20170938 Ver 2_More Information Received_20190509

Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?
r Yes r No
ID#* Version* 2
20170938
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Paul Wojoski:EADS\pavtojoski
Select Reviewing Office:* Central Office - [phone]
Submittal Type:*
Application Attachments
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r
Yes
r
No

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: r New Project
r Pre -Application Submittal
r More Information Response
r Other Agency Comments
r For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
New Project - Please check the new project type if you are trying to submit a new project that needs an official approval
decision.
Pre -Application Submittal - Please check the pre -application submittal if you just want feedback on your submittal and
do not have the expectation that your submittal will be considered a complete application requiring a formal decision.
More Information Response - Please check this type if you are responding to a request for information from staff and
you have and ID# and version for this response.
Other Agency Comments - Please check this if you are submitting comments on an existing project.
Is this supplemental information that needs to be sent to the Corps?*
r Yes r No
Project Contact Information
Name: Dicky Harmon
Who is subrritting the inforrration?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #: Existing Version:
170938 2
20170001 (no dashes)
Project Name: Central Carolina Intermodal Rail Terminal and Line of Road Improvements
Is this a public transportation project?
r Yes
r No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
r Yes r No r Unknown
County (ies)
Edgecombe
Nash
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
Swift Cr Mit_PRMP_5-8-2019.pdf 704.55KB
Appendix A- Figures _5-9-19.pdf 27.47MB
Only pdf or lore files are accepted.

Describe the attachments:
Revise Swift Creek - Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan Edgecombe County, North Carolina: USACE No.
SAW -2016-02338 with updated figures and graphics.
V By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the
"Uniform Electronic Transactions Act")
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes
(the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written
signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form."
Signature:
�it�rs�rltdr � 'y�'r���sr�c
Submittal Date: Is filled inautorretically.

SWIFT CREEK — PERMITTEE RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLAN
EDGECOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
USACE No. SAW -2016-02338
APPLICANTS:
How tomorrow moves
!! 00
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. (CSXT)
550 WATER STREET
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202
AND
OF
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION (NCDOT)
DIVISION 4
500 WARD BOULEVARD
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27895-3165
SUBMITTED TO:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (USACE)
North Carolina Division of Water Resources(NCDWR)
PREPARED BY:
Palustrine Group, LLC
4157 Alston Chapel Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312
and
wood.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
401 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703
SUBMISSION DATE
Rev. May 9, 2019

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.......................................................................................................... 7
4.1. 8 -DIGIT HUC — UPPER TAR RIVER-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
4.1.1. Water Quality .....................................................................................................................
7
4.1.1.1. Historical Changes of Aquatic Resources in Watershed ............................................
7
4.1.1.2. Water Quality Issues in Watershed ............................................................................
8
4.1.2. Wildlife------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
4.1.2.1. Historical Losses of Wildlife Habitat.........................................................................
8
4.2. 10 -DIGIT HUC - SWIFT CREEK ....................................................................................
9
4.2.1. Water Quality .....................................................................................................................
9
4.2.1.1. Historical Changes of Aquatic Resources in Watershed ............................................
9
4.2.1.2. Water Quality Issues in Watershed............................................................................
10
4.2.2. Wildlife------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
4.2.2.1. Historical Losses of Wildlife Habitat.........................................................................10
4.3. AREAS FOR WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT.............................................................10
4.3.1. Water Quality Needs in the Watershed..............................................................................10
4.3.2. Wildlife Needs in the Watershed---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
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...................11
4.3.4. Offsite Threats to Mitigation Efforts Constructed within the Mitigation Project Sites .....11
5. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN...................................................................................12
5.1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
5.1.1. Mitigation Project Objectives--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
5.2. MITIGATION PROJECT LOCATION AND SELECTION ............................................
14
5.2.1. Directions to the Project Site---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
5.2.2. Site Selection---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
5.2.3. Resource Equivalency ........................................................................................................
15
5.2.3.1. Comparison of Waters of the U-S------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
5.3. BASELINE CONDITIONS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
5.3.1. Physiography, Topography, and Land Use------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
5.3.2. Soils------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
5.3.3. Valley Classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
5.3.4. Jurisdictional Determination----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16
5.3.4.1. Description of Jurisdictional Features........................................................................
17
5.3.5. Existing Plant Communities-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
5.3.6. Baseline Stream Conditions-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
5.3.7. Stream Geomorphology — Proposed Restoration Reaches.................................................19
5.3.8. Wildlife------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20
5.3.9. Protected Species---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
5.3.9.1. Federally Listed Species--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
5.3.9.2. State Species of Concern ............................................................................................
23
5.3.10. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Summary..................................................................
27
5.4. MITIGATION WORK PLAN------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27
5.4.1. Mitigation Project Site-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27
5.4.2. Wetland Mitigation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28
5.4.2.1. Wetland Preservation-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28
I

5.4.2.2. Wetland Enhancement...............................................................................................
28
5.4.3. Hydrologic Monitoring......................................................................................................
28
5.4.4. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Restoration and Natural Community Reestablishment.......
28
5.4.4.1. Planting Plan..............................................................................................................
29
5.4.4.2. Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest..............................................................
29
5.4.4.3. Cypress -Gum Swamp................................................................................................
29
5.4.4.4. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp...........................................................................
29
5.4.4.5. Wet Pine/Mesic Pine Flatwoods Establishment.........................................................
29
5.4.4.6. Mixed Hardwood Forest............................................................................................
30
5.4.4.7. Vernal Pool Establishment.........................................................................................
30
5.4.5. Stream Mitigation..............................................................................................................
30
5.4.5.1. Stream Preservation...................................................................................................
30
5.4.5.2. Stream Restoration.....................................................................................................
30
5.4.5.2.1. Headwater Stream Restoration..............................................................................
31
5.4.5.2.2. Rosgen Priority 1 Restoration.................................................................................
31
5.4.6. Reference Sites...................................................................................................................32
5.4.6.1. Reference Streams......................................................................................................
32
5.4.6.2. Reference Wetlands...................................................................................................
32
5.5. FEMA FLOODPLAIN AND HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS .............................................
32
5.6. Section 401/404 Permitting...............................................................................................
33
5.7. MAINTENANCE PLAN..................................................................................................
33
5.8. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.....................................................................................
33
5.8.1. Wetland Mitigation............................................................................................................
33
5.8.1.1. Wetland Preservation.................................................................................................
33
5.8.1.2. Wetland Enhancement - Hydrology...........................................................................
34
5.8.2. Stream Mitigation..............................................................................................................
34
5.8.2.1. Stream Preservation...................................................................................................
34
5.8.2.2. Stream Restoration and Enhancement.......................................................................
34
5.8.2.2.1. Dimension...............................................................................................................
34
5.8.2.2.2. Pattern and Profile...................................................................................................
35
5.8.2.2.3. Substrate..................................................................................................................35
5.8.2.2.4. Stream Hydrology...................................................................................................
35
5.8.2.2.5. Macroinvertebrates.................................................................................................
35
5.8.2.2.6. Headwater Stream...................................................................................................
35
5.8.3. Vegetation..........................................................................................................................
36
5.8.4. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Restoration..........................................................................
36
5.8.5. Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Preservation.........................................................................
37
5.8.6. Visual Monitoring..............................................................................................................
37
5.9. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................
37
5.9.1. As -built Survey..................................................................................................................
38
5.9.2. Wetland Preservation.........................................................................................................
38
5.9.3. Wetland Enhancement and Restoration — Hydrology........................................................
38
5.9.4. Vegetation..........................................................................................................................
39
5.9.5. Stream Preservation...........................................................................................................
40
5.9.6. Stream Restoration and Enhancement...............................................................................
40
5.9.6.1. Dimension..........................................................................................................................
40
5.9.6.2. Pattern and Profile..............................................................................................................
41
5.9.6.3. Hydrology..........................................................................................................................
41
5.9.6.4. Macroinvertebrate..............................................................................................................
42
5.9.6.5. Headwater..........................................................................................................................
42
5.9.7. Visual.................................................................................................................................42
5.10. LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT......................................................................................
43
5.11. SITE PROTECTION.........................................................................................................44
ii

5.12. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN....
5.13. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .................
5.14. CLOSURE ...............................................
6. REFERENCES.......................................................
LIST OF TABLES
....................................................... 44
....................................................... 44
....................................................... 45
46
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 ..................... 9
Table 4. Objectives for the Mitigation Project...........................................................................................13
Table 5. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils.............................................................................16
Table 6. Evaluated Jurisdictional Features within the Mitigation Project..................................................17
Table 7. Stream Summary Information......................................................................................................19
Table 8. Potential for occurrence of federally listed animal and plant species within the
Mitigation Site, Edgecombe County, North Carolina.................................................................. 22
Table 9. Site Suitable, State Species of Concern for Edgecombe County, North Carolina ....................... 24
APPENDIX A: MAPS AND FIGURES
SiteLocation Map.....................................................................................................................................
1
Proximityto 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
NationalWetland Inventory Map..............................................................................................................
9
AquaticResources Map............................................................................................................................
10
Plant Communities Map (Existing Conditions)........................................................................................
11
PhotoLocations Map................................................................................................................................
12
CulturalResources Map............................................................................................................................
13a
CulturalResources Map............................................................................................................................
13b
MitigationWork Plan................................................................................................................................
14a
Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Plan............................................................................................................
14b
USACEConservation Easement Map......................................................................................................
15
FEMAFloodplain Map.............................................................................................................................
16
Proposed Monitoring Plan Map................................................................................................................
17
iii

