The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20170938 Ver 1_Swift Cr Mit_PRMP_7-28-2017_20170731SWIFT CREEK — PERMITTEE RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA USACE No. SAW -2016-02338 APPLICANT: How ,tomorrow moves •0 •0 CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS, INC. (CSXIT) AND CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. (CSXT) 550 WATER STREET JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202 SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (USACE) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) PREPARED BY: Palustr n, Group Palustrine Group P.O. Box 603 Pittsboro, NC 27312 and 7. amec foster wheeler Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 401 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100 Durham, North Carolina 27703 SUBMISSION DA TE July 28, 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................... 3 3. AVAILABLE MITIGATION................................................................................................................. 4 3.1. DETERMINATION OF CREDITS......................................................................................... 4 4. WATERSHED APPROACH.................................................................................................................. 8 4.1. 8 -DIGIT HUC — UPPER TAR RIVER.................................................................................... 8 4.1.1. Water Quality............................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.1.1. Historical Changes of Aquatic Resources in Watershed .................................................. 8 4.1.1.2. Water Quality Issues in Watershed................................................................................... 9 4.1.2. Wildlife..................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2.1. Historical Losses of Wildlife Habitat............................................................................... 9 4.2. 10 -DIGIT HUC SWIFT CREEK............................................................................................. 10 4.2.1. Water Quality............................................................................................................................10 4.2.1.1. Historical Changes of Aquatic Resources in Watershed .................................................. 10 4.2.1.2. Water Quality Issues in Watershed................................................................................... 11 4.2.2. Wildlife.....................................................................................................................................11 4.2.2.1. Historical Losses of Wildlife Habitat............................................................................... 11 4.3. AREAS FOR WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT.................................................................... 11 4.3.1. Water Quality Needs in the Watershed..................................................................................... 11 4.3.2. Wildlife Needs in the Watershed..............................................................................................12 4.3.3. Ecological (Physical, Chemical and Biological) Suitability and Technical Feasibility of the Site to Meet Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat Needs in Watershed ........................................... 12 4.3.4. Offsite Threats to Mitigation Efforts Constructed within the Mitigation Project Sites ............ 13 5. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN..........................................................................................14 5.1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................. 14 5.1.1. Mitigation Project Objectives................................................................................................... 14 5.2. MITIGATION PROJECT LOCATION AND SELECTION .................................................. 16 5.2.1. Directions to the Project Site.................................................................................................... 16 5.2.2. Site Selection............................................................................................................................ 16 5.2.3. Resource Equivalency............................................................................................................... 17 5.2.3.1. Comparison of Waters of the U.S..................................................................................... 17 5.3. BASELINE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................... 17 5.3.1. Physiography, Topography, and Land Use...............................................................................17 5.3.2. Soils..........................................................................................................................................18 5.3.3. Valley Classification................................................................................................................. 18 5.3.4. Jurisdictional Determination..................................................................................................... 19 5.3.4.1. Description of Jurisdictional Features.............................................................................. 20 5.3.5. Existing Plant Communities..................................................................................................... 22 5.3.6. Baseline Stream Conditions...................................................................................................... 23 5.3.7. Stream Geomorphology — Proposed Restoration Reaches........................................................ 23 5.3.8. Wildlife..................................................................................................................................... 25 5.3.9. Protected Species...................................................................................................................... 26 5.3.9.1. Federally Listed Species................................................................................................... 26 5.3.9.2. State Species of Concern ..................................................................................................28 5.3.10. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Summary......................................................................... 32 5.4. MITIGATION WORK PLAN................................................................................................. 33 5.4.1. Mitigation Project Site.............................................................................................................. 33 5.4.2. Wetland Mitigation................................................................................................................... 33 5.4.2.1. Wetland Preservation........................................................................................................ 33 5.4.2.2. Wetland Enhancement...................................................................................................... 33 5.4.2.3. Wetland Restoration......................................................................................................... 33 5.4.3. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Restoration and Natural Community Reestablishment .............. 34 5.4.3.1. Planting Plan..................................................................................................................... 34 5.4.3.2. Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest.................................................................... 34 5.4.3.3. Cypress -Gum Swamp....................................................................................................... 35 5.4.3.4. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp................................................................................. 35 5.4.3.5. Wet Pine/Mesic Pine Flatwoods Establishment............................................................... 35 5.4.3.6. Mixed Hardwood Forest................................................................................................... 35 5.4.3.7. Vernal Pool Establishment............................................................................................... 35 5.4.3.8. Prescribed Burns............................................................................................................... 36 5.4.3.9. Fire Breaks....................................................................................................................... 36 5.4.4. Stream Mitigation..................................................................................................................... 36 5.4.4.1. Stream Preservation.......................................................................................................... 36 5.4.4.2. Stream Enhancement........................................................................................................ 36 5.4.4.3. Stream Restoration........................................................................................................... 42 5.4.4.3.1. Headwater Stream Restoration...................................................................................... 42 5.4.4.3.2. Rosgen Priority 1 Restoration....................................................................................... 43 5.4.5. Reference Sites......................................................................................................................... 43 5.4.5.1. Reference Streams............................................................................................................ 43 5.4.5.2. Reference Wetlands.......................................................................................................... 1 5.5. FEMA FLOODPLAIN AND HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS .................................................... 1 5.6. Section 401/404 Permitting...................................................................................................... 1 5.7. MAINTENANCE PLAN......................................................................................................... 1 5.8. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS........................................................................................... 44 5.8.1. Wetland Mitigation................................................................................................................... 44 5.8.1.1. Wetland Preservation........................................................................................................ 44 5.8.1.2. Wetland Enhancement and Restoration - Hydrology....................................................... 44 5.8.2. Stream Mitigation..................................................................................................................... 44 5.8.2.1. Stream Preservation.......................................................................................................... 44 5.8.2.2. Stream Restoration and Enhancement.............................................................................. 45 5.8.2.2.1. Dimension..................................................................................................................... 45 5.8.2.2.2. Pattern and Profile......................................................................................................... 45 5.8.2.2.3. Substrate........................................................................................................................45 Wetland Preservation................................................................................................................ 5.8.2.2.4. Stream Hydrology......................................................................................................... 45 5.8.2.2.5. Macroinvertebrates........................................................................................................46 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................49 5.8.2.2.6. Headwater Stream......................................................................................................... 46 5.8.3. Vegetation.................................................................................................................................46 5.8.4. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Restoration................................................................................. 47 5.8.5. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Preservation............................................................................... 47 5.8.6. Visual Monitoring..................................................................................................................... 48 5.9. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................ 48 5.9.1. As -built Survey.........................................................................................................................48 5.9.2. Wetland Preservation................................................................................................................ 48 5.9.3. Wetland Enhancement and Restoration — Hydrology............................................................... 49 5.9.4. Vegetation.................................................................................................................................49 5.9.5. Stream Preservation.................................................................................................................. 50 5.9.6. Stream Restoration and Enhancement...................................................................................... 51 5.9.6.1. Dimension.................................................................................................................................51 5.9.6.2. Pattern and Profile.................................................................................................................... 51 5.9.6.3. Hydrology.................................................................................................................................52 5.9.6.4. Macroinvertebrate..................................................................................................................... 52 5.9.6.5. Headwater.................................................................................................................................52 5.9.7. Visual........................................................................................................................................53 5.10. LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT............................................................................................. 53 5.11. SITE PROTECTION................................................................................................................ 54 5.12. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN..................................................................................... 54 5.13. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES................................................................................................. 55 ii 5.14. CLOSURE... ................................................................ 55 6. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 56 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Wetland and Stream Mitigation................................................................................. 4 Table 2. Determination of Mitigation Credit Generation.............................................................................. 5 Table 3. List of Federally Endangered or Threatened Species in the Upper Tar River Basin ...................10 Table 4. Objectives for the Mitigation Project...........................................................................................15 Table 5. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils.............................................................................18 Table 6. Evaluated Jurisdictional Features within the Mitigation Project..................................................19 Table 7. Stream Summary Information...................................................................................................... 23 Table 8. Potential for occurrence of federally listed animal and plant species within the Mitigation Site, Edgecombe County, North Carolina..................................................................27 Table 9. Site Suitable, State Species of Concern for Edgecombe County, North Carolina ....................... 29 APPENDIX A: MAPS AND FIGURES SiteLocation Map..................................................................................................................................... 1 Proximity to Conserved Lands Map......................................................................................................... 2 LandCover Map — HUC 8........................................................................................................................ 3a LandCover Map — HUC 10...................................................................................................................... 3b USGS7.5 Topographical Map.................................................................................................................. 4 HistoricMap (1905).................................................................................................................................. 5a HistoricMap (1908).................................................................................................................................. 5b AerialPhotograph (1954).......................................................................................................................... 6a AerialPhotograph (1977).......................................................................................................................... 6b AerialPhotograph (1982).......................................................................................................................... 6c AerialPhotograph (1994).......................................................................................................................... 6d AerialPhotograph (1998).......................................................................................................................... 6e AerialPhotograph (2008).......................................................................................................................... 6f AerialPhotograph (2013).......................................................................................................................... 6g AerialPhotograph (2016).......................................................................................................................... 6h LIDARImagery........................................................................................................................................ 7 USDASoil Survey Map............................................................................................................................ 8 National Wetland Inventory Map.............................................................................................................. 9 AquaticResources Map............................................................................................................................ 10 Plant Communities Map (Existing Conditions)........................................................................................ 11 PhotoLocations Map................................................................................................................................ 12 Cultural Resources Map............................................................................................................................ 13a CulturalResources Map............................................................................................................................ 13b MitigationWork Plan ................................................................................................................................ 14a Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Plan............................................................................................................ 14b USACE Conservation Easement Map...................................................................................................... 15 FEMAFloodplain Map............................................................................................................................. 16 APPENDIX B: DRAFT SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS (USACE Template) APPENDIX C: BASELINE CONDITIONS REPORT APPENDIX D: PHOTO LOG APPENDIX E: HYDRIC SOILS EVALUATION APPENDIX F: ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES REPORT APPENDIX G: 30% STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN DRAWINGS APPENDIX H: PRELIMINARY JURISDICITONAL REQUEST APPENDIX I: ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED SPECIES SEARCH APPENDIX J: CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTS APPENDIX K: NCDWR BUFFER VIABILITY LETTER APPENDIX L: MITIGATION AVAILABILITY CORRESPONDANCE in This Page Intentionally Left Blank IV Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CSX Intermodal Terminals, Ina (CSXIT) and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) [hereinafter "Applicants"], subsidiaries of CSX Corporation (CSX), a Virginia Company, intend to construct a new intermodal freight terminal, known as the Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal (CCX Terminal), and associated reconstruction of former second mainline track, known as the Rocky Mount to Bricks Second Mainline Improvements (Second Mainline). The Project Area is approximately 829 acres and is comprised of the two components, the CCX Terminal and Second Mainline, as shown in Figure 1. The CCX terminal consists of approximately 670 acres, and is generally located along the western edge of Edgecombe County, north of the City of Rocky Mount, and between the existing CSX mainline and Old Battleboro Road (Figure 2). The Second Mainline component is part of the CSXT North End Subdivision, which runs along the county line between Edgecombe County and Nash County, North Carolina, and generally runs parallel to the 1-95 corridor (Figure 3). This Second Mainline reconstruction segment runs from CSX Milepost A117.5 (south of CCX) through the intermodal facility north to Milepost A104.9 and encompasses approximately 159 acres. These areas extend north from the City of Rocky Mount through the Town of Battleboro, and north of the Town of Whitakers, North Carolina. The project primarily consists of agricultural land with few residential and commercial buildings and woodlands dispersed throughout. College Road, a secondary road, bisects the site near the western portion (Figure 2). Other roadways of note include Old Battleboro Road (northeast boundary of site) and Fountain Park Drive (southern section). The western boundary of the CCX Terminal abuts the North End Subdivision of the existing CSX mainline known as the A -Line and the proposed Second Mainline. Beech Branch, unnamed tributaries and associated wetlands, agricultural/recreational ponds, and agricultural ditches are also present within the CCX Terminal. Beech Branch is the northeast boundary of the site. Two unnamed tributaries of Beech Branch traverse the central portion of the site. An unnamed tributary of Compass Creek traverses the southern portion of the CCX Terminal. Two cemeteries and a telecommunications tower are present within the CCX Terminal project area, as well as a commercial business and a number of scattered, single-family residential lots, abandoned home site, and abandoned agricultural buildings. The project site is located within the Tar -Pamlico River Basin and is therefore subject to the specific river basin riparian buffer rules. In the absence of suitable existing private wetland, stream, and riparian buffer mitigation bank credits (see Appendix L for correspondence) and in -lieu of purchasing credits from the North Carolina Department of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), all required compensatory mitigation will be obtained through off-site permittee -responsible mitigation activities utilizing the watershed approach. The Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan was designed to achieve a landscape scale conservation outcome based on the priorities of both local and regional environmental advocacy groups and the Federal and State regulatory and resource agencies. Located within the same watershed as the CCX Terminal and Second Mainline project is Swift Creek (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The Swift Creek Subbasin in particular has been identified as possibly the most significant lotic creek ecosystem remaining along the Atlantic Seaboard (Alderman, et al., 1993). Swift Creek is a major tributary of the Tar River, flowing southeast from Henderson in Vance County, then through Warren, Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe counties to its confluence with the Tar River above Tarboro in Edgecombe County. The overall goal of the mitigation site selection process was to enhance and improve the protection of this critical resource. On-going communications with both the State and Federal Resource Agencies and the Tar River Land Conservancy communicated the importance to consider the needs of the local community as an important aspect the mitigation approach. This included both the availability of public lands for recreation and the support and protection of rural lifestyles. Based on the guidance of these and other key stakeholders, and to meet the requirements of an acceptable mitigation plan as defined by the state and federal regulatory agencies, the proposed Swift Creek — Permittee Page 1 