20160980 Ver 1_PCN DWR_Combined_20180921

fires
September 21, 2018
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Ms. Higgins,
RE: Nationwide 27 Permit Application- Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Dear Ms.Higgins,
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
Resource Environmental Solutions is pleased to submit a Nationwide Permit 27 Pre -Construction
Notification (PCN) for the Meadow Spring Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site ("Site"). The Site is located
within a primarily rural watershed with limited residential development in Johnston County, North
Carolina, about three miles north of Smithfield. The Site area exhibits diminished hydrology and habitat
value as a result of past and on-going agricultural activities. The Site will involve the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams and wetlands in the Neuse River basin. The Site has been
designed in concurrence with the Meadow Spring Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of
natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat. The floodplain
areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during
flooding events. Total wetland impacts resulting from the proposed project are 2.08 acres with a net benefit
of over 10 acres. Total stream impacts resulting from the proposed project are 3,491 linear feet but will
result in 3,802 linear feet of restored stream. And the open water impacts resulting from project are 1.46
acres but will be restored to a more natural wetland complex.
The attached PCN package includes PCN Form, supplemental information, supporting figures and an
updated JD with the updated aquatic resource inventory table and updated Waters of the US Map.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 919-209-1056 or
dingram(-,res.us if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Daniel Ingram
Project Manager

a`'pF wArE�Q�
C, vlllt:� Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes NX No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes NX No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
N Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
N Yes NX No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ YesX❑ No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
2b.
County:
Johnston County
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Smithfield
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
01732-0151
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
2350 Wilsons Mills Road
3e.
City, state, zip:
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑X Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Daniel Ingram
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
RES
4d.
Street address:
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27605
4f.
Telephone no.:
919-209-1062
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
5c.
Street address:
5d.
City, state, zip:
5e.
Telephone no.:
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
169500-74-6294
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.54659
Longitude: -78.344386
1 c.
Property size:
60.93 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Neuse River
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV and NSW
2c.
River basin:
Neuse River - 03020201
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
See the Supplemental Information and the existing conditions maps (Figure 1: Existing Conditions, Figure 2: NRCS Soils Map, and Figure 3: USGS
Map).
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 27.67
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 7,392
3d.
See
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
the Supplemental Information
3e.
See
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
the Supplemental Information.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: The JD has been requested.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑x Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Jeremy Schmid
Agency/Consultant Company: RES
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A jurisdictional determination request was sent to the USACE on January 23, 2017 and a site visit was conducted with the USACE on June 22, 2017.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑X Buffers ❑X Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 T
Stream & Wetland Rest.
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
No
Corps
0.4
W2 P
Fill
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
No
Corps
0.01
W3 T
Stream Restoration
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
1.27
W4 P
Stream Restoration
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.35
W5 P
Fill
Riverine Swamp Forest
Yes
Corps
0.02
W6 P
Fill
Riverine Swamp Forest
Yes
Corps
0.03
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2.08
2h. Comments:
Wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the existing wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. Creating a
new stream channel and enhancing existing channels will only impact wetlands slightly and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the
addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks. There will be over a 10 acres net benefit to wetlands within this site area.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 P
Relocation
S6A
PER
Corps
7
1,220
S2 P
Relocation
S5
PER
Corps
5
215
S3 P
Relocation
S613
PER
Corps
8.4
1,150
S4 P
Relocation
S11
PER
Corps
15
906
S5 -
Choose one
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3,491
3i. Comments:
Impact is due to relocating stream to natural valley which will provide a net gain in ecological function to the stream and wetland system. After stream
relocation and restoration: Stream Impact 1, the existing stream length is 1,220 linear feet (LF), and the new length will be 1,350 LF, Stream Impact 2,
the existing stream length is 215 LF and the new length will be 231 LF, Stream Impact 3, the existing stream length is 1,105 and the new length is
1,176, Stream Impact 4 the existing stream length is 906 LF, and the new length will be 1,045 LF.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 P
NA
Pond Removal
Pond
1.39
O2 P
NA
Ditch Plugging
Ditch
0.07
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
1.46
pa ot the wetiand enhancement and restoration, this pond will be removed-a-nTIne stream will a relocated into e na ura
4g. Comments: As
valley within the pond bottom.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑X Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1 P
Stream Relocation
S6A
No
26,325.29
7,178.8
B2 P
Stream Relocation
S61B
No
4,456.26
2,675.99
B3 P
Stream Relocation
S11
No
17,740.33
12,627.58
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
48,521.89
22,482.39
61. Comments: See Figure 4 for buffer impact locations. Although there is an impact to the buffer where the stream channel will be constructed, the
buffer as a whole across the site area will be greatly benefited by planting and protection of the project (net benefit of 1,279,355 sq ft).
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Supplemental Information
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Supplemental Information
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ❑ No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes X❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
No
increase in impervious surface.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
No
increase in impervious surface.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes ❑X No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
E] Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑X Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS IPAC and Natural Heritage Program Database
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC SHPO GIS Database
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
See supplemental information.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA NFHL
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.
Page 10 of 10

PCN Supplemental Information
Meadow Spring Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Nationwide Permit 27
Pre -Construction Notification
Name and address of the Applicant:
Resource Environmental Solutions
c/o Daniel Ingram
302 Jefferson Street. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