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 JURISDICTIONAL REQUEST
APPENDIX L•
ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED SPECIES SEARCH
APPENDIX J:
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTS
APPENDIX K:
NCDWR BUFFER VIABILITY LETTER
APPENDIX L:
MITIGATION AVAILABILITY CORRESPONDENCE
Iv

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), a subsidiary of CSX Corporation (CSX), a Virginia Company, intends
to construct a new intermodal freight terminal, known as the Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal
(CCX Terminal), a siding to access the terminal and associated reconstruction of former second mainline
track in the vicinity of the terminal (Line of Road Improvements). The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) is supporting the CCX project with significant funding and is a co -applicant on
this permit application. The Project Area is approximately 681 acres and is comprised of the two
components, the CCX Terminal and Line of Road Improvements. The CCX Terminal consists of
approximately 635 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. The Line of
Road Improvements 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 I-95
corridor. This Line of Road Improvements project runs from CSX Milepost A 115.4 (south of CCX) through
the intermodal facility north to Milepost A110.6 and encompasses approximately 46 acres. These areas
extend from north of the City of Rocky Mount through the Town of Battleboro. 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.
Other roadways of note include Old Battleboro Road (northeast boundary of site) and Instrument
Drive/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 siding track. 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 former
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 an off-site
permittee -responsible mitigation project utilizing a watershed approach. The Swift Creek — Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Project) 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.
Swift Creek is located within the same watershed as the CCX Terminal and Line of Road Improvements
Project (see Figure I in Appendix A). The Swift Creek Subbasin 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 the
Town of Tarboro in Edgecombe County, North Carolina. The overall goal of the mitigation site selection
process was to enhance and improve the protection of this critical resource.
Federal and state resource agencies and the Tar River Land Conservancy (TRLC) communicated the
importance of considering the needs of the local community_ and including their input as the mitigation plan
was developed. 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 in order to meet the requirements of an
acceptable mitigation plan as defined by federal and state regulatory agencies, the proposed Mitigation
Project presented herein as a suitable Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) project to offset unavoidable
Page I of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
impacts associated with the development of the CCX Terminal and Line of Road Improvements Project.
This Mitigation Project is part of the Swift Creek Property (formerly Wilson Farm) (-593 acres) and is
currently owned by Palustrine Group LLC. This PRM plan addresses the same property which was
proposed for the initial terminal design permit application. Since the impacts have been significantly
reduced, the applicants and the mitigation sponsor have decided to offer a specific geographic portion of
the Swift Creek Property to adequately and completely mitigate for the reduced stream, wetland, and
riparian buffer impacts associated with the new terminal. The mitigation sponsor's intent is to eventually
protect the entire property if a mitigation bank can be permitted on the residual acreage of the Swift Creek
Property in the future. However, for this permit, only the specifically -designated portion of the Swift Creek
Property in this application and Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) plan will be designated for the
permittee -responsible mitigation. The revised Mitigation Project has been designed to preserve, restore,
and enhance approximately 63 acres of wetlands and 8,576 linear feet (-1.6 miles) of unnamed headwater
tributaries within approximately 196.5 acres of property. These resources will be permanently protected in
the Swift Creek watershed, a tributary of Tar River defined as critical priority areas needing protection by
the North Carolina Division of Water Resources(NCDWR), the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP),
and the TRLC. The remaining portions of the Swift Creek Property not utilized in this PRM plan are being
considered as a potential migration bank subject to Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and NCDWR approvals. It is expected that once the remaining portion of the Swift
Creek Property is accepted as a mitigation bank, an acceptable USACE/NCDWR conservation easement
will be placed on the remaining portions of the property. Following construction of identified/approved
restoration and enhancement activities, the easements will be transferred to the Conservation Trust for
North Carolina and the fee title of the Swift Creek Property, including the PRM area, will be transferred to
the TRLC.
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 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 PRM plan 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 Line of Road Improvements Project will be
accomplished through the establishment of buffers (-200 feet) within the Mitigation Project. The
Mitigation Project is designed to reestablish approximately 26. 10 acres of Tar -Pamlico riparian buffer along
the proposed restoration reaches and permanently preserve approximately 15.20 acres of Tar -Pamlico
riparian buffer.
Based on the current design and assumptions for the CCX Terminal and Line of Road Improvements
Project, 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
federal and state resource agencies.
Page 2 of 47

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 development of Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal (CCX Terminal), a siding
to access the terminal, associated reconstruction of former second mainline track, and a south lead track in
the vicinity of the terminal (Line of Road Improvements) (hereinafter "CCX Terminal and Line of Road
Improvements Project"). The Mitigation Project is located within the Swift Creek Property (approximately
593 acres) of which approximately 160 acres will be protected with a joint Department of the Army, United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) / North Carolina Division of Water Resources(NCDWR) -
approved conservation easement located in Edgecombe County, North Carolina. The Mitigation Project is
made up of a private land holding (held by Palustrine Group LLC) 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 CCX Terminal and Line of Road Improvements
Project. 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), NCDWR, the NC
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), 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 53.8 acres of wetlands and approximately 8,576 linear feet
(1.62 miles) of streams within the 196.5 -acre Mitigation Project. Additionally, the project will include the
restoration of approximately 25.64 acres of Tar -Pamlico riparian buffer and the preservation of 13.15 acres
of Tar -Pamlico riparian buffer.
The Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) plan 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 federal
and state agency verification. Comments from the federal and state agencies and the commenting public
will be addressed and incorporated into this mitigation plan.
Page 3 of 47

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 Line of Road
Improvements Project (approximately 681 acres) within the Upper Tar River Subbasin (HUC 03020101)
north of Rocky Mount, Edgecombe County, North Carolina, requires mitigation for impacts to 6.87 acres
of jurisdictional wetlands, 4,042 linear feet (LF) of streams and ditches, and 3.89 acres (169,266 sq. feet)
of Zone I and 2.54 acres (110,770 sq. feet) of Zone 2 riparian buffers. The proposed impacts will require
approximately 12.71 wetland credits, 7,052.50 stream credits, and 15.47 acres (673,955 sq. feet) 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 North Carolina Department of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS), a permittee -responsible mitigation site is proposed to meet the required compensatory wetland
mitigation requirement and riparian buffer mitigation requirement. The Applicants and their Agents have
prepared this PRM plan to satisfy the proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S and Tar -Pamlico
riparian buffers.
This PRM plan is comprised of the Mitigation Project and is intended to provide complete mitigation for
jurisdictional impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with the development of the CCX Terminal and Line
of Road Improvements Project and to offset impacts to riparian buffers as regulated by the State of North
Carolina. 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.
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
Some wetland preservation areas within the floodplain of Swift Creek have been allocated for riparian
buffer restoration. In total, approximately 9.0 acres of wetland preservation of the total 63 acres that have
been identified within the Mitigation Project have not been illustrated above in Table 1 and are included
the Riparian Buffer Preservation 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 47
Swift Creek - Permittee Responsible Mitieation Plan
Stream
Tar -Pamlico
Riparian
Mitigation
Wetland
Wetland
Stream
Restoration
Riparian
Site
Preservation
Enhancement
Preservation
(Linear
Buffer
Preservation
ation
(Acreage)
(Acreage)
(Acreage)
(Linear Feet)
Feet
Restoration
(Acreage)
(Acreage)
196.5
36.8
17.0
383
8,193
25.64
13.15
Some wetland preservation areas within the floodplain of Swift Creek have been allocated for riparian
buffer restoration. In total, approximately 9.0 acres of wetland preservation of the total 63 acres that have
been identified within the Mitigation Project have not been illustrated above in Table 1 and are included
the Riparian Buffer Preservation 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 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Table 2. Determination of Mitigation Credit Generation
SWIFT CREEK - PERMITTEE RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION WORK PLAN
STREAM MITIGATION
RESTORATION
FEATURE NAME
PROPOSED
LENGTH
F
PROPOSED
SINUOSITY
MITIGATION CREDIT
GENERATION RATIO
PROPOSED MITIGATION
CREDIT GENERATION
TRIBUTARY A -I
Headwater
533
1.00
1.0:1.0
533.0
TRIBUTARY A-1
5,940
1.20
1.0:1.0
5,925.0
TRIBUTARY B-2
(Headwater)
11056
1.00
1.0:1.0
1,056.0
TRIBUTARY K
679
1.20
1.0:1.0
679.0
STREAM RESTORATION
CREDIT SUBTOTAL
7,514.0
PRESERVATION
FEATURE NAME
PROPOSED
LENGTH
LF
MITIGATION CREDIT
GENERATION RATIO
PROPOSED MITIGATION
CREDIT GENERATION
TRIBUTARY B-1
383
7.5.0:1.0
51.1
STREAM PRESERVATION CREDIT SUBTOTAL
51.1
TOTAL STREAM MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION
7,565.1
WETLAND MITIGATI
ENHANCEMENT
FEATURE NAME
ACREAGE
(Acres)
MITIGATION CREDIT
GENERATION RATIO
PROPOSED MITIGATION
CREDIT GENERATION
WETLAND NO. 7
0.3
2.5:1.0
0.14
WETLAND NO. 11
5.6
2.5:1.0
2.24
WETLAND NO. 12
11.1
2.5:1.0
4.44
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT CREDIT SUBTOTAL
6.80
PRESERVATION
FEATURE NAME
ACREAGE
Acres
MITIGATION CREDIT
GENERATION RATIO
PROPOSED MITIGATION
CREDIT GENERATION
WETLAND NO. 4
2.1
5.0:1.0
0.42
WETLAND NO. 5
0.01
5.0:1.0
0.002
WETLAND NO. 6
0.06
5.0:1.0
0.01
WETLAND NO. 10
31.4
5.0:1.0
6.28
WETLAND NO. 13
3.2
5.0:1.0
0.63
WETLAND PRESERVATION CREDIT SUBTOTAL
6.98
TOTAL WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION
14.15
Page 5 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
TAR-PAMLICO RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION
MITIGATION
PROPOSED RIPARIAN
MITIGATION
CREDIT
FULL
BUFFER CREDIT
BUFFER ZONE
ACRES
CREDIT
TYPE
GENERATION
GENERATION
AVAILABLE
RATIO
ACRES / SQ. FT.
TRIBUTARY A-1
Restoration
13.05
1.0:1.0
100%
12.72 / 554,083
TOB — 100'
Restoration
TRIBUTARY K
1.23
1.0:1.0
100%
1.23 /53,579
TOB — 100'
TRIBUTARY A-1
Restoration
11.11
3.0:1.0
100%
3.66 / 159,430
(100'— 200'
TRIBUTARY K
Restoration
0.71
3.0:1.0
100%
0.24 / 10,309
TOB — 100'
TRIBUTARY A-1
Preservation
8.12
10.0:1.0
57%
0.46 / 20,161
TOB — 100'
Preservation
TRIBUTARY B-1
1.09
10.0:1.0
0%
0.0/0.0
TOB — 100'
Preservation
TRIBUTARY I-1
2.98
5.0:1.0
100%
0.60 / 25,962
(TOB — 100')
TRIBUTARY K
Preservation
0.88
5.0:1.0
100%
0.18/7,667
(TOB — 100')
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRESERVATION/EPHEMERAL CREDIT
8,55 / 372,293
GENERATION (25% CAP) ACRES/SQ. FEET
TOTAL TAR-PAMLICO RIPARIAN BUFFER CREDIT
19.08 ac. / 831,190 sq. ft.
GENERATION
Page 6 of 47