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Responsible Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Project) was designed to preserve, restore, and enhance approximately 207.5 acres of wetlands and 24,019 linear feet (-4.5 miles) of unnamed headwater tributaries within approximately 593 acres of property to be permanently protected in the Swift Creek watershed, a tributaries of Tar River defined as critical priority areas needing protection by the NCDWR, the NC Natural Heritage Program, and the Tar River Land Conservancy. Finally, the proposed Mitigation Project satisfies the requirements of Department of the Army (DA) permits issued in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and includes the twelve components required by the 2008 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 33 C.F.R. Parts 325 and 332 & 40 C.F.R. Part 230 (Mitigation Rule) and Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03, issued in October, 2008. Proposed mitigation activities are not anticipated to adversely impact protected species or cultural resources. This Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan (PRMP), includes specific goals and objectives for water resource mitigation, as well as site selection factors, site protection, baseline conditions of the mitigation site, mitigation work plan, maintenance plan, performance standards, monitoring requirements, long term management plans, adaptive management provisions, and financial assurances for its success. Additionally, this Mitigation Project satisfies the requirements and provisions of 15A NCAC 02B .0258 (Tar -Pamlico River Basin -Nutrient Sensitive Water Management Strategy), 15A NCAC 0213 .0295 (Consolidated Mitigation Buffer Rule), and 15A NCAC 02B .0240 (Nutrient Offset Payments). Mitigation for impacts to buffers associated with the CCX Terminal and Second Mainline project will be accomplished through the establishment of buffers (-300 feet) within the Mitigation Project. The Mitigation Project is designed to reestablish approximately 45.28 acres of riparian buffer along the proposed restoration reaches and permanently preserve approximately 69.89 acres of riparian buffer. Based on the current design and assumptions for the CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal and Second Mainline Improvements, the Tar -Pamlico Nutrient offsets for the project are not required. If Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Offsets are required for this project due to changes in the design or other reasons, the Applicant reserves the opportunity to supply the required Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Offsets credits through an approved nutrient offset bank or through the establishment of a permittee -responsible nutrient program, subject to the review and approval of the appropriate agencies. In conclusion, the Mitigation Project is designed to achieve a meaningful landscape conservation outcome based on the guidance of the local and regional environmental groups as well as satisfy the requirements of the State and Federal resource agencies. Page 2 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Swift Creek— Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan (hereinafter "Mitigation Project") is a proposed Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) site provided to offset impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. associated with the CCX Terminal and Second Mainline project. The Mitigation Project includes approximately 593 acres of proposed conservation easement areas located in Edgecombe County, North Carolina. The Mitigation Project is made up of a private land holding located along Swift Creek, a tributary of the Tar River. This Mitigation Project is intended to provide mitigation for jurisdictional impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with the development of the CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal and Second Mainline Improvements. The mitigation area is within the same United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020101 of the Upper Tar River Subbasin and is wholly located within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain EPA Level III Ecoregion (N 33.332°, W 80.300°; Figure 1 in Appendix A). The proposed Mitigation Project provides the opportunity to protect a large contiguous acreage of wetlands and headwater unnamed tributaries to Swift Creek that will further advance the efforts of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), North Carolina Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR), the NC Natural Heritage Program, and the Tar River Land Conservancy (TRLC) in the Tar River and Swift Creek watersheds, foment an anchor for the preservation and conservation of lands along Swift Creek, as well as enhance the on-going efforts to protect and restore populations of the Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) habitat. The Mitigation Project area consists of bottomland hardwood and headwater stream and wetland systems along Swift Creek. The proposed Mitigation Project will include wetland and stream preservation, enhancement, and restoration of approximately 208 acres of wetlands and approximately 24,019 linear feet (4.5 miles) of streams within the 593 -acre Mitigation Project. Additionally the project will include the restoration of approximately 45.28 acres of riparian buffer and the preservation of 69.89 acres of riparian buffer. The Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan (PRMP) is based upon the best information available at this time and all prescriptions and quantities provided herein for stream and wetland features are subject to state and federal agency verification. Comments from the state and federal agencies and the commenting public will be addressed and incorporated into this mitigation plan. Page 3 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 3. AVAILABLE MITIGATION The anticipated Section 404 Individual Permit for the development of the CCX Terminal and Second Mainline project (approximately 829 acres) within the Upper Tar River Subbasin (HUC 03020101) north of Rocky Mount, Edgecombe County, North Carolina, requires mitigation for impacts to 23.35 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 10,297 linear feet of RPWs, and 10.35 acres (450,846 sq. ft.) of Zone 1 and 6.70 acres (291,853 sq. ft.) of Zone 2 riparian buffers. The proposed impacts will require approximately 43.08 wetland credits, 16,149.4 stream credits, 41.10 ac. (1,790,318 sq. ft.) Tar -Pamlico riparian buffer compensatory mitigation credits. Since this large-scale mitigation effort cannot be addressed with existing private mitigation banks in the watershed and in -lieu of purchasing credit from NCDMS, a permittee -responsible mitigation site is proposed to meet the required compensatory wetland mitigation requirement and riparian buffer mitigation requirement. The Applicants and its Agents have prepared this PRMP to satisfy the proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S and Tar -Pamlico riparian buffers. This PRMP is comprised of the Swift Creek Tract and is intended to provide complete mitigation for jurisdictional impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with the development of the CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal and Second Mainline Improvements and to riparian buffers as regulated by the State of North Carolina. The Swift Creek Tract will also provide nutrient offset for the project and will be included in a separate plan to the N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). All wetland and stream acreages are estimates in this PRMP and are subject to change, pending review/comments by the regulatory agencies. A summary of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S. proposed for mitigation is provided below in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Wetland and Stream Mitigation Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Stream Stream Riparian Riparian Site Preservation Enhancement Restoration Preservation Enhancement Restoration Buffer Buffer (Acreage) (Acreage) (Acreage) (Acreage) (Linear Feet) (Linear Feet) (Linear Feet) Restoration Preservation (Acreage) (Acreage) —593 112.6 23.5 23.9 6,504 1,787 15,728 45.28 69.89 Wetland preservation areas within the floodplain of Swift Creek have been allocated for Riparian buffer Restoration. In total, approximately 47.5 acres of wetland preservation of the total 208 acres that have been identified within the Mitigation Project have not been illustrated above in Table 1 and are included the Riparian Buffer Restoration column. 3.1. DETERMINATION OF CREDITS Mitigation credits presented below in Table 2 are projections based upon the proposed mitigation work plan contained herein. Upon completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built condition and submitted to the USACE for review and approval. Page 4 of 57 Swift Creek - Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Table 2. Determination of Mitigation Credit Generation S44FT CREEK - PE ITTEE RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION WORK PLAN STREAM MITIGATION RESTORATION FEATURE NAME PROPOSED LENGTH (LF) PROPOSED SINUOSITY MITIGATION CREDIT PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION RATIO GENERATION TRIBUTARY A-1 5,463 1.13 1.1:1.0 6,009.3 TRIBUTARY B-2 1,073 1.16 1.1:1.0 1,180.3 TRIBUTARY D 2,677 1.09 1.1:1.0 2,944.7 TRIBUTARY E-2 657 1.00 1.0:1.0 657.0 TRIBUTARY E-3 4,633 1.10 1.1:1.0 5,096.3 TRIBUTARY F 571 1.11 1.1:1.0 628.1 TRIBUTARY K 654 1.15 1.1:1.0 719.4 STREAM RESTORATION CREDIT SUBTOTAL 17,235.1 ENHANCEMENT FEATURE NAME PROPOSED LENGTH LF MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION RATIO PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION TRIBUTARY A-2 1,588 1.0:2.5 635.2 TRIBUTARY E-1 199 1.0:2.5 79.6 STREAM ENHANCEMENT CREDIT SUBTOTAL 714.8 PRESERVATION PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT PROPOSED FEATURE NAME LENGTH MITIGATION CREDIT LF GENERATION RATIO GENERATION TRIBUTARY A-3 2,228 1.0:5.0 445.6 TRIBUTARY B-1 384 1.0:5.0 76.8 TRIBUTARY C 1,076 1.0:5.0 215.2 TRIBUTARY G 788 1.0:5.0 157.6 TRIBUTARY H 636 1.0:5.0 127.2 TRIBUTARY 1-1 599 1.0:5.0 119.8 TRIBUTARY I-2 151 1.0:5.0 30.2 TRIBUTARY J 642 1.0:5.0 128.4 STREAM PRESERVATION CREDIT SUBTOTAL 1,300.8 TOTAL STREAM MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION 19,250.7 WETLAND MITIGATION RESTORATION FEATURE NAME ACREAGE (Acres) MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION RATIO PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION WETLAND NO. 3 23.9 1.0:1.0 23.90 WETLAND RESTORATION CREDIT SUBTOTAL 23.90 ENHANCEMENT FEATURE NAME ACREAGE (Acres) MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION RATIO PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION WETLAND NO. 1 5.4 1.0:2.5 2.16 WETLAND NO. 7 0.3 1.0:2.5 0.12 WETLAND NO. 11 5.6 1.0:2.5 2.24 WETLAND NO. 12 12.2 1.0:2.5 4.88 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT CREDIT SUBTOTAL 9.40 Page 5 of 57 Swift Creek - Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina PRESERVATION PROPOSED ACREAGE MITIGATION CREDIT FEATURE NAME MITIGATION CREDIT (Acres) GENERATION RATIO GENERATION WETLAND NO. 2 7.2 1.0:5.0 1.44 WETLAND NO. 4 2.1 1.0:5.0 0.42 WETLAND NO. 5 0.01 1.0:5.0 0.002 WETLAND NO. 6 0.06 1.0:5.0 0.01 WETLAND NO. 10 99.9 1.0:5.0 19.99 WETLAND NO. 13 3.2 1.0:5.0 0.64 WETLAND NO. 14 0.05 1.0:5.0 0.01 WETLAND PRESERVATION CREDIT SUBTOTAL 22.51 TOTAL WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION 55.81 RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION MITIGATION PROPOSED RIPARIAN MITIGATION CREDIT BUFFER CREDIT BUFFER ZONE ACRES TYPE GENERATION GENERATION RATIO (ACRES / SQ. FT.) TRIBUTARY A-1 Restoration 13.06 1.0:1.0 13.06 / 568,894 (TOB - 100') Restoration TRIBUTARY D 3.18 1.0:1.0 3.18 /138,521 (TOB - 100') TRIBUTARY E-3 Restoration 9.59 1.0:1.0 9.59 / 417,740 ' (TOB -100') Restoration TRIBUTARY F 2.32 1.0:1.0 2.32 / 101,059 ' (TOB -100') Restoration TRIBUTARY K 1.31 1.0:1.0 1.31 / 57,064 ' (TOB -100') DITCH 27 Restoration 2.19 1.0:1.0 2.19 / 95,396 (TOB -100') ' Restoration TRIBUTARY A-1 (100'- 150') 13.06 1.0:1.0 13.06 / 568,894 Restoration TRIBUTARY D (100'- 150') 3.18 1.0:1.0 3.18 /138,521 Restoration TRIBUTARY E-3 (100'- 150') 9.59 1.0:1.0 9.59 / 417,740 Restoration TRIBUTARY F 2.32 1.0:1.0 2.32 / 101,059 (100'- 150') Restoration TRIBUTARY K (100'- 150') 1.31 1.0:1.0 1.31 / 57 064 ' Restoration DITCH 27 (100'- 150') 2.19 1.0:1.0 2.19 / 95,396 TRIBUTARY A-1 Preservation 8.34 1.0:10.0 0.83 / 36,329 (TOB - 100') TRIBUTARY A-2 Preservation 7.24 1.0:10.0 0.72 / 31,537 (TOB - 100') ' TRIBUTARY A-3 Preservation 9.75 1.0:10.0 0.97 / 42,471 (TOB - 100') ' TRIBUTARY B-1 Preservation 1.09 1.0:10.0 0.11/4,748 (TOB - 100') TRIBUTARY B-2 Preservation 2.13 1.0:10.0 0.21/9,278 (TOB - 100') TRIBUTARY C Preservation 4.91 1.0:10.0 0.49 / 21,388 (TOB - 100') ' Page 6 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Page 7 of 57 MITIGATION PROPOSED RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE MITIGATION ACRES CREDIT BUFFER CREDIT TYPE GENERATION GENERATION RATIO (ACRES/SQ. FT.) TRIBUTARY D Preservation 7.20 1.0:10.0 0.72 / 31 363 (TOB — 100') ' TRIBUTARY E-1 Preservation 0.28 1.0:10.0 0.03/1,220 (TOB — 100') TRIBUTARY E-2 Preservation 0.89 1.0:10.0 0.09/3,877 (TOB — 100') TRIBUTARY E-3 Preservation 1.98 1.0:10.0 0.20/8,625 (TOB — 100') TRIBUTARY G Preservation 3.53 1.0:10.0 0.35 /15,377 (TOB — 100') TRIBUTARY H Preservation 3.37 1.0:10.0 0.34 / 14,680 (TOB — 100') TRIBUTARY I-1 Preservation 3.07 1.0:10.0 0.31 / 13,373 (TOB — 100') Preservation TRIBUTARY I-2 (TOB — 100') 0.66 1.0:10.0 0.07/2,875 TRIBUTARY J Preservation 1.93 1.0:10.0 0.19/8,407 (TOB —100') Preservation TRIBUTARY K (TOB — 100') 0.88 1.0:10.0 0.09/3,833 WHITE OAK Preservation SWAMP (TOB —100') 4.96 1.0:10.0 0.50 / 21,606 ' Preservation SWIFT CREEK (TOB —100') 7.70 1.0:10.0 0.77 / 33,541 TOTAL STREAM BUFFER CREDIT GENERATION 43.12 ac. / 1,878,409 sq. ft. Page 7 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 4. WATERSHED APPROACH 4.1. 8 -DIGIT HUC — UPPER TAR RIVER The proposed Mitigation Project is located in the Upper Tar River Subbasin (8 -digit HUC 03020101). The Upper Tar River Subbasin contains the headwaters of the Tar River and its tributaries to Tarboro, NC. The Tar River flows southeasterly until it reaches tidal waters near Washington where it becomes the Pamlico River and from there flows into the Pamlico Sound (NC DNR 2010). Major tributaries of the Tar River include Cokey Swamp, the Pungo River, Fishing Creek, and Tranters Creek, and Swift Creek which flows along the border of the proposed Mitigation Project. The Upper Tar River Basin is located in portions of Person, Granville, Franklin, Vance, Nash, Edgecombe, and Warren Counties, and drains approximately 1,305 square miles. The Upper Tar River Basin drains two EPA Level III ecoregions: Piedmont and Southeastern Plains. The upper reaches of the watershed cover the transitional Piedmont ecoregion (45). The subbasin is represented by several EPA Level IV ecoregions including the Northern Outer Piedmont (45f), portions of the Triassic Basin (45g) and Carolina Slate Belt (45c). Streams in the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion are vulnerable to summer drought because of poor ground recharge (NC DWQ 2011). Low summer flows are associated with limited ability to assimilate oxygen -consuming wastes. Streams in the Piedmont ecoregion are generally low gradient with sluggish pools separated by riffles and rapids (NC DNR). Piedmont soils are highly erodible with rock formations that have limited water storage capacity underneath. There are a few reservoirs in the Piedmont that serve as water supplies, but no natural lakes. The predominant ecoregion in the lower portion of the subbasin, where the proposed site is located, is the Southeastern Plains ecoregion (65). Natural vegetation in the Southeastern Plains ecoregion was predominantly longleaf pine with patches of oak -hickory -pine (Griffith, et al.). Elevations and relief are generally less than in much of the Piedmont. Streams in the Southeastern Plains ecoregion can generally be characterized by low -gradients and sandy bottoms (Griffith, et al.). According to the United States Geological Survey (the "USGS") 2011 National Land Cover Dataset ("NLCD") land cover data, 54.3 percent of the Upper Tar River Subbasin is forested land, 21 percent is urban land, 8 percent is wetland, and less than 1 percent is open water, and the remaining 27.1 percent is barren land and agriculture. Development and population growth centers around Rocky Mount and smaller municipalities including Dortches, Red Oak, Louisburg, and Henderson and Oxford in the upper part of the subbasin. It is expected that the percentage of urban area has increased since 2011. Most of the land use in the upper subbasin consists of a mixture of agriculture, rural residences, and remnant forest (NC DWQ 2011). Land use in the lower portion of the subbasin is divided relatively evenly between agriculture, forest, rural residences, and urbanized areas (NC DWQ 2011). 4.1.1. Water Quality 4.1.1.1. Historical Changes of Aquatic Resources in Watershed Historical changes in land cover from 1992 to 2011 were analyzed for the Upper Tar River Subbasin using the NLCD data and is illustrated on Figure 3a in Appendix A. During this 19 -year period, the developed areas increased dramatically from 4.4% to 21%, approximately 175,206 acres, for the basin. Development and population growth centers around Rocky Mount and smaller municipalities including Dortches, Red Oak, Louisburg, and Henderson and Oxford in the upper part of the watershed. As development increases, so do the demands and stress placed on rivers and streams within the watershed. Between the 1780s and the 1980s, North Carolina lost 49 percent of its wetlands (Dahl, 1990). A historical comparison of the area of total wetlands in the Upper Tar River Basin (8 -digit HUC 03020101) is a complex task, as the data collection processes have changed and improved over time. The most accurate inventory of wetlands was conducted in 1989/90 by the National Wetland Inventory (NWI). However, there is no Page 8 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina direct comparison in an older or more recent time period using the NWI methodology. The precision of data collected in the USGS National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), which is available in the years 1976, 1992, 2001 and 2006, has improved dramatically in recent years, particularly since 1976. Therefore, the amount of wetlands in the NLCD for years 1992 and 2011 were compared in the watershed. According to the NLCD datasets, the acreage of wetlands in the Upper Tar River Basin (8 -digit HUC 03020101) decreased by 1.2 percent between 1992 and 2011. 4.1.1.2. Water Quality Issues in Watershed In the 1980's, public attention was drawn to the Tar -Pamlico River Basin's environmental problems. Excessive algal growth, low oxygen levels, and increasing numbers of diseased and dying fish suggested a decline in water quality (Tar Pamlico 2013). Suspected contributions include municipal sewer and treatment plants that are discharging wastewater into rivers and streams. Nonpoint sources, such as farmland, timber operations, and urban areas, were also contributing to excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus. A set of regulations, jointly known as the Tar -Pamlico nutrient strategy, was promulgated in 2000-2001 to regulate sources of nutrient pollution in the basin including wastewater, stormwater, and agricultural nutrient sources (NC DEQ). These regulations also protect riparian buffers, mandate that professionals that apply fertilizer attend training, and require stormwater management. Although the entire Tar -Pamlico River Basin is classified as a Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW), the two primary water quality concerns in the Upper Tar River Subbasin (8 -digit HUC 03020101) are fecal coliform ("FC") bacteria and turbidity. The North Carolina Department of Water Quality ("NCDWQ") monitors nine Ambient Monitoring System ("AMS") stations in the subbasin. Turbidity is often associated with excessive streambed sedimentation which can reduce fish survival and growth rates by choking spawning beds, harm food sources, reduce cover from prey and high temperature refuges by filling in pools, and reduce habitat complexity in streams (NC DWQ 2011). Contamination by the fecal material of humans or other warm-blooded animals results in FC bacteria in aquatic environments. Contamination from FC bacteria may occur from point and nonpoint sources of human and animal waste. The region's historical land cover change from the loss of longleaf pine and bottomland hardwood forests to agriculture and silviculture has posed water quality threats to the watershed. Hydrologic modifications such as shorter time of concentrations, decreases in infiltration and evapotranspiration rates have most likely altered the watershed's natural runoff characteristics. The increase in runoff rates has the potential to carry more pollutants, thus higher potential for impaired waters within the watershed, such as the ones listed above. 4.1.2. Wildlife 4.1.2.1. Historical Losses of Wildlife Habitat Southeastern coastal plain pine woodlands and associated wetlands are some of the most diverse communities in temperate North America, with many endemic flora and fauna. However, post European settlement disturbance and changing land use in the region has eliminated this ecosystem from more than 95 percent of the areas in which it was found (Mitchell and Duncan 2009). Coastal plain ecosystems were modified by early settlers for agriculture, timber harvest and to support waterway travel. Since settlement, some agricultural practices have continued in the basin, while some areas have reforested. A loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) closed canopy ecosystem has largely replaced the historic longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) savannah, open canopy ecosystem, which is heavily influenced by human alteration (i.e. suppression) of the fire regime. Biological diversity in these areas often decreases as a result (Mitchell and Duncan 2009). Post -European settlement, disturbance, and conversion of land use in the region impacted bottomland hardwood forests that supported high levels of diversity in both the flora and fauna (USEPA 2012). Since settlement, bottomland hardwood forests have been altered by the timber industry and, most substantially, conversion to agricultural land uses. Increased urbanization, hydrologic modification, and land conversion contribute to pollutant delivery to habitats that support threatened and endangered aquatic species. Page 9 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina The Upper Tar River Subbasin supports a surviving population of the federally protected and endemic Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). Land -use change, watershed fragmentation by impoundments, and eroded sediments have greatly diminished Tar River Spinymussel habitat. The surviving populations are can be found in five short sections of the Tar River and its tributaries and nowhere else in the world. Table 3 lists the federally listed threatened and endangered species for the basin, adapted from the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online screening tool and the USFS county list. Table 3. List of Federally Endangered or Threatened Species in the Upper Tar River Basin Common Name (Latin Name) Status WILDLIFE SPECIES Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Recovery Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered AQUATIC SPECIES Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Endangered 4.2. 10 -DIGIT HUC SWIFT CREEK The Mitigation Project is located in the Swift Creek Watershed (10 -digit HUC 0302010108) located in Edgecombe County. Swift Creek is a major tributary of the Tar River that flows southeast from Henderson in Vance County, through Warren, Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties until it meets the Tar River just above Tarboro in Edgecombe County (Prince). The watershed has a drainage area of approximately 111 square miles (71,004 acres). The Mitigation Project straddles the transition line between two Level IV Ecoregions: The Rolling Coastal Plain (65m) and the Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces (65p). The Rolling Coastal Plan is a productive agriculture region that has better drained soils than the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Griffith, et al). The Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces can be described as a riverine ecoregion that provides important wildlife corridors and habitat. It consists of oak -dominated bottomland hardwood forests and river swamp forests (Griffith, et al). 