20140189 Ver 1_FINAL-Mitigation Plan_20150917

M E M O R A N D U M
720 Corporate Center Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
TO: Daniel Ingram, RES
FROM: Brad Breslow, WKD
DATE: September 15, 2015
lft.�WK
DICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
919 782 0495 tel [phone] fax
R P= �@� 19 D W [9 )�
SEP 1 7 2015
DENR - WATER RESOURCES
401 & BUFFER PERMITTING
RE: Arrington Bridge Final Mitigation Plan- NCDWR and Seymour Johnson
Air Force Base Comments to Revise Final Design Plan
Listed below are comments provided by the Seymour Johnson AFB and NCDWR and WKD's responses:
Dennis G. Goodson- Seymour Johnson AFB
To minimize standing water features that attract birds, we request the proposed wetlands be exclusively
Bottomland Hardwood Forest wetlands in lieu of the proposed Cypress -Gum Swamp Wetlands.
The slough features and Cypress -Gum Swamp wetlands have been removed from the design and the
restoration plan is now exclusively Bottomland Hardwood Forest. The mitigation and planting plan have
been revised to minimize standing water features that may be waterfowl attractants.
Anthony Scarbrough- NCDWR
As previously stated in the review of the Prospectus and previous mitigation plan review, the DWR is
concerned and discourages the use of permanent structures to achieve and maintain hydrology. The
comments provided by WK Dickson within the NCIRT Comments Summary stated "Due to the level of
manipulation over the last 50 years (i.e. no mature tree /root masses), the use of permanent structures will
be necessary to contain sheet flow and mimic natural feature typically seen in undisturbed wetland slough
habitats." The DWR has considered these comments and request additional information as to why a
permanent grade control structures are required en lieu of other self- sustaining alternative design
methodology.
The permanent grade control structures have been removed from the design.

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Bank
Wayne County, North Carolina
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201200040
Prepared for:
Resource
Environmental
Solutions
EBX -Neuse I, LLC,
an entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919- 829 -9909
September 2015
Prepared by:
W D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
919 - 782 -0495

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project is located on a 57.40 acre site three miles
southwest of Goldsboro in western Wayne County, NC. One unnamed channelized drainage feature
that traverses the site exhibits diminished habitat value as a result of past and on -going agricultural
activities. The site was identified by EBX -Neuse I, LLC as having potential to help meet the
compensatory mitigation requirements for wetland impacts in hydrologic unit 03020201 of the Neuse
River Basin.
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project involves the restoration and enhancement of
41.24 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining, agricultural activities, and active
cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents 29.37 acres of wetland restoration and 11.87 acres of
wetland enhancement, generating 32.51 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU's). The proposed project
will be the third of three phases. The Arrington Bridge I & II mitigation sites are located on the north
side of Arrington Bridge Road; Arrington Bridge I is on the east side of John Road, and Arrington
Bridge II is on the west side of John Road. These two buffer and nutrient mitigation sites are
hydrologically connected to the Arrington Bridge III site. The three Arrington Bridge sites
complement each other, and, together, will confer a greater water quality benefit to the Neuse River
than any one of the sites alone.
The proposed Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Project is located within the southern portion of the
HUC and includes a channelized drainage feature that discharges into the Neuse River. Due to its
location and proposed improvements, the project will provide numerous ecological and water quality
benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area,
others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far - reaching
effects.
Land use immediately surrounding the project includes pasture, surface mining, industrial, and
forestry. The total easement area is 57.40 acres. Numerous old borrow pits, spoil, and fill areas
adjacent to the restoration area are evidence of past sand mining operations. A small unnamed
tributary enters the project from uplands to the north (Arrington Bridge I and II), flowing through a
wooded buffer along the base of the terrace. The channel has been dredged and channelized
throughout most of the project. Soil investigations show that much of the low -lying landscape
exhibits hydric characteristics and a shallow seasonal high water table. The site is located on a large
inside meander of the Neuse River. There are three community types present within the project area:
pasture, forest, and development. The restoration area is primarily pasture and the enhancement areas
are disturbed bottomland forest with a range of hydrology present, from narrow sand ridges to
shallow open water.
The objective for this restoration project is to restore a continuous bottomland wetland system and
enhance the hydrology of existing wetlands. The design will be based on reference conditions,
USACE guidance (USAGE, 2005), and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve
success. Initial site design included the construction of three slough habitats to increase surface water
storage and include patches of habitat more typical of reference Cypress -Gum Swamps. Through
coordination with the Interagency Review Team (IRT) and the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
(SJAFB), it was requested that the restoration design minimize standing water features that may be
waterfowl attractants. Therefore, the slough features and Cypress -Gum Swamp wetlands have been
removed from the design and the restoration plan is now exclusively Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Additional project objectives, such as restoring native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and
eradicating invasive species, are listed in Section 1.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan ii September 2015

The primary wetland restoration activities will include:
• The backfilling and stabilizing of the main canal and existing side ditches;
• The fill material on access roads will be removed and stabilized to restore the natural flow
pattern;
The pond will be backfilled with the adjacent spoil pile;
Areas of cut and fill will be re- graded to create a continuous bottomland wetland system;
Existing wetland areas will be enhanced through invasive species control, hydrology
improvements, and habitat connectivity.
After completion of all construction and planting activities, the site will be monitored on a regular
basis and a physical inspection of the site will be conducted at a minimum of twice per year
throughout the seven -year post - construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are
met. These site inspections will identify site components and features that require adaptive
management.
The hydrology success criterion for the site is to restore the water table at the site so that it will
remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least eight percent of the growing
season (approximately 21 days), during normal rainfall years. The interim measures of vegetative
success for the restoration areas will be the survival of 210 trees per acre at the end of Year 7 of the
monitoring period. Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will
be transferred to the North Carolina Habitat Wildlife Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF shall be
responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation
Easement are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be
negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan iii September 2015

"Exams) s) arcelel I BhY K
1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................... ............................... 1
2 SITE SELECTION .......................................................................................... ...............................
1
2.1 Directions to Site ..................................................................................... ...............................
1
2.2 Site Selection ........................................................................................... ...............................
2
2.2.1 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin .............. ...............................
2
2.2.2 Project Components .......................................................................... ..............................2
2.2.3 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ................................ ...............................
2
2.3 Soil Survey .............................................................................................. ...............................
3
2.4 Site Photographs ..................................................................................... ...............................
6
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ............................................................ ...............................
8
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information .............................. ...............................
8
4 BASELINE INFORMATION ......................................................................... ...............................
9
4.1 Watershed Summary Information ........................................................... ...............................
9
4.1.1 Drainage Area .................................................................................. ...............................
9
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification ........................................................... ...............................
9
4.1.3 Endangered/Threatened Species ....................................................... ..............................9
4.1.4 Cultural Resources ........................................................................... .............................10
4.2 Wetland Summary Information ............................................................. ...............................
11
4.2.1 Existing Wetlands .......................................................................... ...............................
11
4.2.2 Existing Hydric Soil ........................................................................ .............................12
4.2.3 Vegetation ........................................................................................ .............................12
4.3 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints ........................... ...............................
13
4.3.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities .................................. .............................13
4.3.2 Site Access ....................................................................................... .............................14
4.3.3 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass ........................................................... .............................14
5 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS .............................................................. ...............................
15
6 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ................................................................ ...............................
16
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits ................................................... ...............................
16
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases ................................................................... ...............................
16
7 FUNCTIONAL RATIONALE ...................................................................... ...............................
17
8 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ...................................................................... ...............................
18
8.1 Reference Wetland Studies .................................................................... ...............................
18
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions ........................................................... .............................18
8.2 Design Parameters ................................................................................. ...............................
19
8.2.1 Wetland Restoration Approach ....................................................... .............................19
8.2.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration .......................................... ...............................
21
8.2.3 Best Management Practices ........................................................... ...............................
22
8.2.4 Soil Restoration ............................................................................. ...............................
22
8.3 Wetland Hydrologic Analysis ............................................................... ...............................
22
8.3.1 Wetland Hydrology Assessment ................................................... ...............................
23
8.3.2 Mitigation Summary ........................................................................ .............................25
9 MAINTENANCE PLAN .............................................................................. ...............................
26
10 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................. ...............................
27
10.1 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria ................................................... ...............................
27
10.1.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria .......................................................... ...............................
27
10.2 Vegetation Success Criteria ................................................................... ...............................
27
11 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................. ...............................
28
11.1 Visual Monitoring ................................................................................. ...............................
28
11.2 Vegetative Success Criteria ................................................................... ...............................
28
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan iv September 2015

11.3 Scheduling / Reporting .............................................................................. .............................29
12 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................... ............................... 30
13 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................... ............................... 31
14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ....................................................................... ............................... 32
15 OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................. ............................... 33
15.1 References ............................................................................................. ............................... 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Arrington Bridge III Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation ...... ............................... 2
Table 2. Historical Land Use and Development Trends ......................................... ...............................
3
Table3. Mapped Soil Series .................................................................................... ...............................
5
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information ............................................... ...............................
8
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information .................................................. ..............................9
Table 6. Federally Protected Species in Wayne County ......................................... .............................10
Table 7. Wetland Summary Information ................................................................. .............................12
Table 8. Regulatory Considerations ........................................................................ .............................14
Table9. Mitigation Credits ...................................................................................... .............................15
Table 10. Credit Release Schedule .......................................................................... .............................16
Table11. Proposed Plant List ................................................................................ ...............................
21
Table12. Maintenance Plan .................................................................................. ...............................
26
Table 13. Monitoring Requirements ...................................................................... ...............................
28
List of Figures
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2- USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3- Soils Map
Figure 4- National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 5- Current Conditions Map
Figure 6- FEMA Map
Figure 7- LIDAR Map
Figure 8- 1950 Historical Conditions Map
Figure 9- Conceptual Plan Map
Appendices
Appendix A- Site Protection Instrument(s)
Appendix B — Baseline Information Data
Appendix C — Soil Scientist's Report
Appendix D — Design Plan Sheets (11 "x17 ")
Appendix E- Regulatory Compliance /Correspondence
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan v September 2015