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, 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 groundwater 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 is
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 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, 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, 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
direct comparison in an older or more recent time period using the NWI methodology. The precision of
data collected in the USGS NLCD, which is available in the years 1976, 1992, 2001 and 2006, has improved
Page 7 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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 2017). 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 NCDWR 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.
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
Page 8 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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 leucoce halus)
Recovery
Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Endangered
AQUATIC SPECIES
Tar River Spinymussel (Elli do steinstansana)
Endangered
Yellow Lance (Elli do lanceolate)
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 and Yellow Lance highlights
the historic and continued impacts to aquatic resources in the area. As of 2006, the Tar River 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 and Yellow Lance habitat.
The surviving populations of the Tar River Spinymussel 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 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 9 of 47

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 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the basin. The Swift
Creek Watershed (10 -digit HUC 03 02010108) 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 and Yellow Lance. The Tar River Spinymussel is
a rare and federally endangered species that is listed as a G1 status by NatureServe, meaning that it is
"Critically Imperiled". The Yellow Lance is was recently added to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife on May 3, 2018. 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 these species have 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 65 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
Page 10 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
occurring channel planform and riffle -pool sequences (Rosgen 1996) typical of Coastal Plain stream
ecosystems. Protection of the headwaters through stream and riparian improvement is important for
maintaining water quality downstream and meeting the goals of NCDWR 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 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.
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 NCDWR 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 11 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
5.1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
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 HUC 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 160 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:
• Provide mitigation credits to offset impacts at the CCX Intermodal Terminal and Line of Road
Improvements project, including 7,052 Stream Mitigation Units, 12.71 Wetland Mitigation Units, and
15.47 acres (673,955 sq. ft.) of Tar -Pamlico Stream Buffer Units/Credits.
• Protection of approximately 63 acres of wetland and 8,576 (-1.62 miles) of preserved and restored
streams through the establishment of conservation easements.
• Preservation of approximately 35 acres of mature bottomland hardwood wetlands along Swift Creek.
Restoration and Enhancement of approximately 17.0 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 200 -foot buffers along proposed stream restoration/enhancement
corridors.
• Provide ecological benefits to address water quality impairments and hydrologic modifications, 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 inundate adjacent 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 12 of 47

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
200 -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
likely require the construction of logging roads to access portions
of the property. Protection of the existing vegetation will also
Floodplain function
allow the floodplain Swift Creek to function naturally providing
benefits to water quality and habitat corridors. Floodplain
functional uplift will be accomplished by utilizing natural stream
design to restore and enhance stream bank heights to further
connect streams with their floodplain
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 13 of 47

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 PRM plan site that meets and adheres to the
USACE 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and EPA 40 CFR Part 230. A watershed approach focusing on the
Upper Tar River watershed was utilized to search for the ideal PRM site to satisfy the compensatory wetland
and stream mitigation requirement for impacts associated with the CCX Site while simultaneously
furthering the conservation goals of TRLC 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 14 of 47
Increased residence time for floodwaters provided by enhancing
and preserving riparian wetlands will maintain the volume of water
Subsurface water retention
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
conservation easements, with its proximity to previously
Habitat Corridor Protection
conserved lands (Figure 2 in Appendix A), will preserve natural
travel corridors for native species 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 e etui
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 TRLC 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 PRM plan site that meets and adheres to the
USACE 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and EPA 40 CFR Part 230. A watershed approach focusing on the
Upper Tar River watershed was utilized to search for the ideal PRM site to satisfy the compensatory wetland
and stream mitigation requirement for impacts associated with the CCX Site while simultaneously
furthering the conservation goals of TRLC 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 14 of 47

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 federal and state 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 CCX Terminal and Line of Road Improvements
Project. 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 Line of Road
Improvements 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 6.87 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
Approximately 4,042 LF of streams and ditches as well as 3.89 acres (169,266 sq. ft.) of Zone I and 2.54
acres (110,770 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 63
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 5,518 linear feet of streams consisting
of five unnamed tributaries. Both sites, CCX Terminal and Line of Road Improvements Project and the
Swift Creek Mitigation Project, 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 Line of Road Improvements 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 15 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5.3.2. Soils
Soils within the Mitigation Site 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. Eleven soil series are mapped within the Mitigation Project: Altavista fine sandy loam, Conetoe loamy
sand, Dogue fine sandy loam, Norfolk loamy sand, Rains fine sandy loam, Roanoke loam, Tarboro loamy
sand, Wagram loamy sand, Wehadkee silt loam, and Wickham sandy loam.
Table 5 shows the soil map units found within the Mitigation Site.
Table 5. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils
Map Unit Name
Unit Symbol
Hydric Rating
Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
AaA
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
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
Tarboro loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
TaB
Non -Hydric
Wa ram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
WaB
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 the primary drainage within the Mitigation Project (Tributary A) 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).
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 USACE Wilmington District as well as
other federal and state government agencies.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions (Wood E&I) personnel, including Professional Wetland
Scientists and Licensed Professional 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
Page 16 of 47