4.2.1. Water Quality 4.2.1.1. Historical Changes of Aquatic Resources in Watershed A history of land use change and disturbance has had a major impact on aquatic resources in the Southeastern Plains region of the Carolinas including severe erosion and gullying, excessive sediment loadings, lack of sufficient woody debris, stream channelization and channel/bank instability. Land use changes, including agriculture, silviculture, and urban development, continue to influence aquatic resources in the watershed. The status of the federally Protected Tar River Spinymussel highlights the historic and continued impacts to aquatic resources in the area. As of 2006, the spinymussel only occupied about 1 percent of its probable historic range (Wunsche 2006). Water quality issues, including agriculture and silviculture land use conversion, urban development, wastewater, eroded sediments, and stormwater discharge, and watershed fragmentation by impoundments has greatly diminished Tar River Spinymussel habitat. The surviving populations are now relegated to small, isolated tributaries where the habitat has not been severely degraded, including the Swift Creek watershed. The reaches in which the populations are found are isolated and highly susceptible to any factor that degrades water quality, such as land use changes, chemical spills, and increases in runoff (Tar River Spiny Mussel 1985). In a 5 -year review of the progress of Tar River Spinymussel recovery, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommends, among other actions, continued work to establish conservation easements and to restore riparian buffers and in -stream habitats, especially where the best remaining populations of the species are present (USFWS 2014). Page 10 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 4.2.1.2. Water Quality Issues in Watershed At the 8 -digit HUC level, the Upper Tar River Subbasin (8 -digit HUC 03020101) has water quality concerns for nutrients, leading to a US EPA approved TMDL for the basin. The Swift Creek Watershed (10 -digit HUC 0302010108) currently has two ambient water quality monitoring stations, one of which is located downstream of the Mitigation Project. This watershed is a priority for implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agricultural runoff and stormwater control, as well as buffer enhancement and erosion and sediment control BMPs (NC DWQ 2011). Potential water quality impacts in this watershed and the proposed Mitigation Project could come from agricultural land uses in the uplands and areas adjacent to the Mitigation Project that make their way into the floodplains. Agricultural land uses can contribute to common water quality issues, including high nutrient loadings and fecal coliform bacteria. Agricultural land can be a source of fecal coliform bacteria via runoff from grazing pastures, improper land application of animal wastes, livestock operations, and livestock with access to waterbodies. 4.2.2. Wildlife 4.2.2.1. Historical Losses of Wildlife Habitat The Swift Creek watershed is a threatened and endangered species protection priority area (NCDWQ 2011). The most biologically diverse streams in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin occur within the Swift Creek Subbasin and Fishing Creek Subbasins (Prince). Specifically, the Swift Creek Subbasin has been identified as the most significant lotic creek ecosystem remaining along the Atlantic Seaboard (Alderman, et al., 1993). Swift Creek, which flows along the edge of the proposed Mitigation Project, is known to provide habitat for a surviving population of the Tar River Spinymussel. The spinymussel is a rare and federally endangered species that is listed as a G1 status by NatureServe, meaning that it is "Critically Imperiled". Freshwater mussels feed by filtering plankton from the water column and are extremely sensitive to hydrology alterations and water quality deterioration from sedimentation or toxic substances (Alderman, et al., 1993). They are also vulnerable to increased stream isolation from riparian buffer removal, exotic invasive species, and reductions in habitat diversity. Since the species has a restricted distribution, any factor that degrades water or substrate quality within the watershed, such as land use changes, chemical spills, and increases in agricultural and urban runoff, could threaten the species' survival. 4.3. AREAS FOR WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT After assessing the historical losses and concerns for water quality and wildlife in the aforementioned watersheds, the following items have been identified as areas for improvement. 4.3.1. Water Quality Needs in the Watershed Due to the historical hydrologic and ecological alterations in the basin, the presence of the critically endangered Tar River Spinymussel, and the impetus that USFWS has placed on protection of Tar River Spinymussel habitat, there is a need for stream enhancement and protection and riparian protection to improve hydrologic and ecological conditions. Improving streams at road crossings, maintaining stable stream beds, and ensuring robust riparian areas to prevent pollutants and sedimentation can help protect Tar River Spinymussel habitat. Land use practices in the watershed that threaten Swift Creek and its tributaries include continued timber practices and agricultural practices in the headwaters of streams and potential growth from the Rocky Mount area. The proposed project will convert approximately 230 acres of farmland that drains directly to Swift Creek through existing ditches and headwater streams to forested ecosystems. Additionally, the headwater streams contained within the Mitigation Project will be restored/enhanced through Rosgen Priority 1 and Priority 4 restoration and enhancement methods to establish a more naturally occurring channel planform and riffle -pool sequences typical of coastal plain stream ecosystems. Protection Page 11 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina of the headwaters through stream and riparian improvement is important for maintaining water quality downstream and meeting the goals of NCDWQ and EPA water quality standards. 4.3.2. Wildlife Needs in the Watershed The most pressing wildlife need in the watershed is to protect habitat for surviving populations of the Tar River Spinymussel that are present in the watershed. Existing populations survive in areas composed mainly of woodlands, stable streambanks with extensive root systems, and limited pollution (NatureServe, 2017). The USFWS recommends "...working with partners to acquire land and establish conservation easements and restore forested buffers and instream habitat. Initially, these efforts should be focused primarily on the best of the remaining populations of the Tar River Spinymussel and areas targeted for population augmentation and/or reintroduction of the species." Riparian buffer management is essential to preventing stream isolation, capturing sediment and toxic substances before they enter streams, and supplying adequate woody debris to the stream channel (Prince). Establishing no -harvest zones directly adjacent to streams prevents greater -than -natural loss of canopy trees and excessive large woody debris and sediment in the stream channel. A well maintained riparian buffer establishes an extensive root mat that provides soil stability and provides natural shade that protects from stream insolation (Prince). Protection and enhancement actions at the Mitigation Project, which includes a portion of Swift Creek, would mark progress on USFWS conservation goals. 4.3.3. Ecological (Physical, Chemical and Biological) Suitability and Technical Feasibility of the Site to Meet Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat Needs in Watershed Water quality issues resulting from agriculture, timber harvesting, and development have affected areas of the watershed. The quality of existing stream and riparian areas makes this site a well-suited candidate to fulfill USFWS Service goals of protecting Tar River Spinymussel habitat. Further, enhancement of stream features such as culverts at road crossings, bank stabilizations and riparian areas will help to achieve the habitat qualities that the Tar River Spinymussel requires by reducing fine sediment loads, maintaining bed stability, preserving dissolved oxygen inducing features, and buffering the stream from potential pollutants. Conservation easements at the site will also ensure that proper care is taken regarding land use on the property adjacent to the stream habitat. The Tar River Land Conservancy (TRLC) is an organization that works to preserve important habitat in the Upper Tar River Basin. The TRLC works to protect working farms and forests, wildlife habitat and natural areas, water quality and stream buffers, and recreational open space through conservation easements and fee -simple land acquisitions. The TRLC's goals include preserving intact habitat, protecting important blocks of farmland and forest from development, and restoring stream buffers and floodplains through reforestation (TRLC 2017). The Mitigation Project would contribute to habitat protection, reduction of nutrient loading sources, and establishment of buffers within the Upper Tar River Basin. The Mitigation Project also strengthens the existing Nutrient Management Strategy and Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan within the Tar -Pamlico Basin and helps meet USFWS, NCDENR, and TRLC goals within the Upper Tar River Basin. Page 12 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 4.3.4. Offsite Threats to Mitigation Efforts Constructed within the Mitigation Project Sites It is possible that some timber management activities or maintenance of existing access roads could affect the proposed Mitigation Project. Offsite threats that may affect wetland and water quality services constructed at the Mitigation Project mainly include logging practices from adjacent silviculture and agricultural activities. However, areas within the Tar -Pamlico are being addressed through NC DWQ and NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) conservation management practices that promote sound land management practices that aim to protect the success of the watershed. Additionally, measures to limit any off-site impacts that may adversely affect the Mitigation Project will certainly be taken into consideration before implementation. Page 13 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN 5.1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Proposed wetland and stream mitigation activities within the Mitigation Project are expected to provide improved water quality in the Swift Creek watershed, improved hydrology in the restored, enhanced, and preserved stream channels and adjacent wetlands, and improved ecological benefits on-site and downstream. Expected ecological uplift objectives are detailed in Table 4. 5.1.1. Mitigation Project Objectives The proposed Mitigation Project will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Upper Tar River Subbasin (8 -digit HUC 03020101), Swift Creek Watershed (10 -digit RUC 0302010108) and the Inner Coastal Plain ecoregion. The Swift Creek watershed is primarily rural and agricultural with some industrial use. Streams and wetlands in the inner coastal plain of North Carolina have been heavily impacted as part of historical silviculture and agriculture land management practices. The on-going and future potential threat of these practices is likely to impact terrestrial and aquatic habitats and disrupt habitat corridors. The Mitigation Project proposes to protect approximately 593 acres in perpetuity and further expand the conservation efforts of the TRLC within the Tar River and Swift Creek watersheds. The primary goals of the proposed Mitigation Project will potentially include: • Protection of approximately 208 acres of wetland and 24,019 (-4.5 miles) of streams through the establishment of conservation easements. • Preservation of approximately 160 acres of mature bottomland hardwood wetlands along Swift Creek. Restoration and Enhancement of approximately 47 acres of converted wetlands through hydrologic and hydraulic modification of the existing groundwater table. • Restoration and Enhancement of headwater, intermittent, and perennial stream channels that have been severely altered through historic dredging, to create aquatic habitat and further improve water quality to receiving waters; • Restoration of approximately 300 foot buffers along stream corridors for additional habitat and water quality benefits. • Provide ecological benefits to address water quality impairments, hydrologic modifications, and vital habitat within the Swift Creek watershed. The primary goals for the Mitigation Site will be addressed through the following objectives: • Promote wetland hydrology by raising channelized stream beds and filling drainage ditches; • Plant wetland areas with native tree species to restore the natural vegetative communities; • Reconstruct stream channels to have the appropriate slope, planform, and cross-sectional geometry for the region of the Coastal Plain in which the project is located; • Size reconstructed stream channels to flood floodplains and wetlands frequently; • Stabilize stream banks using bioengineering, natural channel design techniques, and grading to reduce bank angles and bank height; • Install in -stream structures and woody debris to promote aeration of water, create habitat, and influence the creation of bed forms commonly found in sand bed channels; • Restore riparian buffer areas with native tree species to stabilize channels, filter flood flows and runoff, and supplement wetland plantings; and • Remove a large acreage of land from agricultural production within the Mitigation Project to further improving water quality. Page 14 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Table 4 provides the estimated ecological benefits offered by the proposed Mitigation Project to water quality, hydrology and habitat. Table 4. Objectives for the Mitigation Project Water Quality Benefits Accomplished B Vegetative enhancement is proposed for disturbed wetlands and stream buffers to minimize erosion on the adjacent slopes. Stabilization of the adjacent wetlands and buffers is expected to Sediment Reduction reduce sediment loss and provide for a stable healthy stream and wetland systems. Sediment reduction will be achieved through the restriction of intensive agricultural practices from proposed upland buffer areas, which have resulted in historic land disturbance and localized erosion. Benefit will be achieved through protection, enhancement, and preservation of existing riparian vegetation and reestablishment of 300 -foot buffer where agricultural use has encroached. Agricultural activities are currently active within a large portion of the Mitigation Project. Enhancement and preservation of these areas will allow the floodplain of smaller UT's of Swift Creek to continue to receive and filter runoff, thereby reducing nutrients and sediment concentrations reaching aquatic resources. Additionally, removal of the agricultural practices that provide a significant Water quality source for nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in the watershed will have a significant benefit to the watershed within the Mitigation Project and Swift Creek. As such, benefit will be achieved through the reduction of sediment loss with reforestation and the stabilization of eroding ditch and stream banks. Protection and enhancement of riparian vegetation will benefit surface water and groundwater quality by minimizing nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in runoff from surrounding agricultural fields within the Mitigation Project, improving surface soil structure to facilitate groundwater infiltration, and protecting groundwater discharge areas along riparian corridors. Hydrological Function Goals Accomplished B Preserve existing floodplain functions by eliminating the threat of future silviculture and agricultural operations which would most Floodplain function likely require the construction of logging roads to access portions of the property. Protection of the existing vegetation will also allow the floodplain Swift Creek to function naturally providing benefits to water quality and habitat corridors. Enhancement of buffer areas, including floodplain wetlands, will Water Storage store more water during precipitation event than under current drainage conditions, thus, reducing flooding in the watershed. Hydraulic Function Goals Restoration and enhancement of riparian buffers will provide Surface Water Storage and additional floodplain connectivity and volume. They are also Detention expected to improve their storage capacity to detain surface water associated with large storm events. Page 15 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.2. MITIGATION PROJECT LOCATION AND SELECTION 5.2.1. Directions to the Project Site The proposed Mitigation Project is located near the Town of Leggett, Edgecombe County, North Carolina along NC -33 just west of its intersection with NC -97 and approximately 20 miles east Interstate 95 (Figure 1 in Appendix A). Access to the Mitigation Project is located directly off of NC -33 via a gravel road. 5.2.2. Site Selection An extensive process was undertaken to locate a suitable PRMP site that meets and adheres to the USACE 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and EPA 40 CFR Part 230. In an effort to locate a site or sites which would provide the significant opportunity for ecological uplift a watershed approach was utilized, which took an in-depth look at the environmental issues facing the Upper Tar River watershed. A watershed approach focusing on the Upper Tar River watershed was utilized to search for the ideal PRMP site(s) to satisfy the compensatory wetland and stream mitigation requirement for impacts associated with the CCX Site while simultaneously furthering the conservation goals of Tar River Land Conservancy and others. Based on the results of this analysis and the site selection process, it was determined that a large contiguous area with opportunities to protect a valuable aquatic resource and expand on the existing conservation efforts by the State and private conservation organizations would be preferred. Page 16 of 57 Increased residence time for floodwaters provided by enhancing and preserving riparian wetlands will maintain the volume of Subsurface water retention water available for local aquifers. Additionally, the filling of ditches within the Mitigation Project will restore the historic ground water table and natural movement of subsurface flow. Biological Function Goals Accomplished B Protecting the existing properties, which are crossed by multiple Habitat for macroinvertebrates and drainages in the wetland depressions, will preserve valuable fish floodplain habitat vital to the native macroinvertebrates and fish that inhabit the Mitigation Project site. Preservation of bottomland hardwood ecosystems, which are under Vegetative Habitat Protection threat from silviculture practices maintains the presence of native species and diverse ecosystems that have historically been stripped from the Swift Creek watershed. The establishment of the Mitigation Project and associated Habitat Corridor Protection conservation easements, with its proximity to previously conserved lands (Figure 2 in Appendix A), will preserve natural travel corridors for nativespecies and reduce habitat fragmentation. Long Term Protection of The proposed protective mechanisms for lands within the Ecological Resources Mitigation Project is expected to protect the proposed ecological benefits in perpetuity. Conservation Goals Accomplished B Establishment of the proposed conservation and development restriction easements. Loss and fragmentation of habitat have been identified as a major threat to many of the species listed as Reduction of Habitat threatened and endangered in North Carolina. The proposed Fragmentation Mitigation Project in conjunction with the Stated Goals of State and Federal Agencies and the Tar River Land Conservancy will provide a potential spring board for further conservation projects within the Swift Creek Watershed. 5.2. MITIGATION PROJECT LOCATION AND SELECTION 5.2.1. Directions to the Project Site The proposed Mitigation Project is located near the Town of Leggett, Edgecombe County, North Carolina along NC -33 just west of its intersection with NC -97 and approximately 20 miles east Interstate 95 (Figure 1 in Appendix A). Access to the Mitigation Project is located directly off of NC -33 via a gravel road. 5.2.2. Site Selection An extensive process was undertaken to locate a suitable PRMP site that meets and adheres to the USACE 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and EPA 40 CFR Part 230. In an effort to locate a site or sites which would provide the significant opportunity for ecological uplift a watershed approach was utilized, which took an in-depth look at the environmental issues facing the Upper Tar River watershed. A watershed approach focusing on the Upper Tar River watershed was utilized to search for the ideal PRMP site(s) to satisfy the compensatory wetland and stream mitigation requirement for impacts associated with the CCX Site while simultaneously furthering the conservation goals of Tar River Land Conservancy and others. Based on the results of this analysis and the site selection process, it was determined that a large contiguous area with opportunities to protect a valuable aquatic resource and expand on the existing conservation efforts by the State and private conservation organizations would be preferred. Page 16 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina The Mitigation Project was selected because it meets the needs of the watershed and proposes to protect a significant portion of the Swift Creek watershed, which is a priority for both State and Federal agencies and the TRLC. The Mitigation Project is proposed as compensatory mitigation to off -set unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands due to the construction of the Intermodal Facility. In accordance with the most current federal mitigation regulations (Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule dated April 10, 2008) primary consideration was given toward identifying mitigation sites that: 1) supported a watershed restoration approach, 2) provided for In -Kind mitigation, and 3) existed within the 8 -digit HUC and Ecoregion. 5.2.3. Resource Equivalency 5.2.3.1. Comparison of Waters of the U.S. The jurisdictional waters of the U.S. proposed for impact within the CCX Terminal and Second Mainline project are a mix of headwater forest, basin wetland, floodplain pool, hardwood forest, and riverine swamp forest. The proposed project will impact a total of 23.35 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 20.39 acres of which are riverine and 4.59 acres that are non-riverine. Approximately 10,297 linear feet of RPWs as well as 10.35 acres (450,846 sq. ft.) of Zone 1 and 6.70 acres (294,853 sq. ft.) of Zone 2 Tar -Pamlico riparian buffer will be impacted by the project. The jurisdictional waters associated with the Swift Creek Mitigation Project site include approximately 208 acres of palustrine, forested wetlands classified as a mix of headwater forest and bottomland hardwood wetlands. On the southwestern portion of the site, there is an area of riverine swamp forest along Swift Creek and White Oak Swamp. Additionally, there are approximately 22,054 linear feet of streams consisting of Swift Creek, White Oak Swamp, and 12 unnamed tributaries. Both sites, CCX and Swift Creek Mitigation, are located within Upper Tar subbasin (8 -digit HUC 0302101) of the Tar Pamlico river basin. The Mitigation Project is approximately nine miles east of the proposed CCX Terminal and Second Mainline project. The Mitigation Project will provide an excellent opportunity for the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of headwater forest, bottomland hardwood, and riverine swamp forest wetlands, within the Swift Creek watershed. Wetlands slated for preservation are generally high-quality wetlands which will offset impacts to medium and high-quality wetlands. 5.3. BASELINE CONDITIONS 5.3.1. Physiography, Topography, and Land Use The Mitigation Project lies within the Southeastern Floodplain and Low Terraces ecoregion of the Coastal Plain Physiographic province. The area is referred to as the inner Coastal Plain and is characterized by more relief than the outer Coastal Plain. Elevations range from approximately 25 to 600 feet above sea level. The Coastal Plain largely consists of marine sedimentary rocks including sand, clay, and limestone. This area is the largest geologic belt in the State and formed through the deposition of estuarine and marine sediments approximately 100 to 140 million years ago. The underlying sediments of the Mitigation Project are from the Yorktown Formation and Duplin Formation Undivided. The Yorktown Formation is described as fossiliferous clay with varying amounts of fine -graded sand, bluish gray, shell material commonly concentrated in lenses and is found mainly in area north of the Neuse River. The Duplin Formation is described as shelly, medium to course -grained sand, sandy marl, and limestone, bluish gray, mainly in the area south of Neuse River (NCGS 1985). The Mitigation Project has been predominantly utilized for agricultural uses, such as row crop production, throughout its history as evidence by the 1954 historical aerial (Figure 6a). The surrounding area is predominately rural and has low development pressure at this time. Overall, the project watershed is approximately 94.6% agriculture, 4.2% forest and 1.2% rangeland based on the North Carolina GAP land use classification using 2013 and 2016 aerial photography (McKerrow 2003). Page 17 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.3.2. Soils Soils within the Mitigation Project have been mapped by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (USDA 2010) and are displayed on Figure 8 in Appendix A. Fifteen soil series are mapped within the Mitigation Project: Altavista fine sandy loam, Ballahack fine sandy loam, Chewacla silt loam, Conetoe loamy sand, Dogue fine sandy loam, Goldsboro sandy loam, Norfolk loamy sand, Rains fine sandy loam, Roanoke loam, State loamy sand, Tarboro loamy sand, Wagram loamy sand, Wahee fine sandy loam, Wehadkee silt loam, and Wickham sandy loam. Table 5 shows the soil map units found within the Mitigation Project Site. Table 5. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils Map Unit Name Unit Symbol Hydric Ratin < Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes AaA Predominantly Non -Hydric Ballahack fine sandy loam Ba Predominantly Hydric Chewacla silt loam Cc Predominantly Non -Hydric Conetoe loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes CeB Non -Hydric Dogue fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes D a Predominantly Non -Hydric Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes GoA Predominantly Non -Hydric Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes NoA Predominantly Non -Hydric Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes NoB Non -Hydric Rains fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal Plain RaA Hydric Roanoke loam. Ro Hydric State loamy sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes StB Non -Hydric Tarboro loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes TaB Non -Hydric Wa ram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes WaB Predominantly Non -Hydric Wahee fine sandy loam We Predominantly Non -Hydric Wehadkee silt loam Wh Predominantly Hydric Wickham sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes NoA Predominantly Non -Hydric 5.3.3. Valley Classification The Mitigation Project is located within the Upper Coastal Plain physiographic province and the surrounding fluvial landforms are typical of this region. The Mitigation Project is bisected by ridge separating an upper flat terrace and a lower terrace associated with the floodplain of White Oak Swamp and Swift Creek, a tributary of the Tar River. The upper terrace is typical of coastal plain headwater systems and maintains a gradual slope towards Swift Creek. Modifications of the drainage patterns within the Mitigation Project's upper terrace are apparent and likely occurred prior to the 1950s when the site was converted for agricultural use. Extensive ditching throughout the upper terrace was utilized to drain historically wet features based on the NRCS soils information and headwater wetland systems. The topography left today exhibits shallow valleys and with gentle slopes draining towards the Swift Creek floodplain for each of the three primary drainages within the Mitigation Project (Tributaries A, D, and E) as shown on Figure 7 in Appendix A. Based on this information, there is no apparent classification for the upper terrace drainages in the Rosgen Valley classifications (Rosgen 1996). The lower terrace is associated with the floodplain of White Oak Swamp and Swift Creek and is a fairly broad flat floodplain crossed by sand hills that lie parallel to Swift Creek. This portion of the site is most similar to a valley type X — very broad and gentle slopes associated with extensive floodplains — according to the Rosgen valley classification (Rosgen 1996). Page 18 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.3.4. Jurisdictional Determination Waters of the U.S., including streams and wetlands, are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3 et al. and are protected by Section 404 and other applicable sections of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Impacts to these regulated resources are administered and enforced by the Wilmington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as well as other federal and state government agencies. Amec Foster Wheeler, including Professional Wetland and Soil Scientists, evaluated the potentially jurisdictional waters using the Routine On -Site Determination Method as defined in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain regional supplement (Environmental Laboratory 2010). This technique uses a multi -parameter approach which requires positive evidence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Areas exhibiting wetland characteristics within the Mitigation Project were considered potentially jurisdictional waters. The landward limits of these wetlands were acquired in the field via Global Positioning System (GPS) technology using a hand-held GPS device. The field evaluation also included an assessment of the wetlands within the Mitigation Project site using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) as outlined in the NC WAM User Manual (Version 4.1) (NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team 2010), effective October 2010. The field evaluation was conducted on April 26 and 27, 2017. A request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) has been completed and will be submitted to the USACE, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, to the limits of regulatory jurisdiction on the Mitigation Project and is attached in Appendix H. Table 6. Evaluated Jurisdictional Features within the Mitigation Project FEATURE NAME FEATURE TYPE 1p ACREAGE/LINEAR FEET Wetland No. 1 Jurisdictional Wetland 12.65 Acres Wetland No. 2 Jurisdictional Wetland 2.43 Acres Wetland No. 3 Jurisdictional Wetland 0.01 Acres Wetland No. 4 Jurisdictional Wetland 0.06 Acres Wetland No. 5 Jurisdictional Wetland 0.34 Acres Wetland No. 6 Jurisdictional Wetland 164.81 Acres Wetland No. 7 Jurisdictional Wetland 3.17 Acres Wetland No. 8 Jurisdictional Wetland 0.17 Acres UT - A Intermittent/Perennial RPW 6,761 Feet UT - B Perennial RPW 1,662 Feet UT - C Intermittent/Perennial RPW 473 Feet UT - D Intermittent/Perennial RPW 2,619 Feet UT - E Intermittent/Perennial RPW 582 Feet UT - F Perennial RPW 787 Feet UT - G Perennial RPW 1,075 Feet UT - H Perennial RPW 642 Feet UT - I Intermittent/Perennial RPW 477 Feet UT - J Perennial RPW 635 Feet UT - K-1 Perennial RPW 598 Feet UT - K-2 Perennial RPW 151 Feet White Oak Swamp Perennial RPW 2,294 Feet Swift Creek Perennial RPW 3,298 Feet Total Jurisdictional Wetlands 183.6 ac./ -22,054 LF Ditch 1 830 Feet Ditch 2 673 Feet Ditch 3 700 Feet Ditch 4 344 Feet Ditch 5 1,186 Feet Ditch 6 1,453 Feet Ditch 7 512 Feet Page 19 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina FEATURE NAME FEATURE TYPE ACREAGE/LINEAR FEET Ditch 8 1,496 Feet Ditch 9 300 Feet Ditch 10 1,137 Feet Ditch 11 94 Feet Ditch 12 158 Feet Ditch 13 261 Feet Ditch 14 952 Feet Ditch 15 Ditch 16 Ditch 17 Ditch 18 2,379 Feet 694 Feet 598 Feet 1,437 Feet Ditch 19 742 Feet Ditch 20 86 Feet Ditch 21 870 Feet Ditch 22 867 Feet Ditch 23 511 Feet Ditch 24 481 Feet Ditch 25 789 Feet Ditch 26 934 Feet Ditch 27 768 Feet Ditch 28 2,161 Feet Ditch 29 247 Feet Ditch 30 212 Feet Ditch 31 454 Feet Ditch 32 570 Feet Ditch 33 160 Feet Total Ditches 25,056 LF 409.4 Acres -Uplands Total Easement Acreage --593 Acres 5.3.4.1. Description of Jurisdictional Features Wetlands 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are jurisdictional headwater forest wetlands, comprised of palustrine forested areas and located near the northern boundary of the Mitigation Project area. These wetlands are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Two drainages (UT -A and UT -B) are associated with the wetland complex encompassing Wetlands 1, 2, 3, and 4, while one drainage (UT -E) is associated with Wetland 1. Wetland 6 is a large jurisdictional bottomland hardwood forest wetland, comprised of palustrine forested, scrub shrub, and emergent wetland areas and located within the southern half of the Mitigation Project area. Scrub shrub and emergent wetland areas, most impounded, occur within the northern portion of this large wetland complex. Portions of this wetland complex are hydrologically influenced by North American beaver (Castor canadensis) activity. The vegetation includes red maple, sweetgum, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), possumhaw (Viburnum nudum), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Black willow (Salix nigra) is also present in depressional pockets. Dense pockets of Japanese stilt -grass (Microstegium vimineum) occur in the groundstory of some of these areas. Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and ferns also occupy the groundstory. A riverine swamp forest wetland occurs within the floodplain of Swift Creek in the southern portion of Wetland 6. This riverine swamp forest wetland drains into Swift Creek and White Oak Swamp. The vegetation includes red maple, sweetgum, river birch, willow oak (Quercus phellos), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana). Multiple drainages are associated with Wetland 6, including UT -A, UT -B, UT -C, UT -D, UT - F, UT -G, UT -J, UT -K-1, and UT -K-2. Page 20 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Wetlands 7 and 8 are jurisdictional bottomland hardwood forest wetlands, comprised of palustrine forested wetland areas and located within the southern half of the Mitigation Project area. The vegetation includes species that are common to Wetland 6. White Oak Swamp is a jurisdictional perennial permanent water, classified as 4' order or greater, which flows directly into Swift Creek, a traditionally navigable water (TNW). Swift Creek is classified by the USACE Wilmington District office as a TNW. Swift Creek is the ultimate destination for all waters of the U.S. located within the Mitigation Project. Stream UT -A is a jurisdictional perennial relatively permanent water (RPW) and is classified as a 1St order stream. Stream UT -A flows into Wetland 6, and ultimately into Swift Creek. UT -A becomes a 2' order stream after the confluence with UT -B. The stream originates east of Wetland 2. Stream UT -B is a jurisdictional perennial RPW and is classified as a 1St order stream. Stream UT -B flows into UT -A, and ultimately into Swift Creek. The stream originates at the end of UT -I along the northern boundary line of the Mitigation Project area. Stream UT -C is a jurisdictional intermittent/perennial RPW and is classified as a 1St order stream. Stream UT -C flows into UT -A, which ultimately flows into Swift Creek. Stream UT -D is a jurisdictional intermittent/perennial RPW and is classified as a 1St order stream. Stream UT -D which flows into UT -A, which ultimately flows into Swift Creek. The stream originates south of Wetland 1. Stream UT -E is a jurisdictional intermittent/perennial RPW and is classified as 1St order stream. UT -E flows into UT -D, followed by UT -A, and ultimately into Swift Creek. The stream originates north of Wetland 1. Stream UT -F is a jurisdictional perennial RPW and is classified as a 1St order stream. UT -F originates within Wetland 6 and flows into UT -A before reaching Swift Creek. Stream UT -G is a jurisdictional perennial RPW and is classified as a 1St order stream. UT -G flows into UT -A, which ultimately flows into Swift Creek. The stream originates within Wetland 6. Stream UT -H is a jurisdictional perennial RPW and is classified as 1St order stream. UT -H flows off property within the eastern portion of the Mitigation Project area; however, UT -H ultimately empties into Swift Creek. The stream originates in the southeastern edge of the property. Stream UT -I is a jurisdictional intermittent/perennial RPW and is classified as 1St order stream. UT -I originates south of Wetland 2 and flows into UT -B, before flowing into UT -A and then reaching Swift Creek. Stream UT -J is a jurisdictional perennial RPW, classified as a 1St order stream. UT -J originates within Wetland 6 and flows into White Oak Swamp prior to reaching Swift Creek. Streams UT -K-1 and UT -K-2 are jurisdictional perennial RPWs and are classified as 1St order streams. Both Streams UT -K-1 and UT -K-2 flow off property into White Oak Swamp before reaching Swift Creek. The streams originate within Wetland 6. Ditches: There are a total of 33 ditches located within the Mitigation Project area and encompassing over 25,000 linear feet. Ditches are located in both wetland areas and upland areas and vary between ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial RPW characteristics. Page 21 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.3.5. Existing Plant Communities Wetland plant communities within the Mitigation Project site were characterized using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM 2010). Two predominant wetland plant communities exist within the site: bottomland hardwood forest and riverine swamp forest. The Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Weakley 2012) was utilized to characterize the existing upland plant communities within the Mitigation Project area. Three predominant upland plant communities exist within the site: mixed hardwood forest, pine forest and mixed pine -hardwood forest. Botanical taxonomic nomenclature presented below is in accordance with Weakley (Weakley 2015). Riverine Swamp Forest The riverine swamp forest community occurs along the southern and southwestern boundaries of the Mitigation Project site along Swift Creek. The canopy and shrub strata comprise red maple, sweetgum, willow oak, cherrybark oak, river birch, bald cypress, and American hornbeam. The groundstory stratum is sparse with scattered occurrence of Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and sedges (Carex spp.) and grasses. Bottomland Hardwood Forest The bottomland hardwood forest community occurs throughout the large forested tract in the southern half of the Mitigation Project site. The canopy and shrub strata include red maple, sweetgum, sycamore, green ash, river birch, wax myrtle, possumhaw, and Chinese privet. Black willow is also present in depressional pockets. Dense pockets of Japanese stilt -grass occur in the groundstory stratum of some of these areas. Giant cane and ferns also occupy the groundstory. Lizard's tail and soft rush are present in depressional pockets. Mixed Hardwood Forest The mixed hardwood forest community also occurs throughout the large forested tract in the southern half of the site. The canopy and shrub strata comprise a broad assemblage of species: water oak (Quercus nigra), sweetgum, mockernut hickory (Carya alba), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), black cherry (Prunus serotina), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginianus), flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), wax myrtle, and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.). The groundstory stratum includes muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), yellow jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens), blackberry (Rubus sp.), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia -creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), wood -sorrel (Oxalis spp.), and violets (viola spp.). Mixed Pine -Hardwood Forest The mixed pine -hardwood forest community includes many of the plant species that are common to the canopy, shrub and groundstory strata of the mixed hardwood forest, with the addition of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) as a canopy and subcanopy associate. These areas occur throughout the large forested areas in the southern half of the mitigation area. Pine Forest Loblolly pine stands are not a dominant community within the southern half of the site. However, some of these stands contain pine trees with values of diameter at breast height (dbh) that range from 8 to 16 inches. The understory includes species that are common to the mixed hardwood forest and mixed pine -hardwood forest communities. No clearcuts or planted pine plantations occur within the Mitigation Project area. Page 22 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Agricultural Land Use Agricultural fields occupy a large portion of the northern half of the site. Some of the fields are fallow, while others have been recently planted with corn. 5.3.6. Baseline Stream Conditions Existing conditions assessments were conducted by Palustrine Group and Amec Foster Wheeler personnel between March and April 2017. Visual assessments were conducted on each of the stream/ditch systems listed below is Table 7. Table 7. Stream Summary Information Feature Name W UT- A Existing Length 6,761 473 582 2,619 (ft) Valley Slope (ft/ft 0.001 — 0.009 0.005 0.005 0.007 Drainage Area —339 —30 —38 —169 (Acres) Perennial (P) or I/P I/P UP I/P Intermittent (I) Existing Conditions G5c (Upper) G5c ES G5c (Upper) Rosgen C5 (Lower) E5 (Lower) Classification FEMA None None None None Classification 5.3.7. Stream Geomorphology — Proposed Restoration Reaches The existing conditions channel morphology assessments were performed to document the current condition of the stream and adjacent ditch features within the Mitigation Project. The existing conditions assessments included on-site data gathering and visual stability assessment and review of historic aerial photography, and available LiDAR data gathered obtained from the North Carolina Flood Mapping Program. Based upon review of the historic aerials, extensive modification of stream and wetland features was conducted prior to 1954 to deepen and straighten existing stream features, which in some cases appear to have been relocated outside or away from their natural valley drastically altering the historic drainage patterns of the Mitigation Project. Additionally, wetlands were drained through the construction of ditches which drain into currently existing jurisdictional features. As with most historic farm sites in eastern North Carolina, the ditches/channels are very straight with little sinuosity and typically very deep to effectively lower the surrounding ground water table, which aids in agricultural production operations. The majority of the identified stream features within the Mitigation Project have been channelized, as previously discussed, and remain straight and very deep with relatively step side slopes (1:1 — 1.5:1). Typical bankfull indicators used to estimate bankfull stage were indistinguishable in the majority of existing stream channels, however best guess practices were utilized in conjunction with predicted channel dimensions from the North Carolina State University published regional curves for the coastal plain. The estimated bankfull indicators were utilized to determine the appropriate Rosgen Classifications stated above in Table 7. Page 23 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Stream UT -A is located completely within the Mitigation Project except for where it enters Swift Creek. Stream UT -A is characterized as a small stream that is typically driven by the groundwater conditions and stormwater runoff. UT -A is approximately 6,761 linear feet and flows south along the western portion of the site and picks up stormwater and groundwater flow from existing ditches (Ditch 1 and 2) that drain NC - 33 and adjacent agricultural fields. Along its flow path it picks up additional ditches (Ditch 3 and 4) that drain the western portion of the Mitigation Project and eventually flows down the floodplain terrace and into the floodplain of Swift Creek. Once it enters the floodplain of Swift Creek historic, a portion of the stream is currently dammed by the presence of an existing access road that was constructed above grade. The watershed for UT -A is approximately 339 acres but is primarily driven by ground water and stormwater runoff in its upper reaches. UT -A is currently routed through Ditch 6 which is underwater for most of the year except during times of low water in the surrounding wetland system (Wetland 6). Downstream of the existing access road UT -A has undergone historic modification through channelization and the adjacent spoil piles can still be seen as remnants original dredging of the stream system. In the floodplain of Swift Creek, UT -A intersects Ditches 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 29, 30, and 31 and streams UT -G and UT -F before it eventually drains off-site and into Swift Creek on the eastern property boundary. In the upper portions of UT -A, no vegetation is located within riparian zone and row crops are typically planted directly adjacent to the top of both channel banks. The riparian buffer on the lower portions of UT -A, once it enters the Swift Creek floodplain, are characterized bottomland hardwood forest and riverine swamp forest, typical of the NC coastal plain and consist predominately of mature hardwood species. Preliminary estimates of the bankfull stage yielded width to depth ratios of 0.8 (upper) to 7.5 (lower) and entrenchment ratios of 1.3 (upper) to 33 (lower). The average slope calculated off of available LiDAR of the UT -A is 0.009 ft/ft in the upper portion and 0.001 ft/ft in the floodplain of Swift Creek. Sinuosity for the entire reach ranges from 1.0 (upper) to 1.2 (lower). The Rosgen Classification that most closely describes UT -A in the upper portions is a We and a C5 in the lower portions. Stream UT -C is located completely within the Mitigation Project and is a small stream that is typically driven by the groundwater conditions and stormwater runoff. UT -C is approximately 473 linear feet and flows south through the middle of the Mitigation Project and originates from ground water and stormwater runoff from Ditches 7 and 8 which drain approximately 30 acres of agricultural fields. Along its flow path south it flows down the floodplain terrace and into the floodplain of Swift Creek where it intersects Ditch 32 and into a portion of Wetland No. 6 which eventually outlets into UT -A. The watershed for UT -C is approximately 30 acres but the hydrology for the stream system is primarily driven by ground water and stormwater runoff. UT -C has undergone historic modification through channelization riparian zone in the upper reaches exhibit no vegetation and row crops are typically planted directly adjacent to the top of both channel banks. The riparian buffer on the lower portions of UT -C, once it enters the floodplain terrace and the Swift Creek floodplain, are characterized bottomland hardwood forest and riverine swamp forest, typical of the NC coastal plain and consist predominately of mature hardwood species. Preliminary estimates of the bankfull stage yielded a width to depth ratio of 6.7 and an entrenchment ratio of 1.5. The average slope calculated off of available LiDAR of the UT -C is 0.005 ft/ft a gradually decreases to once it enters the floodplain of Swift Creek. Sinuosity for the entire reach is approximate 1.0. The Rosgen Classification that most closely describes UT -C is a G5c. Stream UT -E is located completely within the Mitigation Project and is a small headwater stream that is typically driven by the groundwater conditions within the adjacent wetland systems and stormwater runoff. UT -E is approximately 582 linear feet and flows south through the middle of the Mitigation Project and originates from culvert that flows underneath NC -33. UT -E is bordered by a ditch that parallels the stream feature to the east (Ditch 18) and eventually into Ditch 15. Ditch 15 was most likely excavated to effectively drain the adjacent wetland features as evidenced in the 1953 aerial (Figure 6a). Currently, UT -E has been routed away from the valley low point and is cutoff from the floodplain by the adjacent spoils piles that parallel the stream and ditch features. However, during periods of high flow and/or high groundwater inundation the low point of the historic valley within Wetland 1 is inundated with flowing water. The watershed for UT -E is approximately 38 acres but the hydrology for the stream system is primarily driven by ground water and stormwater runoff. The riparian buffer along UT -E, is characterized by bottomland hardwood forest, typical of the NC coastal plain and consist predominately of mature hardwood species. Page 24 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Preliminary estimates of the bankfull stage yielded a width to depth ratio of 6.0 and an entrenchment ratio of 50 where the stream feature is not significantly entrenched. The average slope calculated off of available LiDAR of the UT -C is 0.005 ft/ft. Sinuosity for the entire reach is approximate 1.0. The Rosgen Classification that most closely describes E5. Based upon research of historical aerials, USGS maps, and NRCS soils information, the historical flow path for UT -E most likely drained down through the middle of the Mitigation Project and into what it now Ditch 7, 8 and UT -C instead of towards the south east and effectively into UT -D as it flows today. Proposed restoration efforts will return UT -E to its historic flow path through Rosgen Priority bioengineering techniques. Further discussion of the proposed restoration efforts can be found in Section 5.5 — Mitigation Work Plan. Stream UT -D is located completely within the Mitigation Project and is a small stream that is typically driven by the groundwater conditions and stormwater runoff. UT -D is approximately 2,619 linear feet and flows south through the eastern portion of the Mitigation Project and originates from ground water and stormwater runoff from Ditches 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, and 26 and UT -E which drains approximately 169 acres of agricultural fields and Wetland No. 1. The upper portions of UT -D have been extensively modified through historic channelization creating the deepest and most entrenched stream feature found within the Mitigation Project with depth ranging from 4 — 10 feet deep along its flow path. Once UT -E enters the floodplain of Swift Creek, the channelization is less significant however, the stream has been pushed to the edge of the valley and no longer resides within the lowest portions. Remnant spoil piles can located along UT -E throughout the entire reach. The riparian buffer on the upper portions of UT - D are limited in width and extensive encroachment from agricultural operations has occurred. Once UT -D enters the floodplain of Swift Creek and eventually in Wetland 6 the riparian buffer is extensive and can be characterized as bottomland hardwood forest and riverine swamp forest, typical of the NC coastal plain and consist predominately of mature hardwood species. Preliminary estimates of the bankfull stage yielded width to depth ratios of 6 (upper) to 8 (lower) and entrenchment ratios of 1.7 (upper) to 37.5 (lower). The average slope calculated off of available LiDAR of the UT -D is 0.007 ft/ft and gradually flattens as the stream enters the floodplain of Swift Creek. Sinuosity for the entire reach ranges from 1.0 (upper) to 1.2 (lower). The Rosgen Classification that most closely describes UT -D in the upper portions is a G5c and an E5 in the lower portions. 