian
restoration areas.

No credits allowed within DOT right of
way

Martha
Branch
(see origin
on map)
Stream

No Combination of non-
forested agricultural fields
and mature forest

2Yes Yes (non
forested areas
only)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)

Forested areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
Afton
Branch
Stream Yes Mostly non-forested
agricultural fields with
some mature forest below
confluence w/ Casey
Creek

2Yes Yes (non
forested areas
only)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)

Forested areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)
A Roadside
ditch

No Left side: Non-forested
agriculture
Right side: compacted
farm road

bisects riparian restoration
area along Casey Creek
No No N/A

B
(see origin
on map)
Ditch

No Left bank: combination of
maintained lawn and
mature forest
Right bank: Non-forested
agricultural fields.
No Yes (right
bank only)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)

Casey Creek Site
Wildlands
February 28, 2023

Page 3 of 3
Determinations provided in the table above were made using a proposed easement boundary showing
proposed mitigation areas and features shown on the Site Map. The map representing the proposal
for the site is attached to this letter and initialed by Ms. Merritt on February 28, 2023.

This letter does not constitute an approval of this Site to generate buffer and nutrient offset credits.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to
DWR for written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters for buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703, a proposal regarding a
proposed nutrient load-reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for
approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.

All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0703.

This viability assessment will expire on February 28, 2025 or upon approval of a mitigation
plan by the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in any nutrient offset,
buffer, stream or wetland mitigation plan for this Site.

Please contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,

Katie Merritt, Acting Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch

Attachments: Site map

cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)

Martha Branch
Intermittent Origin at
35.294769, -78.186614
Roadside Conveyance/Ditch
Linear Borrow Pit
to be filled in and
planted within
first 50' of Casey
Creek TOB
Powerline Easement ~ 30'
DOT Right of Way ~ 60'
2021 Aerial Photography

Casey Creek Reach 1

!P

Casey Creek
Reach 2

13
13 !P

13

13
Casey Creek
Reach 3

!P

0 300 600 Feet ¹ Site Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)

Wayne County, NC

Project Location

Proposed Internal Crossing
Existing External Crossing
Buffer Mitigation Approach
Riparian Restoration 0'-100'

Riparian Restoration 101'-200'
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit
No Credit
Linear Borrow Pit - To be filled and planted
Linear Borrow Pit
Powerline Easement
Stream Mitigation Approach
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Not for Stream Restoration Credit
Existing Drain Tiles To Be Removed
Ditch
Roadside Conveyance/Ditch
Powerline
Existing Farm Road
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
Ditch B
Ditch A

Appendix D: 
Categorical Exclusion
(See Stream
Mitigation Plan
Appendix 6)
Appendix E:  
Buffer Interpretation/Clarification Memo #2008-019
Appendix F:  
Casey Creek Mitigation Site Excerpted Plan
Sheets 
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
3.
1
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 5%
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 8%
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 10%
Ulmus americana American Elm 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 6%
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Subcanopy FACW 10%
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 8%
Quercus nigra Water Oak 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 9%
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 9%
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy OBL 3%
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy OBL 5%
Acer negundo Boxelder 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Subcanopy FAC 6%
Betula nigra River Birch 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 10%
Ulmus alata Winged Elm 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 5%
Morella cerifera Common Waxmyrtle 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FAC 3%
Hamamelis virginiana American Witch-hazel 7-12 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
Preferred alternate species: Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), Red mulberry (Morus rubra)
CE CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
CECECECE
C
E
C
E
CECE
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
C
E
CECE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
X
TB T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB T B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
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
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
T B TB
T
B
T
B
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
)
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
3.
2
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
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
148
146
1
4
4
144
143
144
14
3
14
4
14
5
140
141
143
14
2
1
4
3
137
138
139
140
144
142
140
138
143
1
4
4
145
144
143
143
143
1
4
2
14
3
142
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
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TBTB
TB
T
B
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
CECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECE
142
14
2
1
1
9
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
121+
0
0
122
+
0
0
123+00
124+
0
0
STA: 119+82
END CASEY CREEK REACH 1 (PRESERVATION)
BEING CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
CASEY CREEK
REACH 1
CONNECT EXISTING DRAINAGE
TO NEW CHANNEL
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
3
+
7
0
3.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 7'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'3.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.2'
2.4'3.6'3.05'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.5'
1.5'5.25'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3:1 2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
1
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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-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
1
4
5
144
143 142
142
143
143
144
142 141
140
142 143
14
4
145
144
144
14
3
142
142
143
144
142
143
144
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
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
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
141
200
+
0
0
201
+
0
0
202+00
203+00
2
0
4
+
0
0
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
STA: 202+37
END SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
BEGIN MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
STA: 200+57
BEGIN SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
MARTHA BRANCH
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
1.75'1.75'3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'2.5'
WIDTH VARIES PER PLANS
Dmax = 1.1'2.5:1
2.5:1
3:1
2:1 3.5:1
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
8
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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