Swift Creek - Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
(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 was submitted to the USAGE, 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
ACREAGEILINEAR FEET
Wetland No. 2
Jurisdictional Wetland
2.83
Acres
Wetland No. 6
Jurisdictional Wetland
57.09
Acres
Wetland No. 7
Jurisdictional Wetland
3.17
Acres
UT - A
Intermittent/Perennial
stream
2,951
Feet
UT - B
Perennial stream
981
Feet
UT - I
Intermittent/Perennial
stream
477
Feet
UT - K-1
Ephemeral stream
598
Feet
UT - K-2
E hemeral stream
151
Feet
Total Jurisdictional Wetlands
-63 ac./ -5,518 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 8
291
Feet
Ditch 9
276
Feet
Ditch 28
2,139
Feet
Ditch 29
247
Feet
Ditch 30
212
Feet
Ditch 31
454
Feet
Ditch 32
377
Feet
Ditch 33
160
Feet
Total Ditches
9,432 LF
-133
Acres
-Uplands
Total Mitigation Project Site
196.5
Acres
5.3.4.1. Description of Jurisdictional Features
Wetland 2 is a jurisdictional headwater forest wetland, 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 2, 3, and 4.
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
Page 17 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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 and UT -B within the
project area.
Wetland 7 is a 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.
Stream UT -A is a jurisdictional perennial stream and is classified as a 1St order stream. Stream UT -A flows
into Wetland 6, and ultimately into Swift Creek. UT -A becomes a 2nd order stream after the confluence
with UT -B. The stream originates east of Wetland 2.
Stream UT -13 is a jurisdictional perennial stream 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 -I is a jurisdictional intermittent/perennial stream 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.
Streams UT -K-1 and UT -K-2 are jurisdictional ephemeral streams and are classified as 1St order streams.
Both Streams UT -I-1 and UT -I-2 flow off property into White Oak Swamp before reaching Swift Creek.
The streams originate within Wetland 6.
Ditches: There are a total of approximately 14 ditches located within the Mitigation Project area and
encompassing over 9,432 linear feet. Ditches are located in both wetland areas and upland areas and vary
between ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial stream characteristics.
5.3.5. Existing Plant Communities
Wetland plant communities within the Mitigation Project site were characterized using the NC WAM
method. Two predominant wetland plant communities exist within the site: bottomland hardwood forest
and riverine swamp forest. The Guide to the Natural Communities ofNorth Carolina (4th Approximation)
(Schafale 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 Flora of the southern and mid-Atlantic states (Weakley 2015).
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 (Saururus cernuus) and soft rush (Juncus
effusus) 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
Page 18 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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 spp.). 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 clear -cuts or planted pine plantations occur within the Mitigation Project
area.
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 Wood E&I 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
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
Page 19 of 47
Existing Length (ft)
6,761
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.001 — 0.009
Drainage Area
—339
(Acres)
Perennial (P) or
Ep
Intermittent (I)
Existing Conditions
G5c (Upper)
Rosgen
C5 (Lower)
Classification
FEMA
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
Page 19 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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.
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 inundated 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 of the original dredging of the stream system. 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 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 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 G5c and a C5 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 (Buteo lineatus), barred owl (Stria varia), great
horned owl (Bubo virginianus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), pileated
Page 20 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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
americana), and yellow-rumped 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 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.
Wood E&I 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
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 (https://www.ncnhp.org/data/species-community-search. Website accessed
December 5, 2018.)
• USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaQ database (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
Information for Planning and Consultation database. htlps:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Website accessed
December 5, 2018.)
• USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS)
• Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office website
(hM2s://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cniylist/edgecombe.html. list/edgecombe.html. Website accessed December 5,
2018.)
Wood E&I 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
Page 21 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
above criteria. The potential for listed species occurring within the Mitigation Project is presented in Table
8.
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
ravel and/or coarse sand.
Clean, coarse to medium sand or gravel substrates
Yellow Lance
Endangered
at the end of stable sand and gravel bars of clean
Moderate
(Elliptio lanceolata)
moderate, flowing sites with high dissolved
oxygen content.
Notes: NCNHP List of Rare Plant Species ofNorth Carolina; USFWS IPaC; USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System
- Species Profiles; County list (USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services); NatureServe Explorer.
The results of the December 5, 2018, 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.
Page 22 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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
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). 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 and Yellow Lance
are 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 and the Yellow Lance 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 23 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Table 9. Site Suitable, State Species of Concern for Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Page 24 of 47
11
Documented
Common Name
State
County
General Habitat Description
Occurrence
(Scientific Name)
Status'
Status'
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
W1
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
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.
Dwarf Salamander
Margins of ponds in pine forests or savannas,
(Eurycea
SC
Current
bottomland hardwood forests, and swamps.
No
uadridi itata)
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.
Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, and Neuse drainages. Sandy
Glassy Darter
W5
Currentruns
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
Tar and Neuse drainages. Cleanclear gravel riffles
(Lampetra
T
Current
and runs of creeks and small rivers.
No
ae tera
Pinewoods Shiner
Tar and Neuse drainages. Sandy runs and flowing
(Lythrurus
W2
Current
pools of creeks and small to medium rivers.
No
matutinus
Carolina Madtom
T
Current
Tar and Neuse drainages. Sand-, gravel-, and
Yes
(Noturus furiosus)
detritus -bottomed riffles and runs of small to
Page 24 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Page 25 of 47
Documented
Common Name
State
County
General Habitat Description
Occurrence
(Scientific Name)
Status'
Status2
within 1 -mile
of Site'
medium rivers. Species is often found in very
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
(Elliptio
io
W3'
Current
Waccamaw. Freshwater river basins. Species is
No
cist
WS
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.
Chowan, Roanoke, and Tar drainages, and abundant
in Lake Waccamaw. Ponds, canals, and slow -
Tidewater Mucket
T
Current
moving sections of rivers; including artificial
No
(Leptodea ochracea)
impoundments. Species is found in a variety of
substrates, including silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and
occasionally clay.
Page 25 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
'E = State Endangered (animal)
T = State threatened (animal)
SC = Special Concern (animal)
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.
3NCDEQ, NCNHP Data Services. http://ncnhy.org/web/nhp/database-search. Website accessed December 5, 2018
Page 26 of 47
Documented
Common Name
State
County
General Habitat Description
Occurrence
(Scientific Name)
Status'
Status2
within 1 -mile
of Site'
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
Bellow's -beak Sedge
(Carex
W1
Current
Somewhat shaded dry to mesic woodlands.
No
h sorb ncha
(CottCottongrass
on orum
W 1
Historical
Pocosins, acidic seeps, and peat -burn pools (peaty
No
vir inicum)sites).
Violet Lespedeza
(Lespedeza
W7
Current
Woodlands and woodland borders.
No
rutescens
Yellow Water -
crowfoot
SC -H
Historical
Pools in floodplains of small stream blackwater
No
(Ranunculus
swamps, other stagnant or slowly moving waters.
abellaris
Pale Beaksedge
(Rhynchospora
W1
Current
Savanna-pocosin and sandhi''-pocosin ecotones,
No
allida
peaty seepage bogs, and sandhill seeps.
'E = State Endangered (animal)
T = State threatened (animal)
SC = Special Concern (animal)
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.
3NCDEQ, NCNHP Data Services. http://ncnhy.org/web/nhp/database-search. Website accessed December 5, 2018
Page 26 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5.3.10. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Summary
Wood E&I 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 PRM plan 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 National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) eligibility determinations for
four known historic structures and a historic cemetery within the study area. Based on this investigation,
none of four structures appear to be eligible for the NRHP based on their dilapidated conditions or lack of
significant architectural style.
The Bulluck Cemetery is 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.
As a result of the cultural resource reconnaissance, it seems that the impacts associated with this Mitigation
Project 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 36.0040 °N and 77.6072 °W. The proposed Mitigation Project
site is currently owned by Palustrine Group, LLC. The proposed conservation easement will encompass
approximately 160 acres of protected land and is expected to permanently protect approximately 63 acres
of preserved, enhanced, and restored wetlands and approximately 1.6 miles (8,576 linear feet) of preserved,
enhanced, and restored unnamed tributaries to Swift Creek as illustrated in Figure 14a and Figure 14b in
Page 27 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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 36.8
acres of wetlands, as shown in Figure 14a in Appendix A. The proposed wetland preservation areas: 10 and
13 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 4 and 6 are located in the adjacent upland areas and are connected to the larger
wetland complex of Swift Creek by tributaries A-1. Riparian corridors will be reestablished with restoration
of these tributaries with native vegetation. The proposed corridor width is 200 feet on either side of the
tributaries.
A credit ratio of 5:1 was utilized to calculate the proposed wetland mitigation credits generated from
wetland preservation activities.
5.4.2.2. Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement activities within the Mitigation Project are proposed within Wetlands 7, 11, and 12
as shown in Figure 14a in Appendix A. These jurisdictional wetland areas 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 current wetland feature that will not be 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, a natural plant community will be established in accordance
with Section 5.4.4 Natural Community Reestablishment.
A credit ratio of 2.5:1 was utilized to calculate the proposed wetland mitigation credits generated from
wetland enhancement activities.
5.4.3.Hydrologic Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring wells and stream gauges will be installed within selected portions of the mitigation
site to ensure that wetland hydrology is maintained in those areas following hydrologic manipulation of the
site and that the stream headwater restoration and Priority I restoration reaches are functioning as intended.
Wells will be installed within selected wetland enhancement and preservation areas and along the proposed
headwater stream restoration and Priority 1 restoration. Approximately seven shall groundwater monitoring
wells and five stream gauges will be installed within the site. See Figure 17 in Appendix A for approximate
locations.
5.4.4.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 200 -foot -wide buffer, originating from the
top of bank of the existing/proposed stream feature and existing ditches will be reestablished/preserved
Page 28 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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.
5.4.4.1. Planting Plan
The planting plan for the mitigation work areas will be divided into three zones for plant community
establishment:
• Zone 1: Mixed Hardwood Forest 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.
5.4.4.2. 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.
5.4.4.3. 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.
5.4.4.4. 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).
5.4.4.5. 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
abandoned 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.
Page 29 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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.
5.4.4.6. Mixed Hardwood Forest
It is expected that the Tar -Pamlico Buffers and adjacent uplands adjacent to 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 they are currently in row crop production or are small
isolated areas that do not lend themselves to active management. These areas will be managed to limit
exotic, invasive vegetation when practical to ensure the functionality of the mitigation areas.
Mixed hardwood forest areas may grade into cypress -gum swamps or small stream swamps or Coastal Plain
bottomland hardwoods down slope. The ecotone within this area will contain a mosaic of species due to
landscape position.
5.4.4.7. 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.
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.
It is expected that the vernal pools will be established with native vegetation. Vernal pools will be planted
with a combination of Zone 2 and Zone 3 species depending upon their location within the landscape
position.
5.4.5. Stream Mitigation
5.4.5.1. Stream Preservation
Proposed stream preservation efforts within the Mitigation Project will permanently protect approximately
383 linear feet of stream channel and their associated buffers. The stream reaches proposed for preservation
area are as follows:
• Tributary B -I (-383 LF)
A credit ratio of 7.5:1 was utilized to calculate the proposed stream mitigation credits generated from stream
preservation activities. The proposed stream preservation activities are illustrated on Figure 14a in
Appendix A.
5.4.5.2. 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 federal and state agencies, Tributary A-1, B-2, and K will be restored through a
combination of Coastal Plain headwater stream reestablishment and Rosgen Priority I techniques. The
proposed restoration activities described below for each of the restoration reaches.
Page 30 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5.4.5.2.1. Headwater Stream Restoration
Portions of Tributary A-1 (-533 LF) and B-2 (1,056 LF) are anticipated to be restored through the use of
headwater stream restoration techniques. The proposed restoration plan will include the filling the existing
ditches 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 will be returned. The natural surface
water during periods of high ground water and/or significant storm events is expected to reoccupy the
remnant channels where they currently exist and passively recreate the historic pattern and profile where it
no longer exists. 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 5.4.4 Natural Plant Community Establishment.
A credit ratio of 1:1 was utilized to calculate the proposed stream mitigation credits generated from stream
headwater stream restoration activities. The proposed stream preservation activities are illustrated on
Figure 14a in Appendix A.
5.4.5.2.2. Rosgen Priority 1 Restoration
The lower portion Tributary A-1 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 or 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 I 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 is approximately
1.20 and the proposed stream lengths have been calculated based on the existing valley slope.
• Tributary A-1 (5,925 LF)
• Tributary K (-679 LF)
A credit ratio of 1:1 was utilized to calculate the proposed stream mitigation credits generated from stream
Rosgen Priority I stream restoration activities. The proposed stream preservation activities are illustrated
on Figure 14a in Appendix A.
Page 31 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5.4.6. Reference Sites
5.4.6.1. Reference Streams
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 G) 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 = 14.52xo.66 RZ = 0.88
• Bankfull Discharge: y = 16.56xo 12 W = 0.90
• Bankfull Width: y = 10.97xo.16 W = 0.87
• Bankfull Mean Depth: y = I.29x0.30 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:
• Drainage Area (DA)
• Valley Type
• Bankfull Width (Wbkf)
• Bankfull Depth (Dbkf)
• Max Bankfull Depth (D,,,a.X)
• Floodprone Width (Wfpa)
• Valley Slope (S„aney)
• Channel Slope (Sch.el)
5.4.6.2. Reference Wetlands
• Sinuosity (K)
• Pool Width (Wpool)
• Pool Depth (Dpool)
• Max Pool Depth (Dpool max)
• Pool -to -pool spacing (LP_P)
• Belt Width (Wbh)
• Wavelength (Lm)
• Radius of Curvature (Re)
Wetland reference areas will be identified within either the Mitigation Project tract, or adjacent previously
conserved tracts within the Upper Tar River 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 -I is located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone AE
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 Flood Insurance Rate Map (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.
Page 32 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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 Line of Road Improvements 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.
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, no additional monitoring beyond the seven-year period is expected. 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 are as follows:
5.8.1. Wetland Mitigation
5.8.1.1. Wetland Preservation
Initial success will be achieved upon approval by USACE and NCDWR 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.
Page 33 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5.8.1.2. Wetland Enhancement - 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 wetland enhancement areas indicate
that groundwater is within 12 inches of the soil surface for 7% target saturation period for monitoring years
I and 2 and 10-12% 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 I I 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 I and 2 and a minimum of 23
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 and NCDWR 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 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 than 2.2 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
I and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 5, or 5 and 7). For example, if BHR is calculated to be 0.8 at a given cross section
following monitoring year 1, acceptable BHR calculated for that cross section in monitoring year 2 would
be 0.8 ± 0.08 (0.72 to 0.88). 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.
Page 34 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5.8.2.2.2. Pattern and Profile
A longitudinal profile will be collected as part of the as -built survey; however, 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 is expected and does 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 1 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.
5.8.2.2.5. Macroinverteb rates
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
Headwater stream monitoring will be applied to portion of Tributaries A-1 and B-2 stream (and others if
required by— NCDWR). These restoration reaches will be restored utilizing passive, headwater stream
restoration techniques, and monitored as follows.
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.
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
Page 35 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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
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 26.10 acres of Tar -Pamlico riparian
buffers (TOB — 200 feet) will be restored within 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 licensed pesticide 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 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 and
shall include a minimum of four native hardwood species or four native hardwood tree and native shrub
species. 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).
Page 36 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
The bare -root seedlings and/or containerized stock will be planted over 26.10 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 15.20 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 100 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.
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 and
NCDWR 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.
Page 37 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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.
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. At the end of the monitoring period, wetland preservation areas
will be assessed 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. The field evaluation will also include an assessment using the NC WAM methodology to
evaluate and determine that the wetland preservation areas have been maintained throughout the
monitoring period.
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.
Page 38 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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 4 -feet 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 be conducted in accordance with the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
protocols and will occur between August 15 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. The CVS Level 1 (Planted Stem Inventory Plots) and Level 2 (Total Wood
Stem Inventory Plots) survey protocols will be utilized. A combination of approximately 50% permanent
fixed plots and 50% 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.
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
Page 39 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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.
5.9.6. Stream Restoration and Enhancement
Monitoring for stream restoration and enhancement will 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
Page 40 of 47
• edge of channel*
• at the edge of water
• at the thalweg
• terraces and other major grade changes
along the entire length of stream