5.3.8. Wildlife The wildlife within the Mitigation Project area comprises common, forest -dwelling species of mammals, avifauna and herpetofauna. Some of these species may frequent the open areas of the site including the agricultural fields and the edges of these fields. The most common big game mammal observed within the site is the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Small game species that occur on the site include eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallapavo). Common species of non -game wildlife observed or detected (sign) during early 2017 site reconnaissance include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black racer (Coluber constrictor), water snake (Nerodia sp.), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala). Additional bird species that are likely to occur within the site are sharp -shinned hawk (Accipter striatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red -shouldered hawk (Buten lineatus), barred owl (Strix varia), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), red bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), American robin (Turdus migratorius), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), Carolina chickadee (Panus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Panus bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), white eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), solitary vireo (Vireo solitaries), northern parula (Setophaga Page 25 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina americana), and yellow -ramped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). 5.3.9. Protected Species 5.3.9.1. Federally Listed Species Plants and animals listed as federally threatened and endangered are protected under the Endangered Species Act (P.L. 92-205) (ESA) which is administered and enforced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Region 4. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). This section documents the results of a literature and database search and limited on-site reconnaissance to determine the likelihood that federally endangered or threatened species and the bald eagle will be impacted by the proposed mitigation activities on the site. Amec Foster Wheeler conducted a records search to identify documented federally protected species (threatened or endangered) and federal Species of Concern which have elemental occurrences in Edgecombe County and/or vicinity of the Mitigation Project area. The records search was also conducted to determine if designated critical habitat may be within or near the Mitigation Project area. As specifically related to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database search, the query of elemental occurrences encompassed a one -mile radius of the Mitigation Project site boundary. Federal and state databases reviewed for the project are: • NCNHP database (NCNHP 2017) • USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database (USFWS 2017a) • USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (USFWS 2017b) • Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office website (USFWS 2017c) Amec Foster Wheeler also conducted a general field reconnaissance of the Mitigation Project area in April 2017. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to evaluate the plant communities within the Mitigation Project area with respect to the quantity and quality of habitat and the opportunity for utilization (potential for occurrence) by threatened and endangered species. No federally listed, threatened or endangered, animal or plant species were observed during the field reconnaissance. The quality of the existing habitat in the entire project site is presumed to be less than suitable, or not present, for the listed species with a potential for occurrence in Edgecombe County. Table 2 presents the results of the records search for Edgecombe County. Known habitats used by the species listed in Table 2 were compared with the habitats found within the Mitigation Project area to determine the potential for occurrence of each species. The potential, or likelihood, of occurrence, as listed in Table 2, was based on the following factors: • A comparison of the known habitats used by these species • The habitats (if present) within the project site • The quantity, quality, and proximity of these habitats • Observations of these species or their sign during field reconnaissance The likelihood of occurrence for listed species was rated as high, moderate, low or unlikely based on the above criteria. The potential for listed species occurring within the Mitigation Project is presented in Table 8. Page 26 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Table 8. Potential for occurrence of federally listed animal and plant species within the Mitigation Site, Edgecombe County, North Carolina. Common Name Federal Status General Habitat Description Potential for (Scientific Name) Occurrence Forested habitats for nesting and roosting, and Bald eagle Bald and Golden expanses of shallow fresh or salt water for (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Eagle Protection foraging. Nesting habitat generally consists of Unlikely Act densely forested areas of mature trees that are isolated from human disturbance. Mature pine forests, specifically those with longleaf pines averaging 80 to 120 years old and loblolly pines averaging 70 to 100 years old. Pine Red -cockaded woodpecker trees with red -heart disease are preferred for cavity (Picoides borealis) Endangered nesting. Suitable foraging habitat typically Unlikely exhibits sparse understory (minimal hardwood regeneration). Fire (control burning) is important in maintaining suitable foraging and nesting habitat. Relatively fast flowing, well -oxygenated, Tar River spinymussel circumneutral pH water in sites prone to (Elliptio steinstansana) Endangered significant swings in water velocity, with a Moderate substrate comprised of relatively silt -free loose gravel and/or coarse sand. Notes: NCNHP List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina; USFWS IPaC; USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System - Species Profiles; County list (USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services); NatureServe Explorer. The results of the May 11, 2017, database search request to the NCNHP and the results of the USFWS IPaC resource list search are included in Appendix I. Each protected species identified in Table 8 is discussed below. The bald eagle was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967. The species was reclassified from endangered to threatened throughout the lower 48 states on July 12, 1995. It was proposed to be removed from the federal endangered species list on July 6, 1999. On July 9, 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list. Although no longer afforded protection by the ESA, the bald eagle is still protected under the BGEPA and the MBTA, both of which protect bald eagles by prohibiting killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests, or eggs. Habitats include riparian areas along the coast and near major rivers, wetlands and reservoirs. Bald eagles typically nest in large, tall, open -topped pines typically near large open water bodies. They feed primarily on fish, but will also take a variety of birds, mammals and turtles. The portion of Swift Creek that is conterminous to the southern boundary of the Mitigation Project area may provide a limited opportunity for foraging (fisheries) where the canopy of the riverine swamp forest community does not overlap the creek. No eagle nests are known to occur within the area. No eagles or their nests were observed during site reconnaissance. Based on these considerations, the potential for occurrence was presumed to be unlikely for the bald eagle. In 1970, the red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was officially listed as endangered by the USFWS. With passage of the ESA in 1973, the RCW received the protection afforded listed species under the ESA. The endangered status of the RCW primarily is due to four environmental factors that have been shown to limit its numbers: (1) hardwood encroachment; (2) a shortage of suitable cavity trees; (3) loss and fragmentation of habitat, and (4) demographic isolation. RCWs excavate cavities for roosting and nesting in living pines and use living pines almost exclusively for foraging substrate, preferring longleaf pine when available. RCWs require open pine woodlands and savannas with large old pines for nesting and roosting habitat (i.e., cavity trees). Cavity trees must be in open pine stands with little or no hardwood midstory and few or no over -story hardwoods. Suitable nesting habitat consists of pine, pine -hardwood, and hardwood -pine stands that contain pines 60 years in age or older and that are within 0.5 mile of suitable foraging habitat. Suitable Page 27 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina foraging habitat consists of a pine or pine -hardwood stand in which 50 percent or more of the dominant trees are pines and the dominant pine trees are generally 30 years in age or older. The quality of existing upland habitat on the Mitigation Project area is less than suitable, or not present, for foraging or cavity - nesting. The hardwood dominant stands on the site do not constitute RCW habitat. The pine component in the mixed pine -hardwood forest and pine forest communities does not contain old -age longleaf pine. Although scattered openings occur within some areas of the upland habitat, the habitat is generally unsuitable for foraging or cavity -nesting due to the presence of a well-established understory of hardwoods and/or pines. Overall, the potential for occurrence of the RCW within the Mitigation Project area was presumed to be unlikely. Most of the freshwater mussel species known to occur in the U.S. are distributed in the southeast. The dominant mussel species in Atlantic coastal streams is the introduced Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), but multiple native species reside in the larger perennial streams. The Swift Creek basin supports at least nine rare mussel species: Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) (Prince 2017). The Swift Creek basin supports some of the most extensive populations of these species (Alderman, et al. 1993). The unnamed tributaries within the site are warmwater streams dominated by sand (with silt along some reaches), which have slow -flowing lower gradients. The federally endangered Tar River spinymussel is unlikely to occur in the unnamed tributaries within the project. The NCNHP database query results included one reported element occurrence (EO) of the Tar River spinymussel within a one -mile radius of the Mitigation Project area (NCNHP 2017). This record (EO ID: 21437) was located in Swift Creek, southeast and downstream of the site. The last observation date for this record was June 18, 1991. Overall, the potential for occurrence of the Tar River spinymussel within the Mitigation Project area was presumed to be moderate, but limited to its potential for occurrence solely within Swift Creek. 5.3.9.2. State Species of Concern The North Carolina State Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 to 113-337) provides guidelines to protect wildlife and plant species that have been determined to be of concern in the state (15A NCAC 10I .0102 Protection of Endangered/Threatened/Special Concern). These state listed endangered, threatened and special concern species include those thought to have populations of declining, rare or unknown status other than those listed under the federal ESA. While the state listed species are not protected by federal law, the list provides a valuable tool for conservation measures and protection planning. Table 9 provides the state listed species for Edgecombe County (February 2014) for which there may be suitable habitat within the Mitigation Project area. Page 28 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Table 9. Site Suitable, State Species of Concern for Edgecombe County, North Carolina Page 29 of 57 Documented Common Name State County General Habitat Description Occurrence (Scientific Name) Status' Statusz within 1 -mile of Site' Vertebrates Open forest habitats of oak and pine where older, cavity -filled trees are located. In the Coastal Plain, Eastern Fox Squirrel longleaf pine or loblolly pine and oak woods, pine (Sciurus niger) W2 Current flatwoods and open borders of cypress swamps and No low thickets. Broken forest, scattered woods in farmland and other half -wooded situations with nut or cone bearing trees are present. Man -created habitats, mainly in cleared nonriverine Henslow's Sparrow swamp and pocosin forest that are now maintained (Ammodramus SC Current in early succession by mowing (or burning). No henslowii) Clearcut pocosins and other damp weedy fields (breeding season only). Grasshopper Sparrow W 1 Prairie, old fields, open grasslands, cultivated fields, (Ammodramus W5' Current and savanna. Most common on managed grassland No savannarum) in the presence of clump -forming vegetation. Loggerhead Shrike Pastures and farmland, with thorny trees or shrubs or (Lanius ludovicianus) SC, W2 Current barbed wire fences (for impaling prey). Sandy soil No areas are favored over wetter or more clay -like soils. Streams, lakes, ponds, swamps, marshes, and Hooded Merganser estuaries. Winters mostly in freshwater but also (L tes W3 Current regularly in estuaries and sheltered bays. Nests No cucullllatatus) usually in tree cavities in forested regions near water, often near fast -flowing streams, also forest ponds and lakes, flooded forest, riverside swamps. Open, xeric habitats with well -drained, sandy or Southern Hognose sandy -loam soils such as sand ridges, stabilized Snake SC Current coastal sand dunes, pine flatwoods, mixed oak -pine No (Heterodon simus) woodlands and forests, scrub oak woods, and oak hammocks; also old fields and river floodplains. Neuse River Neuse and Tar drainages. Streams with relatively Waterdog SC Current high oxygen levels and water quality. Species can be yes (Necturus lewisi) found in large accumulations of submerged leaves in eddies, or backwaters of streams. Roanoke Bass Neuse and Tar drainages. Rocky and sandy pools of (Ambloplites SR Historical creeks and small to medium rivers, with moderate to No cavifrons) low gradient, clear to often moderately turbid warm water, and rock, gravel, sand, and silt substrates. Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse drainages. Sandy Glassy Darter WS Current runs of creeks and small to medium rivers. Species No (Etheostoma vitreum) is often found in sand- and gravel -bottomed streams with moderate to fast current. Least Brook Lamprey (Lampetra T Current Tar and Neuse drainages. Clean, clear gravel riffles No and runs of creeks and small rivers. ae tera) Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus W2 Current Tar and Neuse drainages. Sandy runs and flowing No matutinus) pools of creeks and small to medium rivers. Page 29 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Page 30 of 57 Documented Common Name State County General Habitat Description Occurrence (Scientific Name) Status' Status within 1 -mile of Site' Ironcolor Shiner Pools and slow runs of low gradient, small acidic (Notropis SR Historical creeks and small rivers with sandy substrate. In No chal baeus) clear, well -vegetated water. Tar and Neuse drainages. Sand-, gravel-, and Carolina Madtom detritus -bottomed riffles and runs of small to (Noturus furiosus) T Current medium rivers. Species is often found in very Yes shallow water with little or no current over fine to coarse sand bottom. Invertebrates Roanoke, Chowan, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear drainages. Triangle Floater Streams with a mixture of coarser or finer gravel (Alasmidonta T Current with sand and mud, or in between large stones. Yes undulata) Species is also found in big rivers in muddy sand with moderate current. Box Spike Neuse, Lumber, Pee Dee drainages; Lake (Elliptio W3' Current Waccamaw. Freshwater river basins. Species is No cistellaeformis) W5 often found along the banks of rivers, often among the tree roots. Carolina Slabshell W2 Drainages north to the White Oak drainage. Sandy (Elliptio congaraea) W5 Current substrates in swift water of medium sized rivers to No smaller creeks. Tar and Neuse drainages. Coarse to medium sized Yellow Lance sandy substrates, rocks, and in mud, in slack water (Elliptio lanceolate) E Current areas. Species is found in the main channels of No drainages down to streams as small as a meter across. Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, White Oak, Cape Fear, Roanoke Slabshell Lumber, and Yadkin -Pee Dee drainages. Near -shore (Elliptio roanokensis) T Current trough habitats in sand and gravel substrates. Yes Tributary creeks and rivers occasionally provide significant habitat. Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Yadkin -Pee Dee drainages. Coarse sand and gravel at the downstream Atlantic Pigtoe E Current edge of riffles. Fast flowing, well oxygenated waters No (Fusconaia masoni) with high quality riverine/large creek habitat. Species is typically found in headwaters or rural watersheds. Yellow Lampmussel Chowan, Roanoke, Neuse, Tar, Cape Fear, Lumber, (Lampsilis cariosa) E Current Yadkin -Pee Dee drainages. Larger streams and No rivers, with sand and gravel and stable low gradient. Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Yadkin - Eastern Lampmussel T Current Pee Dee drainages. Small streams, large rivers, Yes (Lampsilis radiata) ponds, and lakes. Species is found on a wide variety of substrate types, but prefers sand or gravel. Green Floater Roanoke, Tar, Neuse and Yadkin -Pee Dee (Lasmigona E Current drainages; New and Watauga drainages. Quiet, No subviridis) smaller streams, in pools and eddies with gravelly and sandy bottoms, and good water. Tidewater Mucket Chowan, Roanoke, and Tar drainages, and abundant (Leptodea ochracea) T Current in Lake Waccamaw. Ponds, canals, and slow- No moving sections of rivers; including artificial Page 30 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 'E = State Endangered (animal) T = State threatened (animal) SC = Special Concern (animal) Page 31 of 57 Documented Common Name State County General Habitat Description Occurrence (Scientific Name) Status' Status within 1 -mile of Site' impoundments. Species is found in a variety of substrates, including silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and occasionally clay. Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Yadkin -Pee Dee, Creeper Catawba, Broad, and French Broad drainages. (Strophitus T Current Streams and rivers in a range of flow conditions No undulatus) (rarely in high -gradient streams of mountainous regions); occasionally lakes and ponds, particularly in outlets. Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Yadkin -Pee Dee, and Catawba Notched Rainbow SC Current drainages. Coarse substrates, including gravel, No (Villosa constricta) cobble, boulder, and bedrock, occasionally clay or silt. North Carolina Spiny Chowan, Roanoke, Neuse, and Tar drainages. Clear, Crayfish (Orconectes SC Current shallow permanent rivers and streams with little or No carolinensis) no visible flow. Pamlico Crayfish Tar and Neuse drainages. Sluggish streams and (Procambarus W3 Current ditches, with sandy mud bottoms. No medialis) Vascular Plants Crowfoot Sedge SR -P Historical Swamp forests, especially over calcareous No (Carex crus-corvi) substrates. Bellow's -beak Sedge (Carex W1 Current Somewhat shaded dry to mesic woodlands. No physorhyncha) Fernald's Tick -trefoil Sandhills, dry flatwoods, and dry to mesic (Desmodium SR -P Historical hardwood -pine woodlands. No fernaldii) Water Purslane SR -P Historical Stagnant water of pools, sluggish streams, ponds, No (Didiplis diandra) and old beaverponds. Cottongrass (Eriophorum W 1 Historical Pocosins acidic seeps, and peat -burn pools (peaty No virginicum) sites). Slow-moving or stagnant waters of swamps (pools Featherfoil SR -0 Historical in blackwater or brownwater swamps), millponds, No (Hottonia inflata) beaverponds, sag ponds, oxbows, rivers, and interdune ponds. Violet Lespedeza (Lespedeza W7 Current Woodlands and woodland borders. N o frutescens) Yellow Water - crowfoot SC -H Historical Pools in floodplains of small stream blackwater No (Ranunculus swamps, other stagnant or slowly moving waters. flabellaris) Pale Beaksedge (Rhynchospora W1 Current Savanna-pocosin and sandhill-pocosin ecotones, No pallida) peaty seepage bogs, and sandhill seeps. 'E = State Endangered (animal) T = State threatened (animal) SC = Special Concern (animal) Page 31 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina SR = Significantly Rare (animal) WI = Watch Category 1 includes animals that are known to be declining in North Carolina, for one reason or another W2 = Watch Category 2 includes animals that are rare to uncommon in North Carolina, but are not necessarily considered to be declining or otherwise in trouble W3 = Watch Category 3 includes animals that are poorly known in North Carolina, but are not necessarily considered to be declining or otherwise in trouble W5 = Watch Category 5 includes animals with increasing amounts of threats to its habitat, whether or not populations are known to be declining SC -H = Special Concern -Historical - any species or higher taxon of plant that occurred in North Carolina at one time, but for which all known populations are currently considered to be either historical or extirpated) SR -P = Significantly Rare -Peripheral - the species is at the periphery of its range in North Carolina SR -O = Significantly Rare -Other - the range of the species is sporadic or cannot be described by the other Significantly Rare categories W7 = Watch Category 7 includes plants with inadequate information about their distribution and rarity in North Carolina 2 County Status = Current or Historical Element Occurrences. 'North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Natural Heritage Program Data Services. http://ncnhp.org/web/nhp/database-search. Website accessed May 11, 2017 5.3.10. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Summary Amec Foster Wheeler conducted a background research in January 2017 on the Mitigation Project. Based on this background research, it was clear that no archaeological resources or architectural resources had been recorded within the boundaries of the proposed Mitigation Project (Figure 13a in Appendix A); however, several known historic resources were present, within the site, but unrecorded. The literature and records search also revealed that no archaeological sites or significant architectural resources had been recorded within the immediate project vicinity. Fieldwork for the archaeological reconnaissance survey was focused on areas within the project area that may be impacted directly by the proposed mitigation plan, such as stream and wetland improvements. Accordingly, shovel testing was conducted in these areas of proposed impacts. As a result of the archaeological reconnaissance survey, isolated brick fragments and a small historic artifact scatter were identified during pedestrian inspection as shown on Figure 13b in Appendix A. The historic scatter was found in association with what appears to be an old well within an overgrown thicket adjacent to SR 33. This seems to represent the location of a structure; however, no structure is depicted at this location on the 1905 or 1908 topographic maps (Figures 5a and 5b, respectively, in Appendix A), nor is there one evident in an aerial photo dating to 1954 (Figure 6a in Appendix A). One of the brick fragments identified during the reconnaissance survey appears to be in the vicinity of a collection of structures apparent on the 1954 aerial photograph (Figure 6a in Appendix A) of the area. No additional remains were found in this location and it has been heavily plowed. While the artifact scatter does represent an unrecorded archaeological site and the additional work in the vicinity of the brick fragment may reveal an archaeological site in this location too; the proposed PRMP would not impact these portions of the study area. Should the plans change and impacts in these spots be proposed, additional archaeological investigation may be required. One additional brick fragment was identified in the vicinity of Tributary A- 1, which is proposed for stream restoration. No structure is depicted at this location on historic maps or aerials and the fragment likely represents an isolated artifact displaced by heavy plowing conducted during row crop production. It is unlikely that this brick fragment represents the remains of a significant cultural resource. Shovel testing (n=23) was conducted judgmentally in upland portions of the study area that will be impacted by stream and wetland restoration. All of these tests were negative. An informal historic architectural reconnaissance survey was also conducted as part of this investigation in order to provide preliminary NRHP eligibility determinations for four known historic structures and a historic cemetery within the study area. Based on this investigation, none of these appear to be eligible for the NRHP based on their dilapidated conditions or lack of significant architectural style. The Bulluck Cemetery, located within an overgrown thicket adjacent to SR 33. Based on the site visit, it does not display characteristics that would make it eligible for NRHP listing; however, it is protected by North Carolina state law and should not be impacted. At present, no impacts to this portion of the survey area are planned. Page 32 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina As a result of the cultural resource reconnaissance, it seems that the impacts associated with this mitigation plan are unlikely to have adverse effects on significant cultural resources. This information was provided for planning purposes and additional investigation may be required to fulfil Section 106 requirements. Full copies of the Archeological Reconnaissance Survey and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey are located in Appendix J. 5.4. MITIGATION WORK PLAN 5.4.1. Mitigation Project Site The Mitigation Project is generally located at 35.9984 °N and 77.6062 °W. The proposed Mitigation Project is currently under an option to purchase agreement by Palustrine Group, LLC. The proposed conservation easements will encompass approximately 593 acres of protected land and is expected to permanently protect approximately 208 acres of preserved, enhanced, and restored wetlands and approximately 4.5 miles (24,000 linear feet) of preserved, enhanced, and restored unnamed tributaries to Swift Creek as illustrated in Figure 14a and Figure 14b in Appendix A. 5.4.2. Wetland Mitigation 5.4.2.1. Wetland Preservation Wetland preservation activities within the Mitigation Project are anticipated to protect approximately 112.6 acres of wetlands, as shown in Figure 14a in Appendix A. The proposed wetland preservation areas: 10, 13, and 14 are part of the active floodplain of Swift Creek and consist of a mix of high quality bottomland hardwood forests communities and cypress -gum swamp with a few scattered Coastal Plain semi-permanent impoundments. Wetlands 2, 4, 5, and 6 are located in the adjacent upland areas and are connected to the larger wetland complex of Swift Creek by tributaries A-1, E-3, and D. Riparian corridors will be reestablished with restoration of these tributaries with native vegetation. The proposed corridor width is 300 feet on either side of the tributaries. 