20110720 Ver 2_Public Notice_20121107

ImPUBLIC NOTICE
US Army Corps
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: November 7, 2012
Comment Deadline: December 7, 2012
Corps Action ID: SAW- 2012 -00294
The District Engineer has received a draft prospectus entitled "Cedar Grove Mitigation Site"
proposed for inclusion into the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank.
Bank Sponsor
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
This public notice does not imply, on the parts of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
or other agencies, either favorable or unfavorable opinion of the work to be performed, but it is
issued to solicit comments regarding the factors on which final decisions will be based.
LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WORK: The proposed mitigation site is located off McDade
Store Road (NCSR 1354), just northwest of its intersection with Rick Road in Orange County,
North Carolina, and is within the Neuse River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201.
Currently, the site is comprised of an inactive golf course and driving range formerly known as
the Cedar Grove Golf Course. The approximate geographic coordinates are 36.1941° north
latitude and - 79.1582° west longitude. The site encompasses approximately 63 acres of land
proposed for inclusion into a conservation easement and contains a portion of the East Fork Eno
River, 6 unnamed tributaries, and 3 jurisdictional ponds.
PROPOSED WORK AND PURPOSE: The bank sponsor proposes to include this site into the
umbrella bank to compensate for losses authorized by applicable federal and state regulatory
programs. As proposed, this mitigation prospectus includes restoring approximately 3,781 linear
feet of perennial streams, 1,541 linear feet of intermittent streams, and 880 linear feet of piped or
otherwise altered ephemeral channels. In addition, the sponsor would establish a conservation
easement and monitor the site for a minimum of 7 years. Total stream length after all restoration

techniques would be approximately 7,270 linear feet. Since the sponsor proposes mitigation
ratios at 1:1 level for stream restoration, a total of 7,270 stream credits may be realized should
the project be accepted.
GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA: The proposed geographic service area for this bank is the
Neuse River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03 02020 1.
PROSPECTUS: The full mitigation prospectus is available for review at:
http: / /www. saw. usace.anny.mil /WETLANDS/Notices /Current notices.html
This umbrella mitigation bank may be considered one of a number of practicable alternatives
available to applicants to compensate for unavoidable stream impacts associated with permits
issued under the authority of Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act for projects located
within the prescribed geographic service area.
Oversight of this stream mitigation bank will be by a group of federal and state agency
representatives collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team (IRT). The IRT shall be
chaired by the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and is comprised of
representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
N.C. Division of Water Quality, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.
The actual approval of the use of this mitigation bank for a specific project is the decision of
the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps provides no guarantee that
any particular individual or general permit will be granted authorization to use this stream
compensatory mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream impacts associated with a
proposed permit, even though mitigation from this bank may be available.
AUTHORITY: This public notice is required pursuant to 33 CFR Part 332, Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.
FEDERAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL: The Corps is soliciting comments from the public;
federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order
to consider and evaluate this proposed mitigation bank. Any comments received will be
considered by the Corps in evaluating this proposal. Comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and
flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people.
2

Preliminary review indicates that:
1. An environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required.
2. No species of fish, wildlife, or plant (or their critical habitat) listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93 -205) will be affected.
3. No cultural or historic resources considered eligible or potentially eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected.
Additional information may change any of these preliminary findings.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this
office, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers, Attention: Mr. Andrew Williams, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105, Wake Forest, North Carolina
27587, until 5:00 p.m., December 7, 2012.
3

Ail
Vk
r'a

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
Table of Contents
1.0
Executive Summary ........................................................................... ...............................
2
2.0
Mitigation Site Location & Existing Conditions ............................... ...............................
3
— Aerial Site Map
2.1 Location ...................................................................................... ...............................
3
Figure 5
2.2 Watershed Description ................................................................ ...............................
3
— Hydric Soil Delineation Map
2.3 Existing Natural Resources ......................................................... ...............................
4
Figure 8
2.3.1 Geological Characteristics ................................................ ...............................
4
— Floodplain/Floodway Exhibit
2.3.2 Soils .................................................................................. ...............................
4
2.3.3 Existing Streams and Wetlands ........................................ ...............................
5
2.3.4 Vegetative Communities .................................................. ...............................
8
2.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................ ...............................
8
2.3.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................ ...............................
9
2.3.7 FEMA Floodplain/Floodway Mapping .......................... ...............................
10
3.0
Goals and Objectives ....................................................................... ...............................
10
4.0
Mitigation Site Establishment & Operation ..................................... ...............................
11
4.1 Bank Establishment .................................................................. ...............................
11
4.2 Bank Credits ............................................................................. ...............................
12
5.0
Geographic Service Area (GSA) ..................................................... ...............................
13
6.0
Need for the Mitigation Bank .......................................................... ...............................
13
7.0
Technical Feasibility ........................................................................ ...............................
13
8.0
Property Ownership ......................................................................... ...............................
13
9.0
Management Strategy ....................................................................... ...............................
14
9.1 Short Term Maintenance & Monitoring ..................................... ...............................
14
9.2 Long Term Management Strategy ............................................ ...............................
14
10.0
Qualifications of Bank Sponsor and Project Team ......................... ...............................
15
11.0
References ........................................................................................ .............................17
Tables
Table 1: Mapped Soils within the Mitigation Site .................................... ............................... 5
Table 2: Existing Stream Characteristics .................................................. ............................... 6
Table 3: Mitigation Credit Summary ...................................................... ............................... 12
Table 4: EBX Project History ................................................................. ............................... 15
Appendix A - Figures
Figure 1
— Vicinity Map
Figure 2
— USGS Site Map
Figure 3
— Aerial Site Map
Figure 4
— Ecoregions of North Carolina Map
Figure 5
— Soil Survey Map
Figure 6
— Hydric Soil Delineation Map
Figure 7
— Proposed Restoration
Figure 8
— Geographic Service Area
Figure 9
— Floodplain/Floodway Exhibit
Appendix B - Hydric Soil Delineation for Cedar Grove Golf Course (February 8, 2012)
Appendix C - Agency Correspondence
Appendix D - Rights of Easement Holder Letter
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %i,;,,�„ ,,c,,,,,n R- %IcALLuni, t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
1.0 Executive Summar
The proposed stream, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation site currently known as
the Cedar Grove Mitigation Site (Site) is located off of McDade Store Road (NCSR 1354),
just northwest of its intersection with Rick Road in Orange County, North Carolina (Figure
1). The Site is located approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the intersection of McDade
Store Road and State Route 86, and is approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the intersection
McDade Store Road and Efland Cedar Grove Road. This Site will be established under the
terms and conditions of the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank made
and entered into by Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC (EBX), acting as the Bank
Sponsor, and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The tract containing the Site is approximately 131.5 acres, which includes area within the
right -of -way along its frontage of McDade Store Road. A Conservation Easement (CE) is
proposed to encompass the Site and will be approximately 63 acres in size. Within the CE,
existing riparian areas will be restored and enhanced to generate both Neuse buffer and
nutrient offset (nitrogen and phosphorus) credits. In addition, the dimension, pattern, and
profile of existing perennial, intermittent, and piped ephemeral stream channels located
within the CE will be restored at the Site. The remaining +/- 68.5 acres not placed within a
CE has the potential to be developed as a low- density subdivision that will consist of 3
single - family lots that are a minimum size of 28 acres, along with driveways, existing
walking trails, and other infrastructure. The purpose of the mitigation site is to provide
stream, buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation by restoring streams and riparian buffers.
The Site is located within the Upper Falls Lake watershed in the Neuse River Basin (8 -digit
USGS HUC 03020201, 12 -digit USGS HUC 03020201 0301), more specifically within
Neuse Sub -basin 03- 04 -01. Based on the field investigations, there are 6 ponds and 7 stream
features located within the Site. One of the stream features is a named stream known as East
Fork Eno River. This feature is located in the northeastern section of the Site.
Currently, the Site is comprised of an inactive golf course and driving range (formerly known
as the Cedar Grove Golf Course), ponds, and forested areas (Figure 3). The East Fork Eno
River is classified as WS -II (Water Supply II), HQW (High Quality Waters), and NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters). Based on field observations, the East Fork Eno River and the
unnamed tributaries located within the project area are significantly degraded and are in need
of repair. EcoEngineering conducted initial field investigations on January 16, 2012 to
assess the existing natural resources, including streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers. Using
information gathered during field surveys and site investigations, the proposed restoration
activities within the Site will involve restoring dimension, pattern and profile of
approximately 3,781 linear feet of existing perennial stream channel, 1,541 linear feet of
existing intermittent stream channel, and 880 linear feet of piped or otherwise altered
ephemeral channels. Utilizing Priority I restoration activities, the total stream length within
the project area will be increased from approximately 6,194 linear feet to 7,270 linear feet
(Figure 7). In addition, 160 linear feet of stream channel not proposed for restoration located
along the northern boundary will benefit from Riparian buffer restoration. In summary, the
Site will provide numerous ecological benefits to the Neuse River Basin, specifically the
Falls Lake Watershed. Primary goals will focus on improving water quality, enhancing flood
attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat.
EBX, acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a CE and will monitor the Site for a
minimum of 7 years. Following approval of the Prospectus, detailed Mitigation Plans,
2 [JEcoEngineering
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC .% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
information regarding bank operation (including long term management) and annual
monitoring activities will be submitted for review and approval. The Geographic Service
Area of the mitigation site is Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201, which generally includes
southern Person County, northern Orange and Durham Counties, and large portions of Wake
and Johnston County (Figure 8).
Based on field investigations and an initial project meeting with DWQ and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Site is technically feasible and has a high likelihood for
success. The current site conditions consist of channelized stream segments, which lack an
active floodplain and wooded buffer. Restoring the morphology of each stream reach and
establishing a wooded buffer will dramatically improve conditions at the Site. As mentioned
previously, the intensive management activities and channelization of streams that occurred
as part of the Site's historical use as a golf course has disturbed aquatic and terrestrial
habitats. Evaluation of site data indicates that hydrologic trespass is not a concern. Rare
species and their habitats were not observed on -site nor were there any conditions observed
on -site during initial field investigations that would prohibit the restoration of the property
and the establishment of a stream and riparian buffer mitigation bank. Furthermore, the Bank
Sponsor has extensive experience in creating and managing mitigation banks and will bring
the most highly skilled and experienced personnel to design, plan, and implement the project.
2.0 Mitigation Site Location & Existing Conditions
2.1 Location
The proposed stream, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation bank currently known as
the Cedar Grove Mitigation Site (Site) is located off of McDade Store Road (NCSR 1354),
just northwest of its intersection with Rick Road in Orange County, North Carolina (Figure
1). The Site is located approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the intersection of McDade
Store Road and State Route 86 and approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the intersection
McDade Store Road and Efland Cedar Grove Road. The Site is located within a rural area
and land use within the vicinity is comprised primarily of agricultural and forested land uses
with limited residential uses.
Based upon review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 1967) Cedar Fork, North
Carolina Quadrangle, the Site contains low to moderate relief with elevations ranging from ±
670 feet to ± 710 feet. The southwestern section of the Site has a topographic gradient that
generally slopes northeast towards the East Fork Eno River, while the northeastern section
generally slopes southwest towards the East Fork Eno River. Surface drainage is generally
directed towards the East Fork Eno River located in the northeastern section of the Site
(Figure 2). At the present time, the Site is comprised of an inactive golf course (formerly
known as the Cedar Grove Golf Course), a driving range, ponds, and forested areas (Figure
3). Natural forested areas are limited within Site. These forested areas have been selectively
timbered with much of the secondary understory cleared.
2.2 Watershed Description
The Site is located within the Upper Falls Lake watershed in the Neuse River Basin (8 -digit
USGS HUC 03020201, 12 -digit USGS HUC 03020201 0301), more specifically within
Neuse Sub -basin 03- 04 -01. Stormwater runoff from this site drains into the East Fork Eno
River (Stream Index #27 -2 -3), which is located in the northeastern section of the Site.
According to the DWQ Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS), the East Fork
Eno River is classified as WS -11 (Water Supply II), HQW (High Quality Waters), and NSW
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters). The WS -II classification is for "waters used as sources of water
supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes which are generally in
predominantly undeveloped watersheds ". HQW is a "supplemental classification intended to
protect waters that are rated excellent based on biological and physical /chemical
characteristics" while the NSW designation is for "Nutrient Sensitive Waters ". According to
the NCDWQ 2010 Final 303(d) list of Impaired Waters, the East Fork Eno River is not listed
as an impaired water body. According to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP), the Site is not located within a Targeted Local Watershed.
2.3 Existing Natural Resources
2.3.1 Geological Characteristics
The Site is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina, and more
specifically within the Carolina Slate Belt Ecoregion (Figure 4). A review of the Ecoregions
of North Carolina and South Carolina (Griffith et al., 2002) shows the physiography in the
area is comprised of dissected irregular plains, some hills, linear ridges, and isolated
monadocks with low to moderate gradient streams. The geology in the area is comprised of
quaternary to tertiary silty to clayey saprolite, Precambrian to Cambrian felsic to mafic
metavolcanic rock, metamudstone, and granite.
2.3.2 Soils
The Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina (Soil Conservation Service, 1977) lists
the soils within the property as from the Appling- Helena Association. As stated in the soil
survey, these soils can be generally classified as gently sloping with well and moderately
well drained soils that have a surface layer of sandy loam and a subsoil of sandy clay loam,
clay, or sandy clay. As described by the online USDA NRCS Official Soil Series
Descriptions (OSD), the specific soils mapped within the Site are shown in Figure 5 and are
listed in Table 1:
4
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
Table 1: Manned Soils within the Mitigation Site
Soil Type
Hydrologic General Description
Soil Group
Appling sandy
This well drained soil is on broad ridges which are
loam, 2 to 6%
crossed by intermittent drainage ways. The permeability
slopes
HSG B is moderate, the available water capacity is medium, and
(ApB)
the shrink -swell potential is moderate. The seasonal
high water table is below a depth of 72 inches.
Appling sandy
...... ...............................
This well drained soil is on narrow side slopes which are
loam, 6 to 10%
crossed by intermittent drainage ways. The permeability
slopes
HSG B is moderate, the available water capacity is medium, and
(ApQ
the shrink -swell potential is moderate. The seasonal
high water table is below a depth of 72 inches.
This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is on
long, flat areas parallel to major streams on the flood
plains. The permeability is moderate, the available
Chewacla loam
HSG C water capacity is medium, and the shrink -swell potential
(Ch)
is low. Depth to the seasonal high water table is 6 to 18
inches during late winter and early spring. This soil is
commonly flooded for brief periods and is considered
hydric.
This moderately well drained soil is on broad ridges.
Helena sandy
The permeability is slow, the available water capacity is
loam, 2 to 8%
low, and the shrink -swell potential is high. The seasonal
slopes
HSG C high water table is below a depth of 60 inches, but
(HeB)
because of the slow permeability, a perched water table
is 12 to 30 inches below the soil surface during wet
seasons.
This complex consists of moderately well drained to
Helena-
somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soils. The
Sedgefield sandy
an
permeability is moderately slow, the available water
loam 0 to
HSG GC capacity is low, and the shrink -swell potential is high.
slopes
The seasonal high water table is below a depth of 60
(HhA)
inches, but because of the slow permeability, a perched
water table is 18 inches below the soil surface during
wet seasons.
A hydric soil delineation was conducted by Mitchell Environmental, P.A. (Hydric Soil
Delineation for Cedar Golf Course, February 8, 2012). Based on the delineation there are
approximately 3.43 acres of hydric soils located within 200 feet of the existing streams
located within the Site. Hydric soils delineated as part of Mitchell Environmental, P.A. field
investigations are shown in Appendix B.
2.3.3 Existing Streams and Wetlands
Prior to conducting field investigations, a review of the USGS Cedar Fork, North Carolina
Quadrangle and the Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina was conducted.
According to the USGS, the stream feature located in the northeastern section of the Site is
the East Fork Eno River. In addition, the USGS shows 4 unnamed tributaries to East Fork
Eno River and 3 pond features located within the Site. According to the Soil Survey, the
East Fork Eno River is also shown and there are 6 unnamed tributaries to East Fork Eno
5 [JEcoEngineering
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC .% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