USA CE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for the Arrington
Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Bank. This Mitigation Plan is not a contract between the Sponsor or
Property Owner and USACE or any other agency or the federal government. Any dispute arising
under this Instrument will not give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property Owner for
monetary damages. This provision is controlling notwithstanding any other provision or statement
in the Instrument to the contrary.
1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified several restoration needs for the
entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC 03020201, specifically. The Arrington Bridge III
Wetland Restoration Project was identified as a wetland restoration opportunity to improve water
quality, habitat, and hydrology within the Neuse 01 River Basin.
The project goals address stressors identified in HUC 03020201 and include the following:
• Nutrient removal,
• Sediment removal,
• Invasive species removal,
• Filtration of runoff, and
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Converting active pasture to a bottomland wetland system,
• Fill and stabilize existing ditches,
• Restoration of bottomland hardwood habitats, and
• Enhancement of hydrology in existing wetlands.
The proposed Arrington Bridge III project is located within the downstream portion of HUC
03020201 and contains a channelized drainage feature that drains directly to the Neuse River. Due to
its location and proposed improvements, the project will provide numerous ecological and water
quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project
area others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, will have more
far - reaching effects. Many of the project design goals and objectives, including restoration of riparian
buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat, and construction of
in- stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will address the degraded water quality and nutrient
input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse RBRP. The
Arrington Bridge I & II mitigation sites are located on the north side of Arrington Bridge Road;
Arrington Bridge I is on the east side of John Road, and Arrington Bridge II is on the west side of
John Road. These two buffer and nutrient mitigation sites are hydrologically connected to the
Arrington Bridge III site. The three Arrington Bridge sites complement each other, and, together, will
confer a greater water quality benefit to the Neuse River than any one of the sites alone.
2 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions to Site
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Site is located in Wayne County approximately three miles
southwest of downtown Goldsboro, NC (Figure 1). The GPS coordinates of the site are 35.342895 °N
and - 78.009907 °W. To access the Site from the town of Goldsboro, travel south on NC HWY 117,
and turn left onto Arrington Bridge Road (NC Highway 581). Turn right onto the dirt entrance road
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 1 September 2015

immediately after crossing the railroad tracks (approximately 0. 15 miles). Turn left after 0.3 miles. In
0.1 miles, follow the left fork to access the northern end of the Site. Following the path to the right
will lead to the middle and southern portions of the Site.
2.2 Site Selection
2.2.1 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin
The project is located within the Neuse River Basin (8 -digit USGS HUC 03020201, 14 -digit USGS
HUC 03020201200040, NC DWQ 03- 04 -12) (Figure 2). The 2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP
identified several restoration needs for the entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC 03020201,
specifically. Goals include promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by
restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
2.2.2 Project Components
The project area is comprised of a single easement located on a 57.40 acre site three miles southwest
of Goldsboro in western Wayne County, NC. One unnamed channelized drainage feature that
traverses the site exhibits diminished habitat value as a result of past and on -going agricultural
activities. The proposed project is the third of three phases. The Arrington Bridge I & II mitigation
sites are located on the north side of Arrington Bridge Road; Arrington Bridge I is on the east side of
John Road, and Arrington Bridge II is on the west side of John Road. These two buffer and nutrient
mitigation sites are hydrologically connected to the Arrington Bridge III site. The three Arrington
Bridge sites complement each other and, together, will confer a greater water quality benefit to the
Neuse River than any one of the sites alone. The proposed project involves the restoration and
enhancement of 41.24 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining, agricultural
activities, and active cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents 29.37 acres of wetland restoration
and 11.87 acres of wetland enhancement, generating 32.51 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU). The
wetland mitigation components are summarized in (Table 1 & Figure 9).
Table 1. Arrington Bridge III Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Mitigation Ratio
WMUs
Enhancement
5.80
3:1
1.93
Enhancement Low
6.07
5:1
1.21
Restoration
29.37
1:1
29.37
Non - Wetland Buffer
16.16
N/A
N/A
TOTAL: 57.40 32.51
2.2.3 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Aerial imagery and information provided by the property owners indicate that the Site has been used
extensively for mining and agricultural purposes, and that the location of the central channel has not
changed in over 40 years (Figure 4). By 1974, the area was cleared, much of the borrow removed,
and conversion of area to agricultural production was occurring. The current ditch system was mostly
in place. Land use patterns have remained constant since then with surrounding land use developing
slowly. Vegetation cover has modulated between regrowth and clearing, with areas converted to
pasture. Between 2005 and 2006 McArthur Lake was expanded and the access road moved north
along a small ridge. Very little has changed across the site during the last 40 years. Across much of
the site, soil structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive mining operations.
Although the soils characterized on the restoration area are classified as poorly drained, the ditching
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 2 September 2015

system and channelization of the stream have caused these soils to be effectively drained. Historical
land use and development trends on the Arrington Bridge III Site are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Date Land Use and Development Observations*
Conditions consist of borrow areas and ditched fields throughout the project area.
The downstream area has scrub -shrub vegetation. The central ditch is channelized.
1974 A small high ridge is forested. Along the Neuse River, the floodplain is
crisscrossed with older borrow areas, but much of this area is in scrub -shrub
vegetation. Low wet areas are visible along portion that may be the old flow
pattern.
1977 Land use conditions have changed very little. More old borrow area near the
downstream end have become scrub -shrub vegetation.
1980 Land use conditions have changed very little. Vegetation along the ditches show
regrowth.
The water treatment plant on the south bank of the Neuse River and the Fellowship
1983 Baptist Church were constructed. The small upland forested area and vegetation
along the ditches has been cleared.
1993 -1998 Land use conditions have changed very little.
McArthur Lake expanded to the north. Dirt path moved to north side of lake. Some
2005 -2006 of the vegetated areas appear to be young pines. Lower fields cleared and planted
in grass.
2008 Thinning of pines on the 2598318336 parcel is evident, likely for pasture. The
lower landscape in the pasture to the northwest was allowed to reforest.
2009 Upland ditch to central channel feature was placed in culvert
2010 Depicts current site conditions.
* Observations based on aerial imagery and landowner communication
2.3 Soil Survey
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The soils within the Coastal Plain region of Wayne County formed in sediments deposited
several million years ago by the oceans and streams. The flood plains along the Neuse River consist
of relatively recent deposits of sediments that are not as highly weathered as sediments in the Coastal
Plain Region. The soils of Wayne County are acid and strongly leached. They are mostly low to very
low in natural fertility. They require applications of lime. Fertilizer is also needed to increase the
content of calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and potassium. The organic- matter content of the soils
is mostly low to very low except for some very wet soils in which water has retarded oxidation. The
Arrington Bridge III site is shown to straddle two soil associations: the Johnston - Chewacla- Kinston
association and the Wickham -Johns association.
The Johnston - Chewacla- Kinston association is found along major streams such as the Neuse River.
The major soils are Chewacla, Johnston, and Kinston. They are somewhat poorly to very poorly
drained. Wetness is a severe limitation for these soils, and they are subject to very frequent floods.
The Wickham -Johns association is found on fairly broad, long, low ridges and depressions on stream
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 3 September 2015

terraces. It is on the terrace along the Neuse and Little Rivers. The major soils are Wickham and
Johns. The site appears more aptly described by the Johnston - Chewacla- Kinston association.
The Wayne County Soil Survey shows eight mapping units across the project site. Map units include
eight soil series and borrow pits (Figure 3). The upland soils found in this area of the county formed
in sandy sediments from marine and fluviomarine deposits or loamy alluvium. The upland soils at this
site are on a river terrace above the active floodplain. The soil series found on the site are described
below and summarized in Table 3; Appendix E.
Coxville loam (Co). This is a poorly drained soil found across flats, Carolina bays, and depressions.
They have moderately slow permeability and runoff is negligible. The seasonal high water table
ranges from 0 to 12 inches below the surface. It has clayey subsoil. Major uses are forest, pasture and
cropland. This soil is considered hydric when undrained by the NRCS.
Johns sandy loam. This is a somewhat poorly to moderately well drained soil found on stream
terraces. They have moderate permeability and runoff is negligible to low. The seasonal high water
table ranges from 18 to 36 inches below the surface. It typically has clayey subsoil. This soil unit is
typically cultivated or forested. This soil is considered to have hydric inclusions by the NRCS.
Kalmia loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes. This is a well- drained soil found on stream terraces. It
has moderate permeability and runoff is negligible to low. The seasonal high water table ranges from
42 to 72 inches below the surface. It has clayey subsoil. This soil unit is typically cultivated or
forested. This soil is considered to have hydric inclusions by the NRCS.
Lakeland sand. This is a moderately excessively drained soil found on broad to narrow uplands. The
seasonal high water table is greater than 80 inches below the surface. It has typically has sand subsoil
to greater than 80 inches. It has rapid to very rapid permeability and runoff is slow. Uses are for
pasture and cropland. This soil is considered to have hydric inclusions by the NRCS.
Pantego loam. This is a very poorly drained soil found on nearly level and slightly depressional
areas. This soil is very poorly drained. It has very slow runoff, has moderate permeability, and is
often ponded. The seasonal high water table ranges from 0 to 12 inches below the surface. It has
clayey subsoil. Major uses are forest with limited pasture and cropland. This soil is considered hydric
when undrained by the NRCS.
Rimini sand. This is a moderately excessively drained soil found on rims around "Carolina Bays"
and on broad smooth divides in the Coastal Plain. The seasonal high water table is greater than 80
inches below the surface. It has typically has sand subsoil to greater than 80 inches. It has rapid to
very rapid permeability and runoff is slow. This soil is mostly forested. This soil is considered to have
hydric inclusions by the NRCS.
Weston loamy sand. This is a poorly drained soil found across flats, Carolina bays, and depressions.
It has moderately slow permeability and runoff is very slow. The seasonal high water table ranges
from 0 to 12 inches below the surface. It often has clayey subsoil. This soil is mostly forested with
limited use as cropland. This soil is considered hydric when undrained by the NRCS.
Wickham loamy sand. This is a well - drained soil found on stream terraces. It has moderate
permeability and runoff is medium to rapid. The seasonal high water table is greater than 80 inches
below the surface. It sometimes has clayey subsoil. This soil unit is typically cultivated or forested.
This series has two slope phases (0 to 2 percent and 2 to 6 percent slopes) and one eroded phase. This
soil is considered to have hydric inclusions by the NRCS.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 4 September 2015