PCN Supplemental Information -Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project
3a. Describe the existinz conditions on the site and the zeneral land use in the vicinity of the proiect at the time of
this application:
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site is a stream, wetland, and buffer project located within a primarily rural
watershed with limited residential development in Johnston County, North Carolina. The Site is located in
the Neuse River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201, 14 -digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03020201100050 (USGS, 2012). The Neuse River watershed (HUC 03020201100050) was identified as a
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland,
stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The Neuse TLW encompasses 52 square miles of watershed area.
Thirty-seven percent of land is used for agriculture including 13 animal operations. Seventeen percent of
the area is developed approaching a five percent imperviousness total.
The project area totals 60.93 acres and is comprised of one primary perennial stream that flows west to east
to a confluence with the Neuse River and has several adjacent wetlands and hydric soil areas. There is
currently 7,392 linear feet of stream and 27.67 acres of existing wetlands. The USFWS National Wetland
Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three wetland areas within the site. There is a pond mapped as PUBHh
(Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded Diked/Impound) on the west end of the project.
And there are two large wetland areas mapped on the east end of the project as PSS1C (Palustrine Scrub -
Shrub Broad -Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) and PFO 1 C (Palustrine Forested Broad -Leaved
Deciduous Seasonally Flooded). Wetland delineation identified five additional riparian wetlands in the
project area as well as additional areas of hydric soils.
The easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural crossing. The project is
divided into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The northern portion of the
project includes stream reaches S1, S2, S5, S6a and S6b, as well as, wetlands WA and WB. This northern
section also has an existing agricultural pond that will be drained and re-established as wetland. The
southern portion of the project includes Reaches S7, S9, 511, S12 and S13 and wetlands WD, WE, WF,
and WG.
In general, all or portions of S 1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, and S 11 do not function to their full potential. Current
land use within the easement area is livestock grazing with access to all of the stream reaches and wetlands.
Vegetation is heavily disturbed due to the livestock. The surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped
land, and single-family homes. Livestock grazing has resulted in unstable stream banks and significant
down cutting. The surface soil layer and underlying subsoil are exposed by the channel eroding. Having
been channelized in the past, some of the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently as they
naturally would have prior to agricultural operations. In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition
where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture is directly adjacent to both
banks of the existing channel. Habitat along the majority of the restoration reaches is poor with little woody
debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection for other aquatic species.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed proiect.
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of
natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat. The floodplain
areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during
flooding events. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005), and
criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives, such as

PCN Supplemental Information -Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project
restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating invasive
species.
3e. Describe the overall proiect in detail, including the type of equipment to be used.
The design approach for the Meadow Spring Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design
with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same
location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create the features
of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar
between the design and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods in an
effort to identify the design discharge.
The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority I/Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement
Level II, Enhancement Level III and Buffer Enhancement. Priority I Restoration reaches will incorporate
the design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference
site described above, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic
and hydraulic analyses. As a result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows
and a restored riparian buffer will provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport throughout this
coastal plain watershed.
Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the reference
reach based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow Hydrographs, regional curves and
flood frequency analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull and other
significant storm events. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as
bankfull or dominant discharge) was determined, and the subsequent design was based on this calculated
discharge. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data and hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling were confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function components within HEC -
RAS and through spreadsheet tools.
Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream
design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat features
were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat features,
excavated floodplains, and in -stream structures such as rock a -vanes, log sills, brush toes, log j -hooks, log
toes, and log drops were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by
dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability will also be enhanced through the installation
of live stakes that include native species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
silky willow (Salix sericea), and Cottonwood (pupulus deltoides).
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent
to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs where necessary. The
floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous
water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a combination of grading,
erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment techniques (i.e. bioengineering),
structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream and adjacent riparian areas will be
protected by a permanent conservation easement.
Reaches Sl, S2, S6A, SO, S7, S9, S11, S12 and S13
A combination of Priority I and Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II,
Enhancement Level III, and Preservation is proposed along the primary project channel to address existing

PCN Supplemental Information -Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project
impairments, particularly floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, nutrient input and buffer degradation. The
watershed that drains to the upper end of the project is approximately 36 acres, and land use is primarily
agricultural.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach S1, beginning at the northern limits of the proposed
conservation easement. The channel is stable throughout, except for a few minor areas of erosion, and
provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is severely degraded with row crops and active
pasture directly adjacent to the channel. The project will involve revegetating the buffer with native
vegetation for a minimum 50 -foot width.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S2 which will include stabilization of localized erosion by
installing log cross vanes and sills. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along the reach and will
be planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody
vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -
stream habitat and stability
Priority I and II Restoration is proposed for Reach S5 to address historic straightening, buffer degradation
and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and restoring
hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted with
native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody
debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and
stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 36 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S6A to address historic straightening, buffer degradation,
impoundment, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel
within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain,
removing the existing dam embankment and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A
minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of
the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be
installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 97 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S6B to address historic straightening,
buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed
channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain,
and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and
planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody
vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -
stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for the downstream portion of Reach 6B which will include stabilization
of localized erosion by installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point bars, removal of
invasive vegetation and buffer restoration. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along the reach
and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. A 70 -foot easement break is proposed for an existing
utility easement at the end of S6B. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S7 to address channel entrenchment, bank -cutting, and invasive
vegetation. The design approach will include stabilization of localized erosion by installing log vanes, log
sills, brush toes, and regrading grading point bars. A well-established buffer already exists, but in the areas