Appendix 12:  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
Planting Amendments Plan 3.3
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 4.0 - 4.3
Details 5.1 - 5.10
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
0.
1
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Angela Allen, PE, 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
Final Plan Submittal
May 28, 2024
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
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
0.
2
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
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 Major Contour
Proposed Minor Contour
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Conservation Easement Internal Crossing
Proposed CulvertXXX
TB TB
CE CE CE
CE-IX CE-IX
Proposed Constructed Riffles Per Plans
See Details 1 & 2, Sheet 5.1
Proposed Log J-Hook
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.1
Proposed Log Sill
See Detail 1 & 2, Sheet 5.2
Proposed Brush Toe
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.2
Proposed Channel Plug
See Detail 4, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Permanent Ford Crossing
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.6
Proposed Structures
1. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE NORTH
CAROLINA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL.
2. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL PUMP-AROUND SYSTEMS TO DIVERT FLOW WHILE WORKING IN
LIVE, FLOWING CHANNELS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE
PUMP-AROUND SYSTEM 24 HOURS A DAY UNTIL ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE STABILIZED.
THE DISTURBED AREA WITHIN THE PUMP AROUND MUST BE STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY
SEEDING, MULCH, AND EROSION CONTROL MATTING BY THE END OF EACH WORKDAY.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT REMOVE PUMP-AROUND SYSTEMS AND ADVANCE TO THE NEXT
WORK AREA UNTIL THE CURRENT WORK AREA IS COMPLETED AND STABILIZED.
3. NO MATERIAL FROM THE OFF-LINE PROPOSED STREAM CHANNEL EXCAVATION MAY BE
BACKFILLED INTO THE ADJACENT EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL UNTIL THE NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED PROPOSED STREAM SECTION IS COMPLETED, STABILIZED, AND THE STREAM
FLOW HAS BEEN DIVERTED INTO IT, NOT EVEN IF THAT SECTION OF OLD/ EXISTING STREAM
IS BEING PUMPED.
4. IN AREAS WITHOUT A PUMP-AROUND SYSTEM, CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB ONLY AS
MUCH CHANNEL BANK AS CAN BE STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SEEDING, MULCH, AND A
SOD MAT OR EROSION CONTROL MATTING BY THE END OF EACH WORKDAY.
5. CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 150 LINEAR FEET
AHEAD OF IN-STREAM WORK.
6. WHEN CROSSING AN ACTIVE SECTION OF NEW OR OLD STREAM CHANNEL, A TIMBER MAT
SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
7. ALL GRADED AREAS WITH SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 WILL BE STABILIZED WITHIN SEVEN (7)
WORKING DAYS. ALL OTHER AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) WORKING
DAYS.
8. LOCATIONS FOR STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS AND TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS
HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ON THE PLANS. ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE STAGING AND/OR
STOCKPILE AREAS AND STREAM CROSSINGS MAY BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDED
THAT ALL PRACTICES COMPLY WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL AND THAT THE AREAS ARE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION. SHORT-TERM STOCKPILE AREAS ARE THOSE THAT
WILL REMAIN IN PLACE FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME SO THAT THE DISTURBED AREA CAN
BE STABILIZED WITHIN THE TIMEFRAMES IN ITEM #7 OF THE GENERAL NOTES. ADDITIONAL
STOCKPILE AREAS AND OTHER SHORT-TERM STOCKPILES, STAGING AREAS, AND STREAM
CROSSINGS NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE DIVISION OF
ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES.
9. VEGETATION ON-SITE TO BE USED AS TRANSPLANT MATERIAL (JUNCUS, SMALL TREES, AND
SOD MATS) SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED UNTIL CONTRACTOR IS PREPARED TO INSTALL
TRANSPLANTS.
10. VARIOUS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES ARE SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR
SHALL BUILD THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE
PLANS. CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE TYPE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
11. FERTILIZER AND SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE DISCUSSED IN THE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS.
LIME AND FERTILIZER MAY BE APPLIED TO ASSIST WITH GRASS ESTABLISHMENT IN SOME
DISTURBED AREAS. THE LIMITS OF APPLICATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER IN
THE FIELD.
12. EXISTING FENCE LOCATED INSIDE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE REMOVED
DURING CONSTRUCTION.
13. CONTRACTOR IS TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO AVOID DAMAGING OR REMOVING EXISTING
TREES.
14. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE CONTRACTOR EXCEED THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
AND/OR GO OUTSIDE OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AREAS SHOWN ON THE
PLANS.
15. THE CONSTRUCTION SITE WILL BE ACCESSED FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES
LOCATED OFF US HIGHWAY 13 AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
Erosion Control Features
Proposed Tree Protection & Safety Fence
See Details 3 & 4, Sheet 5.3
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Silt Fence Gravel Outlet
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Construction Entrance
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Stream Crossing - Timber Mat
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Straw Wattle
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Pump Around System
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.6
Proposed Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
See Detail 4, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Stockpile/Staging Area
Permanent Wetland Impact Area
Temporary Wetland Impact Area
Permanent Open Water Impact Area
Permanent Stream Impact
Existing Buffer Zone A
Existing Buffer Zone B
SAF SAF
[X][X]
T
100
Initial Site Preparation
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE ENGINEER TO SETUP A MEETING WITH
NCDEQ DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL AND LAND RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE TO NOTIFY
THEM OF THE START DATE AND SCHEDULE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AT LEAST 48
HOURS PRIOR TO PROJECT ACTIVATION.
2. CONTACT THE NORTH CAROLINA “ONE CALL” CENTER (1.800.632.4949) BEFORE ANY
EXCAVATION.
3. MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TO THE SITE.
4. IDENTIFY AND ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS,
HAUL ROADS, SILT FENCE, TREE PROTECTION FENCING, SAFETY FENCING, ROCK SEDIMENT
DAMS, AND TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS FOR WORK
AREAS.
5. ALL HAUL ROADS SHALL BE MONITORED FOR SEDIMENT LOSS DAILY. IN THE EVENT OF
SEDIMENT LOSS, SILT FENCE OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
PRACTICES SHALL BE INSTALLED. SILT FENCE OUTLETS SHALL BE LOCATED AT POINTS OF LOW
ELEVATION OR A MINIMUM SPACING OF 150 FT.
6. SET UP TEMPORARY FACILITIES, LOCATE EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE STAGING AREA, AND
STOCKPILE MATERIALS NEEDED FOR THE INITIAL STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE
STOCKPILE AREAS. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN AN ON-SITE RAIN GAUGE AND LOG BOOK TO
RECORD RAINFALL AMOUNTS AND DATES. MAINTAIN AN APPROVED COPY OF THE ESC PLAN
WITH PLACARD AND APPROVAL LETTER AND A COPY OF THE NPDES PERMIT WITH A
MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS OF SELF-INSPECTION REPORTS ON SITE UNTIL PROJECT CLOSURE BY
NCDEQ.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT SELF-INSPECTIONS OF THE EROSION AND
SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AND COMPLETE THE COMBINED SELF-INSPECTION
FORM FOUND ON THE DEMLR WEBSITE
(DEMLR-CSW-MONITORING-FORM-REV-APRIL-1-2019.PDF) AS REQUIRED BY NCDEQ PERMIT.
RAINFALL RECORDS, COMPLETED SELF-INSPECTION FORMS, AND PERMITS SHOULD BE
MAINTAINED ON SITE.
8. MONITOR SITE FOR SEDIMENT LOSS AND INSPECT ALL EROSION CONTROL FEATURES AFTER
EACH RAIN EVENT. MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL FEATURES ACCORDING TO THE NORTH
CAROLINA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MANUAL.
Construction Sequence
1. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (E&SC) PERMIT AND A CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE (COC)
MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES OCCUR. THE COC CAN BE
OBTAINED BY FILLING OUT THE ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF INTENT (E-NOI) FORM AT
DEQ.NC.GOV/NCG01. PLEASE NOTE, THE E-NOI FORM MAY ONLY BE FILLED OUT ONCE THE
PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED. A COPY OF THE E&SC PERMIT, THE COC AND A HARD COPY
OF THE PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON SITE, PREFERABLY IN A PERMIT BOX, AND ACCESSIBLE
DURING INSPECTION. THE ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE THE CONTRACTOR WITH THE E&SC
PERMIT AND COC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. THIS PROJECT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES ACCORDING TO CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCES AND REGIONS OF THE SITE. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT START CONSTRUCTION
ON ONE PHASE AND MOVE TO ANOTHER PHASE BEFORE STABILIZING THE FIRST UNLESS A
CREW IS CONTINUING TO WORK ON THE INITIAL PHASE.
3. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A SCHEDULE TO THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT.
4. PERFORM ANY NECESSARY CLEARING AND GRUBBING IN PHASES AS WORK PROGRESSES.
STREAM BANK VEGETATION AND FLOODPLAIN VEGETATION IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO
LIVE CHANNELS SHALL BE LEFT UNDISTURBED AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. REMOVE ALL
NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE VEGETATION PRIOR TO BEGINNING CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION.
1.ASDF
2.ASDF
3.ASDF
4.ASDFG
5. CONSTRUCTION OF ALL CHANNELS IS TO BE DONE IN THE DRY. CONSTRUCTION SHOULD
GENERALLY PROGRESS FROM UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM TO PREVENT SEDIMENT
RUNOFF FROM UPSTREAM CONSTRUCTION AFFECTING COMPLETED DOWNSTREAM
REACHES. USE A PUMP-AROUND SYSTEMS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DISCUSSED IN
THE GENERAL NOTES.
6. WHERE FEASIBLE, MULTIPLE OFF-LINE SECTIONS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED
CONCURRENTLY. OFF-LINE SECTIONS SHALL BE TIED ON-LINE SEQUENTIALLY FROM
DOWNSTREAM TO UPSTREAM.
7. AS WORK PROGRESSES, REMOVE AND STOCKPILE THE TOP SIX (6) INCHES OF SOIL FROM
THE ACTIVE GRADING AREA. STOCKPILED TOPSOIL SHALL BE KEPT SEPARATE FOR
ON-SITE REPLACEMENT PRIOR TO FLOODPLAIN SEEDING.
8. CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED STREAM CHANNEL TO THE GRADE SPECIFIED IN THE CROSS
SECTIONS AND PROFILES. TRANSFER COARSE MATERIAL FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL
RIFFLES TO NEW CHANNEL RIFFLES UTILIZING A PUMP-AROUND SYSTEM WHEN DOING
SO.
9. INSTALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES (CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES, LOG SILLS, LOG J-HOOKS)
AND BANK REVETMENTS SUCH AS BRUSH TOE AFTER CHANNEL GRADING IS COMPLETED
ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
10. GRADE THE ADJACENT FLOODPLAIN AREA ACCORDING TO GRADES SHOWN ON THE
PLAN.
11. INSTALL PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS AND
SPECIFICATIONS.
12. BACKFILL ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS WITH STOCKPILED SOIL ACCORDING TO THE
GRADES SHOWN ON THE PLANS. NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE
REMOVED FROM THE EXISTING CHANNEL PRIOR TO BACKFILLING.
13. PREPARE FLOODPLAIN FOR SEEDING BY APPLYING STOCKPILED TOPSOIL TO THE
FLOODPLAIN BETWEEN BANKFULL ELEVATION AND THE GRADING LIMITS, RIPPING, AND
RAKING/SMOOTHING. SEED WITH SPECIFIED TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEED MIX
AND MULCH. ANY AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
GRADED SHALL BE TREATED ACCORDING TO THE PLANTING PLAN.
14. IF AT ANY TIME CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ARISE WHERE WATER HAS BEEN TURNED
INTO THE NEW CHANNEL AND ADDITIONAL WORK MUST BE DONE ON THE FLOODPLAIN,
EROSION CONTROL DEVICES WILL BE INSTALLED TO PROTECT THE NEW CHANNEL FROM
SEDIMENTATION.
15. ONCE ALL PHASES OF CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLETE,
PREPARE THE FLOODPLAIN AREAS FOR PLANTING PER THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
16. INSTALL LIVE STAKES AND HERBACEOUS PLUGS ALONG THE STREAM BANKS AND BARE
ROOTS IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR BUFFER AREAS ACCORDING TO THE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS.
17. WHEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE AND ACCEPTED BY THE ENGINEER, THE PERMITTEE
SHALL CONTACT DEMLR TO CLOSE OUT THE E&SC PLAN. AFTER DEMLR INFORMS THE
PERMITTEE OF THE PROJECT CLOSE OUT, VIA INSPECTION REPORT, THE PERMITTEE
SHALL VISIT DEQ.NC.GOV/NCG01 TO SUBMIT AN ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF TERMINATION
(E-NOT). A $100 ANNUAL GENERAL PERMIT FEE WILL BE CHARGED UNTIL THE E-NOT
HAS BEEN FILLED OUT.
Construction Demobilization
1. REMOVE TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS, STOCKPILE AREAS, AND EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES. NOTE: SITE STABILIZATION AND VEGETATION SHALL MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL PRIOR TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE
REMOVAL.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS FREE OF TRASH AND LEFTOVER
MATERIALS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE.
3. COMPLETE THE REMOVAL OF ANY ADDITIONAL STOCKPILED MATERIAL FROM THE SITE.
4. DEMOBILIZE GRADING EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE.
5. ALL ROCK AND OTHER STOCKPILED MATERIALS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE
ENGINEER.
6. ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE RETURNED TO PRE-PROJECT
CONDITION, EXCEPT FOR THE TWO CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES LOCATED OFF US HIGHWAY
13. THESE SHALL REMAIN AS ACCESS POINTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE.
7. SEED, MULCH, AND STABILIZE STAGING AREAS, STOCKPILE AREAS, HAUL ROADS, AND
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. PERMANENT SEEDING OUTSIDE EASEMENT SEED MIX IS TO BE
APPLIED TO AREAS OF DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND
WHERE SHOWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN.
8. NOTIFY DEMLR WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES ARE
COMPLETE.Soil Preparation
RIPPING:
·HAUL ROADS, STAGING AREAS, AND ALL OTHER HARD PACKED GROUND OUTSIDE THE
EASEMENT MUST BE RIPPED TO A DEPTH OF 15-IN WITH CHANNELS NO MORE THAN 3-FT
APART.
·BUFFER PLANTING ZONES MUST BE RIPPED TO AT LEAST A DEPTH OF 15-IN WITH CHANNELS
6-FT APART AND PARALLEL TO THE VALLEY.
SOIL AMENDMENTS
·SOIL AMENDMENT MUST BE SPREAD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE EASEMENT PER
THE RATES BELOW.
ENTIRE PLANTED AREA ( PER ACRE)
LIME - 2 TONS
GREATER THAN 2-FT CUT (PER ACRE)
AZOMITE (GRANULAR) - 200 LBS
CARBON PRO G - 400 LBS
ORGANIC GRANULATED 2-4-3 FERTILIZER (HOLGANIX OR SIMILAR) - 100 LBS
LESS THAN 2-FT CUT AND FILL (PER ACRE)
AZOMITE (GRANULAR) - 100 LBS
CARBON PRO G - 200 LBS
HARVEST AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL TO SPREAD ON GRADED AREAS WITHIN THE EASEMENT.
TOPSOIL SHOULD BE SPREAD TO A DEPTH OF 4-IN AND 8-IN.
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
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
X
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
T B
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
T BTB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
TB
ELEC ELEC ELEC ELECUS HIGHWAY 13 (60' R/
W
)
D.B. 3368, PG. 758
BROCK
D.B. 2135, PG. 304
BROOK
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 3
MARTHA C. KORNEGAY, TRUSTEE
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. 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. 3432, PG. 7
BROCK
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
STA: 100+00
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 1 (PRESERVATION)
STA: 119+82
END CASEY CREEK REACH 1 (PRESERVATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
STA: 125+92
END CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
STA: 145+05
END CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
STA: 147+67
END CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
STA: 202+37
BEGIN MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
STA: 209+34
END MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
STA: 300+41
BEGIN AFTON BRANCH (RESTORATION)STA: 306+26
END AFTON BRANCH (RESTORATION)
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' 200' 400' 600'
1" = 200'
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
0.
3
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
148
146
1
4
4
144
143
144
14
3
14
4
14
5
140
141
143
14
2
1
4
3
137
138
139
140
144
142
140
138
143
1
4
4
145
144
143
143
143
1
4
2
14
3
142
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
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TBTB
TB
T
B
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
CECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECE
142
14
2
1
1
9
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
121+
0
0
122
+
0
0
123+00
124+
0
0
STA: 119+82
END CASEY CREEK REACH 1 (PRESERVATION)
BEING CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
CASEY CREEK
REACH 1
CONNECT EXISTING DRAINAGE
TO NEW CHANNEL
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
2
3
+
7
0
3.5'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 7'
Dmax = 0.7'
1.75'1.75'3.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.2'
2.4'3.6'3.05'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.5'
1.5'5.25'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3:1 2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
1
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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-NM
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
143
144
1
4
3
142
14
1
140 139
138
137
141
142
143
141
140
140
141
142
136
135
137
138
139
13
6
135
136
137
143
1
4
2
1
4
3
14
1
14
0
140
141
139
13
9
142
139
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
T B
TB
TB TB TB T B T B 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 CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
140
138209+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
STA: 125+92
END CASEY CREEK REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
MA
R
T
H
A

