Buffer Plan for PN

Appendix 10: 
NUTRIENT OFFSET & 
BUFFER MITIGATION 
PLAN 
July 2024 
GREAT MEADOW MITIGATION BANK PARCEL 
Nash County, NC 
DWR Project Number 2021‐1423 v1 
Tar Pamlico River Basin 
HUC 03020101 
PREPARED BY: 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225 
Raleigh, NC  27603 
Phone: (919) 851‐9986 
Fax: (919) 851‐9986 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  312 W Millbrook Rd St 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
July 18, 2024 
Katie Merritt 
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator 
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality  
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620 
RE:  DWR Draft Great Meadow Buffer Plan Comments 
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel (DWR # 2021‐1423v1) 
 Nash County, NC 
Dear Ms. Merritt: 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Water Resources (DWR) comments 
dated June 7th, 2024, for the draft Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan for the Great Meadow 
Mitigation Bank Parcel. After the draft submittal, the conservation easement increased from 42.3 acres 
to 42.6 acres due to landowner request. Additionally, the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit 
Calculator was used to produce stream credits for extra‐wide buffers along Gideon Swamp in the Great 
Meadow Stream Mitigation Plan; therefore, Wildlands removed riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits 
past 50 feet from top of bank along Gideon Swamp. The DWR comments are listed below in bold, while 
Wildlands responses are noted in italics lettering. 
1. Title page – Specify somewhere on this page that this is Appendix 10. 
“Appendix 10” has been added to the title page. 
2. Table of Contents page –  
a. the Project Credit Table is labeled Table 10 & 11 in the text, but it should only be one 
table. update references throughout the report accordingly. 
The label for Table 11 has now been removed and updated throughout the report 
accordingly.  
b. There is no existing conditions figure.  add one and reference in section 2.2.  this figure 
should show existing treelines, existing fencelines, any culverts, and existing stream 
lines and ponds where applicable.  as well as privet stands that were noted in the 
viabilty letter.  
The Figure 3 Site Map was intended to be used as an Existing Conditions Map. It has 
been renamed “Existing Conditions Map’ for clarity and was updated to include the 
existing tree lines and privet stands.  
3. Section 2.2 – Table 2 
a. I forgot to make this comment on hatch's hill, but please address on that plan too... 
We don't want the 14 digit HUC info on these Buffer Plans.  We need the 12 digit HUC 
‐ it can be useful if anyone ever wanted to buy credits within their 12 digit HUC impact 
area, because they get a "discount" on their mitigation requirement.  Remove the 14 
and replace with the 12 
The 14 digit HUC is now replaced with the 12 digit HUC.  

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  312 W Millbrook Rd St 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
b. add the 8‐ digit HUC here 
The 8 digit HUC has been added.  
c. this may needs edits to the FINAL draft 
Total credits have been updated from the draft Buffer Plan based on several factors: a 
change in the conservation easement due to a landowner request and an updated GPS 
surveyed tree line along Swift Creek. Furthermore, riparian buffer and nutrient offset 
credits were removed from 51 – 200 feet measured off the top of bank of Gideon Swamp 
due to the Wilmington District extra stream credit tool being applied to Gideon Swamp 
in the Great Meadow Stream Mitigation Plan. 
4. Section 2.4 
a. add text referencing the site viability letter as well. 
Text referencing the site viability letter has been added to section 2.4 
b. acknowledge that these areas were determined using the existing conditions treeline 
survey provided in Figure 7.   
Is it important to note, that DWR does not recommend that provider's use aerial 
imagery to determine treelines at existing condition.  If aerial imagery was used, 
Wildlands should want to gather a more accurate representation of the treeline for 
their existing condition  (onsite GPS).  This treeline shown in this Buffer Plan is how 
your credits will be determined in the Mit Plan as well as in the AsBuilt Report.  The 
treeline survey taken for the MP is to be overlayed with the AsBuilt survey on all 
Combo projects, so that all existing treelines at pre‐construction represent where the 
Provider was allowed to generate "Enhancement & Preservation" vs "Restoration" 
areas.  Since this is a combo project, it is known that the treeline will disappear in 
some areas along stream corridors as part of the restoration plan.  Therefore, tree 
lines at AsBuilt do not necessarily adequately represent buffer credit assets.  Make 
sure this is done correctly. 
Wildlands used a submeter‐accuracy GPS unit to determine the existing conditions tree 
line and text has been added to Section 2.4 denoting this. Wildlands acknowledges that 
the existing tree line will be used to determine credit areas after construction.  
c. There are no "non subject" streams on this site. they were all determined to be 
Subject to the buffer rules per the letters you reference. 
Noted. Corrections have been made where necessary in Section 2.4.  
d. Acknowledge that these areas were determined using the existing conditions treeline 
survey provided in the corresponding figure. 
Text has now been included to acknowledge a submeter‐accuracy GPS unit was used to 
determine existing conditions tree line.  
5. Section 2.5  
a. This text implies that Figure 5 includes "current landuse", but it only shows in the 
Legend "Watershed area".  Update the Figure or correct the text. 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  312 W Millbrook Rd St 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
Text was updated to clarify that Figure 5 only depicts watershed area and not current 
landuse.  
6. Section 2.11  
a. these crossings do not appear to be "easement breaks" but instead just Internal 
crossings.  Explain. 
But, why wouldn't the crossings be breaks in the CE?  Why include them within the CE 
at all?  Is this a requirement by the IRT? 
The four crossing are internal. Referring to them as easement breaks within the draft 
Buffer Plan was an error. Internal crossings are for the landowner to move cattle from 
one pasture to another. The IRT prefers cattle crossings to be internal for there to be 
more control over closing of gates and cattle access.  
b. According to the Plan, both gates and fencing are proposed within the crossigns.  Is 
this correct? 
That is correct.  
7. Section 4.2 
a. Need to speak about the invasive Privet stands noted in the Viability letter and 
address those in this section or in a separate section labeled "Invasive Management".  
Wildlands was allowed to get Restoration credit in these two privet areas as long as 
they are cut, treated and planted with native.  Explain what Wildlands is doing in 
these two areas and what credit types will be sought. Update Figures, Table 10, etc, 
accordingly, depending on this repsonse to this comment. 
A new section labeled “4.3 Invasive Management” has been added to address the 
invasive Chinese privet stands noted in the Site Viability Letter. The section details out 
the removal, planting of native trees and/or shrubs, and continued management of 
Chinese privet.  
b. 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 will plan to plant all 13 species listed in Table 8. Three alternate species and 
their compositions were added to Table 8, which are also listed within Plan Sheet 6.0.1.  
c. 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 fulfill the intent of a proposed planting plan. DWR needs to know the exact stems 
and # intended to plan 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. 
Okay. Text that lists 15% as the max composition has been removed from Section 4.2. 
Wildlands intends to plant all 13 species with the compositions listed in Table 8. 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  312 W Millbrook Rd St 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
Alternate species have been added along with their compositions. Plan sheet 6.0.1 has 
also been updated.  
d. There are 2‐3 areas on the site viability area noted as Enhancement under (n) of the 
Rule where supplemental planting is required.   
Credits and appropriate figures have been updated to reflect the Enhancement areas 
with supplemental planting.  
8. Section 5.1  
a. Explain how the 15 plots meets the 2% planted area requirement for plots (generating 
buffer and nutrient offset) 
The following text has been added to Section 5.1 “All twelve vegetation plots will be 
shared with the stream mitigation bank. Of the 12 vegetation plots, 10 will be fixed in 
the same location through the duration of the five‐year monitoring period, and 2 will be 
placed randomly each year of assessment. Each of the 12 plots will be 100 square 
meters; however, the 10 fixed plots will be 10 x 10 meter square plots while the 2 
random plots will be circular with a radius of 5.64 meters. When the area of the 12 plots 
is added together, they equate to 2% of the riparian restoration area generating either 
nutrient offset credits or riparian buffer credit.  The equation used to calculate the 
vegetation plot number is as follows: 
14.9 acres x 0.02 = 0.298 acres 
0.298  acres/0.0247 acres = 12.1 vegetation plots  
b. in November providers were allowed to vote for monitoring report changes in what 
was required to be collected and reported with each report.  Modify this paragraph to 
be consistent with the decisions that were made to include Height per Stem per Plot in 
Years 1, 3, & 5 and reporting Average Vigor per plot in years 1, 3 & 5.  All other 
qualitative and quantitative data is required to be submitted each year.  However, 
since this is a combo project, if Wildlands wants to propose a different plan for 
submitting Height and Vigor, that could align with what is required to be submitted to 
the USACE, please let me know and explain how that data will be collected and 
reported to DWR. 
The following text has been added to Section 5.1: “Species composition, individual stem 
height, and survival rates will be evaluated in each plot during monitoring years 1, 3, and 
5, and included in monitoring reports. Additionally, vigor per stem will be evaluated in 
monitoring years 1, 3, and 5 and included in monitoring reports. During monitoring years 
2 and 4 stem density will be recorded, and visual assessments will be completed, 
however stem height and vigor data will not be required.” 
9. Section 6.2 
a. Doesn't the long term steward usually get chosen at Task 1 on Combo project?  If so, 
the language about Year 4 isn't necessary and should be replaced with language 
applicable to this site.  Especially if Task 1 credit release on the schedule in the MBI is 
going to be showing 25% instead of the 20%.  Explain 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  312 W Millbrook Rd St 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
The long‐term steward will be the Tar River Land Conservancy. The following text has 
been added to Section 6.2 “The conservation easement will be held by the TRLC.” 
10. Section 7.0 
a. I don't believe this <0.1 acre describes buffer credit.  maybe it was meant to say 
'nutrient offset credit? 
The <0.1 acres of buffer credit are correct. There is a small area at the top of Shard 
Branch where the buffer width is less than 50 feet. An inset is located on Figure 7 which 
shows this area in detail.  
b. Reiterate that the existing condition treeline survey submitted in this Buffer Plan will 
be overlayed on the AsBuilt survey to ensure that existing treelines at pre‐
construction (not asbuilt treelines) will be used in determining rbc and noc. 
The text “Furthermore, the existing conditions tree line survey shown in Figure 7, rather 
than new tree lines following construction, will be used to determine riparian buffer 
credits and nutrient offset credits.” has been added to Section 7.  
c. Since on this site, Restoration and Enhancement via supplemental planting (under (n) 
of the rule) are convertible to NOC, they will be on the same ledger. 
Noted. The appropriate updates have been made.  
d. It is not mentioned here that non‐std buffer widths are used towards calculating 
stream mitigation.  however, instead of assuming this is accurate, please add languge 
in this section specifically stating that 
The following text has been added to Section 7.0: “Additionally, Gideon Swamp uses the 
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator to produce stream credits for extra‐
wide buffers on the Great Meadow Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site; therefore, 
Nutrient Offset Credits and Riparian Buffer Credits are not claimed on Gideon Swamp 
(Figure 7).” 
This was not noted in the draft Buffer Plan, which was an error. Credit areas along 
Gideon Swamp and credit totals listed in Table 11 have been updated in the final Buffer 
Plan.  
11. Table 10 
a. Email me the Raw Data sheet at your earliest convenience.  
Completed.  
b. According to the viability letter there was also enhancement off Shard Branch.  I also 
think the ft2 of enhancement off Fox branch should be higher when comparing the 
Enhancement areas on the Viability Letter. Explain why those other areas are not 
represented in this table. 
Credit calculations have been updated to include enhancement off Shard Branch and 
additional enhancement off of Fox Branch compared to what was listed in the draft 
Buffer Plan. Figure 7 and Table 11 have been updated accordingly.  

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  312 W Millbrook Rd St 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
c. This type of Enhancement is shown in the viability letter as being convertible for 
either NOC or RBC. Check yes 
The appropriate change has been made.  
d. The Project Credit Table is only 1 table, not separated into 2 tables.  It wil either be 
Table 10 based on other comments made in the beginning of the Plan. 
The Project Credit Table is no longer broken into two tables and is referred to as Table 11 
throughout the Buffer Plan. “Table 11” has been removed and updated throughout the 
report accordingly.  
12. Figure 3 
a. the conservation easement boundary for this project has changed substantially from 
what was included for the Site Viability Letter.  I need a figure showing where the 
original easement boundary was so that I am able to compare it with the proposed CE 
to make sure there are no issues with credit determination.  You can use this map to 
reference that originally proposed CE boundary.  Based on  my preliminary review, i 
don't forsee any major issues, but I'd need to have it called out and shown in this 
Buffer Plan for another review just in case. 
The conservation easement boundary showed in the site viability is now shown on Figure 
3 in black labeled Proposed Conservation Easement – Site Viability.  
b. Can this map be the Existing Conditions Map?  If so, change title and add any 
additional existing uses that are relevant.  update references throughout the text. 
Figure 3 has now been updated to be called the Existing Conditions Map. Existing GPS 
surveyed tree line and Chinese privet stands have also been added.  
13.  Figure 7 
a. crossings don't appear to be easement "breaks" as described in text. But should they 
be breaks? 
The crossings are internal to the easement, as requested by the IRT. The Figure 7 legend 
has been updated accordingly. 
b. there is a privet stand in this vicinity identified in the viability letter.  call the privet 
stand out on the figure and address within the text of the Riparian restoration how 
this will be addressed to generate the credit types allowed vs proposed.  See viability 
letter. 
The Chinese privet Stand denoted in the site viability letter is now reflected on the map 
as Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credit (0‐100’) Privet Stand. A new section 
labeled “4.3 Invasive Management” has been added to address the invasive privet 
stands noted in the Site Viability Letter. The section details out the removal, planting of 
native trees and/or shrubs, and continued management of privet. 
c. an area within this vicinity was determined to be "Enhancement" under (n) of 0295.  It 
is not shown as that here. Explain. 
Credits and appropriate figures have been updated to reflect the Enhancement area.  

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  312 W Millbrook Rd St 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
d. there is a privet stand in this vicinity identified in the viability letter.  call the privet 
stand out on the figure and address within the text of the Riparian restoration how 
this will be addressed to generate the credit types allowed vs proposed.  See viability 
letter. 
The Chinese privet Stand denoted in the site viability letter is now reflected on the map 
as Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credit (0‐100’) Privet Stand. A new section 
labeled “4.3 Invasive Management” has been added to address the invasive privet 
stands noted in the Site Viability Letter. The section details out the removal, planting of 
native trees, and continued management of privet.  
e. an area within this vicinity was determined to be "Enhancement" under (n) of 0295.  It 
is not shown as that here. Explain. 
Credits and appropriate figures have been updated to reflect the Enhancement area. 
f. this area is not measured correctly for credit.  the width of the riparian area is 
measured from landward perpendicular from tob.  therefore, where not being 
perpendicular from TOB and where easement is not secured from TOB, change to "no 
credit" area. 
Credits and appropriate figures have been updated to reflect this change. 
g. a linear area within this vicinity along Swift Creek was called out as cattle exclusion on 
the viability letter due to multiple rows of trees along the banks riparian zone.   Why is 
this area shown as Restoration instead? 
Credits, GPS Surveyed Tree Line, and appropriate figures have been updated to reflect 
the multiple rows of trees along the banks riparian zone.  
h. this pond bisects the riparian restoration (similar to how it was with Oberry Road 
project).  therefore credit proposed above the pond are not allowed.  Remove the 
credit shown above the pond and adjust the project credit table accordingly. 
Credits and appropriate figures have been updated to reflect this change. 
i. confirm that credits proposed along Cooper Road are not within the DOT R.O.W 
The conservation easement and credits have been updated to ensure no overlap within 
the DOT R.O.W. 
j. usually there is a "TOB" depicted on the legend so that it shows DWR that the 
provider isn't including the stream footprint within the credit generating area.  It also 
shows up on the AsBuilt survey too.  I recommend just labeling the streams as 
"proposed TOB" to avoid confusion.  Does Wildlands have another suggestion? 
All figures are updated to say “Proposed Stream Top of Bank”.  
k. is stream mitigation being performed on Gideon swamp as depicted in this legend?  
from reading the text within the Plan, no mitigation was being proposed. Maybe 
change the width of the stream lines to suggest not being mitigated?? Not sure how 
best to represent as to not imply the wrong message.  or is this stream just being 
"enhanced" by removing cattle? 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  312 W Millbrook Rd St 225  Raleigh, NC 27609
Gideon Swamp is proposed for enhancement II stream mitigation. All figures are 
updated to say “Proposed Stream Top of Bank”.  
l. was this by Computer or other means?  Onsite? 
The tree line was surveyed onsite by a submeter‐accuracy GPS unit. Updates throughout 
the figures have been made to indicate such.  
14. Figure 8 
a. this shows that a portion of credit is beyond the 200' maximum width. 
Credits have been updated to remove the portion that is beyond the 200’ maximum 
width.  
15. Figure 9 
a. add the two privet stands on this map showing "privet maintenance areas".  I 
understand there may be privet maintenance areas across the entire site, but these 
two areas were specifically called out for the Buffer Plan to address since it affects the 
credit type awarded within those areas. 
The two Privet Stands are now reflected on the map as Riparian Restoration for Nutrient 
Offset Credit (0‐100’) Privet Stand.  
b. Separate out the DWR only plots from the DWR/USACE Shared plots 
All 12 vegetation plots are shared between DWR and USACE.  The naming of the 
vegetation plots within Figure 9 have been updated to clarify this.  

The final Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan has been uploaded to the Laserfiche system. Please 
contact me at 540‐907‐9432 if you have any questions or concerns. 
Sincerely,  

Kaitlyn Hogarth 
Environmental Scientist 
[e-mail] 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page i July 2024 
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan 
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  
Tar‐Pamlico River Basin 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1.0 Project Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1  Parcel Description ......................................................................................................................... 1 
2.0 Mitigation Project Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 
2.1  Project Goals ................................................................................................................................. 1 
2.2 Existing Parcel Conditions ............................................................................................................. 2 
2.3  Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Mitigation .............................................. 3 
2.4 Alternative Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 4 
2.5 Watershed Characterization ......................................................................................................... 4 
2.6 Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 5 
2.7 Existing Vegetative Communities ................................................................................................. 5 
2.8 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 6 
2.9 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 7 
2.10 FEMA Floodplain Compliance ....................................................................................................... 7 
2.11 Parcel Location, Parcel Constraints, and Access ........................................................................... 8 
2.12 Other Environmental Conditions .................................................................................................. 8 
3.0  Site Protection Instrument ................................................................................................................ 8 
4.0 Mitigation Work Plan ........................................................................................................................ 8 
4.1 Parcel Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 8 
4.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities ............................................................................................. 9 
4.3 Riparian Area Enhancement Activities ........................................................................................ 10 
4.4 Riparian Area Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion Activities ....................................................... 11 
4.5 Riparian Area Preservation Activities .......................................................................................... 11 
4.6 NCDWR As‐Built Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 11 
5.0 Monitoring and Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................. 11 
5.1  Monitoring Protocol .................................................................................................................... 11 
5.2 Parcel Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 12 
5.3 Easement Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 13 
6.0 Financial Assurance and Long‐Term Management ......................................................................... 13 
6.1 Financial Assurances ................................................................................................................... 13 
6.2 Long‐term Management ............................................................................................................. 13 
7.0 Potential Credit Generation ............................................................................................................ 14 
8.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 17 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page ii July 2024 
TABLES 
Table 1 Ecological and Water Quality Goals 
Table 2 Parcel Attributes 
Table 3 Parcel Features  
Table 4 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use 
Table 5  Parcel Soil Types and Descriptions 
Table 6 Existing Vegetation 
Table 7 Site Protection Instrument 
Table 8 Selected Tree and Shrub Species 
Table 9                Selected Wetland Tree and Shrub Species 
Table 10 Selected Supplemental Planting Species 
Table 11 Great Meadow Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank – 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 1989 NRCS Soil Survey Map  
Figure 7               Credits Map 
Figure 8               Riparian Buffer Zones Map 
Figure 9 Monitoring Components Map 