PCN Supplemental Information -Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project
where dense Chinese Privet is found, it will be treated, the large stems manually removed, and supplemental
planting will occur. The invasive treatment will be conducted throughout monitoring. A 68 -foot easement
break is proposed for an existing ford crossing. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is
278 acres.
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
improvements, and channel preservation. As in Reach S7, the Chinese privet will be treated, large stems
manually removed, and then supplemental planting will be done in these areas. The invasive treatment will
be conducted throughout monitoring. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along the reach and
will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 337
acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S 11 to address historic straightening, entrenchment and buffer
degradation. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley,
backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and improving hydrology to
historically impacted wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted with native
riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris
and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability.
The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 379 acres.
Preservation is proposed for Reach S12 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
preservation, and channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
Preservation is proposed for Reach S13 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
preservation, and channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
Wetland Restoration
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement is proposed. In wetlands WH, the non jurisdictional area,
hydrologic restoration, at a credit ratio of 1:1, will be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel
to restrict drainage and allowing a natural hydroperiod to return. In addition, re -constructing a stream
channel at a higher bed elevation in the natural valley, backfilling to create shallow depressions within the
old channel, and the removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains will aid in the restoration
of a natural floodplain surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Due to compaction and long term
agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of eight to ten inches is called
for to create adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic relief, and improve
vegetative survival and growth.
As part of the wetland re-establishment in wetland WI, at a credit ratio of 2:1, the pond will be removed.
The construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. The
stream will be reconnected to the floodplain and in addition to out of bank events the large perennial spring
will serve as a source for hydrology for the re-established wetlands. Retention and storage within the
floodplain will be returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod.
In wetland WF -B, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland enhancement. This wetland has been
impacted by channel incision and active management for agriculture in the past. The wetland mitigation
treatment will primarily be reconnection of the stream to the floodplain and replanting disturbed areas.
These activities should result in a much healthier, better functioning wetland.

PCN Supplemental Information -Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project
In wetland WG, the large disturbed Neuse River floodplain area, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland
enhancement in the areas that will be planted and an enhancement credit ratio of 5:1 in the areas not being
planted. This wetland has been actively managed for agriculture and waterfowl through drainage
manipulations and tree clearing. The wetland mitigation treatment will primarily be re -planting the
disturbed areas, plugging the main ditch, and removing existing berms within the wetland. These activities
will result in a large floodplain slough with a diversity of microhabitats.
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts
were considered when designing the Meadow Spring Mitigation project. This project should uplift the
ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site. The existing channel length is 7,392 LF. The proposed
project will result in 7,658 LF of stream.
A. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction
techniques:
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be
constructed prior to turning stream flow into a segment. This approach allows minimization of the
impact of each stage during the project construction. Additionally all work in wetlands and streams
will be conducted during dry conditions and/or with mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be
made to preserve individual high value trees located within the stream restoration area.
F. Supplementary Information
8.b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
Some of the reaches are located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain but outside of the Neuse River
floodway. Grading activities are proposed within the Neuse River floodway for the wetland
enhancement portion of the project. These grading activities will be limited in size and will result in
no net increase of fill within the floodway. This information was conveyed to the Floodplain
Administrators of both Johnston County and the Town of Smithfield. It was agreed that the impacts
Stream Mitigation
Proposed Reach
Mitigation Type
Existing Length (LF)
Proposed Length LF
Sl
Enhancement II
250
250
S2
Enhancement I
500
500
S5
P1 / P2 Restoration
215
231
S6A
P1 Restoration
1,220
1,350
S6B
P1 Restoration
1,150
1,176
S613
Enhancement I
165
167
S7
Enhancement I
1,035
990
S7
Enhancement I
452
440
S9
Enhancement III
665
675
S11
P1 Restoration
906
1,045
S12
Preservation
380
380
S13
Preservation
454
454
Total
7,392
7,658
A. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction
techniques:
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be
constructed prior to turning stream flow into a segment. This approach allows minimization of the
impact of each stage during the project construction. Additionally all work in wetlands and streams
will be conducted during dry conditions and/or with mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be
made to preserve individual high value trees located within the stream restoration area.
F. Supplementary Information
8.b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
Some of the reaches are located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain but outside of the Neuse River
floodway. Grading activities are proposed within the Neuse River floodway for the wetland
enhancement portion of the project. These grading activities will be limited in size and will result in
no net increase of fill within the floodway. This information was conveyed to the Floodplain
Administrators of both Johnston County and the Town of Smithfield. It was agreed that the impacts

PCN Supplemental Information -Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project
were insignificant and could not be accurately modeled. Therefore, a No -Rise or CLOMR will not be
required for this project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While designing the
Meadow Spring project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass of the
adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed design, and no
detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. RES will verify final FEMA
coordination in the permitting phase of the project.