B
R
A
N
C
H
CASEY CREEK REACH 2
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
1.75'1.75'3.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.2'
2.4'3.6'3.05'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.8'
Dmax = 1.5'
1.5'5.25'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3:1 2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
2
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
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
140
141
136
137
1
3
8
139
140
141
138
13
9
141
138
1
3
7
136
135 136 137 138
139
140
1
3
4
135
1
3
6
1
3
5
1
3
3
139
13
9
140
141
138
140
139
138
13
8
14
0
13
7
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
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
C
E
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
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
138
136
128
+
0
0
12
9
+
0
0
130+00
13
1
+
0
0
132+
0
0
133+
0
0
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
STA: 130+07
BEGIN INTERNAL EASEMENT CROSSING STA: 130+67
END INTERNAL EASEMENT CROSSING
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
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'
2.4'2.4'3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
3:1
3:1 3.5:1
2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
3
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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 5.9
FOR ADDITIONAL CULVERT INFORMATION.
2. REFER TO DETAIL 1, SHEET 5.9 FOR GRADING
EXTENTS OF THE INTERNAL EASEMENT CROSSING.
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
EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 136+71
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
EX. 48" RCP
EXISTING CULVERT
INV: 129.60
138
134
136
135
1
3
4
133
132133
131
13
4
135
136
138
139
13
7
1
3
8
1
3
9
1
3
8
1
3
7
1
3
6
1
3
5
1
3
4
133
13
8
13
6
137
13
5
13
7
13
6
135
13
4
13
3
13
2
134
133
13
7
133
133
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
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
TB
T
B
T
B
B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
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
C
E
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
13
6
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
IE: 129.60
IE: 129.92
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
STA: 136+71
BEGIN EXTERNAL CROSSING
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
2.4'2.4'3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
3:1
3:1 3.5:1
2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
4
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
CR-NM
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
EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA = 137+66
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
US HWY 13
EX. 48" RCP
EXISTING CULVERT
INV: 129.92
134
136
1
3
7
13
8
13
9
13
8
13
7
13
6
13
5
13
4
1
3
3
13
2
132
131
130
130
129
131
135
134
133
132
134
133
132
133
133
132
131
13
1
B
T
B T B
TB TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
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
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
130 130
129
136
+
0
0
137+00 138
+
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
IE: 129.60
IE: 129.92
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
STA: 137+66
END EXTERNAL CROSSING
STA: 136+71
BEGIN EXTERNAL CROSSING CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
2.4'2.4'3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
3:1
3:1 3.5:1
2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
5
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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%
-3.0%
-1.1%
-3.0%
-3.0%
-3.0%
-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
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
3
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
7
4
STA = 144+30
ELEV = 126.69
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
4
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
7
.
3
4
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
STA = 144+80
ELEV = 125.40
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
9
2
EL
E
V

=

1
2
5
.
8
0
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
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
5
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
9
7
STA = 144+55
ELEV = 126.06
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
6
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
5
7
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
8
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
0
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
8
0
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
2
0
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
5
5
EL
E
V

=

1
2
6
.
9
1
STA = 144+05
ELEV = 127.33
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
1
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
1
1
ST
A