APPENDICES  
Appendix A Current Land Use Photographs – November 17, 2022, and August 4, 2023 
Appendix B Historical Aerials  
Appendix C On Site Determination of Applicability to Tar‐Pamlico Buffer Rules – December 6, 2021 
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Letter – May 12, 2022 
Appendix D USFWS Correspondence  
Phase I Archaeological Investigation report  
EDR Radius Map Report, Executive Summary 
Appendix E         Great Meadow Mitigation Site Planting Plans 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 1 July 2024 
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan 
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  
Tar‐Pamlico River Basin 
Wildlands Holdings VIII 
1.0 Project Introduction 
The Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel (Parcel) is proposed under the terms and conditions of the 
Great Meadow Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI), to be made and entered into by Wildlands 
Holdings VIII, LLC acting as Bank Sponsor (Sponsor) and the North Carolina Department of 
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The Parcel shall be planned and 
designed according to the MBI, 15A NCAC 02B .0703, and the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A 
NCAC 02B .0295. The Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Plan (Buffer Plan) has also been designed in 
concurrence with the stream mitigation project proposed under the Wildlands Tar Pamlico 01 Umbrella 
Mitigation Bank, Great Meadow Mitigation Site (SAW‐2021‐01714, NCDWR ID 2021‐1423 v1) which has 
been submitted to the InterAgency Review Team (IRT) for their review and approval. This Buffer Plan is 
Appendix 10 of the Great Meadow Stream Mitigation Plan. 
The Parcel is in Nash County approximately six miles northwest of Red Oak, North Carolina (Figure 1). 
Directions are included on Figure 1. The Parcel creates a protected riparian area from top of bank and 
out, up to 200 feet, along Swift Creek, Gideon Swamp, and three unnamed tributaries (Fisher Branch, 
Shard Branch, and Fox Branch). The primary purpose of the Parcel is to provide riparian buffer credits 
and nutrient offset credits to compensate for unavoidable impacts in the Tar‐Pamlico River Basin 
03020101 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) (Figure 2). The Parcel is located within the Tar‐Pamlico River Basin 
HUC 03020101130070 and NCDWR Subbasin 03‐03‐02 in Nash County.  
1.1  Parcel Description 
All project streams flow to Swift Creek, which is classified as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), 
Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW), and Class C water. Swift Creek flows into the Tar River approximately 
30 river miles downstream of the Site. 
The Parcel will reduce sediment and nutrient loading, provide and improve terrestrial and instream 
habitats, and improve stream and bank stability. The Parcel is located on an active cattle farm and is 
currently occupied by areas of pasture grass and existing forest. See Appendix A for August 2023 land 
use photographs. Restoring and enhancing the riparian area up to 200 feet from project streams will 
reduce nutrient and sediment inputs in Gideon Swamp and tributaries to Swift Creek, and subsequently 
to the Tar River. The restored floodplain areas will filter sediment during high rainfall events and provide 
cover and food for wildlife throughout the Parcel. Fencing out cattle will protect the riparian areas from 
their impact and aid in the development of a functioning multi stratum forest. Preventing cattle access 
to streams will also further reduce sediment and nutrient inputs by improving stream bank stability.  
2.0 Mitigation Project Summary 
2.1  Parcel Goals 
The major goals of the Parcel are to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the Tar‐
Pamlico River Basin by restoring, enhancing, and preserving, the riparian area adjacent to mitigated 
streams to create a functional riparian corridor. Specific enhancements to water quality and ecological 
processes are outlined below in Table 1. 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 2 July 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. 
Reduce fecal coliform 
inputs. 
Fecal coliform input will be reduced by preventing livestock waste deposition 
in project riparian areas and streams through the installation of fencing 
around the conservation easement. Furthermore, livestock waste from 
surrounding agricultural fields will be filtered through restored and enhanced 
floodplain areas. 
Create appropriate 
terrestrial habitat. 
Riparian areas will be restored by treating invasive vegetation and planting 
native vegetation.  
Permanently protect the 
project Parcel from 
harmful uses. 
A conservation easement will be recorded on the Parcel. 
2.2 Existing Parcel Conditions 
The Parcel includes approximately 42.6 acres of livestock pasture and forest along Swift Creek, Gideon 
Swamp, and three unnamed tributaries to Swift Creek. Livestock have access to most of the Parcel; 
exceptions include forested areas at the top of Fisher Branch Reach 1 near the Parcel easement 
boundary, and an area of Fox Branch prior to its confluence with Swift Creek. The Parcel easement 
boundary will extend from top of bank to at least 20 feet along nearly all project streams and out to 200 
feet where possible (Figure 3).  
In general, project streams have a narrow, forested riparian corridor that varies in width and is then 
surrounded by pasture grass. In most locations, Swift Creek has a limited wooded riparian area on the 
left floodplain. Typically, the Swift Creek forested area width ranges between 5 and 30 feet. Gideon 
Swamp’s riparian condition varies, with some wooded riparian areas at least 50 feet wide and others as 
narrow as 20 feet. Fisher Branch and Shard Branch have variable wooded riparian width on both sides, 
ranging from a single row of trees, up to 100 feet wide. Parts of Fisher Branch lack any amount of forest 
along the left floodplain. Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) dominates the mid‐story along the middle 
portion of Fisher Branch. The upstream portion of Shard Branch has little to no wooded riparian area on 
the right floodplain. Below the lower Shard Branch crossing, near the confluence with Swift Creek, there 
is a wooded riparian area at least 50 feet wide; however, Chinese privet dominates this portion of the 
floodplain. Fox Branch’s forested riparian width ranges between 20 feet to over 100 feet. 
In general, this part of Nash County has maintained its rural, farming character over the last 60 years 
with only minor changes in land cover (see historical aerials in Appendix B). The consistency in land use 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 3 July 2024 
within the mitigated stream’s watersheds 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 Parcel limits are likely to 
remain consistent throughout the implementation, monitoring, and closeout of this project. 
Table 2: Parcel Attributes  
Name Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel 
Hydrologic Unit Code 030201011300 
River Basin Tar‐Pamlico 
Credit Service Area Tar‐Pamlico (03020101) 
Geographic Location (Lat, Long) 36.131215, ‐77.953729 
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG) To be recorded 
Conservation Easement 42.6 acres 
Total Credits 377,325.815 ft2 riparian buffer, 32,998.120 lbs. N offset 
and 2,125.335 lbs. P offset 
Types of Credits Riparian Buffer Credits and Nutrient Offset Credits 
Buffer Plan Date July 2024 
Initial Planting Date March 2026 
Baseline Report Date May 2026 
MY1 Report Date December 2026 
MY2 Report Date December 2027 
MY3 Report Date December 2028 
MY4 Report Date December 2029 
MY5 Report Date December 2030 
2.3  Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Mitigation 
On December 3, 2021, NCDWR assessed the project streams and issued the official Stream 
Determination Letter on December 6, 2021. NCDWR also performed an onsite visit of the project area to 
determine viability for buffer mitigation and nutrient offset on March 16, 2022 and issued a site viability 
letter on May 12, 2022. Five features were assessed by NCDWR during the March 16th site visit and all 
five were deemed viable for riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset credits. There have been no 
changes to land use in the project area since NCDWR’s 2022 site visits. A copy of both the “On‐Site 
Determination for Applicability to Tar‐Pamlico Buffer Rules” and the “Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation 
& Nutrient Offset” letters from NCDWR are included in Appendix C and summarized in Table 3. 
Table 3: Parcel Features  
Feature Name Classification Buffer Credit Viable Nutrient Offset Viable 
Gideon Swamp Stream Yes  Yes  
(non‐forested fields only) 
Fisher Branch Stream Yes 
Yes  
(non‐forested fields & areas where 
privet is removed) 
Shard Branch Stream Yes 
Yes  
(non‐forested fields & areas where 
privet is removed) 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 4 July 2024 
Feature Name Classification Buffer Credit Viable Nutrient Offset Viable 
Fox Branch Stream Yes  
Yes 
(non‐forested pasture and partially 
forested pasture areas) 
Swift Creek Stream Yes Yes  
(non‐forested fields only) 
2.4 Alternative Mitigation 
In addition to riparian restoration and enhancement on subject streams, per the Consolidated Buffer 
Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)), alternative mitigation is proposed on the Parcel in the form 
of cattle exclusion enhancement of grazing areas adjacent to streams and riparian preservation on 
subject streams. The proposed project complies in the following ways: 
Cattle exclusion enhancement of grazing areas adjacent to streams (15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6): 
 Grazing has been the predominant land use since the effective date of the applicable buffer rule 
(See Appendix B for historical aerials and Appendix C for Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and 
Nutrient Offset Letter).  
 Cattle exclusion enhancement will be within existing, pre‐construction, forested areas. Existing 
forest areas were defined by on‐the‐ground survey of the existing tree line with sub‐meter 
accuracy GPS units or by a Professional Land Surveyor (See Figure 7 for existing tree line survey).  
 Mitigation work will include the permanent exclusion of grazing livestock through installation of 
fencing and credit will be at a 2:1 ratio (See Table 11 for credit calculations and Figure 7 for 
proposed fencing). 
Riparian Preservation on subject streams (15A NCAC 02B. 0295 (o)(4) & (o)(5)):  
 All streams were confirmed as intermittent or perennial streams by Division staff certified per 
G.S. 143‐214.25A using the Division publication, “Methodology for Identification of Intermittent 
and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (v.4.11, 2010)” (See Appendix C for the On‐Site 
Determination for Applicability to the Jordan Lake Buffer Rules letter). 
 Preservation will be within existing, pre‐construction, forested areas. Existing forest areas were 
defined by on‐the‐ground survey of the existing tree line with sub‐meter accuracy GPS units or 
by a Professional Land Surveyor (See Figure 7 for existing tree line survey).  
 The area of preservation credit will not comprise more than 25% of the total area of buffer 
mitigation (See Table 11 for credit calculations).  
2.5 Watershed Characterization 
The Parcel is located within the HUC 030201011300. All project features flow to Swift Creek, which is a 
tributary to the Tar River. The Tar River drains to the Pamlico River, which then drains into the Pamlico 
Sound. which is classified as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW), 
and Class C water.  
Topography, as indicated on the Essex and Red Oak USGS 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangle, shows 
gentle valley slopes throughout the Parcel (Figure 4). Fischer Branch, Gideon Swamp, Shard Branch, and 
Fox Branch are depicted as streams on the USGS Topographic Map. Drainage areas for the streams were 
delineated using 2‐foot contour intervals derived from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping 
Program’s 2007 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. Land uses draining to the streams are 
primarily a mix of forested and agricultural lands. The watershed areas around the streams are depicted 
in Figure 5, the current land use photographs in Appendix A, and are summarized in Table 4 below.  

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 5 July 2024 
Table 4: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use  
Stream Name Watershed Area 
(acres) Land Use 
Gideon Swamp 2,937 71% forest, 24% pasture, 4% developed, 1% open water 
Fisher Branch 326 56% forest, 40% pasture 
Shard Branch 90 55% pasture, 44% forested 
Fox Branch 220 87% forested, 12% pasture 
2.6 Soils 
The proposed Parcel is mapped by the Nash County Soil Survey. The Parcel soils are described below in 
Table 5. All of the Parcel’s features are depicted as streams on the 1989 NRCS Soil Survey provided in 
Figure 6. 
Table 5: Parcel Soil Types and Descriptions  
Soil Name Description 
Wehadkee Loam Deep loamy, poorly drained soil located in depressions and floodplains. It frequently 
floods and ponds. Located on the majority of site floodplains. 
Georgeville Loam Deep loamy, well‐drained soil that ranges in location from interfluves to hillslopes 
and ridges depending on landform slope. Located on site hillsides. 
Wickham Fine Sandy 
Loam 
Deep sandy loam, well‐drained soil located on stream terraces. Located on the Swift 
Creek and Fox Branch floodplains. 
Goldsboro Fine Sandy 
Loam 
Deep sandy loam, well‐drained soil located on level and gently sloping uplands. 
Located on the Shard Branch floodplain. 
Source: Soil Survey of Nash, North Carolina, USDA‐NRCS 
Web Soil Survey https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 
2.7 Existing Vegetative Communities 
Existing vegetation within the Parcel is primarily comprised of pasture grass and existing forest. Details 
on existing species are in Table 6. This is not an exhaustive list but gives an indication of types of species 
growing in the area.  
Table 6: Existing Vegetation 
Species Common Name Species Common Name 
Acer rubrum Red maple Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 
Aralia spinosa Devil’s walking stick Quercus alba White oak 
Betula nigra River birch Oxydendrum arboretum Sourwood 
Carya glabra Pignut hickory Ulmus alata Winged elm 
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Ulmus americana American elm 
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay magnolia Ilex opaca American holly 
Fagus grandifolia American beech Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet 
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 6 July 2024 
2.8 Threatened and Endangered Species 
Wildlands searched the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation 
(IPaC) and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data explorer for federally listed threatened and 
endangered (T&E) plant and animal species within the project action area. During site evaluation, there 
were seven species listed as federally protected within the Parcel: Neuse River waterdog (Necturus 
lewisi), Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), dwarf wedgemussel 
(Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), yellow lance (Elliptio 
lanceolata), and Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii). After the initial site assessment, the tricolored bat 
(Perimyotis subflavus) (TCB) was proposed endangered in September 2022. Wildlands has completed 
Section 7 consultation for the seven species officially listed and will continue to monitor the listing 
status for TCB. Wildlands will re‐initiate consultation with USFWS, as appropriate, in order to ensure ESA 
compliance. An updated IPaC species list is included with the original correspondence in Appendix D. 
USFWS responded to the Draft Prospectus for the associated stream mitigation project and requested 
an aquatic species survey be conducted for the listed species due to the potential for suitable habitat on 
site. Wildlands contracted with SEPI, Inc. to conduct the aquatic species survey. In January and June 
2022, SEPI conducted a site assessment for suitable habitat. They determined that only Gideon Swamp 
and the lower reach of Fox Branch provided suitable habitat for the listed species and recommended 
aquatic surveys be conducted on these reaches. Results from the aquatic survey included one Neuse 
River waterdog on Gideon Swamp above the existing crossing and beaver dam. No other listed species 
were observed on Gideon Swamp or Fox Branch.  
Wildlands submitted the SEPI Aquatic Survey Report with the above‐mentioned findings and asked for 
guidance from USFWS and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in a letter dated August 3, 
2022. USFWS recommended USACE request formal consultation for authorization of work and 
requested more information about the proposed work in Gideon Swamp via email on August 16, 2022. A 
meeting between USFWS, USACE, and Wildlands to discuss next steps was held over the phone on 
September 2, 2022. During the meeting, the group decided to present four possible approaches to 
provide mitigation and protection of Gideon Swamp to the North Carolina Interagency Review Team 
(IRT). Wildlands supplied the list of options to USACE and noted which was preferred by USFWS. USACE 
then presented these options to the IRT.  
The option for work around Gideon Swamp that was preferred by USFWS, was approved by the IRT. This 
option included removing the proposed crossing on Gideon Swamp from the project design, acquiring 
additional land (2.8 ac) around the stream to widen the riparian buffer, and fencing to exclude cattle. 
Additionally, trees will be planted where needed, invasive plant species will be treated, any beavers will 
be trapped, and dams removed. Beaver management will continue throughout the monitoring period. 
There will be no other in‐stream work on Gideon Swamp. 
Based on this plan of work, Wildlands requested USFWS concurrence with species determinations of 
May affect, not likely to adversely affect for all aquatic species and No effect for Michaux’s sumac (Rhus 
michauxii). In February 2023, USFWS concurred with these species’ determinations with the following 
commitments by Wildlands. 
 Conduct work in Fisher Branch, Shard Branch, and Fox Branch in the dry, as much as possible. 
 Avoid aerial drift of herbicides or pesticides by utilizing only target application, such as spot‐
spraying, hack‐and‐squirt, basal bark injections, cut stump, or foliar spray on individual plants. 
 Utilize a double row of silt fence, to ensure that erosion is captured effectively. 
 Silt fence and other erosion control devises should not include outlets that discharge closer 
than 50 feet to the top of Swift Creek. 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 7 July 2024 
 Silt fence outlets for each row of silt fence should be offset to provide additional retention of 
water and sediment in the outer row. 
 Conduct twice‐weekly inspections of all erosion and sedimentation controls. In addition to 
twice‐weekly inspections, inspect also within 24‐hours of rain events (including a 1‐inch total 
rain event or an event where rainfall rates are 0.3 inch/hour or greater). Inspect all of the 
erosion and sedimentation controls to ensure the integrity of the devices. 
 Maintain all controls as necessary to ensure proper installation and function. Repair and replace 
sections of controls as needed to minimize the potential for failure. 
 Revegetate with native species as soon as possible. 
 Any spills of motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, or similar fluids into the riparian wetlands or 
floodplain must be reported to the Corps and Service immediately. 
 Educate the construction crew about the presence of sensitive species by providing information 
or installing signs on the silt fence.  
Along with USFWS concurrence on determinations for the listed species, it was noted that the TCB is 
proposed endangered and will likely be listed before project construction. North Carolina Wildlife 
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has record of an identified tricolored bat within three miles of the site. 
On July 20, 2023, a second pedestrian survey was conducted for the proposed endangered TCB and 
possible habitat. Results indicate the project area provides suitable summer habitat in the form of roost 
trees and one existing 42’ culvert within the proposed conservation easement that will be replaced. No 
roosts were observed. As stated above, once TCB is officially listed, Wildlands will re‐initiate consultation 
for TCB. 
2.9 Cultural Resources 
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) responded to the public notice letter on January 12, 2022. 
SHPO requested an archaeological study on the site as a result of a previously recorded archaeological 
site (31NS21) within the project area to determine its eligibility for the National Register. Wildlands 
contracted Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc (ACC) to conduct the survey. In addition to 
the previously recorded site, ACC identified one new archaeological site (31NS218). Upon review of 
ACC’s initial report, SHPO requested shovel testing be conducted at a closer interval near the previously 
recorded site (31NS21). Results from both of these assessments concluded that “no significant 
archaeological resources will be impacted” by the proposed project. SHPO has concurred with ACC’s 
findings that the two sites “do not have potential to contain information pertinent to prehistoric or 
historic research questions” and has accepted the archaeological report dated July 26, 2022 as the final 
compliance report. 
The Phase I Archaeological Investigation Report is included in Appendix D.  
2.10 FEMA Floodplain Compliance 
Swift Creek and Gideon Swamp are within flood hazard zone AE on Nash County FIRM panel 3806. Fisher 
Branch Reaches 2 and 3 and Fox Branch Reach 2 are located within the mapped Zone AE boundary and 
flood fringe of Swift Creek.  No grading in the floodplain or channels will occur on Gideon Branch and 
Swift Creek.  The restoration of Fisher Branch Reach 3 will not affect flooding in Swift Creek. Wildlands 
will coordinate with Nash County on any local permitting requirements. We do not expect any modeling 
or a flood study to be required. All other reaches within the project limits are located in Zone X. 
Wildlands will coordinate with the local floodplain administrator to make sure that all regulatory 
requirements are met. The Parcel will be designed to avoid adverse floodplain impacts or hydrologic 
trespass on adjacent properties or local roadways. 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 8 July 2024 
2.11 Parcel Location, Parcel Constraints, and Access 
The Parcel is split into four easement areas, which are all accessible from Cooper Road (Figure 7). Four 
internal easement crossings are proposed within the Parcel to maintain landowner access to adjoining 
tracts. These four crossings include a culvert crossing on Fisher Branch, 2 culvert crossings on Shard 
Branch, and a ford crossing on Fox Branch. The four internal crossings will have gates and fencing. Cattle 
will be permitted to cross only in these areas, per the conservation easement language.  
2.12 Other Environmental Conditions 
An EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered for the Parcel through Environmental Data 
Resources, Inc. on August 2, 2021. Neither the target property nor the adjacent properties were listed in 
any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental databases searched by EDR. There were no known or 
potentially hazardous waste sites identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area. The 
Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in Appendix D. 
3.0  Site Protection Instrument 
The land required for planting, management, and stewardship of the Parcel includes portions of the 
parcels listed in Table 7. The Parcel will remain in private ownership, protected in its entirety by Tar 
River Land Conservancy, an approved NCDWR long term steward, and will be managed under the terms 
detailed in an approved NCDWR conservation easement. 
Table 7: Site Protection Instrument  
Landowner PIN County Site Protection 
Instrument 
Deed Book 
and Page 
Number 
Acreage 
to be 
Protected 
Linda E. Fisher 
380600870855U 
380600991245U 
380600869333U 
Nash Conservation 
Easement 
To Be 
Recorded 42.6 
4.0 Mitigation Work Plan 
The project will restore and enhance agriculturally impacted land along Swift Creek and four mitigated 
streams on the Parcel to a protected riparian corridor, improving the ecological function of the area. 
Figure 7 illustrates the nutrient offset credit areas and riparian buffer credit areas and conceptual 
design; Figure 8 depicts the riparian zones and designated widths for the Parcel. 
4.1 Parcel Preparation 
In general, riparian areas will either be restored, enhanced by installing fencing to exclude cattle, 
enhanced through a lower density planting, or preserved with minimum widths of 20 feet from tops of 
banks and maximum widths of 200 feet from tops of banks. Much of the land within 200 feet from top 
of bank of the Parcel features has either been cleared and maintained for active cattle pastures or has 
remained forested. Areas slated for riparian restoration that are not impacted by the construction of the 
stream mitigation project will require little site preparation including select herbicide treatments or 
limited mechanical clearing to removed undesirable underbrush, invasive species, and fescue (Festuca 
spp.). Other areas of the easement will be graded in accordance with the IRT approved stream 
mitigation plan. Any haul roads or other areas of compacted soil including areas compacted by cattle 
within the easement boundary will be ripped prior to planting. The specifics of the stream restoration 
project are in the Great Meadow Stream Mitigation Plan. Section 6.6 of the Great Meadow Stream 
Mitigation Plan contains information on grading. A 404 permit and 401 water quality certification will be 
required for all stream restoration work and will be obtained before any work in the waters begins. All 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 9 July 2024 
activities associated with generating riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits will occur at the same 
time as the stream mitigation activities and not before.     
4.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities 
Riparian area restoration will involve planting appropriate native tree and shrub species along the 
riparian corridor. Vegetation management and herbicide applications may be needed over the first few 
years of tree establishment in the riparian restoration areas to prevent encroachment of undesirable 
species that may out‐compete the planted native vegetation. Tree and shrub species planted across the 
riparian areas of the Parcel will include a mixture of the species listed in the Great Meadow Mitigation 
Site Planting Tables, located in Appendix E. The species planted within areas of riparian restoration for 
either nutrient offset or riparian buffer credit will only include those listed in Table 8 and Table 9.  
Table 8: Selected Tree and Shrub Species  