Nil
A&

NCE� GeR Gr WY
aA
eta B
CU13 B
" - ..
C013 LI C
NOB was
i NuA
VIA COB ,4- � OA
{ Ra _
_ 7
Nn
Ra
NuB _
NeA° 1 '
NUB GOA W#13
Nook Bb WA ►� NSB No
t_ _
. 14
FT 1
LY Ch
Nod ryx+� NSB NL B ` I
11 NoA •�
NoA I
<;uA
3
A!:.A
Ra :` N.
Irl NOR - Qj
NoANOS
Nx�yLy
LII '
a A
NeA
_. b NoA
L pend ; Auld -`
o �
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
$ N
Date: 9/19/2018
Figure 2. NRCS Soil Survey Map
e w F Drawn by: JRM res
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
S Checked by: o0
0 500 1,000
Johnston County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet
� Feet

1' \� vo\. - —
CP
b
#6 900
'a
V VC% • - I( : <� ; •
Mfg Pits;
Y rrson
1
el / :I• /
. o nes\
n C m y
Ar
q j� � i91 r' rs. L
• ••i. -
-�i:�i,.�;- .......� `l• �_;�. '" J j � _ V ass rr •,
Rad,o Tower\ Gravel
Legend / —. ..—: (WMPMI J .. Pit r`
Q -
'
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac. •/' /�
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic S ,oiety, i -cubed
N Date: 9/19/2018
Figure 3 - USGS Topographic Map
w e Drawn by: JRM
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site res
o Checked by: DI
0 1,000s 2,000
Johnston County, North Carolina 1 inch =2,000 feet
Feet

Ah

Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac
Existing Top of Bank
- Proposed Top of Bank
M
/u
r
Impact Number (Mitigation ID)
Impacted Area/Length
W1 (WB)
0.4 ac
W2 (WB)
0.01 ac
S1 (S6A)
1,220 ft
S2 (S5)
215 ft
01
1.39 ac
02
0.07 ac
B1 -Zone 1
26,325.29 sqft
B1 -Zone 2
7,178.8 sqft
Figure 4 -Impacts Map - Sheet 1
Date: 9/20/2018
Drawn by: MDE
res
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Checked by: JRM
Johnston County, North Carolina
1 inch =200 feet 10

Ane
• � , �r� ,fit y:. � .. �� �" ~ �`-�»��'��+ .
,r
r �
f k 1' '• rM' i
Ae
Le-gend
••• -•, •1 • Ac.
ExistingTop •j
•r
Proposed Top of Bank
Impact Type
Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Buffer Impact Zone 1
Buffer ImpactZone 2
Open • .

ala
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
C Existing Top of Bank
- Proposed Top of Bank
Impact Type
- Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Buffer Impact Zone 1
Buffer Impact Zone 2
Open Water Impact
W E
S
0 100
tr:1 A.W
4 V
•� N f'i rv�1
Impact Number (Mitigation ID) Impacted Area/Length
W6 .03 ac
Figure 4 - Impacts Map - Sheet 4 Date: 9/20/2018
Drawn by: MDE res
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Checked by: JRM
Johnston County, North Carolina 1 inch =200 feet

d
�- Rd
1
Riverwood
Golf Club
ONy's `\
Clayton
.tet y
ay �
�a
4�
m.•
"3ckin,
Legend
- Proposed_Easement
TLW -03020201100050
N
W E
S
0 1 2
MMMMMSmommomill Miles
i
QLa
Covered Bridge
a
'34
NC 42�
z
L;
z
�+he Hd Brooms P
on y
ti Ila �a
0
v
_ Qc
Pine Level
uSh�Qhwdy;'0QusE Q�g
q
1`011i cl
e
r�del Rd
\
Sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
j T Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Mapmylndia,
NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 5 - Vicinity Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site res
Johnston County, North Carolina 0

fires
January 23, 2017
RES completed its delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas on this property on November
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Ms. Samantha Dailey
Suite 130
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
OwingsMills, MD
of Engineers Delineation Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version
117
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
1371/2 East Main St.
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
412 N. 4th St.
documents are attached for your reference. Flags were numbered and placed onsite to mark the
Suite 300
limits of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. Wetland flags were
Baton Rouge, LA
located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with sub -meter accuracy and the
70802
Dear Ms. Samantha Dailey,
Suite 431
approximate size and location of these areas are depicted on the attached Waters of the U.S.
100 Calhoun St.
Resource Environmental Solutions RES is leased to resent this Request for a Preliminary
(RES) P p q rY
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
Jurisdictional Determination for the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site located in Smithfield,
29401
Johnston County, North Carolina. As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to
Suite 110
the U.S. Arm Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S.
Army � gneers ( �)
suite Montrose Bled.
and disturbed riparian forest. The site's streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted
Suite 650
on the subject site.
Houston, Tx
restore and enhance a stream/wetland comp lex located within the Neuse River Basin.
77006
RES completed its delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas on this property on November
16, 2016 in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
methodology (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as well as the Regional Supplement to the Corps
Lafayette, LA
of Engineers Delineation Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version
70508
2.0). Stream determinations were verified during a site visit on September 1, 2016 by a North
1371/2 East Main St.
Carolina Division of Water Resources representative. Stream and buffer determination
Suite 210
documents are attached for your reference. Flags were numbered and placed onsite to mark the
Oak Hill, WV
limits of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. Wetland flags were
25901
located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with sub -meter accuracy and the
33 Terminal Way
streams were drawn using the available National Hydrography Dataset Flowlines. The
Suite 431
approximate size and location of these areas are depicted on the attached Waters of the U.S.
Pittsburgh' PA
Delineation Map. All wetland areas are shown on this figure, but only the ones within the
15219
easement limits need confirmation.
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural land
Raleigh, NC
27605
and disturbed riparian forest. The site's streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted
by channelization, impoundment, and cattle access. The purpose of this mitigation site is to
1521 W. Main
restore and enhance a stream/wetland comp lex located within the Neuse River Basin.
Ri Floor
Rchmond, VA
23220
Attachments for Reference
- Project Summary Sheet (Pre -JD Form)
- Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
- Landowner Authorization Form
- Project Vicinity Map
- Project Location Map (with topography)
- National Wetlands Inventory Map
- Aerial Imagery
- Soils Map
- Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
- NCDWR Buffer Determination and
Viability Letters
- Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map