=

1
4
4
+
1
7
EL
E
V

=

1
2
8
.
1
1
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
131
131
130
126
127 128 129
1
2
9
128
126
127
126
1
2
5
131
131
130
12
9
128
129
1
2
8
127
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
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
TB
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
130
129
306+26
3
0
6
+
0
0
14
1
+
0
0
142+00
143
+
0
0
144
+
0
0
145+00
1
4
6
+
0
0
CASEY CREEK REACH 3
126
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
STA: 145+05
END CASEY CREEK REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
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'
2.4'2.4'3.4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.4'
2.8'4.9'1.75'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.1'
Dmax = 1.7'
2.55'6.8'
3:1
3:1 3.5:1
2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
6
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
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
128
129 12
9
126
1
2
8
127
126
128
126
128 127
126
1
2
5
128
129
1
3
3
1
3
2
129
125
126
127 128
127
1
2
6
12
7
128
12
9
13
0
131
13
2
13
3
1
2
9
128
129
1
2
8
127
12
7
12
8
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
T
B
TB TB
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
T B
T B
T B
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
1
2
5
306+26
30
5
+
0
0
3
0
6
+
0
0
144
+
0
0
145+00
14
6
+
0
0
147+00
AF
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
STA: 147+67
END CASEY CREEK REACH 4 (RESTORATION)
42
"

C
M
P
CASEY CREEK REACH 4
15"

C
P
P
126
IE: 122.69
IE: 123.08
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
EXISTING CULVERT
TO BE REMOVED
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
3.6'3.6'4'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.8'
Dmax = 1.6'
3.2'5.6'1.8'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.8'
Dmax = 2'
3'8'
3:1 3:1 2:1 4:1
1.5:1
3.5:1PROPOSED 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
7
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
1
4
5
144
143 142
142
143
143
144
142 141
140
142 143
14
4
145
144
144
14
3
142
142
143
144
142
143
144
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
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
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
141
200
+
0
0
201
+
0
0
202+00
203+00
2
0
4
+
0
0
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
STA: 202+37
END SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
BEGIN MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
STA: 200+57
BEGIN SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
MARTHA BRANCH
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
1.75'1.75'3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'2.5'
WIDTH VARIES PER PLANS
Dmax = 1.1'2.5:1
2.5:1
3:1
2:1 3.5:1
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
8
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
1
4
4
143
14
2
14
1
14
0
1
3
9
13
8
13
7
1
4
1
136
143
14
3
142
141
140
143
14
4
14
3
142
1
4
2
1
4
3
1
4
1
1
4
3
140
139138
138
140141
142
143
141
140
14
2
144
143
142
14
1
142
143
144
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
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TBTB
TB
T
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
14
0
141
140
141
203+00
204+
0
0
205+00
2
0
6
+
0
0
2
0
7
+
0
0
208+00
209+
0
0
124
+
0
0
1
2
5
+
0
0
MARTHA BRANCH
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
1.75'1.75'3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3:1 2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
1.
9
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
144
14
3
1
4
2
1
4
1
1
4
0
13
9
138
1
3
7
141
14
2
1
4
0
140
1
4
1
1
4
2
136
1
3
5
137
1
3
8
13
9
1
3
6
135 136
142
142
141
143
140
139
138
138
140
141
14
2
14
3
141
140
1
4
0
1
4
1
1
3
9
139
142
141
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
CE
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
CE CE CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
140
140
209+34
206+00
2
0
7
+
0
0
208
+
0
0
209+
0
0
125+00
126+
0
0
127+00
128
+
0
0
CASEY C
R
E
E
K

R
E
A
C
H

3
STA: 209+34
END MARTHA BRANCH (RESTORATION)
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 (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
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'
1.75'1.75'3'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.3'
2.6'3.9'1.85'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
Dmax = 1.7'
1.7'5.95'
2.5:1
2.5:
1
3:1 2:1 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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
2.
0
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
134
133
132
131
130
130
132
131
126
127 128 129
132133
132 131
130
129
128
12
7
128
129
130
131
133
129
T B T B
T B T B TB TB
TB T B
T B T B
T B TB TB T B
T B
TB TB
TBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
127
126
300+00
301+
0
0
302+00
303+
0
0
304+
0
0
3
0
5
+
0
0
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
STA: 300+41
BEGIN AFTON BRANCH (RESTORATION)
AFTON BRANCH
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL (TYP)
CHANNEL PLUG (TYP)
PROPOSED FORD CROSSING
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 5.6
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'
2'4.15'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.5'
3'5.25'1.95'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.9'
2.85'7.6'2'
2.5:1
3.5:1
2:1
4:1
1.5:1
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
2.
1
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
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
129
12
8
12
6
12
7
12
6
1
2
8
12
7
12
8
12
6
125
126127
128
132
131
130
130
131
126
127 128 129
127
1
2
9
128
1
2
8
127
130
129
128
12
7
127
128129
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
125
127
126 306+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 (TYP)
STA: 306+26
END AFTON BRANCH (RESTORATION)
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
126
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'
2'4.15'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.5'
3'5.25'1.95'
BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.4'
Dmax = 1.9'
2.85'7.6'2'
2.5:1
3.5:1
2:1
4:1
1.5:1
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
2.
2
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
3.
1
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 5%
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 8%
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 10%
Ulmus americana American Elm 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 6%
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Subcanopy FACW 10%
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 8%
Quercus nigra Water Oak 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FAC 9%
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 9%
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy OBL 3%
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy OBL 5%
Acer negundo Boxelder 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Subcanopy FAC 6%
Betula nigra River Birch 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACW 10%
Ulmus alata Winged Elm 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Canopy FACU 5%
Morella cerifera Common Waxmyrtle 7-12 ft.0.25"-1.0"Shrub FAC 3%
Hamamelis virginiana American Witch-hazel 7-12 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
Preferred alternate species: Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), Red mulberry (Morus rubra)
CE CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
CECECECE
C
E
C
E
CECE
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
C
E
CECE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
C
E
-
I
X
C
E
-
I
X
X
TB T B
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB T B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
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
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
T B TB
T
B
T
B
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
)
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
3.
2
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
T B TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
T B TB
T B TB
T B
TB
T B
T
B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB T B
TB
T B
T B
T B
T B
TB
TB
ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC
US HIGHWAY 13 (60
'

R
/
W
)
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
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE-I
X
CE
-
I
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
N
0' 100' 200' 300'
1" = 100'
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

A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
.
d
w
g
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
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

A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s

P
l
a
n
LEGEND
5.3'-3.5' OF CUT
US HWY 13
MART
H
A

B
R
A
N
C
H
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
AFTO
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
ANTICIPATED SOIL AMENDMENTS (> 2.0' OF CUT)
AMENDMENT APPLICATION
RATE
APPLICATION
AREA TOTAL AMOUNT
AZOMITE (GRANULAR) 200 LBS/ACRE 0.7 ACRES 140 LBS
CARBON PRO G 400 LBS/ACRE 0.7 ACRES 280 LBS
ORGANIC
GRANULATED 2-4-3
FERTILIZER (HOLGANIX
OR SIMILAR)
100 LBS/ACRE 0.7 ACRES 70 LBS
ANTICIPATED SOIL AMENDMENTS (< 2.0' OF CUT & FILL)
AMENDMENT APPLICATION
RATE
APPLICATION
AREA TOTAL AMOUNT
AZOMITE (GRANULAR)100 LBS/ACRE 7.2 ACRES 720 LBS
CARBON PRO G 200 LBS/ACRE 7.2 ACRES 1440 LBS
NOTES:
1. APPLICATION AREA ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE AREAS INSIDE THE PROPOSED CHANNEL.
2. LIME SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE PLANTING AREA AT A RATE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE.
NOTES:
1. APPLICATION AREA ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE AREAS INSIDE THE PROPOSED CHANNEL.
2. LIME SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE PLANTING AREA AT A RATE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE.
3.5'-2.0' OF CUT
2.0'-0.0' OF CUT
0.0'-2.0' OF FILL
2.0'-3.5' OF FILL
3.5'-5.0' OF FILL
5.0'-7.9' OF FILL
3.
3
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
BTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T
B
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
T
B
TB
TB
T B TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B
T B TB
T B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
BTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TBTBTBT
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
T B
T B
T B
TB
TB
ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC
US HIGHWAY 13 (60'

R
/
W
)
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
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
-
I
X
CE
-
I
X
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[
X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[
X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
T
T
T
T
[X
]
[X]
[
X
]
[
X
]
LOD
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LODLO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD LOD LOD LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LODLODLOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
[X]
[X]
T
[X]
T
T
T
[X]
[X]
[X
]
MART
H
A

B
R
A
N
C
H
US HWY 13
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
AFTO
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
SH
E
E
T

4
.
1
SH
E
E
T

4
.
2
SH
E
E
T

4
.
3
CA
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
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' 120' 240' 360'
1" = 120'
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

-

E
S
C

P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
4.
0
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Er
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