Borrow Pits. This is a mapping unit indicating the area has significant disturbance in the past due to
soil removal and earth work. The borrow pits located near the project area most likely were mined for
sand or gravel, leaving non -sand overburden distributed unevenly across the area. The material
removal results in exposure of silty or clayey subsoils that tend to have high compaction, low organic
matter, and low fertility. The natural establishment of vegetation is slow and uneven. Often areas of
excavation are below the groundwater and result in ponded areas of varying depth.
Table 3. Manned Soil Series
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name
Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
Bp
Borrow pit
--
--
--
--
Co
Coxville loam
10/80%
Poorly
C/D
Concave: Concave
Jo
Johns sandy loam
5%
Moderately
C
Convex: Convex
well
KaB
Kalmia loamy sand, 2 to
5%
Well
B
Convex: Convex
6 percent slopes
La
Lakeland sand
5%
Excessively
A
Convex: Convex
Po
Pantego loam
10/80%
Very Poorly
B/D
Linear: Concave
Rm
Rimini sand
5%
Excessively
A
Convex: Convex
We
Weston loamy sand
10/80%
Poorly
A/D
Linear: Concave
(Woodington)
WhB
Wickham loamy sand, 2
5%
Well
B
Convex: Linear
to 6 percent slopes
Arrington
Bridge III Mitigation Plan
5
September 2015

2.4 Site Photographs
Facing southeast along main drainage.
04/02/2013
Small drainage ditch in project area.
04/02/2013
Area above the pond.
07/09/2013
Facing southwest along small drainage ditch in
project area. 07/09/2013
Proposed wetland enhancement area in lower
portion of easement. 07/09/2013
Proposed wetland enhancement area in upper
portion of easement. 07/09/2013
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 6 September 2015

Facing northwest along bottom portion of the
easement- active pasture. 01/06/2015
Facing southeast along central portion of the
easement- active pasture. 01/06/2015
Facing north in central portion of the easement -
active pasture. 01/06/2015
Facing northwest- pasture along access road and
fence.
01/06/2015
Facing north along upper portion of the easement -
active pasture. 01/06/2015
Facing southeast along upper portion of the
easement- active pasture. 01/06/2015
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 7 September 2015

3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project
includes portions of the following parcels. A copy of the land protection instrument(s) is included in
the appendices.
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
When available, the recorded document(s) will be provided. If the recorded document(s) are not
available, the template documents will be provided.
EBX -Neuse I, LLC (a RES entity), acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation
Easement, and will monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provides
detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual
monitoring activities, for review and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon approval
of the Site by the IRT, the site will be transferred the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
(NCWHF). The NCWHF shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that
restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld.
Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site
transfer to the responsible party.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of
an initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the
Bank Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary,
maintenance of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation
Bank made and entered into by EBX -Neuse I, LLC ( a RES Entity), US Army Corps of Engineers,
and NC Division of Water Resources.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 8 September 2015
Site Deed Book
Landowner PIN County
Protection and Page
Acreage
Instrument Number
Protected
Parcel A JBA Properties LLC 2598318336 Wayne
1982 @313
45.30
Parcel B JBA Properties II LLC 2597698334 Wayne
2783 @878
12.10
TOTAL
57.40
When available, the recorded document(s) will be provided. If the recorded document(s) are not
available, the template documents will be provided.
EBX -Neuse I, LLC (a RES entity), acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation
Easement, and will monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provides
detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual
monitoring activities, for review and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon approval
of the Site by the IRT, the site will be transferred the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
(NCWHF). The NCWHF shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that
restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld.
Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site
transfer to the responsible party.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of
an initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the
Bank Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary,
maintenance of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation
Bank made and entered into by EBX -Neuse I, LLC ( a RES Entity), US Army Corps of Engineers,
and NC Division of Water Resources.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 8 September 2015

4 BASELINE INFORMATION
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area
The easement totals 57.40 acres with one unnamed tributary entering the easement and draining into a
channelized wetland ditch, which runs the length of the easement. The total drainage area at the
downstream limits of the project is 403 acres (0.63 mi2). The land use in the project watershed is
approximately 41 percent cultivated cropland, 18 percent pasture, 16 percent forested, eight percent
residential, eight percent commercial, and seven percent managed open space.
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The current State classification for the channelized drainage feature and ditches within the Arrington
Bridge III Mitigation Site are undefined. The feature is connected to the Neuse River. The Neuse
River is defined as Class C NSW (NCDWQ 2012a). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life,
secondary recreation, and agricultural usage. The NSW is a designation for nutrient sensitive waters —
intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth
of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. The Neuse River upstream and downstream of the site is
classified as impaired waters. All waters in the Neuse River basin are impaired on an evaluated basis
in the Fish Consumption category for mercury contamination. This is based on fish consumption
advice from the NC Department of Health and Human Services (NC DHHS). Downstream in the
Neuse River, low dissolved oxygen levels are present.
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Inner Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03020201200040
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -04 -12
Project Drainage Area (acres)
403
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
7%
4.1.3 Endangered/Threatened Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under
provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Rare and
protected species listed for Wayne County, and any likely impacts to the species as a result of the
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) database (accessed 16 December 2014) lists one
endangered species for Wayne County, North Carolina: red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis
(Table 6). The Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGPA) and prohibits take of bald and golden eagles. No protected species or
potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary site evaluations.
In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was
consulted to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species were mapped
within one mile of the project site. Results from NHP indicate that there are no known occurrences
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 9 September 2015

within a one -mile radius of the project area. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to
federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
WK Dickson submitted a request to USFWS for review and comments on the proposed Arrington
Bridge III Restoration Project on January 5, 2015 in regards to any potential impacts to threatened
and endangered species. A response from USFWS received on January 29, 105 stated that the
proposed Project "is not likely to adversely affect any federally - listed endangered or threatened
species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the
[Endangered Species] Act ". The USFWS did express concern that sedimentation resulting from the
Project may impact aquatic species. They recommend "that all practicable measures be taken to avoid
adverse impacts to aquatic species, including implementing ... stringent sediment and erosion control
measures ".
The proposed project offers some potential to improve or create suitable habitat for several Federal
Species of Concern. Terrestrial habitat will be improved through the restoration and enhancement of
bottomland hardwood and cypress -gum wetland communities. Intact wetland habitat will be protected
in perpetuity. Improved terrestrial habitat may benefit pondspice (Listea aestivalis), Cuthbert
turtlehead (Chelone cuthbertii), and Rafinesque's big -eared bat — Coastal Plain subspecies
(Corynorhinus rafinesquii marcotis).
Table 6. Federally Protected Species in Wayne County
Vertebrate:
American eel
Rafinesque's big -eared bat
Bald eagle
Southern hognose snake
Pinewoods shiner
Carolina madtom
Red - cockaded woodpecker
Invertebrate:
Yellow lance
Atlantic pigtoe
Vascular Plant:
Cuthbert turtlehead
Pondspice
An rostrata
FSC
Federal
Habitat
Record
Common Name
Scientific name
Historic
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA
Yes
Current
Status
Present
Status
Vertebrate:
American eel
Rafinesque's big -eared bat
Bald eagle
Southern hognose snake
Pinewoods shiner
Carolina madtom
Red - cockaded woodpecker
Invertebrate:
Yellow lance
Atlantic pigtoe
Vascular Plant:
Cuthbert turtlehead
Pondspice
An rostrata
FSC
Yes
Current
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
FSC
Yes
Historic
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA
Yes
Current
Heterodon simus
FSC
No
Obscure
Lythrurus matutinus
FSC
No
Obscure
Noturus.furiosus
FSC
No
Current
Picoides borealis
E
No
Current
Elliptio lanceolata FSC No Current
Fusconaia masoni FSC No Historic
Chelone cuthbertii FSC Yes Current
Litsea aestivalis FSC Yes Current
4.1.4 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include historic and archeological resources located in or near the project area. WK
Dickson completed a preliminary survey of cultural resources to determine potential project impacts.
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service database did not
reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources in the proposed project
area. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during surveys
of the site for restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has historically been disturbed
due to agricultural practices and channel modifications.
WK Dickson submitted a request to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to search
records to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance
that may be affected by the Arrington Bridge III Restoration Project on January 5, 2015. In a letter
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 10 September 2015