RES respectfully requests that the Corps confirm this delineation of Waters of the U.S. on this property. I
will contact you in the coming days to arrange a site visit for this purpose. Please contact me ((919) 345-
3034) if you have any additional questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Ecologist
Ryan Medric
Ecologist

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 12/28/2016
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Jeremy Schmid, PWS - RES, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NG 27605
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Johnston City: Smithfield
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.546580 °N; Long. -75.344386
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 1883
ow.
Name of nearest waterbody: Neuse River
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
6245 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: R4 and R5
Stream Flow: Intermittent and Perennial
Wetlands: 2621 acres.
Cowardln Class: PEM and PFO
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s).-
SUPPORTING
ate(s):
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.-
F-1
pplicant/consultant:
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
app ' nt/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify): PFD forms
2
or

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.

This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later lurisdictional determinations.
L
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
4
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

ardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_T
tude Longitude Local Waterway
Wetland A (WA)
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.12 ACRE DELINEATE
35.549 -78.3424 Neuse River
Wetland B (WB)
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
1.24 ACRE DELINEATE
35.5479 -78.3412 Neuse River
Wetland C (WC) out of easement
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
ACRE DELINEATE
35.5487 -78.3352 Neuse River
Wetland D (WD)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.07 ACRE DELINEATE
35.547 -78.3355 Neuse River
Wetland E (WE)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.1 ACRE DELINEATE
35.5459 -78.3357 Neuse River
Wetalnd F (WF)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
4.43 ACRE DELINEATE
35.5438 -78.3348 Neuse River
Wetland G (WG)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
21.71 ACRE DELINEATE
35.5436 -78.3304 Neuse River
Pond
NORTH CAROLINA
POW
Area
1.39 ACRE DELINEATE
35.5491 -78.3413 Neuse River
Ditch
NORTH CAROLINA
U
Linear
FOOT RPW
35.5485 -78.3409 Neuse River
S1
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
250 FOOT DELINEATE
35.5505 -78.3435 Neuse River
S2
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
500 FOOT DELINEATE
35.5492 -78.3423 Neuse River
S5
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
215 FOOT DELINEATE
35.55 -78.3389 Neuse River
S6a
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
2535 FOOT DELINEATE
35.5495 -78.3381 Neuse River
S7
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1487 FOOT DELINEATE
35.5472 -78.3353 Neuse River
S9
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
665 FOOT DELINEATE
35.5444 -78.3356 Neuse River
S11
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
906 FOOT DELINEATE
35.5432 -78.334 Neuse River
S12
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
380 FOOT DELINEATE
35.5415 -78.3327 Neuse River
S13
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
454 FOOT DELINEATE
35.5418 -78.3331 Neuse River

Jurisdictional Determination Request
0
EIS Army Corps
of Engineers
wiimington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A current list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on-line at: http://www.saw.usace.ariny.iniI/Missions/Re1,ulator PcrinitPro ram.as x , by
telephoning: 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue. Room 208
Asheville. North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive. Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number, (919) 562-042I
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington. North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
Version: December 2013 - Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part G.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that all JD
requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed with the
determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be
signed by the current property owner to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS. Property owner authorization/notification for JD
requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be
conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD may not
be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or
your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you
should also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: December 2013 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 2080 Wilsons Mill Road
City, State: Smithfield, NC
County: Johnston
Directions: Follow 1-40 E and US -70 E to Wilsons Mill Road
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 169500-74-6294
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Addressl:
Select one:
Jeremy Schmid, PWS - Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
[phone]
JSchmid@,AnglerEnvironmental.com
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑✓ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
Mailing Address: 2080 Wilsons Mill Road
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address':
❑ Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
' If available
Z Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 If available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned. a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
See attached Landowner Authorization Form.
Property Owner (please print)
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
Date
✓❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS' and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of ail WoUS on a property/project
area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property/ project area and provide an approved ved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat),
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
5 Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

F.
W
G.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
Size of Property or Project Area Easement= 78.5
acres
I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
3D REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(l) Preliminary JD Requests:
Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Formb.
344386 546590
Project Coordinates: 35.Latitude -78-344386 Longitude
Maps (no larger than I I x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑✓ Aerial Photography of the project area
W1 USGS Topographic Map
W✓ Soil Survey Map
17 Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
0 Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
5-71 Upland Data Sheets 7 Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
■ All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
■ Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
■ Locations of photo stations
■ Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
❑ Project Coordinates:
Latitude Longitude
Maps (no larger than 1 1 x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑ Aerial Photography of the project area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan.
previous delineation maps)
1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
httpf/www.usace.army.mii/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryPrpLramandPermits/reg supp.aspx
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
htto.//portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/pet file? uuid=76fR58b-dab8-4960-ba43-45b7faf06f4c&P_roupld=38364 and,
htt www.saw.usace.arm .mil Portals 59 docs re ulator ublicnotices 2013 NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318. df
8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/comm unity type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑ Wetland Data Sheets9
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
❑ Upland Data Sheets ❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
❑ Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
13 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type
Version. December 2013 page 7

Jurisdictional Determination Request
REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard-
copy submittals include at least one original PIat (to scale) that is no larger than I I "xl7"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11 "xl7", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed_ The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e-mail to the requestor.
(1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1-1 Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
Must be legible
Must include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property information
F1Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings/metes
and bounds/GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
Must clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
F1Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
❑ When wetlands are depicted:
• Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
• Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