5.4.2.2. Wetland Enhancement Wetland enhancement activities within the Mitigation Project are proposed within Wetlands 1, 7, 11, and 12 as shown in Figure 14a in Appendix A. These jurisdictional wetland areas are have been hydraulically modified through the construction of ditches which were constructed to effectively drain the water table for agricultural use. Additionally, an access road bisecting portions of Wetlands 11 and 12 was constructed above the natural grade and is acting as dam and causing ponding of these existing features. Existing ditches within the existing wetland feature, not considered for stream restoration/enhancement/preservation activities will be filled. Soil from adjacent upland areas within the existing row crop areas will be excavated and used to fill the ditches to match the surrounding grade. Additionally, the road that bisects Wetlands 11 and 12 will be excavated down to natural grade and a low water crossing will be installed to allow the natural flow of surface water between the adjacent wetland features. In areas where ponding has occurred, the natural plant community will be established in accordance Section 5.4.2.4 Natural Community Reestablishment. 5.4.2.3. Wetland Restoration Wetland restoration activities within the Mitigation Project are proposed within Wetland 3, as shown in Figure 14a in Appendix A. The area of restoration is currently in row crop production and has been extensively ditched. There is a jurisdictional wetland (Wetland 2) just to the west of the restoration area and would be connected after the ditches have been filled. A detailed hydric soils investigation was conducted by Amec Foster Wheeler Licensed Soil Scientist on March 7 and 8, 2017, to evaluate and determine the extents of the of the Roanoke Silt Loam (Ro) soils mapped in the NRCS Soil Survey. This report can be found in Appendix E. Page 33 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Within the identified limits of Wetland 3, minor grading of the existing topography will be required to fill in the existing ditches and provide areas of high ground and low ground throughout the project area to recreate what would have most likely been the historic topography. In areas where down cutting of the existing soils will be required, the topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled until grading operations have been completed. The topsoil will be reinstalled and all care will be taken to avoid compaction of the soils. Once grading operations are complete, the mitigation work plan proposes to re-establish native bottomland hardwood forest within the higher areas of Wetland 3 and in the lower areas wetter tolerant species like bald cypress, swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) will be established. The proposed vegetation community establishment descriptions are below. Wetland restoration will also occur in other areas of hydric soils along with the tributary corridors. These areas have been ditched or have been drained by the ditches of the tributaries. Native vegetation along with filling the ditches and raising the bed elevation of the tributaries will contribute to the hydrologic restoration of these areas. 5.4.3. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Restoration and Natural Community Reestablishment The naturally occurring riparian buffers and plant communities within the Mitigation Project have been altered due to historic agricultural practices. Predominantly, the Mitigation Project has been placed into row crop productions within the upper terrace and grazing land for past cattle operations within the upland areas in the lower terrace of the Swift Creek floodplain. Additionally, the hydrology within the Mitigation Project has been drastically altered through the installation of ditches within the majority of the jurisdictional stream and wetlands. Once the hydrologic and hydraulic impairments have been corrected, the proposed mitigation work plan will include the restoration of the naturally occurring plant communities and the reestablishment of riparian areas along the proposed restoration reaches within upper terrace and preservation in the lower terrace. It is expected that a minimum 300 foot wide buffer, originating from the top of bank of the existing/proposed stream feature and existing ditches will be reestablished/preserved within the conservation easement. A brief description of each plant community type to be restored within the Mitigation Project and associated riparian buffers is provided below. 5.4.3.1. Planting Plan The planting plan for the mitigation work areas will be divided into three zones for plant community establishment: • Zone 1: Longleaf Pine Establishment • Zone 2: Bottomland Hardwood Forest Establishment • Zone 3: Cypress -Gum Swamp Establishment Species selection will be modified to account for areas that may be wetter depending on site conditions. These identified wetter areas may be planted with cypress, water tupelo, and swamp blackgum. Higher areas with shorter hydroperiods will be established more typical bottomland species with an emphasis on hardmast species. There are numerous existing seed sources for lighter seeded, early successional species like sweetgum, red maple, and sycamore. 5.4.3.2. Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest The predominate wetland plant community within the Mitigation Project is Coastal Plain bottomland hardwood forest. These areas are palustrine with seasonally to intermittent flooding. The restored areas will contain a similar hydrologic regime. The water table may be high for long periods even when the site is not flooded. A mixture of bottomland oaks such as swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), cherry bark oak, laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), water oak, willow oak and overcup oak (Q. lyrata) along with other bottomland hardwoods such as shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), bitternut (C. cordiformis), water hickory (C. aquatica), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and sugar berry will be planted on 6 foot by 12 foot centers. The herbaceous community will slowly reestablish naturally from adjacent seed sources. Page 34 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.4.3.3. Cypress -Gum Swamp The bottomland hardwood forest will grade into cypress -gum swamp where the hydroperiod is extended and flooding along with prolonged inundation are common. Bald cypress along with water tupelo will be planted in these areas. Planting will be on a wider spacing of 12 foot by 12 foot to replicate more open stand conditions common of these plant communities. 5.4.3.4. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Areas along the new stream channels will have the hydrology restored due to the elevated bed channel. These areas will be characteristic of a Coastal Plain small stream swamp. Species composition will be similar to bottomland hardwoods with the exception of planted live stakes of black willow, cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). 5.4.3.5. Wet Pine/Mesic Pine Flatwoods Establishment Areas outside of the jurisdictional areas which are currently in row crops or abandoned pasture will be reestablished as wet to mesic pine flatwoods based on soil and topographic positions. These areas will be planted with longleaf pine on a wide spacing to allow for reestablishment of native warm season grasses. Longleaf pine seedlings will be planted during the dormant season following the site preparatory burn in abandon pasture areas (December to March). Deep ripping may be required in the row crop areas to facilitate longleaf pine establishment. Longleaf pine seedlings will be planted at a density of approximately 300 stems per acre (12 foot x 12 foot spacing). Planted areas will be placed into a burn regime as described below, with burning times to be determined by habitat objectives. Should site conditions not allow a prescribed fire during a monitoring year, herbicide or mechanical treatments may be considered to reduce woody competition. Mortality of young seedlings is expected to reduce pine density over time to mimic natural, open grown stands. Thinning, using various means, to reduce pine densities over time are recommended to prevent canopy closure. Any thinning activities will be overseen by a NC licensed forester, and will be conducted to ensure the long-term success of the desired longleaf pine flatwood ecosystem. 5.4.3.6. Mixed Hardwood Forest In the ecotones between the pine flatwoods and jurisdictional wetland areas will be areas of mixed hardwood forest. Some of these areas are preexisting and will continue to be managed. Other areas will be reestablished where it is currently in row crop production or it is an area that is small and isolated doesn't lend itself to active management. These areas will be managed to limit exotic vegetation when practical to insure the functionality of the mitigation areas. Mixed hardwood forest may grade into cypress -gum swamp or small stream swamp or Coastal Plain bottomland hardwoods down slope or into pine flatwoods farther up slope. The ecotone within this area will contain a mosaic of species due to landscape position and fire history. 5.4.3.7. Vernal Pool Establishment Vernal pools are anticipated to be created as part of the restoration plan. Site manipulation from an extensive history of agriculture has significantly altered the sites hydrology. Areas will be excavated in the adjacent uplands to borrow material to fill and plug the extensive network of ditches. Some excavation is anticipated in the wetland restoration area as well to fill and plug the ditches. The pools in these areas will likely be permanently inundated except during extreme drought. Where possible, fire will be allowed to enter the edges of the pools during prescribed burns of the surrounding flatwoods, in order to reduce the prevalence of hardwood species and increase the native herbaceous cover along the pond margins. Page 35 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina The seasonal fluctuation in water levels and its variation among years is the primary environmental factor in these communities. Significant seasonal variation in presence and activity of species occurs. Some of these pools may develop accumulate muck in the bottom while others may remain sandy. The vernal pools are being created to provide breeding sites for amphibians. 5.4.3.8. Prescribed Burns A prescribed burn schedule will be developed by a licensed NC forester for the proposed pine flatwood re- establishment areas. All initial and subsequent burns will be conducted by prescribed fire professionals with experience within the region. It is anticipated that prescribed burning activities will be implemented yearly for the first five to seven years, and then every three to five years following. However, more intensive burning may be necessary to reduce unwanted competition and reduce planted longleaf pine densities. Fire intensity will be adjusted in subsequent years to provide the best results of this habitat management technique. Burns will be conducted when conditions favor fire across the range of forest communities within the Mitigation Project. Prescribed burns will not be conducted when ponded water dominates the site or when dry weather creates dangerous fire conditions and fire control problems. Burning will only operate during conditions where smoke will have the least effect on adjacent populated areas. 5.4.3.9. Fire Breaks Fire breaks will be installed within Mitigation Project prior to any prescribed burning activities. Fire break locations will be further refined once the Mitigation plan has been accepted; however, placement of firebreaks will be at the discretion of the Certified Prescribed Fire Manager to protect adjacent properties and to maintain control of the fire. It is anticipated that firebreaks will be approximately 10 to 12 feet wide, and easily maintainable with standard agricultural equipment. Firebreaks will not be used where fire is prescribed adjacent to mature hardwood areas. It is anticipated that the fire will naturally play out within a transition zone between pine and hardwood communities. 5.4.4. Stream Mitigation 5.4.4.1. Stream Preservation Proposed stream preservation efforts within the Mitigation Project will permanently protect approximately 6,504 linear feet of stream channel and their associated buffers. The stream reaches proposed for preservation area are as follows: • Tributary A-3 (2,228 LF) • Tributary B-1 (-384 LF) • Tributary C (1,076 LF) • Tributary G (-788 LF) • Tributary H (-636 LF) • Tributary I-1 (-599 LF) • Tributary I-2 (151 LF) • Tributary J (-642 LF) The proposed stream preservations activities are illustrated on Figure 14a in Appendix A. 5.4.4.2. Stream Enhancement Stream enhancement within the Mitigation Project are proposed for Tributary A-2 and Tributary E-1. Stream Enhancement activities will include Rosgen Priority Level IV bank stabilization methodology. Rosgen Priority IV restoration activities include various stabilization techniques to stabilize the existing stream in-place. Generally, these projects do not attempt to modify dimension, pattern, or profile (Rosgen 1997). It is anticipated that the proposed stream enhancement reaches within the Mitigation Project will undergo bank stabilization, where appropriate, removal of remnant spoil piles lying directly adjacent to the channel, filling of adjacent ditches to divert water back into the main stream reach, installation of in -stream structures and/or floodplain sills to provide grade control and minimize in -stream erosion. A detailed description for each enhancement reach is provided below: Page 36 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Tributary A-2 Stream enhancement of Tributary A-2 will consist of approximately 1,588 linear feet. Tributary A-2 is a 2' order perennial stream channel characterized as a Rosgen E5/C5 channel with a relatively low gradient (0.002 feet/feet) and a contributing watershed of approximately 147 acres once all restoration and enhancement activities have been completed within the Mitigation Project. Due to historic agricultural practices Tributary A-2 has been straightened within Wetland 10 and exhibits eroded channel banks, minimal variation in channel depth, vertical banks along some sections, and remnant spoils piles reside parallel to the channel banks restricting flow within floodplain during bankfull and greater storm events and during periods of a high water table. The proposed enhancement measures will be designed to include, but not limited to, removal of the adjacent spoil piles to restore the natural floodplain function, regrading of channel banks (as necessary), the installation of in -stream structures, and minor modifications to the longitudinal profile to provide a more naturally occurring riffle -pool sequence within the existing channel alignment. In -stream structures will consist of, but not limited to, log vanes, log sills, brush toe, log riffles. All disturbed areas will be stabilized with 100% biodegradable coir matting and planted in accordance with the planting plan. All care will be taken during construction to minimize disturbance to adjacent wetland features. Tributary E-1 Tributary E-1 is a 1St order intermittent coastal plain headwater stream that conveys water from roadside ditches that parallel NC -33. Additionally, a culvert that drains water from an adjacent property flows underneath NC -33 and onto the Mitigation Project. Tributary E-1 is characterized as a Rosgen E5 channel with a channel slope of approximately 0.005 feet/feet and a contributing watershed of approximately 73.6 acres. The proposed enhancement measures will be designed to include, but not limited to, removal of the adjacent spoil piles to restore the natural floodplain function, regrading of channel banks (as necessary), the installation of in -stream structures, and minor modifications to the longitudinal profile to provide a more naturally occurring riffle -pool sequence within the existing channel alignment. In -stream structures will consist of, but not limited to, log vanes, log sills, brush toe, log riffles. All disturbed areas will be stabilized with 100% biodegradable coir matting and planted in accordance with the planting plan. All care will be taken during construction to minimize disturbance to adjacent wetland features. 5.4.4.3. Stream Restoration The stream reaches proposed for restoration within the Mitigation Project will be constructed as described in this section. Preliminary design plans (30%) are included in Appendix G for review. Additional information will be collected on reference sites and within the Mitigation Project to further enhance the design plans prior to construction. Based upon on-site evaluation of the existing stream reaches and discussions with State and Federal Agencies Tributary A-1, B-2, D, E-2, E-3, F, and K will be restored through coastal plain headwater stream reestablishment and Rosgen Priority 1 techniques. The proposed restoration activities described below for each of the restoration reaches. 5.4.4.3.1. Headwater Stream Restoration Tributary E-2 (-657 LF) is anticipated to be restored through the use of headwater stream restoration techniques. The proposed restoration plan will include the filling the existing ditch and removal of the spoil piles that parallels the remnant channel and low point of the valley. By filling the existing ditch system the naturally occurring hydrology and hydraulics will be returned. The natural surface water during periods of high ground water and/or significant storm events is expected to reoccupy the remnant channel(s) where it currently exists and passively recreate the historic pattern and profile where it no longer exist. Where necessary, floodplain sills will be installed to prevent incision and reduce the potential for head cuts working their way up through the stream system. All care shall be taken to avoid over compaction of the native soils and disturbance to the existing plant community. Where land disturbance activities are expected, the natural plant community will be reestablished in accordance with Section 5.4.2.4 Natural Plant Community Page 42 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Establishment. 5.4.4.3.2. Rosgen Priority 1 Restoration Tributary A-1, B-2, E, E-3, F, and K will be restored through the use of Rosgen Priority 1 restoration techniques. Priority 1 restoration methodology includes replacing the existing incised relic channel with a new bankfull discharge channel, sized appropriately for the watershed, at a higher elevation where it can utilize the relic floodplain. In the upper reaches of each of the proposed restoration area the cross-sections will be less well defined and will have a moderate to high sinuosity. As the watershed for each restoration increases, the proposed channel cross-section will be more defined and the sinuosity will be decreased and will have an irregular meander pattern similar to natural coastal plain streams. As required, some excavation of the grading will be required to restore historic flow patterns within the Mitigation Project. Excavations within the floodplain are expected to minimal. Additionally, vernal pools will be excavated along the proposed restoration alignments to provide habitat diversity within floodplain. The stream bed of the proposed restoration reaches will vary between riffles and pools. It is expected that pools will be constructed in some of the meander bends and downstream of woody structures in straight sections of the channel. In -stream channel structures used to prevent scour and provide banks stabilization till woody vegetation can be established will consist of, but not limited to, log vanes, log sills, and brush toe. In higher gradient areas and areas of high stress, 100% biodegradable coir matting will be installed prior to the establishment of permanent vegetation. Floodplain sills (as necessary) will be installed at the headwaters of each of the proposed restoration reaches and at key points along the existing ditch line to prevent reoccupation of the ditch until permanent vegetation has been established. The proposed construction Priority Restoration reaches and subsequent filling of the exiting ditches within the Mitigation Project is expected to inundate the floodplain and raise the existing water table. Hydraulic restoration of the site should promote the re-establishment of historically drained wetland features adjacent to the proposed restoration reaches throughout the Mitigation Project. The stream reaches proposed linear footage for each restoration reach is as follows. For purposes of this mitigation plan and the preliminary nature of the design, sinuosity for each proposed reach has been kept to approximately 1. 1. • Tributary A-1 (5,463 LF) • Tributary B-2 (1,073 LF) • Tributary D (2,677 LF) 5.4.5. Reference Sites 5.4.5.1. Reference Streams • Tributary E-3 (4,633 LF) • Tributary F (571 LF) • Tributary K (654 LF) At the time of this this report, no stream reference reaches have been identified. For the purposes of this study, the regional curve data provided by North Carolina State University (NCSU) for stream located within the Coastal Plain of NC was utilized in the development of the 30% design plans (Appendix X) to determine to propose geomorphology of the restoration reaches. The regional curve data published by NCSU for the NC coastal plain is as follows: • Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: y = 14.52x'.66 RI = 0.88 • Bankfull Discharge: y = 16.56xo.72 W = 0.90 • Bankfull Width: y = 10.97x'.36 W = 0.87 • Bankfull Mean Depth: y = 1.29xo.3' W = 0.74 Stream reference reaches, suitable for this proposed mitigation work plan, will be identified and evaluated prior to final design and construction. Identified reference reaches will be located within the upper coastal plain of North Carolina and be of high quality and exhibit a stable planform and geomorphology. Data gathered from the reference reaches will include: Page 43 of 57 • Drainage Area (DA) • Valley Type • Bankfull Width (Wbkf) • Bankfull Depth (Dbkf) • Max Bankfull Depth (D.) • Floodprone Width (Wfpa) • Valley Slope (Sva11ey) • Channel Slope (Seb.,.,i) 5.4.5.2. Reference Wetlands Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina • Sinuosity (K) • Pool Width (Wp.j) • Pool Depth (Dpo.1) • Max Pool Depth (Dpool max) • Pool -to -pool spacing (Lp_p) • Belt Width (Wblt) • Wavelength (Lm) • Radius of Curvature (R�) Wetland reference areas will be identified within either the Mitigation Project tract, or adjacent previously conserved tracts within the Upper Tar watershed. The target plant communities of the Mitigation Project wetland enhancement and ecological restoration areas will attempt to replicate the species composition of the reference wetlands and show a progression towards the vegetation strata and diversity of the reference site by the end of the monitoring period. 5.5. FEMA FLOODPLAIN AND HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS The project stream channels do not have an associated regulatory floodplain; however, the downstream end of Tributary A-2 is located within the floodway and flood fringe of Swift Creek (see Figure 16 in Appendix A). Swift Creek was performed as a detailed study including 100 -year base flood elevations and mapped floodway. Portions of Swift Creek are mapped as FEMA Zone AE on floodplain FIRM panels 4801, 4802, 4811, and 4812 within the Mitigation Project. No net fill is proposed in the mapped section of Swift Creek floodplain. A detailed grading plan and evaluation of the proposed effects on hydrology will be submitted for approval by the Edgecombe County floodplain administrator. The project will be designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained on the project site and will not extend upstream to adjacent parcels, so hydrologic trespass will not be a concern. The proposed restoration has been designed to transition back to the existing boundary conditions in a gradual manner. 