Table 9: Selected Wetland Tree and Shrub Species  
Species Common Name Composition Forest Strata Tree/Shrub 
Acer negundo Boxelder 5% Subcanopy Tree 
Betula nigra River birch 10% Canopy Tree 
Carya cordiformis Bitternut hickory 5% Canopy Tree 
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 8% Canopy Tree 
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay magnolia 8% Subcanopy Tree 
Nyssa biflora Swamp tupelo 8% Canopy Tree 
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 11% Canopy Tree 
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak 8% Canopy Tree 
Quercus nigra Water oak 9% Canopy Tree 
Quercus phellos Willow oak 8% Canopy Tree 
Ulmus americana American elm 10% Canopy Tree 
Morella cerifera Waxmyrtle 5% Shrub Shrub 
Viburnum dentatum Southern arrowwood 5% Shrub Shrub 
Possible Substitutions 
Ulmus alata Winged elm 10% Canopy Tree 
Euonymous americanus American strawberry 
bush 10% Shrub Shrub 
Cyrilla racemosa Swamp titi 10% Subcanopy Shrub 
Wetland Planting Zone 
Species Common Name Composition Forest Strata Tree/Shrub 
Betula nigra River birch 12% Canopy Tree 
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay magnolia 10% Subcanopy Tree 
Nyssa biflora Swamp tupelo 10% Canopy Tree 
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 10% Canopy Tree 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 10 July 2024 

Trees and shrubs will be spaced at 6 feet by 12 feet during planting, which is equivalent to a stem 
density of 605 stems per acre and is sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in the Rule 
15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees and shrubs per acre at the end of five years. Stems will be well mixed 
prior to planting to ensure diversity of bare root species across the Parcel. Due to the nature of random 
mixing, some stems of the same species might be planted together in some areas. No one tree or shrub 
species will be greater than 50% of the established stems. The final performance standard shall include a 
minimum of four native hardwood tree or native shrub species. A regionally appropriate seed mix of 
warm season grasses and wildflowers will also be applied to provide temporary and permanent ground 
cover for soil stabilization and reduction of sediment loss during rain events in areas without existing 
herbaceous cover (Appendix E). 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 March 2026. 
4.3 Invasive Management 
Chinese privet stand areas for riparian restoration under 15A NCAC 02B .0295(n) will include mechanical 
removal and/or chemical treatment of Chinese privet. Once Chinese privet has been removed and/or 
treated, native bare root species listed in Tables 8, 9, or 10 will be planted. Selected species will be 
determined after the invasive removal and will be based on best professional judgement regarding tree 
or shrub survivability. This is due to anticipated variability in desirable canopy cover once Chinese privet 
has been removed. Continued Chinese privet management will occur during subsequent monitoring 
years, on an as needed basis. 
4.4 Riparian Area Enhancement Activities 
The revegetation plan for the buffer enhancement areas under 15A NCAC 02B .0295(n) will include 
planting species listed under the Supplemental Planting Zone in Table 10 and controlling invasive species 
growth. The proposed supplemental planting area includes the area identified as Riparian Enhancement 
for Buffer Credits on Figure 7. 

Wetland Planting Zone 
Species Common Name Composition Forest Strata Tree/Shrub 
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak 12% Canopy Tree 
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak 10% Canopy Tree 
Quercus bicolor Swamp white oak 8% Subcanopy Tree 
Quercus laurifolia Laurel oak 8% Canopy Tree 
Salix nigra Black willow 10% Canopy Tree 
Morella cerifera Waxmyrtle 5% Shrub Shrub 
Ilex verticillata Common winterberry 5% Shrub Shrub 
Possible Substitutions 
Cyrilla racemiflora Swamp titi 10% Subcanopy Shrub 
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak 10% Canopy Tree 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 11 July 2024 
Table 10: Selected Supplemental Species  

Trees and shrubs will be planted with variable spacing to accommodate existing desirable woody 
vegetation but will be planted to ensure there will be sufficient density to meet the performance 
standards outlined in the Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees and shrubs per acre at the end of five 
years. Additionally, the final performance standard shall include a minimum of four native hardwood 
tree or native shrub species and no one tree or shrub species will be greater than 50% of the established 
stems. One random vegetation plot will be placed within the buffer enhancement areas at least two 
times throughout the 5‐year monitoring period to assess performance standards.  
4.5 Riparian Area Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion Activities 
For enhancement areas under NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6), cattle exclusion, planting isn’t anticipated except 
where required in the stream mitigation plan. Fencing will be installed across most of the conservation 
easement boundary and will be connected to existing fencing along property boundary lines to 
discontinue cattle access. A seed mix as identified in Appendix E will be applied where livestock have 
created bare soils and sufficient sunlight is available to support the species in the seed mix.   
4.6 Riparian Area Preservation Activities 
There will be no Parcel preparation done in the riparian preservation areas under 15NCAC 02B 
.0295(o)(4) except as required in the stream mitigation plan. The area of preservation credit within the 
Parcel is less than 25% of the total area of buffer mitigation, as shown in Table 11. The preservation area 
will be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement  
4.7 NCDWR As‐Built Evaluation 
Within 30 calendar days after completing the establishment of the buffer mitigation and nutrient offset 
areas, the Sponsor will submit written notification to NCDWR documenting that all buffer mitigation and 
nutrient offset activities have been completed, including the installation of fencing and adequate 
marking of easement boundaries. In addition, all stream mitigation activities at the Great Meadow 
Mitigation Site must be completed prior to the NCDWR as‐built evaluation. Failure to submit written 
notification within 30 days may result in a modified credit release schedule or a delay in the issuance of 
credit releases.  
5.0 Monitoring and Maintenance Plan 
5.1  Monitoring Protocol 
Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the riparian restoration areas to 
measure the survival of the planted trees and shrubs. The plots will be randomly placed throughout the 
Supplemental Planting Zone 
Species Common Name Composition Forest Strata Tree/Shrub 
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 20% Subcanopy Shrub 
Euonymus americanus American strawberry 
bush 20% Shrub Shrub 
Prunus serotina Black cherry 20% Subcanopy Tree 
Corylus americana American hazelnut 20% Subcanopy Shrub 
Hamamelis virginiana American witch‐hazel 20% Subcanopy Shrub 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 12 July 2024 
planted riparian areas and will be representative of areas generating riparian buffer credits and nutrient 
offset credits. A total of 12 fixed plots will be established within restoration and enhancement areas and 
will be randomly placed such that the plots are representative of the buffer mitigation credit areas 
(Figure 9). One random vegetation plot will be placed within the enhancement areas at least two times 
throughout the 5‐year monitoring period to assess planted stem performance. All twelve vegetation 
plots will be shared with the stream mitigation bank. Of the 12 vegetation plots, 10 will be fixed in the 
same location through the duration of the five‐year monitoring period, and 2 will be placed randomly 
each year of assessment within riparian restoration and enhancement areas generating either nutrient 
offset credits or riparian buffer credits. Each of the 12 plots will be 100 square meters; however, the 10 
fixed plots will be 10 x 10 meter square plots while the 2 random plots will be circular with a radius of 
5.64 meters. When the area of the 12 plots is added together, they equate to 2% of the planted area 
generating either nutrient offset credits or riparian buffer credits. The equation used to calculate the 
vegetation plot number is as follows: 
14.9 acres x 0.02 = 0.298 acres 
0.298 acres/0.0247 acres = 12.1 vegetation plots  
Vegetation assessments will be conducted and follow the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2 
Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee et al., 2008). A reference photo will be taken from the 
southwestern corner of each of the 12 plots. Overview photos will be taken each monitoring year and 
provided in the annual reports. All planted stems will be marked with flagging tape and recorded.  
The first annual monitoring activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, at least five 
months after planting has been completed and no earlier than the fall season. Species composition, 
individual stem height, and survival rates will be evaluated in each plot during monitoring years 1, 3, and 
5, and included in monitoring reports. Additionally, vigor per stem will be evaluated in monitoring years 
1, 3, and 5 and included in monitoring reports. During monitoring years 2 and 4 stem density will be 
recorded, and visual assessments will be completed, however stem height and vigor data will not be 
required. The total number of volunteer woody stems will be documented and reported each 
monitoring year. The measure of vegetative success for the Parcel will be the survival of at least four 
native hardwood tree and shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50% of the established 
planted stems, and an established density of at least 260 planted trees and shrubs per acre at the end of 
the fifth year of monitoring. Appropriate and desirable native volunteer species may be included in the 
Parcel’s density to meet the performance standards with written NCDWR approval.  
A visual assessment of the cattle exclusion areas within the conservation easement will also be 
performed each year to confirm: 
 Existing fencing is in good condition throughout the Parcel; 
 No cattle access within the conservation easement area; 
 No encroachment has occurred; 
 Diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement area; and 
 There has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would 
negatively affect the functioning of the buffer. 
The Sponsor shall submit the annual monitoring report to NCDWR by December 31st of each year for five 
consecutive years and will follow the terms and conditions of the MBI. 
5.2 Parcel Maintenance 
If the Parcel or a specific component of the Parcel fails to achieve the success criteria outlined in Section 
5.1, adaptive measures will be developed and/or appropriate remedial actions will be implemented. 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 13 July 2024 
Maintenance will be performed to correct any identified problems on the Parcel that have a high 
likelihood of affecting project success. Any actions implemented will be designed to achieve the success 
criteria and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria. A rigorous herbicide schedule 
may need to be implemented in the first few years of tree establishment in the restoration areas to 
prevent establishment of invasive species that may out‐compete the planted native vegetation. The only 
herbicides used on the Parcel will be aquatic approved herbicides that will be applied in accordance with 
North Carolina Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.  
The easement boundary will be checked annually as part of monitoring activities. The condition of 
fencing will be assessed to ensure livestock do not have access to the easement. Easement boundary 
conditions as well as any maintenance performed will be reported in the annual monitoring reports to 
NCDWR.  
5.3 Easement Boundaries  
Easement boundaries will be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Parcel and 
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by marker, post, tree‐blazing, or other means as 
allowed by Parcel conditions and/or conservation easement prior to the NCDWR onsite As‐Built 
evaluation for Task 2 credit release. Boundary markers that have been disturbed, damaged, or 
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis. Contact information for the 
conservation easement holder will be included on easement markers. 
6.0 Financial Assurance and Long‐Term Management 
6.1 Financial Assurances 
Following approval of the Great Meadow Buffer Plan, the Sponsor shall provide a Performance Bond 
from a surety that is rated no less than an “A‐“ as rated by A.M. Best. The Performance Bond amount 
shall be 100% of the estimated cost for implementation of the project as described in the Buffer Plan, 
but not less than $150,000.00. In lieu of posting the performance bond, the Sponsor may elect to 
construct the project prior to the first credit release. In that case no performance bond will be 
necessary. 
After completion of the restoration/construction, a separate Performance/Maintenance Bond will be 
secured for 100% of the estimated cost to implement the monitoring and maintenance plan but not less 
than $100,000.00. The Performance/Maintenance Bond shall apply at the inception of the monitoring 
period for a term of one year and be extended annually for a minimum of five years. Upon NCDWR 
approval, this may be lowered each year based on the adjusted cost to complete the monitoring. 
Performance bonds for monitoring shall be renewed at least annually to cover the next years monitoring 
period, with confirmation of renewal provided to NCDWR with each annual monitoring report when 
applicable. NCDWR reserves the right to alter the credit release schedule if monitoring reports are 
submitted without proof of bond renewals when applicable. 
6.2 Long‐term Management 
The Parcel will remain in private ownership, protected in its entirety by Tar River Land Conservancy 
(TRLC), an approved NCDWR long term stewardship, and will be managed under the terms detailed in an 
approved NCDWR conservation easement. TRLC will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Parcel 
to ensure that the restrictions documented in the recorded easement are upheld in perpetuity. The 
conservation easement will be held by the TRLC. 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 14 July 2024 
7.0 Potential Credit Generation 
Of the 42.6 acres protected under the conservation easement, the mitigation approach for 14.6 acres is 
riparian restoration. Of the 14.6 acres of restoration, <0.1 acres are proposed for riparian buffer credit 
and 14.6 acres are proposed for nutrient offset credit. Riparian buffer credits are also being generated 
from enhancement, enhancement via cattle exclusion, and preservation, which total 0.3 acres, 16.6 
acres, and 1.8 acres, respectively. Preservation credit within the buffer mitigation site is less than 25% of 
the total area of buffer mitigation, as shown in Table 11. Areas within the conservation easement where 
credit is not claimed include internal crossings and areas where the riparian width is less than 20 feet or 
exceeds 200 feet from tops of banks. Additionally, Gideon Swamp uses the Wilmington District Stream 
Buffer Credit Calculator to produce stream credits for extra‐wide buffers on the Great Meadow Stream 
and Wetland Mitigation Site; therefore, Nutrient Offset Credits and Riparian Buffer Credits are not 
claimed on Gideon Swamp past 50 feet from the top of bank of the stream (Figure 7). All credit areas will 
be finalized in an As‐Built Survey and will be submitted in the As‐Built report.  
The credit calculations were derived based on Wildlands’ conceptual design for maximum ecological 
uplift. The management objectives, mitigation type, and proposed amount of buffer mitigation are 
presented in Table 11 below. The buffer mitigation credits will be derived from riparian areas adjacent 
to mitigated streams. Credits will be determined based on existing riparian conditions on the Parcel. 
Furthermore, the existing conditions tree line survey shown in Figure 7, rather than new tree lines 
following construction, will be used to determine riparian buffer credits and nutrient offset credits. The 
riparian restoration areas are viable for either riparian buffer credits or nutrient offset credits, but not 
both. On this parcel, Wildlands is seeking riparian buffer credit from riparian restoration within locations 
where the riparian area goes out to a maximum of 50 feet from the top of bank, and therefore do not 
qualify for nutrient offset credits. These credits will not be convertible to nutrient offset credits. 
Wildlands is seeking nutrient offset credits in riparian restoration areas that are at least 50 feet from the 
top of bank and up to 200 feet from top of bank along mitigated streams. Areas within 0‐100 foot zone 
that are at least 50 feet wide will be convertible to riparian buffer credit, while areas from 101‐200 feet 
will not be convertible to riparian buffer credits, per the MBI. The total credit potential of nutrient offset 
credit convertible to riparian buffer credit is represented in Table 11 below and will be documented in 
the As‐Built Report and will be supported by the As‐Built survey. There will be four credit ledgers for the 
project: Buffer Enhancement and Restoration, Buffer Enhancement (via Cattle Exclusion) with Buffer 
Preservation, Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Credits and Phosphorus Nutrient Offset Credits.

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 15 July 2024 
Table 11: Great Meadow Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank – Project Credit Table 
Tar‐Pamlico 03020101 Project Area  
19.16394 N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)  
297.54099 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)  

Convertibl
e to 
Riparian 
Buffer?  
 Riparian 
Buffer 
Credits  
 Convertible 
to Nutrient 
Offset?  
 Delivered 
Nutrient 
Offset: N 
(lbs)  
 Delivered 
Nutrient 
Offset: P 
(lbs)  
Buffer Rural Yes I / P 
Enhancement via 
Cattle Exclusion 
20‐29 Shard Branch 26 26 2 75% 2.66667 Yes 9.750 No — — 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P 
Enhancement via 
Cattle Exclusion 
0‐100 
Gideon Swamp, Swift Creek, 
Shard Branch Fisher Branch, Fox 
Branch 
717,151 717,151 2 100% 2.00000 Yes 358,575.500 No — — 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P 
Enhancement via 
Cattle Exclusion 
101‐200 
Gideon Swamp, Swift Creek, 
Fisher Branch, Fox Branch 
4,691 4,691 2 33% 6.06061 Yes 774.014 No — — 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement 0‐100 Fox Branch, Shard Branch 15,096 15,096 2 100% 2.00000 Yes 7,548.000 Yes 393.865 25.368 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 20‐29 Shard Branch 287 287 1 75% 1.33333 Yes 215.251 No — — 
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0‐50 Shard Branch 2,336 2,336 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 2,336.000 No — — 
Nutrient 
Offset 
Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0‐100 
Gideon Swamp, Swift Creek, 
Shard Branch, Fisher Branch, Fox 
Branch 
558,113  1 100% 1.00000 Yes 558,113.000 Yes 29,123.082 1,875.752 
Nutrient 
Offset Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101‐200 Swift Creek, Gideon Swamp, Fox 
Branch 36,316  1 33% 3.03030 No — Yes 1,895.017 122.054 
Nutrient 
Offset Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0‐100 Fisher Branch, Shard Branch ‐ 
Chinese Privet Removal 37,945  1 100% 1.00000 Yes 37,945.000 Yes 1,980.021 127.529 
Totals (ft2): 1,371,960 1,371,960      965,516.515   33,391.985 2,150.703 
  Total Buffer (ft2): 739,586 739,586    
Total Nutrient Offset (ft2): 632,374 N/A    

Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit: 0 0  
Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft2): 204,565 0.0% Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM  
   Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2): 246,529 8.0 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 Fox Branch, Fisher Branch, 
Swift Creek 78,673 78,673 10 100% 10.00000 7,867.300  
    Preservation Area Subtotals (ft2): 78,673 78,673  

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 16 July 2024 
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM) 
Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits 
Restoration: 2,622 2,551.251 
Enhancement: 736,964 366,907.264 
Preservation: 78,673 7,867.300 
Total Riparian Buffer: 818,259 377,325.815 
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION 
Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits 
Nutrient 
Offset: 
Nitrogen: 
632,374  
32,998.120 
Phosphorus: 2,125.335 

Upon submittal of the appropriate documentation by the Sponsor and subsequent approval by NCDWR, the mitigation credits associated with the Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel will be released as described in the MBI. 

 Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel  Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03020101  Page 17 July 2024 
8.0 References 
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation 
Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐2.pdf 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey. 
http://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 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 

^_
¹Nash County, NC
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (03030002)0 10.5 Miles
^_
Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
^_Great Meadow Bank Parcel Location
Cooper Rd
2021 Aerial Imagery
Directions: From the City of Raleigh, take I-87/
US-64-E for ten miles. Continue on US 64-E for
another 28 miles and take exit 459 for NC-58
toward Nashville. Turn left onto NC Hwy 58-N
and travel for 0.5 miles before turning right on
Taylor's Store Road. Continue for 8.9 miles
before turning right on Wheeless Cabin Road.
After three miles, turn left on Cooper Road and
the site will be in half a mile on the left.
[
[[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[[[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
ÛÚ
ÛÚ
ÛÚ
ÛÚ
ÛÚ
C
o
o
p
e
r
R
d
Wheeles C a b i n R d
C
o
o
p
er
R
d
Fi
s
h
e
r

B
r
a
n
c
h
Sh
a
r
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
Fo
x

B
r
a
n
c
h
Gid
e
o
n

S
w
a
m
p
S
w
i
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
Project Location
Bank Parcel Conservation
Easement
Proposed Conservation Easement -
Site Viability
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
Chinese Privet Stand
Utility Easement
Utility Line
GPS Surveyed Tree Line
[Existing Fence
Non-Project Stream
Topographic Contours (2')
ÛÚ Existing Crossings
Figure 3. Existing Conditions Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC
¹0 350 700 Feet
2021 Aerial Photography
¹Nash County, NC
Figure 4. USGS Topographic Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (03030002)0 600300 Feet
Essex and Red Oak USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles
Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
S
w
i
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
Fisher Branch
326 Acres
Shard Branch
90 Acres
Fox Branch
220 Acres
Gideon Swamp
2,937 Acres
Figure 5. Watershed Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
2021 Aerial Photography
¹0 1,800 3,600 Feet
Nash County, NC
Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
Gideon Swamp Watershed
Fisher Branch Watershed
Shard Branch Watershed
Fox Branch Watershed
Perennial Project Stream
Intermittent Project Stream
Non-Project Stream
Topographic Contours (4')
Cooper
Rd
C
o
o
p
e
r
R
d
C
o
o
p
er
R
d
W h e e l e s C a b i n R d
Figure 6. 1989 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (03030002)¹0 300 600 Feet
Nash County, NC
Project Location
Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
1989 NRCS Soil Survey of Nash County - Sheets 2 and 4
C
o
o
p
e
r
R
d
Wheeles C a b i n R d
C
o
o
p
er
R
d
Fi
s
h
e
r

B
r
a
n
c
h
Sh
a
r
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
Fo
x

B
r
a
n
c
h
Gid
e
o
n

S
w
a
m
p
S
w
i
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
[
[[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[[[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[
[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[[
[
[[
[[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
Project Location
Bank Parcel Conservation
Easement
Internal Crossing
Proposed Stream Top of Bank
Utility Easement
[Existing Fence - to be Removed
[Existing Fence - Not to be Removed
[Proposed Fencing
GPS Surveyed Tree Line
Utility Line
Non-Project Stream
Mitigation Type
Riparian Restoration for Buffer
Credit (29'-30')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer
Credit (0'-50')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits
(0'-100')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits
(101'-200')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits
(29'-30')
Riparian Enhancement for Buffer
Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer
Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (0'-100') Privet Stand
Not for Credit
Figure 7. Credits Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC
¹0 350 700 Feet
2021 Aerial Photography
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
20'
30'
S
h
a
r
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
Chinese privet
stand removal
Chinese privet
stand removal
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
Sh
a
r
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
C
o
o
p
e
r
R
d
Wh e e l e s C a b i n R d
C
o
o
p
er
R
d
Fi
s
h
e
r

B
r
a
n
c
h
Sh
a
r
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
Fo
x

B
r
a
n
c
h
Gideon Sw
a
m
p
Swift Creek
Project Location
Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
Proposed Stream Top of Bank
30' from Top of Bank
50' from Top of Bank
100' from Top of Bank
200' from Top of Bank
Utility Easement
Non-Project Streams
Mitigation Type
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit
(29'-30')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit
(0'-50')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits
(101'-200')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits (29'-30')
Riparian Enhancement for Buffer
Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer
Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (0'-100') Privet Stand
Not for Credit
Figure 8. Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC¹0 350 700 Feet
2021 Aerial Photography
C
o
o
p
e
r
R
d
Wheeles C a b i n R d
C
o
o
p
er
R
d
Fi
s
h
e
r

B
r
a
n
c
h
Sh
a
r
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
Fo
x

B
r
a
n
c
h
Gideon Sw
a
m
p
S
w
i
f
t

C
r
e
e
k
[[
[[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[
[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[[
[
[[
[[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
Project Location
Bank Parcel Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Proposed Stream Top of Bank
USACE/NCDWR Shared Vegetation
Plot
Utility Easement
[Existing Fence - Not to be Removed
[Proposed Fencing
Utility Line
Non-Project Stream
Mitigation Type
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit
(29'-30')
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit
(0'-50')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits
(101'-200')
Riparian Enhancement Via Cattle
Exclusion for Buffer Credits (29'-30')
Riparian Enhancement for Buffer
Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer
Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (0'-100')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient
Offset Credits (0'-100') Privet Stand
Not for Credit
Figure 9. Monitoring Components Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Plan
Tar-Pamlico River Basin (03030002)
Nash County, NC¹0 350 700 Feet
2021 Aerial Photography
Chinese privet
maintenance areas
Chinese privet
maintenance areas
Random vegetation
plot located here twice
in 5-year monitoring
period

Appendix A: 
Current Land Use Photographs 

CURRENT LAND USE PHOTOGRAPHS 
Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel 

Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
HUC 03020101
Fisher Branch 

Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) 

Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023)

Adjacent Forested Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Forested Area (08/04/2023) 

Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
HUC 03020101

Adjacent Forested Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Forested Area (08/04/2023)
Shard Branch 

Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) 

Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) 

Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
HUC 03020101

Fox Branch 

Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Pasture Area (08/04/2023) 

Adjacent Forested Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Forested Area (08/04/2023) 

Adjacent Forested Area (08/04/2023) Adjacent Forested Area (08/04/2023) 

Great Meadow Mitigation Bank Parcel
HUC 03020101
Gideon Swamp 

Adjacent Forested Area (11/17/2022) Adjacent Forested Area (11/17/2022) 
Swift Creek 

Adjacent Forested Area (11/17/2022) Adjacent Forested Area (11/17/2022) 

Appendix B:  
Historical Aerials 

6434713.1
1950
= 750'
6434713.1
1961
= 750'
6434713.1
1977
= 750'
6434713.1
1983
= 750'
6434713.1
1994
= 750'
6434713.1
1998
= 750'
6434713.1
2006
= 750'
6434713.1
2009
= 750'
6434713.1
2012
= 750'
6434713.1
2016
= 750'
Appendix C:  
On Site Determination of Applicability to Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules  
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Letter 

December 6, 2021
DWR Project # 20211645
Nash County
Linda Fisher
(via email to [e-mail])

Subject: On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B
.0734)
Project Name: Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Address / Location: 11901 Cooper Road, Red Oak, NC 27856
Determination Date: December 3, 2021 Staff: Rick Trone

Ms. Fisher,

On December 3, 2021, Rick Trone of the Division of Water Resources conducted an on-site review of
features located on the subject property at the request of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to determine
the applicability to the Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0734).

The enclosed map(s) depict the feature(s) evaluated. This information is also summarized in the
table below. Streams that are considered “Subject” have been located on the most recently
published NRCS Soil Survey of Nash County and/or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic
(at 1:24,000 scale) map(s), have been located on the ground at the site, and possess characteristics
that qualify them to be at least intermittent streams. Features that are considered “Not Subject”
have been determined to not be at least intermittent or not present on the property or not
depicted on the required maps.

This determination only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any
activity within buffers or within waters of the state. There may be other streams or features
located on the property that do not appear on the maps referenced above. Any of the features
on the site may be considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and
subject to the Clean Water Act.

The following table addresses the features rated during the DWR site visit:
DocuSign Envelope ID: B425EC8C-532D-4A54-BF7B-FAF86F98B1F0

Feature
ID Type1 Subject Start @ Stop @
Depicted
on
Soil Survey
Depicted on
USGS Topo
Gideon
Swamp P X Throughout Project Area X X
Fisher
Branch P X Throughout Project Area X X
Shard
Branch I X Throughout Project Area X X
Fox
Branch P X Throughout Project Area X X
Swift
Creek P X Throughout Project Area X X
(1) E = Ephemeral, I = Intermittent, P = Perennial, NP = Not Present, NE=Not Evaluated, D = Ditch
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or
affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination by
the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of this
letter to the Director in writing.

If sending via U.S. Postal Service:
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Supervisor
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.)
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Supervisor
512 N Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604

This determination is final and binding as detailed above unless an appeal is requested within sixty
(60) calendar days.

This letter only addresses the features on the subject property and within the proposed project
easement and does not approve any activity within buffers or within waters of the state. If you
have any additional questions or require additional information, please contact Rick Trone at (919)
707-3631 or [e-mail]. This determination is subject to review as provided in Articles
3 & 4 of G.S. 150B.

Sincerely,

Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch

Enclosures: USGS Topographical Map, NRCS Soil Survey, Site Map
cc: Chris Roessler, Wildlands Engineering (via email to [e-mail])
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch files
DocuSign Envelope ID: B425EC8C-532D-4A54-BF7B-FAF86F98B1F0
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 4
Reach 1
Reach 2
Swift Creek
Fisher Branch
Shard Branch
Fox Branch
Gideon Swamp
XS 1
XS 2
XS 3
Figure 5. Site Map
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Tar Pamlico River Basin (03020101)
2017 Aerial Photography
¹0 350 700 Feet
Nash County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Location
Parcels
Livestock Access
Existing Wetland
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
!P Reach Break
Bank Erosion
Scour
Incision
Cross Sections
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (4')
ÛÚ Existing Crossing
XY Headcuts
!(Bedrock
!(Cattle Wallow
DocuSign Envelope ID: B425EC8C-532D-4A54-BF7B-FAF86F98B1F0
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Nash County, NC-DWR Project # 20211645

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

:: Locations are approximate
and are provided for refer-
ence only ::
USGS Topographical Map
Essex and Red Oak Quadrangles 2019
Legend:
-property boundary
Gideon Swamp-Subject through-
out project area
Fisher Branch-Subject throughout
project area
Shard Branch-Subject throughout
project area
Fox Branch-Subject throughout
project area
Swift Creek-Subject throughout
project area
DocuSign Envelope ID: B425EC8C-532D-4A54-BF7B-FAF86F98B1F0
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
May 12, 2022
Chris Roessler
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
(via electronic mail: [e-mail] )
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset – Great Meadow Site
Near 36.128526, -77.956686 off Cooper Rd in Nashville, NC
Tar Pamlico 03020101
Nash County
Dear Mr. Roessler,
On March 16, 2022, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request
from you on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands) for a site visit near the above-
referenced site in the Tar Pamlico River Basin within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020101.
The site visit was to determine the potential for riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset within a
proposed conservation easement boundary, which is more accurately depicted in the attached map
labeled “Figure 1” prepared by Wildlands. This site is also being proposed as a stream mitigation
site and therefore stream bank instability or presence of erosional rills within riparian areas were not
addressed. On April 11, 2022, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of the subject site. Staff with
Wildlands were also present.
Ms. Merritt’s evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200’ from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(effective November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Great Meadow Site Wildlands
May 12, 2022
Page 2 of 4
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 -
N lbs/acre
4,5Mitigation Type Determination w/in
riparian areas
Gideon
Swamp
Stream Yes Non-forested agricultural
fields and forested pasture.
7Yes Yes (non-
forested fields
only)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Forested Pasture – Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Swift Creek Stream Yes Mostly a combination of
forested and non-forested
pasture. Downstream
above confluence with Fox
Branch there is no cattle
access and riparian
conditions are mixed
between non-forested and
forested areas (see map)
2,7Yes Yes (non-
forested fields
only)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Forested Pasture – Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Forested non-pasture areas –
Preservation Site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (o)(5)
Fisher
Branch
Stream Yes Non-forested agricultural
fields and forested pasture.
Upstream of Reach 1 (see
map) = heavily dense privet
stands make up entire
understory just above
Reach 1. Forested areas at
top of reach 1 near project
boundary do not have cattle
access and historical cattle
access was limited (see
Map). An old farm road
was observed along the
right bank of Reach 1.
A semi braided stream
system was observed
between Reach 1 and Reach
2
2,7Yes Yes (only
non-forested
fields & areas
where privet
is removed)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Forested Pasture – Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Forested non-pasture areas –
Preservation Site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (o)(5)
Privet Stand - Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (n) if removed, treated,
planted with natives, and a commitment
for active management is provided during
monitoring years.
Shard
Branch
Stream Yes Non-forested agricultural
fields and a combination of
forested and partially
forested pasture.
Reach 2 (see map) =
partially forested pasture
with areas of dense privet
in the understory
.
7Yes Yes (only
non-forested
fields & areas
where privet
is removed)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)
Forested Pasture – Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)
Partially Forested Pasture -
Enhancement Site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (n) requires supplemental planting
Privet Stand - Restoration Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (n) if removed, treated,
planted with natives, and a commitment
for active management is provided during
monitoring years.
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Great Meadow Site
Wildlands
May 12, 2022
Page 3 of 4
1Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondences dated December 6, 2021 (DWR# 2021-1645) using the
1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by
the NRCS .
2The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
3NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment
4 Determinations made for this Site are determined based on the proposal provided in maps and figures submitted with the request.
5 All features proposed for buffer mitigation or nutrient offset, must have a planted conservation easement established that includes the
tops of channel banks when being measured perpendicular and landward from the banks, even if no credit is viable within that riparian
area.
6The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
7The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule.

Determinations provided in the table above were made using a proposed easement boundary showing
proposed mitigation areas and features shown in Figure 1. The map representing the proposal for the
site is attached to this letter and initialed by Ms. Merritt on May 12, 2022. Substantial changes to the
proposed easement boundary or proposed stream mitigation as well as any site constraints identified
in this letter, could affect the Site’s potential to generate buffer mitigation and nutrient offset credits.

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

All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
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 -
N lbs/acre
4,5Mitigation Type Determination w/in
riparian areas
Fox Branch Stream Yes Non-forested agricultural
fields and a combination of
forested and partially
forested pasture.

Downstream & at
confluence with Swift
Creek there is no cattle
access and riparian
conditions are forested (see
map)

Conservation easement
boundary may not
adequately represent parcel
boundary, and portions of
the left side (beyond 50’
buffer) may include areas
that were timbered

2,7Yes Yes (only
non-forested
pasture and
partially
forested
pasture areas)
Non-forested fields - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (n)

Forested Pasture – Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6)

Partially Forested Pasture -
Enhancement Site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (n) requires supplemental planting

Forested non-pasture areas & timbered
areas – Preservation Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5)

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Great Meadow Site
Wildlands
May 12, 2022
Page 4 of 4
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0703.

This viability assessment will expire on May 12, 2024 or upon approval of a mitigation plan by
the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in any nutrient offset, buffer,
stream or wetland mitigation plan for this Site.

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

Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
PW/kym

Attachments: Figure 1,

cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Fi
s
h
e
r

B
r
a
n
c
h
Privet Stand
Semi-braided Stream System
Conservation Easement - TOB Swift Creek
Privet Stand
Survey of existing fenceto be Preservation - CattleExclusion boundary
Survey of existing fenceto be Preservation - CattleExclusion or Restoration boundary
Fo
x

B
r
a
n
c
h
Gid
e
o
n

S
w
a
m
p
Sh
a
r
d

B
r
a
n
c
h
Swif
t

C
r
e
e
k
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 4
FIGURE 1: Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Concept - No Wetlands
Great Meadows Mitigation Site
Tar Pamlico River Basin (03020101)
2017 Aerial Photography
¹0 350 700 Feet
Nash County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Location
Internal Crossings
Riparian Restoration
Riparian Enhancement
Riparian Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion
Riparian Preservation
No Riparian Buffer or Nutrient Offset Credit
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Streams
!P Reach Break
Date: 5/12/2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: BD574645-F998-4877-8CBD-1642C2C3724F
Appendix D:  
USFWS Correspondence 
Phase I Archaeological Investigation Report 
EDR Radius Map Report, Executive Summary 
1
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From:Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:23 PM
To:Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd
Cc:Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Browning, Kimberly D
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Chris Roessler; Ellis, John
Subject:[Non-DoD Source] Re: [EXTERNAL] Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI - Great Meadows Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus Review
Thanks for the opportunity to go onsite at this proposed mitigation site.  The USFWS is excited about the opportunities 
for enhancement, restoration, and preservation.   We walked most of the site during our field meeting, and the USFWS 
agrees that most of the tributary reaches will benefit from restoration or enhancement.  Swift Creek will also greatly 
benefit from the proposed restoration, enhancement, and protection of buffers.   We have the following comments on 
the project, most of which we discussed last week on site.  

1.  The project encompasses portions of four tributaries to Swift Creek in the Tar River basin.  In the project area, Swift 
Creek has known occurrences of the following federally listed species: 

Neuse River Waterdog (aquatic salamander) ‐ threatened 
Carolina Madtom (fish) ‐ endangered 
Yellow Lance (mussel) ‐ threatened 
Tar River Spinymussel ‐ endangered 
Atlantic Pigtoe (mussel) ‐ proposed threatened 

Swift Creek in the project area is also designated critical habitat for Neuse River Waterdog, Carolina Madtom, and Yellow 
Lance, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic Pigtoe.  Tar River Spinymussel does not have any designated critical 
habitat.  Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Endangered Species Act. It is specific geographic areas that 
contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special 
management and protection. Critical habitat may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species but 
will be needed for its recovery.  In this case, all of the critical habitat in the project area is known to be occupied by the 
species.  

2. We recommend that the Corp request initiation of formal consultation when complete information is available for the 
project (draft mitigation plans and sediment and erosion control plans); however, we also recommend close 
coordination as necessary prior to any significant decisions on restoration vs. enhancement, stream crossings, etc.   If we 
have the opportunity to review decisions as they come along, perhaps there will be no outstanding issues at the time of 
the draft plan.  

Complete information will be necessary prior to initiating formal consultation so that we can negotiate terms and 
conditions and draft the biological opinion.  Please see our web site for an overview of consultation and an explanation 
of what is typically provided in a biological assessment.  If the info in the mitigation plans and erosion control plans is 
complete enough, a separate BA shouldn't be necessary.   https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_consultation.html 
<Blockedhttps://www.fws.gov/raleigh/es_consultation.html>  

3. We recommend that the number of stream crossings be limited to the extent possible, and that any perched culverts 
be removed.  Replacement culverts should be designed to provide appropriate flow and aquatic species movement in 
low‐flow conditions (in perennial streams). 

2
4. We agree that most of the tributaries on the site do not have suitable habitat for listed species, particularly in the 
upper reaches.  However, Gideon Swamp, particularly downstream of the beaver dam, appears to have suitable habitat 
for multiple species.  We recommend that a qualified, permitted mussel biologist conduct suitable habitat surveys in 
Gideon Swamp and the lower reaches of the other 3 tributaries to the Swift.  If suitable habitat is present, then we can 
either assume that the species are present, or surveys may be conducted.  Depending on the results, salvage (relocation 
surveys) may be needed prior to earth‐moving work on the site.  

5. We encourage the mitigation provider to approach the landowner(s) along the south bank of Swift Creek to see if they 
would be willing to buffer the stream and wetlands on that side of Swift Creek.   Swift Creek in this area is a high quality 
resource, and the USFWS would be willing to provide better credit ratios for preservation credit.  

6. Please coordinate with us on the plans for beaver dam removal in Gideon Swamp. 

7. The USFWS understands that the owner sometimes pumps water from Swift Creek when flows are low, to irrigate 
pumpkin seeds.  This may not be directly related to the mitigation project, but please provide us with the typical amount 
of water that is removed from the stream (we recall that the seeds are irrigated with one inch of water), and the typical 
time of year.  

Thanks again for the opportunity to coordinate on this project.  We look forward to consultation.  Have a good week, 

Please note that I am teleworking almost exclusively.   Email is the best way to reach me.  Thanks, 

Kathy Matthews 
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator & 
Fish and Wildlife Biologist 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
551‐F Pylon Drive 
Raleigh, NC  27606 
919‐856‐4520, x. 27 

________________________________ 

From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 1:59 PM 
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd 
<[e-mail]>; Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) 
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) 
<[e-mail]>; Chris Roessler <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wildlands Tar Pam 01 UMBI ‐ Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus 
Review  

 This email has been received from outside of DOI ‐ Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or 
responding.   

3

IRT Members, 

Wildlands Engineering has provided us with a Draft Prospectus of a new Umbrella Mitigation Bank in the Tar Pamlico 01 
HUCT.  The Great Meadows Stream and Wetland Site is included in the submittal as the first site for the bank.  The Draft 
Prospectus has been uploaded to RIBITS, and we are initiating the 30‐day review of the Draft Prospectus with this email.  
Information about the proposed bank is below: 

Umbrella Bank Name: Wildlands Tar Pamlico UMB 

Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Contact: Chris Roessler) 

Location: 36.1288, ‐77.9508  Nash county, 03020101 HUC 

USACE Action ID: SAW‐2021‐01714 

USACE Bank PM: Todd Tugwell 

Deadline for comments on the Draft Prospectus: Oct. 27, 2021 

I would also like to go ahead and schedule a time for a review of the site – Oct. 20th is the next available open IRT 
meeting day, so please reserve the morning of the 20th for the meeting and I will provide more information as we get 
closer.  In the meantime, please let me know if you need a hard copy of the Draft Prospectus and I will arrange to have a 
copy delivered.  As note that this is still the Draft stage, so the project has not been put on Public Notice as of yet.  Also, 
because the site meeting is more than 30 days out, I have set the deadline for comments as one week after the site 
meeting (Oct. 27th) . 

