20150417 Ver 1_401 Application_20150717

GE1 Consultants
Consulting July 13, 2015
Engineers and Project 1412320
Scientists
Ms. Cherri Smith
NC DWQ, WBSCP Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: 401 & Buffer Permit Application Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal Project Selma, NC
Dear Ms. Smith,
GEI Consultants, Inc. has been retained by Chambers Engineering, PA (CEPA) to assist with the
environmental permitting process for the proposed Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal located at 1501
West Oak Street in Selma, North Carolina.
The Selma Terminal Project involves the development of an intermodal facility to facilitate the
transmission of liquid ethanol from railroad traffic to offsite bulk storage tanks vas a transfer
pipeline. Construction on the proposed terminal site will include a rail connection to North
Carolina Railway Co. Mainline, rail offload yard, support building, pump station, driveway
access, and elevated pipeline.
A pre -application meeting was conducted on May 5, 2015 with Dave Sheaffer and Jennifer
Burdette. At the meeting the project team presented a design plan that minimized permanent
wetland impacts to 0.49 acres. The reduction in total impacts resulted in the project being eligible
for authorization under United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permits 14
and 39. We also discussed the proposed rail connection to be a "railroad crossing" allowable
action under the Buffer Rule.
Enclosed please find the Application fee check for $240.00 and four copies of the following
documents for your review:
• Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form with Project Description Attachment
• Agent Authorization Letters
• Project Location Map
• Vicinity Map
• Soil Map (Additional soil survey information provided in the Wetland Delineation Report
Attachment 2)
www.izeiconsultants.com GEI Consultants, Inc.
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 200
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
856.608.6860; fax [phone]

Ms. Smith -2- July 13, 2015
• Final Wetland Delineation Map
• Wetland Impact Map Sheet 1 of 1 (C-6.0) — 2 copies of 24" x 36"; 4 of copies 11" x 17"
• NC WAM Field Assessment Forms
• EBX-Neuse I, LLC Statement of Mitigation Credit Availability
• State Historic Preservation Office Determination Letter
• NC Natural Heritage Program Determination Letter
• Three Copies of the Stormwater BMP Calculations Report and Design Drawings
• One Copy of USACE Jurisdiction Determination Request Supporting Documentation
(Wetland Delineation Report, Field Findings Memo)
• CD with digital copies of all supporting documents listed above
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate contact me at 631479-3509;
ebrosnan(kgeiconsultants.com or Mary Beth Billerman at 631-759-2979;
mbillermang geiconsultants. com.
Sincerely,
GEI CONSULTANTS, INC.
Erin Brosnan
Project Ecologist
EB:JS/kmh
Enclosures
c: David Shaeffer (USACE)
Stephen Chambers (CEPA)
Jamey Stynchula (GEI)
Mary Beth Billerman (GEI)
I:\Admin\Projects\Ecology\Chambers Selma NC\Individual Per ait\Initial DWQ Application Package\DWQ PCN Cover Letter.docx

GEI Consultants, Inc. • Woburn, MA 01801 • (781) 721 -4000
Account Number:
(voice Number Invoice Date
PERMIT FEE 6/24/2015
PLEASE DETACH AND RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS
Check No. 716640
Voucher No. Amount
187530 240.00
TOTAL:
716640 0 Eastern Bank
GEIConsuitants LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS 01901
400 Unicorn Park Drive
Woburn, MA 01801 6130/2015
240.00
53-179
716640 113
PAY * *# *! * * # * * * * * * * * * * * #* * * * ** *240 DOLLARS AND * * * * * * * * ** *DOCENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *240.00
TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
ORDER NC DWQ, WBSCP UNIT
OF 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET
RALEIGH, NC 27604 US
;...'
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE T
SECOND SIGNATURE REQUIRED IF OVER $25,000.00
II' 7 1664011' i:0 1 1 30 L 7981: 60 0 2 4894 20

�0F W ATEgQ IS7DD
=� r
O Y
PAI®
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Noti kation (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Q Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: #14 & #39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. 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 0 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 Q No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes 0 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.
Q Yes ❑ No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concem (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal Selma
2b. County:
Johnston
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Selma
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information n
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Melanie S. Teddar(� 11
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
03061/0344 L 1 7 2015
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
40 WATER RESO RU CES
3d. Street address:
911 Whitehorse Road Lt.—EXIVII 11 G
3e. City, state, zip:
Greenville, North Carolina 27834
3f. Telephone no.:
757-288-6700
3g. Fax no.:
-
3h. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent Q Other, specify: Leasee
4b. Name:
Chadwick Conn
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Eco-Energy Inc.
4d. Street address:
725 Cool Springs Blvd. Suite 500
4e. City, state, zip.
Franklin, Tennessee, 37067
4f. Telephone no.:
615-786-0401
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address;
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Stephen Chambers
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Chambers Engineering, PA
5c. Street address:
129 North First Street
5d. City, state, zip:
Albemarle, North Carolina, 28001
5e. Telephone no.:
704-984-6427
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Application Contact Information:
Erin Brosnan
GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C.
110 Walt Whitman Road, Suite 204
Huntington Station, New York, 11746
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 260516-84-1224
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
ILatitude: 35.5457 Longitude: -78.3026
1 c. Property size:
58.385 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Mill Creek (at Selma) tributary to Neuse River
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV -NSW
2c. River basin:
Neuse River
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:
A portion of property appears to have been used for residential and agricultural (primarily feed grass) purposes since at least 1959. The remainder of
the property is undeveloped forested land. General land use in the vicinity of the property include several commercial, residential, and industrial
properties, including a petroleum bulk storage and transportation facility, above -ground storage tanks, and private residences.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 14.7
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 1,500
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project will build an ethanol rail distribution terminal to facilitate ethanol delivery through a more efficient use of rail capacity and pipeline transport.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See attached.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: Submitted January 20, 2015
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
0 Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C.
Agenc onsultant Compan
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Jurisdictional Determination is in review.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
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):
0 Wetlands Q Streams —tributaries Q Buffers ❑ 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)
Tempora (T
W1 T
Land Clearing
Floodplain Pool
Yes
Corps
0.1166
W2 P
Fill
Floodplain Pool
Yes
Corps
0.2652
N/3 T
Land Clearing
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.2883
W4 P
Fill
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Yes
Corps
0.231
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.9011
2h. Comments:
The Wetland Impact Map Sheet 1 of 1 has temporary (T1 -T9) and permanent (P1 -P8) impact areas broken down by location. For purposes of
answering questions 2a - 2g these impacts have been grouped as follows: W1 = T1-T3 &T8-T9; W2 = P1 -P3; W3 = T4-T7; W4 = P4 -P8.
Within the project site, W1 & W2 correspond with temporary and permanent impacts to the western wetland system and W3 & W4 correspond with the
eastern wetland system.
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 T
Bridge construction
Mill Creek
PER
Corps
10
80
S2 -
Choose one
-
-
S3
Choose one
-
-
S4
Choose one
-
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 80
3i. Comments:
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
Choose one
Choose
O2
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
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
131 T
Railroad crossing
Mill Creek
No
1,410
600
B2 P
Railroad crossing
Mill Creek
No
810
650
B3 _
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
2,220
1,250
6i. Comments:
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.
Significant design changes were undertaken from the original conceptual project layout. Initially more than 2 acres of wetlands were proposed to be
impacted. The original design included above ethanol ground storage tanks within delineated wetlands, which are no longer being constructed. The
perimeter rail access road through wetlands was decreased in width. Retaining walls will be utilized to avoid fill slopes into wetlands. The proposed
bridge design at the stream crossing will span the stream avoiding permanent impacts to the stream bed.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Standard sediment and erosion control measures will be used to avoid impacts to wetland and wetland adjacent areas during construction.
2. Compensatory Miti ation 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?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑X Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
X❑ Mitigation bank
❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: EBX-Neuse I, LLC sponsored Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Riparian wetland
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity: 1
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
E] Yes ❑X 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)
L...
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).
The project activity within the riparian buffer is a "railroad crossing of streams and other surface waters subject to this Rule" (15A
6h. Comments: NCAC 02B .0233). This is a railroad crossing that impacts greater than 40 linear feet but equal to or less than 150 linear feet or one-
third of an acre of riparian buffer, which is "allowable" (without mitigation) according to the Rule's (6) Table of Uses.
Page 7 of 10

i
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 ❑X Yes ❑ 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.
The proposed terminal structures will not discharge directly to Mill Creek.
❑ Yes ❑X No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
18.23%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The project property is a 58.38 acre site zoned for industrial use. The total built upon area post -construction will be 4.47 acres, including the addition of
1.46 acres of impervious surface. Structural BMPs include a treatment wetland and sand filter system treating flows from 4 acres and 0.55 acres,
respectively. The treatment wetland is located south of the proposed railyard. The sand filter system is located north of the entrance driveway. The
measures have been designed to meet or exceed the NC DENR requirements for stormwater pre-treatment prior to discharging to wetlands.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local overnment's jurisdiction is this roject?
Selma Township - No SW Review Program
❑ 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 ❑X No N/A
attached? I
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
E]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 ❑X No N/A
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑X Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑X 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
El Yes ❑X 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 Q 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
El Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
i
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
theproposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
is
Sewage
disposal domestic only. Public sewer is available on site.
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 ❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NC Natural Heritage Program (determination letter enclosed), USFWS IPaC
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?
SAFMC EFH Viewer
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?
NCSHPO GIS WebService, SHPO Review Request (determination letter enclosed)
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:
Project plans and calculation indicate a "no -rise" condition with the bridge structure crossing of Mill Creek.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FIRM Panel 2605 Map #3720260500J with an effective revised date of 12/02/05
Stephen G. Chambers
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
7s0L.ao,s
Date

Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal Selma
PCN Project Description
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including type of equipment to be used
The proposed project is for the construction of an intermodal terminal to facilitate the
transmission of liquid ethanol from railroad traffic to offsite bulk storage tanks via a transfer
pipeline. The proposed terminal will consist of a rail access track, rail offload yard, support
building, loadout pump station, and driveway access.
The approximate acreage of the project property is 58.38 acres. The proposed rail access will
consist of approximately 1100 linear feet of track connecting the Norfolk Southern Railway to
the offload yard, including a bridge crossing of Mill Creek. The proposed offload yard will be
approximately 3 acres and accommodate ninety-six (96) 30,000 gallon rail tankers. The
proposed terminal includes a 738 square foot loadout pump station for ethanol transfer from the
rail yard to the pipeline and a 2400 square foot utility building which will house the mechanical,
electrical and fire protection equipment.
There are a total of approximately 14.7 acres of regulated wetlands within the property
boundary. A National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapped forested wetland system and National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD) stream corridor is located on the eastern portion of the site. The
forested wetland buffers both sides of the stream segment from West Oak Street south to West
Noble Street. To the west, the wetland system transitions to an upland forest and managed hay
fields. An additional wetland system was delineated in the forested western portion of the site.
This wetland system was not mapped by NWI and appears to be man-made. Based on
anecdotal information, soil was removed from borrow pits on the site by the industrial site
located west of Buffalo Road during its development.
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated to total 0.4962 acres. Planning
measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible were implemented
during the project design phase. Temporary impacts to wetlands and the stream corridor related
to construction activities are anticipated to total 0.4049 acres (Sheet number C-6.0 Wetland
Impacts Map). All temporarily impacted areas will be restored post -construction. Proper erosion
and sediment control measures will be installed prior to construction to protect all adjacent
natural resource areas.

Agent Authorization Notice
Authorization is hereby granted for the agent(s) noted below to represent the Applicant
in filings, discussions, meetings, processing, and compliance requirements regarding the
proposed Eco Energy Selma Intermodal Ethanol Transfer Facility (the project) for all
matters pertaining to zoning compliance/ re -zoning, Special Use Permits, site plan
submittals, building permits and for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
Individual, Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) associated Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications .
Project: Eco Energy Selma Intermodal Ethanol Transfer Facility
Location: Town of Selma, Johnston County, NC
Eco Energy Distribution Services, LLC. Chambers Engineering, PA
Applicant Agent
Pete L. McKinney Stephen G. Chambers, PE
Applicant's signatory Agent's signatory
Signature Signat re
i
Date Date 0 1

Agent Authorization Notice
Authorization is hereby granted for the agent(s) noted below to represent the Property
Owner in filings, discussions, meetings, processing, and compliance requirements
regarding the proposed Eco Energy Selma Intermodal Ethanol Transfer Facility (the
project) for all matters pertaining to zoning compliance/ re -zoning, Special Use Permits,
site plan submittals, building permits and for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
(USACE) Individual, Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) associated Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications.
Project: Eco Energy Selma Intermodal Ethanol Transfer Facility
Location: Town of Selma, Johnston County, NC
Melanie S. Tedder
Property Owner
Melanie S. Tedder
Applicant's signatory
Chambers Engineering, PA
Agent
Stephen G. Chambers, PE
Agent's signatory
(4 Ona�--Signature 1re
/420J2vIy
Date
/J%WC/ aol�
Date

Y
/
too
• I
48
1001
�\ a Grovel •� 9 f' i
Gravel jJ •. v ''_•
Sand and Gravel I
Pits I
�$a
1. p U
SOURCE: 0 2,000 4,000
1. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, ACCESSED
VIA www.arcgisonline.com
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
• • Q`
rbi I
i66 1
SITE O ,so
Memorial --,,
Cera
oil
13 National•Geographic Society,i-cu�be i
j 11
NC DWQ 401 WQ & Buffer Permit Application
Eco -Energy Intermodal Facility PROJECT LOCATION MAP
1501 West Oak Street, Selma, North Carolina
I
Chambers Engineering, PA csu11an15
Albermarle, North Carolina I Project 1412320 1 June 2015 Fig. 1
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Permit Application\Site Location.mxd

b
K
0
e]
O�
oOf-
P
p�
�v
�1
4
r
n
e
ee� CA �ih
O `owe ooa ,
9�aa� O oa�o c/
0e
g'oaa o84'e �^ - - -
V�
-w
e
Ps �
Pay.
134
�:In,
0
SOURCE:
1. WORLD STREET MAP, ACCESSED
VIA www.arcgisonline.com
O o v,
oOf-
a
tt`e�"F
Av e
v`
Primrose
St
7t.
h a
W Walnut St
c
ce iv
? Oo+ .9f
W
3aaP
k F �d6
SO' T Pah
5
G 0
V
h-
oC Ob�P Rd'o
4i'
S�
h
G
C
ho v`
A �' y g
Ps o y a
.r,
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USG,S, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),
TomTom �� y
0 1,000 2,000
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
NC DWQ 401 WQ & Buffer Permit Application
Eco -Energy Intermodal Facility VICINITY MAP /
1501 West Oak Street, Selma, North Carolina GE1 STREET MAP
Chambers Engineering, PA �� s� `an`s
Albermarle, North Carolina I Project 1412320 1 June 2015 Fig. 2
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Permit Application\Street Map.mxd

r
A
Ra
4
NoA
NoB
y "0..0
Or..
h �
SITE BOUNDARY
SOURCE:
1. 2011 ESRI WORLD IMAGERY
2. USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey - SSURGO Database
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App[WebSoilSurvey.aspx
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Permit Application\Soil.mxd
-� � Predominantly Hydric
JA
Partially Hydric Y
� Predominantly Nonhydric
� Nonhydric
Source. Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i -cubed, USDA, USES, AEy , Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, sw'sstopo, and the G1= User Community
0 100200 400 600 800
NC DWQ 401 WQ & Buffer Permit Application �� SOIL SURVEY
Eco -Energy Intermodal Facility
Feet 1501 West Oak Street, Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA G E I csu"a 15
Albermarle, North Carolina Project 1412320 June 2015 Fig. 3

0
SOURCE:
1. 2013 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NORTH CAROLINA
ONEMAP GIS SERVICE.
2. WETLAND BOUNDARY DELINEATED BY GEI
ON NOV 5, APRIL 13, 14, 15, 2015; FLAGS
LOCATIONED WITH GeoXH 6000 TRIMBLE
1 -
�r • ff�,.
ki
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Permit Application\Wetland Delineation April 2015.mxd
0 200 400
SCALE: 1" = 200'
A
'. Wo
• _ _ i 4`�` w �+
NLi do\ 7�7
k
1 A
NC DWQ 401 WQ & Buffer Permit Application
Eco -Energy Intermodal Facility
1501 West Oak Street, Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
G E I u
Project 1412320 June 2015
Fig. 4