dated January 27, 2015 (Appendix 3), the SHPO stated that they had "conducted a review of the
project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project."
4.2Wetland Summary Information
4.2.1 Existing Wetlands
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts wetlands within the project site (Figure
4). The channelized drainage feature to the Neuse River is mapped as PFOIA (Palustrine Forested
Broad - Leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded). Additional wetlands just outside of the proposed
easement are mapped as PSS1Fx (Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Broad - Leaved Deciduous Semi -
permanently Flooded- Excavated), PEM1Cx (Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded- Excavated),
and PEM1Gx (Palustrine Emergent Persistent Intermittently Exposed- Excavated). The Neuse River is
classified as R2UBH (Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom).
Adjacent to the Neuse River a complex of Coastal Plain Levee Forest and Cypress -Gum Swamp
communities are present. A wide sand ridge separates these communities from the mining and
agricultural activities. The landscape is characterized by long narrow sand ridges separated by
sloughs and semi - permanent linear depressions that parallel the Neuse, creating a high diversity of
habitats. These levee and swamp communities are frequently flooded by the Neuse. Disturbances are
limited to old dirt paths and shallow ditches.
A detailed wetland delineation was performed in July 2013. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (DOA 1987) and Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 2010). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in
the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA -NRCS 2010). Wetland boundaries were marked with
sequentially numbered wetland survey tape (pink/black striped). Flag locations were surveyed under
the direction of a Professional Licensed Surveyor (PLS) with GPS and conventional survey
(Figure 5; Table 7). USACE regulatory staff (Emily Greer) reviewed the delineation in September
2013. A preliminary JD request was submitted to the USACE in September 2015.
Jurisdictional wetlands are present in the enhancement area north of the central channel and within a
planted stand of cypress trees to the west of the main ditch feature. The wetlands on the Site are
divided between heavily disturbed and functional. The disturbed wetlands are impacted by surface
mining and agricultural practices. These areas have altered drainage patterns, disturbed soils, and are
reduced in area due to drainage. Hydric soils also extend beyond the wetlands and will be restored as
described in Section 8.2.
The wetter forested areas north of the ditch have a wide range of hydrology present, from narrow
sand ridges to shallow open water. These wetlands appear to have hydrology due to slope seepage,
but are impacted by drainage from the ditch. The strongest wetland indicators were located adjacent
to the slope. During the delineation hydrology was at or near the surface within much of the
delineated area. The soils are very dark brown to black with a loamy surface underlain by silty or
clayey subsoils. The canopy ranges from open to closed and where not inundated the understory is
moderately developed with shrubs, vines and herbaceous vegetation. This community is best
described as a Cypress -Gum Swamp and Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 11 September 2015

Table 7. Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland C
Size of Wetland
4.65
5.57
1.89
Pantego Loam
Pantego Loam
Pantego Loam
Mapped Soil Series
Coxville Loam
Coxville Loam
Weston Loamy Sand
Drainage Class
Very Poorly/Poorly
Very Poorly/Poorly
Very Poorly/Poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Source of Hydrology
Surface Hydrology
Surface Hydrology
Surface Hydrology
Hydrologic
Ditching
Ditching
Ditching
Impairment
Native Vegetation
Pasture/Forest
Pasture/Forest
Planted Cypress Stand
Community
Percent composition of
<5%
<5%
<5%
invasive vegetation
4.2.2 Existing Hydric Soil
In addition to the jurisdictional wetland areas, hydric soils were located in three areas on the
Arrington Bridge III project site (Figure 9). The soils lack hydrology for jurisdictional wetland
primarily due to ditching and contour modification due to mining operations. Soils having hydric
indicators are present in areas proposed for wetland enhancement and restoration. The enhancement
areas are located within the forested community northeast of the ditch and the restoration area is
located southwest of the ditch in the pasture. Jurisdictional wetlands appear to be present in the
enhancement area to the northeast of the site. This wetland appears to have hydrology due to slope
seepage, but is impacted by drainage from the ditch. The wetland soils are variable with the strongest
indicators adjacent to the slope. The ditch is currently well maintained along the edge of the pasture.
Numerous small feeder ditches exist and the topography has likely been surface contoured in many
places to provide as much drainage as possible.
Generally, soils in the proposed wetland enhancement and restoration areas typically exhibited a dark
surface having a loamy or silty texture. Clayey or silty subsoils are present within 12 inches. In the
subsoil, mottles of redoximorphic concentrations along pore linings are present. The most common
hydric indicators observed were Al 1 (Depleted Below Dark Surface), Al2 (Thick Dark Surface), F3
(Depleted Matrix), and 176 -Redox Dark Surface. Other indicators observed include A7 (5 cm Mucky
Mineral), and S7 (Dark Surface).
Hydric soils within the proposed enhancement and restoration areas were verified through auger
borings by a licensed soil scientist. The site evaluation identified four distinct soil areas; 1) having
hydric indicators without wetland hydrology, 2) disturbed soils having hydric indicators and lacking
wetland hydrology 3) having hydric indicators and appear to have wetland hydrology, and 4) lack
both hydric indicators and hydrology (Appendix E).
4.2.3 Vegetation
Current land use around the project is primarily agricultural and forestry. Land use immediately
surrounding the project includes of pasture, surface mining, industrial, and forestry. Numerous old
borrow pits, spoil, and fill areas adjacent to the restoration area are evidence of past sand mining
operations. A small unnamed drainage feature enters the project from uplands to the north, flowing
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 12 September 2015

through a wooded buffer along the base of the terrace. The feature has been dredged and channelized
throughout the project. Soil investigations show that much of the low -lying landscape exhibits hydric
characteristics and a shallow seasonal high water table. The site is located on a large inside meander
of the Neuse River. There are two community types present within the project area: pasture and
forest. The restoration area is primarily pasture and forest and the enhancement areas are Cypress -
Gum forests with shallow pools and marsh throughout.
Within the proposed restoration area, the pasture is either Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) with
scattered loblolly pines, or fields planted with annual rye /wheat, depending upon the season. Other
grasses and weeds are limited. Outside of the fenced pasture, the altered stream channel is routinely
maintained, keeping vegetation weedy and early successional. The low -lying areas and ditches have
common rush (Juncus effusus) and sedges (Carex sp.). Forested areas adjacent to the proposed
restoration are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) with limited river birch (Betula nigra), swamp
tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). An understory is mostly absent.
The proposed enhancement areas are low -lying sloughs and linear wetlands divided by shallow sand
ridges. Although currently forested, the previously mined area contains remnant impacts, including
dirt paths, shallow drainage ditches, and portions of a breached impoundment. Scattered large cypress
grow where permanent pools are present. The forested areas are divided into drier and wetter
communities. The drier landscapes contain a canopy of red maple, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia),
water oak (Quercus nigra), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The understory is red maple,
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and giant
cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Green briar (Smilax sp.) is locally dense.
The wetter forested areas have a wide range of hydrology present, from narrow sand ridges to shallow
open water. The canopy is open to closed, and includes bald cypress, swamp tupelo, river birch, red
maple, and laurel oak. Where not inundated, the understory consists of river birch, American
hornbeam, red maple, and common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Herbaceous vegetation
includes Florida spiderlily (Hymenocallis floridana), giant cane, smallspike false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrical), and lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus). Vines are present throughout, and include roundleaf
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Rattan vine (Berchemia scandens),
and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). This forested community is best described as Cypress -
Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype), in part, and Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Brownwater Subtype),
in part.
Some exotics were noted, including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica).
4.3Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
4.3.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
There are no major constraints to construction of the Arrington Bridge III Site. This site is readily
accessible from Arrington Bridge Road via multiple access roads on the property. There are no
existing mineral rights issues, easements, or utility corridors within the proposed site boundaries.
Through coordination with the IRT and the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (SJAFB), it was
requested that the restoration design minimize standing water features that attract birds. The initial
site design included the construction of three slough habitats to increase surface water storage and
include patches of habitat more typical of reference Cypress -Gum Swamps. Based on
correspondence with SJAFB, the slough features and Cypress -Gum Swamp wetlands have been
removed from the design and the restoration plan is now exclusively Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 13 September 2015

4.3.2 Site Access
There are no access constraints to the Arrington Bridge III Site. To access the Site from the town of
Goldsboro, NC travel south on HWY 117, and turn left onto Arrington Bridge Road (NC Highway
581). Turn right onto the dirt entrance road immediately after crossing the railroad tracks
(approximately 0. 15 miles). Turn left after 0.3 miles, and in 0.1 miles follow the left fork to access
the northern end of the site. Following the path to the right will lead to the middle and southern
portions of the Site. The site protection instrument can be found in Appendix A.
4.3.3 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass
Hydrologic trespass is not a concern for this project. The Arrington Bridge III Site is located within
the FEMA 100 -year floodplain of the Neuse River, and the southeast corner of the project is located
within the within the FEMA - regulated floodway (Figure 6). Minor grading/earthwork is currently
proposed within the floodway and will thus require a no -rise or a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) from FEMA. It is anticipated that a no -rise will meet the project requirements and the
necessary report and documentation will be submitted to the City of Goldsboro. One impacted
channel is an excavated ditch from an adjacent mitigation area (Arrington Bridge Phase I). The
channel is already partially inundated and is wholly contained on the subject property. The
landowner has been notified of the project impacts and it will not affect any existing or proposed land
uses. There is no hydrologic easement on the channel and the project will not impact any adjacent
properties.
Table 8. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-
Yes
No
N/A
Section 404
Waters of the United States-
Yes
No
N/A
Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.1.3; Appendix F
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.1.4; Appendix F
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) /Coastal Area
No
No
N/A
Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes N/A Section 4.4.3
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 14 September 2015

5 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design. Upon completion
of site construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the
as -built condition.
Table 9. Mitigation Credits
The Arrington Bridge Wetland Restoration Project
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Riparian Non - riparian Nutrient Phosphorous
Stream Wetland Wetland Buffer Offset Nutrient Offset
Totals N/A 32.51 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
Project Component
Restoration or Restoration
Restoration Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
or Reach ID
Equivalent
Wetland
Enhancement
1.93
5.8
1:3.0
Enhancement Low
1.21
6.07
1 :5.0
Restoration
29.37
29.37
1:1.0
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 15 September 2015