River and 3 pond features within the Site
these stream features.
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
Field investigations confirmed the presence of
Field investigations were conducted on January 16, 2012 to determine the approximate limits
of wetlands and streams located within the Site. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation
was not conducted at the time. However, stream classifications were conducted in
accordance to the NCDWQ Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and Their Origins (Version 4.11, September 1, 2010) for each stream feature
identified in the field. Based on the field investigations, there are no wetlands, 6 ponds, and
7 stream features located within the Site.
An onsite concurrence meeting with NCDWQ staff was conducted on February 16, 2012 to
determine the applicability of the Neuse River Buffer Rules on the Site (Appendix C,
NCDWQ NBRR0#12 -099; June 15, 2012). The following stream features were determined
to be subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules: A (UT3 downstream reach and UT2), C (East
Fork Eno), D (UT1), and G (UT3 middle reach). The following pond features were
determined to be subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules: Pond C (large central pond) and
Pond E (western ponds). Stream and pond features determined not to be subject to the Neuse
River Buffer Rules were: B (UT6), E (UT5), F (UT3 upstream reach), H (UT4), Ponds A and
B (northern ponds), and Pond D (northwestern pond up gradient of UT5). Table 2, below,
lists the NCDWQ score of each stream feature and classification.
Table 2: Existing Stream Characteristics
Present Present on NCDWQ
Stream Reach on USGS Soil Stream Form Classification Linear Feet
Survey Score
East Fork Eno Yes Yes 36.5 Perennial 978
River
UT1 No Yes 20.25 Intermittent 875
UT2
Yes
Yes
35
Perennial
1,794
....... ............................... ..... ...............................
UT3
(downstream)
Yes
Yes
34.5
Perennial
1,023
UT3
(middle section)
Yes
Yes
26.25
Intermittent
707
UT3* (upstream)
Yes
Yes
10.75
Ephemeral
325
.....................................
UT4 . .............................
No
Yes
6.5
Ephemeral
245
*
UT5**
Yes
Yes
piped
N/A
310
UT6 Yes Yes 14.5 Ephemeral 160
Notes:
UT3 (upstream) has been historically filled and maintained
* *: UT4 has been historically filled and maintained and re- routed through a ditch at the
u,p stream end
�: UT5 is piped
The East Fork Eno River was considered perennial throughout and flows north to south and
is located in the northeastern section of the Site. Severe bank erosion is present due to a lack
of riparian vegetation. In addition, it appears that the stream is attempting to establish a
floodplain at a lower elevation by eroding the existing stream banks. The substrate within
6
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 Flic J4,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
the East Fork Eno River is comprised of sand, gravel, and coble. East Fork Eno River is both
laterally and vertically unstable, as indicated by its eroding banks and obvious incision. The
instability is systemic. The lateral and vertical instability is most likely the result of historical
channelization. The incision along the stream has created multiple headcuts along drainage
ways which connect to the stream throughout its length. In some areas, the stream has cut
down to weathered bedrock where its banks continue to erode in a lateral direction.
UT1 was considered intermittent throughout and flows in a southwest direction and
discharges into East Fork Eno River. This stream feature has been channelized in the past
and the upper reaches are piped under the existing fairway. The lack of riparian vegetation
and past channelization has degraded this stream reach as well. Its straight nature and steep
banks are indicative of channelization. The substrate in UT1 is predominantly sand and
gravel.
UT2 was considered perennial throughout and flows west to east discharging into UT3 just
east of the large central pond feature. UT2 contains two (2) pond features upstream (i.e.
western ponds) and the large central pond. Field investigations indicate UT2 is aggrading in
some sections due to lack of riparian vegetation and an increase of sediment load. Past
channelization activities has severely eroded the channel banks in some sections. The
substrate in UT2 is predominantly sand with some gravel.
UT3 was considered perennial within the downstream reach, intermittent within the middle
reach, and ephemeral within the upper reach. The upper reach was historically maintained as
part of the golf course fairway and contains clogged, undersized culverts preventing
hydrologic connectivity to the wetland /stream feature located upstream on an adjacent
property. UT3 flows in a southwest to northeast direction and discharges into the East Fork
Eno River just east of the Site. The lack of riparian vegetation and past channelization has
eroded and severely degraded UT3. Stream banks within the downstream reach are severely
eroding and it appears that the stream is attempting to establish a floodplain at a lower
elevation. There are also a few small bedrock outcrops located sporadically along the stream
channel. The substrate within UT3 is comprised of sand, gravel, and some coble.
UT4 was considered ephemeral throughout and is located within the southern section of the
Site. Historically, UT4 was within the fairway of the golf course. Field observations of UT4
revealed that the reach has been 95% filled and has been re- routed to UT3. There were no
biological indicators observed within UT4; however, there were some minor geomorphology
and hydrologic indicators within this feature still present. Minor bed and bank features and
soil based evidence of a high water table were observed within UT4.
UT5 is currently piped from an existing pond (ie. Pond D) through the fairway to UT2. UT5
is located within the western section of the Site and discharges into UT2 approximately 400
feet downstream of the two (2) western pond features.
UT6 was considered ephemeral throughout the subject property and is located along the
northern boundary of the Site. There are 2 pond features (i.e. Ponds A and B) located up
gradient of UT6. UT6 receives flow /discharge from large storm events from these ponds, but
does not begin as an intermittent channel until downstream of the lower pond with no
discernible channel between Ponds A & B. UT6 flows east and becomes an intermittent
channel 100 if below the second pond before discharging into the East Fork Eno River just
north of the Site boundary.
' [JEcoEngineering
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC .% h %is -4 Flic J4,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
The following erosion and depositional patterns were observed within each of the stream
features located on the Site. Mid- channels bars were observed in approximately 30% of the
reaches. Mid channel bars are an indicator that the channel's dimensions have increased to a
point were it no longer transports its bankfull sediment load efficiently. At bankfull or full
flow, the velocity is not strong enough to keep sediments suspended and mid channel bars
form. Mid- channel bars are strong indicators of morphological instability. For all reaches
located within the Site, a regular riffle -run- pool -glide sequence along the thalweg of the
channel was not observed. The lack of bedform is also an indicator that the channel was
modified at some point and is currently evolving toward equilibrium. Bank erosion was
observed within all the reaches on the Site. Bank erosion is a direct result of the incision of
the stream and its lateral instability. Bank erosion at the Site will likely continue until a
floodplain is created at the existing stream elevation or the stream is restored so it can access
its original floodplain.
2.3.4 Vegetative Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the Site reflect landscape -
level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use practices.
Historically, the majority of the land within the Site was a maintained golf course that
included fairways, greenways, a club house, maintenance buildings, driving range, water
features (i.e. ponds or streams), maintained fields, and golf cart paths. Natural forested areas
are limited within Site. These forested areas have been selectively timbered with much of the
secondary understory cleared. Therefore, existing conditions of the Site can be characterized
as a maintained /disturbed land.
Field investigations were conducted by EcoEngineering to assess vegetative assemblages
within forested areas of adjacent properties located to the south, east, and north of the Site.
This exercise was conducted to interpret potential vegetative conditions for the Site.
According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) classification system
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990), the assessed forested areas would generally be characterized
as a Dry Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest. Tree species on the adjacent property include various
oak species (Quercus spp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), various hickory species (Carya spp.), loblolly pine (Pious taeda), red maple (Acer
rubrum), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Groundcover and secondary canopy
layer species consist of common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), sweet pepperbush (Clethera alnifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), various
viburnum species (Viburnum spp.), Christmas fern (Polystichium acrostichoides), New York
fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), and netted chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata).
2.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining because of natural forces or their
inability to coexist with human activity. Plants and animals with Threatened or Endangered
status are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 US 1531 et seq.).
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) web page
( http: / /www.fws.gov /nc -es /es /countyfr.html); accessed January 13, 2012) there are 4
endangered species (red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta varicosa), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata)) and 12 federal species of concern (American eel (Anguilla rostrata),
Carolina darter (Ethrostoma collis lepidinion), Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons),
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), green floater
s
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 Flic J411,nR_ %IcALLuni, t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
(Lasmigona subviridis), savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis
cariosa), butternut (Juglans cinerea), creamy tick - trefoil (Desodium ochroleucum), sweet
pinesap (Monotropsis odorata), and Torrey's mountain -mint (Pycnanthemum torrei))
potentially occurring in Orange County. The bald eagle (Hahaeeletus leucocephalus) is also
listed as occurring in Orange County and is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGPA) (16 US 668- 668d). In addition, a review of the NCNHP database of
documented occurrences ( http: / /www.ncnhp.org/Pages /heritagedata.html; accessed January
13, 2012) revealed the historical presence of 2 state listed species (Carolina ladle crayfish
(Cambarus davidi), and sweet pinesap) as potentially occurring within a 2 -mile radius of the
Site.
Correspondence was submitted on January 31, 2012 by EcoEngineering to the NCNHP,
USFWS, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission ( NCWRC) requesting
information regarding natural heritage resources and threatened and endangered species.
Formal correspondence with each of these agencies can be found in Appendix C of this
report. In summary, NCNHP and NCWRC do not have records of natural heritage resources
or records of threatened and endangered species within the Site and the USFWS provided an
opinion stating the proposed restoration activities are not likely to adversely affect any
federally - listed endangered species or threatened species, their formally designated critical
habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at these sites. However,
NCWRC stated there are records for the state threatened creeper (Strophitus undulatus) and
state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) in East Fork Eno River.
To address the anticipated concerns noted by correspondence received from the regulatory
agencies, EcoEngineering conducted field surveys on January 16, 2012 by walking transects
within the proposed Site to determine the presence of federally Threatened or Endangered
species. There were no federally Threatened or Endangered species observed during the field
surveys and the work inherent in restoring stream and riparian buffers does not result in
habitat destruction or modification for the above listed species. Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude the proposed work will have no effect on Threatened and Endangered species.
2.3.6 Cultural Resources
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service
database (http: / /gis.ncdcr.gov /hpoweb /; accessed January 13, 2012) was conducted.
According to their website, HPOWEB "has current location data for all National Register
listings, most Study List entries and Determinations of Eligibility, and surveyed rural
properties for many counties ". Based on the review, no listings are located within the
proposed Site parcel. However, there are 16 properties that have been surveyed within a one -
mile radius of the Site. Of the 16 properties, 3 are on the study list (Captain John S. Pope
House 2010 — OR 1029, Willy Woods McDade Farm 1993 — OR 1035, and Rosie Wrenn
House 1993 — OR 0685). There are no properties listed on the HPOWEB GIS service that
fall under the National Register or Determined Eligible classification within 1 -mile of the
Site, although there are properties shown on the National Register and Determined Eligible
listings within a two -mile radius.
Correspondence was submitted on January 31, 2012 to SHPO requesting information that
they may have regarding architectural and archaeological resources associated with the
proposed Site. In summary, correspondence was received on March 5, 2012 from SHPO
explaining that there is no need to conducted cultural resource surveys at the Site (Appendix
C).
9
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [jEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 Flic J4,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
2.3.7 FEMA Floodplain/Floodway Mapping
As previously noted, the East Fork Eno River is located within the northeastern section of the
Site. Figure 9 shows the Site and the floodplain limits taken from FEMA FIRM Panel
3710985800) (effective February 2, 2007). According to the effective FEMA FIRM panel
and the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Orange County, this section of the East Fork Eno
River is currently defined as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This particular section of
the East Fork Eno River has been studied by "limited detailed methods" and contains non -
encroachment areas in lieu of a delineated floodway on the FIRM panel. It is anticipated that
activities within the non - encroachment areas will be limited much like those within a
delineated floodway and will be subject to the local Orange County floodplain management
ordinance that meets the requirement of 44 CFR 60.3(c)(10). Per 44 CFR Ch.1 §60.3, when a
regulatory floodway has been designated the community will "prohibit encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the
adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community
during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. " Since the proposed stream restoration
project along East Fork Eno River will require construction within non - encroachment areas,
one of the following options must be chosen:
❑ A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request for the affected Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels, followed by a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) request at the completion of construction. This series of requests will
formally update the FEMA FIRM panels to show the effects of the proposed
project and will require approval by Orange County and FEMA.
❑ A "no- rise" calculation package showing that the proposed project will not cause
a rise in 100 -year floodplain elevations, floodway elevations, or floodway widths
throughout the entire length of the studied stream. This option will not require a
submittal to FEMA. It will only require local approval by Orange County.
Impacts to the floodplain and floodway are anticipated as part of the proposed restoration
activities. However, the design of this restored section of stream is expected to maintain or
decrease current flood elevations. The need for a CLOMR/LOMR or a no -rise certification
will be addressed during final design of the proposed stream restoration of the portions of
East Fork Eno River occurring within the Site.
3.0 Goals and Objectives
The Cedar Grove Mitigation Site (Site) involves restoring dimension, pattern and profile to
3,781 linear feet of existing perennial stream channel, 1,541 linear feet of existing
intermittent stream channel and 880 linear feet of piped or otherwise altered ephemeral
stream channel. In addition, 160 linear feet of stream channel not proposed for restoration
located along the northern boundary will benefit from Riparian buffer restoration. As part of
the restoration activities, the total stream length within the project area will be increased from
6,194 linear feet to 7,270 linear feet. The stream restoration design primarily includes
creation of Rosgen B, C, and E channels using the Priority Level 1 approach ( Rosgen, 1996).
Design dimensions were developed utilizing a combination of reference reaches, past
10
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
projects, and hydrologic /hydraulic capacity and sediment transport requirements. The Site
will provide Neuse River Basin buffer, nutrient, and stream restoration credits.
In addition to providing stream and buffer mitigation, the proposed project has the potential
to include the development of 3 low density residential lots (minimum 28 -acre lot size),
which will contain portions of the CE. For this purpose, a single stream crossing remains on
the site to provide access from one portion of land to another. This crossing is excluded from
the Site CE. A final subdivision plat will be developed in conjunction with the Mitigation
Plan. Please refer to Figure 7 for more information.
The stream and riparian buffer mitigation on the Site provides numerous ecological benefits
to the Neuse River Basin, specifically the Falls Lake Watershed. The primary goals of this
project are improving water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife
habitat and ecological connectivity. These objectives will be accomplished by implementing
the following ecological processes listed below:
- Runoff will be filtered through buffer zones allow for nutrient removal from overland
runoff
- Flood flows will be stored and treated in restored floodplain areas where nutrients and
sediment can settle out
- Stream bank erosion, which contributes to sediment pollution, will be reduced by
stabilizing eroding stream banks by increasing root density, providing an active
floodplain to the currently incised channels, reducing bank angles an bank height, and
using bioengineering techniques
- In- stream structures will be constructed to improve in- stream habitat diversity,
increase dissolve oxygen concentration, and increase biogeochemical processing in
the hyporheic zone.
- Wood structures will be incorporated into the stream as part of the restoration design
- Adjacent buffer and riparian habitats will be restored and enhanced with native
vegetation
- Restoration activities will provide improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat
- Removal of stream crossings and two ponds will improve ecological connectivity.
- Native plant species will be planted, invasive species will be treated, and eroding and
unstable areas will be stabilized
4.0 Mitigation Site Establishment & Operation
4.1 Bank Establishment
EBX, acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a CE and will monitor the Site for a
minimum of seven years. Following approval of the Prospectus, the Bank Sponsor will
provide detailed Mitigation Plans providing information regarding bank operation, including
long term management and annual monitoring activities, for review and approval by the
Interagency Review Team (IRT). The Bank Sponsor will arrange the conveyance of the CE
to a long -term land steward, which is currently anticipated to be the North Carolina Wildlife
Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The final determination of a long -term CE holder will be
made in conjunction with the IRT. The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the conveyed CE will
allow for the implementation of an initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during
the design phase and conducted by the Bank Sponsor. The conveyed CE will allow for
yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance of the Site during the initial monitoring
phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
11
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX,
USACE, and NCDWQ.
4.2 Bank Credits
The Site will provide credits to offset stream and riparian buffer impacts authorized by
federal permits or state water quality certifications, which must be in compliance with the
Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines and other applicable state and federal
legislation, regulations, and policies. Table 3, below, provides a preliminary summary of the
proposed stream mitigation credits. Final amounts will be determined during development of
a Mitigation Plan that will be prepared after approval of the Prospectus by the IRT. As listed
in the terms and conditions of the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank,
fifteen percent (15 %) of the total mitigation credits will be available for use by the Bank
Sponsor immediately upon completion of all of the following requirements:
- IRT approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
- Recordation of the Conservation Easement
- Establishment of appropriate financial assurances
Table 3: Mitigation Credit Summary
STREAM RESTORATION
Stream
Reach
Existing Stream Feature
(LF)
Total
Design
Sinuosity
Design
Length
(LF)
Treatment
Ratio
Stream
Mitigation
Units
Peren.
Intermit.
Altered
E hem.
East Fork
Eno River
944
- --
- --
944
1 1.06
978
Rest.
1:1
978
UTl
834
- --
834
1.2
982
Rest.
1:1
982
UT2
1,814
- --
- --
1,814
1.2
2,275
Rest.
1:1
2,275
UT3
1,023
707
325
2,055
1.2
2,374
Rest.
1:1
2,374
UT4`'
- --
- --
1 245
1 245
1.15
300
1 Rest.
1:1
300
UT5B
- --
- --
1 310
310
1.17
361
1 Rest.
1:1
361
TOTAL
3,781
1,541
1 880
1 6,202
1 varies
7,270
1 Rest.
1:1
7,270
Notes:
A: UT4 is currently re- routed to UT3 via a ditch
B: UT5 is piped
A credit ratio of 1:1 is requested for East Fork Eno River, representing stream activities that
qualify as restoration. The restoration work at this site primarily includes Priority 1 stream
restoration techniques. Specific activities will include re- establishing a floodplain for the on-
site stream, excavation of a bankfull bench along East Fork Eno River, bank grading to
address cross - section dimension, installation of in- stream structures to adjust the bed profile,
and planting of the buffer with native species. Credit ratios and SMUs will be adjusted
accordingly in the Mitigation Plan. For UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5, a credit ratio of 1:1
is requested based on USACE Mitigation Guidelines for activities that qualify as Restoration.
Specific activities will include raising the streams to the floodplain elevation, establishing
riffle pool sequences, and providing ecological and hydrologic connectivity by daylighting
piped reaches and removing several stream crossings. Given the mitigation ratios for stream
12
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
restoration, it is estimated that 7,270 stream mitigation units (SMUs) will be available from
the establishment of the Site. Final determination of SMUs will be included in the As -Built
Report and on the corresponding Bank Ledger.
5.0 Geographic Service Area (GSA)
The Site is located within the Neuse River Basin (8 -digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03020201, 12 -digit USGS HUC 03020201 0301) and more specifically within
Subbasin 03- 04 -01. The Site will provide mitigation to compensate for impacts to Waters of
the United States and /or State Waters within the Geographic Service Area (GSA) depicted in
Figure 8. The GSA of the Site is Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201, which generally includes
southern Person County, northern Orange and Durham Counties, and large portions of Wake
and Johnston County.
6.0 Need for the Mitigation Bank
The Neuse River 03020201 HUC includes developing areas such as the cities of Durham and
Hillsborough as well as the I- 40/I -85 transportation corridor. Population growth and the
associated development and infrastructure projects create the necessity for mitigation banks
in this region. Mitigation banks will allow unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United
States to be mitigated for appropriately and allow the economic growth of this region to
continue while the integrity of the environment and water quality is maintained.
Based on the results of the preliminary investigations that have taken place on the Site, it was
determined there is substantial potential for development of a viable, commercial mitigation
bank. The majority of the stream systems on the site show substantial degradation including
incision, bank erosion, sedimentation, and lack of in- stream habitat structures.
7.0 Technical Feasibility
The site is ecologically suitable to achieving the objectives of the mitigation bank. The
proposed mitigation will support the long -term sustainability of the mitigation bank with the
restoration of the vegetation communities and aquatic features that were once present on the
site. The proposed mitigation is similar to reference conditions in the watershed.
The Site will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits to the Neuse River
Basin and the Falls Lake Watershed. Based on visual observations and survey data, the Site
appears to be an ideal candidate for a stream restoration site based on the following factors:
- Absence of fatal flaws such as hydrological trespass
- Absence of rare species or their habitats
- Absence of nationally significant historical or archaeological resources
- Institutional knowledge of the most effective manner to restore hydrology and
vegetation at the site
Furthermore, the Sponsor intends to bring highly skilled and experienced personnel to plan
and implement the Site.
8.0 Property Ownership
Prior to the release of any credits, the Bank Sponsor will record a CE over the area that will
13
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
be the Site. The CE will be in the form currently used by the Wilmington District USACE
for the long -term protection of compensatory mitigation banks.
The CE will allow the Bank Sponsor to complete all of the restoration and monitoring
activities needed to establish the Site. The CE will preserve all natural areas and prohibit
any activity that would materially alter the biological integrity, function, and educational
value of the streams and riparian buffer areas within the Site. The purpose of the CE is to
ensure that future use of the Site will result in the restoration, protection, maintenance, and
enhancement of stream and riparian buffer functions described in the Mitigation Plan, which
is forthcoming pending approval of the Prospectus. The Bank Sponsor will convey the CE to
a long -term land steward, which is currently anticipated to be the NCWHF. The final
determination of a long -term CE holder will be made in conjunction with the IRT. The long-
term CE holder will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to enforce the CE
provisions. The Bank Sponsor will provide sufficient funding in the form of an endowment
to the long -term CE holder.
Prior to recording the CE, the Bank Sponsor will subdivide the property into 3 low density
residential tracts as shown on Figure 7. The Bank Sponsor will then place CE on each tract
as shown on Figure 7 and the CE will restrict any future subdivision of the CE area. A letter
regarding the legal rights of an easement holder is located in Appendix D. An additional
separate but contiguous easement will be placed on the large pond in the center of the
project. The NCWHF is the anticipated grantee of this easement and will monitor it annually
along with the monitoring of the CE. The pond easement around the large central pond will
restrict the use of the pond for irrigation purposes and require the primary pond outfall to pull
water from the bottom portion of the water column. The current landowner of the site
controls water rights on the entire property encompassing the Site, in addition, the
conservation easement will protect the water rights of the conservation area to support the
long -term sustainability of the mitigation bank.
It is anticipated there will be one stream crossing for access purposes, which will be excluded
from the Site CE. This stream crossing will be located on the existing dam of the western
ponds (which will be drained). The crossing will be rebuilt during the stream restoration
construction to add larger culverts as well as floodplain pipes so as to not hinder hydrologic
connectivity. The final subdivision plat will be developed in conjunction with the Mitigation
Plan.
9.0 Management Strategy
9.1 Short Term Maintenance & Monitoring
In accordance with the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank, adaptive
management measures will be developed or appropriate remedial actions will be
implemented in the event that the Site, or a specific component of the Site, fails to achieve
the success criteria outlined in the Mitigation Plan for the 7 year monitoring period. The
project specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any
remedial actions implemented will be reviewed and approved by the IRT before
implementation, will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified in the forthcoming
Restoration Plan, and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria.
9.2 Long Term Management Strategy
14
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
EBX, acting as the Bank Sponsor, will convey the CE area to a qualified long -term CE
holder, which is anticipated to be NCWHF. EBX will endow the CE holder at the time of the
recordation of the easement. The CE will ensure that only IRT allowable activities occur
within the easement area. The CE holder will monitor the Site annually to ensure that there
are no breaches of the CE and all annual reports will be kept on file by the CE holder for
future reference. The CE holder will be responsible for enforcing the term of the CE.
10.0 Qualifications of Bank Sponsor and Proiect Team
Founded in 1997, Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC specializes in the protection and
restoration of rare, diminishing, and degraded ecosystems and resources, and is a leader in
the nationwide practice of environmental banking. EBX specializes in providing turn -key
mitigation solutions for stream, wetland, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset credits. The firm
is responsible for mitigation banks and client specific projects that will restore, enhance and
preserve over 106 miles of stream and over 12,600 acres of wetlands; reduce over 337,000
pounds of nutients; and rehabilitate and preserve over 5,700 acres of critical habitats. EBX
works with private and public sector clients through its offices in Camden, South Carolina;
Raleigh, North Carolina; Oak Hill, West Virginia; and Baltimore, Maryland.
EBX develops, implements, and manages ecosystem mitigation and restoration projects that
protect and restore streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers. As of March 2011, the status of
EBX mitigation sites is as presented below. In total EBX has completed work on 50
mitigation sites and is in the implementation stages of another 71 mitigation sites. EBX has
developed and has a financial interest in sixteen mitigation banks and has a financial interest
in four other mitigation banks. A summary of mitigation banks and ecosystem restoration
projects implemented by EBX is presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4: EBX Project History
EBX Mitigation Site Status
Turnkey Mitigation Projects
Completed
Monitoring
Construction
In Design
Wetland
9
9
1
4
Stream
15
14
1
7
Buffer
2
-
-
2
Nutrient
-
-
-
-
Forest
1
-
-
-
Habitat
-
-
-
1
Total Turn-key Sites
27
23
2
14
Bank Site Projects
Completed
Monitoring
Construction
In Design
Wetland
11
6
1
6
Stream
5
4
2
4
Buffer
3
2
-
-
Nutrient
3
2
2
-
Forest
1
-
-
-
15
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 Flic J4,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
Habitat
-
2
-
1
Total Bank Sites
23
16
5
11
Total Sites
50 39 7
25
EcoEngineering, a division of John R. McAdams Company (EcoEngineering) is a full -
service environmental and engineering firm with a proven track record in North Carolina.
Together, EBX and EcoEngineering provide substantial strength in successfully completing a
project of this nature. EcoEngineering is a division of The John R. McAdams Company, a
cornerstone firm in the land development and engineering industry in the Carolinas since
1979. To better serve the water resources engineering market, McAdams Company
established a stand -alone stormwater and environmental department in 1999 to focus on
stormwater BMP design, riverine flooding analysis, watershed hydraulic and hydrologic
analysis, dam design, forensic analysis of flood events, and urban stormwater management
design (channels, piping, watershed analysis, and culvert design). Since 1999, these services
have grown to include various environmental consulting services such as natural resource
assessments, NEPA/SEPA documents, stream, wetland delineation and permitting, stream,
wetland, and nutrient Bank Site consultation, and stream and wetland restoration. On April 2,
2008 this department was re- branded EcoEngineering, and established as a separate division
of McAdams Company. This differentiation enables EcoEngineering to pursue civil and
water resource engineering projects in areas outside the private land development realm.
EcoEngineering is an 11- person division of The John R. McAdams Company, with 7
registered professional engineers, 1 Professional Wetland Scientist, 1 LEED Accredited
Professional, and 1 Registered Environmental Manager on staff. Five of the 11 members of
EcoEngineering hold graduate level degrees.
16
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ %IcALLuni, t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
11.0 References
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafle, 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
1:1,500,00).
Mitchell Environmental, P.A., Hydric Soil Delineation for Cedar Golf Course, February 8,
2012.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality, Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and
Their Origins, Version 4.11, September 1, 2010.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USDA, 1998. GIS data set, HUC Boundaries. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Publication Date: December 1, 1998, Title:
nemap _prod.SDEADMIN.hunc _poly, Geospatial Data Presentation Form: vector
digital data, Publication Place: Raleigh, North Carolina, Publisher: USDA, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Other Citation Details: NCCGIA distributes this
dataset.
USDA, 1977. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Orange County
USGS, 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map. United States Geological Survey North Carolina
USGS, 1967. Topographic Quadrangle, Cedar Fork.
17 [JEcoEngineering
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC .% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
APPENDIX A
is
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

N CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
VICINITY MAP :Fg:]EcoEngineering
0 5,000 10,000 20,000 A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Feet
1 inch = 10,000 feet Figure

N CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
EcoEngineering
USGS SITE MAP
0 300 600 1,200 A division of The John R. McAdams Company. Tnc.
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet Figure 2

yy 9.r'•
Ax.. =�k. tr .,t�.- ... •ice`. . .. mT;K:a.
ii..
Ir
AL
_ c .
. ^6 �-* �' 1:_ • F.Y `• a'� ..per.....
`,..
rya —5:
A x:;.. K:.:...
k.
q�e a „r•. ,;x�' >'��.;, ..
' }a
9
1.
���.� •'� SAL' e.a�i,.. y...�.�k'..(�. -', R. �:,� ''
i %; .
V: Att'
w44' a '
s.?t'. '
N CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE AEcoEngineering
AERIAL SITE MAP
0 300 600 1,200 A division of The John R. McAdams Company. Tnc.
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet Figure 3

CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
ECOREGIONS OF EC�Engineering
NORTH CAROLINA MAP A division of The John R. McAdams Company. Tnc.
Figure 4
J
F
A
7
A
A
1,
5,
r
D
45
4Z
E
A -7 :rte
,
4
T L� 2 2 �g �x s 's i 's 's
.. .. .......
NZ
NI
3i
5
y
j
4
2
CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
ECOREGIONS OF EC�Engineering
NORTH CAROLINA MAP A division of The John R. McAdams Company. Tnc.
Figure 4

N CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE EcoEngineering SOIL SURVEY MAP
0 300 600 1,200 A division of The John R. McAdams Company. Tnc.
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet Figure 5

N CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
HYDRIC SOILS DELINEATION :E:3]EcoEngineerin9
0 100 200 400 A division of The John R, McAdams Company. Tnc.
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet Figure 6