P
l
a
n

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
Erosion Control Features
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence Gravel Outlet
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Construction Entrance
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Stream Crossing - Timber Mat
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
See Detail 4, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Pump Around System
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.6
Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Stockpile/Staging Area
Proposed Limits of Disturbance (LOD)
[X]
T
LOD
NOTE:
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EARTHEN
HAUL ROADS/ACCESS ROUTES ARE
POTENTIAL ROUTES AND WILL NOT BE
CONSTRUCTED IF NOT NEEDED.
GROUND STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS PER NCGO1
SITE AREA DESCRIPTION STABILIZATION TIME
FRAME
STABILIZATION TIME
FRAME EXCEPTIONS
PERIMETER DIKES, SWALES, DITCHES &
SLOPES 7 DAYS NONE
HIGH QUALITY WATER (HQW) ZONES 7 DAYS NONE
SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 7 DAYS
IF SLOPES ARE 10:1 OR LESS IN LENGTH
AND ARE NOT STEEPER THAN 2:1, 14
DAYS ARE ALLOWED
SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 14 DAYS 7 DAYS FOR SLOPES > 50' IN LENGTH
ALL OTHER AREAS WITH SLOPES <4:1 14 DAYS NONE (EXCEPT FOR PERIMETERS AND
HQW)
EXTENSIONS OF TIME MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY BASED ON WEATHER OR SITE-SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS THAT MAKE COMPLIANCE PRACTICABLE.
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED ONCE PER 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24
HOURS OF A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 1.0" PER 24 HOUR PERIOD. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
SHALL BE PERFORMED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE THE NEXT STORM EVENT. RECORDS MUST BE
KEPT ON-SITE AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR
3 YEARS AND AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. A RAIN GAUGE MUST BE INSTALLED AT THE SITE.
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE = 17.40 ACRES
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
T B
T
B
T B
T
B
TB
TBTB
TB
T
B
T
B
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
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
BTB
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
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
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
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
-
I
X
CE-I
X
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X]
[
X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[
X
]
[
X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
T
T
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X
]
[
X
]
[
X
]
[
X
]
[
X
]
[
X
]
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
[
X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
T
[X]
[X]
[X]
1
4
0
145
14
0
14
5
1
4
5
140
14
0
140
14
5
1
4
5
14
5
14
5
145
14
0
14
0
14
5
140
14
0
MATCH L
I
N
E

-

S
H
E
E
T

4
.
2
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
ROCK SEDIMENT DAM
S1
S3
O2
S1
0' 40' 80' 120'
1" = 40'
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

-

E
S
C

P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
4.
1
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Er
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

P
l
a
n
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
MART
H
A

B
R
A
N
C
H
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
Erosion Control Features
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence Gravel Outlet
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Construction Entrance
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Stream Crossing - Timber Mat
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
See Detail 4, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Pump Around System
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.6
Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Stockpile/Staging Area
Proposed Limits of Disturbance (LOD)
Permanent Wetland Impact Area
Temporary Wetland Impact Area
Permanent Open Water Impact Area
Permanent Stream Impact
Existing Buffer Zone A
Existing Buffer Zone B
[X]
T
LOD
NOTE:
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EARTHEN
HAUL ROADS/ACCESS ROUTES ARE
POTENTIAL ROUTES AND WILL NOT BE
CONSTRUCTED IF NOT NEEDED.
GROUND STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS PER NCGO1
SITE AREA DESCRIPTION STABILIZATION TIME
FRAME
STABILIZATION TIME
FRAME EXCEPTIONS
PERIMETER DIKES, SWALES, DITCHES &
SLOPES 7 DAYS NONE
HIGH QUALITY WATER (HQW) ZONES 7 DAYS NONE
SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 7 DAYS
IF SLOPES ARE 10:1 OR LESS IN LENGTH
AND ARE NOT STEEPER THAN 2:1, 14
DAYS ARE ALLOWED
SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 14 DAYS 7 DAYS FOR SLOPES > 50' IN LENGTH
ALL OTHER AREAS WITH SLOPES <4:1 14 DAYS NONE (EXCEPT FOR PERIMETERS AND
HQW)
EXTENSIONS OF TIME MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY BASED ON WEATHER OR SITE-SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS THAT MAKE COMPLIANCE PRACTICABLE.
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED ONCE PER 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24
HOURS OF A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 1.0" PER 24 HOUR PERIOD. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
SHALL BE PERFORMED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE THE NEXT STORM EVENT. RECORDS MUST BE
KEPT ON-SITE AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR
3 YEARS AND AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. A RAIN GAUGE MUST BE INSTALLED AT THE SITE.
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE = 17.40 ACRES
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B T B T B T B T B
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T B
T B T B T B T B TB
T B T B
T B
TB
TB
TB
T B
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TB
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T B T B TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC
US HIGHWAY 13 (6
0
'

R
/
W
)
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
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
C
E
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE-I
X
CE-I
X
CE-I
X
CE-I
X
CE-I
X
CE-I
X
CE-I
X
CE
-
I
X
[X]
[X
]
[X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X
]
[X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X
]
[X
]
[
X
]
[
X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X
]
[X]
[
X
]
[
X
]
[X]
LODLOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
L
O
D LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LODLOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LODLOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
L
O
D
LODLOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
[X]
T
T
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X]
[X]
14
0
1
4
0
135
1
3
5
13
5
14
0
1
3
0
1
3
0
145
1
4
0
1
3
5
13
5
14
0
1
4
5
140
145
140
1
3
5
135
135
14
0
14
5
145
135
140
140
13
5 13
5
13
5
13
0
MATCH L
I
N
E

-

S
H
E
E
T

4
.
1
MATCH LINE - SHEET 4.3
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
ROCK SEDIMENT DAMS
PROPOSED 24" RCP CULVERTS
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES
TO REMAIN AFTER CONSTRUCTION
PERMANENT STOCKPILE
DO NOT USE ADJACENT DIRT ROAD
S1
S2
S1
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

-

E
S
C

P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
4.
2
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Er
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

P
l
a
n
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
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
C
A
S
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
0' 40' 80' 120'
1" = 40'
N
Erosion Control Features
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence Gravel Outlet
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Construction Entrance
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Stream Crossing - Timber Mat
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
See Detail 4, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Pump Around System
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.6
Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Stockpile/Staging Area
Proposed Limits of Disturbance (LOD)
Permanent Wetland Impact Area
Temporary Wetland Impact Area
Permanent Open Water Impact Area
Permanent Stream Impact
Existing Buffer Zone A
Existing Buffer Zone B
[X]
T
LOD
NOTE:
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EARTHEN
HAUL ROADS/ACCESS ROUTES ARE
POTENTIAL ROUTES AND WILL NOT BE
CONSTRUCTED IF NOT NEEDED.
GROUND STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS PER NCGO1
SITE AREA DESCRIPTION STABILIZATION TIME
FRAME
STABILIZATION TIME
FRAME EXCEPTIONS
PERIMETER DIKES, SWALES, DITCHES &
SLOPES 7 DAYS NONE
HIGH QUALITY WATER (HQW) ZONES 7 DAYS NONE
SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 7 DAYS
IF SLOPES ARE 10:1 OR LESS IN LENGTH
AND ARE NOT STEEPER THAN 2:1, 14
DAYS ARE ALLOWED
SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 14 DAYS 7 DAYS FOR SLOPES > 50' IN LENGTH
ALL OTHER AREAS WITH SLOPES <4:1 14 DAYS NONE (EXCEPT FOR PERIMETERS AND
HQW)
EXTENSIONS OF TIME MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY BASED ON WEATHER OR SITE-SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS THAT MAKE COMPLIANCE PRACTICABLE.
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED ONCE PER 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24
HOURS OF A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 1.0" PER 24 HOUR PERIOD. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
SHALL BE PERFORMED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE THE NEXT STORM EVENT. RECORDS MUST BE
KEPT ON-SITE AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR
3 YEARS AND AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. A RAIN GAUGE MUST BE INSTALLED AT THE SITE.
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE = 17.40 ACRES
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
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
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
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
T B
T B
T BCE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
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
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
[X
]
[
X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X][X
]
[
X
]
[
X
]
[
X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X
]
T
T
[X]
[X]
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
[X]
[X]
[
X
]
T
[
X
]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X
]
[X
]
[X
]
1
3
0
135
140
13
5 13
5
13
0
1
3
5
140
14
0
140135
1
3
5
135
130
130
130
130
1
3
0
125
125
130
130
13
0
13
0
130
130
130
130
125
125
MATCH LINE - SHEET 4.2
S1
S4
S5
W1
W2
O1
S1
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

-

E
S
C

P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
4.
3
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Er
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