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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
• bankfull
• log sill location
• maximum pool depths
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 SpacingBankfull Width (Wbkf)
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
Page 41 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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, etc.). 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 5.9.6.3. 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
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, etc.
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
Page 42 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
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 ensure long-term site objectives are met. The Mitigation Project
will be under the long-term management of Palustrine Group and will be maintained and protected to ensure
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 Palustrine Group.
The remaining portions of the Swift Creek Property are anticipated to be developed into a mitigation bank,
pending USACE and NCDWR approvals. Following the development of the mitigation bank and
completion of all restoration and enhancement stream and wetland activities, the fee title will be transferred
to 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. It is anticipated that the Swift Creek Property
will be made open to the 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.
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. 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.
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 associated Tar -Pamlico 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.
Page 43 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5.11. SITE PROTECTION
The acquisition and protection of the Mitigation Project is intended to provide compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable wetland losses from the construction of the CCX Terminal and Line of Road Improvements
Project. The protection mechanism on the mitigation areas (approximately 160 Acres) will be in perpetuity
through the use of a conservation easement equivalent to the conservation easement template provided by
the USACE Wilmington District (Appendix B). Figure 15 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed layout
of the USACE/NCDWR easement. The conservation easement holder (the "Easement Holder") has not
been finalized at this stage but, TRLC has, in principle, agreed to act as the Easement Holder.
The remaining portions of the Property not utilized in this PRM are being considered as a potential
migration bank subject to USACE and NCDWR approvals. It is expected that once the remaining portion
of the Swift Creek Property is accepted as a mitigation bank, an acceptable USACE/NCDWR conservation
easement will be placed on the remaining portions of the property. Following construction of
identified/approved restoration and enhancement activities, the easements will be transferred to the
Conservation Trust for North Carolina and the fee title of the Swift Creek Property, including the PRM
area, will be transferred to the TRLC.
5.12. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, Palustrine Group 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 PRM
plan, 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 PRM plan. 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.
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 ensure
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.
Page 44 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
5.14. CLOSURE
At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance standards, Palustrine Group 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
PRM plan and all obligations under this plan, the USACE shall issue a close out letter to the Sponsor.
Page 45 of 47

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.
htWs://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.npwrc.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., III, 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.
Nature Serve. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1.
Nature Serve, 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:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-re source s/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.
NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. February 2016. Standard
Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates.
Page 46 of 47

Swift Creek — Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Prince, Ann. The Upper Tar River Basin: Swift Creek and Fishing Creek Subbasins. 6 pp.
Rosgen, David L. Applied River Morphology. 1996. Pagosa Springs, Colorado: Wildland Hydrology
Books.
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. 6pp.
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.
htW:Hel.erdc.usace.anny.mil/wrgp/Tdf/tnwrgp05-2.pd
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://landcover.usgs.aov
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).
Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the southern and mid-Atlantic states, working draft of May 2015.
Wunsche, Christine. 2006. North Carolina's Pristine Rivers: Preserving Our Last Unspoiled Waters.
Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center. 40pp.
Page 47 of 47

Appendix G
Swift Creek - Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
APPENDIX A
MAPS AND FIGURES

Warren North am ton
Hertford
Halifax
Franklin Bertie
Nash
Edgecombe
1 Martin
Wake
Wilson
Pitt
Johnston
N ene
� Beaufort
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
CSXT Carolina Connector
® Intermodal Rail Terminal and
Second Mainline Improvements
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(- 196.5 Acres)
f�
I
I
Palustr ne Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed Bv: WAR
Date: 12/6/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
62 50 1801 80, and Palustnne
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
.si
Ra I
s�
y^e"n c
asl ��a-rrc. a
V
Y
80e°h � g"rA
Beim
Go
2 Belm°
0 take Gr
Club
L
0
Agway °
job
Nolth9i en
Goff Club d
�Y
J
Benronnue 4�,q o
Country Club
0.. &V
0°se 9r4' 47
rf
wa
N
+ Jt
' ca
LN
I 1 r
i..
ij i J t
11 r
33� 1
Whitaker; E Ma n st
j' fr rLl1,i�.f fel•` '�-.
'NhHF Dak Swa�np
R,
Roc ky
Wunt Sparrs ' i
Complex 4
y w
ErITIM
m
,rk _
lent
)undary
iiMt, x,,, Cr ook
Z
3
V
33
�'At C'..
"amp
Swift Creek
Mitigation Site
33
LeNatt
- 47
R� E
Esn, DeLornne, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other con Mbutors
Sources: Esn, HERE, DeLornne, USGS, Inteonap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esn Japan, METI, Esn China (Hong
Kong), Esri Korea, Esn (Thailand), Mapnnylndia, NGCC, ©Open StreetMap contnbutors, and the GIS User a