61#-_ . .. . F AT; 'j% { •�'y1! ° ]� Pt - i- ccc��� to t "y 4 ��, ` 1� ,=' 1 �: 1 1'. "] 11.' . .� �1' �w.
,, . 7 � 7 � :� �, _ 4 A .,kk, - , . --Ae . .% *k' . _
ll -',� 7,f•-i• - �s _ - :J:.. . , , ��477 .l'.' - _ ,k'• - •i• S' t �' ip 1 . _. _ 1 . / 1/1 •I a '+ 1 7 ,
STREAM RESTORATION SUMMARY TABLE A•
; , . \� 11 \ 1 f \}
1. 1-,, ' - + / � � / U•T 6 / I 1 \ 1 ! #'\�- \\ \1.1 1 ` ., '� ' -,� `}• ... A y , ' � •f 5 A�'
.- . / / ; / •' �.. �� /_ \ \ � 1� ,. k a `,;� T ' rY C 1 f 1 \r s.\ \ >` .
EXISTING STREAM STREAM LENGTH \ , , I �`' <J a �� \ ��;� 1 \ 11' - 1, . *-ray 1 . r
STREAM PROPOSED \ _ I �� J 1, a A :_ q
FEATURE PROPOSED FT TREATMENT RATIO \ _ ; ` r` ;;, / /� �� �: \ \ �� \ I _ w1 ., ,'' 'r
{ ■
REACH C ] SINUOSITY t - _ ut j / �� / \ �\ ��- •* �'�'' \ \* 1 �\ ` -� \ I�
CONSERVATION EASEMENT '/'� / °J /'off '' ' ; . ' \ \. \ \\', ``�.� : �? '� ,,
PEREN. INTER. EPHEM. TOTAL ? i F \ I � ( lad .\ ' �•. ti �'
AREA #3 fx r / `% / ,FT �� \ ��� / I (` \ 1" \ \_ �,,.,
EAST FORK 'Via. , i a \ •. _,�• ( \ \ / "` \ \\\ : - •'� :... �:.
944 - -- - -- 944 978 1.06 RESTORATION 1:1 - = - ../ /' - - ( / '�,° _ � ,' ,� � -� \� � \ 1 1 r .
ENO RIVER - r s l l t � , \, �" /`� , /! % �• �1 1� \ �,� \ \ y Y �- -�i
�7 / ---� � / / .,x,11 I ' 1 \�' , -� �' - ' \'.
- -- - -- - 7f / / /� // �t r. ;+ / - /> ?� / / / / / ,� /// - y AA � / * • \ �� / / \ v A r // - - �r rte,. S
UT1 834 834 982 1.19 RESTORATION 1:1 . . _. I' / / I � - 1 � - - - , - < / �� '. // �/, - . v A v A y �' � _ � _ v /. v . ' =��- - _ - _ -_ - r. �,
(/e / -: / / // \\ - - / / �/ \\ \ \ % // - -- , \ - -
UT2 1,814 1,814 2,275 1.2 RESTORATION 1.1 �. = ,. , �y . ' / / •1 \ \, 7� \ \ < <; �o. -I- _ _-�__ -_\ = _ - ,,;" �� �,' , % .
UT3 1,023 707 325 2,055 2,374 1.2 RESTORATION 1:1 '. , - . �- \.. ' �I ' /� �lw�► - �I _ _ ___ ,_ -�_ _ _ = =�___ \ � _ -- - s�.r� n, IY I, dw .'
�.
UT4 - -- - -- 245 245 300 1.15 RESTORATION 1.1 z- �•�••i` / J / �;.=' \ �! \ \ � � `\ \ \ *A <1.VW7,
': k� �•� •••••� , Il i �/ \ � �j ��� -ti/ ✓ \ ,�•• - ; - , �s� \ \ I� / \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ / ! \ I, 'a - # , I, ^•.
- - - - - - I / ►•A - '� �A \� v A l I l J 1 -- ��� s "��^ 1••�"�' - \� � v V A 1 �\ \ \ J ) \ I •�` . / ; - _ ;821' n � it ` 'r s `' I
UT5 310 310 361 1.17 RESTORATION 1.1 \ ' �u t / I , '\ .;`,� :\ •'•�' ', -) "�� �� *,_r. , / �. r \ � 7/! /' /' _ / , , r
x ti \
\ +" l� \ l /'',," j .} •�•'. ,9• /'.\ �� / � j�' i. - 1, I. \ i / i 1 1 / - -- 1rw:I / /_ -' - - gi &f _ ' %., \ I )�► r '.
TOTAL 3,781 1,541 880 6,194 7,270 varies RESTORATION 1:1 �� , \ ,Y a �. � _ �1 �. \ \ ,, �� - s• . I. l • ®-
i �• % / 'O•••� / �' �' - ' \ \ - ioi_.t / i J I / \ /' _ - J I ; ) j / '/ /r�i1 3 • • 1 ! • �► - ►r U, -i i , ' i `' / �\ ` / / ♦:�' R. \' ,.
NOTE. NO STREAM RESTORATION IS PROPOSED ALONG UT6. IT WILL BE USED TO JUSTIFY BUFFER j �, / �, l_. , • /� \ '\ ' / - -ti • • • ��, • ,� �► _. \ _ 1 a 4. RESTORATION ONLY. �F • I � % -�_ � - • • \ , ,� • • • - a�ea,�� ��• v . . � *� . . I ... \ ,1� / /_ I ( 1 / - - - - / - �� •• ®�� / / \, / ('- // ••••••1 1 / J I r 3/ irk \\ �•�3�F ;:. -,
I a 1 , � � - / _ /. / � - - , '- - - • 1!!E,!� �"- l I (�;:. • • 1 , ,� • ��� .
1� ti.. 1 ; ` * ► �� ( ? ?4C. V \ / / v I /ate ••j �" ', X' ; ' / �,, , \ 1 ••w. �/ , _ - �'�• �: � .
.• � tit';_ y , „ 1 y� � 1 ,. , 1 �r , • ,, +� �' __ _l \ V A - v � v , v� • i/ • rl s. I / \ • • W� r' p • �/ / ,. � . v
I y- c yy►►•/ v A v v i v v v �I • •A• 4 N, \ �,A •• 1( R � � /; l� k / Ali. ✓ � . .
NV . " - . ,• 1 6 \ \ \ / -_ b••! ENHANCEMENT '_t, I 1 ,L • \ \ \ ••� I \ , a- - �•• ' �.
1.: . 7- •+ I � + r 1 a \ ,1 - - / ) \ / / �/ ,� - - -. _ _ __ \ I l \ ,A \ / r / \ \\ \\ \ ` ••� I ;'I \ -� . - - - / I ��•,�/ // '.• ' ., ,\ .\ \, 1. v , ,, 4 'r . ` i -. AREA 3 \ \ \ / \\ • , _ / ,,� ,�► �,
+ I � FORK ENO
_ _
,,,
_ \
. . , , , .. 10L.. '. " w �, . . '. - I . A , ., , s. k• r <w �� r \� \ , II , I� �/ >i ;/,I RIVER 11 I - 9p - . . _ ______l .- 'I" ",; � __ �1� � 11 I - I I ,� Z' Z,l , 1. ,�% A
g7 T n \ .�. .."l.".. & ,w . & "' .1 . � III - , I " . ; � .. v, 1.� . '.. . I.. , . , '. ffio,$roll! . I 'L, '�. " / � Nl� ,
s �, a.' r ;` r,. �� _ y . } I \ \ \ jy` \ %�' / o } v r r6, ��� �••••Agyr r ��c; ti ' fi
f \ v A �• i�� ' /, // \ r �t,,�,••••�•� % ' /.
4 .�, .�. CONSERVATION EASEMENT a' (�) F \- sr. �\ -\ ®; �.,a.�,.
11 °... 11 :,w r' ,x' r - k R,�y'i[rl. \ \ 1• 1• %. \ �•E' ky�' v \
S� L ,.,� . ' AREA #2 �: - - 49.22 AC. (OUTSIDE R /W) _ �, \,� \ / ��' �MX4 � `" �. 1.
rc {r_vvvllltl lip. " .�k r Y / y/ 1 5 \\ ` / / l®x . �►`'/ \/ / r .
1 �. y It %�;- .e ♦ iti' w �.. /j \ 1\ \ > `r i/! viii. \ ,� C/ �`'C� ; ' `r S` 1. 1� r__ �. �;� 1 - -. •� .w `� ' i • %r r 1 :, \�A\ V A' \ I I % i �'� %/ /\ \� V \ '��fv�1, 1 _ a ` 11
' - , ,\ \ •\
1' i " ' 1. ••!I - .� • �. A > -- ' V l� w A' '\ /i ,.'I V /St�, y%�c�Y .r_ - w� _ a rr - . • fit'' + 1 j 1 'sillllll' V i �, �../ r I'll I ` _ V r.' - �' -
t . +�' - ` g f f , �� * * ► \ � ,� I / / j �I III 1 ��! v / 1 �' i w: ; z z 1 , OL
A. I :- *?. W . 4'. - / , I V/ L - `�* 1/� k lg_"l
sY -�*"1� �� '��' _ h y� �- l /l ljl' l l l ' y )f, \�\ \��, R'qp►�/ %_ . - ' '% C
ri % Al " t v 4 , t he / / / /� \ \ / A ■ . �� , ., ;x
�► y r 5 s
{ \Tj �• :�, *S! _�. 1 i 5 1 F� ` � - / // \ i t /A� 1��' ' \' \\ � \ \ \% �% 9 � ; &L S 6'1 '1 ��
w... ' S ;'�-p . v , _ 1 - )� / A / �� /� 1 \ I I I \ \v A I // } t' - > 1' \ a ,
' h• a {', �:', r� , �- y .�F" j '.i _ / / / / / i ,•� �� I I � �' d ( �G . S' , t �V�
'�_r s. .'� \. 1
,._..
I /
/.
'1 jtl
] / 1 , / 4 . ,*/,,� . �. It . , ��r`` fir' kt... • i�5 � •.' "ii. / / /-•, 1 '_ V / / / ! % I � I \ •7� • � 'i ,k'• 1
�.. � . ..*; - �, : ,1 � " - vow- , -zw / I / / / / " #mi ,' / - _ / / , I i /To•�r-� ;/ . . ' r ';�:' , • .,,' �„ • `�
, , � N, , . - 7.117 .,.- ..�: ol!� , I - - - , ' `` -1y,, i.l J� • I l i . _ •tirt� a *l z - 7F / 1 J /// • , / %;' 1 .. i 3 lti. yrS ti ] .
'.. /J/ / 1* , / � - /,� - - !„ / / -
;_ • �, •` ; .'1 t 1y' S ii / / / r .. #11 0 ,4 , /' / / j / / I / /i /// -- /// � qp„ � ®e GO ■ .p "*
` rf � j / / . /1 j 0. •e `� : % t -\ .
:1 , �. Ilk- ' ' / �. _ / i // , �'' m,®.' two• Y.I a' y `
i' 1�'r' P � , i �> < '�y'' ?'mot °s i / , % ' / "�// , � � lk ,. �' � ! CONSERVATION EASEMENT lA ,. ` �
.tit 'id i fti. �// -I /�L� 2 r � V>�y - / i / V� , j- 4 \° ''• ,
,v '� �% I !/ � v� vv v - �, '< I rra; r. / , � / / _ / ;,, , � >, :, . AREA #3 ..
4e - 1 - - - -�
* �. ■
{ 28.65 AC. OUTSIDER W _ \ ,�' + .�,
It / i� // ®✓, \ / tif: t t \ % i ie t ' +i' Y 1 1 F `" 't t .+� • + ". j + 11.
j 4. - =� / .Fi // - F . . h _ t L.
- i. - ;, I / ,N � l �It T .:.i '11.• 4 _ i,F.. AC-k `t _ •, r � . \_,
y � y � / / / f / , - -- - - i , O r! is �_ / - - - ` . i. '. .,,t 'N � . ," , 1 ,\ . :\ r' N
k, ' j 1 �f` ', .w. - \ /, r - - - - _ _ - l // i / .� ' ' I I 1 :�i _ tt'�F -'S.. '► 'tE . 'k'� i.F■' #,. ... 3.M 1 , '\
% X I _ !� \ t � / �\ _" �`_- -- -- - - -- - - - - - r - % / +® a /a !, �, I, :_ti , . , ys . �• 1 • +1 r .•', Vii' - 1
. S +. ry f,\ \ '- / ,V`• ' a , r \ l � 1 N - -- �t - $ r %__ -- -- - - - +-rv_. - 'Td �, J� / / / / I - / /% k I -- , ..r : ; -_ "i•,., r , s► a Or
- - . %', � / / / / - -I- �' 1 ] / - - - _ - - - --7, - - t -�`' - - r i- \� it _ / ,/' % , I / '4 mot. , �, • :.i -�� .. . �E`;s � r- , •4 • 1 I t �_% "t l- / / J %l lr 11 r • \ I , 1 1" - - J dl - - / J % / 1 . , 1 I / / a. �. . ''j _� w +.y, u �, i , 1
.•F• /, / / / % / / �� .� / Jr. - I J _/! I l . - 1 _ -- -9e 1 /// / j �a! 'I _ 11 'i11/ •i • %,., , I , \ - - ..•l . l+'
// i / // / .�+y1� - :, l� / �v _ -'- v - eli - / / �_ / / ��F ,' / 11 '` a .' s� ;I
i / � - -
/ ] r / - -- ��= �, / 1 h'=
e I # - - - / / 1'
+' / / I/ \ /� - M!'•ii ..,�� �/ - / /' /'I I - 1 a t +, << -- - - -- - // A - t / / / / ' i� ••�� 4'/ /, r' �:; y ►t.. a` �I. '`.
r. I,�I - // - • t� i - /i l \ #�!�t �� - _ - - - - ®d �� , J, , i l V �� I / /'f '� -- i �� r t.. Il '.. - t; r r. ,, ti: ,r �..�c �� , 11
I- / / llf'I /�� ��'•�l► -� � d I/ / - / \\ __7 `�/ /// / //I - -- �4��I. '�•� / - - - , r Lr; �� 1
-01 { / / % / ;' i/ - \ 4' �, -., � __ I I / _ ,, Ooh , / - � / -- _ - v • / i�� / r h '�. :~ , ' '
/I�I �/ - 1 ��r? �if�t✓ -& ,XI / ,ii �� %/ - �/ % /� Vii! i/ II �j••••• 1 °r�/1 ,� s. y \ I. : -, 1 4.
,w / / ��� _ R `� " /- �. ��C - ''/ � /; - %/ j �\ �.�- ,- - -/ - i / I 1 - - I • • /-- - J- - '.L •� •Y , !� .7 t. " . -. , • ! i� '4} • , 1l _
�� ;r j / �� /; I� .1 / / - / // ��• // iii- i// \\ I I'�I fs! 11`� /I /, // f 11 -- __ I- ,� /' / /l .'.. - �' ..
1y j , /1 / \ �- / i /- / / / • Mll e /I L ,. I / RI �\ " 1 \1 I I I J// "/ / ` , 1 .. ..
Jl� - II /• mil' - /.� • /�/ / // I II /( I / li I \ /' / / '1 S , •5`
1,/../ i}4� / /�;• , /// I �' i� \' \' iIII \ 11 / ► + 1yF_ _ TK�l
{ / / ^I / a -� / /'_" i /' .• //' .,I I� i�`-vi / /�... \ \ II / Il,�• / %%� �// it 1 -(( ` \ \�' \,� - I.1\ i /__- .•. - . _ •� _ ;, ' 3,:. I -1
P / I .- - / - �. A � _= Y - I % , I I • ,i ,.� I i ,' rf - e , % .
U T 5 ��' ' _ / - I -- ► _ iii - a �,�,� %.y
z /
�. / 4rr`Z, - / ' �I I- 5r s. .i••� rI a1v1 v v _ . /SJ �Z�� \�� //� �

Y' } °s
Legend
F �R
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
ECO- SITEPL
Easement
r.: y
EAST FORK ENO RIVER EXISTING F"
PROPOSED C/E
EXISTING E, BHR >1.5*
PROPOSED C/E
a:r MARGARET ANDERSON PROPERTY
Awl
Easement Area = 3.68 Acres
EXISTING POND UT6 Tract Area: 50.73 Acres
TO BE REMOVED. W, Buffer: 0.42 Acres
200' Buffer. 0.61 Acres
Perennial Stream. 1,673 LF
r
PROPOSED C/E a (UT 6 & Portion of East Fork not on GC Tract)
,� � ' +.
(Does not include Design Sinuosity)
200' Buffer`'`'
i EXISTING POND'.
PROPOSED C/E ," *Based on preliminary isual assessment
TO BE REMOVED I� ry
�
� r .k ����.h`. �� ;fir`- �:.•�.. �• Y _ � S � ,'''r. ..
50 Buffer E;
.:, .. z +, EXISTING G
PROPOSED C/E
GOLF COURSE PROPERTY
Easement Area. 60.87 Acres
Tract Area: 133.53 Acres
50' Buffer: 11.60 Acres
200' Buffer: 30.00 Acres
Perennial Stream: 6,191 LF
`P Intermittent Stream. 632 LF
(Does not include Design Sinuosity)
*Based on preliminary visual assessment
a,
'y.
.: �': 'T <�Af. .•,sue.'. �::�'��, "
,
'1
N
` UT1
...; r 4
EXISTING E BHR > 1.5* Sy;,F
'PIPED SECTION
h PROPOSED C/E
,
r EXISTING E, BHR > 1.5*
PROPOSED C /E.�,t..;
It llr
MEXISTING E, BHR > 1.5*
qqyy •� y "�•�"••� A ' "= ''_'= �'�``'" NOTE: LETTER DESIGNATIONS
'PROPOSED C/E :.�.: y ,, s:'.•.,-:
R UT2 1 REFER TO CHANNEL TYPE
.. a
K
.F t+ t • is'
■ • 4 F
P
�•S rJ1^Z�•:
2'.
EXISTING POND s.�:' :.y ;� � „�.�� ,�'' ,.' >5:• ,� '•� ,. <� � �•
TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED C/E .,
VA
k
EXISTING POND
TO BE REMOVED:a
N 0 400 800 CEDAR GROVE GOLF COURSE
Feet EcoEngineering
f inch =400 feet FIGURE 7 PROSPECTUS - PROPOSED RESTORATION A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.

N CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE EcoEngineering
GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA (GSA)
0 30,500 61,000 122,000 A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Feet
I inch = 60,000 feet Figure 8

m?
f:p A
A
•
�i� 63►1:
0P.
F`
7...
At
A.
;�•• .;',fir' -. ,:. :,:x;..z.' ' � _ _ >�:� ,:.;..
AT .
k"
v-s" ft
. :j. 23`-�t '". ..•. .. =.:..: ham:. _>
i'
T
M....'.
N CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE EcoEngineering FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY EXHIBIT
0 315 630 1,260 A division of The John R. McAdams Company. Tnc.
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet Figure 9
AA
;�•• .;',fir' -. ,:. :,:x;..z.' ' � _ _ >�:� ,:.;..
AT .
k"
v-s" ft
. :j. 23`-�t '". ..•. .. =.:..: ham:. _>
i'
T
M....'.
N CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE EcoEngineering FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY EXHIBIT
0 315 630 1,260 A division of The John R. McAdams Company. Tnc.
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet Figure 9

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
APPENDIX B
Zs
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Mitchell Environmental, P.A.
February 10, 2012
Mr. Brandon Finch, PE
EcoEngmeering
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, North Carolina 27713
Re: Hydric Soil Delineation for Cedar Grove Golf Course
700 McDade Store Road, Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina
Mr. Finch:
At your request, Mitchell Environmental, PA, has completed a detailed delineation of
hydric soils on the Cedar Grove Golf Course properties located at 700 McDade Store
Road in Hillsborough, North Carolina (PIN 9858393600 and 9858188881). Hydric soils
were identified using NRCS publication "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United
States" and accepted soil science practices. Hydric soil unit boundaries were demarcated
in the field using 18 -inch orange pin flags. These flags were located using our GPS
equipment capable of sub -meter accuracy. Delineated hydric soil units are illustrated on
the attached drawing. Buried hydric soils (under tee boxes, greens, moguls, etc.) exist
within the hydric soils units illustrated on the attached drawing, but were not delineated
separately. Field components of the delineation were completed between February 01
and 07, 2012.
The field investigation covered all low -lying areas bordering existing and piped stream
channels, ephemeral valleys and ponds within the bounds of proposed stream buffers
illustrated on your map titled "Cedar Grove Golf Course Proposed Restoration ". Most of
these areas are mapped as the Chewacla soil series per the NRCS Web Soil Survey, while
areas surrounding "UT3" and "UT4" are mapped as Helena or Helena- S edgefield
Complex. Where hydric soils were encountered, limits of hydric soil units within
proposed 200 -foot stream buffers were identified and demarcated as detailed above. At
your instruction, upper limits of hydric soil units were not delineated beyond proposed
200 -foot stream buffers (see notes for hydric soils unit K on attached drawing).
Additionally, small pockets of hydric soils were observed in multiple locations
surrounding existing ponds; however, these areas were not delineated due to your
proposal to drain these ponds for stream restoration. Drainage of these ponds will
significantly alter the hydrology that facilitated the formation of these hydric soils in their
periphery, such that most will likely remain hydric in relict form only.
PO Box 341 Fuquay - Varina, North Carolina 27526
Office: 919 -557 -4682 Fax: [phone]

All observed hydric soil units on the subject site meet hydric soil indicator "F3. Depleted
Matrix ". No other hydric soil indicators were observed. A copy of the description and
requirements for this indicator is attached for your reference, as well as representative
soil profile descriptions for each hydric soil unit, using the soil page of the USACE
Wetland Determination Data Form. Depleted, low chroma soil horizons typically ranged
between 2.5Y 712 to 2.5Y 412, with distinct or prominent redox concentrations occupying
well over 2% of the matrix in almost all locations. Hydric soils with a matrix chroma of
I were observed in some locations, but this level of depletion was less common than
areas with 2 chroma colors. Expansive areas of soils with a 3 chroma matrix that would
otherwise meet hydric soil indicator F3 exist on the subject property; however, these
areas do not meet the requirements for this indicator. Depending on the flexibility of
regulatory personnel reviewing the site for restored or created wetlands, additional areas
of borderline hydric soils may be approved for credits on this site, based on their
interpretation of soil matrix colors.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this hydric soil delineation for this Site.
Do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding this investigation or if you
need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Scott Mitchell, PE, LSS
2

mrrrz
^^j
vl
t�
o
� O V
Iti
al 04
O
A
200 -foot Stream Buffer fl
r.4 W CO
Cn
(Typical)
11P_
O
C4
O
Hydric Soils Unit F
O
Q
(Flags 1 -8)
V
Hydric Soils Unit E
(Flags 1-4)
a
Q�0
tioce
Hydric Soils Unit I
Hydric Soils Unit J (Flags 1 -2)
„N
(Flags 1 -6)
��a65
�.
U
OL
J
U
d
®
u N O
0 Z
N
W
Hydric Soils Unit D
6E
N
(Flags 1 -7)
N f
o
Z
U U
1
O
l�
T
N N
F
Hydric Soils Unit H
w
<
d
U)
�. o
(Flags 1 -6)
ii
o
� c
CL
Hydric Soils Unit A
4
(Flags 1 -8)
C4
�p s
CV
Hydric Soils Unit G
w C4
(Flags 1 -9) Hydric Soils Unit B
(Flags 1 -11)
c
�0
ko
Hydric Soils Unit K Hydric Soils Unit C
W b
(Flags 1 -13 & 100 -103) (Flags 1 -5)
4-
M
N
Wp Von
Notes:
ti d
1. Property boundaries, stream centerlines and stream buffers provided by EcoEngineering.
r4 r-, o w
2. Hydric soil units delineated by Mitchell Environmental, PA.
3. Hydric soil units were located using GPS equipment capable of sub -meter accuracy. This map is not a survey.
,
4. Hydric soil unit K continues southward. Illustrated boundary of this unit limited per instructions from EcoEngineering staff.
'
5. Other small hydric soil units exist around ponds that will be drained, but were not delineated due to planned hydrology modifications.
6. Hydric soil units were delineated using criteria specified in NRCS publication "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States ".

I Legend
it
C
F �R
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Easement
200' Buffer
r.: y
EXISTING E, BHR >1.5*
: -� PROPOSED C/E
EXISTING POND UT6
TO BE REMOVED
7-'� r .
- - E
PROPOSED C/E
w. :.:� --
i%L a
50' Buffer
Site
J Yf ., is
i�
GOLF COURSE PROPERTY
Easement Area. 60.87 Acres
Tract Area: 133.53 Acres
50' Buffer: 11.60 Acres
200' Buffer: 30.00 Acres
Perennial Stream: 6,191 LF
`P Intermittent Stream. 632 LF
v
(Does not include Design Sinuosity)
*Based on preliminary visual assessment
PROPOSED C/E EXISTING POND
'. TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING E BHR > 1.5"
�.
'PIPED SECTION pROPOSED, C /E
r ,
:., '
•c'
f. h.
• :i;. ' � it ..
.a. a .
9�w
EAST FORK ENO RIVER EXISTING F"
PROPOSED C/E
MARGARET ANDERSON PROPERTY
Easement Area = 3.68 Acres
Tract Area: 50.73 Acres
50' Buffer: 0.42 Acres
200' Buffer: 0.61 Acres
Perennial Stream: 1,673 LF
' '� k °V UT 6 & Portion of East Fork not on GC Tract
(Does not include Design Sinuosity)
*Based on preliminary visual assessment
EXISTING
PROPOSED C/E
UT1
t
,s
EXISTING E, BHR > 1.5"
PROPOSED C/E
O NN - EXISTING E, BHR > 1.5"
PROPOSED C/E
!-. ■'i ;'
_•YL .
i
,.:. .. UT3
■ �,
!S P
A�
EXISTING POND 'L iL
NOTE: LETTER DESIGNATIONS
REFER TO CHANNEL TYPE
1, .,i•Y .' a�-rs.�' �.:': c.. � KL aYB
• -F
l'
TO BE REMOVED
; .k n:�,.::•
P
i�'Y
PROPOSED C/E .,
E
a
•L
iA,•• f .
y
x,3� -
a
yp ,
ce..
} ;
- EXISTING POND
' � � �� s '�3-�• fit. '�� ;���.�4. •- 1�
'. �..,
Rn
,• s n
y
1. .• .:•Y -.,�Y� �r ry'�� f` ° 11
fy, . 4
�v =, aC^.••: hr`a�. '14+ .�� � 'ter �.
N 0 400 800 1,600 CEDAR GROVE GOLF COURSE
Feet lEcoEngineering
I inch = 400 feet PROPOSED RESTORATION FIGURE 6 A division of The Jahn R. McAdams Company, Inc.

F3@, Depleted Matrix
Requirements

20
particles must be masked with organic material,
viewed through a 10x or 15x hand lens. Observed
without a hand lens, the particles appear to be close
to 100 percent masked. This layer is underlain by a
layer or layers with value of 4 or less and chroma of
1 or less to a depth of 30 cm (12 inches) or to the
spodic horizon, whichever is less.
User Notes: This indicator applies to soils with
a very dark gray or black near - surface layer that is
at least 5 cm (2 inches) thick and is underlain by
a layer in which organic matter has been carried
downward by flowing water (fig. 27). The mobilization
and translocation of organic matter result in an even
distribution of organic matter in the eluvial (E) horizon.
The chroma of 1 or less is critical because it limits
application of this indicator to only those soils that are
depleted of iron. This indicator commonly occurs in
hydric Spodosols, but a spodic horizon is not required.
Figure 27.— Indicator S9 (Thin Dark Surface). A dark surface
horizon about 5 cm thick overlies a thin layer with value
of 4 or less and chroma of 1 or less. Directly below the
second layer is a spodic horizon, starting at a depth of
about 7 cm.
Field Indicators of
S10. Alaska Gleyed. This indicator is now indicator
A13 (Alaska Gleyed).
Loamy and Clayey Soils
These soils have USDA textures of loamy very fine
sand and finer. All mineral layers above any of the
layers meeting the requirements of any F indicator(s),
except for indicators F8, F12, F19, and F20, have
a dominant chroma of 2 or less, or the thickness of
the layer(s) with a dominant chroma of more than 2
is less than 15 cm (6 inches). (See figure 4.) Also,
except for indicator F16, nodules and concretions are
not considered to be redox concentrations. Use the
following loamy and clayey indicators for loamy or
clayey mineral soil materials.
Fl. Loamy Mucky Mineral. For use in all LRRs,
except for N, R, S, V, W, X, and Y, those using A7
(LRRs R, T, U, and Z), and MLRA 1 of LRR A. A layer
of mucky modified loamy or clayey soil material 10
cm (4 inches) or more thick starting within 15 cm (6
inches) of the soil surface.
User Notes: "Mucky" is a USDA texture modifier for
mineral soils. The content of organic carbon is at least
8 percent but can range to as high as 18 percent.
The percentage required depends on the clay content
of the soil; the higher the clay content, the higher
the content of organic carbon required. An example
is mucky sandy loam, which has at least 8 percent
organic carbon but not more than about 14 percent.
F2. Loamy Gleyed Matrix. For use in all LRRs,
except for W, X, and Y. A gleyed matrix that occupies
60 percent or more of a layer starting within 30 cm (12
inches) of the soil surface (fig. 28).
User Notes: Gley colors are not synonymous with
gray colors. They are the colors on the gley color
pages of the Munsell color book (Gretag- Macbeth,
2000). They have hue of N, 10Y, 5GY, 10GY, 5G, 10G,
513G, 1013G, 513, 1013, or 5PB and value of 4 or more.
The gleyed matrix only has to be present within 30 cm
(12 inches) of the surface. Soils with gleyed matrices
are saturated for periods of a significant duration; as a
result, there is no thickness requirement for the layer.
F3. Depleted Matrix. For use in all LRRs, except
for W, X, and Y. A layer that has a depleted matrix with
60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a
minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the
upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or

Hydric Soils
= -. ...
- n t r r< Or"OW a7G
Figure 28.— Indicator F2 (Loamy Gleyed Matrix). The gleyed
matrix begins at the surface and extends to a depth of
about 14 cm.
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10
inches) of the soil surface.
User Notes: A depleted matrix requires a value
of 4 or more and chroma of 2 or less (fig. 29). Redox
concentrations, including soft iron - manganese
masses and /or pore linings, are required in soils
with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, or 5/2. A, E, and calcic
horizons may have low chromas and high values
and may therefore be mistaken for a depleted matrix;
however, they are excluded from the concept of
depleted matrix unless the soil has common or many
distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring
as soft masses or pore linings. The low - chroma matrix
must be the result of wetness and not a weathering or
parent material feature.
R. Depleted Below Dark Surface. This indicator
is now indicator A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface).
21
" -_-41Y x.
'fir* ��rl• -±�• -.
lop—
Figure 29.— Indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix). This soil has
value of 4 or less and chroma of 2 or less and redox
concentrations starting at a depth of 8 cm. Since the
depleted matrix starts within a depth of 15 cm, the
minimum thickness requirement is only 5 cm.
F5. Thick Dark Surface. This indicator is now
indicator Al2 (Thick Dark Surface).
F6. Redox Dark Surface. For use in all LRRs,
except for W, X, and Y for testing in LRRs W, X, and
Y. A layer that is at least 10 cm (4 inches) thick, is
entirely within the upper 30 cm (12 inches) of the
mineral soil, and has:
a. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 1
or less and 2 percent or more distinct or
prominent redox concentrations occurring as
soft masses or pore linings, or
b. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2
or less and 5 percent or more distinct or
prominent redox concentrations occurring as
soft masses or pore linings.