6 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise
provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for
construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release
schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The
release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
Table 10. Credit Release Schedule
Monitoring
Year
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Release
Total
Released
1
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
15%
15%
stated above)
2
Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey
15%
30%
3
First year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
40%
performance standards are being met.
4
Second year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
50%
performance standards are being met.
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
15%
65%
performance standards are being met.
6*
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
70%
performance standards are being met.
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
15%
85%
performance standards are being met.
8*
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
90%
performance standards are being met.
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
9
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
100%
has received close -out approval.
*Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during
these monitoring years unless otherwise stated by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT
with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
b) Recordation of the Conservation Easement, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the
USACE covering the property
c) Financial assurances.
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan
and submittal of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey. All subsequent credit releases
must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 16 September 2015

performance standards have been achieved. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the Sponsor will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be
included with the annual monitoring report.
7 FUNCTIONAL RATIONALE
The objective of this project is to produce 32.51 WMUs and maximize the improvement of
hydrologic function, water quality, and aquatic habitat through the restoration and enhancement of a
continuous bottomland wetland system. With a focus on total ecosystem restoration, the mitigation
design will uplift wetland function at the Arrington Bridge III site, and also provide numerous
ecological and environmental benefits to the broader Neuse River Basin. Benefits, which are
described in more detail below, will include increased hydrologic function, improvements to water
quality, and improved wetland habitat.
Hvdrolozic Function Improvements
The filling and stabilizing of onsite ditches and channels coupled with the restoration of natural flow
patterns will lead to improvements in the hydrologic function of the Site. Soil investigations show
that much of the low -lying landscape exhibits hydric characteristics and a shallow seasonal high
water table. Based on the landscape position and patterns of surface flow to the
restoration/enhancement areas, improvement of hydrologic function will be realized in various
degrees across the landscape. The restoration and enhancement areas will improve surface water
storage and retention. The range of soil characteristics and landscape positions will also provide direct
improvements in subsurface water storage and retention. The creation of this bottomland wetland
system will aid in the maintenance of water table levels by increasing infiltration and groundwater
recharge. The Arrington Bridge III Site is hydrologically connected to the Arrington Bridge I & II
Mitigation Sites on the North side of Arrington Bridge Road. Together, these three mitigation sites
will improve hydrologic function and water quality entering the Neuse River more robustly than any
one of the sites alone.
Water Duality Improvements
The improved hydrologic function and water storage of the Arrington Bridge III Site will lead to
water quality improvements including nutrient removal, sediment reduction, and runoff filtration. By
trapping sediments, retaining excess nutrients, and filtering runoff the Arrington Bridge III Site will
provide valuable benefits to the water quality of the downstream and surrounding areas. These
improvements are especially important as the Site and surrounding areas were once directly
connected to the Neuse River and any improvements to the area will lead to water quality
improvement to the Neuse River. The improved hydrologic function and water quality improvements
will, in turn, lead to direct and indirect benefits to the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the area.
Habitat Improvements
Many species rely on wetland habitat for breeding, forage, and cover. As a transition between
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, conditions present in restored wetlands provide a patchwork of
landscape features and physical structures that harbor increased diversity of plant and animal species.
The design of the Arrington Bridge III Site will provide a patchwork of habitats; the abundant
vegetation and shallow water will provide functional uplift and increased habitat for species of birds,
fish, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 17 September 2015

8 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Reference Wetland Studies
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions
The restoration portions of the Site are characterized by agricultural and livestock practices. Several
ditches exist in the watershed and contribute to the project site. Physical parameters of the site were
used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target community types. An iterative
process was used to develop the final information for the site design.
To develop the target reference conditions, physical site parameters were reviewed. This included the
land use, soils mapping units, as well as general topography. The "Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina" was used to narrow the potential community types that would have
existed at the site (Schafale and Weakley, 2003). The design of the Arrington Bridge III Site will
restore a bottomland hardwood forest system that will be intermittently to seasonally saturated.
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region — Inner Coastal Plain,
• Similar land use onsite and in the watershed,
• Similar watershed soil types,
• Similar site soil types,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat
• Similar topography, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species
8.1.1.1 Reference Site Search Methodology
All the parameters used in Section 4.1 were used to find appropriate reference sites. Obtaining
property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating suitable
reference sites for the project. For this project, there was no predetermined amount of reference sites
needed as long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Several potential reference sites were
assessed, and their characteristics were noted. It is difficult to find reference sites on the coastal plain
because many have been disturbed by farming or urban development. One reference site that proves
to be ideal is located on the Howell Woods Property.
8.1.1.2 Reference Community Characterization
The 2,800 acre property of the Howell Woods Environmental Learning Center is located on the
Neuse River Floodplain and has relatively flat topography with elevations ranging from 84 to 108 feet
above mean sea level. The dominant land use in the vicinity is woodlands and agricultural production,
with large tracts of Cypress -Gum Swamp and Bottomland Hardwood Forests. The proposed
reference communities drain into Mill Creek and, ultimately the Neuse River. Natural drainage
patterns throughout the watershed have been largely unaltered. Based on the landscape position and
proximity to the Neuse River several sloughs and drainage ways influence the drainage patterns on
the property. The diversity of hydrology and vegetation structure present on the Howell Woods
property provides a suitable reference community for the design of the Arrington Bridge III site.
The Bottomland Hardwood Forest community is located in the buffer outside of the channels and
grades into a Cypress -gum swamp community along the edge of channels. The mature hardwoods
form a dense canopy. The shrub and herb strata range for relatively open to locally dense. Several
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 18 September 2015

sloughs are present off of the stream channels and offer open water habitat diversity. Evidence of
frequent flooding was found across the site. The dominant bottomland trees include cherrybark oak
(Quercus pagoda), overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), sweetgum, willow oak
(Quercus phellos), red maple, green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica), and American elm (Ulmus
americana). Disturbance is minimal and includes hunting trails and damage from wild boars. This is
a high quality wetland ecosystem.
8.2 Design Parameters
8.2.1 Wetland Restoration Approach
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation project will provide 32.51 wetland mitigation units
through a combination of Wetland Restoration and two levels of Wetland Enhancement. The existing
pasture areas on the Site will be treated with Wetland Restoration at a credit ratio of 1:1. Wetland
Restoration activities will include: plugging the main channel and side ditches, removing fill, and
regrading the area to reconstruct historical contours. A credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for higher -uplift
wetland enhancement areas, including a drained area of planted cypress, an excavated pond, and
forested areas along the north side of the main ditch. A ratio of 5:1 is proposed for the lower -uplift
wetland enhancement areas, which are primarily along the north side of the main ditch. Both levels of
Wetland Enhancement will be treated by enhancing the hydrology and providing long -term
protection. This will be accomplished by filling the ditches across the site to raise the water table and
restore a more natural drainage pattern. Additionally, the pond will be backfilled with the adjacent
spoil pile and planted with trees and a permanent seed mix. Although this area will be restored to a
wetland, it will receive Enhancement credits at a ratio of 3:1 because the pond is already a
jurisdictional feature.
8.2.1.1 Wetland Restoration Summary
The primary wetland restoration activities will include:
• The backfilling and stabilizing of the main channelized drainage feature and existing side
ditches;
• The fill material on one of the access roads will be removed and stabilized to restore the
natural flow pattern, and the pond will be backfilled with the adjacent spoil pile;
• Areas of cut and fill will be re- graded to create a continuous bottomland wetland system.
Pliny ditches and main channelized drainage feature
Plugging of the main feature and side ditches will be accomplished through a combination of
backfilling and the construction of ditch plugs throughout the easement area. Approximately 8,600
linear feet of open ditch will be backfilled within the easement boundary. Ditches will be filled,
compacted, and graded to the adjacent floodplain elevation. Typical ditch plugs will be 20 feet wide
and extend above the top of the ditch bank elevation a minimum of 6 inches. Plugs will be
constructed of compacted fill placed in 12 -inch lifts with the upper 18 inches minimally compacted to
allow for plant growth. Plugs are spaced such that successive plugs are no more than 6 inches in
elevation below one another. At the point of departure from the conservation easement, a headwater -
type channel will be graded to the existing ditch elevation. When possible, ditch plugs will be
constructed using excavated material from the restoration and construction of wetland pools.
Fill Removal, Pond Back-fill, and regradinz ofsite
Disturbed soils underlain by hydric soils (as described in the soils report) will be graded to allow for a
more natural hydrologic regime and function. Additionally, the fill material on the access roads will
be removed to restore the natural flow pattern of the site. The proposed restoration site is very gently
sloping (less than one percent) but does contain approximately 3 feet of elevation difference across
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 19 September 2015

the site. Several decades of agricultural management and mining operations has eliminated
microtopography across the site. As outlined in the soils report (Appendix C), approximately 12.6
acres of the project area is described as disturbed soils having hydric indicators and lacking wetland
hydrology. These include large areas in a lower landscape position located adjacent to visible borrow
pits. The soils in these areas have variable textures that are exhibiting hydric indicators. All of this
area is in pasture and currently grazed. One excavated pond will be backfilled with soil from the
adjacent spoil pile. The filled pond will be considered enhancement due to the jurisdictional status of
the existing open water habitat. The entire conservation easement will be disked to break up the plow
layer, increase surface roughness, and promote infiltration.
8.2.1.2 Proposed Wetland Hydrology
The Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Site was once a Cypress Gum Swamp wetland subject to
prolonged inundation as indicated by soils mapping, historical aerial photography, and personal
communication with landowners. By 1974, the area was cleared, much of the borrow removed, and
conversion of area to agricultural production was occurring. The current ditch system was mostly in
place.
The restoration plan for the site consists of filling and stabilizing current ditches, converting active
pasture to a bottomland wetland system, restoring bottomland hardwood forests, and enhancing the
hydrology of existing wetlands. The backfilling and plugging of ditches will lengthen wetland
hydroperiods by halting artificial subsurface drainage and preventing rapid surface drainage. Periodic
flooding is vital to sustain plants and wildlife characteristic of riverine wetlands (Ainslie, 2002). The
drainage area for the project area is approximately 0.63 square miles. The restored wetlands will
have a variable flooding regime due to the small size of the drainage area.
8.2.1.3 Soils
Hydric soils within the proposed wetlands were verified through auger borings by a licensed soil
scientist (Appendix E). Map units include eight soil series and borrow pits (Figure 3). The upland
soils at this site are on a river terrace above the active floodplain. The soil series found on the site are
summarized in Table 3. A preliminary assessment of hydrologic trespass was performed on the site.
It appears that the adjacent agricultural fields are topographically elevated sufficient to provide
drainage onto the floodplain without impacting existing drainage. Restoration activities will include:
• Plugging /filling agricultural drainage ditches to raise the seasonal groundwater elevations;
• Grading disturbed hydric soil areas to more natural topography and hydrologic function;
• Planting native tree and shrub species commonly found in wetland ecosystems; and
• Creating a rough soil surface to aid in infiltration and storage by ripping and discing.
Hydric soils were located in three areas on the Arrington Bridge III project. Based upon field
observation, these areas have significantly altered hydrology due to the drainage modifications. These
modifications have increased the rate of surface runoff and lowered the groundwater elevation
throughout the area containing hydric soil on the right bank of the channel. The restoration and
enhancement of these wetlands will result in an elevated seasonal high water table, increased flood
frequency and duration, and increased precipitation infiltration across the entire site. Furthermore,
the wetland restoration and enhancement will lead to benefits to the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in
the area. Soils in the wetland restoration area will be tested for fertility, and soil amendments may be
specified as needed.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 20 September 2015