Jurisdictional Determination Request
1-1 When tributaries are depicted:
• Must include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OH WM) of tributary
• Must identify each tributary using an alphanumeric system
• Must include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using approximate
widths or surveyed OHWM)
• Must include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project/property boundaries
Must include the location of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment
reaches
❑ Must include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently
subject to the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands", "non -
jurisdictional waters"). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to
make an official Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not
jurisdictional.
Must include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that
transport WoUS
Version: December 2013 Page 9

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(2) CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE
❑ When the entire actual Jurisdictional Boundary is s depicted:
include the following Corps Certification language:
'This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, the determination of
Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from
this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Dote:
USAGE Action 1D No.:
❑ When uplands may be present within a depicted Jurisdictional Boundary
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official:
Title:
Dote:
USA CE Action 1D No.:
Version: December 2013 Page 10

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(3) GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as:
be at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
❑ include an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property comer, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross-referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
❑ include a brief description of the GFS equipment utilized.
Version: December 2013 Page 11

Exhibit C
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
Site: Stephenson Smithfield (Homeplace)
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book Page County
1732 151 Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 169500-74-6294 in Johnston County North Carolina as shown on Exhibit A.
Street Address: Farm on Joyner Bridge Rd., Four Oaks, NC shown on Exhibit A
Property Owner (please print): Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
EBX, Neuse I, LLC, Resource Environmental Solutions ("RES"), the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers, their employees,
agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above referenced property for the evaluation of
the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including
conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and delineations.
Property Owners(s) Address: 2080 Wilsons Mills Rd
Smithfield, NC 27577
Property Owner Telephone Number: 919-631-1447
UWe hereby certify the abo a information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
By 'Vs
(Pr erty Owner thorized Signature) (Date)

WAP
�oas �s„a
Smithicld H
`� Mark.1
I
r LIS
y�9hw ay io Qv.
F
LEGEND
� = APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Street Map Source:
VICINITY MAP World Street Map
A tel ANGLER ESRI Arc615 Online
IRFAm.—NW ENVIRONMENTAL
a ]res Co -pang N
MEADOW SPRING
CORPORATE 15367 TELEPHONE ROAD, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 2M7
P: 703.393.48" I F: 703.393.3930
www.AnglerEnvironm`ntal.com J O H N STO N COUNTY, NC
I inch = 700 feet
Document Path: C:\Users\rmearic\Dropbm (RE5)\@RE5 G15\pr sects\NC\Ml Glow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXDUD_figure5\Meaaow5pring_Vicinity.mxa - Date 5a -a: 1212 1120 1 G

] a
r;. V11--.
164 r•
_ 6
a—_ Tom` ". .,� •� b.�
tiy] rr_[tt •�!
^a•" _ �} %` a Grave
RiiSy
�. •.�,g4 `moi----:.�� �r ` - --=x�- 1
��. . •
l
Cmitruo6r �'
=:
f.
' �❑
�M1 "N
...:. - .weit Smho ieid'—\ raj.
^s;.• — Rada Tower\1170
Grimm u
aha, !3�- - ' .... . ... •`'�'--�WMPM) ) ••pl[ Ixa ==
LEGEN D
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Street Map Source:
PROJECT LOCATION MAP USA Topo Maps
AtA ANGLER ESRI ArcGIS Online
qWAm.—NW ENVIRONMENTAL
a Pres company MEADOW SPRING N
CORPORATE 15367 TELEPHONE ROAD, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 2M7
P: 703.393.48" I F: 703.393.3930
www.AnglerEnvironmental.com J O H N STO N COUNTY, NC
1 inch = 2,000 feet
11 "i,_ .- I .. 111 " )"oph,,. .. I. of ,:.f - 1,) , I. ,, (ba k site)\MXD\„D_` -u' AM—d-9 e,t Location.m a - 'I . 5 , .�

Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbm (RE5)\@RE5 G15\pr sects\NC\Ml Glow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXDUD_Pigure5\Meaaow5pring_NWI.m a - Date 5a -a: 1212 1120 1 G

Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbm (RE5)\@RE5 G15\pr sects\NC\Ml Glow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXDUD_figure5\Meaaow5pring_A—al_Ima jcry.m a - Date 5a -a: 1212 11201 G

r r� CoB'r Ra NnD r► r�
pip h
r 91 ,o Ro
,QoB�f �� ���y� �� � �. � yam.
.. ,� 91
GeB
i► Ra r i r�V.Ir
a �• t. �'
41111111" 0 'r
irdr
r 7� r i►
Ra
7` ► r r ,
Ra
i 41111111"
Ro r r r
)0 CeB
Bb..'
NnD ! 9
j. NnE
NnD
i ) ! Ra
Pit
LEGENDGOA %0rII-
DAPPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS f �� ALA 1
0 HYDRIC SOIL
® SOIL WITH HYDRIC INCLUSIONS ) Ra l
pf
� NON -HYDRIC SOIL � Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geograhics, CNE�S'/Airbus
DS�USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS }Us�e'r�C�1 m�u ty
Source:
501 L5 MAP U.S. Department of Agriculture
A tel ANGLED Natural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL
Conservation Service
a ]res Company MEADOW SPRING Soil Survey Geographic N
CORPORATE 15367 TELEPHONE ROAD, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 2M7 (SSURGO)
P: 703.393.48" I F: 703.393.3930
www.AnglerEnvironmental.com J O H N STO N COUNTY, NC
I inch = 700 feet
Document Path: C:\User5\rmea—\DropI,m (RE5)\@RE5 G15\pr sects\NC\Ml alow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXDUD_figure5\Meaalow5pr,ng_5o,15.mxal - Date 5a -al: 1/23/2017