Thanks, 

Todd Tugwell 

Mitigation Project Manager 

Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers 

3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 

Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 

(919) 210‐6265 

From:Matthews, Kathryn H
To:Tasha King
Cc:[e-mail]; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jeff Keaton; Chris
Roessler; Kirsten Gimbert; Ellis, John; Archambault, Jennifer M
Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Great Meadow Mitigation Site SAW-2021-01714 - Request for Aquatic Survey Report Review
Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:47:06 PM
Attachments:Great Meadow Mitigation Site - SAW-2021-01714.pdf
Hi Tasha,
Thanks for the aquatic survey report and other information. We've reviewed the additional
info and discussed internally, and have the following comments and questions:
The Service still recommends that the Corps request formal consultation for
authorization of work in Gideon Swamp as well as for potential impacts to Swift Creek
from work upstream in the tributaries.
The Service recommends that the Corps and Wildlands work with us on the mitigation
plans and plans for maintenance, monitoring, and management of the site.
Did SEPI provide a more detailed survey report, or any additional information? If so,
please provide it.
We can assist the Corps and/or project proponent in drafting a Biological Assessment
(BA), which should provide all the information we need to conduct formal consultation.
The BA should be based upon the final mitigation plan, since the Biological Opinion is
intended to provide coverage for the actions that the Corps authorizes. Along with
detailed mitigation plans, information that is still needed includes:
A figure showing all NRWD trap locations with respect to the beaver dam and
with respect to the proposed ford crossing
A more specific explanation of where the NRWD and Elliptios were found -
Upstream or downstream of the dam, or both? What types of habitat were
present in the areas where NRWD and Elliptios were found?
A more specific discussion of work to be conducted, especially for Gideon Swamp,
including: stream cross-sections in the area of the ford and other proposed work,
construction materials and methods, equipment, sediment and erosion controls,
time of year when work is proposed, and measures to avoid and minimize impacts
to the waterbody. Photos of the area for the ford on Gideon Swamp may be
helpful, also. This information may be more than you typically provide in a
mitigation plan.
Is dam removal or beaver management proposed? If so, what are those plans?
What exactly is proposed for Enhancement II on Gideon Swamp?
Did Wildlands look into the possibility of acquiring additional easement along
Cooper Road to avoid the Gideon Swamp crossing (as mentioned in the
November 23, 2021 prospectus)? How does the landowner currently access the
west side of the parcel? What was the reasoning for the siting of the ford in the
proposed location?
Thanks for continuing to coordinate on this project. We look forward to working with you.
Please note that I am teleworking Wednesday through Friday, every week. Email is the best
way to reach me. Thanks,
Kathy Matthews
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator &
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4520, x. 27
From: Tasha King <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 11:15 AM
To: Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jeff Keaton
<[e-mail]>; Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>; Kirsten Gimbert
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Great Meadow Mitigation Site SAW-2021-01714 - Request for Aquatic Survey
Report Review

This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on
links, opening attachments, or responding.
Good morning,

Wildlands would like to request review and comment on the enclosed Aquatic Survey Report for Great
Meadow Mitigation Site (SAW-2021-01714). We ask that you provide guidance on next steps for this
mitigation project as it relates to the federally listed mussel species and amphibian. Attached is a letter
with more detailed information about the site, an updated concept map, and the aquatic survey
report.

Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have or to set up a phone meeting to discuss.
We appreciate your help in this matter.

Kind regards,
Tasha
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tasha King | Environmental Scientist
O: 919.851.9986 x116

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

Aquatic Survey Report
Great Meadow Mitigation Site
Nash County, North Carolina
Downstream facing view of Gideon Swamp where Neuse River Waterdog was observed
Prepared For:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina

Contact Person:

Chris Roessler
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

August 2022

Prepared by:

1 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27603

Contact Person:
Chris Sheats
[e-mail]
919-417-2732

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

Appendix A.
-Survey Location Map
-Photos
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. proposes to conduct stream enhancement and restoration to four
tributaries to Swift Creek (Gideon Swamp, Fisher Branch, Shard Branch, and Fox Branch) in Nash
County, North Carolina. According to the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) GIS planning tool, four freshwater mussel species (Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni),
Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River Spinymussel (Parvaspina
steinstansana), and Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata)), one fish (Carolina Madtom (Noturus
furiosus)), and one amphibian (Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)) could be affected by
the project (Table 1). SEPI was contracted by Wildlands Engineering to conduct a habitat
assessment for these species. Suitable habitat was not observed within Fisher Branch, Shard
Branch, and the upper reach of Fox Branch where stream mitigation is proposed. Surveys were
recommended for Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch. These surveys are required as part of
the permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related impacts to
federally protected species.
2.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
NRWD surveys were conducted in Gideon Swamp by Chris Sheats (ES Permit # 22-ES00558, 22-
SFC00249) and Tori Fowler from January 24 – 28, 2022. Traps 1-10 were set on Monday,
January 24, and checked on January 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2022. Freshwater mussel and Carolina
Madtom Surveys were conducted in Gideon Swamp by Chris Sheats, Tori Fowler, and David
Moose on June 28, 2022. Freshwater mussel surveys were conducted in lower Fox Branch on
June 28, 2022.
2.1 Neuse River Waterdog Survey Methodology
Ten traps (Traps 1-10) were set to soak for four consecutive nights in Gideon Swamp between
the confluence of Swift Creek and the Cooper Road bridge crossing. Trap sites were selected
based on best available habitat conditions and were baited with a combination of chicken livers
and chicken hotdogs. Traps were checked daily and rebaited as needed, and all species
observed were recorded and returned to the stream.
2.2 Freshwater Mussel and Carolina Madtom Survey Methodology
Freshwater mussel and Carolina Madtom surveys were conducted in conjunction in Gideon
Swamp between the confluence of Swift Creek and the Cooper Road bridge crossing. The
freshwater mussel survey reach length for Fox Branch extended from the confluence of Swift
Creek to approximately 400 feet upstream. During the surveys, the survey team spread out
across the creek into survey lanes. Visual and tactile surveys were conducted to search for
freshwater mussels, while dip netting methods were used to survey for the Carolina Madtom,
as well as searching beneath rocks, bottles, and woody debris. All species observed were
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 2
recorded and returned to the stream. Survey efforts were timed to provide a Catch Per Unit
Effort (CPUE) for each freshwater mussel species. Abundance was estimated for fish species
and other mollusks observed.
3.0 RESULTS
Gideon Swamp
During the Neuse River Waterdog surveys, one adult Neuse River Waterdog (6.25 inch length)
was observed in a minnow trap (Trap #5) approximately 750 feet upstream (36.1261422, -
77.9532424) of the confluence with Swift Creek (Appendix A). The substrate was dominated
with unconsolidated silt, sand, and detritus. A beaver dam was located approximate 200 feet
downstream (36.1257807, -77.9532820) and was impounding flow at the waterdog observation
location. Pirate Perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), Yellow Bullhead Catfish (Ameiurus natalis),
Margined Madtom (Noturus insignis), Redfin Pickerel (Esox americanus), Bluegill Sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus), and Variable Crayfish (Cambarus latimanus) were also observed in
Gideon Swamp during the Neuse River Waterdog surveys (Table 1).
Table 1. Neuse River Waterdog Survey Results (ONLY Gideon Swamp Surveyed; January 25-28,
2022)
Trap
#
Day 1
(1/25/22)
Day 2
(1/26/22)
Day 3
(1/27/22)
Day 4
(1/28/22)
1 0 2 Yellow Bullhead Catfish 0 0
2 0 1 Variable Crayfish 0 0
3 0 1 Margined Madtom 0 0
4 1 Pirate Perch 1 Pirate Perch 0 1 Pirate Perch
5 0 1 Neuse River Waterdog 0 0
6 0 0 0 1 Bluegill Sunfish
7 0 1 Redfin Pickerel 0 0
8 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0
10 0 1 Tadpole 0 0
During the freshwater mussel and Carolina Madtom Surveys, the beaver dam was intact and
impounding flow. Downstream of the dam, the substrate was unconsolidated sand, silt and
detritus. The banks were undercut, with some unstable eroded areas. Upstream of the beaver
dam impoundment effects, the stream substrate continued to consist of unconsolidated silt and
sand throughout the survey reach with cattle impacts. Only one freshwater mussel species was
observed (Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata)) (Photo 3). A total of seven individuals; four
were found in the banks downstream of the beaver dam, and three were found in the banks
upstream of the beaver dam. All individuals were found either visually or tactilely in stream
banks with a clay component. One clam species (Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea)) was
observed, but only with the first two hundred feet from the confluence of Swift Creek. One
snail species (Pointed Campeloma (Campeloma decisum)) was also observed but it was rare
throughout the survey reach. Four fish species (Yellow Bullhead, Pirate Perch, Margined

Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 3

Madtom, and Eastern Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)) were observed in low numbers during
the surveys (Table 2).

The Carolina Madtom, Atlantic Pigtoe, Dwarf Wedgemussel, Tar River Spinymussel, and Yellow
Lance was not observed in Gideon Swamp. The survey efforts detailed in this memorandum
serve to update species information within this segment of Gideon Swamp.

Fox Branch
Based on the habitat assessment recommendations, only freshwater mussel surveys were
conducted in the lower segment of Fox Branch. In-stream substrate was dominated by silt and
sand, and detritus. Flow was slow to absent, however, turbidity was low. No freshwater
mussels, clams, or snails were observed. The Eastern Mosquitofish and Tessellated Darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi) was observed (Table 2).
Table 2. Freshwater Mussel and Carolina Madtom Survey Results-Gideon Swamp (6 Total
Person Hours); Fox Branch (2.5 Total Person Hours); June 28, 2022)
Scientific Name Common Name # Live or Species Abundance CPUE
Gideon Swamp
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 7 (50-100 mm size class) 1.16
Campeloma decisum Pointed Campeloma Patchy Common N/A
Corbicula fluminea Asian Clam Uncommon* N/A
Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Uncommon N/A
Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch Common N/A
Noturus insignis Margined Madtom Uncommon N/A
Gambusia affinis Eastern Mosquitofish Uncommon N/A
Fox Branch
No Freshwater mussels, clams, or snails observed
Gambusia affinis Eastern Mosquitofish Uncommon N/A
Etheostoma olmstedi Tesselated Darter Rare (1 dead individual observed) N/A
* Only observed within 100 feet of Swift Creek confluence

The Neuse River Waterdog, Carolina Madtom, Atlantic Pigtoe, Dwarf Wedgemussel, Tar River
Spinymussel, and Yellow Lance was not observed in Fox Branch. The survey efforts detailed in
this memorandum serve to update species information within this segment of the Fox Branch.

Fisher Branch and Shard Branch
Habitat for the Neuse River Waterdog, Carolina Madtom, Atlantic Pigtoe, Dwarf Wedgemussel,
Tar River Spinymussel, and Yellow Lance was not observed in Fisher Branch and Shard Branch
where mitigation is proposed. The survey efforts detailed in this memorandum serve to update
species information within this segment of the Fisher Branch and Shard Branch.

Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 4

Appendix A.
Survey Site Map and Site Photos

Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 5

Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 6

Target Species Photos

Photo 1. Neuse River Waterdog observed in Gideon Swamp.

Photo 2. Neuse River Waterdog habitat in Gideon Swamp.

Great Meadow Mitigation Site Aquatic Survey Report August 2022
Page 7

Photo 3. Eastern Elliptios observed in Gideon Swamp.

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

January 30, 2023

Kathryn Matthews
US Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Submitted via email: [e-mail]

Subject: Great Meadow Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2021-01714
Nash County, North Carolina

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

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

The landowner has recently agreed to sell the additional 2.8 acres that would make this option viable,
and the option agreement has been amended. With this new plan of action for Gideon Swamp and the
surrounding area, we respectfully request USFWS provide concurrence with the determinations of May
affect, not likely to adversely affect for all aquatic species and No effect for Michaux’s sumac (Rhus
michauxii). For reference, the species conclusion table and the official list of the federally listed species
associated with Great Meadow Mitigation Site are enclosed below.
We appreciate your time and guidance. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may
have.

Sincerely,

Tasha King, Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
805.895.3304

CC:
Samantha Dailey ([e-mail]),
Kimberly Isenhour ([e-mail])

Attachments:
Revised Concept Map,
Official Species List,
Species Conclusion Table,
Correspondence

May 09, 2022
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: 2022-0040633
Project Name: Great Meadows 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
05/09/2022   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.
05/09/2022   3

▪
▪
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
Migratory Birds
05/09/2022   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]
05/09/2022   2

Project Summary
Project Code:2022-0040633
Event Code:None
Project Name:Great Meadows Mitigation Site
Project Type:Mitigation Development/Review - Mitigation or Conservation Bank
Project Description:The project is in northern Nash County approximately six miles northwest
of Red Oak. Project streams drain to Swift Creek which drains to the Tar
River. The project includes stream restoration and enhancement, as well
as wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, enhancement, and creation.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@36.1303938,-77.94897858451333,14z
Counties:Nash County, North Carolina
05/09/2022   3

1.
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 8 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
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.
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps 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 overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528
Endangered
1
05/09/2022   4

Clams
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Threatened
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Endangered
Tar River Spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1392
Endangered
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
Threatened
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
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Endangered
Critical habitats
There are 4 critical habitats wholly or partially within your project area under this office's
jurisdiction.
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164#crithab
Final
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528#crithab
Final
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772#crithab
Final
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511#crithab
Final
05/09/2022   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)
THERE ARE NO FWS MIGRATORY BIRDS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE VICINITY OF YOUR PROJECT
AREA.
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(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 AKN Phenology Tool.
1
2
05/09/2022   2

1.
2.
3.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
"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
05/09/2022   3

Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam 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.

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Great Meadows Mitigation Site
Date: January 27, 2023

Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination Notes / Documentation
Neuse River Waterdog
(Necturus lewisi)
Suitable habitat present,
one individual present on
Gideon Swamp
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI January 24-28, 2022 and
suitable habitat was found as well as one individual of the species on
Gideon Swamp. However, the only work in the Gideon Swamp
channel will be to remove the ford crossing and beaver dam. Both of
which are located downstream of the observation site of the individual.
Additional buffer area around the stream will be added to the
conservation easement to help protect the individual and habitat into
perpetuity. The proposed project drains to and borders the critical
habitat area designated by USFWS for this species. No in-stream
channel work will occur within approximately 100 feet of the
designated area and the approved erosion and sediment control plan
will be followed. NCNHP data explorer also lists known element
occurrences within the proposed project area.
Carolina Madtom
(Noturus furiosus)
Suitable habitat present,
no individuals present
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp, however no individuals were
found. The proposed project drains to and borders the critical habitat
area designated by USFWS for this species. No in-stream channel
work will occur within approximately 100 feet of the designated area
and the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed.
Although none were found by certified SEPI biologists during the
survey, NCNHP data explorer lists known element occurrences within
the proposed project area.
Atlantic Pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni)
Suitable habitat present,
no individuals present
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch,
however no individuals were found. The proposed project drains to
and borders the critical habitat area designated by USFWS for this
species. No in-stream channel work will occur within approximately
100 feet of the designated area and the approved erosion and
sediment control plan will be followed. Although none were found by
certified SEPI biologists during the survey, NCNHP data explorer lists
known element occurrences within the proposed project area.
Dwarf Wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon)
Suitable habitat present,
no individuals present
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch,
however no individuals were found. No critical habitat has been
designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no
known element occurrences exist within the proposed project area.
Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act
Determination
Notes / Documentation
Tar River Spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana)
Suitable habitat present,
no individuals present
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch,
however no individuals were found. No critical habitat has been
designated by USFWS for this species. Although none were found by
certified SEPI biologists during the survey, NCNHP data explorer lists
known element occurrences within the proposed project area.
Yellow Lance
(Elliptio lanceolata)
Suitable habitat present,
no individuals present
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
A Field Survey was conducted by SEPI on June 28, 2022 and suitable
habitat was observed on Gideon Swamp and lower Fox Branch,
however no individuals were found. The proposed project drains to
and borders the critical habitat area designated by USFWS for this
species. No in-stream channel work will occur within approximately
100 feet of the designated area and the approved erosion and
sediment control plan will be followed. Although none were found by
certified SEPI biologists during the survey, NCNHP data explorer lists
known element occurrences within the proposed project area.
Michaux’s Sumac
(Rhus michauxii)
No suitable habitat
present, no individuals
present
No effect A Field Survey was conducted by Wildlands Engineering on August 3,
2022 during the blooming window (May-October). No suitable habitat
was found due to a lack of sandy or rocky open woods in association
with basic soils. No individuals of the species were found. No critical
habitat has been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP
data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the
proposed project area.
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Unlikely to disturb
nesting bald eagles
No Eagle Act Permit
Required
A Field Survey was conducted by Wildlands Engineering on August 3,
2022. No bald eagles were present or nesting on the site. The closest,
large body of water is approximately 15 mi. from the site. Per NCNHP
data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the
proposed project area.
Critical Habitat Present May affect, not likely to
adversely affect
Final critical habitat is designated for the Atlantic pigtoe, Carolina
madtom, Neuse river waterdog, and Yellow lance. The project area
drains to and borders the critical habitat area designated by USFWS.
However, no in-stream channel work will occur within approximately
100 feet of the designated area and the approved erosion and
sediment control plan will be followed.
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an informed decision about
impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

Tasha King / Environmental Scientist 1/27/2023
_______________________________________________________________ ___________________________
Signature /Title Date
1
Tasha King
From:Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, September 23, 2022 8:49 AM
To:Jeff Keaton; Tasha King; John Hutton; Chris Roessler
Cc:Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Erin
Davis; [e-mail]; Bowers, Todd; Matthews, Kathryn
Subject:FW: SAW-2021-01714 Wildlands Tar-Pam 01, Great Meadow - Gideon Swamp T&E Discussion
Attachments:Great Meadow_Figure 1 - Original Gideon Swamp Concept.pdf; Great Meadow_Figure 2 - Revised
Gideon Swamp Concept Options.pdf
Good morning Jeff, 

I have coordinated your proposal with the IRT and they are in favor of Option 4 and receiving a 2.5:1 ratio for Gideon 
Swamp given there are known listed T&E species in this reach and given the additional enhancement measures you have 
proposed (widening of buffers, removal of crossing and beaver dam, etc.).  

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Best Regards,  

Sam Dailey  
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, Raleigh Field Office 

Email:  [e-mail] 
Phone:  (304) 617‐4915 

From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)  
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 12:46 PM 
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY 
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Erin Davis <[e-mail]>; 
[e-mail]; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Matthews, Kathryn 
<[e-mail]> 
Subject: SAW‐2021‐01714 Wildlands Tar‐Pam 01, Great Meadow ‐ Gideon Swamp T&E Discussion 

Good afternoon, 

This email is in reference to the Wildlands Tar‐Pam 01, Great Meadow Site, located adjacent to Swift Creek, which is 
critical habitat for Neuse River waterdog (NRWD), Carolina madtom, and yellow lance.  Swift Creek adjacent to the site 
has known populations of those species, as well as Atlantic pigtoe and Tar River spinymussel.  In response to a request 
from Kathy (USFWS), Wildlands conducted NRWD surveys and mussel surveys in Gideon Swamp, and a NRWD was 
caught above the beaver dam within the project reach.  Several mussels were also documented in Gideon Swamp, but 
no other listed species. Considering there are known listed species occurrences in Gideon Swamp and critical habitat just 
downstream, Kathy has requested that Wildlands conduct the MINIMUM amount of work necessary in Gideon Swamp, 
with the preference being no physical work. Kathy stated that Gideon Swamp is already a high quality system and any in‐
stream work would potentially jeopardize the species in this system. The prospectus stated the following in conjunction 
with EII work in Gideon Swamp with a 2.5:1 ratio proposed:   
2

“Reaches slated for Enhancement II approach include Fisher Branch Reaches 2 and 4; Fox Branch Reach 2; and Gideon 
Swamp Reaches 1 and 2. These reaches are geomorphically stable in their current condition and generally have lower 
bank height ratios, low bank slopes, and a lesser degree of erosion. There is a varying degree of wooden riparian buffer 
on these reaches. Most reaches have at least a single line of trees on one bank. Many of the existing wooded areas are 
dominated by Chinese privet. Livestock have access to all Enhancement II reaches. The primary enhancement activities 
include the exclusion of livestock, the reestablishment of a wooded riparian buffer, the treating of Chinese privet in 
established riparian buffers, and the use of in stream and bank structures to treat headcuts and localized scour.”  

Considering Kathy’s request to eliminate any in‐stream work along Gideon Swamp, Wildlands is proposing to purchase 
an adjacent parcel to widen the buffer in this reach, remove the existing crossing, and remove and manage beavers, 
while still obtaining a 2.5:1 ratio. Kathy further reiterated that she believes a 2.5:1 ratio is appropriate, given the quality 
of Gideon Swamp and the protection the project would provide to the T&E species in this reach. I also agree with this 
approach and believe Wildlands is proposing additional measures to enhance this area, in‐lieu of in‐stream work.  

Wildlands has provided the below options regarding work in Gideon Swamp, with Option 4 being preferred by both 
Wildlands and Kathy.  Kathy also prefers Option 1 over the Options 2 and 3, and supports a 2.5:1 ratio for any of the 
options, due to the removal of the existing unimproved vehicle crossing, and other proposed activities.  The enclosed 
maps show the existing proposed concept for Gideon Swamp (Figure 1) and a general concept of Option 4 (Figure 2).   

Option 1:  Remove crossing from project.  Buy additional land (2.8 ac) to put under conservation easement.  Fence out 
cattle.  Treat invasives. Do no other instream work. 

Option 2: Remove crossing from project.  Buy additional land (2.8 ac) to put under conservation easement.  Fence out 
cattle.  Treat invasives. Perform bank grading on upper third of the reach to stabilize banks and prevent additional 
erosion.  Mussel relocation will be performed if needed.  

Option 3: Remove crossing from project.  Buy additional land (2.8 ac) to put under conservation easement.  Fence out 
cattle.  Treat invasives. Perform bank grading on upper third of the reach to stabilize banks and prevent additional 
erosion.  Remove beaver dam and trap beavers.  Beaver management will continue through the life of the project.   