8.2.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration
8.2.2.1 Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration project. The
selection of plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the
forest surrounding the restoration site, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of
information were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. The plant
species list can be found in Table 11.
Restoration areas will be restored to a Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods target community, as
described in Schafale and Weakley. This community is classified as a Bottomland Hardwood Forest
using the final NCWAM dichotomous key to general NC wetland types. The target community,
Bottomland Hardwood Forest, is intermittently to seasonally saturated. Overbank flooding can be an
important source of water, as can groundwater and surface runoff. This wetland type is characterized
by ground surface relief that provides good water storage. This wetland type is dominated by
hardwood tree species, including various oaks (Quercus spp.), red maple, ashes (Fraxinus spp.),
sycamore, box elder (Acer negundo), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), and American elm.
Table 11. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species— Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetland Indicator*
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
FACW
River Birch
Betula nigra
FACW
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
FAC
American sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW
Overcup Oak
Quercus lyrata
OBL
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
OBL
Water tupelo
Nyssa biflora
OBL
*National Wetland Indicator Status from Draft Rating 2012 - Atlantic Gulf Coastal Plain.
8.2.2.2 On -Site Invasive Species Management
Within the restoration area the pasture is either Bermuda or fields planted with annual rye /wheat,
depending upon the season. Other grasses and weeds are limited. Within the wetter forested areas
some exotics were noted including Chinese privet and Japanese Honeysuckle. Control for invasive
species will be required within all grading limits associated with restoration and enhancement and
will be completed with two treatments: the first will be during the initial construction phase and the
second treatment application will be during year 2 of the project. Invasive species will require
different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and the location of the
species being treated. All treatment will be conducted so as to maximize its effectiveness and reduce
chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods may include mechanical
control (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical control (foliar spray, cut stump,
and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed and properly
disposed of offsite. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide
applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA &CS)
license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels and NC and
Federal laws. Management records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment
employed, type of herbicide used, application technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities
used. These records will be included in all reporting documents.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 21 September 2015

8.2.3 Best Management Practices
Due to the rural nature of this project, individual stormwater best management practices (BMPs) will
not be required. However, diffuse flow structures may be applied at locations where ditches or other
forms of concentrated flow enter the conservation easement. All diffuse flow structures will be
installed within the conservation easement so that landowners will not have access to the structures.
Failure or maintenance of the structures is not anticipated as structures will be installed in low -
gradient areas, and the areas proposed to diffuse flow will be well vegetated and matted. Additionally,
the Arrington Bridge III Site is hydrologically connected to the Arrington Bridge I & II Mitigation
Sites on the North side of Arrington Bridge Road. Together, these three mitigation sites will improve
water quality entering the Neuse River more robustly than any one of the sites alone. Areas of
concentrated flow will be protected as needed with erosion control matting, plantings, and natural
channel design structures. Stormwater management issues resulting from future development of
adjacent properties will be governed by the applicable state and local ordinances and regulations. It is
recommended that any future stormwater entering the site maintain pre- development peak flow. Any
future stormwater diverted into the project should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse
conditions, or degradation of the project in any way.
8.2.4 Soil Restoration
Microtopography and surface roughness are key components to promoting infiltration of precipitation
and recharge of the shallow water table. After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and
any compaction will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over the site. Any topsoil that is
removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the site during final soil preparation.
This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of
vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the site.
8.3 Wetland Hydrologic Analysis
The proposed Site and surrounding areas were once a forested wetland directly connected to the
Neuse River. Due to the largely flat topography, the floodplain is subject to flooding from the Neuse
River. Although the soils in the restoration area are classified as poorly drained, the extensive
mining, ditching, and conversion of the site to pasture has caused these soils to be effectively drained
in restoration areas. The jurisdictional wetlands in the site appear to have hydrology from slope
seepage, but are affected by drainage from the ditch.
In general, the hydrology of the site is dictated by surface runoff, stream flow, and river overbank
flows. Seasonally high water tables also contribute to the hydrology of the site. The soils report
(Appendix E) indicated that a majority of the site has hydric soil indicators present and that the level
topography would create conditions favorable to a perched water table. The design of the Arrington
Bridge III site will restore Bottomland Hardwood Forests that will be intermittently to seasonally
saturated. As described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), Bottomland Hardwood Forests occur on
river floodplains and at edges of Cypress -Gum Swamps. Both systems rely on overbank flooding and
comprise bottomland/slough wetland systems.
The influence of channel overbank flow may vary seasonally to yearly in magnitude, duration, and
frequency (WRP Technical Note HY- EV -2.1, 1993). It may be anticipated that the majority of
flooding of riverine wetlands occurs during the winter months and the early portions of the growing
season. Surface water of riverine wetlands may be present for extended periods during the growing
season and usually greater than 14 consecutive days, but is typically absent by the end of the growing
season in most typical years (EPA, 2006). Field indicators of surface inundation include water - stained
leaves, drift lines and water marks on trees (EPA, 2006). In the absence of surface water, the water
table is often near the ground elevation.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 22 September 2015

8.3.1 Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Runoff from the local watershed and stream flow from the unnamed tributary will provide sufficient
hydrologic input and will provide the opportunity for nutrient and pollutant removal in these
wetlands. To determine the general input to the site from the local watershed in terms of providing
significant hydrology that is needed to sustain saturated conditions a runoff calculation and stream
baseflow estimate was performed.
Runoff Calculations
Runoff onto the wetland creation/enhancement site was determined using the TR -55 Curve Number
Method as described by Pierce 1993. This was done by first determining the amount of rainfall
required over a 24 -hour period to produce runoff (Q) for the drainage area. Q is measured in inches of
rainfall. The drainage area was delineated using Southeast Goldsboro and Southwest Goldsboro 7.5
Minute USGS topographic quadrangles (Figure 2).
The value of Q for the drainage area was then subtracted from daily precipitation values over the
period of record. Those days that returned positive values (i.e. runoff occurred) were then summed to
return the total amount of runoff (R) produced within the watershed area. The equation for calculating
runoff is as follows:
Q= (P24 — 0.2S)2
(P24 + 0.8S)
S = (1000 1_ 10
CN J
Where P24 is the maximum rainfall occurring in a 24 -hour period (over the period of record), CN is
the composite curve number, and S is the storage capacity of the soil. A composite curve was
calculated by subdividing the watershed with respect to soil hydrologic group and land use, then
determining the appropriate curve number for each subdivision using tables published by the USDA
(1986). The area and curve number were multiplied, summed and divided by the total watershed area
to calculate the composite curve number as described below.
CN —_ Y (CN * SubdividedArea )
(WatershedArea)
By this method, the composite curve number for the proposed wetland restoration/enhancement site
was 81.1.
P4
A 24 -hour rainfall record was determined using precipitation data. The maximum
climatological -day precipitation over the 27 -year period of record, excluding tropical storms,
occurred on June 6, 1994, with 6.6 inches of rainfall. No rainfall was recorded on June 5 or
June 7, 1994 and therefore the maximum adjacent - climatological -day precipitation is 6.6
inches.
P24 = (max. climatological -day P) + .5(max. adjacent- climatological -day P)
P24 = (6.6 in) + 0.5(0.0 in)
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 23 September 2015