MUNSELL� SOIL COLOR CHART
x
81
71
41
uy
> m
41
2.5Y
MMM
mmm
MME
mmmm
\l-) 3/ mmm
2.51
�] 12 13 14 16
it CHROMA
I8
I �
N
LTA

Representative Soil
Profile Descriptions

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -2 2.5Y 3/2 100 None SL
2 -10+ 2.5Y 6/1 80 1 YYR 6/4 20 C M SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -4 2.5Y 4/2 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 C M SL
4 -10+ 2.5Y 6/2 90 7.5YR 4/4 00 C M SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit C
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -4 2.5Y 4/3 100 None SCL
4 -11+ 2.5Y 5/2 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit D
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -5 2.5Y 3/3 99 10YR 4/6 1 C M SL
5 -12+ 2.5Y 5/2 95 lOYR 4/4 5 C M SL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit E
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Histosol (Al)
Redox Features
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -2
2.5Y 4/4
100
None
SCL
2-6
2.5Y 5/3
95
7.5YR 4/4 5 C M
SCL
6 -13+
2.5Y 5/2
90
7.5YR 4/4 10 C M
SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit F
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -2 10YR 3/3 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M SL
2 -10+ 2.5Y 6/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit G
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Histosol (Al)
Redox Features
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -2
2.5Y 3/3
100
None
SCL
2 -4
2.5Y 5/4
95
i0YR 5/6 5 C M
SCL
4 -11+
2.5Y 6/1
85
10YR 5/4 15 C M
SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Eovirozoneotsul, P&
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course" February 20I2 Sampling pmm Unit B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
_mstosol(m)
- Redox Features
_oom Muck (Al N(MuRA 147)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Typel Fo-cT--
_Texture Remarks
o-u
u'or */*
100
None
aoL
X� Depleted Matrix (Fo)
(MLmA1a*.147)
__ xom Muck (x1o) (LRRN)
__ Redox Dark Surface (pn)
__ Red Parent Material (Tpu)
��+_
----
__ Depleted Dark Surface (r7)
95 _
---
_5CMSCL_
-----^-------
__ Rndox Depressions (po)
'Tvpe: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
ovu,m Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic xvu,meuxa3:
_mstosol(m)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_oom Muck (Al N(MuRA 147)
_Histic Epipedon(As)
_Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (Mmm147,148)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A 16)
_ Black Hiotic(m)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (Mum 147,148)
(Mom 147,148)
__ Hydrogen Sulfide Vw>
Loamy o/evnd Matrix (rz)
__ Piedmont rwouplain Soils (p1n)
__ Stratified Layers (^n}
X� Depleted Matrix (Fo)
(MLmA1a*.147)
__ xom Muck (x1o) (LRRN)
__ Redox Dark Surface (pn)
__ Red Parent Material (Tpu)
__ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1}
__ Depleted Dark Surface (r7)
__ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1o)
__ Thick Dark Surface (Al2}
__ Rndox Depressions (po)
__ Other (Explain inRemarks)
__ Sandy Mucky Mineral (e1)(Lmnm.
__ Iron-Manganese Masses (p12) (Lmnm'
MLnx147,14m
MLRA1»6)
__ Sandy o|eyeu Matrix (a4)
__ Umuhc Surface (F1o) (MLnx1aV'1uo)
: Indicators mfhyumphymo vegetation and
| __ Sandy nnuox(an)
__ Piedmont r|nndp|ein Soils (r1o) (MLRm1*o)
wetland hydrology must xepresent, |
|__ Stripped Matrix (8s)
unless disturbed u,problematic. |
Type:___
Depth (inches):
�
y�mmmp��? me___ No
ua Army Corps n[Engineers eautemwnunminaandpmumnn— |ntenmvemwn

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit 2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -4 2.5Y 3/3 100 None SCL
4 -12+ 2.5Y 4/2 95 lOYR 5/6 5 C M SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit J
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Histosol (Al)
Redox Features
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -2
2.5Y 3/2
100
None
SCL
2-5
2.5Y 4/4
95
lOYR 4/6 5 C M
SCL
5 -12+
2.5Y 5/2
90
f0YR 4/6 10 C M
SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
SOIL Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012 Sampling Point: Unit K
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Histosol (Al)
Redox Features
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -2
2.5Y 4/3
100
None
SCL
2-4
2.5Y 6/3
90
lOYR 4/6 10 C M
SCL
4 -12+
2.5Y 6/1
85
lOYR 4/6 15 C M
SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012
SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
_ Dark Surface (S7)
(inches)
Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -3
2.5Y 3/3 100
None
SL
3-8
2.5Y 5/3 95
lOYR 4/6 5 C M
SL
8 -12+
2.5Y 5/2 90
10YR 4/6 10 C M
SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

SOIL
Soil Scientist: Scott Mitchell, Mitchell Environmental, PA
Cedar Grove Golf Course, February 2012
Sampling Point: Upland K
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0 -3 2.5Y 3/3 100 None SCL
3 -12+ 2.5Y 5/3 90 10YR 4/4 10 C M SCL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (176)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

NRCS Web Soil Survey
Custom Soil Resource
Report

USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
o
N RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Orange County,
North Carolina
Cedar Grove Golf Course
dip t;
i NC T
de
* Oranger
No 814ft
January 26, 2012

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http: / /soils.usda.gov /sgin and certain
conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact
your local USDA Service Center (http: / /offices.sc.egov.usda.gov /locator /app?
agency =nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http: / /soils.usda.gov /contact/
state_officesn.
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey orwet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil
Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720 -2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250 -9410 or call (800) 795 -3272
(voice) or (202) 720 -6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.

Contents
Preface...................................................................................... ..............................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made .................................................... ..............................5
SoilMap .................................................................................... ..............................7
SoilMap .................................................................................. ..............................8
Legend.................................................................................... ..............................9
MapUnit Legend ................................................................... .............................10
MapUnit Descriptions ........................................................... .............................10
Orange County, North Carolina ......................................... .............................12
ApB— Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes .......... .............................12
ApC— Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes ........ .............................13
Ch— Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded ..................14
HeB— Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes ........... .............................15
HhA— Helena - Sedgefield complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes ..........................16
VaB —Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes ............ .............................18
W— Water ....................................................................... .............................19
References............................................................................... .............................20

How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil- vegetation - landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the

Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and /or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil - landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field - observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

0
0
r
664900 665000 665100
360 11'55"
0
0
u�
r
0
o
v
0
0
v
r
0
0
v
0
0
m
r u
°v
0
0
N
r
o �
0
0
0
r
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
G ,
it c
AV
�y\ c
} c
c
* \ c
}C c
!O C
v
_ c
F � �
f r c
c
c
C
y _ v
c
c
a
c
360 1V1 9"
I m"'�'
FFnann FFFnnn FFFlnn FR-;?nn FFSnnn FFFnnn FFFFnn FFFFnn FFF7nn FFFann
L�
nn
dit
F
Map Scale: 1:7,840 if printed on A size (8.5"x 11") sheet.
o
Meters °
°r n 0 100 200 400 600 °r
Feet
0 400 800 1,600 2 ,400
360 11'54"
360 1V1 8"

Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (A01)
Very Stony Spot
Map Scale: 1:7,840 if printed on A size (8.5' X 11 ") sheet.
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
W Wet Spot
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000.
Soils
* Other
0
Soil Map Units
Special Line Features
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Special
Point Features
Gully
Blowout
Short Steep Slope
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping
g p y pp g can cause
®
Borrow Pit
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
.. Other
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
}{
Clay Spot
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Political Features
}
Closed Depression
O Cities
Gravel Pit
Water Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Gravelly Spot
Streams and Canals
Landfill
Transportation
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
+++ Rails
Web Soil Survey URL: http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Lava Flow
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
Marsh or swamp
x'� Interstate Highways
it
Mine or Quarry
US Routes
This product is generated from the USDA -NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
O
Miscellaneous Water
Major Roads
p
Perennial Water
f Local Roads
Soil Survey Area: Orange County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Feb 19, 2010
Rock Outcrop
+
Saline Spot
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/16/2006
Sandy Spot
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Severely Eroded Spot
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
Sinkhole
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Slide or Slip
#
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Orange County, North Carolina (NC136)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
ApB
Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
34.7
25.2%
ApC
Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
6.7
4.8%
Ch
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
15.4
11.2%
HeB
Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
58.5
42.5%
HhA
Helena- Sedgefield complex, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
21.1
15.3%
VaB
Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
0.1
0.1%
W
Water
1.2
0.8%
Totals for Area of Interest
137.6
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits forthe properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, ordissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complexthat it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but ratherto separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
Orange County, North Carolina
ApB— Appling sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Appling and similar soils: 92 percent
Minor components: 4 percent
Description of Appling
Setting
Landform: I me rfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 8.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Sandy loam
6 to 18 inches: Sandy clay loam
18 to 36 inches: Clay
36 to 52 inches: Sandy clay loam
52 to 80 inches: Sandy loam
Minor Components
Vance
Percent of map unit. 3 percent
Landform: I me rfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Helena
Percent of map unit. 1 percent
Landform: Ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit, footslope
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
ApC— Appling sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Appling and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 2 percent
Description of Appling
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three - dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 8.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Sandy loam
6 to 18 inches: Sandy clay loam
18 to 36 inches: Clay
36 to 52 inches: Sandy clay loam
52 to 80 inches: Sandy loam
13

Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Vance
Percent of map unit. 1 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three - dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Helena
Percent of map unit. 1 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Shoulder, backslope
Landform position (three - dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Convex, concave
Ch— Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Chewacla and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 9 percent
Description of Chewacla
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. High (about 11.5 inches)
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4w
Typical profile
0 to 4 inches: Loam
4 to 26 inches: Silty clay loam
26 to 38 inches: Loam
38 to 60 inches: Clay loam
60 to 80 inches: Loam
Minor Components
Wehadkee, undrained
Percent of map unit. 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Riverview
Percent of map unit. 4 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
HeB— Helena sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Helena and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 8 percent
Description of Helena
Setting
Landform: Ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit, footslope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in /hr)
15

Custom Soil Resource Report
Depth to water table: About 18 to 30 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 7.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Sandy loam
8 to 12 inches: Sandy loam
12 to 39 inches: Clay
39 to 46 inches: Clay loam
46 to 80 inches: Coarse sandy loam
Minor Components
Vance
Percent of map unit. 5 percent
Landform: I me rfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Wedowee
Percent of map unit. 3 percent
Landform: I me rfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Worsham, undrained
Percent of map unit. 0 percent
Landform: Depressions
Landform position (two- dimensional): Footslope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
HhA— Helena - Sedgefield complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Helena and similar soils: 45 percent
Sedgefield and similar soils: 40 percent
16

Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor components: 4 percent
Description of Helena
Setting
Landform: Ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit, footslope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in /hr)
Depth to water table: About 18 to 30 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 7.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2w
Typical profile
0 to 13 inches: Sandy loam
13 to 30 inches: Clay
30 to 44 inches: Fine sandy loam
44 to 80 inches: Sandy loam
Description of Sedgefield
Setting
Landform: Ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Footslope, summit
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and /or gabbro and /or diabase and /or
gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in /hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 18 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2w
Typical profile
0 to 13 inches: Sandy loam
13 to 33 inches: Clay
17

Custom Soil Resource Report
33 to 37 inches: Sandy clay loam
37 to 80 inches: Sandy clay loam
Minor Components
Worsham, undrained
Percent of map unit. 2 percent
Landform: Depressions
Landform position (two- dimensional): Footslope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Wehadkee, undrained
Percent of map unit. 2 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
VaB —Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Vance and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Description of Vance
Setting
Landform: I me rfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in /hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
18

Custom Soil Resource Report
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Sandy loam
6 to 10 inches: Sandy loam
10 to 38 inches: Clay
38 to 50 inches: Sandy clay loam
50 to 80 inches: Loam
Minor Components
Helena
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit, footslope
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Appling
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: I me rfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Wedowee
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: I me rfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three - dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
W —Water
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Description of Water
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 8w
19

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487 -00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS /OBS- 79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydricsoils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http: / /soils.usda.gov/
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http: / /soils.usda.gov/
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http: / /soils.usda.gov/
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y -87 -1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http: / /soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http: / /www.glti.nres.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http: / /soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http: / /soils.usda.gov/
20

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210.
21

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
APPENDIX C
29
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
VA
WNW
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild PE
Director
Tommy Cousins
EBx
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B 0233)
June 15. 2012
Isolated or EIP Call
Dee Freeman
Secretary
NBRRO #12 -099
Orange County
❑ Ephemeral /lntermiitent/Perenniai Determination
❑ Tar - Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259}
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 2B .0267)
Project Name:
Location/Directions:
Cedar Grove Golf Course
West of McDade Store Road
Subject Stream: UT to East Fork Eno River, and East Fork Eno River
Date of Determination: 2/16/12
Feature
Not
Subject
Subject
Start(§
Stopag
Soil Survey
USGS Topo
A
x
throughout
x
x
B
x
x
x
C ffast Fork Eno)
X
throughout
x
x
D (portion piped)*
x
Point D -
culvert
x
E (piped)-
X
Offsite
At property
bound
X
x
F (piped)*
x
Off site
At property
boundary
x
G
x
Point G-
culvert
x
x
H (piped)*
x
x
Pond A
x
x
x
Pond B
x
x
x
Pond C
x
x as stream
x as stream
Pond D*
x
x as stream
X as stream
Pond E
x
x
x
*Stream feature has been piped or is a pond that has been determined to be Not Subject but has potential for
buffer mitigation if stream is restored- Nw-
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection
Intemet: www,nowaterqualfy.org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1628
An Equal QpportunitylAifirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycledll0% Post Consumer Paper
,IVd w5wb
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]

Orange County
Page 2 of 2
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Orange County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. Where may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Quality.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority may request a
determination by the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter
or from the date the affected party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter.
A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Karen Higgins,
DWQ WeBSCaPe Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.
If you dispute the Director's determination you may file a petition for an administrative hearing. You must
file the petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within sixty (60) days of the receipt of this notice
of decision. A petition is considered filed when it is received in the Office of Administrative Hearings
during normal office !tours. The Office of Administrative Hearings accepts filings Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, except for official state holidays. To request a hearing, send the
original and one (1) copy of the petition to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -6714. The petition may also be faxed to the attention of the Office of Administrative
Hearings at (919) 733 -3478, provided the original and one (1) copy of the document is received by the Office
of Administrative Hearings within five (5) days following the date of the fax transmission. A copy of the
petition must also be served to the Department of Natural Resources, c/o Mary Penny Thompson, General
Counsel, 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within
sixty (60) days.
The ownertfuture owners should notify the Division of Water Quality (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property
(stated above). This project may require a Section 4041401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries
should be directed to the Division of Water Quality (Central Office) at (919)- 733 -1786, and the US Army
Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)- 554 -4884.
Respectfully.
1
Lauren Witherspoon
Environmental Senior Specialist
cc: WeBSCaPe -- 1650 Mail Service Center
RRO /SWP File Copy

]]tiYr
K.MJ1
n
■
U
vah. A Vorkl � S G
1 ECOMTO. AIWMt ry[
�.w?Iwnd� e.r.s •�
�M� SslJa - f ♦0
wuoSiM1 Irr� i--T 1 lum rnGIMF � .�(
N.al Cu•%R.'.� IAfOf1•i
wa 1G
s] 13�pa .[imMCp+ •fig n r •r - .. - _ .
■]l }S -
' -br. ' .._• __
o.
Ik
�■,# 1 a" Olt
` N• '„ EFL �► C4' "i.
IN
Y
1 wJe■■ or�l
M
;j'j .
-4 kl
ur 3
M[A Na -..w
A�
Y .0 ti
a M•. � Pewnrrl�r
..+per a:re:a.••1.1r•R �
. _ —_� _ _ r � i. • Y . .:.ill -yi'�rl
a I.,wv mwg P. resenrni
rye v.TM wa p
N5= [2 -0ll
r
Fom I"
_.¢—I
I FCFNI!
COYIOIII� iii f In) 4u - 4N —�—
wasp. sm m..
. Mlu H - 7 ay Bey
wln ry . +■.0 �,..
wsw n - ■]y .w.a
Munanr* o.rwr wY olrra wa.• _ n n �
.. �
•._.. __�
• rr.M p` YII. Ix - i •. eca.
• Ir[Pw [Y +■[. J i M cna
u Inl Po - p an•.
y
Nmlk n o js 1,
was c! PC 11 • .w..
km■• R 1]Ia µ - w
o$.N
ri•.• n w n • ■ n .e.
• wr. �P._ M .r].
Pmw. u w• Pr - e ev .m.+
x)use mnu rJ.wicer■rP Jlc• - i �o e•.w
�.�— .
• ��1 Yr. �iaN w++•
- pwR M4 p -0 Kw
.mw. cl rw �. - e .•...
•ifr�w R M - e ..•w
.�mPµ. A J6
rr rr�
'
n MI. �• _ vek .d..
nnNr �... rrlr +an.
' ••• � • r�■■un rrwa
�j
■s .P.M r �••�..�

ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH
APB
HeB APC�;_:.
4Z t
HeB A ` P B .:
w , Ch
AP8 ApB ApC
-:5 HeB
HeB H �
A`
m
H6-B Q ApB °r
_ r
s Ch
G
P� E3 J
gig, rieB
tv
VaB
HeB - EnB
,p
c HeB -. YY 1� ?•?1�F
3:1 �c
A w w
w
APB ApC
VaB VaB TaD
ApB
eC
HeB .r GeC
HA HeB' Tai
ApB �.
Ta D
GeB: ErS GeB j
C. h
Nh
H
GeB t g - HrB
E:
HrB HrB Ta[7
n G C " .