5.6. Section 401/404 Permitting As discussed in Section 5.3.4.1 Description of Jurisdictional Features, impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S are expected with the proposed restoration and enhancement activities detailed within the proposed mitigation work plan. It is expected that the impacts associated with this PRM Plan will be covered under the individual permit issued to CSX for impacts to jurisdictional water of the U.S. associated with the construction of the CCX Terminal and Second Mainline project. 5.7. MAINTENANCE PLAN All access roadways used for vehicular access within the Mitigation Project tracts will be used as fire breaks and future access to the properties. Annual inspections, throughout the monitoring period, will be conducted on access roadways and fire breaks as needed. Mechanical clearing for existing and additional fire breaks may be needed to denote management tracts within the mitigation properties and along property boundaries to prevent encroachment during prescribed burns onto adjacent property owners. All maintenance activities will be consistent with the long-term management practices and objectives. All other activities (prescribed burns, mechanical treatment, and chemical treatment) to be conducted are considered part of the mitigation work plan. Page 1 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.8. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following performance standards are intended to provide a basis of evaluation concerning each site's fulfillment of ecological uplift. Performance standards detailed below are consistent with the USACE's guidance document "Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" dated October 24, 2016. Upon completion of the proposed mitigation activities, annual monitoring will be conducted to assess the condition of the completed project(s). The wetland and stream restoration and enhancement portions of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation, and morphology (stream only). Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring period. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, a request by the Permittee and its Agents may be submitted to the USACE to terminate post - construction monitoring early. If performance standards have not been met by year and/or the performance metrics or if remedial actions are required, additional monitoring may be required to ensure that the Mitigation Project is stable and the target communities are established. If performance standards cannot be met through remedial action, the Mitigation Project, or portions thereof, may be deemed to have failed and the Permittee and/or its Agents will seek alternative compensatory mitigation suitable to the USACE. The performance metrics proposed for this Mitigation Project and associated wetland and stream preservation, restoration, and enhancement projects is as follows: 5.8.1. Wetland Mitigation 5.8.1.1. Wetland Preservation Initial success will be achieved upon approval by USACE of the conservation easement documentation and the recordation of the easement within the local jurisdiction. Permanent photograph stations will be used to document any changes during the monitoring period in existing vegetation, particularly invasive and noxious species, and hydrologic indicators. The final monitoring report will document that all preserved areas are intact in their approved condition and that no activities have occurred that are in violation of the restrictions listed in the conservation easement prior to the site being transferred to the long-term steward. 5.8.1.2. Wetland Enhancement and Restoration - Hydrology The predominant soils within the wetland restoration and enhancement areas consist of Roanoke soils. Wetland hydrology will be considered established if well data from the site(s) indicate that groundwater is within 12 inches of the soil surface for 7% target saturation period for monitoring years 1 and 2 and 9-12% for monitoring years 3 — 7 of the annual growing season during normal weather conditions. The growing season for the Mitigation Project season was taken from COOP Station 318500, which is located in Tarboro in Edgecombe County. According to the NRCS, the growing season is considered to be the period with a 50% probability that the daily minimum temperature is higher than 28° F. Based upon this information the growing season for Edgecombe County extends from March 21 to November 11 for a total of 235 days (USDA, NRCS 2002). Based on this growing season, success will be achieved at the project site if the water table is within 12 inches of the soils surface for 17 consecutive days or more during the established growing season for monitoring years 1 and 2 and a minimum of 21 conservative days for monitoring years 3-7. 5.8.2. Stream Mitigation 5.8.2.1. Stream Preservation Initial success will be achieved upon approval by USACE of the conservation easement documentation and the recordation of the easement within the local jurisdiction. The stream top -of -bank will be surveyed on the conservation easement plat to be submitted to the local jurisdiction for recordation with the County Records Office. The condition of each preservation reach will be documented with yearly photographs, for the duration of the required monitoring period, taken at permanent photographic monitoring locations. The Page 44 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina final monitoring report will document that all preserved areas are intact in their approved condition and that no activities have occurred that are in violation of the restrictions listed in the conservation easement prior to the site being transferred to the long-term steward. 5.8.2.2. Stream Restoration and Enhancement 5.8.2.2.1. Dimension Shallow section cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio and width -to -depth ratio. Shallow cross-sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type (when applicable). The bank height ratio (BHR) will not exceed 1.2 and the entrenchment ratio (ER) will be no less 1.4 at any measured riffle cross-section. The BHR and ER at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from the baseline (as -built) condition during any given monitoring interval (e.g., no more than 10% between years 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 5, or 5 and 7). If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. In order to monitor the channel dimension, two permanent monumented cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, and represent approximately 50% shallow/riffle and 50% pool areas within each restoration and enhancement reach. Each cross-section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. An annual cross-section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. It is important to note that in sand bed channels pools and bed forms (ripples, dunes, etc.) may migrate over time as a natural function of the channel hydraulics. These sorts of bed changes do not constitute a trend towards instability or indicate a need for remedial actions. 5.8.2.2.2. Pattern and Profile Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. As mentioned above, migration of pools and bed forms are expected and do not require remedial action. Stream pattern and profile will be assessed visually as described below. 5.8.2.2.3. Substrate Pebble count procedures will not be conducted for this project due to the sand bed nature of the streams. 5.8.2.2.4. Stream Hydrology Four separate bankfull flow events, occurring in separate years, must be documented on the restoration and enhancement reaches during monitoring years I through 7. Stream monitoring will continue until success criteria in the form of four bankfull events in separate years have been documented. Under normal circumstances stream flow must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the seven-year monitoring period. Where the priority 1 restoration reaches are proposed for intermittent reaches, an automated gauge will be installed to track the frequency and duration of the stream flow event. Additional monitoring may be required if surface water flow cannot be documented due to abnormally dry conditions. Page 45 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.8.2.2.5. Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates will be assessed prior to beginning restoration activities to establish a baseline for population diversity and abundance. The final performance standard will be no net decrease in diversity and abundance by the end of the seventh year of monitoring. 5.8.2.2.6. Headwater Stream 1. Under normal circumstances surface water flow within the valley or crenulation will be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the seven-year monitoring period. Additional monitoring may be required if surface water flow cannot be documented due to abnormally dry conditions. 2. Channel formation will be documented using indicators consistent with RGL 05-05 in accordance with the following schedule: a. During monitoring years 1 through 4, the preponderance of evidence must demonstrate a concentration of flow indicative of channel formation within the topographic low -point of the valley or crenulation as documented by the following indicators: • Scour (indicating sediment transport by flowing water) • Sediment deposition (accumulations of sediment and/or formation of ripples) • Sediment sorting (sediment sorting indicated by grain -size distribution within the primary path of flow) • Multiple observed flow events (will be documented by gauge data and/or photographs) • Destruction of terrestrial vegetation • Presence of litter and debris • Wracking (deposits of drift material indicating surface water flow) • Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent (herbaceous or otherwise) • Leaf litter disturbed or washed away b. During monitoring years 5 through 7, the stream must successfully meet the requirements of standard 2(a) above and the preponderance of evidence must demonstrate the development of stream bed and banks (i.e., an ordinary high water mark) as documented by the following indicators: • Bed and banks (may include the formation of stream bed and banks, development of channel pattern such as meander bends and/or braiding at natural topographic breaks, woody debris, or plant root systems) • Natural line impressed on the bank (visible high water mark) • Shelving (shelving of sediment depositions indicating transport) • Water staining (staining of rooted vegetation) • Change in plant community (transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes) • Changes in character of soil (texture and/or chroma changes when compared to the soils abutting the primary path of flow) 5.8.3. Vegetation Within the planted portions of the Mitigation Project in the riparian corridors, along restoration and enhancement stream reaches and within wetland restoration and enhancement areas, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year three; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year five; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year seven. Planted trees in each plot must measure 7 feet in height at year five and 10 feet in height at year seven. Volunteer species may count towards the stems per acre requirements, but species must be included on the approved planting palette. Other volunteer species not included in the approved planting palette may be submitted to and reviewed by the USACE on a case-by-case basis for inclusion. Any single species will only account for up to 50% of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Where the vegetation plot is dominated by volunteer species, remedial action as, specified in the Adaptive Management Plan or as directed by the USACE may be required. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary Page 46 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina throughout the required monitoring period. 5.8.4. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Restoration The majority of the project site proposed for Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer restoration has been historically altered and are currently maintained agriculture fields. Approximately 45.28 acres of Tar -Pamlico riparian buffers will be restored on the project site. The existing agricultural fields will be ripped and scarified prior to vegetation planting. The fields are generally clear and will require minimal grading prior to buffer vegetation planting. The areas proposed for buffer restoration will be ripped perpendicular to the surface water flow direction. The ripping activities will also be utilized to eliminate potential hard pans. Select herbicide treatments and limited mechanical clearing may be completed to remove undesirable plant species prior to planting activities. Any herbicide applications will be performed by a certified applicator. Within the riparian buffer restoration areas, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year three; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year five; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year seven. Planted trees in each plot must measure 7 feet in height at year five and 10 feet in height at year seven. Volunteer species may count towards the stems per acre requirements, but species must be included on the approved planting palette. Any single species will only account for up to 50% of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Where the vegetation plot is dominated by volunteer species, remedial action as specified in the Adaptive Management Plan may be required. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period. The planting plan for the site will include planting bare root trees and/or containerized stock and controlling invasive species growth. Vegetative species selected for the site will be bottomland hardwood species that represent community descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood (NC WAM Bottomland Hardwood Forest and Headwater Forest wetland types). The bare -root seedlings and/or containerized stock will be planted over 45.28 acres of the project site. The seedlings of tree species found within Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods will be planted at a density of approximately 500 stems per acre. A mixture of bottomland oaks such as swamp chestnut oak, cherry bark oak, laurel oak, water oak, willow oak and overcup oak along with other bottomland hardwoods such as shagbark hickory, bitternut hickory, water hickory, black walnut, and sugar berry will be planted on 6 foot by 12 foot centers. Species to be planted will be based on nursery availability at the time of planting. The herbaceous community will slowly reestablish naturally from adjacent seed sources. 5.8.5. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Preservation Approximately 69.89 acres of existing Tar -Pamlico riparian buffers will be preserved on the project site. This preservation will protect the existing buffers from impacts such as timber harvesting, grading, filling, clearing or other similar activities that could affect buffer functions. Areas specified as Buffer Preservation as defined by 15A NCAC 02B .0295, are depicted on Figure 14b. These areas will only provide buffer mitigation credits and cannot be converted into nutrient offset credits. The Preservation areas range from 50 to 200 feet wide. Initial success will be achieved upon approval of the conservation easement documentation and the recordation of the easement within the local jurisdiction. The buffer preservation areas will be surveyed on the conservation easement plat to be submitted to the local jurisdiction for recordation with the Edgecombe County Records Office. The condition of each buffer preservation area will be documented with yearly photographs for the duration of the required monitoring period, taken at permanent photographic monitoring locations. The final monitoring report will document that all preserved areas are intact in their approved condition and that no activities have occurred that are in violation of the restrictions listed in the conservation easement. Page 47 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.8.6. Visual Monitoring Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross- section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots. Lateral reference photos should show a stable cross-section with no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. Within preservation areas, photos should show that no activities have occurred or are occurring that are in violation of the restrictions included in the conservation easement prior to the site being transferred to the long-term steward. 5.9. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring reports for the Mitigation Project will be consistent with the USACE's guidance document "Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" dated October 24, 2016 and adhere to the minimum standards provided in RGL 08-03. The monitoring period will extend seven years for stream and hydrology assessments beyond completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met. Monitoring reports will be completed for all seven years and provided to the USACE for review by no later and April 1 of the year following the monitoring. Monitoring reports will include an executive summary that states the overall monitoring results, to include stream and wetland hydrologic monitoring, vegetation monitoring, macroinvertebrate monitoring, and area of concern (such as beaver activity, exotic/invasive vegetation, stream instability, supplemental planting, etc. The performance standards outlined in Section 5.8 will be stated verbatim in the monitoring report. Graphs and/or tabular data used in the monitoring report to document results from the monitoring period will be overlaid with the as -built data and data form the preceding monitoring years. 5.9.1. As -built Survey An as -built survey/report for all stream/wetland restoration and enhancement areas and natural community reestablishment areas will be completed within the project site to document the baseline conditions. The as -built survey will include photo documentation as well as all cross-sections and monitoring instruments (hydrology gauges, crest gauges, etc.) a plan view diagram, a copy of the recorded easement boundary markers, a longitudinal profile, and vegetation information (type and number of species planted and planting zones for targeted plant communities). The as -built survey will also indicate the locations of all monitoring activities (permanent vegetation plots, groundwater and surface water gauges, crest gauges, cross-sections, permanent photo locations, and aquatic biota sampling points). Any changes to the projected wetland acreage or stream linear footage and associated credit amounts stated in this mitigation work plan will be documented and detailed descriptions provided in the as -built report. The As -built survey/report will be provided to the USACE within 90 days of completion of all physical and biological improvements. An as -built survey/report will not include preservation -only areas contained within the Mitigation Project. 5.9.2. Wetland Preservation Visual assessments will be conducted annually to qualitatively evaluate Mitigation Project site conditions. Permanent photograph stations will be established at representative locations within the wetland preservation areas. The placement of stations should consider spatial distribution of the wetland preservation areas and document various wetland types. Each photograph station will be permanently marked in the field using rebar with a standard survey cap as well as a tall poly -vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe to aid in location (metal pipe to be used in areas where prescribed burns are planned). Photograph stations will be located with three-dimensional coordinates and georeferenced to NAD83-State Plane Feet. Page 48 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Successive photographs taken at the photograph station will replicate the orientation and capture area of previous photographs. Photographs will also be used to document significant or adverse changes in other portions of the wetland preservation area. 5.9.3. Wetland Enhancement and Restoration — Hydrology Groundwater elevations will be monitored to evaluate the attainment of jurisdictional wetland hydrology. Verification of wetland hydrology will be determined by automatic recording well data collected within the project wetland. Within the restoration area, automatic recording gauges will be established to cover a density of one well per four acres. Daily data (recorded a minimum of twice daily) will be collected from the automatic recording well over the seven-year monitoring period post -construction. A detailed soil profile description will be recorded for each automated gauge location. The soil profile description will include soil horizon present, and the color, texture, and any redoximorphic features present. Soil profile descriptions shall conform to the standard procedures as specified by the USDA -NRC (Schoeneberger et al., 2002). Each well station will have GPS coordinates and elevation at ground level (msl) and calibrated to match the level of the gauge. If an offset is used for the elevation, the offset distance will be recorded within the monitoring report. If the offset changes over the course of the monitoring period, the change and reason will be documented in that periods monitoring report. Automated groundwater recording wells will be installed in accordance with the techniques and standards described in the USACE's "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites" (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2, June 2005. In particular, wells will be installed with bentonite seals and be approximately 4feet in depth. Hydrology data will be included in a summary table that includes the gauge identification number, number of days of saturation, and percent hydroperiod. Each monitoring year will include the data from all previous monitoring years. Additionally, each monitoring report will include an explanation and/or graphical representation that portrays whether the Mitigation Project had an above, below, or normal precipitation year. The growing season will also be stated (start date, end date, and number of days). The hydrological data collected from the Mitigation Project for the wetland restoration and enhancement areas will be placed into context of normal, wetter than normal, or drier than normal, precipitation based on the most recent 30 -year period of record. An automated rain gauge will be installed to collect and record rainfall at the Mitigation Project. A separate rain gauge will not be required for stream mitigation if a gauge is already installed for the wetland component. The rain gauge will incorporate a tipping -bucket design (at a 0.01 inch tipping interval) and record sufficient data to determine rainfall quantities, rates and duration. Rainfall data collected from the gauge will be correlated with local weather stations and compared to the NRCS WETS tables to determine if normal rainfall conditions exist during the monitoring period. The rain gauge will be downloaded during each site visit. A manual all weather funnel style rain gauge capable of storing multiple events will be installed and the data recorded at each site visit to back up the automated rain gauge. If necessary, rainfall from the nearest weather station may be used to supplement data collected on-site if issues occur with the sampling equipment. 5.9.4. Vegetation Vegetative monitoring will occur between July 1 and leaf drop. During the first monitoring year, vegetation monitoring will occur at least 180 days after vegetation planting has been completed and the monitoring plots have been established. A combination of permanent fixed plots and random plots will be utilized to demonstrate vegetative cover. Permanent vegetation monitoring plots will be located on a stratified random basis across the Mitigation Project within each target community in order to representatively sample a subset of plantings. Page 49 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Plot sizes for the determination of stem density, diversity, and vigor (height) will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and will typically be square or rectangular with care taken to ensure that placement of the plot is representative of the surrounding conditions. Vegetation monitoring plots will occur within a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of the site with a minimum of four plots per site. Upon initial establishment of vegetation plots, the plot corners will be identified in the field with permanent markers at each corner (rebar or metal T posts) and GPS -located. Each plot will also be marked with a 10 - foot tall PVC pole installed over one of the corners and labeled with the plot number. Each planted tree will be tagged and have a 3 -foot tall piece of PVC pipe installed next to it for easier identification during the monitoring period. For plot vegetation monitoring, the following metrics will be documented: • Within each fixed plot: species, height, grid location, planted versus volunteer, and age (based upon the year the stem was planted, or first observed for volunteers) • Within each random plot: species and height For both fixed and random plots, all woody stems, including exotic and invasive species, will be counted. Individual plot data for planted and volunteer species will be provided separately. Vegetation species will be identified by common and scientific name and wetland indicator status. Data will not be averaged over the entire Mitigation Project to obtain a single figure for stem density. Density refers to the number of living, planted stems per acre. Stems are defined as individual plants, where plants with multiple shoots are treated as a single stem. Live stakes will not count toward the stem counts. Volunteer plants growing within plots will be counted separately from planted vegetation in the monitoring reports. Volunteer plants must be present for at least two growing seasons before counting toward meeting performance standards for monitoring year five and seven. Visual assessments will be used to identify problem areas, including the presence of exotic species. Exotic species, such as Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), will be monitored and controlled to conform to the success criteria. We understand that these species have become naturalized to the area and complete removal of these species from enhancement areas is not possible, but they will be controlled so that the desired community structure can be obtained. Exhibit 7 identifies common potential problems that may be noted during vegetation monitoring and will be used to track the location and cause of any such problems identified within the planted areas. Monitoring events will be used to evaluate the site for the presence of invasive species and noted in the monitoring report. Implementation of invasive species control measures will be conducted in accordance with the Adaptive Management Plan. Photographs will be taken at two corners of each monitoring plot, facing towards the interior of the plot. Photos will include plot center and surrounding vegetation. The first photograph will include the maker pole and its label and the second photo will be taken from the opposite corner. 