Runoff
P24 = 66 in
n = (P24 - 0.2S)2
(P24 + 0.85)
S _ (1000 1_ 10
CN J
Q = 2.33
Using this value, the runoff produced by each rain event was calculated by subtracting the
minimum 24 -hour rainfall amount needed to produce runoff (Q) from the amount of
precipitation (P) on each day. Those events that return positive values (i.e. runoff occurred)
are then summed to return the amount of runoff (R) produced by each acre in the watershed.
These values are then averaged by month for the entire period to give the average monthly
runoff for the watershed. Once runoff values were calculated for the drainage area, it was
necessary to adjust these values to reflect the amount of water seen on the site as follows:
R = (Watershed Runoff) * (Watershed Area) / (Site Area)
Stream baseflow is estimated to be between 0.5 and 1.25 cubic feet per second during the non-
growing season months. Baseflow may drop to zero during drier growing season months. The
combination of baseflow, storm runoff, and groundwater inflow from the adjacent terrace will provide
sufficient hydrology to restore the appropriate (and historically present) cypress -gum slough habitats
with adjacent bottomland hardwoods.
The proposed wetland restoration/enhancement area is generally mapped as Coxville, Pantego, and
Weston soils. All three mapping units are poorly drained, found on flats and depressions, and have
moderate to slow permeability. Seasonal high water tables range from 0 to 12 inches below the
surface, and runoff is negligible. Infiltration into the soil on the site was based upon the permeability
range (0.0 to 0.05 in/hr) indicated for hydrologic soil group D soils (USDA 1986). During months
where the seasonal high water table is within 12 inches, the infiltration is assumed to be negligible.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 24 September 2015
00
2
P24 —0.2
C
—10
J
J
Q-
1000
1
P24 + 0.8
_
)
10
CN
J
1000)_
2
J
6.6in — 0.2
((81.1
10
J
1000)_
J
6.6in + 0.8
(81.1
10
J
Q = 2.33
Using this value, the runoff produced by each rain event was calculated by subtracting the
minimum 24 -hour rainfall amount needed to produce runoff (Q) from the amount of
precipitation (P) on each day. Those events that return positive values (i.e. runoff occurred)
are then summed to return the amount of runoff (R) produced by each acre in the watershed.
These values are then averaged by month for the entire period to give the average monthly
runoff for the watershed. Once runoff values were calculated for the drainage area, it was
necessary to adjust these values to reflect the amount of water seen on the site as follows:
R = (Watershed Runoff) * (Watershed Area) / (Site Area)
Stream baseflow is estimated to be between 0.5 and 1.25 cubic feet per second during the non-
growing season months. Baseflow may drop to zero during drier growing season months. The
combination of baseflow, storm runoff, and groundwater inflow from the adjacent terrace will provide
sufficient hydrology to restore the appropriate (and historically present) cypress -gum slough habitats
with adjacent bottomland hardwoods.
The proposed wetland restoration/enhancement area is generally mapped as Coxville, Pantego, and
Weston soils. All three mapping units are poorly drained, found on flats and depressions, and have
moderate to slow permeability. Seasonal high water tables range from 0 to 12 inches below the
surface, and runoff is negligible. Infiltration into the soil on the site was based upon the permeability
range (0.0 to 0.05 in/hr) indicated for hydrologic soil group D soils (USDA 1986). During months
where the seasonal high water table is within 12 inches, the infiltration is assumed to be negligible.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 24 September 2015

8.3.2 Mitigation Summary
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project involves the restoration and enhancement of
41.24 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining, agricultural activities, and active
cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents 29.37 acres of wetland restoration and 11.87 acres of
wetland enhancement, generating 32.51 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU's). Wetland Restoration
activities will include: plugging the main channelized drainage feature and side ditches, removing fill,
and regrading the area to reconstruct historical contours. A credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for higher -
uplift wetland enhancement areas, including a drained area of planted cypress, an excavated pond,
and forested areas along the north side of the main ditch. A ratio of 5:1 is proposed for the lower -
uplift wetland enhancement areas, which are primarily along the north side of the main ditch. Both
levels of Wetland Enhancement will be treated by enhancing the hydrology. This will be
accomplished by filling the ditches across the site to raise the water table and restore a more natural
drainage pattern. Additionally, the pond will be backfilled with the adjacent spoil pile and planted
with trees and a permanent seed mix. Although this area will be restored to a wetland, it will receive
Enhancement credits at a ratio of 3:1 because the pond is already a jurisdictional feature.
The Wetland Restoration/Enhancement areas will be restored to a Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods target community, as described in Schafale and Weakley. The selection of plant species is
based on what was observed at the reference wetland, species present in the forest surrounding the
restoration site, and what is typically native to the area.
The proposed project will be the third of three phases. The Arrington Bridge I & II mitigation sites
are located on the north side of Arrington Bridge Road; Arrington Bridge I is on the east side of John
Road, and Arrington Bridge II is on the west side of John Road. These two buffer and nutrient
mitigation sites are hydrologically connected to the Arrington Bridge III site. The three Arrington
Bridge sites complement each other, and, together, will confer a greater water quality benefit to the
Neuse River than any one of the sites alone.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 25 September 2015

9 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum
of twice per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the following:
Table 12. Maintenance Plan
Component /Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include
securing of loose coir matting and supplemental installations of live
Wetland
stakes and other target vegetation within the wetland. Areas where
stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the wetland may also
require maintenance to prevent scour.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the
targeted plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and
repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning,
Vegetation
mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be
controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation
control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear
distinction between the mitigation site and adjacent properties.
Boundaries will be marked with signs identifying the property as a
mitigation site, and will include the name of the long -term steward
Site Boundary
and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence,
marker, bollard, post, tree- blazing, or other means as allowed by
site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers
disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced
on an as- needed basis.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 26 September 2015

10 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Arrington Bridge III Site will follow accepted and approved success
criteria presented in the North Carolina Wetland Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
10.1 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
10.1.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has a current WETs table for Wayne County
upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable
data station was determined to be WETS station NC713 Goldsboro S Johnson AFB. This station is
located at the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base approximately 1.5 miles east of the proposed
mitigation site. The growing season for Wayne County is 262 days long, extending from March 4 to
November 21, and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit
occurring in five of ten years.
Because of the surface roughing and shallow depressions, a range of hydroperiods and inundation is
expected. The hydrology success criterion for the site is to restore the water table at the site so that it
will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least eight percent of the growing
season (approximately 21 days) at each groundwater gauge location.
Gauge data will be compared to reference wetland well data in growing seasons with less than normal
rainfall. In periods of low rainfall, if a restoration gauge hydroperiod exceeds the reference gauge
hydroperiod, and both exceed five percent of the growing season, then the gauge will be deemed
successful. If a gauge location fails to meet these success criteria in the seven year monitoring period,
then monitoring may be extended, remedial actions may be undertaken, or the limits of wetland
restoration will be determined.
10.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the wetland areas on the site will
follow IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover
a minimum of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the fall
of each year.
The interim measures of vegetative success for the planted areas in the site will be the survival of at
least 320 planted three -year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3 and 260 five -year old trees per acre
at the end of Year 5. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 trees per acre at
the end of Year 7 of the monitoring period.
Survival will be determined at the plot level, not averaged at the site level. No areas will be planted
with more than 50 percent of one species comprising the total composition. In addition, planted
vegetation should show a general trend toward successful establishment of the target communities
with vigor and height growth. Specific height criteria are not specified due to the variability of
species and site conditions.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 27 September 2015

11 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the IRT monitoring template. The monitoring report
shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and
trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding project close -out. The success
criteria for the Arrington Bridge III site will follow current accepted and approved success criteria
presented in the North Carolina Wetland Mitigation Guidelines, and subsequent agency guidance.
Specific success criteria components are presented in Table 13. Monitoring reports will be prepared
annually and submitted to the IRT.
Table 13. Monitoring Requirements
Required
I Parameter
I Quantity
I Frequency
I Notes
Yes
Groundwater
15 -20 gauges
Quarterly
Groundwater monitoring gauges with
Hydrology
distributed
data recording devices will be
throughout the site.
installed on site; the data will be
downloaded on a quarterly basis
during the growing season
Yes
Vegetation
A representative
Semi - annual
Vegetation will be monitored per
coverage of planted
IRT guidelines using fixed plots;
vegetation area.
Trees /acre will be reported including
volunteers of desirable species
Yes
Exotic and
Semi - annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Nuisance
vegetation will be mapped
Vegetation
Yes
Project
Semi - annual
Locations of fence damage,
Boundary
vegetation damage, boundary
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
Yes
Wetland
Annual
Semi - annual visual assessments
Visual
* See sheet M1 in Appendix D.
11.1 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive
species, and easement encroachments. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of
visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas
and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate surface hydrology, success of
vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. A series of photos over time should
indicate successional maturation of vegetation.
11.2 Vegetative Success Criteria
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the plots: species,
height, planting date (or volunteer), and grid location. Monitoring will occur each year during the
monitoring period. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated at initial construction
and during year 2 of the project. If necessary, RES will develop a species - specific control plan.
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and controlled so that none become dominant or alter
the desired community structure of the site. If necessary, RES will develop a species- specific control
plan.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 28 September 2015

11.3 Scheduling /Reporting
A mitigation plan and as -built drawings documenting restoration activities will be developed within
60 days of the planting completion on the mitigation site. The report will include all information
required by IRT mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot
locations, gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The
report will also include a list of the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation
monitoring will include species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The baseline
report will follow USACE guidelines.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the
final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in all seven monitoring years and submitted to the IRT. The
monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USAGE. Years 4
and 6 will not require vegetation plot data and will include photo documentation in lieu of data
collection.
The Mitigation Plan will include a detailed adaptive management plan that will address how potential
problems are resolved. In the event that the site, or a specific component of the site, fails to achieve
the defined success criteria, RES will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or
implement appropriate remedial actions for the site in coordination with the IRT.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 29 September 2015

12 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
EBX -Neuse I, LLC (a RES entity) acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation
Easement, and will monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provides
detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual
monitoring activities, for review and approval by the IRT. Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the
site will be transferred to the NCWHF. The NCWHF shall be responsible for periodic inspection of
the site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction
document(s) are upheld. Easements held by the NCWHF are stewarded in general accordance with
the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance; easement monitoring is conducted on
an annual basis. An overview of the NCWHF Easement Stewardship program is included in
Appendix A. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated
prior to site transfer to the NCWHF.
The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of
an initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the
Bank Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary,
maintenance of the Site during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation
Bank made and entered into by EBX -Neuse I, LLC (a RES entity), USACE, and NC DWR.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 30 September 2015

13 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, RES will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously
in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the site's ability to
achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, RES will develop necessary adaptive
management plans and/or implement appropriate remedial actions. Remedial action required will be
designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and will include identification of the
causes of failure, remedial design approach, work schedule, and monitoring criteria that will take into
account physical and climatic conditions. If tree mortality affects 40 percent or greater of the canopy
in a restoration area, then a remedial /supplemental planting plan will be developed and implemented
for the affected area(s). Once the Remedial Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise wetland hydrology performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring
requirements as necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Remedial Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Rorrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 31 September 2015