P
l
a
n
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
CAS
E
Y

C
R
E
E
K
AFTON BRANCH
0' 40' 80' 120'
1" = 40'
N
Erosion Control Features
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Temporary Silt Fence Gravel Outlet
See Detail 3, Sheet 5.4
Proposed Construction Entrance
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Stream Crossing - Timber Mat
See Detail 2, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
See Detail 4, Sheet 5.5
Proposed Pump Around System
See Detail 1, Sheet 5.6
Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Stockpile/Staging Area
Proposed Limits of Disturbance (LOD)
Permanent Wetland Impact Area
Temporary Wetland Impact Area
Permanent Open Water Impact Area
Permanent Stream Impact
Existing Buffer Zone A
Existing Buffer Zone B
[X]
T
LOD
NOTE:
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EARTHEN
HAUL ROADS/ACCESS ROUTES ARE
POTENTIAL ROUTES AND WILL NOT BE
CONSTRUCTED IF NOT NEEDED.
GROUND STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS PER NCGO1
SITE AREA DESCRIPTION STABILIZATION TIME
FRAME
STABILIZATION TIME
FRAME EXCEPTIONS
PERIMETER DIKES, SWALES, DITCHES &
SLOPES 7 DAYS NONE
HIGH QUALITY WATER (HQW) ZONES 7 DAYS NONE
SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 7 DAYS
IF SLOPES ARE 10:1 OR LESS IN LENGTH
AND ARE NOT STEEPER THAN 2:1, 14
DAYS ARE ALLOWED
SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 14 DAYS 7 DAYS FOR SLOPES > 50' IN LENGTH
ALL OTHER AREAS WITH SLOPES <4:1 14 DAYS NONE (EXCEPT FOR PERIMETERS AND
HQW)
EXTENSIONS OF TIME MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY BASED ON WEATHER OR SITE-SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS THAT MAKE COMPLIANCE PRACTICABLE.
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED ONCE PER 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24
HOURS OF A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 1.0" PER 24 HOUR PERIOD. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
SHALL BE PERFORMED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE THE NEXT STORM EVENT. RECORDS MUST BE
KEPT ON-SITE AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR
3 YEARS AND AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. A RAIN GAUGE MUST BE INSTALLED AT THE SITE.
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE = 17.40 ACRES
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
5.
1
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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'
6"

M
A
X
.
5' MIN.
(TYP)
FLOW
1
5.1
B'
B
A
FL
O
W
THALWEG
TOP OF BANK
NORMAL WATER
SURFACE
BURY INTO BANK
ACCORDING TO NOTE 3
BANKFULL
6" DIAMETER OR
GREATER (TYP.)
THALWEG 1.2-2.4" 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
3.6" 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
2
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)
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
1.
0
'

M
I
N
.
FLOW A A'
B'
B
FLOW
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL 6" UP SIDE SLOPES
CR-NM
IMPORTED BED
MATERIAL
D50: 1"-3"
IMPORTED BED
MATERIAL
D50: 1"-3"
IMPORTED BED
MATERIAL
D50: 1"-3"
IMPORTED BED
MATERIAL
D50: 1"-3"
2.
7
'
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
0.
4
'
TOP OF BANK
OFFSET HEADER LOG
0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
OF FOOTER LOG
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
FLOW
VANE

A
R
M
LENG
T
H
8.0-1
3
.
3
'
3%-5%
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
PLACE HEADER BOULDER
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
WITH 1' TO 2' CLEAR SPACE
BETWEEN ROCKS.
NO GAP BETWEEN FOOTERS
3
5.1
Log J-Hook
Not to Scale
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
5.
2
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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)
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 PROFILEBED 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
1
5.2
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
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.
8. CONFER WITH FIELD ENGINEER REGARDING PLACEMENT OF LOG SILLS
BETWEEN STA 144+05 AND STA 145+05.
SPLASH ROCK
2
5.2
Buried Log Sill
Not to Scale
NOTES:
1. INSTALL BURIED LOG SILLS AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:
1.1. ONE IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF THE INTERNAL
CROSSING AT CASEY CREEK R3
1.2. ONE IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF THE HWY 13 CROSSING
AT CASEY CREEK R3
1.3. THREE WITHIN THE PORTION OF MARTHA BRANCH
DESIGNATED AS A PROPOSED SWALE WITH PILOT CHANNEL
2. LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8" IN DIAMETER.
3. FOOTER LOGS TO BE ADDED AS NECESSARY .
4. ONE 16"-18" LOG MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TWO 8" LOGS.
5. STONE FOOTER MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR FOOTER LOG.
6. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF LOG
SILLS. DOWNSTREAM EDGE OF FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE FOLDED
UNDERNEATH PRECEDING FABRIC AND NAILED INTO LOG USING 3"
10D GALVANIZED NAILS OR STANDARD 3" ROOFING NAILS AT 12
MAX SPACING.
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
A'
Plan View
FLOW
SWALE ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
BACKFILL
A
Profile View
SWALE BOTTOM OR STREAMBED
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC 5'
MIN. UPSTREAM
ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
WOVEN FILTER FABRIC TO
BE INSTALLED TO TWICE
THE SWALE DEPTH OR A
MINIMUM OF 3'
FLOW
Section A - A'
EMBED LOG
TO BANKFULL
OR 5' (MIN.)
WHICHEVER IS
GREATER
SWALE/STREAM BED ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
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.
FLOW
BED MATERIAL
Material Tables
Not to Scale
4
5.2
RIFFLE MATERIAL TABLE - ALL RIFFLE TYPES
REACH
BOTTOM WIDTH
(FT)
RIFFLE
THICKNESS (IN)
RIFFLE MATERIAL STONE SIZE EQUIVALENTS
(% OF MATRIX)
Casey Creek Reach 2 3.5 12
70% Class A, 30% ABC
Casey Creek Reach 3 3.4 12
80% Class A, 20% ABC
Casey Creek Reach 4 3.0 12
40% Class A, 60% ABC
Martha Branch 3.3 12 20% Class A, 80% ABC
Afton Branch 4.5 12
20% Class A, 80% ABC
NOTES:
1. ALL RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED IN LIFTS AT A THICKNESS NOT TO EXCEED DMAX.
MINIMUM BOULDER DIMENSIONS
DIMENSIONS ALL REACHES
X (FT)0.5
Y (FT)1
Z (FT)1.5
MINIMUM LOG DIMENSIONS
DIMENSIONS ALL REACHES
DIAMETER (IN)8
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
5.
3
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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.
2. ZONE 1 CORRESPONDS TO PLANTING FOR CASEY
CREEK R3, CASEY CREEK R4, AND AFTON BRANCH.
ZONE 2 CORRESPONDS TO PLANTING FOR CASEY
CREEK R2 AND MARTHA BRANCH.
TOE OF SLOPE
PLUG (TYP)
6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
3' - 5' SPACING FOR PLUGS
1' OUTSIDE TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
Plan View - Zone 1
6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
3' - 5' SPACING FOR PLUGS
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
1'
2
5.3
Live Staking and Plugs
Not to Scale
REMOVE ALL BRUSH AND
DEBRIS FROM INSIDE DRIPLINE.6' WOODEN OR METAL "T" POSTS
SHALL BE USED AS STANDARDS.
SAFETY FENCE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO
STANDARDS TO FORM BARRIER.
Section View
RADIUS OF TREE PROTECTION
BARRIER PER PLANS.
Plan View
3' M
I
N
.
3'
3'
3
5.3
Tree Protection
Not to Scale
NOTES:
1. ALL TREE PROTECTION BARRIERS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR
TO CONTRACTOR DEMOBILIZATION.
2. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION OF ALL TREE PROTECTION
BARRIERS.
6' MAX. WITH WIRE
ORANGE SAFTY
FENCE
"T" OR "U" POST DRIVEN
MINIMUM OF 18" INTO GROUND
ATTACH SAFETY FENCE
TO METAL POSTS USING
METAL WIRE TIES
4'

M
I
N
.
MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
PHYSICAL PROPERTY TESTS REQUIREMENTS
MATERIAL N/A POLYETHYLENE
RECOMENDED COLOR N/A "INTERNATIONAL ORANGE"
TENSILE YIELD ASTM D638 AVE. 2000 LBS. PER 4' WIDE
ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH ASTM D638 AVE. 2900 LBS. PER 4' WIDE
ELONGATION AT BREAK (%)ASTM D638 GREATER THAN 1000%
CHEMICAL RESISTANCE N/A INERT TO MOST CHEMICALS AND ACIDS
18
"