Option 4: Remove crossing from project.  Buy additional land (2.8 ac) to put under conservation easement.  Fence out 
cattle.  Treat invasives. Remove beaver dam and trap beavers.  Beaver management will continue through the life of 
the project. Do no other instream work.  

I’m happy to set up a call with Wildlands and the IRT to discuss matters further, if necessary. If you would, please reply 
to this email indicating you are either in favor of, or against the revised approach in Gideon Swamp. These changes will 
be implemented in the draft mitigation plan.  

Please let me know if you have any additional questions. 

Best Regards,  

Sam Dailey  
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division, Raleigh Field Office 

Email:  [e-mail] 
Phone:  (304) 617‐4915 

February 9, 2023

Tasha King, Environmental Scientist
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Re: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.; Great Meadow Mitigation Site/ SAW-2021-01714
USFWS Project Code 2022-0040633
Nash County

Dear Ms. King:

Thank you for your January 30, 2023 letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
requesting concurrence with the species determinations for the proposed activities at the Great
Meadow Mitigation Site, in Nash County, North Carolina. The Service has reviewed the
November 2021 mitigation prospectus for the site, and staff visited the site with the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team on October 20, 2021. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. proposes
a wetland and stream mitigation project along Swift Creek, northwest of Red Oak in the Tar
River basin.

The site includes occupied habitat for the Neuse River waterdog (NRWD), Carolina madtom,
yellow lance, Atlantic pigtoe, and Tar River spinymussel, as well as critical habitat for NRWD,
Carolina madtom, and yellow lance. A NRWD was captured in Gideon Swamp on the site,
during trapping surveys in January 2022. In order to avoid impacts to the NRWD, Wildlands
has modified the planned activities on Gideon Swamp. Wildlands proposes to remove the
proposed crossing on Gideon Swamp from the project design, acquire additional land (2.8 ac)
around the stream to widen the riparian buffer, and fence the stream buffer to exclude cattle.
Additionally, trees will be planted where needed, invasive plant species will be treated, any
beavers will be trapped, and dams removed. Beaver management is proposed to continue through
the life of the project. There will be no other in-stream work on Gideon Swamp.

The Service is pleased to see the proposed changes to activities conducted in Gideon Swamp. If
the stringent erosion control measures listed below are incorporated into the mitigation plan, the
Service can concur with the determination of “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the listed
aquatic species.

 Conduct work in Fisher Branch, Shard Branch, and Fox Branch in the dry, as much as
possible.
 Avoid aerial drift of herbicides or pesticides by utilizing only targeted application,
such as spot-spraying, hack-and-squirt, basal bark injections, cut-stump, or foliar
spray on individual plants.
 Utilize a double row of silt fence, to ensure that erosion is captured effectively.
2

 Silt fence and other erosion control devices should not include outlets that discharge
closer than 50 feet to the top of bank of Swift Creek.
 Silt fence outlets for each row of silt fence should be offset to provide additional
retention of water and sediment in the outer row.
 Conduct twice-weekly inspections of all erosion and sedimentation controls. In
addition to twice-weekly inspections, inspect also within 24-hours of rain events
(including a 1-inch total rain event or an event where rainfall rates are 0.3 inch/hour
or greater). Inspect all of the erosion and sedimentation controls to ensure the
integrity of the devices.
 Maintain all controls as necessary to ensure proper installation and function. Repair
and replace sections of controls as needed to minimize the potential for failure.
 Revegetate with native species as soon as possible.
 Any spills of motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, or similar fluids into the riparian
wetlands or floodplain must be reported to the Corps and Service immediately.
 Educate the construction crew about the presence of sensitive species by providing
information or installing signs on the silt fence. Attached is an example of such a
sign.

Tricolored Bat

Surveys conducted by North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in November 2019
identified tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) (TCB) within three miles of the site. The TCB is
proposed for listing as endangered and a decision to list may be made as soon as September
2023. If work is not completed (particularly tree removal and any culvert modification/removal)
before the listing decision, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) will need to consult with
the Service on impacts from the project construction to TCB. The prospectus and mitigation
plan should document the occurrence of TCB within three miles of the site and acknowledge that
reinitiation of consultation will be required if the TCB is listed prior to completion of the project.
The Service hopes to have programmatic solutions in place prior to a listing decision.

In the piedmont, TCB roost in trees during warmer months and roost or hibernate in caves,
mines, culverts, and potentially bridges year-round. It is not well-known whether they may come
out of the hibernacula or roost on warm winter nights, or whether they may roost in trees for any
part of the winter. Tree removal and culvert removal or modification may affect TCB if
individuals of the species are present. Until we have more information, we will probably treat
the TCB similar to the northern long-eared bat in the piedmont and rangewide. This means (if
and when it is listed) that there will be time of year restrictions on tree-cutting and also probably
an acreage threshold in order to make a determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect." In general, the Service will expect tree cutting to avoid the late spring/summer pupping
season.

3

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

Sincerely,

for Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

Attachment

cc (via email):

USACE, Raleigh, NC
USEPA, Atlanta, GA
NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
NCWRC, Washington, NC
NCDWR, Raleigh, NC

1
Tasha King
From:Tasha King
Sent:Friday, February 10, 2023 3:13 PM
To:Matthews, Kathryn H
Cc:Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); [e-mail]; Ellis, John;
Mann, Leigh; Dunn, Maria T.; Wilson, Travis W.; Merritt, Katie; Bowers, Todd
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Great Meadow Mitigation Site SAW-2021-01714 (USFWS Project Code
2022-0040633)
Good afternoon, 

Thank you for your prompt review of the proposed changes in concept for the Great Meadow Mitigation Site and 
accompanying species determinations. We appreciate your response and guidance. I have spoken with the project team 
and we will incorporate the stringent erosion control measures as requested.  

We are aware of the impending changes in the status of the tricolored bat (TCB) and are in the process of reviewing all 
our proposed mitigation sites. The elaboration on how the TCB may be treated in the future is very helpful for planning 
purposes. We will include information in the Great Meadow Mitigation Plan about the TCB occurrence within 3 miles 
and understand we may need to reinitiate consultation.  

Kind Regards, 
Tasha King 

From: Matthews, Kathryn H <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:18 AM 
To: Tasha King <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; 
[e-mail]; Ellis, John <[e-mail]>; Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>; Dunn, Maria 
T. <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Merritt, Katie 
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Great Meadow Mitigation Site SAW‐2021‐01714 (USFWS Project Code 2022‐0040633) 

Hi Tasha, Please find attached a letter for the Great Meadow Project.  Let me know if you have any 
questions.  Have a good weekend. 

Please note that I am teleworking Wednesday through Friday, every week.   Email is the best way to reach 
me.  Thanks, 

Kathy Matthews 
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator & 
Fish and Wildlife Biologist 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
551‐F Pylon Drive 
Raleigh, NC  27606 
919‐856‐4520, x. 27 
July 07, 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: 2022-0040633
Project Name: Great Meadows 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
07/07/2023   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.
07/07/2023   3

▪
▪
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
Migratory Birds
07/07/2023   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]
07/07/2023   2

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:2022-0040633
Project Name:Great Meadows Mitigation Site
Project Type:Mitigation Development/Review - Mitigation or Conservation Bank
Project Description:The project is in northern Nash County approximately six miles northwest
of Red Oak. Project streams drain to Swift Creek which drains to the Tar
River. The project includes stream restoration and enhancement, as well
as wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, enhancement, and creation.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@36.1304057,-77.94896410235364,14z
Counties:Nash County, North Carolina
07/07/2023   3

1.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
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
AMPHIBIANS
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps 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 overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528
Endangered
1
07/07/2023   4

CLAMS
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Threatened
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Endangered
Tar River Spinymussel Parvaspina steinstansana
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1392
Endangered
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
Threatened
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
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Endangered
CRITICAL HABITATS
There are 4 critical habitats wholly or partially within your project area under this office's
jurisdiction.
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164#crithab
Final
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528#crithab
Final
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772#crithab
Final
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511#crithab
Final
07/07/2023   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
Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul
15
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
Breeds Mar 15 to
Aug 25
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 1 to Jul
31
1
2
07/07/2023   2

1.
2.
3.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul
31
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 10 to
Sep 10
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental
USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 10 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.
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 ()
07/07/2023   3

▪
▪
 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
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.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Brown-headed
Nuthatch
BCC - BCR
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prothonotary
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
07/07/2023   4
▪Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
MIGRATORY BIRDS FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(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?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look
07/07/2023   5

1.
2.
3.
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.
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
07/07/2023   6

aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper 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]-6599
January 12, 2022
Todd Tugwell [e-mail]
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Great Meadow mitigation site, Nash County, ER 21-3197
Dear Mr. Tugwell:
Thank you for your December 9, 2021, submission concerning the above-referenced project. We have
reviewed the materials provided and offer the following comments.
One archaeological site (31NS21) is recorded in the project area. This American Indian site has not been
assessed to determine if it is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As site 31NS21
has not been systematically delineated, the extent of any archaeological deposits in the project area is
unknown.
We recommend that prior to any ground disturbing activities within the project area, an archaeological
survey of the project area be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of this survey will be
to identify and evaluate the significance of any archaeological sites that may be damaged or destroyed by
the proposed project.
Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation. You can
find the Review Archaeologist for your region at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/about/contact.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists
listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
One paper and one digital copy of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one digital copy of the
North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology
through this office for review and comment as soon as they are available and in advance of any
construction or ground disturbance activities. Office of State Archaeology report guidelines are available at
https://files.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA_Guidelines_Dec2017.pdf.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.

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

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

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the
Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

ER 21-3197

Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
July 2022
2

Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the
Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

ER 21-3197

Prepared for

Wildlands Engineering
Charlotte, North Carolina

Prepared by

Abigail McCoy
Archaeologist

and

_________________________________
Dawn Reid
Principal Investigator

Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
July 2022

i Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Management Summary
On the 8th through 10th of June 2022, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted an
archaeological survey of the proposed Great Meadow mitigation tract in Nash County, North Carolina. This
archaeological investigation was undertaken on behalf of Wildlands Engineering. A letter from the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 12 January 2022 (ER 21-3197) requested that an archaeological
survey of the project tract be conducted. The primary goals of this investigation were to identify all
archaeological resources located within the survey area, assess those resources for eligibility to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations, as appropriate.

The project tract encompasses approximately 50 acres (20.2 ha) and is situated within the northwestern
portion of Nash County. The tract is largely characterized by pastures, some with overgrown brush or large
hardwoods scattered throughout, and a few small areas of mixed hardwood and pine forests, generally along
the drainages. There are farm roads present throughout the tract. The tract’s southwestern boundary is
defined by Cooper Road (SR 1403). Swift Creek defines the tract’s southern boundary.

Background research was conducted at the North Carolina site files located at the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. Four historic resources are located within 1.6 kilometers of the project
tract. These resources consist of dwellings dating from the eighteenth and twentieth centuries and one
school from the early twentieth century. Two of the dwellings are listed as Survey Only. The eighteenth-
century house and the twentieth century school have been added to the Study List. Six previously recorded
archaeological sites are located within 1.6 kilometers of the project tract consisting of both prehistoric and
historic components. All sites but 31NS71 are unassessed for NRHP eligibility, while 31NS71 is
recommended as requiring no further work. One of these sites, 31NS21, is located within the project tract
and was relocated during this project.

The archaeological survey consisted of excavating shovel tests at 30-meter intervals along parallel
transects spaced 30 meters apart in portions of the project area considered to have high potential for the
presence of archaeological deposits. In addition, the immediate vicinity of previously recorded site 31NS21
was surveyed with shovel tests excavated at 15-meter intervals. Areas with steep slope or saturated and
poorly drained soils were covered with pedestrian survey and judgmentally placed shovel tests. One new
archaeological site, 31NS218, and one previously recorded archaeological site, 31NS21, were identified in
the project tract. Site 31NS218 is a Woodland artifact scatter that does not meet NRHP eligibility criteria.
Site 31NS21 is a Middle Woodland ceramic scatter. While the eastern boundaries for site 31NS21 could
not be formally defined due to its proximity to the project area’s boundary, steep slope is present beyond
the boundary, and it is unlikely that additional deposits are present. This site is also recommended not
eligible for the NRHP due to the lack of subsurface deposits. As no significant archaeological resources
will be impacted by this proposed undertaking, no further archaeological work is advocated.

ii Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Table of Contents
Management Summary .................................................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iii
Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
Project Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Investigation Method ....................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview ................................................................................. 7
Environmental Overview ................................................................................................................. 7
Cultural Overview .......................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3. Investigation Results ........................................................................................................... 18
Background Research Results ........................................................................................................ 18
Field Survey Results ...................................................................................................................... 19
Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 24
References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog
Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator

iii Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Map showing location of the project area. ............................................................................ 1
Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project tract .......................................................................... 2
Figure 1.3. Aerial view of the project area. ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 1.4. General view of the project tract, looking south. .................................................................. 3
Figure 1.5. View of drainage and trees in project tract, looking east. ..................................................... 4
Figure 1.6. LiDAR map showing the defined high potential areas within the project area. ............... 5
Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project tract. ................. 7
Figure 2.2. Map showing the project area within the Tar River Basin. ................................................... 8
Figure 2.3. Map showing soil types present in the project area. ............................................................. 9
Figure 3.1. Map of the showing previously recorded cultural resources within 1.6 kilometers of the
project area. ......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.2. Map of showing survey coverage of the project area.......................................................... 20
Figure 3.3. Map of archaeological sites in the project tract .................................................................. 21
Figure 3.4. Plan map, site setting, and soil profile at site 31NS21. ....................................................... 22
Figure 3.5. Plan map, site setting, and soil profile at site 31NS218. ..................................................... 23

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract. .................................................................... 9
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Northern North Carolina Coastal
Plain. ................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3.1. Summary of Historic Resources Located in the Project Vicinity ....................................... 19
Table 3.2. Summary of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity ................ 19
Table 3.3. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Site 31NS218. ....................................................... 23
1 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Chapter 1. Introduction
On the June 8 – 10, 2022, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted an
archaeological survey of the proposed Great Meadow mitigation tract in Nash County, North Carolina
(Figure 1.1). This archaeological investigation was undertaken on behalf of Wildlands Engineering. A letter
from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 12 January 2022 (ER 21-3197) requested that an
archaeological survey of the project tract be conducted. The primary goals of this investigation were to
identify all archaeological resources located within the survey area, assess those resources for eligibility to
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations, as
appropriate. Ms. Dawn Reid served as the Principal Investigator. Ms. Abigail McCoy was Field Director.
She was assisted by Mr. Richard M. McCoy. The fieldwork required five person days to complete.

Project Area

The project
tract encompasses
approximately 50 acres
(20.2 ha) in the
northwestern portion of
Nash County (Figure
1.1). The tract’s
southwestern boundary
is defined by Cooper
Road (SR 1403). Swift
Creek defines the tract’s
southern boundary.
There are several
smaller drainages
running throughout the
project area, including
Fisher Branch in the
western portion, Shard
Branch in the central
portion, Fox Branch in
the eastern portion, and
Gideon Swamp in the
southern portion.
(Figure 1.2).

The tract is largely
characterized by
pastures, some with
overgrown brush or
large hardwoods
scattered throughout, and a few small areas of mixed hardwood and pine forests, generally along the
drainages (Figure 1.3 – Figure 1.5). There were some areas with surface visibility, which generally exposed
red clay at the surface.

Figure 1.1. Map showing location of the project area.
2 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Investigation Method

This investigation was comprised of four separate tasks: Background Research, Field Investigation,
Laboratory Analysis, and Report Production. Each of these tasks is described below.

Background Research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file
at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. This review served to identify
previously recorded archaeological resources in the project vicinity and provided data on the prehistoric
and historic context of the project tract. The Nash County soil survey (on -line version) was consulted to
determine soil types and general environmental information on the project area. Historic maps of the county
were examined to determine historic land use in the project vicinity. These maps included the 1963 and
1998 topographic maps, as well as the Nash County soil and highway maps, and aerial images dating from
1956 to 2018.

Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project tract (1998 Essex, NC and 1963 Red Oak, NC
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles).

3 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 1.3. Aerial view of the project area.

Figure 1.4. General view of the project tract, looking south.

4 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 1.5. View of drainage and trees in project tract, looking east.

Field Survey. Prior to initiating the archaeological survey, environmental data such as soil type, percent
slope, landforms, and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) images were reviewed to determine areas of
with high potential for the presence of archaeological remains. Based on these data, approximately 13 acres
(5.3 ha) were determined to have high potential (Figure 1.6). High potential areas were surveyed by
excavating shovel tests at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart. The remaining
37 acres (15 ha) of the tract contains poorly drained soils or wetlands and were considered to have low
archaeological potential. These areas were investigated through pedestrian walkover and judgmentally
placed shovel tests where accessible. In addition, shovel tests in the immediate vicinity of previously
recorded site 31NS21 were excavated at 15-meter intervals. This survey strategy was approved by Ms.
Mary Beth Fitts, Assistant State Archaeologist.

Shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated to 10 centimeters
into subsoil or to the water table. Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25-inch (6.4-mm) wire mesh.
Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts were collected
and placed in plastic bags labeled with the date, field site number, grid point locations (i.e., shovel
test/transect or north/east coordinate), depth of artifacts, and initials of the excavator.

A site is defined as an area with the presence of artifacts or where surface or subsurface cultural
features are present. Artifacts and/or features less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site
without a specific research or management reason. Site boundaries were established by excavating shovel
tests at 15-meter intervals across the site area until two negative shovel tests were encountered. In some
instances, the landform (e.g., wetland) was also used to define the site boundary. Additional shorter (5-
meter) interval shovel tests were excavated in areas of interest with select sites. Site settings were
photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field showing the locations of shovel
tests and surface finds. The locations of all archaeological sites were recorded using a Trimble Pathfinder
5 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 1.6. LiDAR map showing the defined high potential areas within the project
area.
Geo 7x Global Positioning System (GPS) unit capable of sub-meter accuracy. These GPS data have been
relayed onto project maps.

Site significance is based on the site’s ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways, and
its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria that must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of “location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
6 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
association” and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of history; B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C) embodies distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents work of a master, possesses high
artistic values or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or D) has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Archaeological sites are most frequently evaluated pursuant to Criterion D. However, all archaeological
sites can be considered under all four criteria.

The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Although the determination of the site significance is made
by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data were gathered to allow us to make a significance
recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for
the NRHP, and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at
the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is advocated. It
is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively determine that a
site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended eligible for the
NRHP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not possible, mitigation options
(e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.

Diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were compared to published type descriptions (e.g., Charles and Moore
2018; Coe 1964; Herbert 2009; Oliver 1999; Peck 1982; Sassaman 1993; Ward and Davis 1999; Whatley
2002) and cataloged by type when possible. Lithics artifacts were examined in detail and classified by
artifact type and raw material.

All artifacts were placed in acid-free resealable plastic bags with acid-free labels listing the
provenience and field identification information. Upon acceptance of the final project report, all analysis
sheets, field notes, photographs, maps, and artifacts will be prepared according to federal guidelines. A
Deed of Gift request was sent to the property owner on 20 October 2021 concerning the transference of
collected artifacts to OSA for final curation. The property owner has yet to respond. If he/she has not
responded by July 20, 2022, the artifacts will be returned to them.

Report Production. Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the
previous tasks. This report includes a discussion of the investigation methods, background findings, field
survey results, and management recommendations. Each individual site is discussed and shown on a variety
of project maps. The data obtained from laboratory analyses, background research, and field investigations
is included in the site discussions. Finally, the report includes an assessment of the NRHP eligibility of each
archaeological site recorded during the investigation.

Laboratory Analysis. All recovered cultural material was processed in the Clayton laboratory facilities
of ACC. All artifacts were washed in warm soapy water and allowed to thoroughly air dry. A provenience
number, based on artifact contexts (i.e., grid coordinate, depth, etc.), was assigned to each p ositive
excavation location. Within each provenience, individual artifacts or artifact classes were then assigned a
catalog number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material
in the case of lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics.

.
7 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
The natural environment, technological development, and ideological values are all intertwined in
shaping the way humans live. In this chapter, details about the local environment and cultural development
in the region are presented.

Environmental Overview

Nash County is located in the Fall Line region of North Carolina, on the boundary of the Upper
Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces (Figure 2.1). The western portion of the county is in
the Piedmont where the topography is comprised of narrow ridges and floodplains. The eastern portion of
the county is made up of the Coastal Plain with broad flat uplands and drainageways. The project tract falls
within the Piedmont portion of Nash County. Elevations in the county range from 150 to 270 feet above
mean sea level (amsl; Allison 1989). In the project tract, elevations range from 160 to 200 feet amsl.

Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project tract.

Climate

The climate of Nash County is characterized by generally hot and humid summers and cool short
winters. The average summer temperature is 77 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average winter temperature is
41 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation averages 44.5 inches, with the majority falling during the
growing season between April and September. Snowfall in the county averages 6 inches per year (Allison
1989).