/ � � +; �' �Jr r` r lr _ f
i L r k rte+ ITT r
\z J I
rJ � l�'� •�•�~ � �'�` � l �,
r ti
o 1 f
� -'►'-f � l� r r.- r { ter." 1 L � r r�
IL
J �f
1 at- J
i
`CEDAR GROVE GOLF COURSE
'k 0 500 1,000 2.000 BjEcoEngineering
Feet A Llivkoyi W I hi Jithm K. hlcAf; jm-, C:'ftn pkmy, Im
I inch equals 1,000 f�, i

Research Triangle Park, NC
Post Office Box 14005
Reseac h Tdarxje Park,
North Carolina 27709
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, North Carolina 27713
800 - 733.5646
919 - 287 -4262
919.361 -2269 Fax
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
June 26, 2012
Mr. Tommy Cousins
EBX Neuse I, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Re: Categorical Exclusion Assessment (CEA)
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
EBX -11070
Dear Mr. Cousins:
EcoEngineering conducted a Categorical Exclusion Assessment (CEA) for the
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site (Site) for the purposes of assisting EBX Neuse I,
LLC (EBX) in satisfying it's obligation to ensure compliance with various
federal environmental laws and regulations associated with the construction of
the Site. This CEA evaluated the Environmental Screening and
Documentation for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects (Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, Version 1.4; August, 18, 2005) documentation as a
screening tool used to identify potential fatal flaws early in the project's
implementation process.
Located off of McDade Store Road (NCSR 1354), just northwest of its
intersection with Rick Road in Orange County, North Carolina, is the
proposed stream, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation site currently
known as the Cedar Grove Mitigation Site (Site). The Site is located
approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the intersection of McDade Store Road
and State Route 86 and approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the intersection
McDade Store Road and Efland Cedar Grove Road.
The tract containing the Site is approximately 131.5 acres, which includes
area within the right -of -way along its frontage of McDade Store Road. A
Conservation Easement (CE) is proposed to encompass the Site and will be
approximately 63 acres in size. Within the CE, existing riparian areas will be
restored and enhanced to generate both Neuse buffer and nutrient offset
(nitrogen and phosphorus) credits. In addition, the dimension, pattern, and
profile of existing perennial and intermittent stream channels located within
the CE will be restored at the Site. The remaining +/- 68.5acres not placed
within a CE has the potential to be developed as a low- density subdivision
that will consist of three (3) single - family lots that are a minimum size of 28-
acres, along with driveways, existing walking trails, and other infrastructure
(Figure 2A). The purpose of the mitigation site is to provide stream, buffer,
and nutrient offset mitigation by restoring streams and riparian buffers.
www.ecoengr.com Design Services Focused On Client Success

EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Tommy Cousins
June 26, 2012
Categorical Exclusion Assessment
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
EBX -11070
Page 2
The Site was visually inspected by Mr. George Buchholz, Environmental
Scientist with EcoEngineering on February 1, 2012. As part of this CEA,
coordination with regulatory agencies was conducted and attached below. In
addition, regulatory data bases were reviewed as part of this CEA.
Based on a review of reasonably available regulatory data base records,
coordination with multiple regulatory agencies, and an on -site visual
inspection of the Site; this CEA has revealed the following "potential
environmental fatal flaws" on or adjoining the proposed Site:
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The Site is not located within a CAMA county; and therefore, the CZMA is
not applicable and compliance is satisfied.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Preliminary data was obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
(EDR) regarding the potential for on -site or nearby sources of contamination.
EDR maintains an updated database of current and historical sources of
contamination. All storage tanks, whether above - ground or underground are
identified, as well as superfund sites, landfills, hazardous waste sites, and
other potential hazards. According to EDR records, the Site is not listed in any
of the databases searched by EDR. In addition, there are no federal or state
records within the required search distances of the Site. Visual field
investigations were conducted by EcoEngineering on February 1, 2012 for the
Sitek in accordance with Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I
ESA) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-
05 standards. Based on the investigations, it is recommended that all above
ground structures (sheds, buildings, golf club house, pump houses, abandoned
structures), containers, solid waste, and large concentration of solid waste be
removed and disposed of in accordance with all local, state, and federal
regulations. It should be noted that testing of physical media or sampling was
not conducted as part of this Phase I ESA. Based on this investigation, there
may be items located on the subject property which could contain asbestos or
lead based paint. It is our professional opinion; sampling of these items may
be desired. If asbestos and or lead based paint are determined to be present,
these items should be removed and disposed of in accordance with all local,
state, and federal regulations. Additionally, if the structure is to be
demolished, all debris material associated with the structures removal should
be disposed of in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations.

[4EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Tommy Cousins
June 26, 2012
Categorical Exclusion Assessment
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
EBX -11070
Page 3
It is also recommended that the underground septic tanks be removed and
disposed of in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations. In
addition, all water supply wells should be abandoned and closed according to
local Health Department well closure procedures.
Furthermore, it is also recommended that the 500 gallon propane UST and
underground septic tanks be removed and disposed of in accordance with all
local, state, and federal regulations. This Phase I ESA cannot determine the
existence of soil or groundwater contamination at the subject property.
Therefore, it is recommended that sub - surface investigations be conducted
around the 500 gallon propane UST during removal to determine if there is
any subsurface contamination located on the subject property. If soil or
groundwater contamination is encountered on the subject property during
removal, all local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to such
contamination should be followed. In addition, it is recommended that sub-
surface investigations be conducted within the maintenance shed area where
the oil stained soil, flora, and concrete pads are present and the former two
200 gallon ASTs were located to determine if there is any subsurface
contamination located on the subject property. It is recommended that all
existing oil stained soil, flora, and concrete pads be excavated to a depth in
which contamination is not present and removed and disposed of in
accordance with all local, state and federal regulations.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB
GIS Service database (http: / /gis.nedcr.gov /hpoweb /; accessed January 13,
2012) was conducted. According to their website, HPOWEB "has current
locational data for all National Register listings, most Study List entries and
Determinations of Eligibility, and surveyed rural properties for many
counties ". No listings are located within the proposed Site. There are 16
properties which have been surveyed within a one -mile radius of the Site. Of
the 16 properties, three (3) are on the study list (Captain John S. Pope House
2010 — OR 1029, Willy Woods McDade Farm 1993 — OR 1035, and Rosie
Wrenn House 1993 — OR 0685). There are no properties listed on the
HPOWEB GIS service that fall under the National Register or Determined
Eligible classification within one -mile of the Site, although there are
properties shown on the National Register and Determined Eligible listings
within a two -mile radius. Correspondence was submitted on January 31, 2012
to SHPO requesting information which they may have regarding architectural
and archaeological resources associated with the proposed Site (Appendix A).
Since there are no database entries within the proposed Site parcel, it is

[JEcoEngineering
A division of The John K. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Tommy Cousins
June 26, 2012
Categorical Exclusion Assessment
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
EBX -11070
Page 4
reasonable to conclude the proposed restoration project will not have an
adverse impact with regards to cultural resources; and therefore, compliance is
satisfied.
rm Relocation
The Site is not does not have federal or state funds associated with it; and
therefore, the Uniform Act is not applicable and compliance is satisfied.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act ( AIRFA)
The Site is not located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band
of Cherokee Indians (EBCI); and therefore, the AIRFA is not applicable and
compliance is satisfied.
Antiquities Act (AA)
The Site is not located on Federal land; and therefore, the AA is not applicable
and compliance is satisfied.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
The Site is not located on Federal or Indian lands; and therefore, the ARPA is
not applicable and compliance is satisfied.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) web page
( http: / /www.fws.gov /nc -es /es /countyfr.html); accessed January 13, 2012)
there are four (4) endangered species (red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta varicosa), Michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii), and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)) and 12
federal species of concern (American eel (Anguilla rostrata), Carolina darter
(Ethrostoma collis lepidinion), Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons), Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), green
floater (Lasmigona subviridis), savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), yellow
lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), butternut (Iuglans cinerea), creamy tick -
trefoil (Desodium ochroleucum), sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata), and
Torrey's mountain -mint (Pycnanthemum torrei)) potentially occurring in
Orange County. The bald eagle (Haliaeeletus leucocephalus) is also listed as

EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Tommy Cousins
June 26, 2012
Categorical Exclusion Assessment
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
EBX -11070
Page 5
occurring in Orange County and is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGPA) (16 US 668- 668d). A review of the NCNHP database
of documented occurrences (http: / /www.nenhp.org /Pages /heritagedata.html;
accessed January 13, 2012) revealed the historical presence of two (2) state
listed species (Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi), and sweet pinesap)
as potentially occurring within a two (2) -mile radius of the Site.
Correspondence was submitted on January 31, 2012 to the NCNHP, USFWS,
and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) requesting
information which they may have regarding natural heritage resources and
threatened and endangered species (Appendix A). NCNHP responded on
February 9, 2012 by stating that "The Natural Heritage Program has no record
of rare species, significant natural communities, significant natural heritage
areas, or conservation/managed areas at the project site nor within a mile of
the project area. Roughly a mile to the southeast is Cedar Grove Park,
administered by Orange County. Although our maps do not show records of
such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean
that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been
surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted
for actual field surveys particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat
for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas."
EcoEngineering conducted field surveys on January 16, 2012 by walking
transects within the proposed Site. The objective of the field surveys was to
determine the presence of federally Threatened or Endangered species within
the proposed Site. There were no federally Threatened or Endangered species
observed during the field surveys. The work inherent in restoring stream,
wetlands, and riparian buffers does not result in habitat destruction or
modification for the above listed species. Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude the proposed work will have No Effect on Threatened and
Endangered species, and compliance is satisfied.
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
The Site is not located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as
"territory" by the EBCI; and therefore, the Indian Sacred Sites is not
applicable and compliance is satisfied.

EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Tommy Cousins
June 26, 2012
Categorical Exclusion Assessment
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
EBX- 11.070
Page 6
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
Correspondence was submitted on February 9, 2012 to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) Orange County Soil and Water Conservation
District, requesting information regarding prime farmlands (Appendix A).
The NRCS Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District provided a
list of Prime and other Important Farmlands located within Orange County
(Appendix B). Based on the list, all of the soils located at the Site are listed as
prime farmland soils.
The FPPA is intended to minimize the impact Federal programs have on the
unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It
assures that to the extent possible, federal programs are administered to be
compatible with state, local units of government, and private programs and
policies to protect farmland. Federal agencies are required to develop and
review their policies and procedures to implement the FPPA every two years.
The proposed Site is intended to restore streams, wetlands, and riparian
buffers for private mitigation banking purposes; and therefore, the FPPA is
not applicable and compliance is satisfied.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The proposed actions associated with the Site include modifying water bodies.
Correspondence was submitted on January 31, 2012 to the USFWS, and
NCWRC requesting information which they may have regarding threatened
and endangered species (Appendix A).
The work inherent in restoring streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers does
not result in habitat destruction or modification for the above listed species.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the proposed work will have No Effect
on Threatened and Endangered species, and compliance is satisfied.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6f)
The Site will not convert recreation lands purchased or improved with Section
6(f) funds; and therefore, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act is not
applicable and compliance is satisfied.

EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Tommy Cousins
June 26, 2012
Categorical Exclusion Assessment
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
EBX -11070
Page 7
Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential
Fish Habitat)
The Site is not located in an estuarine system; and therefore, the Magnuson -
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is not applicable and
compliance is satisfied.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
Correspondence was submitted on January 31, 2012 to the USFWS requesting
information which they may have regarding threatened and endangered
species (Appendix A).
The work inherent in restoring streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers does
not result in habitat destruction or modification for the above listed species.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the proposed work will have No Effect
on Threatened and Endangered species, and compliance is satisfied.
Wilderness Act
The Site is not located within a wilderness area; and therefore, the Wilderness
Act is not applicable and compliance is satisfied.
Based on a review of reasonably available regulatory data base records,
coordination with multiple regulatory agencies, and an on -site visual
inspection of the Site; it is believed the proposed actions do not individual or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (919) 287 -0890 or buchholz @ecoengr.com.
Sincerely,
EcoEngineering,
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
George Buchholz, R.E4M,
Environmental Scientist
Attachments

�Ic
North Carolina Department of Cultural
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona iii. Bartos, Adrninistnuor
Beverly Laves perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy secretary
February 9, 2012
George Buchholz
11;col nginecring
PO Box 14005
Research 'Triangle Park, NC 27709
Re: Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank, EBZ- 11070, Orange County, IsR 12 -0178
Dear Mr. Buchholz:
C
F E 6 13 2312
ON -- I I U°-71
Office of Archives and I listory
Division of I listorical Resources
David Brook, Director
Thank you for your letter of January 31, 2012, concerning the above cited project, We have reviewed the
information and offer the following comments.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed mitigation bank project area. However, given
the topographic and hydrologic features found on the property there is a high probability for the presence of
Native American archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are submitted by the consulting
archaeologist and well in advance of any construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at www .arcbacology.ncdcr.gov /ncarel] /resource /consultants httn. 'The archaeologists
listed; or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Rakigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 ivlail Semice Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 Telephone /}pax: (919) 807. 6570/807.6599

Thank. you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Farley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 - 807.6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above- referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
.�_ub'A
;),Ramona M. Bartos

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona tN1. Banos, Administrator
Beverly 1.Savcs Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrcy j. Crow, Deputy Secretary
March 5, 2012
George Buchholz,
EcoEngineering
PO Box 14005
Research 'F'riangle bark, NC 27709
Re: Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank, EBX- 11070, Grange County, ER 12 -0178
Dcar Mr. Buchholz:
Office of Archives and I listory
Division of historical Resources
David !Brook, Director
Thank you for your email of February 16, 2012, providing additional information concerning the proposed
Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank in Orange County.
Given that the past land use of the parcel was that of a golf course, it is likely that any archaeological resources
that may have been present have been destroyed or at least greatly disturbed. We therefore withdraw our
earlier recommendation for an archaeological survey of the proposed project area. In filature, please send us as
much information as is available concerning the past land use of project areas and the types of activities
involved in mitigation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earlcy, environmental review coordinator, at 919 -807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above- referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 tiast Joncs Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh \C 27699.4617 Telephone/ Fax: [phone] -6599