M
I
N
.
4
5.3
Safety Fence
Not to Scale
SAF SAF
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
5.
4
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
Section View
ECO-STAKE (TYP)
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING (TYP)
Plan View
ECO-STAKE (TYP)TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
TOE OF SLOPE
12
"
2"
2"
Typical Stake
TOP OF BANK
SECURE MATTING IN
6" DEEP TRENCH
3' M
A
X
.
SPAC
I
N
G
6" MIN. OVERLAP IN
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION
AT MAT ENDS
6"

M
I
N
1.25"
.4
"
Eco-Stake
TYPICAL STAKE (TYP)
TYPICAL STAKE (TYP)
TYPICAL STAKE (TYP)
1
5.4
Erosion Control Matting
Not to Scale
8"
4"
NOTES:
1. USE WIRE A MINIMUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND WITH A
MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH 12" STAY
SPACING.
2. USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 36" IN WIDTH AND
FASTEN ADEQUATELY TO THE WIRES AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER.
3. PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE SELF-FASTENER ANGLE
STEEL TYPE. ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
4. INSPECT AFTER EACH RAIN EVENT AND MAINTAIN
ACCORDING TO NCDEQ DESIGN MANUAL.
4.1. SHOULD FABRIC COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE, OR
BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IMMEDIATELY.
4.2. REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE
NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE
FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE
FENCE DURING CLEAN OUT.
4.3. REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE
SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING TO GRADE AND
STABILIZE IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE
AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.
WIRE
TOP AND BOTTOM STRAND
SHALL BE 10 GAUGE MIN.
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL WIRES
SHALL BE 12 1
2 GAGE MIN.
8' MAX. WITH WIRE
(6' MAX. WITHOUT WIRE)
FILTER FABRIC
EXISTING GROUND
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL
ST
E
E
L

P
O
S
T
2'
-
0
"

D
E
P
T
H
EXTEND FABRIC
INTO TRENCH
2
5.4
Temporary Silt Fence
Not to Scale
Section A-A'
Plan View
EROSION CONTROL MAT
1
1
COMPACTED SELECT
MATERIAL CHANNEL BACKFILL
SIDE SLOPE PER
TYPICAL SECTION
P R O P O S E D C H A N N E L
A A'FLOW
ABANDONED
CHANNEL
4
5.4
Channel Plug
Not to Scale
4' MIN.
Section ViewPlan View Front View
3'
INSTALLATION:
REFER TO THE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. DURING INSTALLATION OF
THE SILT BARRIER OR SILT FENCE, INSPECT THE INSTALLATION TO DETERMINE IF OUTLETS
ARE NEEDED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
BARRIER AND FENCE. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS WITH THE LOCATION,
EXTENT, OR METHOD OF INSTALLATION, CONTACT THE ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, OR
RESPONSIBLE PERSONNEL ON THE SITE FOR ASSISTANCE. EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL
HAVE COPIES OF INSTRUCTIONS AND MAY HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERLY INSTALLED
OUTLETS AS AN AID TO INSTALLATION.
IF THE SILT FENCE OUTLET IS NOT INSTALLED CORRECTLY THE FIRST TIME, IT WILL HAVE
TO BE REBUILT.
DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION ON THE GROUND BEFORE COMPLETING INSTALLATION
OF THE SILT FENCE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
INSTALL THE OUTLET AT THE LOWEST POINT (S) IN THE BARRIER OR FENCE WHERE
WATER WILL POND.
INSTALL THE OUTLET WHERE IT IS ACCESSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
REMOVAL.
ALLOW AT LEAST:
15 FEET BETWEEN THE BARRIER OR FENCE AND SINGLE-STORY BUILDINGS.
25 FEET FOR FORK LIFTS BETWEEN THE BARRIER OR FENCE AND MULTIPLE-STORY
BUILDINGS.
10 FEET BETWEEN THE BARRIER OR FENCE AND THE TOE OF FILL SLOPES.
PLACE THE OUTLET SO THAT WATER FLOWING THROUGH IT WILL NOT CREATE AN
EROSION HAZARD BELOW: AVOID STEEP SLOPES BELOW THE OUTLET AND AREAS
WITHOUT PROTECTIVE VEGETATION. USE SLOPE DRAINS IF NECESSARY.
DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF THE OUTLET: FOR A SILT BARRIER, WHEN THE TRENCH IS
DUG TO BURY THE BOTTOM OF THE FABRIC BECAUSE THE BARRIER WILL BE OMITTED AT
THE OUTLET; FOR A SILT FENCE, WHEN THE WIRE FENCE IS IN PLACE BECAUSE THE FILTER
FABRIC WILL BE OMITTED AT THE OUTLET.
REFER TO THE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE OUTLET IN THE PLAN.
CLEAR STUMPS AND ROOTS FROM THE LOCATION OF THE OUTLET. CLEAR ADEQUATE
ACCESS FOR THE EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
REMOVAL.
FOR A SILT BARRIER:
JUST BELOW THE GAP IN THE BARRIER, PLACE A
LAYER OF FILTER FABRIC ON THE GROUND TO
PROTECT THE SOIL FROM EROSION BY
OUTFLOW FROM THE OUTLET; PLACE 6 INCHES
OF THE UPPER EDGE IN THE TRENCH. STAKE THE
REMAINING EDGES OF THE FABRIC TO HOLD IT
IN PLACE.
ALONG THE GAP WHERE THE OUTLET WILL GO,
PLACE STEEL FENCE POSTS FOR STRENGTH. THE
POSTS MUST BE A MAXIMUM OF 2 FEET APART
AND DRIVEN INTO SOLID GROUND AT LEAST 18
INCHES.
PLACE HARDWARE CLOTH (WELDED
GALVANIZED SCREEN WITH SQUARE 1/4 -
1/2-INCH HOLES) ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE
POSTS TO HOLD THE WASHED STONE IN PLACE.
PUT 6 INCHES OF THE BOTTOM OF THE CLOTH
IN THE TRENCH AND FASTEN IT TO THE POSTS
WITH LENGTHS OF WIRE.
BURY THE BOTTOM OF THE HARDWARE CLOTH
AND THE UPPER EDGE OF THE FILTER FABRIC
BELOW THE OUTLET IN THE TRENCH AND
COMPACT THE FILL.
PLACE A FILTER OF 1-INCH DIAMETER WASHED
STONE ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE OUTLET.
PILE THE STONE UP TO THE TOP OF THE
HARDWARE CLOTH AND OVER THE JOINT
BETWEEN THE OUTLET AND THE BARRIER.
FOR A SILT FENCE:
JUST BELOW THE GAP IN THE BARRIER, PLACE
A LAYER OF FILTER FABRIC ON THE GROUND
TO PROTECT THE SOIL FROM EROSION BY
OUTFLOW FROM THE OUTLET; PLACE 6
INCHES OF THE UPPER EDGE IN THE TRENCH.
STAKE THE OTHER EDGES OF THE FABRIC TO
HOLD IT IN PLACE.
ALONG THE GAP WHERE THE OUTLET WILL
GO, PLACE ADDITIONAL STEEL FENCE POSTS
FOR STRENGTH. THE POSTS MUST BE A
MAXIMUM OF 2 FEET APART AND DRIVEN
INTO SOLID GROUND AT LEAST 18 INCHES.
PLACE HARDWARE CLOTH (WELDED
GALVANIZED SCREEN WITH SQUARE 1/4 -
1/2-INCH HOLES) ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE
POSTS TO HOLD THE WASHED STONE IN
PLACE. PUT 6 INCHES OF THE BOTTOM OF THE
CLOTH IN THE TRENCH AND FASTEN IT TO THE
POSTS WITH LENGTHS OF WIRE.
BURY THE BOTTOM OF THE HARDWARE
CLOTH, THE UPPER EDGE OF THE FILTER
FABRIC BELOW THE OUTLET, AND THE WIRE
FENCE IN THE TRENCH AND COMPACT THE
FILL.
PLACE A FILTER OF 1-INCH DIAMETER WASHED
STONE ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE OUTLET.
PILE THE STONE UP TO THE TOP OF THE
HARDWARE CLOTH AND OVER THE JOINT
BETWEEN THE OUTLET AND THE SILT FENCE.
BURY WIRE FENCE, FILTER FABRIC,
AND HARDWARE CLOTH IN TRENCH
SILT FENCE
END OF FILTER FABRIC
STEEL FENCE POST
SET MAX 2' APART
TOP OF SILT FENCE
MUST BE AT LEAST 1'
ABOVE THE TOP OF
THE WASHED STONE
FILTER FABRIC
ON GROUND
BURY WIRE FENCE
AND HARDWARE CLOTH
STEEL FENCE POST
WIRE FENCE
HARDWARE CLOTH
FILTER OF 1" DIA.
WASHED STONE
FILTER OF 1" DIA.
WASHED STONE
END OF FILTER FABRIC
SILT FENCE
3
5.4
Temporary Silt Fence Gravel Outlet
Not to Scale
[x]
MAINTENANCE:
1. CHECK OUTLET FOR EROSION, PIPING, AND ROCK
DISPLACEMENT WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH
SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL AND REPAIR
IMMEDIATELY.
2. REMOVE THE STRUCTURE AND ANY UNSTABLE
SEDIMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONSTRUCTION
SITE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED.
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
5.
5
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
1
5.5
Construction Entrance
Not to Scale
5
0
'
12
'
PUB
L
I
C