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -1
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.545178 Long.: -78.327477 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0% No O
O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Y
Yes ` No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No C
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: DP -1
7.
Absolute
Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
0
Cover
Status
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 32.5
20% of Total Cover: 13
65
=Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
Number of Dominant Species
❑ 0.0%
1 , Quercus nigra
50❑
1. Acer rubrum
76.9%
FAC
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6 (A)
2. Carpinus caroliniana
15d❑
23.1%
FAC
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
❑
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
4.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 145 (A) 420 (B)
Species Across All Strata:
6 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
o
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
Ll
0.0
❑
0
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100.0% (A/B)
6.
o
o.o°ro
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
5
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
❑ 0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 32.5
20% of Total Cover: 13
65
=Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
1. Acer rubrum
20❑
50% of Total Cover: 2.5 20% of Total Cover: 1
100.0% FAC
FAC species 130 x 3 = 390
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 145 (A) 420 (B)
5.
5.
o
Ll
o.o
-0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.897
0
Ll
0.0
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
40❑
100.0% FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
E.
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
o
❑
o.o°ro
5.
0
❑
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 20
20% of Total Cover: 8
40
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 Arundinaria gigantea
15d❑
100.0% FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
2.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
5.
0
❑
0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7,
0
❑
0.0%
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
Ll
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
1 Q.
0
0.0%
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 7.5
20% of Total Cover: 3
15
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 Smilax rotundifolia
5
0 100.0% FAC
2.
0
❑ 0.0%
3.
o
❑ o.o%
4.
0
❑ o.o%
5.
0
❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
-
Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 2.5 20% of Total Cover: 1
5
= Total Cover
Present? Yes ` • No -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _10 _ Color (moist) % Tvne 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-18 7.5YR 5/3 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 02 -Dec -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -2
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.548732 Long.: -78.341489 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0% No O
* C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Y
Yes `- No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No C
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: DP -2
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 ,
)
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o°r°
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7°x° (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
2.
0
❑
0.o%
FACU species 35 x 4 = 140
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 110 (A) 305 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
0.0%
0
Ll
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.773
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Eupatorium capillifolium
2. ]uncus effusus
35d❑
30d❑
31.8%
27.3%
FACU
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Andropogon virginicus
30d❑
27.3%
FAC
4, Festuca arundinacea
15
❑
13.6%
FAC
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
Ll
0.0°x°
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 55
20% of Total Cover: 22
110
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -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) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/1 70 10YR 5/8 30 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 1511
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 02 -Dec -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -3
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.549077 Long.: -78.337161 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (0% No O
* C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Y
Yes `- No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No C
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: DP -3
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 ,
)
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o°r°
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7°x° (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 30 x 4 = 120
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 65 (A) 185 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
0.0%
0
Ll
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.846
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Eupatorium capillifolium
2. ]uncus effusus
30d❑
20
W-30.8%
46.2%
FACU
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Festuca arundinacea
15
d❑
23.1%
FAC
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0°x°
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 32.5
20% of Total Cover: 13
65
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -3
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) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 5/2 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WA WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 1.0 % / 0.6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.549021 Long.: -78.342517 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
d❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)d❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WA WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 ,
)
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o°r°
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 35 x 1 = 35
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1 ,
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
2.
0
❑
0.o%
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 85 (A) 195 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
0.0%
0
Ll
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.294
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > so%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Rubus argutus
10
❑
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
E.
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4,
o
❑
o.o°r°
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
10
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , ]uncus effusus
2. Andropogon virginicus
30d❑
20d❑
40.0%
26.7%
OBL
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Eupatorium capillifolium
10
❑
13.3%
FACU
4, Microstegium vimineum
10
❑
13.3%
FAC
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5. Carex stipata
5
❑
6.7%
OBL
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 37.5
20% of Total Cover: 15
75
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA WET
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) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 1511
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WB WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.547912 Long.: -78.341262 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
d❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WB WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 ,
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 40 x 1 = 40
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
0
❑
0.o%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
o.o%
column Totals: 45 (A) 60 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
o.o%
0
Ll
o.o
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.333
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
0 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 )❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4, _
o
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 , ]uncus effusus
2. Carex stipata
30d❑
10d❑
66.7%
22.2%
OBL
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Eupatorium capillifolium
5
❑
11.1%
FACU
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
o.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 22.5 20% of Total Cover:
9
45
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WB WET
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) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 1511
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WC WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.548811 Long.: -78.335309 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
d❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)d❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WC WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 ,
)
% Cover
0 ❑
Cover
0.0%
Status
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
o
❑
o.o°r°
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4,
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
$,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
=Total Cover
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 20 x 2 = 40
1.
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 60 x 3 = 180
2.
0
❑
0.o%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 110 (A) 250 (B)