8 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Geology

The project area is underlain primarily by the Cape Fear Formation. This formation is the product of
non-marine delta formation during the Upper Cretaceous period. It is comprised of bedded sand, sandstone,
and mudstone (Sohl and Owens 1991). The lithic material in the project vicinity, as in much of the Coastal
Plain, in all probability originates in the Carolina Slate Belt in the Piedmont. Rivers flowing out of the
Piedmont likely transported the material, including metavolcanics and quartz, into the Coastal Plain where
it was deposited as gravels and formed cobble bars.

Hydrology

The project tract falls within the Upper Tar River drainage subbasin (Figure 2.2). The tract itself is
drained by small tributaries of Swift Creek, including Fisher Branch, Shard Branch, Fox Branch, and
Gideon Swamp. Swift Creek flows into the Tar River north of the city of Tarboro. The Tar River becomes
the Pamlico River at Washington, North Carolina and flows into Pamlico Sound.

Figure 2.2. Map showing the project area within the Tar River Basin.

Soil

There are five soil types present in the project tract (Figure 2.3; Table 2.1). Georgeville soils form
in the Piedmont from the underlying fine grained metavolcanic rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt. Goldsboro
soils form on uplands from marine and fluviomarine deposits. Wehadkee soils form primarily in floodplains
of streams that drain from the mountains and Piedmont. Wickham soils form on stream and marine terraces
from fluviomarine deposits (USDA 2022).

9 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 2.3. Map showing soil types present in the project area.

Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract (USDA 2022).
Soil Type Description % Area
Georgeville loam (GeB, GeC, GeE) Well drained, 2-6%, 6-10%, and 10-25% slope 3
Goldsboro fine sandy loam (GoA) Moderately well drained, 0-2% slope 2.9
Norfolk, Georgeville, and Faceville soils (NrB) Well drained, 2-8% slopes 0.9
Wehadkee loam (Wh) Poorly drained, 0-2% slopes 66.9
Wickham fine sandy loam (WkA) Well drained, 0-3% slopes 15.4
10 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Paleoenvironment

Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000
years (the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) including a general warming trend, melting
of the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin glaciation, and an associated rise in sea level. About 12,000 years
ago the ocean was located 50 to 100 miles east of its present position, and the project area was probably a
rather unremarkable interriverine Coastal Plain flatwoods. During the last 5,000 years there has apparently
been a 400- to 500-year cycle of sea level fluctuations of about two meters (Brooks et al. 1989; Colquhoun
et al. 1981).

The general warming trend that led to the melting of glacial ice and the rise in sea level greatly
affected vegetation communities in the Southeast. During the late Wisconsin glacial period, until about
12,000 years ago, boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce covered most of the Southeast. Approximately
10,000 years ago, a modern, somewhat xeric, forest developed and covered much of the Southeastern
United States (Kuchler 1964; Wharton 1989). As the climate continued to warm, increased moisture
augmented the northward advance of the oak-hickory forest (Delcourt 1979). In a study by Sheehan et al.
(1985), palynological evidence suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly decreased in importance
between 9,000 and 4,000 years before present (BP). By the mid-Holocene, the oak-hickory forest was
gradually being replaced by a pine dominated woodland (Wharton 1989:12).

From 4,000 years BP to the present, the upland vegetation of the Southeast was characterized by a
thinning of the deciduous forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1987). Hickory and gums were generally less
important, with alder and ragweed increasing in representation in the palynological record (Delcourt 1979;
Sheehan et al. 1985). This forest thinning suggests an increase in human related landscape modifications
(i.e., timbering, farming). Similarly, the importance and overall increase in pine species in the forest during
this time would have depended on several factors, including fire, land clearing, and soil erosion (Plummer
1975; Sheldon 1983). Since that time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward slightly
cooler and moister conditions, leading to the development of the present Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest
as defined by Quarterman and Keever (1962).

Faunal communities have also changed dramatically over time. A number of large mammal species
(e.g., mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct towards the end of the glacial period
12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Human groups, which for subsistence had focused on hunting these large
mammals, readapted their strategy to exploitation of smaller mammals, primarily deer in the Southeast.

Current Environmental Conditions

The Great Meadow tract is currently made up of grassy pastures, some of which are overgrown with
shrub and briars with larger hardwoods scattered throughout, and mixed pine and hardwood forests
generally surrounding the drainages. The land was actively used for agricultural practices throughout the
1970s. The entire tract is currently used as pastures for cows. In some areas, especially on the higher part
of the ridges, there was some ground surface exposure, which generally consisted of red clay on the surface.

Cultural Overview

The cultural history of North America can be divided into three general eras: Pre-Contact, Contact,
and Post-Contact. The Pre-Contact era includes primarily the Native American groups and cultures that
were present for at least 12,000 years prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Contact era is the time of
exploration and initial European settlement on the continent. The Post -Contact era is the time after the
establishment of European settlements, when Native American populations were generally in rapid decline.
Within these eras, finer temporal and cultural subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions of
11 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
particular events and the lifeways of the peoples who inhabited North America at that time. The following
discussion summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in the Southeastern Coastal Plain
of North Carolina, emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function throughout prehistory.

Overview of Regional Native American Settlement

Ward and Davis (1999) provide a comprehensive cultural overview of the project region. This
overview has been used to construct Table 2.2, which provides a brief chronology of Native American
occupation in the project region. Each temporal period is briefly discussed below.

Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Northern North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Temporal
Period
Phase Diagnostic Artifacts Settlement Subsistence
Paleoindian
(10,000-8,000 BC)
Clovis
____________

Dalton
large, triangular, fluted or side-notched
projectile points
small, seasonal camps intensive foraging,
focus on large fauna
Archaic
(8,000-1,000 BC)
Taylor
Kirk/Palmer
Lecroy
____________
Morrow Mtn.
Guilford
___________
Savannah River
side-notched projectile points
corner--notched projectile points

____________
stemmed points

_____________
large Savannah River Points
Stallings Island fiber tempered and Thom’s
Creek sand tempered ceramics in southern part
of NC coast
larger, seasonal camps;
base camps

first shell middens in the
Carolinas
intensive foraging

use of marine resources
Woodland
(1,000 BC- 1710 AD)
Deep Creek

____________
Mt. Pleasant /
Cape Fear

____________

Cashie /
Collington

large triangular points (Roanoke Triangular)
sand tempered pottery
cord marked surface treatments

_____________
sand tempered ceramics with fabric and cord
marked surface decorations; small triangular
projectile points
______________

pebble tempered pottery (Tuscarora Indians)

shell tempered pottery (Pamlico Indians?)
small, dispersed villages;
focus on flood plain areas

flexed burials and
cremations

______________

large, permanent villages;
deer skin trade

Tuscarora War
intensive foraging
supplemented by
horticulture;
agriculture; continued
focus on shellfish

____________

European trade
intensive agriculture,
focus remains on corn ;
supplemented by
European grains
Brady and Lautzenheiser (1999); Ward and Davis (1999); Phelps (1983)

Pre-Contact Period

Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter-gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent during
the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades has begun
to cast doubt on this theory.

In the past two decades, investigations at Paleoindian sites have produced radiocarbon dates predating
12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer
et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500
12 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
BC. Current research conducted at the Topper Site indicates occupations dating between 15,000 and 19,000
(or more) years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar
dates. One contentious point about these early sites is that the occupations predate what has been recognized
as the earliest New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts identified at pre-Clovis sites include flake tools and
blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and lanceolate-like points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2006; Johnson
1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; and McDonald 2000).

The major artifact marker for the Clovis period is the Clovis lanceolate-fluted point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been recovered throughout
the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in the eastern United States
(Ward and Davis 1999). Most Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, although some
sites (e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined subsurface Clovis contexts.

The identification of pre-Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the United
States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last glaciation),
and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type has led some researchers to hypothesize other avenues of
New World migration (see Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories contend that the
influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice-free corridor 12,000 years ago and that multiple
migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the one presumed to
have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific
rim (see Stanford 2006). Coastal migration theories envision seafaring people using boats to make the
journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).

In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate spear
points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983). Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United
States (Ward and Davis 1999); this indicates that population density was extremely low during this period
and that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were
probably well scheduled, and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate
arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).

O’Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, while later sites were distributed widely in the
uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for
the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on
smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been a factor.

Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Sites dating to this period are ubiquitous in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe and
McCormick 1970). Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures.

Coe’s excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont established a chronological
sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. The Archaic period has been divided into three
subperiods: Early (8000 - 6000 BC), Middle (6000 - 3500 BC), and Late (3500 - 1000 BC) (Coe 1964).
Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and Kirk
Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner notched
13 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points),
but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as
representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1985). The Early Archaic points of
the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although occasional chert,
quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.

Claggett et al. (1982) use a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980), to classify
late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as “logistical.” Logistical task groups, in this definition, target
a particular resource or set of subsistence or technological resources for collection and use at a residential base
camp. Their analysis identifies an increase in residential mobility beginning in the Early Archaic and extending
into the Middle Archaic (Claggett et al. 1982). Early Archaic peoples transitioned from logistical orientation
to foraging. Foraging refers to a generalized resource procurement strategy enacted in closer proximity to
a base camp. Subsistence remains recovered from Early Archaic sites in southern Virginia include fish,
turtle, turkey, small mammals, and deer, as well as a wide variety of nuts (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).

Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of increased
population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories; this increase in population led to increasing
social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled aggregation for mate exchange. In
Sassaman’s view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly expedient; this is reflected in an almost
exclusive use of local resources, especially lithic material. The appearance/introduction of Stanly points, a
broad-bladed stemmed form defines the transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod. These were followed
by Morrow Mountain points, which are characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered
from numerous small sites throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often
made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence. Morrow Mountain and Guilford
points were the most frequently recovered projectile point types in the Jordan Lake survey area (Coe and
McCormick1970). The latter were typically found on low knolls or ridge toes overlooking perennial streams
(Autry 1976).

The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe 1964). This
large, broad-bladed and stemmed point type is found widely over the eastern United States and in nearly every
setting during the Jordan Lake survey (Autry 1976). It is associated with Late Archaic occupations in the
mountains and uplands as well as at coastal midden sites of the period. Also, the earliest ceramics produced
in North America are associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and date to around 2000 BC. These
ceramics are Stallings Island Fiber Tempered and are primarily a coastal phenomenon, stretching from
northern Florida to southern North Carolina.

Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier sites
(Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are typically in riverine
settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to reflect greatly increased sedentism during the Late
Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and floodplain resources. Small Late Archaic sites in the uplands of
the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical collection and hunting camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988). Abbott
et al. (1986) have speculated that an increase in population during the Late Archaic led to a restriction in
resource ranges and an increase in trade networks.

More recent work on lithic sourcing has shed light on potential Late Archaic resource rounds.
Steponaitis et al. (2006) conducted chemical analysis on Late Archaic artifacts recovered from archaeological
sites on Fort Bragg and samples recovered from prehistoric quarries in the Uwharrie Mountains and in Orange,
Chatham, and Person counties. Several of the artifacts generally matched the chemical signatures from the
Uwharrie quarries and others were similar to the Tillery Formation material present in Orange and Chatham
counties. Their conclusions suggested that, despite the trend towards increased sedentism, Late Archaic
14 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
peoples were traveling long distances to obtain good quality stone and crossing drainages rather than
confining their travels along drainages.

Woodland Period (1000 BC - 1600 AD). A transition between the predominantly preceramic Archaic
cultures and the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy
triangular point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Other cultural expressions
of the Early Woodland are the ceramics and projectile points of the Badin culture. These points are generally
crude triangulars while the ceramics are heavily tempered and undecorated. Unlike Oliver, Miller (1962)
notes little change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland transition other than the
addition of pottery. Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between Archaic and Woodland
occupations, also describes little technological or subsistence change other than ceramics.

Ceramic technology evolved from Badin styles into the Yadkin Phase wares during the Middle
Woodland subperiod (300 BC - 1000 AD). Yadkin ceramics have crushed quartz temper and are either cord
marked or fabric impressed. Occasionally, Yadkin ceramics contain grog (i.e., crushed fired clay) temper,
suggesting the influence of coastal populations who more commonly utilized grog temper in their ceramics
(Coe 1964). Yadkin phase projectile points differ from the Badin styles in that they reflect significantly
better workmanship (Coe 1964) and are more suited to the newly adopted bow and arrow technology. The
introduction of the bow and arrow necessitated significant changes in hunting strategies, allowing for more
independent procurement of animals rather than the group hunts generally associated with spear hunting.
Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period, so subsistence strategies remained focused on hunting
animals and gathering wild plants.

In the study area, the Late Woodland subperiod (1000 – 1600 AD) is represented by the Uwharrie,
Haw River, and Hillsboro phases. The Uwharrie Phase projectile points have small triangular forms.
Uwharrie ceramics are heavily tempered with crushed quartz and predominantly net impressed with scraped
interiors (Eastman 1991). Woodall (1988) notes an increased emphasis on cooking and the use of ceramic
decoration to differentiate social standing at Yadkin village sites he investigated on the Yadkin River, east
of the project area. During the Haw River Phase, evidence for the use of horticulture in addition to native
plants can be seen through storage pits containing maize kernels, beans, squash seeds, and sunflower seeds
(Gremillion 1989; Ward and Davis 1993). This mixed subsistence strategy continued through the Hillsboro
Phase, as seen at the Wall Site (Ward and Davis 1999).

Agriculture was initially a supplement to Native American subsistence strategies during this period
but became increasingly important over time. Corn, beans, squash, sunflowers, and fruit were cultivated
with the aid of stone hoes and wooden implements, and settlement patterns indicate conditions favorable to
agriculture were significant to decision-making i.e. broad floodplains (Hantman and Klein 1992; Ward 1983;
Ward and Davis1993).

Historic Indian / Protohistoric Period

The first European exploration along the coast of North Carolina was in 1524 by Giovanni da
Verrazano, who sailed under the flag of France. He commented on the Native Americans he encountered
but made no attempt at settlement in the area. In 1526, Luis Vasquez de Ayllon led a Spanish expedition
attempting to establish a settlement near the River Jordan, which is believed to be in the vicinity of the Cape
Fear River. His party included approximately 500 men, women, and children, a few slaves, and 90 horses.
Bad weather, hunger, and malaria took a toll on the settlers. Upon Ayllon’s death, the 150 surviving settlers
returned to Santo Domingo.

Spain initiated the exploration of the southeastern United States in the hopes of preserving their claims
to American lands west of the Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation. Hernando de Soto (1539-1543)
15 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of North
Carolina during the mid-sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages near
the present- day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Moore 2006).

The Spanish also built garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury (Moore 2006). Recent work
at the Berry site in Burke County identified the remains of the Spanish garrison of Xualla (also called Joara)
visited by de Soto in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s. Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not
be sustained despite their best attempts to establish a permanent presence with interior outposts and coastal
settlements. Mounting pressure from hostile Native Americans and English privateers also contributed to
their withdrawal to St. Augustine in 1587 (South 1980). Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought
disastrous effects on contemporary Native American peoples, causing populations to collapsed and entire
communities to disappear.

Sir Walter Raleigh heavily promoted England’s interest in the New World. In 1585, Raleigh used
his position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I to secure backing to outfit an English attempt at colonizing
the Atlantic coast (Powell 1989). Although this effort failed, Raleigh’s single-minded ambition led to the
establishment of a colony on the James River in 1607 (Noël Hume 1994).

The first years of settlement at Jamestown were hampered by disastrous mismanagement resulting
in starvation, loss of life, and hostilities with neighboring Powhatan. In 1624 the Crown revoked the
Virginia Company’s charter and established a royal government (Noël Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the
civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, these authorities showed little interest in
the area that was to become North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period traders, hunters, trappers,
rogues, and tax evaders began living in the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina
(Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-
reliant.

During the early years of contact, European trade goods are scarce at sites throughout the Piedmont,
making it likely that these items were exchanged from tribe to tribe following a traditional trade network.
As time went on, the number of European trade goods dramatically increased.

Information regarding the Mitchum and Jenrette Phases was obtained from two separate sites.
Evidence of trade with Europeans was found in the form glass beads and brass items which were common
trade items as well as peach pits. At the Mitchum and Jenrette sites, large numbers of clay pipes that
resembled European kaolin pipes were found alongside traditional pipes, suggesting a change in smoking
habits (Ward and Davis 1999). The two sites were both relatively small but enclose with a palisade.

Historic Period

Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and distributed rewards to loyal Royalist supporters.
Seven supporters were awarded the charter to establish a proprietary colony south of Virginia. The boundaries
of this deed were set to include the Albemarle Sound settlement of Charles Town south to the frontier of
Spanish-held La Florida. Proprietors maintained control over a single Carolina until 1712, when the colonies
were separated. After the Yamasee War, the colonists pleaded with the crown to take over the settlement of
the colony. The proprietors subsequently forfeited control to the Crown. That divestment forced the
Proprietors’ sale of their North Carolina charter to King George II in 1729 (Powell 1989).

John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project area.
In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the Pacific
Ocean (Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South Carolina.
16 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
During this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Saura, Catawba and Waxhaw.
The Catawba Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South Carolina.

Inspired by Lederer, John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South Carolina through the North
Carolina Piedmont to Pamlico Sound. Lawson’s 1700-1701 excursion followed a well-established Native
American trading path that passed near present day Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967).
Lawson’s journey took him through Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would
soon come into close contact with European colonists. The Native Americans who lived near this area at the
time were believed to be largely Siouan speakers, the majority of whom refused to join the Tuscarora in
their efforts to push back white settlers as they were benefitting from the fur trade with the colonists.

The principle economic focus of the Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade. This
trade revolved around the exchange of European manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and slaves. It drew
Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing intertribal hostilities.
Itinerant traders based in Charleston (South Carolina), and Virginia vied for clients among the North Carolina
Piedmont settlements (Oberg and Moore 2017; Powell 1989).

The Lords Proprietors gave colonists permission to deal with the natives as they saw fit, and
colonists continued to encroach upon native lands with little or no compensation. The open and illegal trade
of Native American slaves compounded the problem. The Tuscaroras sought permission to move to
Pennsylvania but were denied when North Carolina failed to certify past good behavior of the Tuscaroras.
Seeing no alternative, on September 22, 1711, the Tuscarora killed 130 colonists who had settled on their
land. The Tuscarora War lasted three and half years and left 200 colonists and 1,000 Native Americans
dead, and approximately 1,000 more Native Americans sold into slavery (Ward and Davis 1999:274). Many
Tuscarora were forced from their homes and placed on reservations or migrated to Pennsylvania and New
York. The Carolina colonies were left in dire financial straits but now the inner part of North Carolina was
open for European settlers. These conditions persisted until the Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their
holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989).

During the Revolutionary War, many Nash County (then Edgecombe County) residents joined the
independence movement. No major fighting occurred in Edgecombe County during the war but several
skirmishes took place. In 1777, British loyalists led by John Llewelyn tried to take over Tarboro but were
driven back by local Whigs supporting independence. Control of Tarboro was only relinquished in early
May 1781 when Cornwallis’s advance guard occupied the town. Skirmishes between local loyalist and
Whig supporters continued through the end of the war (Watson 1979).

Although the first land grants in the area were granted in the 1740s, Nash County wasn’t established
until 1777. It was formed from the western portion of Edgecombe County in order to allow for the
establishment of centralized services on both sides of the Tar River, which was difficult to cross for those
living west of the Tar River falls. The county was named for General Francis Nash, who had recently died
in the Revolutionary War Battle of Germantown (Allison 1989). Nashville was made the county seat in
1780 (Nash County 2020) but Rocky Mount was, and still is, the largest community in the county largely
due to its location on the Tar River and along the railroad route. Rocky Mount was incorporated in 1867
and straddles the line between Nash and Edgecombe counties (City of Rocky Mount 2020).

Nash County has been largely agricultural throughout its history. Prior to the Civil War, the largest
economic crop was cotton. The county’s first cotton mill was built at the Falls of the Tar River in Rocky
Mount in 1818. The Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, the area’s first railroad, was completed in 1840,
allowing better access to Rocky Mount and Tarboro and speeding the transportation of crops (Allison 1989).

17 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Following the Civil War, farmers began to diversify their crops, planting cotton, corn, and tobacco.
Tobacco rose in popularity due to lowering prices of cotton, and by the nineteenth century tobacco joined
cotton as a major cash crop. Farm size also began to decline during this time period as tenancy increased
(Piehl 1979). The tenant farmer system led to economic and social problems in the region, and many African
American laborers migrated to other areas. This migration began at the end of the 1870s and continued
through the 1890s (Watson 1979). Growth in Nash County following the Civil War was slow. It wasn’t
until the 1880s that tobacco began to be produced commercially. By 1887, Rocky Mount had two tobacco
warehouses and a bank.

Mechanization and the consolidation of farms after World War II reduced the number of farm
operators significantly in the southeast. The number of tenant farmers was reduced by 370,000 throughout
the southeast between 1935 and 1940 alone. In Nash County, cotton production was largely replaced by
peanuts and livestock.