A
NDEMNR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natura
Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs
Beverly Eaves Perdue Linda Pearsall Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
.february 8, 2012
Mr. George Buchholz
Ecol "engineering
P.O. Box 14005
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Subject: Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank — Initial Project Review; Orange County
BBX -11070
Dear Mr. Buchholz:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant natural heritage
areas, or conservation /managed areas at the project site nor within a mile of the project area. Roughly a Hole to the
southeast is Cedar Grove Park, administered by Orange County. Although our maps (to not show records of such natural
heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the
area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys,
particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural convnunities, or priority natural
areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of rare plants and
animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our Program also has a new website that
allows users to obtain inforination on clement occurrences and significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a
given location: <http :Hnlipwcb,enr,state.inc.us/ public /virttial_woi-ki-oom.plitml >. The user name is "guest" and the
password is your a -mail address (see instructions on log -in screen). You may want to click "Help" for more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact meat 919- 707 -8603 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry B. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
Mailing address: 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Location: 217 W. Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27604
Phone: 919 - 707 -8600 Webpage: www.oneNCNaturally.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
X&OIff
tNoturol Resources Plonrimy mu) [onservoi'ron

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
16 February 2012
Mr. George Buchholz
EcoEngineering
P.O. Box 14005
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Subject: Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank, Initial Project Review, Orange County, North Carolina. EBX -11070
Dear Mr, Buchholz:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
information and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 -667e) and
North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113 -131 et seq.).
A request for information has been made regarding threatened or endangered species that may be associated
with the proposed Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank site. The site would include stream and riparian buffer mitigation
and a low density residential development. There are no jurisdictional wetlands, six jurisdictional ponds, and
seven jurisdictional stream features within the proposed mitigation bank.
The site includes East Fork Eno River and its tributaries in the NeUse River basin. There are records for
the state threatened creeper (StrolMitus undulatus) and state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta)
in East Fork Eno River. Although we do not have any records for threatened or endangered aquatic or terrestrial
wildlife species within proposed mitigation bank site boundaries, an on -site survey is the only definitive means to
determine whether the proposed project would impact threatened or endangered species. We suggest you consult
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at (919) 856 -4520 to ensure that any issues related to federally listed
species are addressed.
If we can provide further assistance, please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625 or
shari.brvant namewildlife.m.
Sincerely,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries a 1721 Mail Service Center e Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

United States Department of the Interior
4
b FISH AND WIL DL.II -b; SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
February 16, 2012
George Buchholz
EcoEngincering
PO Box 14005
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Re: Cedar %0rove Mitigation Bank- Grange County, NC
Dear Mr. Buchholz:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally - protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http: / /www.f-vvs.gov /raleigli. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally- protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of'federal species of concern[ that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non - federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally- listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirernent anti itr, determining whether 4ldditionaf co- niultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally- protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http :/ /www.fws.gov /raleigii. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
t The term " federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of'
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply. that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

- - - — - __. - --- ---- - - - - --
1
i
I
s
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally- listed species known to be '
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to 4
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area, The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally- protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you arc not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above - referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally- listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down - gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
(919) 856 -4520 ext. 26.
Sincerely,
C'e Benjamin
F old Supervisor
3

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Perquimans
Beaufort
Person
Bertie
Pitt
Bladen
Randolph
Brunswick
Richmond
Camden
Robeson
Carteret
Rockingham
Caswell
Sampson
Chatham
Scotland
Chowan
Tyrrell
Columbus
Vallee
Craven
Wake
Cumberland
Warren
Currituck
Washington
Dare
Wayne
Duplin
Wilson
Durham
Bdgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
E1

Page 1 of 2
Buchholz, George
From: Gail Hughes [ghughes @co. orange. nc.us)
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4 :29 PM
To: Buchholz, George
Cc: K Ray; Brent Bogue
Subject: FW: Orange County Prime Farmlands
Attachments: Important Farmland,pdf
Mr. Buchholz,
Kenny Ray forwarded your email to me. I have attached the Important Farmland list, which includes Prime
and Important farmland located in Orange County.
The soils found on the Orange County GIS site will correspond with these soil types.
Some soil types have been update by our State and Federal offices, therefore for the most current soils
data available, I would visit http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov .
I have included Brent Bogue, our District Conservationist and Rich Shaw — Orange County Land
Conservation Manager to this email, therefore, if they have any comments, they can reply directly to you.
Gail Hughes,Soil Conservationist
Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
306D Revere Rd/ PO Box 8181 / Hillsborough NC 27278 / 919 -245 -2753 / httD: /www.Co.orancle.nc.us
Living Legacy of Conservation Stewardship- 75 years
From: K Ray
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:13 PM
To: Gail Hughes
Subject: FW: Orange County Prime Farmlands
From: Buchholz, George [mailto:buchholz @ecoengr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 3:25 PM
To: K Ray
Subject: Orange County Prime Farmlands
Mr. Ray,
EcoEngineering has been contracted by EBX Neuse 1, LLC (EBX) to conduct the appropriate
federal and state regulatory coordination for a proposed private mitigation bank currently known
as the Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank (Mitigation Bank). EBX has entered into an agreement to
purchase three (3) parcels of land totaling approximately 137 acres currently owned by Cedar
Grove Properties, Incorporated (Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers: 9858393600, and
9858188881) and Margaret S. Anderson (Orange County Parcel Identification Number:
9859511160). EBX intends to utilize the parcels for stream and riparian buffer mitigation and to
develop low density residential lots. The proposed Mitigation Bank is located off of McDade
Store Road, at its intersection with Rick Road in Orange County, North Carolina. The
Mitigation Bank easement will total approximately 137 acres and is located +/- 0.8 miles
southwest of the intersection of McDade Store Road and State Route 86 and +/- 0.7 miles
northeast of the intersection McDade Store Road and Efland Cedar Grove Road.
3Y12/2012

Page 2 of 2
The purpose of this Initial Project Review is to determine if there may be impacts to prime farmlands
associated with the proposed Mitigation Bank. We are interested in obtaining any information that you
may have regarding prime farmlands resources which may be associated with the proposed Mitigation
Bank.
At this titre, we are requesting comments regarding the proposed Mitigation Bank. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at (919) 287 -0890 with any questions or.concerns.
George Buchholz, REM, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Direct Dial: 919 - 287 -0890
Mobile: [phone]
Add to address kook
[AEcoEngineering
A disasion of I'he John It. McAthv % l onyan%, Inc.
P.O. Box 14005, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
.Design Services Focused On Client Success
Please consider the environment before you print this e-mail.
3/12/2012

Page I of 2
Buchholz, George
...... ...._........._................
From: Dodd, Brady N -FS [bdodd @fs.fed.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:54 AM
To: Buchholz, George
Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank, EBX- 11070, Orange County, NC, Initial Project Review
Attachments: Brady N Dodd.vcf
Hi George,
spoke with Monte Matthews about the US Forest Service's review of NWP -27 PCNs. He will be talking
with his folks about removing the USFS from the list of agencies to consult with.
Please give him a call for more info on what is required relative to this topic.
x Brady N. Dodd
Region 8, NF in NC
Hydrologist
Fire & Ecosystem, Timber
828- 257 -4214 Work
[e-mail],us
160A Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 20801
From: Buchholz, George [mailto:buchholz @ecoengr.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1:32 PM
To: Dodd, Brady N -FS
Subject: Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank, EBX- 11070, Orange County, NC, Initial Project Review
Brady,
In accordance with the upcoming re- issuance of the US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permits (NWP) on March 19, 2012, and more specifically with NWP 27 (Aquatic Habitat
Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities), we are coordinating with the NC
Forest Service as part of an Initial Project Review regarding the proposed Cedar Grove
Mitigation Bank.
EcoEngineering has been contracted by EBX Neuse I, LLC (EBX) to conduct the appropriate
federal and state regulatory coordination for a proposed private mitigation bank currently known
as the Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank (Mitigation Bank). EBX intends to utilize the land for
stream -and riparian buffer mitigation and to develop low density residential lots. The proposed
Mitigation Bank is located off of McDade Store Road, at its intersection with Rick Road in
Orange County, North Carolina. The Mitigation Bank easement will total approximately 63
acres (including isolated portions of existing wooded buffer) and is located +/- 0.8 miles
southwest of the intersection of McDade Store Road and State Route 86 and +/- 0.7 miles
northeast of the intersection McDade Store Road and Efland Cedar Grove Road. The location of
the proposed Mitigation Bank is shown on the attached Figure 1 USGS Exhibit.
The Mitigation Bank is located within the Neuse River Basin (8 -digit USGS HUC 03020201, 14-
digit USGS HUC 03020201 030010) and more specifically within Neuse Subbasin 03- 04 -01.
Based on the field investigations, there are no jurisdictional wetlands, six (6) jurisdictional
ponds, and seven (7) jurisdictional stream features located within the proposed Mitigation Bank.
One (1) of the jurisdictional stream features is a named stream known as East Fork Eno River,
3/12/2012

Page 2 of 2
which is located in the northeastern section of the proposed Mitigation Bank. The existing conditions on
at the project are of an abandoned golf course. Construction of the golf course began in 1972, and
currently, approximately 90% of the project is within disturbed conditions associated with the golf
course. The proposed restoration activities involve restoring the existing streams and then planting
within a 200 foot area around the restored streams.
The purpose of this Initial Project Review is to determine if there any concerns regarding the
construction of the proposed Cedar Grove Mitigation Bank that the NC Forest Service may have.
Construction of the proposed Mitigation Bank is anticipated during the late summer or early fall of
2012. At this time, we are requesting comments regarding the proposed Mitigation Bank. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at (919) 287 -0890 or simply email me with any questions or concerns.
George Buchholz, REM, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Direct Dial: 919 -287 -0890
Mobile: [phone]
Add to address hook
EcoEngineering
A division of `fhe John R. NIcAdams Conn an%' Inc,
P.O. Box 14005, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Design Services Focused On Client Success
Please consider the environment before you print this e-mail.
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients.
Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains
may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
3/12/2012

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Prospectus • Orange County, North Carolina • November 2012
APPENDIX D
30
Environmental Banc &Exchange LLC [JEcoEngineering
.% h %is -4 ,,,c,,,,,n R_ McALu, »,t „m I -

LAW OFFICES
PERRY, PERRY, & PERRY
POST OFFICE DRAWER 1475
KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28503 -1475
DAN E. PERRY
JAMES STOCKTON PERRY
ELIZABETH P. WORTHINGTON
JOSIAH J. CORRIGAN
JACOB P. WARNER
ASHLEY L. WARNER
Ely Perry, III
518 PIaza Blvd.
Kinston, NC 28501
Re: Rights of an Easement Holder
Dear Mr. Perry,
ELY J. PERRY (1896 -1968)
WARREN S. PERRY (1924 -2003)
RETIRED
BARBARA S. PERRY
OFFICES
518 PLAZA BOULEVARD
July 4, 2012 KINSTON, N.C. 28501
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
Per your request, I have both researched the remedies available to casement holders and briefly
laid out my opinion based on what I was able to find in the time allotted below.
As we both know, the whole purpose of the conservation casement is to conserve and preserve
the land. It is your goal to set up the ownership of land underlying that easement in a way which
best protects that purpose. It is my opinion that such purpose works best when those property
owners surrounding the easement have motivation to follow in the conservation and preservation
as set out i.n the conservation easement deed (agreement).
If the owner himself is a violator or contributes in any way to the easement violation, then the
easement holder can seek a direct remedy via the conservation easement agreement and remedies
reserved therein. The Conservation Easement Agreement would govern your rights against the
owner in this situation. From my research, it seems that when breach of a conservation easement
is by a land owner, it is most often remedied via negotiation with the land owner and rarely
needs further litigation. This is obviously the ideal solution to any legal issue.
Should you need to make a legal claim when the owner had no part in the violation, then the
process may not be as easy as referring to notice, negotiation and remedy processes as laid out in
the agreement. A thud -party violator is one that is not the owner of the underlying property of
the easement but who enters the land and violates the conservation easement. In this situation,
the casement holder would only pursue such a violator when the landowner is without fault,
which means without knowledge of and without helping the third party trespass and the third
party violation against the rights of the casement holder.
Addressing third -party violations requires even more persistence, diplomacy and education as
well as potentially much more time and money than dealing with landowner violations. First,
such violations will require easement holders to work closely with the landowner to locate the
trespasser and pursue a resolution or jointly correct the damage to the property without clear
boundaries as would be set out in a conservation agreement. Additionally, without landowner
help, it is next to impossible to determine who the trespasser could be without putting a great
burden on easement holder to constantly supervise his easement. The larger the easement area is

over one parcel, the less likely it becomes that owner or holder will be able to locate and
apprehend trespassers. This, obviously, hurts the whole purpose of the easement as discussed
previously.
Secondly, once the third party violator is found, if he is able to be found, the easement holder
must then face the issue of judicial standing against the third party. The Uniform Conservation
Easement Act does not explicitly give standing to easement holders to sue a third party violator.
But that same Act also does not prohibit such standing so we look to state law to determine the
holder's rights.
North Carolina has enacted Article 4: Conservation and Historic Preservation Agreements Act
which governs such easements within North Carolina. Within this act, North Carolina does
recognize holders of conservation easements as holding a property interest (NCGS § 121 -38 (b)).
Although recognized as a property interest, whether that interest is sufficient to justify judicial
standing against a third party violator is yet to be decided (at this point, I and my colleagues with
whore I have spoken have found no such case law discussing this matter). I personally believe
that there is no clear case law on the issue because a property interest is considered an inherit
right and because of that class of right, the standing of an casement holder against a third party
violator has yet to be challenged.
This is not to say that a third party could not challenge the standing of an easement holder. A
third party could claim a holder has no standing by claiming that without the landowner, holder
has failed to include an indispensable person. In my research, I did not find any case brought
against a third party in which the owner of the underlying land was not also a party. As I stated
before, both the Federal and State law seem to be silent on the issue of a holder's standing
against a third party without the landowner joining in the claim. For example, NCGS § 121 -39
(a) allows the easement holder to enforce the preservation or conservation agreement but in that
same clause, the statute continues to discuss relief which would be appropriate as laid out in the
agreement made with the land owner. It does not make sense that, if the statute referred to a
holder's rights to sue a third party, why then the statute would limit its discussion on holders
rernedies to those listed out in an agreement which is not binding on a third party. It is my
understanding that the right to enforce the agreement refers to those with whom the agreement
was made, the land owner.
That leaves us begging the question, if a third party violation should occur and a challenge made
to the easement holder's standing, can a holder prevail? I believe so but I cannot guarantee such.
A holder would first argue that it holds a property right against which the violator trespassed and
because of that violation, holder is a directly aggrieved party and therefore has standing to bring
suit against the third party violator. But, since the statute is unclear as to whether standing is
given to holders against third parties, holder may also have to argue that it was the legislative
intent of the enabling legislation to allow an easement holder standing against third parties.
Although I believe easement holder would be successful, both arguments would take additional
time and money to argue before even getting to the actual clairn and remedy portion of holder
against third party.
Based on the above findings, it is my opinion that having a direct agreement with land owners is
the clearest legal position and best way to easily enforce and correct a violation of the easement

agreement. As per the reap you provided, it is my opinion that splitting the land into three parcels
would reduce the size of the easement and allow each owner to more easily protect the easement,
which is the whole purpose of this program. It is my opinion that allowing each parcel holder to
directly convey to you their interest in the easement area via a conservation agreement would
directly bind each owner within the whole parcel, clearly lay out the acceptable and unacceptable
actions to all within the parcels, serve as a disincentive to all three owners to violate the
easement agreement and allow direct remedy against such owners should an owner violate the
ter-ms of the agreement. Without such, you most likely would have a right against a third party
violator, but the cost and time would more than likely be more extensive.
I hope this helps flesh out a bit of what your rights look like against both land owners in a direct
agreement with holder as well as against third parties with no such agreement binding them.
Should you decide you need further investigation into this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact our office. We appreciate your business and look forward to working with you in the
future.
Very Truly Yours,
PERRY, PERRY, & PERRY
, 6 -
A ley L. Wa zer
Att rney at Law