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Eco -Energy Selma Date April 2015
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization GEI Consultants Inc.
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Eco -Energy Selma Date April 2015
Wetland Typel Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization GEI Consultants Inc.
Level III Ecoregionl Southeastern Plains Nearest Named Water Body Mill Creek
River Basin! Neuse USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
Yes (- No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.54587 / -78.30278
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitatiplant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc )
Is the assessment area intensively managed? (r' Yes ( No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
F Anadromous fish
F Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
f- NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
f` Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F— Publicly owned property
• N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
• Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
F Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
t" Blackwater
( Brownwater
f- Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) (` Lunar f' Wind f` Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? (- Yes f: No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? f ' Yes C No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ; Yes {: No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
(` A i-' A Not severely altered
(: B (: B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub) Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
f" A f` A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
to B {+ B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
{ C f` C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief - assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. r A r A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
r B (: B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
(: C i` C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
(- D f D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. (-A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
f- B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
{: C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. C A Sandy soil
(+ B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
f C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
(` D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
r E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. (' A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
fi B Soil ribbon z 1 inch
4c. (. A No peat or muck presence
r B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
f: A (: A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
{ B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
i C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A 17- A F* A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B F, B F B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C F C F C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F D F D F D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
f✓ E f✓ E F, E >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F— F F F >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G F G F G >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F H F H F H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
r Yes (+ No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
C A z 50 feet
f- B From 30 to < 50 feet
( C From 15 to < 30 feet
C D From 5 to < 15 feet
` E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
t— 5 15 -feet wide (` > 15 -feet wide (" Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
(' Yes r No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
{ Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
` Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
C A r A z 100 feet
C B r B From 80 to < 100 feet
r C r C From 50 to < 80 feet
f— D (' D From 40 to < 50 feet
r E r E From 30 to < 40 feet
(' F (" F From 15 to < 30 feet
(` G (- G From 5 to < 15 feet
(" H (— H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
f-- A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
C` B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C` C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
{: A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
{" B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
f- C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
(" A {' A (' A z 500 acres
{" B B (" B From 100 to < 500 acres
(" C (" C {" C From 50 to < 100 acres
C" D r D f D From 25 to < 50 acres
E f" E r E From 10 to < 25 acres
f— F t- F i- F From 5 to < 10 acres
C. G f: G {: G From 1 to < 5 acres
f"` H {" H { H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
t$ I { I C` I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
" J { J (" J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K {" K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
{ A Pocosin is the full extent (z 90%) of its natural landscape size.
{ B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
{" A {" A z 500 acres
{" B (: B From 100 to < 500 acres
{' C {- C From 50 to < 100 acres
l+ D {" D From 10 to < 50 acres
f^ E C~ E < 10 acres
r F r F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only
(— Yes f- No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
{" A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
(` B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
{: C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
{" A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
(+ B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
{" A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
C` B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C" C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
{: Yes (— No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
(` A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
Dense shrub layer
above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
f: B
AA
WT
{` C
o¢"
A
f" A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
C
{: B
{+ B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
m
U
f' C
f" C
Canopy sparse or absent
A
( A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
(: B
{: B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
v
{` C
('' C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
(" A
( A
Dense shrub layer
t B
f: B
Moderate density shrub layer
u) r C
{` C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
A
r A
Dense herb layer
{ B
{" B
Moderate density herb layer
$: C
f+ C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
(— A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
{: B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
{" A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
{. B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
{ C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
(" A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
f.— B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
t—A d B r ('D
EN,
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
{" A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
t" B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
f- C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
c— D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Area has been significantly modified by past human activities. Evidence of historic excavation for fill re -use offsite, ditching, and dumping were
observed. This wetland system was not mapped by the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and appears to be man-made. Based on anecdotal
information, soil was removed from borrow pits on the site by the industrial site located west of Buffalo Road during its development.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Eco -Energy Selma Date
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization
April 2015
GEI Consultants Inc.
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Conditon
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Maung ualculator Version 4.7
Wetland Site Name Eco -Energy Selma Date April 2015
Wetland Typel Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization GEI Consultants Inc.
Level III Ecoregion Southeastern Plains w Nearest Named Water Body Mill Creek
River Basinj Neuse USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
(" Yes (+ No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.54379 / -78.30011
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc )
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? r Yes (+ No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
F Anadromous fish
(— Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
(— Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F Publicly owned property
F N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
F— Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
C Blackwater
Brownwater
F— Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar (' Wind (' Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ('° Yes (: No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?
(` Yes t« No
(` Yes (: No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
(' A (' A Not severely altered
(: B (: B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
5 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
(` A (` A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
(+ B (: B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
( C r C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. f— A (" A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
(' B (: B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
(: C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
(" D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. r A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
(— B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
(: C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. r A Sandy soil
f* B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
(` C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
(- D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C' B Soil ribbon z 1 inch
4c. f: A No peat or muck presence
(- B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
f- A (+ A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
fi B (" B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C (` C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F✓ A F A f✓ A z 10% impervious surfaces
F B f✓ B F B < 10% impervious surfaces
i- C F C F C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F- D r D F D z 20% coverage of pasture
7 E Fo E i✓ E s 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
i- F F- F F- F z 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G F G F G >- 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F- H F- H f- H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
(: Yes (' No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
(: A >_ 50 feet
C' B From 30 to < 50 feet
(` C From 15 to < 30 feet
(` D From 5 to < 15 feet
(' E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
(: 5 15 -feet wide ( > 15 -feet wide (. Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
f: Yes (- No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(; Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
(' Exposed - adjacent open water with width z 2500 feet or regular boat traffic
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in
each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
(. A
(: A
>- 100 feet
(' B
(" B
From 80 to < 100 feet
(" C
(" C
From 50 to < 80 feet
{ D
(" D
From 40 to < 50 feet
(� E
(" E
From 30 to < 40 feet
(' F
(" F
From 15 to < 30 feet
f-
(" G
From 5 to < 15 feet
H
r H
< 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
f- A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
r B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
(: C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
(: A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
(- B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
(- C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select " K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
(` A {" A (` A 2 500 acres
(" B (` BB From 100 to < 500 acres
C ( C {" C From 50 to < 100 acres
{ D - D r D From 25 to < 50 acres
(: E {: E (. E From 10 to < 25 acres
{- F (" F (- F From 5 to < 10 acres
G r G f- G From 1 to < 5 acres
{` H (- H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
(" I ( I (' I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
(` J ` J (" J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
(" K r K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
(" A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
{ B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
(- A (- A > 500 acres
f- B (• B From 100 to < 500 acres
(- C (- C From 50 to < 100 acres
t+ D r D From 10 to < 50 acres
r E r E < 10 acres
r F (- F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
r Yes r No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
f- A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
(: B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
{ C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
r A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
(: B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
( C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
(- A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
r B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
r C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment arealwetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
(7 Yes C— No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
r A z 25% coverage of vegetation
(' B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
EL ( A (To A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
0
C (+ B (` B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
cc
U ( C (" C Canopy sparse or absent
o (" A
(„ A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
�? CC B
{: B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
i C
(" C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
(- A
(` A
Dense shrub layer
r (: B
r B
Moderate density shrub layer
u) C
(" C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
{ A
(` A
Dense herb layer
(. B
{: B
Moderate density herb layer
r C
r C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
( A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
(: B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
(-` A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
(: B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
f C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
f— B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
I— A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
(� B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
(� C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area
{: D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Assessment area is at southern extent of the wetland complex, located immediately north of an existing railroad berm and bridge crossing over Mill
Creek. Evidence of past disturbance due to human activities was observed, including signficant dumping of brick. Invasive species dominated the
shrub and herb strata (e.g. Chinese privet, Japanese stiltgrass) of portions of this assessment area.

Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank
EBX-Neuse I, LLC Statement of Availability June 25, 2015
NC Division of Water Resources
Mrs. Katie Merritt and Mrs. Cherri Smith
512 N. Salisbury St.
9th floor Archdale Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re Project: Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal Selma
fires
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. David Shaeffer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Center, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
This document confirms that Eco -Energy Inc. (Applicant) for the Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal Selma
(Project) has expressed an interest to utilize up to 1.00 Riparian-Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credits
from EBX-Neuse I, LLC sponsored Neu -Con Wetland & Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank) in the
Neuse HUC 03020201 - Cox H, Howell Woods, or Arrington Bridge III Sites. As the official Bank
Sponsor, EBX-Neuse 1, LLC, attests to the fact that mitigation is available for reservation at this time.
These mitigation credits are not considered secured, and consequently are eligible to be used for alternate
purposes by the Bank Sponsor, until payment in full is received from the Applicant resulting in the
issuance of a Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate by the bank acknowledging that the Applicant has
fully secured credits from the bank and the Banker has accepted full responsibility for the mitigation
obligation requiring the credits/units.
The Banker will issue the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate within three (3) days of receipt of the
purchase price. Banker shall provide to Applicant a copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate and
a documented copy of the debit of credits from the Bank Official Credit Ledger(s), indicating the permit
number and the resource type secured by the applicant. A copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer
Certificate, with an updated Official Credit Ledger will also be sent to regulatory agencies showing the
proper documentation.
If any questions need to be answered, please contact me at 919-209-1052.
Best Regards,
ea'4_ ,I
e��
Cara S. Conder
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

AP15%
VLOt"A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat McCrory
Governor
Ms. Erin Brosnan
GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C.
110 Walt Whitman Road
Huntington Station, New York 11746
ebrosnan(@izeiconsultants.com
Bryan Gossage
Director
January 26, 2015
RE: Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal Project, Selma, Johnston County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Brosnan:
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database for the proposed project referenced above. The NCNHP database does not show any
records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project area as depicted by the Geographic Information System (GIS) boundary
shapefile submitted with your request for information.
Within one mile of the project area, the NCNHP database shows element occurrence records for the
following rare species:
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
ELEMENT
OCCURRENCE
STATUS
ACCURACY
STATE
STATUS
FEDERAL
STATUS
Elliptio roanokensis
Roanoke Slabshell
Current
Medium
T
---
Euphyes bimacula
Two -spotted Skipper
Current
Medium
SR
---
Somatochlora georgiana
Coppery Emerald
Historical
Very Low
SR
---
*For status and accuracy definitions, please see the Rare Species Status Definitions and Element Occurrences documents at
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help.
The occurrence of Roanoke Slabshell is located in the Neuse River, west of and downstream from the
proposed project. The record for Two -spotted Skipper is within the Selma Pine Flatwoods natural area,
located ca. 0.4 miles southwest of the proposed project area; the portion of this natural area that occurs
within the powerline is managed for conservation by Duke Energy (Selma Powerline site) under a
Memorandum of Understanding with NCDENR. The Selma Pine Flatwoods natural area also contains
high-quality examples of Mesic Pine Savanna (Coastal Plain Subtype) and Wet Loamy Pine Savanna
natural communities.
The occurrence record for Coppery Emerald has very low accuracy due to the lack of site-specific
locational information associated with the record, but this species has been documented in Johnston
County.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal Project, Selma, Johnston County, North Carolina
January 26, 2015
Page 2
In addition, the Selma Heath Bluffs natural area is located ca. 0.8 miles north of the project area, along
the banks of the Neuse River. This natural area contains high-quality example of a Piedmont/Coastal
Plain Heath Bluff natural community.
Please note that although the NCNHP database may not show records for rare species within the
proposed project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. Occurrences of rare species documented within one mile of the
proposed project area, especially occurrences in close proximity to a project area, increase the
likelihood that these species may be present within the project area if suitable habitat exists. The use of
Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if
the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species.
To view the locations of natural areas and conservation/managed areas, you may access our new
Natural Heritage Data Explorer via our website (www.ncnhp.org) under Data Services. Feel free to
contact me at 919-707-8629 or [e-mail] if you have questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
Allison Schwarz Weakley, Conservation Planner
NC Natural Heritage Program

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
June 30, 2015
Erin Brosnan
GEI Consultants, Inc.
110 Walt Whiteman Road, Suite 204
Huntington Station, NY 11746
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal Project, 1501 West Oak Street, Selma, Johnston County, ER 15-1355
Dear Ms. Brosnan:
Thank you for your letter of June 3, 2015, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewkncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
U
jfKRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

STORMWATER BMP CALCULATIONS
FoR
ECO -ENERGY - SELMA7 NC
INTERMODAL FACILITY
FOR
ece-enemy
pubW L SOLt1ilON5
ECO -ENERGY, LLC
61 00 TOWER CIRCLE, SUITE 500
FRANKLIN, TN 37067
PAN"
iw
rr
ri
Chambers Engineering, PA
129 North First Sl., Albemarle, NC 28001 704-984-6427
NCBELS Firm License No. C-1660
G/N2G.0 �'Q
NSS o %,
rrrr�eeuppNi

Table of Contents
Narrative............................................................................................ 1
Project Area Rainfall Data....................................................................... 2
Hydraflow Rainfall Report .....................
Hydraflow OF Curves - Smithfield, NC
2
7
Calculations for Structural BMPs............................................................... 8
SandFilter "A".................................................................
SandFilter "B".................................................................
Stormwater Wetland - Determination of Areas & Plantings
Stormwater Wetland - Flow Hydrographs ..........................
.8
10
12
13
Appendix
"A"
- Vicinity Map...................................................................19
Appendix
"B"
- USGS Topographic Map......................................................20
Appendix
"C"
- Soils Map.......................................................................21
Appendix
"D"
- Stormwater Map - Post Construction....................................22

Prosect Stormwater Narrative
The Eco -Energy — Selma NC project involves the construction of an intermodal facility to facilitate the
transmission of liquid ethanol from railroad traffic to offsite bulk storage tanks via a transfer pipeline.
The project site is located in the Selma Township of Johnston County on a 58.38 acre site zoned for
industrial use. The site consists of gently rolling to rolling slopes draining to an unnamed tributary of the
Neuse River. Limited off-site drainage is received primarily from Buffalo Road but bypasses BMP
measures. The existing site does not include any impervious areas.
The project will disturb 8.60 acres during the construction phase and will result in a total built upon area
post -construction to 4.47 acres. For the purposes of this project, stormwater BMP's have been
implemented to satisfy the 401/404 Water Quality requirements due to the existing wetlands on-site.
These BMP's will permit the addition of 1.46 acres of new impervious area to be added without
requiring the implementation of further stormwater controls. The BMP's for this site do not receive any
additional offsite flow.
Structural BMP's include a wetland and sand filter system treating flows from 4.00 acres and 0.55 acres,
respectively. The wetland is located south of the railyard. The sand filter system is located north of the
entrance driveway. The measures have been designed to meet or exceed the NC DENR requirements for
discharge into the wetland.

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
Hyd. No. 2
Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 15.30 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.93 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 35,601 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.920 ac
Curve number
= 98*
Basin Slope
= 0.0%
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 2.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
" Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.920 x 60) + (1.400 x 98)] / 3.920
Parcel
1 - Post Const.
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
Q (cfs)
18.00
18.00
15.00
15.00
12.00
12.00
9.00
9.00
6.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
18.0 20.0
Hyd No. 2
Time
(hrs)
2

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Hyd. No. 2
Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume
Drainage area = 3.920 ac Curve number
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc)
Total precip. = 3.50 in Distribution
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
= 18.55 cfs
= 11.93 hrs
= 43,576 cuft
= 98*
= 0 ft
= 5.00 min
= Type II
= 484
" Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.920 x 60) + (1.400 x 98)] / 3.920
Parcel
Q (cfs)
1 - Post Const.
Hyd. No. 2 -- 2 Year
Q (cfs)
21.00
21.00
18.00
18.00
15.00
15.00
12.00
12.00
9.00
9.00
6.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Hyd No. 2
18.0 20.0
Time
3.00
0.00
(hrs)
3

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Hyd. No. 2
Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume
Drainage area = 3.920 ac Curve number
Basin Slope = 0.0% Hydraulic length
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc)
Total precip. = 5.10 in Distribution
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
= 27.18 cfs
= 11.93 hrs
= 64,874 cuft
= 98*
= 0 ft
= 5.00 min
= Type II
= 484
* Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.920 x 60) + (1.400 x 98)] / 3.920
Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year
Q (cfs)
28.00
28.00
24.00
24.00
20.00
20.00
16.00
16.00
12.00
12.00
8.00
8.00
4.00
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0
Hyd No. 2
6.0 8.0
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
18.0 20.0
Time
4.00
0.00
(hrs)
4

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
Hyd. No. 2
Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 36.31 cfs
Storm frequency
= 50 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.93 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 87,526 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.920 ac
Curve number
= 98*
Basin Slope
= 0.0%
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.80 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
" Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.920 x 60) + (1.400 x 98)] / 3.920
Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 -- 50 Year Q (cfs)
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs)
5

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
Hyd. No. 2
Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 40.61 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.93 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 98,190 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.920 ac
Curve number
= 98*
Basin Slope
= 0.0%
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 7.60 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
" Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.920 x 60) + (1.400 x 98)] / 3.920
Parcel
1 - Post Const.
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year
Q (cfs)
50.00
50.00
40.00
40.00
30.00
30.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
0.00 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs)
6

Hydraflow OF Curves
OF file: Selma Rainfall.IDF
Intensity (in/hr)
14.00 14.00 100 -Yr
12.00 12.00
10.00 10.00 25 -Yr
8.00 8.00 10 -Yr
NL
6.00 6.00 5 -Yr
4.00 - 4.00 2 -Yr
2.00 2.00
0.00 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (min)
Hydrographs
7

Stormwater BMP Calculations
Intermodal Facility
Eco -Energy, Selma, NC
SAND FILTER "A"
Total Area Draining to Pond/ Sand Filter 0.37 AC
Percentage Impervious 100.00 %
Total Proposed Impervious Surface Area Draining to Pond 0.37 * AC
WQv= A
(sq ft)*Rd (ft)
WQV=
1,343.10
ft3
WQVAdj=
1,343.10
X.75
WQVAdj=
1,007.33
ft'
Rv =
0.95
1,007
Rd=
1.00
inch
Find hMaxFilter WQVAdj / (As +Af)
Assume As= 244 SF
Assume Af= 244 SF
hMaxFilter 2.06 ft
hA= 1.03
Determine Head/ Area Combinations
hMaxFilter (ft)
WQVAdj (cf)
As + Af (sf)
0.5
1,007
2,015
1
1,007
1,007
1.5
1,007
672
2
1,007
504
2.5
1,007
403
3
1,007
336
3.5
1,007
288
4
1,007
252
4.5
1,007
224
Find As= (240*Rv*Ap)*Rp
Min. As= 84 SF
Verify Volume:
()(
V Cf = s+ f)MaxFilter Provided
V (cf)= 1007.325 >/= 1,007.33 Cf
Sand Filter Medium = 15'L x 3.25'W x 1.5'D (Per Box, 5 Boxes Total)
Area Provided 244 SF
Determine Underdrain and Overflow System
Minimum Underdrain Size = 4" Dia.
Flow Rate Through Soil Media @ 3.5 Ft per Day: _ (As * 3.5)/ 86,400 s/d
8

Stormwater BMP Calculations
Intermodal Facility
Eco -Energy, Selma, NC
Area: 244.00 SF
Infiltration Rate 3.50 Ft/ Day
Flow Rate = 0.01 cfs
Safety Factor = 10
Adjusted Flow Rate: 10 (0.01 cfs) = 0.1 cfs.
Diameter of Pipe (D) = 16 [ (Q*n) / (S110.5) ]11(3/8)
Q= 0.10 cfs
n= 0.011
S= 0.005 ft/ft
D= 4.1 Inch
4.1" -- 4"; Use f4" pipes in underdrain.
Anti -Floatation Calculations:
ANTI -FLOATATION BLOCK
STRUCTURE NAME
VOLUME OF
WATER DISPL.
WEIGHT OF WATER
Vo*62.4 Ib/cf (lbs)
SAFETY FACTOR
Weight* 1.1 (lbs)
WEIGHT OF FILTER
THEREFORE USE
FOOTING DIMENSIONS
Vol of
Concrete (150
Vol of Sand
Total
(cu ft. PER UNIT)
(150 lbs/cu ft)
Weight
lbs/cu :L.
Filter weight xcee sSand
Filter A
640.00
39936.00
43930
312.00
73.00
57750
Buoyancy Force + Safety
Factor, No Footing
A
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
Required
Weight of this filter and sand medium exceed weight of displaced water including safety factor for depth of buried portion of
filter; no anti -floatation block required.
i