R
O
A
D
CLASS A STONE
8" MIN. DEPTH
NOTES:
1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE
LARGE TRUCKS.
5. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OF INGRESS
AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED. PROVIDE FREQUENT
CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE.
6. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT
TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS.
PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
7. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE
CLEANED IMMEDIATELY.
8. USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE AGGREGATE
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
9. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
10. AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED
TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY.
IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS
SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS.
11. REMOVE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE UPON COMPLETION OF
THE PROJECT AND RETURN TO PRE-PROJECT GRADES,
ELEVATIONS, AND CONDITIONS, UNLESS DIRECTED TO KEEP
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE BY LAND OWNER OR ENGINEER.
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS AT
NORMAL BASEFLOW.
2. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF
STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
3. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE
FLOW.
4. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE
CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING
CHANNEL.
5. STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE
EDGE OF THE MUD MAT.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE
RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
7. CROSSINGS SHOULD BE MONITORED TO ASSURE
CORRECT FUNCTIONING OF MATS, LOOKING FOR ANY
DEFECTS OR STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS.
8. CROSSINGS COVERED IN SOIL OR DEBRIS SHOULD BE
CLEANED AND THE MATERIALS REMOVED AND DISPOSED
OF IN A STABLE LOCATION.
WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
MUD MATS
SUPPORT LOG
12" Ø MIN.
FILTER FABRIC
CLASS B
STONE
10'
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
FLOW
STRAW WATTLE TO BE INSTALLED (TYP)
SEE DETAIL 3
Plan View
Section View
SUPPORT LOG
12" Ø MIN.
MUD MATS
2
5.5
Temporary Stream Crossing - Timber Mat
Not to Scale
SOIL EXCAVATED IN
TRENCHLINE SHALL BE
PLACED ON UPHILL
SIDE OF ROLL
1"x1"x24" WOOD STAKE,
6' O.C.
8-10" DIA. FIBER ROLL
OF STRAW & BURLAP
TWINE MESH
PLACE SOIL EXCAVATED DURING
TRENCHING ON UPHILL SIDE OF ROLL
DRIVE STAKES
IN ON ALTERNATING
SIDES OF ROLL
OVERLAP ROLL EDGES 12"
AND SECURE TO PROVIDE
A TIGHT JOINT
6'-0"
MAX.
6'-0"
MAX.,
TYP.
2"

M
I
N
4"

M
A
X
FLOW
FL
O
W
Section View
NOTES:
1. INSTALL FIBER ROLL ALONG CONTOUR. RUNOFF MUST NOT BE
ALLOWED TO RUN UNDER OR AROUND ROLL.
2. INSPECT STRAW WATTLES ON A REGULAR BASIS AND AFTER EACH
RAINFALL EVENT.
3. WATTLES SHOULD BE MAINTAINED TO ALLOW THE WATER TO FLOW
THROUGH, REDUCE VELOCITY AND ALLOW SEDIMENTATION TO OCCUR.
4. WATTLES SHOULD BE REPLACED IF FIBER BECOMES TOO SATURATED.
5. STAKES SHOULD BE USED TO ANCHOR THE STRAW WATTLE TO THE
GROUND TO PREVENT SCOURING AND WASHOUT.
3
5.5
Straw Wattle
Not to Scale
TO
E

O
F

S
L
O
P
E

(
T
Y
P
)
TO
P

O
F

B
A
N
K

(
T
Y
P
)
FL
O
W
WORK AREA
20
'
20
'
INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THREE
CHECK DAMS LOCATED AS
SHOWN ON THE PLANS
FL
O
W
TO
E

O
F

S
L
O
P
E
(
T
Y
P
)
NO. 57 STONE
CLASS B
RIPRAP
2' MIN.
3'
NO. 57 STONE 4 INCHES
WIDE ON UPSTREAM FACE
SPILLWAY CREST
CLASS B RIPRAP
Plan View
Top View
Section A-A'
20'20'
CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE
SEDIMENT WHEN DEPTH
REACHES 12".
FLOWWORK
AREA
Profile View
23 STREAM
WIDTH
3'
TOE OF SLOPE
CLASS B RIPRAP
TOP OF BANK
6"
Section B-B'
5' MIN.
FLOW
4
5.5
Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
Not to Scale
T
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
5.
6
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET "B")
INTAKE HOSE
PUMP
DISCHARGE HOSE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET "B")
10' X 5' STABILIZED OUTLET
USING CLASS B RIPRAP AND
NCDOT TYPE 2 FILTER FABRIC.
(SEE INSET "C")
INTAKE HOSE
DEWATERING
PUMP
DISCHARGE HOSE
DEWATERING BAG
(SEE INSET "A")
SAND BAG
(24" X 12" X 6")
OR STONE.
IMPERVIOUS SHEETING
FLOW
FLEXIBLE DISCHARGE HOSE FROM
PUMP AROUND PUMP HELD IN PLACE
WITH SAND BAGS AS NEEDED.10' MIN.
STABILIZED OUTLET USING CLASS B
RIPRAP TRENCHED INTO EXISTING
GROUND A MINIMUM OF 6". SIZE AND
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE
FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
FILTER FABRIC
Inset "C"
Stabilized Outlet
Plan View
Inset "B"
Impervious Dike
EXISTING TERRAIN DEWATERING BAG
STREAM BED
FILTER FABRIC
8" of CLASS B RIPRAP
15' to 20'
10
'
15'
BAG PLACED ON
AGGREGATED OR STRAW.
HIGH STRENGTH
DOUBLE STITCHED
"J" TYPE SEAMS.
SEWN IN SPOUT
HIGH STRENGTH STRAPPING
FOR HOLDING HOSE
IN PLACE.
FLEXIBLE
DISCHARGE HOSE
WATER FLOW
FROM PUMP
Inset "A"
Dewatering Bag
A
C
T
I
V
E

W
O
R
K

A
R
E
A
DEWATERING
BAG
NOTES:
1. PROVIDE STABILIZED OUTLET TO STREAMBED.
2. BAG ON FLAT GROUND OR STAKE AROUND IT TO
PREVENT IT ROLLING DOWNHILL.
1
5.6
Pump Around System
Not to Scale
12"FILTER FABRIC
9" BASE CLASS A/B STONE
CAPPED WITH 3" #57 STONE
NOTE:
1. THE FORD CROSSING AT THE UP STREAM
EXTENTS OF AFTON BRANCH SHALL BE
SKEWED DUE TO PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
Plan View
TO
P

O
F

B
A
N
K
12' MIN
MAINTAIN LOW FLOW THALWEG
THROUGH CROSSING
10:1 M
A
X
10:1
M
A
X
20' MIN 20' MIN
T
O
P

O
F

B
A
N
K
10:1 MAX
20' MIN 20' MIN
2
5.6
Permanent Stream Crossing - Ford
Not to Scale
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
5.
7
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
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 GS
AA
5.
8
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
48" CMP CULVERT WITH BAFFLES AT DOWNSTREAM END
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
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-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-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE-IX
14
0
14
0
1
4
0
1
4
0
14
0
14
0
1
4
0
1
4
0
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
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 = 20'
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
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
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
5.
9
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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
5.9
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CECE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CE-IX
CE-I
X
T B
T
B
TB
TB
TB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
T B
TB
T B
T
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC
US HIGHWAY 13 (60' R/W)
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 1
PROPOSED 15" RCP CULVERT FOR PERMANENT ACCESS TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC
PROPOSED 24" RCP CULVERT FOR PERMANENT ACCESS
PROPOSED 24" RCP CULVERT FOR PERMANENT ACCESS
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

-

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

C
u
l
v
e
r
t
s

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
w
g
Ma
y

2
8
,

2
0
2
4
02
1
9
6
MK GS
AA
5.
1
0
05
.
2
8
.
2
0
2
4
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 - Proposed Culverts
Not to Scale
1
5.10
US HWY 13
US HWY 13
US HWY 13
0' 100' 200' 300'
1" = 100'
INSET 1 INSET 2
0' 20' 40' 60'
1" = 20'
0' 20' 40' 60'
1" = 20'