Warren
Pitt
i
ene
Figure 2. Proximity to
Conserved Lands Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(-196.5 Acres)
Tar River
Named USGS Streams
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
I
f
P Palustme Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12n12018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
Natural Areas (NHNA)
Exceptional
Very High
High
Moderate
General
Unranked
Known Managed Areas
QConservation Easement
QDedicated Nature Preserve
- Registered Heritage
® Other Protection
® Federal Ownership
® State Ownership
® Local Government
® Private
rra
MRS
A
kkoecasln crcgy
uk..I
C
•�-'-fes tPi ChUeC,ry
A
P
10 Coker Town itd
e111,� Ra
F-1
x
pce Swamp
�a
Swift,Creek_
Mitigation Site
❑ Q
Leggett
it
d
54
��J��adovmbr4ok fico ! �y� . -
+Q1
' &s ywamn
Haug
CNONf
e
qty Cf tech HALPFAx _ T -
s�'r" EDGECOMBE
c4
R u
o
�°
_
N11T;k
� v
arbat EdgecQ
AtmGrt A"'4tFf�
N
1. `, / Vicar, Itlaxr
�+ � Lgkn
439 Rv fIr Perk.
`PnfSLc Thai Pk-,, a
A -�
- r47CA rOa fist
GtBe,�
jL
op CC
Flogtgf" d
r•G�4�""�R
tl E
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS NRCAN GcoBase, IGN, c
,.EsnChina (Hong Kong), swlsstopo, Mapmylndla, w E
StreetMap,'contnbutors, and the GIS User Community w
a
Source,Esn, HERE, DeLorme, Intp, r ePC
11
sn Japan,
idaster NL, Ordnance Su yc-e,2
�K
- arboro
V� l e i2
Flogtgf" d
r•G�4�""�R
tl E
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS NRCAN GcoBase, IGN, c
,.EsnChina (Hong Kong), swlsstopo, Mapmylndla, w E
StreetMap,'contnbutors, and the GIS User Community w
a

y:
i
I e0 100 zoo I
Miles
Figure 3a. HUC-8 Watershed
Land Cover Comparison Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
= Upper Tar Watershed (HUC 8)
rAl
I
J,
i
Palustr ne Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/6/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
62 5018 01 80, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
1992 Legend Info
Land Classification Legend
Open Water
Urban/ Recreational Grasses
Low Intensity Residential
High Intensity Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrubland
Grassland/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
- Row Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
2011 Legend Info
Land Classification Legend
- Open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
=Developed, Medium Intensity
- Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
® Deciduous Forest
- Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
- Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
N
7
® 0 5 10 20
Miles
I
t:
-eek
i Site
i58
® 0 5 10
�. 20
Miles
:reek
n Site

I e0 100 zoo
Miles
Figure 3b. HUC-10 Watershed
Land Cover Comparison Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Watershed (HUC 10)
i Palustr ne Group
woo
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/6/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
��Ns�yan•E34 vq 3'� �+f!6ti
l l7 GEC 3M --F -�•.
P ❑
® 0
Y
2.75 5.5
2011 Legend Info
Land Classification Legend
- Open Water
Developed, Open Space
® Developed, Low Intensity
=Developed, Medium Intensity
=Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
- Deciduous Forest
- Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
- Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emer ent Herbaceous Wetlands
i
r
t
J
� pY `Ltl
�i
r1
Swift Creek '
Mitigation Site
rt a
rJr,r
4Fl( (l
P a
rtrr
+ Car
Miles__---`-
.
�r
alt s
����
��^^.�� AAA!
xx �
�
� ��
� � • • •
r. �: ; �:' �i
fir.'
• • • •
V ,
a
;i
��Ns�yan•E34 vq 3'� �+f!6ti
l l7 GEC 3M --F -�•.
P ❑
® 0
Y
2.75 5.5
2011 Legend Info
Land Classification Legend
- Open Water
Developed, Open Space
® Developed, Low Intensity
=Developed, Medium Intensity
=Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
- Deciduous Forest
- Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
- Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emer ent Herbaceous Wetlands
i
r
t
J
� pY `Ltl
�i
r1
Swift Creek '
Mitigation Site
rt a
rJr,r
4Fl( (l
P a
rtrr
+ Car
Miles__---`-
.

Figure 4. USGS Topographic
Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(--593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(--196.5 Acres)
References:
Whitakers
Draughr
7.5 -minute series,
L -1
Hartsease Tarboro
0 3.5 7
7.5 -minute series,
Miles
Figure 4. USGS Topographic
Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(--593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(--196.5 Acres)
References:
USGS Topographic Map,
7.5 -minute series,
Whitakers, dated 1961
USGS Topographic Map,
7.5 -minute series,
Draughn, dated 1960
USGS Topographic Map,
7.5 -minute series,
Hartsease, dated 1981
USGS Topographic Map,
7.5 -minute series,
Tarboro, dated 1981
I
Palustr,ne Group
woof
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/6/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
62 5018 01 80, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
�1
r r
-.r r fir �
/ai ..
p
41b -
:%de
1 {}
FN
=m
s�
ell
P E 97
Cal 4 �' �f p F e
a "�
C.9[ilaJN 21-
. ..�._�.s•_� - 'r f -i I , •.r i, r i 3. �5'
c� D
1` � fj � �v' r/ `l� ry � � r � � 4�i r��o�r°a� :../ t• �..-�
• Ott
rt _ ��' rR � S l •zvb
t�3foer 1� n
� I o
ell
L_. a � •.-.'"` Com, r� \..�� � ,. _ ��_ _._ '3 -r � s� ��,. ,f _.: xr �
t
j1 0
a
r "••� i y ` = lam►
JI
p 9 4 r1R5
0✓ 0 5 zv 1 5v 2
' `1\ _ P 1t j e
Miles \ rt! 1 Eli, D�1,,-,,rG•E BCO, NOAA NGDC, and oth �t butors -
1j 9T } �r i Copyn ght 2013 yat onal Geograph c So tyt cubed , w
a

Figure 5a. Edgecombe County
Historic Map (1905)
Swift Creek - Permitee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(-196.5 Acres)
#Palust�ri ne Group
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/6/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
w t�
�ho0 "W
Idle
5
�• ! M ♦ 'i
Ilk tae
pro ,
tilt
IN
;$k
Im
A
Miles
fou- �*
Ti
J Pa'T" 40 JO ry
A �J '(#04
joy
..
'•,
#r
� y
b �rN
tf
i1
G
# � sem,*
a## C 0
a*O�� rr
•r
41
}1 ra
TT VS r
�N E
40 �' `; ` " Imagery Source. USDA NAIP 2015
a

4ocky Maun
o 5 10
Miles
Figure 5b. Edcgecombe
County Soil Survey - 1908
Swift Creek - Permitee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(196.5 Acres)
!f
,rA.
I
i
Plustr ne Group
woo
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
62 5018 01 80, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
Lai
t
3
N
J
a
rf,4F* E
Imagery Source: State Archives of North Carolina -
� a
3=
k
+s
3
N
J
a
rf,4F* E
Imagery Source: State Archives of North Carolina -
� a

44
33
44
258
Mount 33
�/\64 20 Tarboro
tea/EEEEEEE==== Miles 258
Figure 6a. Historic Aerial Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
® (-196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Stream
4
1
Palustr ne Group
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
9�
4.4 hY
' �"t� i?
f
y.
If,
AY ,�ycc
Imagery Source: USGS Earth Explorer
I-'----
-
t t -'
E
`�..
A ..
t
�
.
. 7v.
� �.,
Vis`. �Y,�A :
7 a
•�
.�
:� ,, =z "
��`
9�
4.4 hY
' �"t� i?
f
y.
If,
AY ,�ycc
Imagery Source: USGS Earth Explorer
E
`�..
A ..
N
.
. 7v.
� �.,
Vis`. �Y,�A :
7 a
•�
.�
:� ,, =z "
��`
"zr^t$e
Imagery Source
USGS'r Earth Explorer :
a

Figure 6b. Historic Aerial Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(--593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(--196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Stream
l
Palustnne Group
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for anysuch third
party or unintended use.
T
33
44
258
PAouitt
(3,
122
64 20
T.yrbvro
,Go
3.5 7
44
mmmmmmmmml=====
Miles -8
Figure 6b. Historic Aerial Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(--593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(--196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Stream
l
Palustnne Group
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for anysuch third
party or unintended use.

Figure 6c. Historic Aerial Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
® (-196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Stream
'O
Palustnne Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for anysuch third
party or unintended use.
T
33
44
P
33
258
Mount
(C2
64 20 +__7arb
0
3.5 7 - 44
Miles 258
Figure 6c. Historic Aerial Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
® (-196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Stream
'O
Palustnne Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for anysuch third
party or unintended use.