Stormwater BMP Calculations
Intermodal Facility
Eco -Energy, Selma, NC
SAND FILTER "B"
Total Area Draining to Pond/ Sand Filter 0.17 AC
Percentage Impervious 100.00 %
Total Proposed Impervious Surface Area Draining to Pond 0.17 * AC
WQv= A (sq ft)*Rd (ft)
WQv=
617.10 ft'
WQvAdj=
617.10 X.75
WQvAdj=
462.83 ft'
Rv =
0.95
Rd=
1.00 inch
Find hMaxFiiter WQVAdj / (As +Af)
Assume As= 195 SF
Assume Af= 195 SF
hMaxFiiter 1.19 ft
hA= 0.59
Determine Head/ Area Combinations
hMaxFiiter (ft)
WQvAdj (Cf)
As + Af (sf)
0.5
463
926
1
463
463
1.5
463
309
2
463
231
2.5
463
185
3
463
154
3.5
463
132
4
463
116
4.5
463
103
Find As= (240*Rv*Ap)*Rp
Min. As= 39 SF
Verify Volume:
( )
V cf = As+Af hMaxFiiter Provided
V (cf)= 780 >/= 462.83 Cf
Sand Filter Medium = 15' L x 3.25'W x 1.5'D (Per Box, 4 Boxes Total)
Area Provided 195 SF
Determine Underdrain and Overflow System
Minimum Underdrain Size = 4" Dia.
Flow Rate Through Soil Media @ 3.5 Ft per Day: _ (As * 3.5)/ 86,400 s/d
I

Stormwater BMP Calculations
Intermodal Facility
Eco -Energy, Selma, NC
Area: 195.00 SF
Infiltration Rate 3.50 Ft/ Day
Flow Rate = 0.01 cfs
Safety Factor = 10
Adjusted Flow Rate: 10 (0.01 cfs) = 0.1 cfs.
Diameter of Pipe (D) = 16 [ (Q*n) / (S110.5) ]11(3/8)
Q= 0.10 cfs
n= 0.011
S= 0.005 ft/ft
D= 4.1 Inch
4.1" -- 4"; Use f4" pipes in underdrain.
Anti -Floatation Calculations:
ANTI -FLOATATION BLOCK
STRUCTURE NAME
VOLUME OF
WATER DISPL.
WEIGHT OF WATER
Vo*62.4 Ib/cf (lbs)
SAFETY FACTOR
Weight* 1.1 (Ibs)
WEIGHT OF FILTER
THEREFORE USE
FOOTING DIMENSIONS
Vol of
Concrete (150
Vol of Sand
Total
(cu ft. PER UNIT)
(150 Ibs/cu ft)
Weight
lbs/cu ft
Finer weight xcee s
Sand Filter A
640.00
39936.00
43930
312.00
73.00
57750
Buoyancy Force + Safety
Factor, No Footing
A
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
Required
Weight of this filter and sand medium exceed weight of displaced water including safety factor for depth of buried portion of
filter; no anti -floatation block required.
I

Stormwater BMP Calculations
Intermodal Facility
Eco -Energy, Selma, NC
Stormwater Wetland - Rail Yard
Total Area Draining to Wetland 4.00 AC
Percentage Impervious 100.00 %
Total Proposed Impervious Surface Area Draining to Wetland 4.00 * AC
WQv= A (sq ft)*Rd (ft)
WQv= 14,520.00 ft'
Prop. Depth= 1.00 ft
Surface Area= 14,520.00 Sf
Volume Provided = 14,545 cf
Area Provided @ Perm. Pool = 18,900 sf 100%
Area Provided @ WQV Elev = 10,190 sf
Shallow Land Area =
8,700 sf
46%
Shallow Water Area =
5,360 sf
28%
Total Deep Pool Area (Non Forebay)=
3,320 sf
18%
Forebay Pool Area =
1,510 sf
8%
Total
100%
*Additional Deep Pool area provided to protect the full length of the wetland during dry periods.
PLANT SCHEDULE:
Shallow Water: 50 Plants per 200 SF
Total Plantings = (A/200)*50
Total Plantings = 0 Each
Plants per Species = (Total Plantings / 5 Species)
Plants per Species = 0 Each (Soft Rush, Lizards Tail, Blue Flag, Waterpod, Giant Cutgrass
Shallow Land: 50 Plants per 200 SF
Total Plantings = (A/200)*50
Total Plantings = 2175 Each
Plants per Species = (Total Plantings / 5 Species)
Plants per Species = 435 Each (Swamp Milkweed, Quil Sedge, Cardinal Flower, Narrow
Plumegrass, Sweet Pepperbush)
a

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3 Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
Pond No. 1 - Shallow Land Volume
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 151.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 151.00 10,200 0 0
1.00 152.00 18,902 14,328 14,328
1.50 152.50 19,950 9,711 24,039
2.00 153.00 22,064 10,498 34,537
Culvert / Orifice Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
Rise (in)
= 15.00
3.00
Inactive
0.00
Span (in)
= 15.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
1
1
0
Invert EI. (ft)
= 150.00
151.00
0.00
0.00
Length (ft)
= 65.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Slope (%)
= 0.08
0.00
0.00
n/a
N -Value
= .013
.013
.013
n/a
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Multi -Stage
= n/a
No
No
No
Stage (ft)
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0 00
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Crest Len (ft)
= 16.00
20.00
Inactive
Inactive
Crest EI. (ft)
= 152.00
152.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
Weir Type
= 1
Broad
---
---
Multi-Stage
= Yes
No
No
No
Exfil.(in/hr) = 0.000 (by Contour)
TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
Stage / Discharge
0.00 8.00 16.00 24.00 32.00 40.00 48.00 56.00 64.00 72.00
Total Q
13
Elev (ft)
153.00
152.80
152.60
152.40
152.20
152.00
151.80
151.60
151.40
151.20
151.00
80.00
Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
Hyd. No. 3
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 8.886 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.03 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 35,415 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Max. Elevation
= 152.18 ft
Reservoir name
= Shallow Land Volume
Max. Storage
= 17,675 cuft
Storage Indication method used
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
18.00 18.00
15.00 15.00
12.00 12.00
9.00 9.00
6.00 6.00
3.00 3.00
0.00 0.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 011111 Total storage used = 17,675 cuft Time (hrs)
14

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
Hyd. No. 3
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 13.79 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 43,382 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Max. Elevation
= 152.25 ft
Reservoir name
= Shallow Land Volume
Max. Storage
= 19,094 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 2 Year Q (cfs)
21.00 21.00
18.00 18.00
15.00 15.00
12.00 12.00
9.00 9.00
6.00 6.00
3.00 3.00
0.00 0.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 1111111 Total storage used = 19,094 cuft Time (hrs)
15

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
Hyd. No. 3
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 22.07 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 64,667 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Max. Elevation
= 152.39 ft
Reservoir name
= Shallow Land Volume
Max. Storage
= 21,741 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
28.00 28.00
24.00 24.00
20.00 20.00
16.00 16.00
12.00 12.00
8.00 8.00
4.00 4.00
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 1111111 Total storage used = 21,741 cuft Time (hrs)
16

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Hyd. No. 3
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
Storm frequency
= 50 yrs
Time to peak
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Max. Elevation
Reservoir name
= Shallow Land Volume
Max. Storage
Storage Indication method used.
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
= 29.98 cfs
= 12.00 hrs
= 87,319 cuft
= 152.51 ft
= 23,963 cuft
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 50 Year Q (cfs)
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 1111111 Total storage used = 23,963 cuft Time (hrs)
17

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Saturday, 06 / 20 / 2015
Hyd. No. 3
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 33.60 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 97,983 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Parcel 1 - Post Const.
Max. Elevation
= 152.55 ft
Reservoir name
= Shallow Land Volume
Max. Storage
= 24,973 cuft
Storage Indication method used
Parcel 1 - Wet Basin
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Year Q (cfs)
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 1111111 Total storage used = 24,973 cuft Time (hrs)
18

19

20

NOTE: INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP
PROVIDED BY USGS WEB SOIL SURVEY.
ACCURACY OF OF SOILS INFORMATION
SHALL BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE AND
FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
00P� O
'� � PROPOSED SAND FILTERS ��
�i.�-
a
Go -
Ra
Ra
PROPOSED
STORM WATER WETLAND
Ty
R
DRAWN BY: AGD
DATE: 6/15 Chambers E ineering, PA
DWG. NO.: SOIL SURVEY.DWG 129 North First St., Albemarle, NC 28001 704-984-6427
NCBELS Firm License No. C-1660
--T
1" = 3000' ECO ENERGY - SELMA, NC SOILS MAP APPENDIX C
Johnston County, North Carolina (NC101)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CoC Cowarts loamy sand, 6 to 10 1.4 1.7%
percent slopes
GoA Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 16.4 19.8%
percent slopes
NOA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 7.3 8.8%
percent slopes
NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 28.2 33.9%
percent slopes
Ra Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 11.0 13.2
percent slopes
Ud Udorthents, loamy 6.9 8.3%
Wt Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent 11.9 14.3
slopes, frequently flooded
Totals for Area of Intere
21
st
83.2
100.0%
NOTE: INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP
PROVIDED BY USGS WEB SOIL SURVEY.
ACCURACY OF OF SOILS INFORMATION
SHALL BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE AND
FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
00P� O
'� � PROPOSED SAND FILTERS ��
�i.�-
a
Go -
Ra
Ra
PROPOSED
STORM WATER WETLAND
Ty
R
DRAWN BY: AGD
DATE: 6/15 Chambers E ineering, PA
DWG. NO.: SOIL SURVEY.DWG 129 North First St., Albemarle, NC 28001 704-984-6427
NCBELS Firm License No. C-1660
--T
1" = 3000' ECO ENERGY - SELMA, NC SOILS MAP APPENDIX C
Johnston County, North Carolina (NC101)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CoC Cowarts loamy sand, 6 to 10 1.4 1.7%
percent slopes
GoA Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 16.4 19.8%
percent slopes
NOA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 7.3 8.8%
percent slopes
NoB Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 28.2 33.9%
percent slopes
Ra Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 11.0 13.2
percent slopes
Ud Udorthents, loamy 6.9 8.3%
Wt Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent 11.9 14.3
slopes, frequently flooded
Totals for Area of Intere
21

22
OPS ��• � � �� \ V � � A\\ \
101
/
SAND FILTER "B" \ \ \
SAND "A"
i WQV ADJUST: 463 CF
FILTER
WQV ADJUST: 1,007 CF
DRAINAGE AREA FOR
\ \ \
SAND FILTER "A" \
\
,�
AREA: 0.17 AC \
DRAINAGE FOR
/ SAND FILTER "A"
100% IMPERVIOUS \ /
\ \
\�
00, AREA: 0.37 AC
\
100% IMPERVIOUS
/ EX. JURI DICTIONAL \
OFFICE BUILDING &f
PARKING
\ \
�\\ WETLAND \ \
G:
DRAINAGE AREA FOR
STORMWATER WETLAND _
�-
AREA: 4.00 AC / j
_ ` \ 100% IMPERVIOUS
\ \
EX. JURISD ION ��\ \��\ IN
WETLAAN,
"
STORMWATER WETLAND:
WQV VOLUME: 14,520 CF
\
l�
DRAWN BY: AGD
�_
Chambers E ineering, PA
DATE: 6/15
DWG. NO.: STORMWATER MAPS.DWG
129 North First St., Albemarle, NC 28001 704-984-6427
NCBELS Firm License No. C-1660
1" = 200'
ECO ENERGY - SELMA, NC
STORMWATER MAP - POST CONSTRUCTION
APPENDIX D
22