5.9.5. Stream Preservation Stream preservation monitoring stations will be established in representative areas along the protected streams. The placement of stations will consider spatial distribution of the stream preservation areas and document a variety of stream orders. Stream condition will be documented annually at permanent photograph stations. Each photograph station will be permanently marked in the field using rebar with a standard survey cap and a 10 -foot tall PVC or metal pole with the photograph number demarcated. Photograph stations will be located with three-dimensional coordinates and georeferenced to NAD83-State Plane Feet. Successive photographs taken at the photograph station will replicate the orientation and capture the area of previous photographs. Page 50 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5.9.6. Stream Restoration and Enhancement Monitoring for stream restoration and enhancement and coincide with monitoring events occurring on years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream surveys will generally follow the methodology contained in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson, et.al, 1994). 5.9.6.1. Dimension Permanent, monumented cross-sections will be established in Priority 1 stream restoration reaches. Cross - Sections will be placed in representative features, and upper and lower extents to evaluate stream dimension. Permanent cross-sections will be installed at a rate of two cross-sections per 1, 000 linear feet. Permanent monuments will be established by rebar with a standard survey cap and a tall PVC or metal pole with the cross-section number at the left and right extents of each cross-section by either conventional survey or Global Positioning System (GPS). The cross-section surveys will provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks and pertinent features of the channel's geometry. The survey should include points located at: • the left and right monument* • on the floodplain (extending out past the monument if applicable)* • top of banks* • at bankfull* • toe of slopes* *These points should be identified looking downstream • edge of channel* • at the edge of water • at the thalweg • terraces and other major grade changes along the entire length of stream All channel cross-sections will include measurements of Bank Height Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio, which will be documented in monitoring reports. Permanent photograph stations at each cross-section will document stability and channel evolution during the monitoring period. The location of each photo point will be permanently marked in the field using rebar with a standard survey cap and a tall PVC or metal pole with the photograph number demarcated. The bearing/orientation of the photograph will be documented. Photographs should be taken looking across channel, looking upstream, and looking downstream, showing as much of the banks and channel as possible. The survey tape will be centered in each photograph and the water line will be located near the lower edge. An effort will be made to consistently show the same photograph area in each subsequent monitoring event. 5.9.6.2. Pattern and Profile As stated in Section 5.8.2.2.2, longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. As mentioned above, migration of pools and bed forms are expected and do not require remedial action. Stream pattern and profile will be assessed visually. If longitudinal profiles are required, due to concerns of instability, longitudinal will be surveyed for a distance of 25 times the bankfull width. The beginning and ending points of each measured profile will be monumented on both stream left and stream right with rebar and a 10 -foot tall PVC or metal pole with the reach name/number demarcated. Three-dimensional coordinates will be documented and georeferenced to NAD83-State Plane Feet. The survey should include points located at the following locations on the stream's profile: • thalweg • water surface • top of bank Page 51 of 57 • bankfull • log sill location • maximum pool depths Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina The water surface elevation shall be noted at each survey shot along the profile survey or spaced appropriately. Locations of channel nick points (for example, culverts, gas, or sewer pipelines) or natural grade control structures (for example, fallen logs, or roots) should be documented where applicable. The survey will be used to document the following parameters: • Average Water Surface Slope • Riffle Slope/Average Water Surface Slope (Ratio) • Pool Slope/Average Water Surface Slope (Ratio) • Pool -Pool Spacing/Bankfull Width (Wbxf) Measurements of the restored channel pattern, to include belt width, meander length, and radius of curvature will be collected during subsequent monitoring years within the same sections surveyed for the longitudinal profiles during the required as -built survey. Calculations will be made of sinuosity, meander width ratio, radius of curvature/bankfull width ratio, and meander length/bankfull width ratio. The annual monitoring report will address pattern measurements that deviate outside of the design range. 5.9.6.3. Hydrology The occurrence of stream flows meeting or exceeding the designed bankfull stage will be evaluated during each monitoring year. Occurrence of bankfull events will be documented through the use of crest gauges or continuous monitoring devices, or comparable methods. Crest gauges or continuous monitoring device will be installed on each stream system that is greater than 1,000 feet in length, with one gauge required for every 5,000 feet of length on each tributary, with a maximum of 5 gauges per restoration reach. The height above bankfull will be recorded for each event. Visual inspections and photographs will be used to augment this data. An automated rain gauge will be installed to collect and record rainfall at the Mitigation Project. A separate rain gauge will not be required for stream mitigation if a gauge is already installed for the wetland component. The rain gauge will incorporate a tipping -bucket design (at a 0.01 inch tipping interval) and record sufficient data to determine rainfall quantities, rates and duration. Rainfall data collected from the gauge will be correlated with local weather stations and compared to the NRCS WETS tables to determine if normal rainfall conditions exist during the monitoring period. The rain gauge will be downloaded during each site visit. A manual all weather funnel style rain gauge capable of storing multiple events will be installed and the data recorded at each site visit to back up the automated rain gauge. 5.9.6.4. Macroinvertebrate Habitat availability and macroinvertebrate communities will be monitored in streams where functional uplift is attributed to maintenance or improvements in biological communities. Macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted once a year during monitoring years 3, 5, and 7. Monitoring stations will be located on every perennial restoration and enhancement reach greater than 1,000 feet in length. Additional sampling points will be established per additional 2,000 feet of length on each restoration or enhancement reach (1,000' = 1 point, 3,000' = 2 points, 5,000' = 3 points, ect.). Sampling locations will be based on riffle condition and best professional judgment and occur within the same riffle year-to-year. Macroinvertebrate sampling will be processed by a qualified taxonomist and/or NCDWR certified laboratory for macroinvertebrates. Macroinvertebrates will be identified to genus. Biotic indices, including percent EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera), North Carolina Biotic Index, Shannon -Weaver Diversity Index, Taxa Richness and a species list for each station, will be listed in the monitoring report. Each report will include a summary of the current results and all past monitoring events in tabular format. 5.9.6.5. Headwater Headwater stream monitoring will be conducted annually for seven years. Surface water flow monitoring will be conducted in accordance with Section 5.9.5.3. Gauge stations will be located within the anticipated primary path of flow within the low point of the valley to ensure all flow events are captured. The number Page 52 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina of gauge stations will be sufficient to document the upper end of stream formation when considered with the required field indicators listed in the performance standards. Channel formation within the valley or crenulation will be documented through the identification of field indicators consistent with those listed in RGL 05-05. Identified field indicators will be documented using data sheets and photographs, and the location of those photo documentation points will be permanently marked with rebar and a 10 -foot tall PVC or metal pole with the reach name/number demarcated. Three- dimensional coordinates will be documented and georeferenced to NAD83-State Plane Feet and illustrated on a site map included annual monitoring report. Additional monitoring and/or analysis may be necessary in the event of abnormal climactic conditions. 5.9.7. Visual Visual monitoring of the Mitigation Project will be conducted on an annual basis. Photo documentation will be used to illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability. Permanent photo location points and transects will be established within the Mitigation Project. Each photograph station will be permanently marked in the field using rebar with a standard survey cap and a 10 -foot tall PVC or metal pole with the photo location name/number demarcated. Photograph stations will be located with GPS coordinates and georeferenced to NAD83-State Plane Feet. Successive photographs taken at the photograph station will replicate the orientation and capture the area of previous photographs. Visual monitoring of the Mitigation Project will be used to document encroachments, areas of poor vegetation growth, beaver activity, excessively or inadequately drained areas, stream bank stability, ect. For stream enhancement and restoration reaches cross-section and longitudinal photo locations will be permanently established. A survey tape pulled across the cross-section will be centered in the photographs of the stream channel banks. Photographs will be taken at representative grade control structures along the restored/enhanced stream. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time. Additionally, photos will be taken annually at permanent locations within stream and wetland areas identified for preservation. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots. One representative digital photo of each vegetation plot will be taken on the same day vegetative monitoring is conducted. The results of the visual assessment will be included in the Annual Monitoring Report and identify the date the assessment was conducted. Additionally, a narrative will be included and may describe the overall condition of the Mitigation Project and describe any areas of concern. Once a feature of concern has been identified, that same feature will be reassessed on all subsequent visual assessments with photographs taken from the same location year -to year until the issue has been corrected. 5.10. LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT Management of the Mitigation Project during the monitoring period will be the responsibility of Palustrine Group with consultation with TRLC to insure long-term site objectives are met. The Mitigation Project will be under the long-term management of TRLC and will be maintained and protected to insure the long- term protection of the Swift Creek watershed. Activities include ensuring there are no encroachments or trash dumping within the protected areas. Also, any additional management activities deemed necessary to maintain the existing forest will be implemented by TRLC. TRLC has a vision that in thirty years the site will be a reemerging forest over the majority of the site with a mosaic of stand types and associated habitat conditions. This mosaic will include forests, riparian areas, wetlands, emergent marsh and early successional habitat. The Mitigation Project will be open to public for access for passive recreational use which may include hiking, nature observation, and nature/conservation education opportunities. A blue trail could exist in the future along Swift Creek if access to this resource can be planned. Page 53 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina Jurisdictional areas under USACE easement will be passively managed with no timber cutting or disturbance unless for management of invasive species, beaver management or active wildlife management. Buffer zones within the USACE area may be burned to allow for a natural mosaic of plant communities. Active control of species that may potentially adversely affect long-term objectives may take place through the site including the control of herbivores. Designated areas in the upland areas may be more actively managed relying on disturbance regimes such as burning, disking, mechanical and chemical treatments for vegetation control to allow for more open conditions and maintain early succession habitat. Burning maybe allowed to encroach into buffer zones as well as jurisdictional areas if it contributes to the long-term objectives. Throughout the property, a network of foot and single track trails will be installed to allow for public access to the unique, diverse natural features of the site. The proposed network of foot and single track trails will not allow for vehicular use and will utilize mulch and other natural permeable materials in their construction. Equestrian activities will be restricted on single tract trails. Additionally, educational signage maybe placed in various locations along the trails. Sensitive areas may have boardwalks or other features to allow for public access and to limit the damage from foot traffic. No new roads are proposed to be constructed within the upland portions of the Mitigation Project. Additionally, the main interior road will be moved during construction. The main interior road will be moved out of the adjacent jurisdictional and buffer areas except for where it crosses various jurisdictional features in the Swift Creek floodplain. The proposed crossings will consist of low water crossings, sufficient to allow for natural flow of surface water within the jurisdictional feature without ponding. The existing and proposed interior roads will only be utilized for management and educational activities as well as public safety. 5.11. SITE PROTECTION The acquisition and protection of the Mitigation Project is intended to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and losses from the construction of the CCX Terminal and Second Mainline project. The protection mechanism on the mitigation areas will be in perpetuity through the use of a conservation easement equivalent to the conservation easement template provided in Appendix B on the USACE Wilmington District's website. Figure 15 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed layout of the USACE easement. The identity of the conservation easement holder (the "Easement Holder") has not been finalized at this stage but will be specified in the approved Final Mitigation Plan. The TRLC who will be the long- term owner of the site has contacted the Conservation Trust for North Carolina (CTNC) and CTNC has expressed interest in holding the easement. On May 4, 2017, Rusty Painter, CTNC Land Protection Director was present at an agency site visit to review a conceptual mitigation plan. TRLC and CTNC have several properties in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin with the same arrangement with TRLC owning the land fee simple and CTNC holding the easement. Non jurisdictional areas will be protected by another easement that will allow for more active management of those areas outside of the jurisdictional areas and the associated buffers. 5.12. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Upon completion of site construction the applicant and/or its agents will implement the post -construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this document. In the event, one or more of the performance objectives within the Mitigation Project fails to achieve the necessary performance standards as specified in the PRMP, the permit applicant and/or its agents shall notify the USACE immediately. Adaptive management activities may consist of corrective actions and additional monitoring of the approved Mitigation Project or implementation of an alternate PRMP. Once it is determined that a corrective action plan is required, the applicant and/or its agents shall: 1. Notify the USACE as required by the Individual Permit general conditions. 2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary and/or required by the USACE. 3. Obtain other permits as necessary. 4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan. Page 54 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and nature of the work performed. Failure to actively pursue and implement an approved mitigation plan or to develop and implement an adaptive management plan may be grounds for modification, suspension, or revocation of the associated USACE authorization. 5.13. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES Palustrine Group will provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the USACE, sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to Final Mitigation Plan. The financial assurance value will be based on the cost of doing the mitigation work, including costs for land acquisition, planning and engineering, legal fees, mobilization, construction, and monitoring. No financial assurances are proposed for the preservation areas of the site. The financial assurance is proposed to be made payable to TRLC as a third -party designee if acceptable to the USACE. TRLC would agree to complete the project or provide alternative mitigation in the event Palustrine Group were to default. The name of the specific provider of these assurances and the method by which the financial assurances will be provided in the event that they must be utilized. Original copies of the financial assurance documents will be provided to the District Engineer prior to the approval of the mitigation. The financial assurance will be in the form that ensures that the District Engineer receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation. 5.14. CLOSURE At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance standards, PG will submit a request to the USACE for site close out. The USACE, in consultation with the other agencies, shall use best efforts to review and comment on the request within 60 days of such submittal. If the USACE determines the applicant and/or its agents has achieved the performance standards in accordance with this PRMP and all obligations under this plan, the USACE shall issue a close out letter to the Sponsor. Page 55 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina 6. REFERENCES Alderman, John M., Alvin L. Braswell, et al. 1993. Biological inventory: Swift Creek Subbasin. NC Wildlife Resources Commission. 133 pp. Bottomland Hardwoods. US Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/bottomland-hardwoods. Accessed May 1, 2017. Dahl, Thomas E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.ppwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/index.htm (Version 16JUL97). Eggers, Steve, 2012. Target Hydrology for Compensatory Mitigation -Memorandum. US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Listing the Tar River Spiny Mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria) Steinstansana) as an Endangered Species. 50 Federal Register, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 1985). Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, V.B., 2002, Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000). Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C. L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p. Haynes, R.J., Allen, J. A. and Pendleton, E. C. 1988. Reestablishment of Bottomland Hardwood Forests on Disturbed Sites: An Annotated Bibliography. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(22). 104 pp. "History." Tar River Land Conservancy. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2017. <http://www.tarriver.org/about- us/history/>. Hunt, W.F., I11, R.W. Skaggs, G.M. Chescheir and D.M. Amatya. 2001. Examination of the wetland hydrologic criterion and its application in the determination of wetland hydrologic status. Report No. 333, UNC Water Resources Research Institute, 119pp. Mitchell, R. J., and S. L. Duncan. 2009. Range of variability in southern coastal plain forests: its historical, contemporary, and future role in sustaining biodiversity. Ecology and Society 14(1): 17. NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 1, 2017). NC Department of Environmental Quality, Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Strategy Website. Accessed 5/1/2017. https://deq.nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source- management/nutrient-strategies/tar-pamlico. NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Planning Section. Tar - Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan 2010 Summary. 10 pp. NC Department of Water Quality. 2011. 2010 NC DWQ Tar -Pamlico River Basin Plan, Upper Tar River Subbasin, HUC 03020101. 35 pp. NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources, May 29th, 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development. Page 56 of 57 Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. February 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Prince, Ann. The Upper Tar River Basin: Swift Creek and Fishing Creek Subbasins. 6 pp. Schoeneberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E.C. Benham, and W.D. Broderson (eds.). 2002. Field book for describing and sampling soils. Version 2.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. Skagg, R. Wayne, 2012. Effect of Growing Season on the Criterion for Wetland Hydrology. Wetlands, 32: 1135-1147. Skaggs, R.W., Hunt, W.F., Chescheir, G.M., and Amatya, D.M. 1995. Reference Simulations for evaluating Wetland Hydrology. In: K.L. Campbell (ed.) Versatility of Wetlands in the Agricultural Landscape. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, MI, pp. 1-10. Sprecher, S. W., and A. G. Warne. 2000. Accessing and using meteorological data to evaluate wetland hydrology. ERDC/EL TR -WRAP -00-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wrap00-1/wrap00-l.pdf) Sumner, J.P., M.J. Vepraskas, and R.J. Kolka. 2009. Methods to evaluate rainfall for short-term hydrology assessment. Wetlands 29(3):1049-1062. Tar -Pamlico River Basin, 2013. NC Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Environmental Education and Public Affairs. Brochure. Epp. Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office. Raleigh, NC. 22 pp. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Technical standard for water -table monitoring of potential wetland sites. ERDC TN -WRAP -05-02. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. http://el. erdc.usace. army.mil/wrap//pdf/tnwrap05-2.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Norfolk District Corps and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Recommendations for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Including Site Design, Permit Conditions, Performance and Monitoring Criteria. Norfolk District, Norfolk, VA. 33 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. USGS Land Cover, accessed September, 2016, from USGS website: http://Iandcover.usgs.gov USDA Forest Service, 2011. Fiscal Year 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report. Francis Marion National Forest, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. 73 pp. Vepraskas, M., Skaggs, R.W., Broome, S., Burchell, M., Caldwell, P., 2013. Wetland Hydrology Assessment (for the NCDENR Science Advisory Panel on Aquatic Resource Re -Establishment). Wunsche, Christine. 2006. North Carolina's Pristine Rivers: Preserving Our Last Unspoiled Waters. Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center. 40pp. Page 57 of 57