Figure 6d. Historic Aerial Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(--593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(--196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Stream
l
Palustnne Group
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for anysuch third
party or unintended use.
T
33
44
258
PAouttt
(:33,
122
64 20
T.yrbvro
,Go
3.5 7
44
mmmmmmmmml=====
Miles -8
Figure 6d. Historic Aerial Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(--593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(--196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Stream
l
Palustnne Group
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for anysuch third
party or unintended use.

Gia l3-a:8a
�a
ray
ego 10 20
Miles'
�
Figure 7. Lidar Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
IM (--196.5 Acres)
Elevation (ft)
- High : 93
- Low: 40
I
Palustnne Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12n12018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for anysuch third
party or unintended use.

44 �
33
44
97P 5858
Mount 33
12
64 20 + Tarbo
0 3.5 7 44 111
Miles 58
Figure 8. NRCS Soils Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(- 196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Stream
USGS Flow Path
Soil Hydric Rating
U Nonhydric
0 Predominantly Nonhydric
0 Predominantly Hydric
0 Hydric
Palustrine Group
woodo
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
AaA ,1
Ro
. ••• _ .. r. „.. :,., e: :waw.::.. .r re: w.. .,+:#'; :anW"':w� }}r�l.M"/� '�Crw•Wil,.:.......n .i'i ..
de
.4
AaA
Altavista fine sandy loam, Oto 3 percent slopes
CeB
Conetoe loamy sand, Oto 4 percent slopes
7.
2,000
Feet
DgA
Dogue fine sandy loam, Oto 3 percent slopes
NoA
Norfolk loamy sand, Oto 2 percent slopes
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
RaA
Rains fine sandy loam, Oto 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal Plain
Ro
Roanoke loam
TaB
Tarboro loamy sand, Oto 6 percent slopes
WaB
Wagram loamy sand, Oto 6 percent slopes
Wh
Wehadkee silt loam
WkB
Wickham sandy loam, Oto 4 percent slopes
de
.4
Drainage
Moderately well drained
HSG Hydric Ratel
C 9
Acreage
30.8
Well drained
A
0
2.2
Moderately well drained
C
5
10
Well drained
A
5
12.2
Well drained
A
0
5.3
Poorly drained
B/D
92
8.2
Poorly drained
C/D
100
44
Somewhat excessively drained
A
0
62.6
Well drained
A
5
8.2
Poorly drained
B/D
90
2.3
Well drained
B
5
10.2

Gia l3-a:8a
and
�a
ray
e ,0 10 20
Miles
Figure 9. National Wetland
Inventory Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(-196.5 Acres)
USGS Flow Paths
National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater Pond
OPa ne Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for anysuch third
party or unintended use.

Figure 10. Aquatic Resources
Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(196.5 Acres)
�i Jurisdictional Wetland (-63 Acres)
Existing Ditch / Ephemeral
Stream (9,432 LF)
Jurisdictional Stream (5,518 LF)
Waters of the U.S. Disclaimer: This
drawing represents the jurisdictional
waters boundary identified in the field by
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment &
Infrastructure. All jurisdictional boundaries
are subject to verification by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). This
map should be used for preliminary
planning purposes only.
11 ?Palustrine Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 5/9/2019
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
a
FEATURE NAME
FEATURE TYPE
ACREAGE/LINEAR FEET
Wetland No. 2
Jurisdictional Wetland
2.83 Acres
Wetland No. 6
Jurisdictional Wetland
57.09 Acres
Wetland No. 7
Jurisdictional Wetland
3.17 Acres
-
`
UT- A
Intermittent/Perennial
2,951 Feet
_- - ---
UT- B
Perennial
981 Feet
UT- I
Intermittent/Perennial
477 Feet
UT- K1
Ephemeral
598 Feet
O
UT- K2
Ephemeral
151 Feet
Total Jurisdictional Wetlands/Streams
-63 ac./ -5,518 LF
Ditch 1
830 Feet
Ga
Ditch 2
673 Feet
Ditch 3
700 Feet
Ditch 4
344 Feet
Ditch 5
1,186 Feet
O`�or09
Ditch 6
1,453 Feet
Ditch 8
291 Feet
Ditch 9
276 Feet
Ditch 28
2,139 Feet
Ditch 29
247 Feet
f
212 Feet
Ditch 31
454 Feet
Ditch 32
377 Feet
Ditch 33
160 Feet
Total Ditches
9,432 LF
1,700
Uplands
—133 Acres
Feet
Total Mitigation Project Site
-196.5 Acres

Figure 11. Plant Communities
Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(-196.5 Acres)
Existing Plant Community
Agricultural Field
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Cemetery
Headwater Forest
Mixed Hardwood Forest
Mixed Pine/ Hardwood Forest
Pine Forest
*Palustrine-
woodO
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct orindirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
Plant Community
Acreag
Agricultural Field
61.6
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
89.8
Cemetery
2.0
Headwater Forest
2.8
Mixed Hardwood Forest
6.7
Mixed Pine / Hardwood Forest
26.7
Pine Forest
7.0
Total Proiect Boundary
196.5
0
E
U
i
�1
0
E
U

F; rel i i lt
e o z.s s
MENEENE== Miles
Figure 12. Photograph
Location Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(-196.5 Acres)
Road Centerline
USGS Flow Paths
Photograph Location
Photograph Direction
WPallustrine
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, andPalustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
rt
"Mm 0.25 0.5
N Miles .
r_ -J
F12
k.
AI

Whitakers
Draughn
Harts ea se Tarbo r
0 2.5 5
Miles
Y
Figure 13a. Previously Recorded
Cultural Resources
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(--593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(-196.5 Acres)
■APE (1 -mile)
0 Historic Structures
USGS 24k Topo Map Bound
r
Palustr ne [1rOup
woo
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12n12018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
� - - •..�A&- � J `�� -_/• ::Cern + ,� � 'ti°� "� _ �/ X87 • � � �� � �'`' _�
4 ,,.,� r � w. j � �✓� �` i _mac • _ e i • e • - • 1, '`'� ,, f •ar I,I, Gr
t� ► 'U' er
Y -Y,
ta - �: , l aux 0 1
-,
40`
� '� V fir. � 11 �.�:�nr.• .a } /,r ��„ � � (,r•�� J_
, wpm
Ill -I' � 'e- � �rcX ''�' r `•r yer ��,_ _`' — ae` �• _ '+.
��`•' L"= ,i " �� ''�.: s � � � + LJ`- J' b�-r"�k� - Btsll�ek �� � ,�I � ��i `� �'�'• r M
to
F CRE
P�
,r
9
r�
�- e - _ �1 m -i
J70
Ab
f
,
h' 7
■+^.� i tea / �� � _ ✓ v .-. ' C
dill Ea b4 a , E
�-'1 • ■ % 1 � --- -- lr`- .`,,_ ..Y E� - Harper 20
WT.
21,4 �`-- - - f 1 /- J - I![, r� ` •,� . • • t
10
Car
Ot,
♦4 F' Coker-WlrrDYrlV
♦
GT$>ris-' ; - ,yam - .. w- - s j • r • V o
10
E
- -` •;.F� ,r f% • Es GEBCOLNOAA NGDCLdh the that rs
-- _ o ` • _ _ , ✓ e e C pyn ght �'`073�Ne[onel Geog�pFnc Society -cubed
a
Y
Y
4
Ot,
♦4 F' Coker-WlrrDYrlV
♦
GT$>ris-' ; - ,yam - .. w- - s j • r • V o
10
E
- -` •;.F� ,r f% • Es GEBCOLNOAA NGDCLdh the that rs
-- _ o ` • _ _ , ✓ e e C pyn ght �'`073�Ne[onel Geog�pFnc Society -cubed
a

Whitaker,
DraugIn
Hartsease Ta
0 2.5 5
Miles
Figure 13b: Cultural Resources
Reconnaissance Results Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
IMSwift Creek Mitigation Site
(-196.5 Acres)
BRICK
■ SURFACE SCATTER
40 WELL
O SHOVEL TEST LOCATIONS
STRUCTURE LOCATION
BULLOCK CEMETERY
I
i Palustnne Group
woo■
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
Resource 5
[B-_fi111'u��c-`k�C_em�eter�
�,% filasae�5e9
O
O O r;y.
n�
O
j O
r rte' F
TIP
ri:+:�+ It "�t j'.1M rF `�r,• '��..± �e fF �,,n°:°;
n� } S
�" lam. •'4i - - �_ _-�¢
a..
-*'tr
LM
f E
tit ' x
Esri, DeLorme,GEBCO NOAANGDC and other contrbL01utars
+ - S"~: NC Cent for GeographicInformation & Anayls s
�w