10
1C
1
WETLAND MAINT. SCHEDULE
BMP element:
Potential roblem:
How to remediate the rnblem:
Entire SMP
Trash/ debris is resent.
Remove the trash/debris
Perimeter of wetland
Areas of bare soil and/or
Regrade the soil if necessary to
areas (con't)
erosive gullies have formed.
remove the gully, and then plant a
"B", 15-30 PLANTINGS, 4"
health.
ground cover and water until it is
f
"l
Sediment has accumulated
established. Provide lime and a
SHALLOW LAND SPECIES
"C',
and reduced the depth to 75%
one-time fertilizer application.
SHALLOW LAND SPECIES
Vegetation is too short or too
Maintain vegetation at an
ELEV=149.50'
long .
appropriate hei ht.
Inlet device: pipe or
The pipe is clogged (if
Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
swale
applicable).
sediment offsite.
Embankment
The pipe is cracked or
Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged (if
remove the tree.
z
An annual inspection by
Make all needed repairs.
-applicable).
Erosion is occurring in the
Regrade the swale if necessary to
swale (if applicable).
smooth it over and provide erosion
-
needs repair.
control devices such as reinforced
l
Evidence of muskrat or
turf matting or riprap to avoid
beaver activity is present.
future problems with erosion.
Forebay
Sediment has accumulated in
Search for the source of the
�
the forebay to a depth that
sediment and remedy the problem if
C
inhibits the forebay from
possible. Remove the sediment and
SLOPE SURFACE TO 6" BELOW
functioning well-
dispose of it in a location where it
PLACED AT BOTTOM OF WATER
ORIFICE IN FRONT OF RISER.
will not cause impacts to streams or
BELOW NORMAL POOL FOR
the BMP.
Erosion has occurred.
Provide additional erosion
Clean out the outlet device. Dispose
J
12' THK, WI 10110 6X6 WWM
protection such as reinforced turf
The outlet device is dama ed
matting; or riprap if needed to
Receiving water
Erosion or other signs of
revent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
outlet.
hand. If a pesticide is used, wipe it
RISER STRUCTURE DETAIL
on the plants rather than spraying.
Deep pool, shallow
Algal growth covers over
Consult a professional to remove
water and shallow land
50% of the deep pool and
and control the algal growth.
areas
shallow rater areas.
Colo-
¢
Cattails, phragnnites or other
Remove invasives by physical
invasive plants cover 50% of
removal or by wiping them with
Y
the deep pool and shallow
pesticide (do not spray) - consult a
0
water areas.professional.
Shallow land remains flooded
Unclog the outlet device
u3
more than 5 days after a
immediately.
storm event.
Plants are dead, diseased or
Determine the source of the
dying.
problem: soils, hydrology, disease,
etc. Remedy the problem and
replace plants. Provide a one-time
fertilizer application to establish the
ground cover if necessary.
BMP element:
Potentialproblem-
How to remediate the probleur.
Deep pool, shallow
Best professional practices
Prune according to gest professional
water and shallow land
show that pruning is needed
practices.
areas (con't)
to maintain optimal plant
#+ EDGE OF :WCPIER
"B", 15-30 PLANTINGS, 4"
health.
CONTAINER SIZE, 1.5' O.C.
f
"l
Sediment has accumulated
Search for the source of the
SHALLOW LAND SPECIES
"C',
and reduced the depth to 75%
sediment and remedy the problem if
SHALLOW LAND SPECIES
of the original design depth
possible, Remove the sediment and
ELEV=149.50'
of the deep pools.
dispose of it in a location where it
GENERIC PLAINT GROUPING
DETAIL
will not cause impacts to streams or
4 en
F
the BMP.
Embankment
A tree has started to grow on
Consult a dam safety specialist to
the embankment.
remove the tree.
z
An annual inspection by
Make all needed repairs.
appropriate professional
shows that the embankment
0
-
needs repair.
l
Evidence of muskrat or
Consult a professional to remove
beaver activity is present.
muskrats or beavers.
Micropool
Sediment has accumulated
Search for the source of the
�
and reduced the depth to 75%
sediment and remedy the problem if
C
of the original design depth.
possible_ Remove the sediment and
SLOPE SURFACE TO 6" BELOW
8" PVC CAP W13" DIA. ORIFICE
dispose of it in a location where it
PLACED AT BOTTOM OF WATER
ORIFICE IN FRONT OF RISER.
will not cause impacts to streams or
BELOW NORMAL POOL FOR
the BMP -
OUTLET STRUCMRE
Clogging has occurred.
Clean out the outlet device. Dispose
J
12' THK, WI 10110 6X6 WWM
of the sediment off-site.
The outlet device is dama ed
Repair or re lace the outlet device.
Receiving water
Erosion or other signs of
Contact the NC Division of Water
damage have occurred at the
Quality 401 Oversight Unit at 919 -
outlet.
733-1786.
2
3
GENERAL WETLAND CONSTRUCTION NOTE: -
1. THE WETLAND SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 14 DAYS OF
CONSTRUCTION. CONSfDER CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING SO THAT
..........
VEGETATION CAN BE PLANTED AND THE WETLAND BROUGHT ONLINE
WITHIN 14 DAYS. PLANTS MAY NEED TO BE WATERED DURING THIS w.
3.e.
TIME. IF THE DEVICE IS NOT BROUGHT ONLINE THE SAME DAY.
-------
2. INLET AND OUTLET CHANNELS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SCOUR����-
I
THAT MAY OCCUR DURING PERIODS OF HIGH FLOW USING STANDARD-------�`��'
EROSION CONTROL METHODS.
3. THE STORMWATER WETLAND SHALL BE STAKED AT THE ONSET OF
THE PLANTING SEASON, WATER DEPTHS IN THE WETLAND SHOULD
BE MEASURED TO CONFIRM THE ORIGINAL PLANTING ZONES.
PLANTINGS SHALL BE ADJUSTED AS REQUIRED TO REFLECT ANY
ALTERED GRADES WITH THE CORRECT PLANTINGS. SURVEYED -- --
PLANTING ZONES SHALL BE MARKED ON AN AS -BUILT RECORD ��
DRAWING AND LOCATED IN THE FIELD USING STAKES OR FLAGS. Iw
FINISHED GRADE
4" MIN. TOPSOIL, ALL AREAS
12" CLAY LINER WITH
PLASTICITY RANGE OF 20-25
AND COMPACTED TO 95%
STD -PROCTOR
"--EXISTING UNDISTURBED SOIL
NOTES:
1. SYNTHETIC LINER MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF CLAY LINER AS PER MANUFACTURER'S
REQS, GC SHALL PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
2. NO LINER REQUIRED IF SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE (SHWT) IS VARIED TO BE
WITHIN 6" (ABOVE OR BELOW) 151.0'. A REQUEST TO OMIT LINER SHALL INCLUDE
SOIL AND SHWT REPORT SEALED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
CLAY LINER DETAIL
NTS
1
SHALLOW WATER SPECIES
SHALLOW WATER SPECIES
"A". 15--30 PLANTINGS, 4" "B", 15-30 PLANTINGS. 4"
CONTAINER SIZE, 1.5' O.C. CONTAINER SIZE, 1.5' O.C.
7
_ SHALLOW WATER SID
SHALLOW WATER SPECIES
4 pa 0{}
a41 }
"C". 15-30 PLANTINGS, 4'
#asaa<
l44A4a4Aa°o D'.
a�
eaa9"O}t{Ae40
oo
CON TAINER SIZE, 1.5' O.C.
t{}y {} 4 4 a o 0 o p p 4 1 }`
SHALLOW LAND SPECIES
#+ EDGE OF :WCPIER
"B", 15-30 PLANTINGS, 4"
114" GALVANIZED ANGLE FRAME. MORTAR FRAME
CONTAINER SIZE, 1.5' O.C.
f
"l
BLUE FLAG
IRIS WRGINICA268
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
Pi '�' `'c•'.,�'
*3' _
SHALLOW LAND SPECIES
"C',
- --
SHALLOW LAN[) SIDE
15-30 PLANTINGS, 4"
CONTAINER SIZE, 1.5' O.C.
SHALLOW LAND SPECIES
268
"A", 15-30 PLANTINGS, 4"
ELEV=149.50'
CONTAINER SITE, 1,5' G.C.
1
GENERIC PLAINT GROUPING
DETAIL
w
C3
W
Z
TOP OF RISER (WEIR)
-4' INSIDE ELEV: 152.0'
TOR VIEW
OPEN TOP WI VARMINT SCREEN 4'X 4' PRECAST RISER UNIT,
FOR ANTI -SIPHON CONTROL OPEN TOP W1 FRAME & GRATE
TOP = 152.0'
s" SCH 80 PITC WATER
t65'- 15" RCP "O-RING NTS
TYPE
GASKETED JOINT" AT 0,77%
i
INV. UP: 149.50
268
INV. DOWN: 149.00'
TT
ALUMINUM BAR GRATING 1"X118" BEARING BARS.
LIZARDS TAIL
S'AURURU.S CERNUUS
FASTEN WITH J -CLIPS ATTACHED TO A 1 114'"x1 1/4"x1
4'X 4' PRECAST RISER UNIT
114" GALVANIZED ANGLE FRAME. MORTAR FRAME
15" RCP BEYOND IN
TO TOP OF OUTLET STRUCTURE, W 2' SQUARE
BLUE FLAG
IRIS WRGINICA268
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
CESS HATCH AND LOCK
w
C3
W
Z
TOP OF RISER (WEIR)
-4' INSIDE ELEV: 152.0'
TOR VIEW
OPEN TOP WI VARMINT SCREEN 4'X 4' PRECAST RISER UNIT,
FOR ANTI -SIPHON CONTROL OPEN TOP W1 FRAME & GRATE
TOP = 152.0'
s" SCH 80 PITC WATER
KEY
TYPE
QUANTITY
i
QUALITY CONTROL DEVICE
268
�}
TT
0BEDA F LOWER
1DBEUA CARL7INALIS
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
LIZARDS TAIL
S'AURURU.S CERNUUS
w
C3
W
Z
TOP OF RISER (WEIR)
-4' INSIDE ELEV: 152.0'
TOR VIEW
OPEN TOP WI VARMINT SCREEN 4'X 4' PRECAST RISER UNIT,
FOR ANTI -SIPHON CONTROL OPEN TOP W1 FRAME & GRATE
TOP = 152.0'
s" SCH 80 PITC WATER
KEY
TYPE
QUANTITY
i
QUALITY CONTROL DEVICE
268
QUILL SEDGE
CAREX TENERA435
4 CU«IN. CONTAINER, 1«5O.C.
125
0BEDA F LOWER
1DBEUA CARL7INALIS
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
LIZARDS TAIL
S'AURURU.S CERNUUS
268
NARROW PLUMEGRASS
SACCHARUM BALOWN11
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
15" RCP BEYOND IN
f
t s;r
BLUE FLAG
IRIS WRGINICA268
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
>
_
REAR OF RISER BOX
268
GIANT CUTGRASS
ZMANIOPSIS MILIACEA
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER. 1.5' O.C.
268
ELEV=149.50'
6" INV. = 151.00INV
-
��-
LU Ln
r-
n
4 en
F
{]
Cr p
NORMAL POOL LEVEL = 151,00
z
:TI,-�
_�
f
0
-
l
i=
r �
f
�
BOTTOM= 149.5'
C
w 0
SLOPE SURFACE TO 6" BELOW
8" PVC CAP W13" DIA. ORIFICE
WATER QUALITY CONTROL
PLACED AT BOTTOM OF WATER
ORIFICE IN FRONT OF RISER.
QUALITY CONTROL DEVICE, 6"
BELOW NORMAL POOL FOR
FRONT ELEVATIOhJ
TRASH PROTECTION,
w
J
CONCRETE BASE - 5'X,5'
J
12' THK, WI 10110 6X6 WWM
CO
W
W- 0
NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS T
❑w
zQ
ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR
TO
¢
FABRICATION OF OUTLET STRUCTURE
RISER STRUCTURE DETAIL
NTS
r�'
5
f
1,540 SF FOREBAY DEEP I
POOL (NON -VEGETATED)
14fl
fl 50
SHALLOW WATER (5,360 SF)
KEY
TYPE
QUANTITY
i
SOFT RUSH
lUiVCUS EFFUSUS VAR. PYLAD
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
268
QUILL SEDGE
CAREX TENERA435
4 CU«IN. CONTAINER, 1«5O.C.
125
0BEDA F LOWER
1DBEUA CARL7INALIS
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
LIZARDS TAIL
S'AURURU.S CERNUUS
268
NARROW PLUMEGRASS
SACCHARUM BALOWN11
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
SWEET PEPPERBUSH
C£ETHRA ALNIFOLIA
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
f
t s;r
BLUE FLAG
IRIS WRGINICA268
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
>
_
WATERPOD
HYDROLEA OUAORIVAL OS
4 CU«IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' Q.C.
268
GIANT CUTGRASS
ZMANIOPSIS MILIACEA
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER. 1.5' O.C.
268
0-1-
LD
CI_ 900 SF DEEP POOL
(VEGETATED)
30 0 30 60 90
scale: 1 = 30
STORMWATER WETLAND - PLAN VIEW
8,700 SF SHALLOW LAND
"HIGH MARSH" (VEGETATED) 5,360 SF SHALLOW WATER
"LOW MARSH" (VEGETATED)
Co 9 d
isles
! 920 SF DEEP POOL
r a (VEGETATED)
4" MIN. TOP SOIL
66 (TYP, ALL AREAS)
4-1
12" IMPERVIOUS CLAY
LINER (OR APPROVED
EQUAL) REF. DETAIL
SHALLOW LAND (8,700 SF)
KEY
TYPE
QUANTITY
i
SWAMP MILKWEED
ASCLEPIAS INCARNATA
4 CLIAN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C,
435
QUILL SEDGE
CAREX TENERA435
4 CU«IN. CONTAINER, 1«5O.C.
125
0BEDA F LOWER
1DBEUA CARL7INALIS
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
435
Q
LU
NARROW PLUMEGRASS
SACCHARUM BALOWN11
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
435
SWEET PEPPERBUSH
C£ETHRA ALNIFOLIA
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
435
Q
860 SF DEEP POOL
(VEGETATED)
0
O
CL
in CL
30 O 30 5a
Harizzcrtcl 5ccta: 1 = 30'
STORMWATER
STORMWATER
90 30
WETLAND
O 30
'✓artfcal Sccla:
- PROFILE
SO 90
1 -3-
VIEW
i
DUCKWEED
LEMNA SPRa
FLOATING, EVENLY DJSTRIBUTEO
BETWEEN EACH POOL.
15
SOUARESTEM SPIKERUSH
ELEOCHARIS QUAORANGULATA
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
DEEP POOL (2,680 SF)
KEY
TYPE
QUANTITY
i
DUCKWEED
LEMNA SPRa
FLOATING, EVENLY DJSTRIBUTEO
BETWEEN EACH POOL.
15
SOUARESTEM SPIKERUSH
ELEOCHARIS QUAORANGULATA
4 CU.IN. CONTAINER, 1.5' O.C.
125
1. SUBSTITUT60NS FOR PLANTINGS MAY BE USED
BASED ON AVAILABILITY. ALL PROPOSED
SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
2. PLANTINGS SHALL BE GROUPED IN CLUSTERS
CONTAINING 15-30 PLANTINGS OF LIKE SPECIES.
3. CLUSTERS SHALL BE ALTERNATED WITH OTHER
SPECIES WITHIN THE ZONE SO THAT NO GROUPING
OF ONE SPECIES EXCEEDS 30 PLANTINGS.
4. PLANTING SEASON SHALL BE BETWEEN APRIL 15TH
AND OCTOBER 30TH.
WETLAND PLANTING SCHEDULE
NTS
3
4
BYPASS SPILLWAY, REF.
DETAIL THIS SHEET
PRECAST OUTLET
STRUCTURE,REF
DETAIL THIS SHEET
18,900 SF WQV POOL ELEV: 1520
WQV = 14,545 CF
12190 SF PERMANENT POOL ELEV: 151.0'
640 SF DEEP POOL __/'
(NON -VEGETATED)
t65' - 15" RCP "O-RING
GASKEI-ED JOINT" AT 0.77%
NOTE:
MECHANICAL PUMPING WILL BE REQUIRED TO
REMOVE ALL WATER FROM THE PERMANENT
POOL AREA DURING MAINTENANCE WORK.
ELEV= 153.0' TOP OF DAM = 153.0°
20' BOTTOM WIDTH
3:1 SLOPE
3:1 SLOPE
TOP OF SPILLWAY= 152.0" GRASS LINING ON THE
DRM AND SPILLWAY
20' VEGETATED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY, CREST
PLACED IN CUT SECTION. LINE BOTTOM WITH
NAG S150 OR APPROVED EQUAL„ EXTEND UP
0-5' ALONG SIDES OF SPILLWAY.
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DETAIL
NTS
60
50
40
D
0
A I
I-1 r
'ti4L:HG 4Diiv'T�OY?�
ECO ENERGY
SELMA, NC
r
SEAL � A
%y• •P.P•Pr•
rr°dreea;llreryrrr�
L}
0
Z
F- ~
w
j U
LU
z
m
Q
LU
Ln
O
1-
z
>
_
1=
¢
0
U
71
z
LU Ln
r-
n
4 en
C3
{]
Cr p
z
v
0
ua
i=
n
a
w 0
❑
S E
O 1
JO
I
Z m
.B
a
w
J
J
C3
CO
W
W- 0
❑w
zQ
¢
Fz
to
r�'
m
0 M
t- z
[]
J U1
w
fel 2
z
❑ uz
0 0W
Q
Colo-
¢
Un c[
M1
Ci.
ill z
Y
41 N9T
0
cLU
u3
C;)
LU
¢
Z
O
a
+J
u7
LU
C]
r
r
SEAL � A
%y• •P.P•Pr•
rr°dreea;llreryrrr�
L}
0
Z
F- ~
w
j U
z
z
m
Q
LU
Ln
O
1-
z
>
_
1=
¢
0
U
71
z
LU Ln
r-
n
4 en
C3
{]
Cr p
v
ua
i=
❑
w 0
❑
S E
O 1
JO
I
Z m
.B
a
w
J
J
m
CO
W
W- 0
❑w
zQ
¢
Fz
U?
W .N
r�'
m
0 M
t- z
[]
J U1
w
fel 2
z
❑ uz
0 0W
Colo-
¢
Un c[
M1
Ci.
ill z
C
•6. Y
41 N9T
cLU
•C
r
SEAL � A
%y• •P.P•Pr•
rr°dreea;llreryrrr�
L}
Z
F- ~
j U
CN
LUCN
Cil U- W
J ED
Q
LU
w Q
W F
>
LU
U
0 Z 0
0 �
W �
SHEET NUMBER
CD -8

IC
N
0
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5
NOTES:
1. SAND SHALL BE CLEANED, WASHED, COURSE MASONRY SAND SUCH AS ASTM C33. PARTICLES SHALL BE LESS THAN 2MM
AVERAGE DIAMETER. FILTER BED SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 18", WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF SAND ABOVE THE
DRAINAGE PIPES OF 12"
2. STONE SHALL BE CLEAN AND WASHED, DOT #57 STONE
3. PROVIDE SAND FILTER STRUCTURE WITH WATERPROOF JOINTS. ALL INLET/OUTLET PIPE ENTRIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH
WATERPROOF SEALS.
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1. THE DRAINAGE AREA AND WET POND SHALL BE CAREFULLY MANAGED TO REDUCE THE SEDIMENT LOAD TO THE SAND
FILTER.
2. THE FOREBAY CHAMBER SHALL BE CLEANOUT WHENEVER SEDIMENT DEPTH EXCEEDS SIX INCHES.
3. SAND MEDIA SHALL BE SKIMMED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
4. THE SAND FILTER MEDIA SHALL BE REPLACED WHENEVER IT FAILS TO FUNCTION PROPERLY AFTER NORMAL MAINTENANCE.
5. THE SAND FILTER SHALL BE INSPECTED QUARTERLY AND WITHIN 24 HRS AFTER EACH STORM EVENT GREATER THAN 1.0".
6. RECORDS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SHALL BE KEPT IN A KNOWN AND SET LOCATION AND SHALL BE MADE
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
BMP element:
Potentialproblems:
How to remediate theproblem:
Entire BMF
Trash/ debris is presenL
Remove the trash/ debris.
Adjacent pavement (if
Sediment is present on the
Sweep or vacuum the sediment as
applicable)pavement
surface.
soon as possible.
Perimeter of sand filter
Areas of bare soil and/or
Regrade soil if necessary to remove
{3
erosive gullies have formed.
the gully, and then plant a ground
EL
F
cover and water until it is
established. Provide lime and a
�A}F
++TE♦+ RPr+++♦d
♦'+`FIL`ICHAMBER•
�.. .
ane -time fertilizer a2plication.
+ ♦
♦ t
Vegetation is too short or too
Maintain vegetation at an
long,
appropriate hei ht.
Flow diversion structure
The structure is clogged.
Unclog the conveyance and dispose
M N EUI}
of any sediment offsite.
Z
The structure is damaged.
Make any necessary repairs or
replace if damage is too large for
ua
repair.
Forebay or pretreatment
Sediment has accumulated to
Search for the source of the
area
a depth of greater than six
sediment and remedy the problem if
m
inches.
possible. Remove the sediment and
2 60
stabilize or dispose of it in a location
where it will not cause impacts to
d
e 1
streams or the BMP.
U,
Erosion has occurred.
Provide additional erosion
a.n
Z
W2
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
J
J
LL 0
prevent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
r�
hand. If a pesticide is used, wipe it
m
ZZ
m
on the plants rather than spraying.
Filter bed and
Water is ponding on the
Check to see if the collector system
underdrain collection
surface for more than 24
is clogged and flush if necessary. If
system
hours after a storm.
water still ponds, remove the top
U
Im [ Z
few inches of filter bed media and
C f
replace. If water still ponds, then
consult an expert.
Outlet device
Clogging has occurred.
Clean out the outlet device. Dispose
of the sediment offsite.
The outlet device is damaged
Repair or replace the outlet device.
Receiving water
Erosion or other signs of
Contact the NC Division of Water
r'7
damage have occurred at the
Quality 401 Oversight Unit at 919 -
t%7
outlet.
733-1786.
1
SAND FILTER MAINTENANCE NOTES
........... �— -
10 0 10 20 30
Scale: 1 — 10
* @1
SAND FILTERS - PLAN VIEW
15' X 7' X 4'
PRECAST CONC. BOX
6" THICK "SLIDE IN" CONC.
WEIR, CREST ELEV: 154.95'----,,
4" PVC PIPE TO OUTLET OR -
ADJACENT SAND FILTER UNIT
(3) 24" X 36" H2O DRAINAGE FRAME AND
�—GRATES OVER FOREBAY CHAMBER AREA
SAND MEDIUM, REF.__,,-' PLAN MEW
DETAIL BELOW
(3) 24" DIA, ACCESS
MH FRAME & GRATES
15' X 7' X 4' OVER FILTER CHAMBER
PRECAST CONC. BOX
(TOP: 157.8')
TRAFFIC SIDE
CURB SIDE
4" PVC PIPE TO OUTLET OR
ADJACENT SAND FILTER UNIT
BOOTED SEAL, TYP.
U
(L 4" DIA SCH 40 PERFORATED
Z z a -
PVC PIPE W/ 4 ROWS OF
PERFORATIONS (%" DIA. HOLES)
M 000
6 r N ar]
4" PVC PIPE TO OUTLET OR. 154.95• 4" PVC PIPE TO OUTLET OR
ADJACENT SAND FILTER UNIT + + + a + + + + + + + + + a + + . + , , • + a . + + + ADJACENT SAND FILTER UNIT
4 ♦ ♦ i ♦ ♦ i + • 1 ♦ + R f • i ♦ + + + + + + + + +
+
INV: 153.30 INV: 153.30'
SAND MEDIUM, 18" DEPTH (12" MIN. 4" DIA SCH 40 PERFORATED
0'+11=R PVC DRAIN AND STONE) PVC PIPE Wi 4 ROWS OF
TOP OF SAND BED: 154.95' PERFORATIONS (%" DIA. HOLES)
FILTER FABRIC OVER STONE BED
3" OF #57 WASHED STONE
ABOVE AND BESIDE PVC DRAIN
SAND FILTER UNIT DETAIL
SCALE: 1 " = 5'
2 1 3 1 4
5
0
0
s
0
,Y-enerayi
rusia�+w s;rwricr.s
ECO ENERGY
SELMA, NC
0
-� - �-
u�!
J_
}.
FOR �H ER
I_Rf =
M
J
,n
0
Z
{3
a"+'F=ps*+a+a+•♦a+a+•++��+ t'��t a a R a♦ a♦ i, y
+++
EL
F
U
+ .f +♦+♦+.+.+++ L+� 4 /_+
• +♦'
�A}F
++TE♦+ RPr+++♦d
♦'+`FIL`ICHAMBER•
�.. .
a ♦ ♦ a ♦ + a + ♦ t ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
+ ♦
♦ t
s s
SAND MEDIUM, REF.__,,-' PLAN MEW
DETAIL BELOW
(3) 24" DIA, ACCESS
MH FRAME & GRATES
15' X 7' X 4' OVER FILTER CHAMBER
PRECAST CONC. BOX
(TOP: 157.8')
TRAFFIC SIDE
CURB SIDE
4" PVC PIPE TO OUTLET OR
ADJACENT SAND FILTER UNIT
BOOTED SEAL, TYP.
U
(L 4" DIA SCH 40 PERFORATED
Z z a -
PVC PIPE W/ 4 ROWS OF
PERFORATIONS (%" DIA. HOLES)
M 000
6 r N ar]
4" PVC PIPE TO OUTLET OR. 154.95• 4" PVC PIPE TO OUTLET OR
ADJACENT SAND FILTER UNIT + + + a + + + + + + + + + a + + . + , , • + a . + + + ADJACENT SAND FILTER UNIT
4 ♦ ♦ i ♦ ♦ i + • 1 ♦ + R f • i ♦ + + + + + + + + +
+
INV: 153.30 INV: 153.30'
SAND MEDIUM, 18" DEPTH (12" MIN. 4" DIA SCH 40 PERFORATED
0'+11=R PVC DRAIN AND STONE) PVC PIPE Wi 4 ROWS OF
TOP OF SAND BED: 154.95' PERFORATIONS (%" DIA. HOLES)
FILTER FABRIC OVER STONE BED
3" OF #57 WASHED STONE
ABOVE AND BESIDE PVC DRAIN
SAND FILTER UNIT DETAIL
SCALE: 1 " = 5'
2 1 3 1 4
5
0
0
s
0
,Y-enerayi
rusia�+w s;rwricr.s
ECO ENERGY
SELMA, NC
i- SEAL T lt)
v 35661 G
T' •
. PA NS.�°v
U
0
Z
u�!
J_
w
Cc LL W
M
J
,n
0
Z
{3
Z)
Z
EL
F
U
C
ui
L
U
LOULO
�-
c
0
a-
M N EUI}
0
Z
CP
X
7
E
ua
0
m
H
2 60
d
e 1
U,
}
a.n
Z
W2
tY
J
J
LL 0
0
W
r�
0
m
ZZ
m
0
�
co
LU UJ
a'n
ai
u
p
a ¢
Lf)
vs
w
U
Im [ Z
C f
E
C
c
Y
O
r
[V
r'7
d-
Q
t%7
fis
W
i-
4
Z
0
F-
d
EY
U
Ult
W
6
Y
cq
un
to1
I`-
1
i- SEAL T lt)
v 35661 G
T' •
. PA NS.�°v
U
0
Z
u�!
J_
Z
Z
Cc LL W
M
J
,n
0
Z
{3
Z)
Z
EL
F
U
C
ui
L
U
LOULO
�-
c
a-
M N EUI}
0
1
CP
X
7
E
ua
m
2 60
0 1
e 1
U,
}
a.n
Z
W2
C�
J
J
LL 0
0
W
r�
0
m
ZZ
m
0
�
co
LU UJ
a'n
ai
u
p
a ¢
Lf)
vs
U
Im [ Z
C f
E
C
c
QI
A
s
ti
L4f4
i- SEAL T lt)
v 35661 G
T' •
. PA NS.�°v
U
Z
J_
Cc LL W
ADZ
J
W�
w
W �
{3
00
EL
SHEET NUMBER
CD -9