Today, agriculture is still important to the local economy of Nash County, but manufacturing now
accounts for the largest industry, followed by health care and retail sales (No Author 2020a). The county is
known as the birthplace of Hardee’s, the fast-food restaurant chain and as the home of such notables as Kay
Kiser, Thelonious Monk, and current state governor, Roy Cooper (No Author 2020b).

18 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Chapter 3. Investigation Results
Background Research Results

Archaeological background research was conducted at the North Carolina site files located at the
Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. Four historic resources are located within 1.6 kilometers of
the project tract (Figure 3.1; Table 3.1). These resources consist of a dwelling dating to the 1780s that is a
Georgian frame house. Another of the resources is a 1923 two-room frame constructed Rosenwald school.
Both of these resources have been placed on the Study List. The two remaining resources are houses that
were surveyed in 1984 and are listed as Survey Only and.

Six previously recorded archaeological sites are located within 1.6 kilometers of the project area
(see Figure 3.1; Table 3.2). Five of these sites prehistoric artifact scatters recorded by Dan Simpkins in
1975 based solely on surface collection of artifacts. All are unassessed for potential National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. The sites range in occupation date from the Late Paleoindian to the
Woodland Period. Site 31NS71 is a Middle Archaic lithic scatter recorded by Gerald Glover with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation in 1993. Glover recommended no further work at this site. One of
these sites, 31NS21, is located within the project area and a second site, 31NS27, is directly adjacent to the
project area boundary.

Figure 3.1. Map of the showing previously recorded cultural resources within 1.6 kilometers
of the project area (1998 Essex, NC and 1963 Red Oak, NC USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangles).
19 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Table 3.1. Summary of Historic Resources Located in the Project Vicinity
Resource Description NRHP Status
NS0523 Redin Fox House Survey Only
NS0526 T.E. Ricks House Surveyed Only
NS0531 Battle-Cooper-Hicks House Study List
NS1099 Avent School Study List

Table 3.2. Summary of Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity
Site Number Description NRHP Status
31NS21 Woodland Artifact Scatter Unassessed
31NS26 Archaic Lithic Scatter Unassessed
31NS27 Late Paleoindian to Woodland Artifact Scatter Unassessed
31NS28 Late Paleoindian to Woodland Artifact Scatter Unassessed
31NS29 Unknown Lithic Scatter Unassessed
31NS71 Middle Archaic Lithic Scatter Not Eligible

A review of historic maps was conducted to determine the potential for historic buildings or
structures within the project tract. These maps included the 1963 and 1998 topographic maps as well as the
Nash County soil and highway maps. As previously noted, aerial images dating back to 1956 were also
examined. No buildings or structures are reflected within the project tract.

Field Survey Results

This investigation resulted in the comprehensive survey of the approximately 50-acre Great
Meadow mitigation tract. In total, 175 shovel tests were excavated within the project tract. In high potential
areas, shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart (see
Figure 3.1). Areas with steep slope or saturated and poorly drained soils were covered with pedestrian
survey and judgmental shovel tests. Shorter interval (15-meters) shovel tests were excavated in the
immediate vicinity of previously recorded site 31NS21. Figure 3.2 shows the survey coverage in the project
area.

Two archaeological sites, 31NS21 and 31NS218, were delineated and assessed during this
investigation (Figure 3.3). These sites are discussed in more detail below. Previously recorded site 31NS27
is located just outside the project area boundaries. No associated deposits were identified within the project
area.

Site 31NS21
Site Type: Woodland Ceramic Scatter; Historic Isolate
Component: Middle Woodland; Unknown Historic
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTM (NAD 83): 234179 E 4002465 N
USGS Quad: Essex, NC
Soil Type: Wehadkee loam

Site 31NS21 was originally recorded in 1975 as a surface scatter of prehistoric sherds, points, and a
stone hatchet fragment located in active farmland. It was recorded by Dan Simpkins during student research
for a class being taught by Joffre Coe. This site was relocated in the western portion of the project area
(Figure 3.3). The site is situated on a discrete terrace overlooking Fisher Branch. The area is within a grassy
pasture with several large hardwood trees scattered throughout the area.

A total of 21 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals in the site vicinity; several of which
spanned the Fisher Branch channel. Seven additional shovel tests were excavated at 5-meter intervals
surrounding the single positive shovel test. Site dimensions of 15 by 15 meters were established based on
20 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 3.2. Map of showing survey coverage of the project area.

21 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 3.3. Map of archaeological sites in the project tract (1998 Essex, NC and 1963 Red Oak, NC
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles).

the single positive shovel test. The eastern boundary of the site was not able to be defined by shovel testing
as it would have been outside of the tract boundary but the land slopes steeply away from the site area and
it is unlikely that deposits are present. Shovel test soil profiles consisted of 5 centimeters of dark gray
(10YR4/1) silty loam followed by brown (10YR 4/3) silty loam overlying strong brown (7.5YR4/6) silty
loamy clay subsoil. Figure 3.4 presents a site plan map and views of the site setting and shovel test profile.

Three artifacts were recovered from the site. These consist of one brick fragment (n=5.2g) and two
Mount Pleasant Cordmarked body sherds with coarse sand temper. These sherds date to the Middle
Woodland subperiod. All artifacts were recovered in the upper 20 centimeters of soil

Site 31NS21 is a Middle Woodland ceramic scatter with an intrusive brick fragment. The site has
been disturbed from past plowing and farming activities and no evidence of cultural features or organic
preservation were present. Although not noted on the site form, presumably the site area afforded Simpkins
with a high degree of ground surface exposure. Little surface exposure was available during this
investigation. Subsurface artifacts were confined to a single shovel test. Few artifacts were recovered from
this site. Although the site could not be fully delineated to the east due to its proximity to the project area
boundary, the site is situated in a low area at the base of a steep slope on the east. It is unlikely that additional
deposits are present on the slope. In addition, the soil type is currently classified in the site area as frequently
flooded, and there was no evidence of cultural features, intact cultural deposits, or intact stratigraphy. Due
22 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

Figure 3.4. Plan map, site setting, and soil profile at site 31NS21.

to these factors as well as the paucity of artifacts and their mixed contexts, this site has no further research
potential and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.

Site 31NS218
Site Type: Prehistoric Artifact Scatter
Component: Woodland
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
UTM (NAD 83): 234178 E 4001903 N
USGS Quad: Essex, NC
Soil Type: Wickham fine sandy loam

Site 31NS218 is a Woodland artifact scatter located in the southern end of the project tract (see
Figure 3.3). The site is situated in an overgrown pasture on a narrow, well-defined ridge that overlooks
Gideon Swamp to its north.

23 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
A total of 20 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals within the site. Site dimensions of
15 by 60 meters were established based on four positive shovel tests. Shovel test soil profiles within the
site consisted of 10 to 15 centimeters of brown (10YR4/3) silty loam followed by 10 centimeters of
yellowish brown (10YR5/4) silty loam overlying yellowish red (10YR 5/6) silty loamy clay subsoil. Figure
3.5 presents an overview of the project area, a picture of the representative shovel test profile, and the site
map.

Figure 3.5. Plan map, site setting, and soil profile at site 31NS218.

A total of 10 artifacts were recovered from this site (Error! Not a valid bookmark self-
reference.). These artifacts consist of three metavolcanic flakes/flake fragments, one quartz flake/flake
fragment, one piece of quartz shatter, and four residual sherds. The sherds can only be dated to the general
Woodland Period. The lithics are not temporally diagnostic.

Table 3.3. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Site 31NS218.
Artifact Count Comment
Lithics:
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment 3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment 1
Quartz Shatter 1
Ceramics:
Residual Sherd 4 Non-diagnostic

Site 31NS218 is a Woodland artifact scatter. The artifact density at this site is relatively low. All
artifacts were recovered from the highest point of the landform, which is small and well defined. The site
area has been disturbed by past agricultural activities and no evidence of cultural features or organic
24 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
preservation were present. The site lacks integrity and has no further research potential. This site is
recommended not eligible for the NRHP.

Recommendations

One new archaeological site, 31NS218, and one previously recorded archaeological site, 31NS21,
were identified in the project area. Site 31NS218 is a Woodland artifact scatter that does not meet NRHP
eligibility criteria. Site 31NS21 is a Middle Woodland ceramic scatter. While the eastern boundaries for
site 31NS21 could not be formally defined due to its proximity to the project area’s boundaries, steep slope
is present beyond the boundary and it is therefore unlikely that additional deposits are present. This site is
also recommended not eligible for the NRHP due to the lack of subsurface deposits. As no significant
archaeological resources will be impacted by this proposed undertaking, no further archaeological work is
advocated.

25 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina

References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology’s Greatest Mystery. Random House. New
York.

Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist 19:
317–41.

Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah
River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262-286.

Allison, John B.
1989 Nash County Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper, eds.
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Brady, Ellen M. and Loertta Lautzenheiser
1999 Archaeological Testing of Sites 31PM38 and 31PM42, Pamlico County, North Carolina.
Coastal Carolina Research, Tarboro, NC.

Brooks, M.J., P.A. Stone, D.J. Colquhoun and J.G. Brown
1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period
Subsistence-Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. In Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 91-100.
The University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological
Studies 9. Columbia.

Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown, WV.

Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principle Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics for Identification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series
15.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States, James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 312–321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 137–153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

26 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Charles, Tommy and Christopher R. Moore
2018 Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tools of South Carolina. Piedmont Archaeological Studies Trust,
Inc., Glendale, SC.

City of Rocky Mount
2020 About Rocky Mount. Electronic document, rockymountnc.gov.

Claggett, Stephen R., John S. Cable, and Curtis E. Larsen
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates

Coe, Joffre L.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 54(5).

Coe, Joffre Lanning, and Olin F. McCormick
1970 Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill, NC.

Colquhoun, Donald R., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. Abbott, Frank W. Stapor, Walter H.
Newman, and Richard R. Pardi
1981 Location of archeological sites with respect to sea level in the Southeastern United States. In
Striae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14, edited by L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo, pp. 144-
150.

Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent Cumberland
Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.

Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1987 Long-Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late Quaternary
Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies 63. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Dillehay, T. D., editor
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological Context
and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Driver, J. C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada, 11,000 to
9,000 FP. Quaternary International 49:141-150.

Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/
histarch/gallery_types/

27 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Gardner, William
1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons .
Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper No. 1. Washington,
D.C.

1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.

Gremillion, Kristen Johnson
1989 Late Prehistoric and Historic Period Paleoethnobotany of the North Carolina Piedmont. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175–191.

Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.

2006 Evidence for Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and
Michael R. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Hantman, J. L., and M. J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137–164. Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication, 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Cortland.

Herbert, Joseph M.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Hudson, Charles M
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.

1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser,
eds., pp. 74–103. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.

Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E.C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erractics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:73-
94.

Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapter–
ASV’s 1993 and 1995 Excavation. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus
Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, eds. DHR Research Report,
8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources

28 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.

Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.

Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161–183.

Magid, Barbara H.
2010 Alexandria Archaeology Laboratory Reference Book. City of Alexandria, Virginia

Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O’Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. Academic Press, New York.

McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No 8.

McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia with Special Attention
to a Bone Tool. Jeffersonia 9:1–59.

Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory
2:1-53.

Meltzer, David J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A. W. Barker, D. F. Dincause, C. V. Haynes, F. Mena, L.
Nunez, and D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity
44(1):172-179.

Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River Virginia-North Carolina.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 182. River Basin Surveys Papers. Government Printing
Office, Washington DC.

Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew D. Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29(1):1-22.

Moore, David G.
2005 Catawba Indians; De Soto Expedition, Estatoe Path; Pardo Expeditions. Inc The
Encyclopedia of North Carolina, edited by William S. Powell, University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.

Nash County
2020 History of Nash County. Electronic document, nashcountync.gov.
29 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
No Author
2020a Nash Ct., NC. Electronic document, datausa.io/profile/geo/nash-county-nc/.

2020b Notables. Electronic document, explorenascounty.com.

Noël Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Oberg, Michael Leroy and David Moore
2017 Voyages to Carolinas: Europeans in the Indian’s Old World. In New Voyages to Carolina:
Reinterpreting North Carolina History, Larry E. Tise and Jeffrey J. Crow, eds., University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Oliver, Billy
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, University.

1999 Uwharrie Lithics Conference: Projectile Point Chronology Workbook. North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC.

Peck, Rodney M.
1982 Indian Projectile Point Types from Virginia and the Carolinas. Privately printed.

Phelps, David S.
1981 Archaeological Survey of Four Watersheds in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. North
Carolina Archaeological Council. Raleigh, NC.

1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plains: Problems and Hypotheses.
In The Prehistory of North Carolina. Eds. Mark Mathis and Jeffrey Crow. North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Piehl, Charles
1979 White Society in the Black Belt, 1870-1920: A Study of Four North Carolina Counties. Ph.D.
dissertation. Washington University. St. Louis, MO.

Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh, NC.

Plummer, Gayther L.
1975 Eighteenth Century Forests in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 33:1-19.

Quarterman, Elsie and Katherine Keever
1962 Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecological
Monographs 32:167-185.

30 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Master’s Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sheehan, Mark C., Donald R. Whitehead, and Stephen T. Jackson
1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area .
Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.

Sheldon, Elizabeth S.
1983 Vegetational History of the Wallace Reservoir. Early Georgia 11(1-2):19-31.

South, Stanley
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series, 165. South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia

Stanford, Dennis
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, D. Gentry Steele, and Bradley T
Lepper, eds., pp. 313–353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Steponaitis, Vincas P., Jeffrey D. Irwin, Theresa E. McReynolds, and Christopher R. Moore, eds.
2006 Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt. Research Report No. 25, Research
Laboratory of Archaeology. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2022 Web Soil Survey, Electronic Document. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
HomePage.htm.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1998 Essex, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

1963 Red Oak, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Ward, H. Trawick and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History, The Archaeology of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.

31 Great Meadow Mitigation Tract
Nash County, North Carolina
Watson, Alan D.
1979 Edgecombe County: A Brief History. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Department of Cultural Resources. Raleigh, NC.

Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.

Whatley, John S.
2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. In Early Georgia
30(1): 7-133.

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog

Artifact Catalog
Great Meadow
31NS21Site Number
1.1 31NS21 Revisit, 500N 500E, 0-20cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 5.2 Brick Fragment m1
2 2 7 Some pebble inclusions; 2 mendCoarse Sand Temper Mount Pleasant Cord
Marked Body Sherd
p2
31NS218Site Number
1.1 Site 1, 485N 500E, 0-20cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 2 0.8 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment m1
2 3 6.4 2 mendResidual Sherdp2
2.1 Site 1, 500N 500E, 0-30cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 8.5 Quartz Shatter m3
2 1 1.4 Residual Sherdp4
3.1 Site 1, 515N 500E, 0-20cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 0.8 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment m5
4.1 Site 1, 530N 500E, 0-20cmProvenience Number:
Catalog
Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments
Specimen
Number
1 1 8.8 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment m6
Page 1 of 1

Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator

DAWN M. REID
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[phone] Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - July 2008 to present
Vice President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - 2003 to July 2008
President, Heritage Partners, LLC. - 2007 to present
Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator, Brockington and Associates, Inc. - 1993 to 2003

EDUCATION
B.S. in Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1992
M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Client and Agency Consultations for Planning and Development
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) Society for American Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Mid-Atlantic Archaeology Conference
Archaeological Society of South Carolina Council of South Carolina Professional
Archaeologists
North Carolina Archaeological Society North Carolina Council of Professional
Archaeologists

Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II) - Representative Examples

$ Airport Expansions for Concord Regional Airport (Cabarrus County), Hickory Regional Airport (Burke
County)

$ Greenways for Appomattox County, Virginia (Appomattox Heritage Trail), Isle of Wight County (Fort
Huger)

$ Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), BREMCO (Asheville), SCE&G
(Columbia), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Transco Pipeline (Houston), ANR Pipeline (Detroit), and
others

$ Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina Department
of Transportation (Columbia), North Carolina Department of Transportation (Raleigh)

$ Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies
including the USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Mobile and Wilmington Districts)

Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) - Representative Examples

$ Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA

$ Prehistoric village (31ON1578) and late 18 th/early 19th century plantation (31ON1582) for R.A.
Management, Charlotte, NC

$ 18th century residence (38BU1650) for Meggett, LLC, Bluffton, SC

$ Prehistoric camps/villages (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) for Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club,
Myrtle Beach, SC

EXPERIENCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES

Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia; Townsend Bombing Range, McIntosh County, Georgia; Fort Bragg, Fayetteville,
North Carolina; Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina; Fort Jackson, Columbia, South Carolina; Fort
Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Georgia Power Company -Flint River Hydroelectric Project
Duke Energy - Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina; Fishing Creek, South Carolina

*A detailed listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper 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
August 29, 2022

Dawn Reid [e-mail]
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520

Re: Great Meadow mitigation site, 36.131215, -77.953729, Nash County, ER 21-3197

Dear Ms. Reid:

Thank you for your letter of July 26, 2022, submitting a revised archaeological survey report for the above-
referenced undertaking. We have reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.

We concur that the following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the
reasons outlined in the report:

Sites 31NS21 and 31NS218 do not have the potential to contain information pertinent to prehistoric or
historic research questions.

We note that the recommended field work has now been completed and that final artifact disposition has
been clarified. We have accepted the submitted document as the final compliance report for this
archaeological survey.

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

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

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

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

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730

Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
FORM-LBE-MGA
®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Great Meadows
Cooper Road
Whitakers, NC 27891
Inquiry Number: 6602411.2s
August 02, 2021
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary 9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map A-5
Physical Setting Source Map A-14
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-16
Physical Setting Source Records Searched PSGR-1
TC6602411.2s 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
TC6602411.2s 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
COOPER ROAD
WHITAKERS, NC 27891
COORDINATES
36.1295870 - 36˚ 7’ 46.51’’Latitude (North):
77.9523140 - 77˚ 57’ 8.33’’Longitude (West):
Zone 18Universal Tranverse Mercator:
234308.5UTM X (Meters):
4002159.0UTM Y (Meters):
143 ft. above sea levelElevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
5945845 ESSEX, NCTarget Property Map:
2013Version Date:
5946153 RED OAK, NCSouth Map:
2013Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
20140616, 20140524Portions of Photo from:
USDASource:
6602411.2s Page 2
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
COOPER ROAD
WHITAKERS, NC 27891
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6602411.2s 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
TC6602411.2s 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
DEBRIS Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
LCID Land-Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST Regional UST Database
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
SWRCY Recycling Center Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS Spills Incident Listing
IMD Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80 SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD Records Of Decision
RMP Risk Management Plans
RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS PCB Activity Database System
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES Abandoned Mines
FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites
ECHO Enforcement & Compliance History Information
DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS ASBESTOS
COAL ASH Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP Animal Operation Permits Listing
PCSRP Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
SEPT HAULERS Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
CCB Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) Listing
MINES MRDS Mineral Resources Data System
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC6602411.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
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.
2 8 0
2
8
0
28 0
2
4
0
2 0
0 2
4
0
200
2
4
0
2 00
2 4 0 2 4 0
2 4 0
2
4
0
2
4
0 240
2
4
0
240
2 4 0
2
0
0
2 0 0 2 0
0
160
1
6
0
1
6
0
16 0
1
6
0
1 6 0 1 6 0
1
6
0
200
2 0 0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2 0 0
0 0
2 00
2 0 0
2 0 0 200
20
0
2 0 0
2
0
0
2
0
0
200
2
00
2 0 0
2 0
0
2
2
20
2 0 0
1 6 0
2 00 2
0
0
2 00
240
2 00
1 6 0
1 6 0
1
6
0
1 6 0
1 6 0
16 0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1 60
16
0
1 6 0
1
60
160
1 6 0
1
6
0
240
2
4 0240 2 00200
20 0
200
200
2
0
0
2
0
0
200
2 0 0
200
2
00
20
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.
2 0 0
2
4
0
16
0
1
6
0
160
160
1
6
0
1 60
2
00
20
0
2
0
0
20
0
20
0
20 0
1 6 0
16
0
16
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 0.500DEBRIS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500OLI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LCID
TC6602411.2s 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
0 NR NR 0 0 0 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
0 NR NR NR 0 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
0 NR NR 0 0 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 0.500DEBRIS REGION 9
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500ODI
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
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500IMD
TC6602411.2s 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 0 0 0 0 1.000UXO
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPECHO
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPDOCKET HWC
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 0 0 0 0.500PCSRP
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSEPT HAULERS
TC6602411.2s 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 0 0 0 0.500CCB
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPMINES MRDS
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
0 0 0 0 0 0 0- Totals --
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC6602411.2s Page 7
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
NO SITES FOUND
TC6602411.2s Page 8
ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
Count: 0 records.
NO SITES FOUND
TC6602411.2s Page 9
Appendix E:  
Great Meadow Mitigation Site Planting 
Plans