Figure 14a. Mitigation Work
Plan Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(196.5 Acres)
Proposed Stream Mitigation
�r Headwater Stream Restoration
(1,589 LF)
Priority 1 Stream Restoration
(-6,604 LF)
Stream Preservation
(-383 LF)
------ r Ephemeral Ditch
(-749)
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Enhancement
(-17.0 Acres)
Wetland Preservation
(-36.8 Acres)
Wetland Preservation Converted to
Riparian Buffer Preservation
(-9.0 Acres)
WPalustrine
'�
wood,
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 5/8/2019
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
SWIFT CREEK- PERMITTEE RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION WORK PLAN
STREAM MITIGATION
RESTORATION
FEATURE NAME
PROPOSED
LENGTH (LF)
PROPOSED
SINUOSITY
MITIGATION CREDIT PROPOSED MITIGATION
GENERATION RATIO CREDIT GENERATION
TRIBUTARY A-1 (Headwater) 533
1.00
1:1 533.0
TRIBUTARY A-1
5,925
1.20
1:1 5,925.0
TRIBUTARY B-2 (Headwater) 1,056
1.00
1:1 1,056.0
TRIBUTARY K
679
1.20
1:1 679.0
STREAM RESTORATION CREDIT SUBTOTAL
7,514.0
PRESERVATION
FEATURE NAME
PROPOSED
LENGTH (LF)
MITIGATION CREDIT
GENERATION RATIO
PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION
TRIBUTARY B-1
383
1 7.5:1
51.1
STREAM PRESERVATION CREDIT SUBTOTAL
51.1
TOTAL STREAM MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION
7,565.1
WETLAND MITIGATION
ENHANCEMENT
FEATURE NAME
ACREAGE
(Acres)
MITIGATION CREDIT
GENERATION RATIO
PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION
WETLAND NO. 7
0.3
2.5:1
0.14
WETLAND NO. 11
5.6
2.5:1
2.22
WETLAND NO. 12
11.1
2.5:1
4.44
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT CREDIT SUBTOTALI
6.80
PRESERVATION
FEATURE NAME
ACREAGE
(Acres)
MITIGATION CREDIT
GENERATION RATIO
PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION
WETLAND NO. 4
2.1
5:1
0.42
WETLAND NO. 5
0.01
5:1
0.00
WETLAND NO. 6
0.06
5:1
0.01
WETLAND NO. 10
31.4
5:1
6.28
WETLAND NO. 13
3.2
T 5:1
0.63
WETLAND PRESERVATION CREDIT SUBTOTALI
7.35
TOTAL WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION1
14.15
[an:: r
Tri b�uta ry
"Il
LA
Tribu
I-1
I
1 .A
Tril utarvW-1
Tributary A-1
Tri
Tributary A-1
E
all
E
- -
Vr. 01
rn
4 - . -7" - - -77
- w
-4;0
JAL
E

Figure 14b. Tar -Pamlico
Riparian Buffer Plan
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(196.5 Acres)
Mitigation Workplan
Proposed Stream Mitigation
Q Headwater Stream Restoration
(1,589 LF)
Priority 1 Stream Restoration
(6,604 LF)
Q Stream Preservation
(-383 LF)
Q Ephemeral Ditch
(-740 LF)
Tar-Pamilico Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Riparian Buffer Restoration
(TOB -100')
(13.95 Acres)
Riparian Buffer Restoration
(100'- 200')
(11.69 Acres)
Riparian Buffer Preservation
(TOB -100')
(-13.2 Acres / 8.55 Acres is 25% CAP)
0 Wetland Enhancement
(-17.0 Acres)
0 Wetland Preservation
(-36.8 Acres)
Wetland Preservation Converted to
Riparian Buffer Preservation
(-9.0 Acres)
a i
Palustrine Group
woo
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed Bv: WAR
Date: 5/8/2019
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
tiJ
�* 1 400 �'�
0 { 700
Feet 'cii,,f
Tributary A-1
•
' 4 n
Tributary K
Jk
Al 4
r +P �`� `k�*MMWA
Tributary A-1
R-
y�y
A.
yTributary A-1
W .,. 'yam{
B-2
x ¢ 4 d e , "•
�,r�,��,� Tributary
7114
- Tributary I-2 r
m
SWIFT CREEK - PERMITTEE RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION WORK PLAN
TAR-PAMLICO RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION - •
PROPOSED
RIPARIAN MITIGATION CREDIT %FULL MITIGATION CREDIT
FEATURE NAME WIDTH TYPE ACRES SQUARE FEET RATIO CREDIT GENERATION
(Acres / Sq. Ft.)
TRIBUTARY A-1 TOB - 100' RESTORATION 12.72 554,083 1:1 100% 12.72 554,083
TRIBUTARY K TOB - 100' RESTORATION 1.23 53,579 1:1 100% 1.23 53,579
TOTAL BUFFER RESROATION (TOB - 100') 13.95 607,662 13.95 607,662.00
TRIBUTARY A-1 100'-200' RESTORATION 10.98 478,289 1:3 100% 3.66 159,430
TRIBUTARY K 100'-200' RESTORATION 0.71 30,928 1:3 1 100% 0.24 10,309
TOTAL BUFFER RESROATION (100' - 200') 1 11.69 1 509,216 1 1 1 3.90 169,739 - h
'�t • u � l w "
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRESERVATION/EPHEMERAL CREDIT GENERATION (25% CAP) k ..
8.55 372,293
ACRES/SQ. FEET
TRIBUTARY A-1 TOB - 100' PRESERVATION 8.12 353,707 1:10 57% 0.46 20,161
_ s
TRIBUTARY B-1 TOB - 100' PRESERVATION 1.17 50,965 1:10 0% 0.00 0
TRIBUTARY K TOB - 100' PRESERVATION 0.88 38,333 1:5 100% 0.18 7,667
TRIBUTARY 1-1 TOB - 100' PRESERVATION 2.98 129,809 1:5 100% 0.60 25,962
TOTAL BUFFER PRESERVATION (TOB - 100') 13.15 201,613 1.23 53,790
TOTAL RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION CREDIT GENERATION 19.08 831,190 Imagery Source: NC OneMap

Figure 15. Proposed
DWR/USACE
Conservation Easement
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property (-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(196.5 Acres)
Proposed DWR/USACE Easement
Boundary
(-160 acres)
- --- Proposed Access Roads
Proposed Stream Mitigation
Headwater Stream Restoration
(1,589 LF)
Priority 1 Stream Restoration
(6,604 LF)
Stream Preservation
(-383 LF)
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Enhancement
(-17.0 Acres)
Wetland Preservation
(-36.8 Acres)
Wetland Preservation Converted to
Riparian Buffer Preservation
(-9.0 Acres)
I
Palustrine Group
woo
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 5/8/2019
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
e r �
"trl
Tributary K
Tributary A-1
o it
� n
Tributary A-1
,. rr
Tributary �� �` �'I IIrl 'v-�
1 1 } -- ------------
a a
M '
Tributary
tt 1 y
" ..
�, II
F I I
I I
i!I J
- Ow t
.. t tea.•• � - } !-� �'„ • � Y~�\�
ki
Ilii e
WW
WA
�o

44 �
33
44
y' 58
Mount 33
', 12
6 20 TarborJ
0 3.5 7 44 111
Miles 58
Figure 16. 100 -Year Floodplain
Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(196.5 Acres)
Roads
USGS Named Streams
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
ZONE AE
FLOODWAY
0.2 PERCENT ANNUAL
CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
AREA
Palustrine Group
wood*
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 12/7/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.

44
33
44
— 58
Mount nt 33
12
64 20 T. rta csr a
1 0 3.5�4111
`- 4
Miles 58
Figure 17. Proposed
Monitoring Plan Map
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(-196.5 Acres)
Proposed Permanent
❑ Vegetation Monitoring Plots
(13 Plots)
Proposed Shallow
❑ Groundwater Monitoring Wells
(7 Wells)
Proposed Stream Gauge
(5 Gauges)
WPalustrine
Woods
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: BWS
Reviewed By: WAR
Date: 5/8/2019
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.

Figure 18. Proposed Planting
Plan
Swift Creek - Permittee
Responsible Mitigation Plan
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Legend
PlantingPlanZonel
PlantingPlanZone2
® PlantiingPlanZone3
Swift Creek Property
(-593 Acres)
®Swift Creek Mitigation Site
(196.5 Acres)
Mitigation Workplan
Proposed Stream Mitigation
Headwater Stream Restoration
(1,589 LF)
Priority 1 Stream Restoration
(-6,604 LF)
Stream Preservation
(-383 LF)
Ephemeral Ditch
(-749 LF)
Tar-Pamilico Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Riparian Buffer Restoration
(TOB -100')
(13.95 Acres)
Riparian Buffer Restoration
(100' - 200')
(11.69 Acres)
Riparian Buffer Preservation
(TOB -100')
(13.15 Acres / 8.55 Acres is 25% CAP)
Wetland Enhancement
(-17.0 Acres)
Wetland Preservation
(-36.8 Acres)
Wetland Preservation Converted to
Riparian Buffer Preservation
(-9.0 Acres)
I
Palustrine Group
woo
Job No. 6250-18-0180
Drawn By: JKL
Reviewed By: BWS
Date: 5/8/2019
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Wood, project number
6250180180, and Palustrine
Group. Wood assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
SWIFT CREEK- PERMITEE
RESOPONSIBLE MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN
LOCATION
VEGETATION
ACRES
SQUARE FEET
MIXED
ZONE 1
35.5
1,548,531
HARDWOOD
BOTTO M LA N D
ZONE 2
25.7
1,117, 649
HARDWOOD
Tri
CYPRESS / GUM
ZONE 3
16.6
721,401
SWAMP
TOTAL PLANTING AREA
77.8
2,815,663
L
Do 'Tributary A-1
ary K'
•
Tributary A-1
Tributary A-1
Tributary
B-2
Tri Wetland
12
I-1
i "i - ms's # � � � 'a�'9 ,''` ♦/
Wetland .13
Wetiand.10 I r
I
I
� I
I _
CM 9, UU ■