GEI Consultants
Geotechnical December 2, 2014
Environmental Project #1412320
Water Resources
Ecological Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
Chambers Engineering, PA
129 North First Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
RE: Ecological Investigation and Resource Delineation Report
Proposed Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal
Selma, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Chambers:
GEI Consultants Inc., P.C. (GEI) has prepared this ecological investigation and resource
delineation report on behalf of Chambers Engineering, PA (CEPA) to support planning of the
proposed Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal. The Terminal is proposed to be built on the parcel
northeast of the intersection of Buffalo Road and West Noble Street in Selma, North Carolina
("Site"). Figure 1 — Site Location Map shows the Site in relationship to the surrounding area on
the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Selma, North Carolina 7.5' topographic quadrangle.
Purpose
Eco -Energy is planning the construction of an ethanol terminal in an industrial area in Selma,
North Carolina. The proposed terminal will consist of two (2) approximately 100 feet diameter
above ground storage tanks (ASTs) for ethanol, a containment berm, truck loading and
turnaround area, and rail offload yard, and rail access. Figure 2 — Site Plan, shows the proposed
ethanol terminal structures on a recent aerial photograph.
hi order to determine possible natural resource impacts and permitting requirements, GEI
conducted a desktop resource review, preliminary site investigation and on-site natural resource
delineation. In addition, GEI initiated outreach to regulatory agencies to determine local
perspective and request general permit requirements that may apply to the proposed project.
Wetlands & Waterbodies Definitions and Regulatory Jurisdiction
Federal
Wetlands are defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances does
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions,
commonly known as hydrophytic vegetation". Wetland is a collective term for swamps, bogs,
marshes, wet meadows, and similar transition areas between open water and upland habitats.
www. Qeiconsultants.com GEI Consultants, Inc.
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 200
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
856.608.6860; fax [phone]

Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
Chambers Engineering, PA
December 2, 2014
Page 2 of 8
Waterbodies are defined by USACE and EPA as ranging from open water habitats to waterways
which have surface flowing or standing water to the extent of evidence of an ordinary high water
mark (OHWM). This includes rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, bays, and conduits such as canals or
ditches. USACE defines ordinary high water mark as a "line of the shore coincident with the
elevation contour that represents the approximate location of the line of shore established by
fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as shelving, destruction of
terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter or debris, or changes in the character of soil". Examples
of "waterbodies" include streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands.
USACE claims jurisdiction over all defined "waters of the United States". Certain activities, such
as dredging or filling, in these waters are regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (22 U.S.C.
403). Jurisdictional wetlands must have positive wetland indicators for all three environmental
parameters: hydrology, soil, and vegetation. If a jurisdictional wetland is adjacent to a
jurisdictional waterbody displaying an OHWM or other indicators of jurisdiction, that waterbody
and its adjacent wetlands are considered together as a single aquatic unit (33 CFR 328.4(c)(2)).
Exclusions from this rule may include areas such as isolated wetlands or man-made ditches/
depressions that do not connect to navigable waters or wetlands.
USACE has authority to issue preliminary jurisdictional determinations, comprehensive
jurisdictional determinations, nationwide permits, general permits, and individual permits. The
USACE jurisdictional determination establishes a line that separates USACE regulated wetland
areas and waters from upland and isolated wetland areas that are not regulated by the USACE
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Wilmington District is the USACE Regulatory
Agency responsible for North Carolina. A Jurisdictional Determination Request Form and
supporting documents are submitted in order to authorize the USACE to inspect the site.
State
North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Division of Water
Resources (DWR) defines "waters of the State" to include any stream, river, brook, swamp, lake,
sound, estuary, bay, creek, reservoir, waterway or other body or accumulation of water. Waters
of the State can be surface or underground, public or private, natural or artificial. NC DWR
determines the presence and location of waters of the State, including streams. Intermittent and
perennial streams are regulated by NC DWR. However, ephemeral streams (i.e., features that
only carry stormwater in direct response to precipitation) are typically not regulated by NC DWR.
The State defers to USACE on jurisdictional determinations of the presence and location of
wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In addition to the Federal Section 404 Permit, potential impacts jurisdictional wetlands and waters
also require a State 401 Water Quality Certification. NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
Surface Water Protection, Wetlands and Stormwater Branch issues 401 Water Quality
Certifications. Projects that impact less than 1 acre of wetland/waters and less than 150 feet of
streams are considered "Minor". Projects that impact greater or equal to 1 acre of wetland/waters
and/or 150 feet of streams are considered "Major".
If a wetland is identified as isolated, it is not regulated by USACE under Section 404; however, it
is regulated by NC DWR. NC DWQ's Surface Water Protection, Wetlands and Stormwater
Branch reviews projects that can potentially impact isolated wetlands and issues Isolated
Wetlands/ Non -404 Jurisdictional Permits for projects that propose impacts such as filling in non-

Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
Chambers Engineering, PA
December 2, 2014
Page 3 of 8
jurisdictional or isolated surface waters or wetlands. There is a State General Permit (No.
IWGP100000) for projects that impact less than or equal to 1 acre of isolated /non -404 wetlands,
less than or equal to 300 feet of isolated streams and/or less than one-third of isolated surface
waters.
North Carolina Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0233 "Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers" applies to 50 -ft
wide riparian buffers that lie directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin,
excluding wetlands. When streams are impacted by railroad crossings the following applies:
Railroad crossings that impact equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer are
exempt.
Railroad crossings that impact greater than 40 linear feet but equal to or less than 150
linear feet or one-third acre of riparian buffer are allowable with authorization from NC
DWQ.
Railroad crossings that impact greater than 150 linear feet or one-third acre of riparian
buffer are allowable with mitigation and authorization from NC DWQ.
Methodology
Desktop Analysis
Prior to conducting the preliminary Ecological Investigation field survey and field delineation,
the following public data resources were reviewed by GEI:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps
• U.S. Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) Web Soil Maps
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute Topographic Quadrangle Map
• USGS National Hydrography Dataset Map National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Viewer
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Map Viewer and online resources
• NC OneMap Data Explorer
• Selma and Johnston County online environmental resources and maps
This review assisted in the planning and execution of GEI's field surveys and supported our
determination of the potential jurisdictional status of any wetlands and waterbodies that may be
present on the Site.
Field Delineation
The field assessment was conducted at the Site based on findings of the desktop analysis. Two
trained GEI Wetland Ecologists performed the field assessment within and adjacent to the
proposed project area of impact.
The protocol for the wetland investigation was obtained from the Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Version 2.0 (November 2010).This manual was designed to provide technical guidance and
procedures for identifying and/or delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory
jurisdiction. According to the manual, identification of wetlands is based on a three -factor

Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
Chambers Engineering, PA
December 2, 2014
Page 4 of 8
approach that involves identifying positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and
wetland hydrology.
According to the USACE Manual, wetland areas must exhibit all three indicator factors to be
considered as jurisdictional wetlands:
• "The prevalent vegetation must consist of plants adapted to life in hydric soil conditions.
These species, due to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptions, can
and do persist in anaerobic soil conditions.
• Soils in wetlands must be classified as hydric or they must possess characteristics that are
associated with reducing soil conditions.
• The area must be inundated or saturated either permanently or periodically for at least 2
weeks during the growing season."
The wetland boundary was marked in the field by hanging `wetland delineation' flagging tape on
existing vegetation. Wetland flag coordinates were recorded using a GeoXH 6000 Trimble
Handheld GPS Unit. USACE Wetland Determination Forms were completed.
Findings
Desktop Analysis
Figures created from the desktop analysis can be found in Attachment 1.
The Site is located within the Neuse River Basin and the Buffalo Creek—Neuse River
subwatershed [Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC12) 030202011105]
(hqp://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/). The site is located in Johnston County, which is within the
State's Piedmont Geographic Region.
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map shows a 20.15 acre mapped freshwater
forested/shrub wetland system in the vicinity of the proposed project area (Figure 3)
(http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html). Additional forested wetland systems are
mapped to the north of West Oak Street and to the south of West Noble Street. All of these
systems are mapped as "PFOIA"; this wetland code is defined by the Cowardin et al. (1979)
classification system (http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.gax) as:
• The Palustrine (P) system includes all non -tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,
emergents, mosses or lichens and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity
due to ocean derived salts is below 0.5 ppt.
• The Forested (FO) Class is characterized by woody vegetation that is 6 meters tall or
taller.
• Subclass (1) Broad -Leaved Deciduous includes woody angiosperms (trees and shrubs)
with relatively wide, flat leaves that are shed during the cold or dry season.
• Water Regime (A) indicates a Temporary Flooded system where surface water is present
for brief periods during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below
the soil surface for most of the growing season. Plants that grow both in uplands and
wetlands may be characteristic of this water regime.

Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
Chambers Engineering, PA
December 2, 2014
Page 5 of 8
According to the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), an unnamed tributary is mapped
within the forested wetland located on the eastern portion of the Site (Figure 4). This tributary is
identified as a perennial stream, which flows from northeast to southwest. This section of stream
is part of a stream reach cataloged as NHD reachcode: 03020201001332
(http://viewer.nationalmapgov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd).
According to the USDA NRCS Soil Survey, approximately 30 percent of the Site is classified as
hydric soil (Figure 5)hqp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/gpp/WebSoilSurvey.aspx). The hydric
soil types flank the mapped stream corridor and wetland on the eastern section of the Site.
Descriptions of soil types mapped within the Site are included in Attachment 2.
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Map Viewer was unavailable during the site review
period. As a result, the NC DENR OneMap Habitat data layers were utilized as a supplemental
source of baseline information.
There are no designated NHP Natural Areas located within or adjacent to the Site. The nearest
designated Natural Area is the Selma Pine Flatwoods located approximately 0.37 miles
south/southwest of the Site. There is a Biodiversity/Wildlife Habitat Assessment Area (BWHA)
mapped over the general boundaries of the NWI forested wetland (Figure 6). This Assessment
Area is ranked with a Relative Conservation Value of 7 on a scale of 1 (moderate value) to 10
(maximum value). The BWHA dataset illustrates the locations and conservation priorities of
significant natural resources in North Carolina, and is utilized by local governments, state
agencies, regional councils of governments, funding programs, and conservation organizations to
support land use, conservation, mitigation and transportation planning and decision-making.
(http://data.nconemap. com/geoportal/catalo g/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7BE85 829D4-
4D5F-4203-BCB3-D5A6346E7BC3%7D)
According to the NC DENR, there is one NHP element occurrence (ID #33753) documented as
potentially located on or within the vicinity of the Site. This element occurrence is a rare animal
or important animal assemblage (e.g. nesting site). The last observed occurrence was before
2004. The occurrence status is historical, meaning "either the element has not been found in
recent surveys; or it has not been surveyed recently enough to be confident they are still present;
or the occurrence is thought to be destroyed". The accuracy of the occurrence mapping is rated
very low, meaning "less than 5 percent of the mapped area is occupied by the element". To
protect the occurrence, the identity of the species is not identified within the online mapping
attributes. GEI can submit an Information Request to NHP to receive additional site specific
data. The submittal would include a project description, site photos and maps. NHP response
timeline is two weeks after request submittal. (http://www.ncOp.org/web/Op/element-
occurrences)
The North Carolina Forest Service has identified and mapped the wooded areas on the project site
as priority for conserving working forest lands, priority for protecting forests and communities
from wildfire risk, and a priority Urban Forest Landscape. These are not regulatory categories;
however, they may be a consideration for planning board review.
(http://www.ncmhtd.com/NCFS/ForestActionPlanPrioiityLayers/)
Preliminary Ecological Site Investigation
On November 5 and 6, 2014, GEI conducted the preliminary site investigation to identify the
presence/absence and potential extent of regulated natural resources. Two GEI Ecologists

Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
Chambers Engineering, PA
December 2, 2014
Page 6 of 8
conducted a pedestrian survey within the proposed project area and immediate vicinity of the
southern portion of the Site. Site photographs are presented in Figure 7. Figure 8 shows the
approximate locations of natural resources identified onsite and photo locations.
Wetlands & Waterbodies
GEI verified the presence of the mapped NWI forested wetland system and NHD stream corridor
on the eastern portion of the Site. The forested wetland buffers both sides of the stream segment
from West Oak Street south to West Noble Street. To the west, the wetland system transitions to
an upland forest and managed hay fields.
Additionally, unmapped natural resources that could potentially be regulated were observed by
GEI in the forested western portion of the Site. GEI observed large, steep depressions that appear
to be connected to a man-made drainage system exiting the site to the south. Based on anecdotal
information, soil was removed from borrow pits on the Site by the industrial site located west of
Buffalo Road during its development several years ago. GEI observed positive wetland
indicators in sections of this area including: standing water, stained leaves, and facultative (FAC)
woody species. As shown on Figure 8, Water was ponded within the drainage ditch and in the
area north of the access road; however, no surface flow was observed. The onsite drainage ditch
is connected to another drainage ditch by means of a culvert pipe that runs under the existing
railroad bed and West Noble Street, which may connect to a NWI mapped wetland located south
of West Noble Street.
Evidence of historic disturbance was also observed within the upland wooded area between the
mapped wetland to the east and the drainage ditch to the west. This included dispersed mounds
of bricks, man-made brick tunnels, a large chimney relic, and remnants of foundations/structures.
Flora & Fauna
The table below lists incidental wildlife species observed onsite during GEI's investigation.
Common Name
Scientific Name
American crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American robin
Turdus migratorius
Blue jay
Cyanocitta cristata
Carolina chickadee
Poecile carolinensis
Carolina wren
Thyothorus ludovicianus
Golden -crowned kinglet
Regulus satrapa
Northern mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Red -shouldered hawk
Buteo lineatus
Red-tailed hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
Tufted titmouse
Baeolophus bicolor
White -throated sparrow
Zonotrichia albicollis
Dominant plant species observed are listed on the USACE Wetland Determination Forms
included in Attachment 3.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Prior to conducting the site investigation, GEI reviewed the listed species under USFW's
"Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species for

Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
Chambers Engineering, PA
December 2, 2014
Page 7 of 8
Johnston County, North Carolina" (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cptylist/johnston.html).
No federally listed endangered or threatened species were observed by GEI Ecologists during the
1 -day site investigation. GEI assessed the available habitats onsite to determine their potential for
supporting listed species. Based on this preliminary analysis, it appears that 3 listed species could
potentially utilize the Site. However, these species are not likely to be directly impacted by the
proposed project. The table below summarizes whether the habitats observed onsite are likely to
support federally listed endangered or threatened species. For this review, GEI assumed no direct
impacts to the stream bed during proposed construction of the railroad extension stream crossing.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal
Status
Suitable Habitat Present
(Likely to Utilize the Area)
Vertebrate
Site
Impact Area
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Endangered
No
No
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA
Yes
No
Invertebrate
Dwarf wedgemussel
Alasmidonta heterodon
Endangered
Yes
No
Tar River spinymussel
Elliptio steinstansana
Endangered
Yes
No
Vascular Plant
Michaux's sumac
Rhus michauxii
Endangered
No
No
BGPA = Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act
GEI recommends submitting an Information Request to NC NHP to receive additional site
specific data. The submittal would include a project description, site photos and maps. NHP has
a two-week response turnaround.
Wetland Delineation
On November 5, 2014, GEI conducted a field delineation of mapped wetlands within the vicinity
of the proposed project area. This delineation was focused on the section of NWI mapped
forested wetland located in the vicinity of the proposed railroad extension on the southeastern
portion of the Site. The wetland boundary was flagged with `wetland delineation' flagging tape
and flag coordinates were recorded using a GeoXH 6000 Trimble Handheld GPS Unit.
Approximate wetland delineation boundaries are identified on Figure 9. USACE Wetland
Determination Forms were completed and are included in Attachment 3.
Wetland delineation limits were based on correspondence with NC DWQ. GEI spoke with Ms.
Jennifer Burdette, 401/Buffer Coordinator prior to the site visit. DWQ recommended extending
the delineation line approximately 300 feet north and south of the proposed area of impact to
assist with the alternative analysis permitting task (i.e., evaluating impact avoidance and
minimization options). GEI delineated the western wetland boundary to approximately 550 feet
north of the existing railroad line. The western wetland boundary was disturbed and had
significant microtopography due to historic dumping/ and or land use. Remains of masonry
construction bricks and remnant structure foundations were observed in this area.
GEI also delineated the southern wetland boundary to approximately 100 feet east of the
intersection of the existing railroad and proposed extension. The eastern and northern wetland
boundaries were located a distance away from the proposed project area, and therefore were not
delineated during this effort.

Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
Chambers Engineering, PA
December 2, 2014
Page 8 of 8
Agency Coordination
Following the site visit, GEI contacted Ms. Cherri Smith, the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
401/Buffer Permit Reviewer for jurisdictional guidance on the borrow pits and drainage ditch
observed on site. Ms. Smith directed GEI to Mr. David Shaeffer from the USACE Wilmington
District Office. Mr. Shaeffer agreed to review site photos and give his opinion as to whether a
formal wetland jurisdictional determination is warranted. GEI emailed site photos for USACE
review on November 20, 2014. Mr. Shaeffer responded on November 25, 2014, that wetlands
created due to man-made disturbance in an upland area would typically be non jurisdictional,
unless it is connected to a regulated wetland or waterway. Due to the drainage ditches and
potential wetland connections observed during the site investigation, a jurisdictional
determination (JD) request would need to be submitted for an official agency response
(Attachment 4). A JD request will require the delineation of the borrow pits and drainage
ditches prior to submittal.
Agency Contact information:
Jennifer Burdette [phone]
Cherri Smith [phone]
David Shaeffer [phone]
Summary
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Based on GEI's November 5 and 6, 2014 preliminary ecological site investigation, mapped and
unmapped natural resource features occur within the proposed project area. The mapped natural
resources (i.e., wetland and stream) are regulated by USACE and NC DWR and will require
permit approvals. The unmapped natural resources (i.e., drainage ditch and borrow pits) may be
claimed as jurisdictional by USACE due to a possible offsite connection to a regulated wetland.
Based on agency correspondence, a preliminary jurisdictional determination request is
recommended to confirm whether the unmapped features are regulated and will require permits.
If requested, GEI will prepare a proposal to delineate the unmapped features and prepare the
jurisdictional determination request package for submittal to USACE. The proposal will also
include a task to compile the information request package for submittal to NC Natural Heritage
Program for a formal response regarding site specific threatened and endangered species records.
Sincerely,
GEI CONSULTANTS, INC., P. C.
Erin Brosnan
Restoration Ecologist
EB:MB/klg
Enclosures
Mary Beth illerman
Senior Ecologist
H:\WPROC\Project\Chambers Engineering\Eco-Energy Ethanol Terminal Selma, NC\Ecol Inv and Resource Delineation Report\Eco-Energy Delineation Rpt Selma
NC FINAL 12-02-14.docx

Ecological Investigation and Resource Delineation Report
Proposed Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal
Selma, North Carolina
December 2, 2014
Attachment 1
Figures
GEI Consultants, Inc.

'`Sind and Gravel
Pits
SOURCE.'
1. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, ACCESSED
VIA www.arcgisonline.com
Natural Resources Investigation
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
�� I
- LS ill Y9i7
E L I
Gravel
SITE 4
h
Pq
94
Fri tis ~
ti, h age
ch
?es i4lsal e°F 'P ? IN,IN
r
M /
selm
t� \
ma Memorial,
COM -'
N Copyright:© 2013'Nationeil Geographic Society, irbubed
0 2,000 4,000
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
GEIconsoirznrs
Project 1412320 November 2014 Fig. 1
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Site Location.mxd

3
A'
a Z
,o
U
Z
I �
G
I p
I �
4
Hunter Dt
Dtd 0eol ah Rd
sr
40, r �
sulfaLo Rd
N
7
id
O
Z
T
o`
act
z
4s
O
0
�'
9a
sr
40, r �
sulfaLo Rd
N
7
id
O
-
o`
act
0 2
ett �
Ale
<3
t,
h h•r'L � y y oorP
St
Ile H J 5
2 W Chestnut St 2 V0
1P-1
� oaP h- 2 p aaa
o a rLa ,� o Sr w
°i ?a F 3
_ �iO` Sr 4' o°� _ �onaa =
,t c c r1, Q s o S
o ao Selma F 1 F
Fh- 0a4 taaP
h -p h-� ayaerr Sr rasr
Yi - °s!o r a Hoar° Sr
I sr �G cy sr.{! FR F4
Peedm St 6� y�drso aiao'n 'aBs
e 3 -1 SrIVoar° sr o' rr
✓ ° o
Reid Cir
5 T 5
Dogwood Dr
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),
mq_ TomTom ,,o, I
SOURCE:
1. WORLD STREET MAP, ACCESSED
VIA www.arcgisonline.com
Natural Resources Investigation
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
0 2,000 4,000
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
�\
STREET MAP
GE1�o stats
Project 1412320 1 November 2014 Fig. 1A1
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Street Map.mxd
Cas y
an

b
K
0
e]
O�
P
p�
�v
�1
4
r
n
e
ee� CA �ih
O `owe ooa ,
9�aa� O ell c/
g'Paao'� ad"
V�
-w
e
A
134
;,In
ix
SOURCE:
1. WORLD STREET MAP, ACCESSED
VIA www.arcgisonline.com
Natural Resources Investigation
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
I
o pi
O
oOf-
a
tt`e"F
Av e
v`
Primrose St
7t.
h
a W Walnut St < _
ec hp
p
? Oo+ .9f
W
3aaP
SO' T Pah
5
G 0
V
h-
oC Ob�P Rd'o
4i'
S�
h
O` �c 1P
G
C
ho v`
A �' y g
Ps o y a
.r,
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USG,S, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),
TomTom �� y
0 1,000 2,000
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
�\
STREET MAP -ZOOMED IN
GE1�o stants
Project 1412320 1 November 2014 Fig. 1 B
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Street Map.mxd

zoo
10,
raj
oil
4
;I
F mwm as �` Y
tl
—+� -- —
ti ----------------.------^-------f---
` � Q
r
M th Ij- �
I =.
F s #
t �
k1
NOT TO SCALE I
SOURCE:
1. Chambers Engineering, PA. ECO -Energy,
Inc. "Overall Site Plan". October 14, 2014.
O:\ZDump\jsheppard\Eco energy Nat Resource Site PLan.mxd
'
Jaw
Natural Resources Investigation
ti Eco -Energy Project
Selma, North Carolina
S CHAMBERS ENGINEERING, PA
ALBEMARLE, NORTH CAROLINA
r
1,
SITE PLAN
GEI
Project 1412320 1 December 2014 Figure 2

4 PUBAW _
'�lrr
PF01A
PF01A
SOURCE.
1. 2011 ESRI WORLD IMAGERY
2. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Publication date (found in
metadata). National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\NWI.mxd
PF01A
0 100 200 400 600
800 Natural Resources Investigation
w Feet Eco -Energy Project
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
** ';40�r
Legend
Wetland Type
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
? Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
r(^,1 NATIONAL WETLAND
l\u-�J INVENTORY
GEI �o�s���an�s
Project 1412320 November 2014 Fig. 3

0
SOURCE.
1. 2011 ESRI WORLD IMAGERY
2. USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey - SSURGO Database
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Stream.mxd
0 100 200 400 600
-r !�
.+
lop
SITE BOUNDARY
k
800 Natural Resources Investigation
w Feet Eco -Energy Project
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
M9s �
Legend
Stream -Unnamed Tributary
USGS NATIONAL
`` J HYDROGRAPHY nATA�FT
GEI .--s I.nIs
Project 1412320 November 2014

11 ,N 111w
SOURCE.
1. 2011 ESRI WORLD IMAGERY
2. USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey - SSURGO Database
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/AppMebSoilSurvey.aspx
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Soil.mxd
fielk
t S
,' fr
r iry
,Ra
I
oA
Ra
Na
NoB
0 100 200 400 600 800
Feet
r
SITE BOUNDARY'`+
OL
•
• I r r
uA
' RbA
nd4 �
h Predominantly Hydric
Partially Hydric
—]Predominantly Nonhydric
4 0 Nonhydric
Natural Resources Investigation `/ ` SOIL SURVEY
Eco -Energy Project
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA G E I csu"a`5
Albermarle, North Carolina Project 1412320 November 2014 Fig. 5

• i � - r; Tyr s.
ti
�1
Yw lk
SITE BOUNDARY
r Y % t
r
c
5�r
SOURCE: 0 100200 400 600 800
1. 2011 ESRI WORLD IMAGERY Feet
2.NORTH CAROLINA ONEMAP
http://services.nconemap.com/arcgis/resVservices/NC1 Map_Habitat/MapServer
i:wrojecimunamoers tngineeringviou i vvest UaK st oeima rvL;\vvenanawc_tcoiogicai.mxa
Natural Resources Investigation
Eco -Energy Project
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
Le end
Biod ivers ity/Wi Id life Habitat Assessment Areas
Relative Conservation Value
® 9-10 (Maximum)
1» ❑ B
❑ 7
6
i ❑ 5
❑ 2-4
J6 ❑ 1 (Moderate)
❑ 0 (Unrated)
. Impervious surface >20%
BIODIVERSITY/WILDLIFE
HABITAT ASSESSMENT AREAS
G E I
Project 1412320 1 November 2014 Fig. 6

KV
FR
4�
r
}� ���"�.��•p
1%
ti3 Y� ;l
AIA
k
F
y�
y�.
a
/•�ri�
.Z
KV
t
FR
AIA
t

FIGURE 7: SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 5. Looking north at culvert pipe under access road.
Photo 7. Looking east at drainage ditch.
Photo 6. Looking south at drainage ditch south of access road.
Photo 8. Looking north at drainage ditch connection to a culvert pipe under
existing railroad track.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on November 5th and 6th 2014
G E I

FIGURE 7: SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA— PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 9. Looking east at brick structural remnant.
Photo 11. Looking at dumping.
Y
A�Ile
"�" Al
Photo 10. Looking down at arched, brick underground tunnels.
Photo 12. Looking down at brick mounds found frequently throughout site
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on November 5th and 6th 2014
G E I

FIGURE 7: SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 13. Looking south at open field and edge of western forested area
Photo 15. Looking east/northeast at wetland flag FW 3.
Photo 14. Looking west towards forested wetland area near flag FW 1.
Photo 16. Looking east at forested wetland in the vicinity of flag FW 8.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on November 5th and 6th 2014E)
G E I

FIGURE 7: SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 17. Looking east at forested wetland in the vicinity of flag FW 10
Photo 19. Looking east/northeast at intersection of main stream
channel and side drainage channel near flag FW 16.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on November 5th and 6th 2014
Photo 18. Looking east at forested wetland in the vicinity of flag FW 12.
Photo 20. Looking southeast at drainage channel observed east of the main
stream channel.
G E I .,.

FIGURE 7: SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 21. Looking southwest at stream channel near flag FW 16.
Photo 23. Looking northeast at existing railroad stream crossing.
Photo 22. Looking northeast at stream channel near flag FW 29
4 ice'
i.l
Photo 24. Looking northwest at W. Noble Street stream crossing.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on November 5th and 6th 2014
G E I

FIGURE 7: SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 25. Looking southeast at wetland pocket between the brick berm Photo 26. Looking east at forested wetland area in the vicinity of flag FW 38.
Photo 27. Looking south from wetland area at flag 40 and slope up to
the existing railroad berm.
Photo 28. Upland soil sampled northwest of flag FW 1.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on November 5t" and 6t" 2014
G E I

FIGURE 7: SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 29. Hydric soil sampled southeast of flag FW 1.
Photo 31. Hydric soil sampled northeast of flag FW 10. Note mottling
Photo 30. Hydric soil sampled east of flag FW 6.
Photo 32. Hydric soil sampled north of flag FW 31.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on November 5th and 6th 2014 V
GEI.. �,.

1 0�
® PHOTO LOCATIONS
SOURCE:
1. 2011 ESRI WORLD IMAGERY
OBSTRUCTED CULVERT PIPE UNDER ACCESS ROAD
DRAINAGE DITCH (-4'W)
CULVERT PIPE UNDER RR BERM
J:\Projects\Chambers Engineering\1501 West Oak St Selma NC\Wetland\Natural Resources.mxd
PONDED AREA
0 50 100 200 300 400
Feet
BORROW PITS (20'+ deep, steep slopes,
standing water & stained leaves observed
ROAD (10-1
BRICK PILE BERM
FRESHWATER WETLAND BOLIN
DELINEATED BY GEI ON 11/5/14
BRICK PILE BERM
Natural Resources Investigation
Eco -Energy Project
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
STREAM - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
DRAINAGE CHANNEL
NATURAL RESOURCE FEATURES
�\`\�JJ/ SKETCH
G E I �o�s���a��s
Project 1412320 November 2014 Fig. 8

Sample Pt. 1
•
Sample Pt. 2
NMI
Vii, r YJ•i
w6 • •- �/. �.i.
Sample Pt. 3
J
8 i '. ► ' i ti
A WO
,►ILI,,
9 Sample Pt. 4 °i`''F'''ya'^' . �• - _ ° �;
fw 11 �M 1 n���•y► �1 �� ri --�t
• fw12 yl� _.'�;", rT '' '� • ,-A , J j'
. L 1
fw22 h l• .• P - _ ..t, _i"'' r• ' r
.21
rfw21 fw13 , � ��1., - _ � r I R � � .• - - • '
fw14
fw15
16
7 fw35
�• iwG� fw36 A
'v"
� 2
Sample Pt. 5 fw37
fw38
111 sP ,,,► ,1
fw39
Sample Pt. 6
Nv4o
• fw41
\\ -42
.43
`d�• '� ..'•V 1t w!t .{ - ^. _ @MM&&o D o , oo---o@e- wvb4UM& UM &M QARTM0 Ag(0M ow, QQpp@mb"@b @MItl' 009U@w(DAIII(^I11UN.ge
AF
Mif
. -fir• �,j �e .. { ylfi�,� r.•, tic �V `'e`r
L1 p4

Ecological Investigation and Resource Delineation Report
Proposed Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal
Selma, North Carolina
December 2, 2014
Attachment 2
USDA NRCS Soil Report
GEI Consultants, Inc.

3 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnston County, North Carolina
(V
V N
bJ I�
743700 743800 743900 744000 744100 744200 744300 744400 744500 744600 744700 744800 744900 745000 745100 745200 745300 745400 745500 745600
35° 33' 1" N♦ - -w�, s) 1 35° 331" N
01, a I
M p (M
Ir
n .. l F:. _ ■ t1 - fi 'a,
1
ol
V FF
�•
• ti r o
P
F 4>J
o A ;rty00.
�r4 4. •. M
+.
el
g 70 fin�__ * yt A `I m
? �'t t.r. i■ f. fl �.
i
yr
S .' T ..�}� -, V F�•d !, 4•,V
r 4
55
I e �xol
4 � � ' Y
M _ �°f :S" i J 1 G. q ■, , .:i .�' t"'R1e(+■ fA (v.-
r
14
J _
.. r..
M �• . Y y\
l'
/ O
- . � � • ,,. : �. , , �. .. .- ' Vit-.-,,.. ��.� C� - .. y{'.
. tr
air
M
35° 32'26!' N I I ., Y a .-F !� .... "-.ow _�Ys'- - °il' l,i� �.. _ 35° 32' 26" N
743800 743900 744000 744100 744200 744300 744400 744500 744600 744700 744800 744900 7451000 745100 745200 745300 745400 745500 745600
3 3
Map Scale: 1:5,350 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet. F
Meters
N 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
o zso soa 1000 lsoo
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/4/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnston County, North Carolina
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Predominantly Hydric (66
Soil Rating
Polygons
0
Hydric (100%)
0
Predominantly Hydric (66
p
to 99%)
0
Partially hydric (33 to 65%)
0
Predominatly nonhydric (1
Soil Rating
to 32%)
0
Nonhydric (0%)
0
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Lines
~
Hydric (100%)
r
Predominantly Hydric (66
to 99%)
r k
Partially hydric (33 to 65%)
r r
Predominatly nonhydric (1
p
to 32%)
�._0
Nonhydric (0%)
r
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Points
0
Hydric (100%)
0 Predominantly Hydric (66
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000
Soil Survey Area: Johnston County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 10, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 20, 2010—Mar 17,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/4/2014
lilm Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5
to 99%)
p
Partially hydric (33 to 65%)
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
p
Predominatly nonhydric (1
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
to 32%)
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
p
Nonhydric (0%)
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
0
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Streams and Canals
measurements.
Transportation
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
F++
Rails
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
rsr+
Interstate Highways
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
US Routes
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Major Roads
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
Local Roads
calculations of distance or area are required.
Background
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
®
Aerial Photography
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Johnston County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 10, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 20, 2010—Mar 17,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/4/2014
lilm Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnston County, North Carolina
Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Summary by Map Unit—Johnston County, North Carolina (NC101)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
COC
Cowarts loamy sand, 6 to
0
1.4
1.5%
10 percent slopes
GoA
Goldsboro sandy loam, 0
2
16.4
16.8%
to 2 percent slopes
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to
5
6.7
6.9%
NoA
2 percent slopes
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to
5
35.9
36.8%
6 percent slopes
0
0.7
NuA
Norfolk -Urban land
0.7%
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
Ra
Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2
90
10.7
10.9%
percent slopes
RbA
Rains -Urban land
60
1.3
1.3%
complex, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
0
6.9
7.1%
Wt
Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2
90
17.7
18.1%
percent slopes,
frequently flooded
Totals for Area of Interest
97.7
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/4/2014
r Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnston County, North Carolina
Description
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric
soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types,
each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up
dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in
the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly
of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower
positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective
components and the percentage of each component within the map unit.
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components.
The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99
percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent
hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components.
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the
map pane contains a column named'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each
map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.
Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either
saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the
growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.
The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with
wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric
soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and
duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated
soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register,
2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are
associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties
that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil
Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey
Division Staff, 1993).
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric,
they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These
visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite
determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006).
References:
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/4/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5

Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnston County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Percent Present
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/4/2014
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5

USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
I V RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Johnston County,
North Carolina
November 24, 2014

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
2

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call [phone]
(voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
3

Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
SoilMap..................................................................................................................7
SoilMap................................................................................................................8
Legend..................................................................................................................9
MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10
MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10
Johnston County, North Carolina....................................................................12
CoC—Cowarts loamy sand, 6 to 10 percent slopes....................................12
GoA—Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes..................................13
NoA—Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................................14
NoB—Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes........................................15
Ra—Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................................16
Ud—Udorthents, loamy...............................................................................18
Wt—Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded................18
References............................................................................................................21
4

How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5

Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
0

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
7

3
N
744100
35° 33' d' N
O
M
t\
M
m
M
8
N
n
M
M
8
N
F
M
O
O
O
n
M
M
O
O
M
M
M
U
M
O
O
N
M
M
S
M
35° 32'34!'N
744200 744300 744400 744500 744600 744700
3
io
Map Scale: 1:5,740 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Meters
N 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 250 500 1000 1500
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WC—%4
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
744200 744300 744400 744500 744600 744700 744800 744900 745000 745100 745200
3
F
745300
35° 330" N
0
M
O
O
M
n
M
M
8
N
r`
M
M
O
n
M
T
M
O
O
O
r
M
744800 744900 745000 745100 745200 745300
3
m
35° 32'34'N

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
0 Soil Map Unit Lines
0 Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Johnston County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 10, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 20, 2010—Mar 17,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
(
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Other
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
+�
Special Line Features
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Transportation
t++
Rails
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
r ,.+
Interstate Highways
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
US Routes
Major Roads
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Local Roads
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Background
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
W
Aerial Photography
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Johnston County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 10, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 20, 2010—Mar 17,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Johnston County, North Carolina (NC101)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CoC
Cowarts loamy sand, 6 to 10
percent slopes
1.4
2.2%
GoA
Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
10.6
17.0%
NoA
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
3.6
5.8%
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
21.6
34.4%
Ra
Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
8.0
12.7%
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
6.2
9.9%
Wt
Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently flooded
11.2
17.9%
Totals for Area of Interest
62.7
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
10

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

Custom Soil Resource Report
Johnston County, North Carolina
CoC—Cowarts loamy sand, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3t44
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Cowarts and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cowarts
Setting
Landform: Ridges on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy and sandy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 6 to 34 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 34 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
GoA—Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3t4c
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Goldsboro and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 2 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Goldsboro
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, broad interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam
E - 8 to 15 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 15 to 45 inches: sandy clay loam
Btg - 45 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Minor Components
Rains, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
13

Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, carolina bays on marine terraces, broad
interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
NoA—Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3t4s
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Norfolk and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Norfolk
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, broad interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: loamy sand
E - 9 to 14 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 14 to 70 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 70 to 100 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 40 to 72 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 1
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Minor Components
Rains, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, carolina bays on marine terraces, broad
interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
NoB—Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3t4t
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Norfolk and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Norfolk
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, broad interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: loamy sand
E - 9 to 14 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 14 to 70 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 70 to 100 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
15

Custom Soil Resource Report
Depth to water table: About 40 to 72 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Minor Components
Bibb, undrained
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Johnston, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Ra—Rains sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3t4z
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained
Map Unit Composition
Rains, drained, and similar soils: 80 percent
Rains, undrained, and similar soils: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rains, Drained
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, carolina bays on marine terraces, broad
interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
16

Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
Eg - 7 to 12 inches: fine sandy loam
Btg1 - 12 to 20 inches: sandy loam
Btg2 - 20 to 62 inches: sandy clay loam
Cg - 62 to 85 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.20 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Description of Rains, Undrained
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, carolina bays on marine terraces, broad
interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
Eg - 7 to 12 inches: fine sandy loam
Btg1 - 12 to 20 inches: sandy loam
Btg2 - 20 to 62 inches: sandy clay loam
Cg - 62 to 85 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.20 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
17

Custom Soil Resource Report
Ud—Udorthents, loamy
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3t59
Elevation: 20 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 280 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Udorthents and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Udorthents
Setting
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy mine spoil or earthy fill
Typical profile
C - 0 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Wt—Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3t5l
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
18

Custom Soil Resource Report
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Wehadkee, undrained, and similar soils: 85 percent
Wehadkee, drained, and similar soils: 5 percent
Minor components: 8 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wehadkee, Undrained
Setting
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: loam
Bg - 8 to 43 inches: sandy clay loam
Cg - 43 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Ponded
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Description of Wehadkee, Drained
Moderately high to high
Setting
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loam
Bg - 8 to 43 inches: sandy clay loam
Cg - 43 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
19

Custom Soil Resource Report
Runoff class: Ponded
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Minor Components
Chewacla
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Riverview
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
20

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
21

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf
22

Ecological Investigation and Resource Delineation Report
Proposed Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal
Selma, North Carolina
December 2, 2014
Attachment 3
USACE Wetland Determination Forms
GEI Consultants, Inc.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Eco -Energy Selma Site
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA
Investigator(s): GEI - Erin Brosnan, Mary Beth Billerman
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P
Soil Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam (Ra)
City/County: Selma/Johnston
Section, Township, Range
State: NC
N/A
Sampling Date: 11/5/14
Sampling Point: 1
Local relief (concave, convex, none). concave slope Slope (%): 0-2
Lat: 35.54552 Long -78.30036 Datum: NAD83
NWI classification: Adjacent to PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil X or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
(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 No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland
Primary
Hydrology Indicators:
Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑
Surface Water (A1) ❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
High Water Table (A2) ❑ Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
11 Moss Trim Lines (1316)
IL-1
Water Marks (61) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Q Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
rrrL���tttl
Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_
Drift Deposits (B3) ❑_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Q
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑
Iron Deposits (135) El Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No x Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
__(includes capillary fringe)
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 (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: t
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Sassafras (Sassafras albidum)
FACU
2
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
x FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Water oak (Quercus nigra) FAC
3
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
100
4 Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) FACU
5 Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
g
Sugar maple (Acer saccharum)
FACU
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species 0 x2= 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FAC species 6 x3= 18
1
American Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana)
x FAC
FACU species 4 x4= 16
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
2.
3
Column Totals: 10 (A) 34 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides)
FACU
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2
Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina)
NI
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
3 Brier (Smilax sp) FAC
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7_
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
8.
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
M
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
= Total Cover
-
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size. )
1
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
FAC
2,
3,
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No x
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features ___
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe, Loc` Texture Remarks
0-2 10 YR 3/3 loam
2-18 2.5Y 5/4 sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
f�
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
n
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
LJi
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
iL�l1
❑
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
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)]
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red
Redox Depressions (F8)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
(MCRA 153B)
Parent Material (TF2)
u Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
[]
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)Umbric
_E1
H
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
[�
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
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 x
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: Eco -Energy Selma Site
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA
Investigator(s): GEI - Erin Brosnan, Mary Beth Billerman
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P
Soil Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam (Ra)
City/County: Selma/Johnston
State: NC
Section, Township, Range: N/A
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave slope Slope (%): 0-2
Lat: 35.54541 Long: -78.30024 Datum: NAD83
NWI classification: Adjacent to PF01A
Sampling Date: 11/5/14
Sampling Point: 2
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil X or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
(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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑
I
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
IIIPrimary
Surface Water (A1)
El Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Q
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
0 Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
IJ
Saturation (A3)
Ef Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (61)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
1uf
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
0
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_
Drift Deposits (133)
IL-Jf
u Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Q
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Q
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches).
Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Red maple (Acer rubrum)
2 Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
3 Water oak (Quercus nigra)
4 Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
5.,
6.
7.
8.
Sampling Point: 2
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Multiply by:
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
x 1 = 1
x FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
(A)
x FAC
5
x3= 15
FACU species
Total Number of Dominant
x4= 4
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 4
Percent of Dominant Species
(B)
FACU
10
(A) 26 (B)
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100
(A/B)
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) FACW
2 Great laurel (Rhododendron maximum) FAC
3,
4.
5,
6,
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Switch cane (Arundinaria tecta)
2 Netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata)
3 Cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum)
4 Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)
5.
6.
7,
8,
9.
10
11.
12.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
FACW
OBL
X FACW
X FAC
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Gnrr
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
1
x 1 = 1
FACW species
3
x2= 6
FAC species
5
x3= 15
FACU species
1
x4= 4
UPL species
0
x5= 0
Column Totals:
10
(A) 26 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm
Sampling Point:
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvRemarLoks
0-6 10 YR 3/2 loam
6-14 2.5 Y 3/1 7.5 YR 4/6 15
14-20 2.4 Y 4/2
loam
sandy loam
Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
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)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) T� Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) L_! Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) Tj Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
n Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
f
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) T❑ -I Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions u Very Shallow Dark Surface
�]
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
(F8) (TF12)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U) ]:] Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) .❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
❑ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
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 x 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: Eco -Energy Selma Site
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA
Investiaator(s): GEI - Erin Brosnan, Mary Beth Billerman
City/County: Selma/Johnston
State: INC
Section, Township, Range: _N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.54491 Long: -78.30004 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam (Ra) NWI classification: Adjacent to PF01A
Sampling Date: 11/5/14
Sampling Point: 3
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil X or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Yes x No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Yes x No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)_ _
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
L] Surface Soil Cracks (66) �.
L!nSurface Water (Al)
El Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
E Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
® Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
0 Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
II Geomorphic Position (D2)
Q Iron Deposits (B5)
0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
F] Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
a Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):.
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
(includes caoillary frinae)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 3
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2
Swamp white oak (Querus bicolor)
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
Loblolly Pinus taeda x FAC
( )
pine
y p
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by
OBL species 1 x 1 = 1
= Total Cover
FACW species 4 x 2 = 8
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: ]
FAC species 4 x3= 12
1
Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
x FACW
FACU species 0 x4= 0
UPL species 0 x5= 0
Column Totals: g (A) 21 (B)
2 Great laurel (Rhododendron maximum) FAC
3
4.
-
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.33
—
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)
x FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2
Switch cane (Arundinaria tecta)
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3
Cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum)
FACW
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7.6 cm) or
4
Netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata)
OBL
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
5
6•
7,
8.
g,
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
5•
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes x No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 3
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 7.5 YR 2.5/1 loam
8-18 2.5 Y 6/3 5 YR 4/6 20
loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ - 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
712
n Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 1 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
H
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (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 (A5)
L] Depleted Matrix (F3) d Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
❑
LRR
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) _E1 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)]
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
] Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
�j
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
LFl
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
L] Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
L] Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
p 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 x 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: Eco -Energy Selma Site City/County: Selma/Johnston
AnDlicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA State: NC
Sampling Date: 11/5/14
Sampling Point: 4
Investigator(s): GEI - Erin Brosnan, Mary Beth Billerman Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.54448 Long: -78.30011 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name GoA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil X or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
NWI classification: Adjacent to PF01A
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Yes x No
within a Wetland?
Yes x No
Yes X No
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Drainage Patterns (610)
❑_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
,r❑�1 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
u Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
1=l Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
gauge,
Remarks:
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
High Water Table (A2)
IU-�
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
tr
! Saturation (A3)1L-J�
IL ---1f
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Water Marks (B1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑
Sediment Deposits (6
-�f
1I2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
g
Drift Deposits (B3)
13
u Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Iron Deposits (65)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Yes X No
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Drainage Patterns (610)
❑_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
,r❑�1 Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
u Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
1=l Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
gauge,
Remarks:
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 4
4.
5.
6.
7
8.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Switch cane (Arundinaria tecta)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10,
11.
12,
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.5
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
20% of total cover:
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
x FACW be present, unless disturbed or Droblematic.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5—
= i otai mover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3
(A)
2
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
x FAC
3
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4
Swamp white oak (Querus bicolor)
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100
(A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
OBL species 0
_
Multiply bv:
x 1 = 0
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species 4
x2= 8
Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FAC species 4
x3= 12
1
Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
x FACW
FACU species 0
UPL species 0
Column Totals:
x4= 0
x5= 0
(A) 20
(B)
2 Sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) FACW
3 Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) FAC
4.
5.
6.
7
8.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Switch cane (Arundinaria tecta)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10,
11.
12,
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.5
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
20% of total cover:
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
x FACW be present, unless disturbed or Droblematic.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5—
= i otai mover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 5 YR 2.5/1 loam
8-18 2.5 Y 4/2 10 YR 5/6 20 loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
2Location: P_L=Pore Lining,_M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
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)
T❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
0
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
SID
EI Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
] Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
�✓
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
❑
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑
(F8)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
(TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
�]
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
f]
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
�]
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)Umbric
Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
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):
rtemarKs:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X 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: Eco -Energy Selma Site City/County: Selma/Johnston
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA State: NC
Investigator(s): GEI - Erin Brosnan, Mary Beth Billerman Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.54354 Long: -78.29985 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Wehadkee loam (Wt)
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil X or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
Sampling Date: 11/5/14
Sampling Point: 5
NWI classification: PF01A
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
(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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
❑
Surface Water (A1)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (613)
Q�
High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Lr 11
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
1111
Water Marks (131)
iQ
t�e1f Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
�t
Sediment Deposits (B2)
LJ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
©©
Drift Deposits (133)Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
El
Iron Deposits (65)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(B7)
❑
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches): _
Water Table Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 6
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
g Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 5
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Swamp white oak (Querus bicolor)
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
2 Red maple (Acer rubrum) FAC
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5,
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: MUItIDIV by:
OBL species 1 x 1 = 1
8
= Total Cover
FACW species 2 x2= 4
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FAC species 3 x 3 = 9
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: }
1
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
x FAC
FACU species 0 x4= 0
UPL species 0 x5= 0
2
3
Column Totals: 6 (A) 14 (B)
4
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.33
5,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6,
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7,
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
= Total Cover
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1
Switch cane (Arundinaria tecta)
x FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
2 Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) x FAC
3 Sedge (Carex sp.)
q
Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus)
OBL
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5
6.
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9,
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
10.
11.
height
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1
Honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.)
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
- -
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes x No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture
0-4 7.5 YR 2.5/1 loam
4-18 7.5 YR 3/1 7.5 YR 5/8 15
loam
rks
'Type: C=Con centra lion, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
777❑���
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) T� Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 10 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
J Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_E]Very
H5
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
F1
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
[[
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
0 Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)]
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
HSandy
Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
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):
ttemarKs:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X 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: Eco -Energy Selma Site
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA
Investigator(s) GEI - Erin Brosnan, Mary Beth Billerman
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P
Soil Map Unit Name: Wehadkee loam (Wt)
City/County: Selma/Johnston
State: NC
Section, Township, Range: N/A
Local relief (concave, convex, none
Lat: 35.54312 Long: -78.2
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil X or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
Sampling Date: 11/5/14
Sampling Point: 6
): Slope (%): 0-2
9901 Datum: NAD83
NWI classification: PF01A
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No X
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
❑ Surface Water (Al)
0
❑ High Water Table (A2)
Q Saturation (A3)
t❑
Water Marks (131)
tEl
n❑_
Sediment Deposits (132)
L_I
❑
Drift Deposits (133)
_
a Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X
Water Table Present? Yes
No x
Saturation Present? Yes X
No
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
® Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
l Drainage Patterns (1310)
0 Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
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 (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
f Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
11.
2,
3.
4.
5._
6.
7
8.
50% of total cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:.
1 Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: _ )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3-
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Sampling Point: 6
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: MultiDly bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 1 x 3 = 3
FACU species x4=
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 1 (A) 3
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 2-.3.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 5 YR 2.5/1 loam
8-18 2.5 Y 3/1 loam
D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
B
0
(A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (1718) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) t. -.i Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) J—]
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
D Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) T❑ -I Red Parent Material (TF2)
H Redox Depressions u Very Shallow Dark Surface
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
(F8) (TF12)
n Marl (F10) (LRR U) ]_] Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) .❑
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Q Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)]
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) sinless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Redox (S5)
F1 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
HSandy
Stripped Matrix (S6)
0 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 x No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

Ecological Investigation and Resource Delineation Report
Proposed Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal
Selma, North Carolina
December 2, 2014
Attachment 4
Agency Correspondence
GEI Consultants, Inc.