5,
5.
o
Ll
o.o
0.0%
0
Ll
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.273
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2,
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6,
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Microstegium vimineum
2. Arundinaria gigantea
60d❑
20
[7118.2%
54.5%
FAC
FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. ]uncus effusus
15
❑
13.6%
OBL
4, Carex stipata
10
❑
9.1%
OBL
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5. Ludwigia alternifnlia
5
❑
4.5%
OBL
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 55
20% of Total Cover: 22
110
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WC WET
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) % Tvoe 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 1511
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 16 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WD WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel (abandoned) Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 1.0 % / 0.6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: Long.: Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
d❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
d❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)d❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
d❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WD WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 . Acer rubrum
)
% Cover
30❑
Cover
60.0%
Status
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
2. Uriodendron tulipifera
15d❑
30.0%
FACU
3. Pinus taeda
5
❑
10.0%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 88.9% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
=Total Cover
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
1. Acer rubrum
15❑
75.0%
FAC
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
2. Magnolia virginiana
5❑
25.0%
FACW
FAcu species 15 x 4 = 60
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 160 (A) 430 (B)
5.
5.
o
Ll
o.o
o
Ll
-0.0%
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.688
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
20❑
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
E.
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
❑
o.o°r°
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Woodwardia areolata
2. Microstegium vimineum
30d❑
30d❑
50.0%
50.0%
OBL
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3,
o
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 30
20% of Total Cover: 12
60
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Vitis rotundifolia 5d❑ 50.0% FAC
2. Smilax rotundifolia
5d❑
50.0%
FAC
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
0
-
10
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WD WET
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) % Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 5/1 90 10YR 3/6 10 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 16 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WE/WF WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: Long.: Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Augusta sandy loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)d❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WE/WF WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 . Acer rubrum
)
% Cover
50❑
Cover
71.4%
Status
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2. Betula nigra
15❑
21.4%
FACW
3. Ilex opaca
5
❑
7.1%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
o
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%That
Percent of dominant Species
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 35
20% of Total Cover: 14
70
=Total Cover
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 75 x 2 = 150
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
10❑
66.7%
FAC
FAC species 100 x 3 = 300
2. Carpinuscaroliniana
5
❑
33.3%
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 195 (A) 470 (B)
5.
5.
o
Ll
o.o
o
Ll
-0.0%
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.410
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 7.5
20% of Total Cover: 3
15
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > SO%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
20❑
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
E.
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4.
o
❑
o.o°r°
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Arundinaria gigantea
2. Woodwardia areolata
60d❑
20d❑
66.7%
22.2%
FACW
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Athyrium filix-femina
10
❑
11.1%
FAC
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 45
20% of Total Cover: 18
90
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
-
0
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No ' -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WEMF WET
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) % Tvoe 1 Locz Texture
0-18 2.5Y 4/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WG WET
Investigator(s): J. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.544247 Long.: -78.329166 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Augusta sandy loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes (0% No O
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
0 C)
Is the Sampled Area
�
Hydric Soil Present?
Y
Yes No
Yes `�� NO O
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes 0 No O
within a Wetland?
Remarks:
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
d❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)d❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No OO
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
C ., An.7
Sampling Point: WG WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 . Carpinus caroliniana
)
% Cover
25 ❑
Cover
50.0%
Status
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
15d❑
30.0%
FAC
3. Quercus nigra
10
d❑
20.0%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
o
o
❑
❑
0.0%
o.o°r°
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
=Total Cover
OBL species 5 x 1 = 5
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
1. Acer rubrum
50❑
100.0%
FAC
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 140 (A) 385 (B)
5.
5.
o
Ll
o.o
o
Ll
-0.0%
0.0
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.750
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.0%
i Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4. _
o
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. o ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Arundinaria gigantea
2. Woodwardia areolata
25d❑
5
❑
83.3%
16.7%
FACW
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3,
o
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7,
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8,
0
❑
0.0%
g,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q.
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 15
20% of Total Cover: 6
30
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Smilax rotundifolia 10 d❑ 100.0% FAC
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
0
-
10
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ` • No -'
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WG WET
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) % Tvoe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-18 IOYR 4/2 90 10YR 4/6 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
d❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
September 1, 2016
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
2080 Wilson Mills Road
Smithfield, NC 27577
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMME:RMAN
Director
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
NBRRO#16-259
Johnston County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
❑ Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
S2
I
® Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 213 .0259)
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 213.0267)
Project Name: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Location/Directions: The projected area is off 2080 Wilson Mills Road in Johnston County
Subject Stream: UT to Neuse River
Determination Date: 08/17/2016
Staff: Cheng Zhang
Feature
E/I/P*
Start@ Stop@
Soil USGS Topo
Survey
S2
I
DWR flag
X
S3
wetland
S4
E
S5
P
throughout
X
S8
E
S10
wetland
S12
P
End of culvert
S13
I
DWR flag
*EIIIP = Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake 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. There 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 Resources
(DWR).
Division of Water Resources, Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Operations Section http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax: [phone]

Meadow aprmg Mitigation Site
Johnston County
08/17/2016
Page 2 of 2
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination trade by the DWR 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 If sending via US Postal Service c/o Karen Higgins DWR — 401 A
Buffer Permitting Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx,
etc.) Karen Higgins DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (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 Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6344, and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-5544884.
if you have questions regarding this etermination, please feel free to contact Cheng Zhang at [phone].
ince ly,
Danny Smi
Supervisor, ater Quality Regional Operations Center
cc: RRO DVIR File Copy

jr • .-.~ -
4
a
Cee Y �, � � � r ► ^ t� � ��� ��� r � �'
N
I
Basemap Source; Esti World Imageryy_y
A goA I&

41�
Jurisdictional Ditch (RWP)
"Willi
M;W
.ep
..........
LIZ.
Aw
Jk.
..... ... ...
A2e:
jw-, A,
- , - q
jlr" 55!.
V-' , +f6; t- �, �
-v. ;K,
A