From: Brosnan, Erin
To: "Shaeffer, David L SAW"
Cc: Billerman, Mary Beth; Stynchula, Jamey
Subject: RE: Selma Site Photo Review Request - Email 1 of 2 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:59:00 AM
Hi David,
The site is located at 35.545769"N, -78.301117"W (1501 West Oak Street, Selma, NC).
The borrow pits and drainage ditch do appear to have all been created in previously upland areas. Mapped soils include
Udorthents and Norfolk loamy sand (5% hydric rating).
Thank you for taking the time to look at this preliminary information. I will relay the JD recommendation to our client.
Many thanks. Happy Thanksgiving!
Erin
-----Original Message -----
From: Shaeffer, David L SAW [mailto:David. L. Shaeffer(abusace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:23 AM
To: Brosnan, Erin
Cc: Billerman, Mary Beth; Stynchula, Jamey
Subject: RE: Selma Site Photo Review Request - Email 1 of 2 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Hi Erin,
I apologize for the delay. Things have picked up over the last month so I am very busy.
Do you have a lat/long in decimal degrees for this property?
It is possible that the borrow ponds could be could be non -jurisdictional if they were constructed entirely in uplands. If an
upland pond turns into a wetland we cannot throw the wetlands out because it was a pond. We can only consider a
wetland non -jurisdictional if it is isolated. It looks like most of these borrow pits have converted to wetlands and the flow
path to relatively permanent tributaries seems obvious. If you want an official decision you would have to submit a
request for jurisdictional determination.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
David L. Shaeffer, Geographer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone] ext. 31 Fax: [phone]
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://reaulatory.usacesurvey-com/
-----Original Message -----
From: Brosnan, Erin [mailto:ebrosnan(abgeiconsultants.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 7:51 AM
To: Shaeffer, David L SAW
Cc: Billerman, Mary Beth; Stynchula, Jamey
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Selma Site Photo Review Request - Email 1 of 2
Good Morning Dave,
We spoke on Friday Nov. 7th regarding a site in Selma that has some unmapped features that could potentially be
questionable as far as jurisdiction since the area was man-made. The site is located north of an existing railroad track

along W. Noble Street and east of Buffalo Road.
There is a mapped forested freshwater wetland system and stream corridor located on the eastern portion of the site. A
portion of the wetland boundary located in the vicinity of a proposed railroad extension was delineated by GEI Ecologists
on November 5th.
The area in question jurisdictionally is located on the western portion of the site. Here we observed large, steep
depressions that appear to be connected to a man-made drainage system exiting the site to the south. Based on
communication with a relative of the property owner, the industrial site to the west of Buffalo Road borrowed soil from
this area during its development several years ago. GEI observed standing water, stained leaves and FAC woody species
in these areas. No surface flow was observed in the drainage ditch.
Evidence of historic disturbance was observed within the upland wooded area between the mapped wetland to the east
and the drainage ditch to the west. This included dispersed mounds of bricks, tunnel openings, a large chimney relic, and
remnants of foundations/structures.
Attached for your review please find site photos and a figure from our preliminary natural resources investigation of the
Selma site. We would appreciate any guidance you could provide as to whether a jurisdictional determination request is
warranted for these unmapped features.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Many thanks,
Erin Brosnan
Ecologist / Restoration Specialist
GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. <http://www.geiconsultants.com/>
GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C.
110 Walt Whitman Road, Suite 204 1 Huntington Station, NY 11746
T: 631.479.3509 1 M: 518.232.7232 1 F: 681.760.9301
www.geiconsultants.com <http://www.geiconsultants.com/> I vCard
<http://www.dynasend.com/sianatures/vcard/ebrosnan-at-aeiconsultants.com.vcf> I map
<https://maps.cioocile.com/maps?
a=110+Walt+Whitman+Road,+Huntington+Station,+NY+11746&hl=en&sll=43.010986,=
78.774827&sspn=0.013713,0.01929&hnear=110+Walt+Whitman+Rd,+Huntington+Station,+New+York+11746&t=m&z=17
> I LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/erin-brosnan/23/726/31b/> I Twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/GEIConsultants> I Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/GEIConsultants>
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

GEI Consultants
Memo
To: Mr. Stephen G. Chambers, P.E.
From: Erin Brosnan
c: Jamey Stynchula; Mary Beth Billerman
Date: January 6, 2015
Re: Additional Natural Resource Delineation
Proposed Eco -Energy Ethanol Terminal
Selma, North Carolina
GEI Project No. 1412320
Summary of Field Findings
GEI conducted a second visit to the Selma Site on December 23d, 2014. Based on findings from the
preliminary investigation, the focus of this visit was to delineate the extent of the ponded/wetland areas
observed in the west/southwest section of the Site. This area contains no National Wetland Inventory
(NVM mapped wetlands. However, if man-made wetland features connect to a mapped wetland system,
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may claim jurisdiction over the features.
Most of the trees and shrubs observed are classified as facultative (FAC), which means they occur in
wetlands about 50 percent of the time. No classified upland species were identified in the immediate
vicinity of the wetland areas. Since our visit occurred outside of the growing season, observations of
groundcovers, particularly any emergent wetland plant species that may occur in the area, were limited. Due
to the limitation of winter vegetation, the wetland boundary was largely determined by soils, topography,
and hydrology.
The soils observed within the delineated wetlands were saturated, mottled with a depleted matrix color, and
primarily composed of clay. The clay soil composition supports the ponding observed throughout the
delineated areas. In drainage areas near the culverts sand and gravel were also observed.
Areas were significantly more ponded than during the November site visit. This area is generally
surrounded by steeps slopes concentrating overland flows into the depressions. Significant micro-
topography was observed throughout the depressions. Two upland "islands" were large enough to delineate
out of the wetland system. In addition to surface flows, the ground elevations within the depressions appear
to be close to the high groundwater table.
A culvert pipe east of Buffalo Road appears to be directing flow into the Site from a drainage ditch
paralleling the roadway. Another culvert pipe is located under what appears to be a historic unpaved access
road that crosses through the forested area. An additional culvert is located under the railroad berm and
connects the drainage ditch onsite to a drainage ditch south of West Norfolk Road.
The next step is to submit a jurisdictional determination request to USACE. This will include a project
description and concept sketch, resource maps, and field data forms.
Additional Figures, Site Photographs, and USACE Wetland Determination Forms are attached.
www.geiconsultants.com 110 Walt Whitman Road, Suite 204
Huntington Station, NY 11746
631.760.9300 fax [phone]

0.0 ..
000
\\®\ B60
s \
Soil 61-1
\
loop •�
Ado#
•
• I s i �
\ I / I •� \
• I I \ \ � . \ \•B50
r \ \ B30
•� I
*B40
\ I I/• a
I � ,
A30.. A
I
I B90 •. 1
j Soil B2-1 /
/ 620
\ II '• /Soil B1-2 B10 ;� ��►
'• I
I — _• B1
o \ ,
49
A40
• A20. — .•
Soil Al -1
Soil A1-3 , / •, /
Soil A2-2
' Soil A1-2
® Al •
A10, Soil A2-1
I \
/
/

r CULVERT PIPE
UNDER TRAIL
1 ti
OBSTRUCTED CULVERT 1
PIPE UNDER ACCESS RD
CULVERT PIPE
UNDER RR BERM
SOURCE:
1. 2011 ESRI
a,A
WETLAND DELINEATION 12/23/14
B SERIES (UNMAPPED BY NWI)
APPROXIMATELY 1.87 ACRES
"UPLAND ISLANDS"
UNPAVED ACCESS ROAD
WETLAND DELINEATION 12/23/14
A SERIES (UNMAPPED BY NWI)
APPROXIMATELY 0.97 ACRES 0
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
t •� , Yom` �M, ` �'l f '0'
LAI
` Wit` � �`�• f
_44C ••Y 1 V
�� 1 ►, %
r � �
WETLAND DELINEATION 11/5/14
FW SERIES (MAPPED BY NWI)
APPROX. 2 ACRES WITHIN REVIEW
0 50100 200 300 400
Feet
USGS MAPPED STREAM CORRIDOR
UNAMED TRIBUTARY TO NEUSE RIVER
APPROX. 200 LN FT WITHIN REVIEW AREA
Natural Resources Investigation
Eco -Energy Project
Selma, North Carolina
Chambers Engineering, PA
Albermarle, North Carolina
REVISED - NATURAL
RESOURCE FEATURES
GE1
Project 1412320 1 December 2014 Fig. 1-2

SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — WETLAND DELINEATION PHOTO LOG
WETLAND AREA "A"
Photo 1. Looking south at drainage ditch near southern property
Photo 3. Looking northeast at intersection of two drainage ditch spurs
near Flag A4.
Photo 2. Looking south at ponded area along southern property
Photo 4. Looking north at ponded area near Soil A1-2.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on December 23rd 2014
G E I an,,a,9

SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — WETLAND DELINEATION PHOTO LOG
WETLAND AREA "B"
Photo 5. Looking north at emergent growth in near Flag B29.
Photo 7. Looking north at gully from adjacent property near Flag B61
Photo 6. Looking east at severe slope along wetland "B" edge near Flag B44.
Photo 8. Looking east from Flag B70 at stormwater flowing west to east
from Buffalo Road drainage ditch.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on December 23rd 2014
GEI,n,,,.

SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA - WETLAND DELINEATION PHOTO LOG
WETLAND AREA "B"
Photo 9. Looking east at wetland area near Flag B82. Note dumping.
Photo 11. Looking north at ponded area from access road near Flag 131
Photo 10. Looking north at channel near B87. Chinese privet to the left.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on December 23rd 2014
GEI
- --
i � •. d �r r
• - F i�1 JI�• r
A
-
Photo 12. Looking northwest along wetland edge near Flag B91.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on December 23rd 2014
GEI

SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA - WETLAND DELINEATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 13. Wetland soil sample. Soil A1-1.
Photo 15. Wetland soil sample. Soil A1-3.
ti
S M. P v -7
Photo 14. Wetland soil sample. Soil A1-2.
Photo 16. Upland soil sample. Soil A2-1.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on December 23rd 2014
G E I P41,
Y
�
A
01.
ti
S M. P v -7
Photo 14. Wetland soil sample. Soil A1-2.
Photo 16. Upland soil sample. Soil A2-1.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on December 23rd 2014
G E I P41,

SELMA SITE, NORTH CAROLINA — WETLAND DELINEATION PHOTO LOG
Photo 17. Wetland soil sample. Soil 131-1.
Photo 19. Upland soil sample. Soil 132-1
Photo 18. Wetland soil sample. Soil 131-2.
Photographs taken by GEI Consultants, Inc., P.C. on December 23rd 2014
G E I

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Eco -Energy Selma Site City/County: Selma/Johnston
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA State: NC
Investigator(s): GEI - Erin Brosnan, Brooke Bennett Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Artificial Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.54562 Long: -78.30276 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand (NoB), Udorthents (Ud), Rains sandy loam (Ra) NWI classification: Not mapped
Sampling Date: 12/23/14
Sampling Point: Al
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X
Are Vegetation Soil X or Hydrology X significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
(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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No X
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
Based on best available information wetland areas were man-made - resultant from historic soil
borrowing operations and drainage/stormwater conveyance system creation (i.e. ditches, culvert
piping). Evidence of past disturbance included scattered brick blocks throughout.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Q Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
0 Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Surface Water (Al)
U Aquatic Fauna (1313)
�IJr
High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
L+J
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Water Marks (61)
t❑
LJ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
IIII���JIII
Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_
Drift Deposits (B3)
❑_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
a
Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑
Iron Deposits (135)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
J❑
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches):
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Q Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
0 Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X
(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1 Water oak (Quercus nigra) x FAC
2
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
x FAC
3
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
x FAC
4
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
FACW
5
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
FAC
B
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
FAC
7
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
FACW
B.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 American Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana)
2 Southern bayberry (Morella cerifera)
3 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides)
2 Sedge (Carex sp.)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1 Brier (Smilax sp.)
2 Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
3 Blackberry (Rubus sp.)
4.
5.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
FAC
x FAC
FACW
Sampling Point: Al
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species 4
x2= 8
FAC species 7
x 3 = 21
FACU species 2
x4= 8
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 13
(A) 37 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.85
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
20% of total cover:
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
FACU be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
FACW/OBL Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
x FACU
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the
Sampling Point: Al
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-10 5Y 4/1 10YR 5/6 15 C M clay loam
10-18 5Y 5/1 10YR 5/6 15 C M clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR S)
HHistic
❑
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) �--I Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) u Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
J Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
H
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions u Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
(A8) (LRR
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)]
(F8)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
] Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
�]
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)]
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
HSandy
Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_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):
Additional soil borings:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
#A1-2 0-18" 7.5YR 4/1 Matrix; 2.5YR 4/8 Mottle - clay loam
35.54553 N, -78.30261 W
#A1-3 0-6" 2.5YR 4/1 Matrix -sandy loam
6-12" 5YR 4/1 Matrix; 5YR 4/6 Mottle - sandy loam
35.5456 N, -78.30342 W
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: Eco -Energy Selma Site City/County: Selma/Johnston
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA State: NC
Investigator(s): GEI - Erin Brosnan, Brooke Bennett Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Artificial Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 5-10
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.54548 Long: -78.30252 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand (NoB), Udorthents (Ud) NWI classification: Not mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil X or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 12/23/14
Sampling Point: A2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
rtemarKs:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
No X Is the Sampled Area
No x within a Wetland?
No
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Yes No X
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
El Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
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
Surface Water (Al) El
�❑f
I—I
High Water Table (A2) ❑
❑_
Saturation (A3)
1❑f
Water Marks (Bi) LI
rrr❑
Sediment Deposits (62)
_
Drift Deposits (63) ❑
Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑
Iron Deposits (65)
L1
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Q
Water -Stained Leaves (69)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
Water Table Present? Yes No x
Saturation Present? Yes No X
No X Is the Sampled Area
No x within a Wetland?
No
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Yes No X
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
El Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
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 (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: A2
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
x FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 2 (A)
2
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
x FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Red maple rubrum p ( )
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4
Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
FACU
Percent of Dominant Species
5,
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x2=
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: )
FAC species 4 x 3 = 12
1
American Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana)
FAC
FACU species 3 x4= 12
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 7 (A) 24 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.43
2
3,
4•
5,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6•
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
= Total Cover
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides)
FACU
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
5
6.
7,
81
g,
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
10.
11.
height.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1
Brier (Smilax sp.)
2 Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) x FACU
3
Blackberry (Rubus sp.)
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No x
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of
Sampling Point: A2
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe, Loc` Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 5/3 loam
6-12 10YR 6/4 loam
12-18 10YR 5/4 5YR 5/8 10 C M loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
C]
Histosol (A1)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) Q 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
HHistic
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
R
❑
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
❑
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions ED Very Shallow Dark Surface
(A8) (LRR
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
(F8) (TF12)
n Marl (F10) (LRR U) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
�]
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
f] Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
HCoast
Prairie Redox (All 6) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (1717) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
El Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
HSandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
E] Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
marks:
Additional soil borings:
#A2-2 0-5" 5Y 3/2 Matrix - loam
5-12" 10YR 5/3 Matrix; 10YR 5/8 Mottle - loam
Hand auger rejection at 12"
35.54565 N, -78.30239 W
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
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: Eco -Energy Selma Site City/County: Selma/Johnston
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA State: NC
Investigator(s): GEI - Erin Brosnan, Brooke Bennett Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Artificial Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.54715 Long: -78.30266 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents (Ud), Rains sandy loam (Ra) NWI classification: Not mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil X or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 12/23/14
Sampling Point: B1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks -
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Indicators (minimum of one i5 required: chack all that apply)
IPrimary
I�I
Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (613)
J
High Water Table (A2)Q
t❑—r
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
0 Drainage Patterns (1310)
IJ
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
1uf
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
1Q1�f
IJ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
© Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
LJ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
P
7 Geomorphic Position (D2)
©
Iron Deposits (135)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Q
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
D FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
✓Q
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Q Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes ca ilia frn e
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 (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size -
1. Water oak (Quercus nigra)
2 Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
3 Red maple (Acer rubrum)
4 Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
5 Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 American Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana)
2 Southern bayberry (Morella cerifera)
3 Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
4,
5.
6,
7_
8.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Sedge (Carex sp.)
2 Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Sampling Point: 131
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
x
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
4
(A)
x
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
x
FAC
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
5
(B)
FAC
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
80%
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of--
Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species 1
x 2 = 2
20% of total cover:
f
FAC species 9
x3= 27
x
FAC
FACU species 1
UPL species
Column Totals: 11
x4= 4
x5=
(A) 33
(B)
FAC
FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
20% of total cover:
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
FAcw/06L be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
FAC Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb —AII herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Brier (Smilax sp.)
2 Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) x FACU
3,
4.
5„
= i oiai i over
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes x No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
to the depth needed to document the Indicator or
Sampling Point: B1
of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inchesl Golor (moist % Color {moist) % Ty Loc Texture Remarks
0.8 2.5Y 4/1 7.5YR 5/8 10 c M clay loam
8-18 2.5Y 5/1 7.5YR 7/6 15 c M clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D --Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sa
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
,❑ Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
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 (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
H
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, 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.
Additional soil boring:
zLocation: PL=Pore Linins M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
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 (At 0) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
_❑�
El 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)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-I Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
T❑
u Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No
#131-2 0-15" 2.5YR 5/1 Matrix; 5YR 5/6 & 7/8 Mottles - clay loam
Hand auger rejection at 15"
35.54604 N, -78.3023 W
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: Eco -Energy Selma Site City/County: Selma/Johnston Sampling Date: 12/23/14
Applicant/Owner: Chambers Engineering, PA State: NC Sampling Point: B2
Investigator(s). GEI - Erin Brosnan, Brooke Bennett Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Artificial Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 5-10
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.54612 Long: -78.30252 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents (Ud) NWI classification: Not mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil x or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes x No
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 No x Is the Sampled Area
Hydrie Soil Present? Yes No x within a Wetland? Yes No x
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
Remarks -
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reguired)
Q Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑�II Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Primary Indicatgrs (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13)
High Water Table (A2)
r0—i
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
�p
LJ Saturation (A3)
1L -Jr
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
II Water Marks (131)
1L�Jf
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
1Q1�f
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
1LJ
u Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Q Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Q Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
0 Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No x Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x
includes ca ilia frin e
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 (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: B2
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Brier (Smilax sp.)
2 Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
3 Blackberry (Rubus sp.)
4.
5-
50% of total cover:
= i orai cover
20% of total cover:
x FACU
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
20% of total cover: Present? Yes No x
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Water oak (Quercus nigra)
% Cover Species? Status
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2 Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
3 Red maple (Acer rubrum)
x FAC
FAC
Total Number of Dominant 3
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
4 Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) FACU
5.
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply -by:
7
8
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 American Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana)
20% of total cover:
x FAC
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 5 x3= 15
FACU species 3 x4= 12
2 Great laurel (Rhododendron maximum)
3
FAC
UPL species x 5 = •__-y^_,
Column Totals: 6 (A) 27 (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.38
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides)
FACU
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
5
6.
7.
8-
g,
10. -
11.
height.
12.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Brier (Smilax sp.)
2 Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
3 Blackberry (Rubus sp.)
4.
5-
50% of total cover:
= i orai cover
20% of total cover:
x FACU
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
20% of total cover: Present? Yes No x
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: B2
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, Loc Texture Remarks
0-14 10YR 4/3 10YR 5/8 10 C M loam fill material w/ gravel
'Type: C=Concenlsation, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
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)
F]
Black Histic (A3)
H Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (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 (A5)
L] Depleted Matrix (F3) 7 Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
0 Redox Depressions (F8) _E]Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
❑r--�
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ]]
Marl (F10) (LRR U) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
D Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
[]
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
0 Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
® Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
HCoast
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
F Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) C Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
HSandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
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): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x
Remarks:
Additional soil borings:
#132-2 0-8" 10YR 5/4 Matrix - loam; 10YR 5/8 Mottle - loam
Hand auger rejection at 8"
35.54606 N, -78.3022 W
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0