14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $300,000 Construction Performance
Bond to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and
planting costs are estimated to be at or below $300,000 based on the Engineer's construction materials
estimate and recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of
construction and planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $200,000
Monitoring Performance Bond will be provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring
and reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period. The $200,000 amount
includes a 20 percent construction contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer.
The Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $20,000 following approval of each annual
monitoring report. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be retired in total following official notice
of site close -out from the IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to the NCWHF. Financial
assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are
not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE receives
notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation. The Performance Bonds
will be provided by RLI Insurance Company. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the
USACE in draft form for approval prior to execution.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 32 September 2015

15 OTHER INFORMATION
15.1 References
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Conner, W.H. and J. W. Day. (1976) Productivity and Composition of a Baldcypress- Water Tupelo
Site and a Bottomland Hardwood Site in a Louisiana Swamp. American Journal of Botany 63 (10):
1354 -1364.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of B iological
Services, FW510BS- 79131. U.S. Department of the Interior; Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y -87 -1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262 -274.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02 -2, December
24, 2002.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2013. April 2003 NC Wetland Mitigation Guidelines.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2. 0), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC /EL TR- 10 -20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
Web Soil Survey; http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (September 2014)
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 33 September 2015

Figures
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2- USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3- Soils Map
Figure 4- National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 5- Current Conditions Map
Figure 6- FEMA Map
Figure 7- LIDAR Map
Figure 8- 1950 Historical Conditions Map
Figure 9- Conceptual Plan Map

�. op
Goldsboro'
D-
ap
Q
Arrington Bridge III Site �✓
o fl
Q tayrsia�"
�' O Johoc�4n �a4
Q
L D
d
5
7
Legend
Streams
- Proposed Easement 1
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment1P�Gorp.,
Waterbody NR.CAN, Esri Japan, METL, Esri China (Hong Kong' (Thailand),
HUC 03020201200040 TomTom, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
G.'omm`u ity
Figure 1.
Resource Project Vicinity Map
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site
Solutions 0
0 0.5 1 2 WAYNE COUNTY
Mlles Scale: NTS
1 inch = 1 miles

_. Arrington Bridge III ` `t
Proposed Mitigation Site
Sol
�j
117. t
4sr�
Source: Southeast Golds6oro:and Southwest Goldsboro Quadrangles copyright © 2013,N' nai Geographic Society, i -cubed
.i.0 i.I ➢I i Ii ii n Ilr�_i .11 �IYid .. I_n _a I I '�' i
Figure 2.
Resource USGS Topographic Map Proposed Easement
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site Arrington Bridge I
Solutions
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Arrington Bridge 11
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Court* s
II-
-
ipff
Ail
7r
d
�'
M •
Arrington Bridge I
Mitigation Site
• ;
oil
/
;�
rata
• I
�,� .•
I I
t _�4 a
Arrington Bridge II
�' °'
-
'
Mitigation Site
di
Fla
A•'.�''
l
`j
4b
t 49 iii
!
�! .•.I •
1S
. e
- w —_. f/�1�
1812.
�1P'. ���Y�� 1. •
� .
_. Arrington Bridge III ` `t
Proposed Mitigation Site
Sol
�j
117. t
4sr�
Source: Southeast Golds6oro:and Southwest Goldsboro Quadrangles copyright © 2013,N' nai Geographic Society, i -cubed
.i.0 i.I ➢I i Ii ii n Ilr�_i .11 �IYid .. I_n _a I I '�' i
Figure 2.
Resource USGS Topographic Map Proposed Easement
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site Arrington Bridge I
Solutions
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Arrington Bridge 11
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet

r
M1 P
C�
\4�'Mmr'
Soil Symbol Name
Soil Symbol Name
Bp
Borrow pit
W
Water
Co
Coxville loam
WaB
Wagram loamy sand, 0 - 6% slopes
Jo
Johns sandy loam
We
Weston loamy sand (Woodington)
KaA
Kahnia loamy sand, 0 - 2% slopes
WhA
Wickham loamy sand, 0 - 2% slopes
KaB
Kahnia loamy sand, 2 - 6% slopes
WhB
Wickham loamy sand, 2 - 6% slopes
La
Lakeland sand
WkB2
Wickham sandy loam, 2 - 6% slopes, eroded
Po
Pantego loam
Resource
Environmental
Solutions
Figure 3.
Soils Map
Arrington Bridge III Site
0 300 600 1,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
NRCS'.Soil IDatalfflavne.0
Roads
Streams
Proposed Easement
Wayne County Soils

c
R S r
r
ti
IML
PEM1C
PF01 /2F
PF01A
Source: National Wetlands Inventory GIS Data
Figure 4.
Roads
Resource NWI Map
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site Streams
Solutions NWI Wetlands
0 0 300 600 1,200
Feet Proposed Easement
1 inch = 600 feet

R
s h�ri 'O
t'
r�
As
• - T
i
Existina Veaetation Conditions 4
Target Community
w Present Marqinal Absent
_m
42 Absent No Fill
CL
U)
> Present
y
� Common I
Figure 5.
Resource Existing Conditions Map
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site
Solutions
0 � 0 300 600 1,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Roads
Existing Ditch
Streams
Proposed Easement
0 Existing Wetlands
LR N}
�ib�� ,�• rr
i
r'•�_` L &
• - T
i
Existina Veaetation Conditions 4
Target Community
w Present Marqinal Absent
_m
42 Absent No Fill
CL
U)
> Present
y
� Common I
Figure 5.
Resource Existing Conditions Map
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site
Solutions
0 � 0 300 600 1,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Roads
Existing Ditch
Streams
Proposed Easement
0 Existing Wetlands

s= ,_
Q Q
0 o o
o o >,
o LL LL co
w ' ' o
0
_oo o
o in LL
cn E o Q Q Q
o ° W W W
�' (n a LL LL LL
m 11
M
C
0
N F7- CO
i C 0
0.
O .� }
Z3
0 0
ui f)
4 '
ooLL
U)
o
N
Q (D
CD
Q M�
O
C W
0
II
[7L LLI
O
r
U
LL
O
O
r
L
LO
Q
O
M
C
0
N F7- CO
i C 0
0.
O .� }
Z3
0 0
ui f)
4 '

' r Std•
2
h9fo '�
hem.
P
0
iN
�qj
NL
A.
A —
Figure 7.
Roads
Resource LIDAR Map
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site Streams
Solutions
0 500 1,000 2,000 Proposed Easement
Feet P 10 d
arce oun arses
1 inch = 1,000 feet

Resource
Environmental
Solutions
Figure 8.
1950 Historical Conditions
Arrington Bridge III Site
500 1,000 2,000
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Roads
Proposed Easement

Resource
Environmental
Solutions
Figure 9. ti
Conceptual Design Plan
Arrington Bridge III Site
0 200 400 800
Feet
1 in = 400 ft

Appendix A
Site Protection Instrument (s)
Site Protection Instruments
Conservation Easement Deeds
NCWHF Easement Approval Letter
NCWHF Stewardship Program Overview
Preliminary Plats
Note: This appendix will be updated as the easement deeds and plats become available.

MODEL CONSERVATION EASEMENT
January 18, 2001
Rev'd October 16, 2002
Rev'd August, 2003
Model Conservation Easement for use in preserving mitigation property. Language in
italics is instructional, and should be deleted when site - specific Conservation Easement
is prepared.
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ( "Conservation Easement ") made this
day of , 200_ by and between
( "Grantor ") and (Grantee).
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine
or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ( "Property ");
WHEREAS, Grantee is [either a public body of this state, an agency of the United
States, or a nonprofit corporation or trust whose purpose is the conservation of property],
and is qualified to be the Grantee of a conservation easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 121 -35;
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following natural
communities: [describe by wetland and /or stream type, as well as any associated buffers
or upland communities]. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain
wetland and/or riparian resources and other natural values of the Property, and prevent
the use or development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would
conflict with the maintenance of the Property in its natural condition.
[ For use when the mitigation is offered for impacts of a single individual or
general permit use] WHEREAS, the preservation of the Property is a condition of
Department of the Army permit Action ID issued by the Wilmington
District Corps of Engineers, required to mitigate for unavoidable stream and/or wetland
impacts authorized by that permit. Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District

(Corps, to include any successor agencies), and that these rights are in addition to, and do
not limit, the rights of enforcement under said permit.
[Alternate paragraph for use when the conservation easement supports a
mitigation bank] WHEREAS, the preservation of the Property is required by a Mitigation
Banking Instrument for the [Name of Bank], Department of the Army Action ID [Action
ID number for the mitigation bank]. The Mitigation Bank is intended to be used to
compensate for unavoidable stream and/or wetland impacts authorized by permits issued
by the Department of the Army. Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(Corps, to include any successor agencies), and that these rights are in addition to, and do
not limit, the rights of the parties to the Mitigation Banking Instrument.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Property described on Exhibit A,
together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This conservation Easement is an
easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and
licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purpose of this
Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Property shall be preserved in its natural
condition and restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Property.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses
are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Property or any introduction of non - native
plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display,

antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or
permanent structure or facility on or above the Property.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and /or
commercial activities, including any right of passage for such purposes are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Property are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting
or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the property; nor enlargement or modification to existing roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signaae. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Property, except the
posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property,
signs giving directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Property
and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the property.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or other
materials on the Property is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any manner
on the Property, except to restore natural topography or drainage patterns.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration
of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition, diverting or causing
or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into, within or out of the
easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters,
springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or
extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all- terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited. [The Corps
will generally allow the use of vehicles on existing roads provided those roads are

identified by reference to a recorded map showing their location, configuration, and
size.]
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or
may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Property
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is
prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the property for all purposes not
inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to
quiet enjoyment of the Property, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish,
and hike on the Property, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Property,
in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
[For use when mitigation work (approved or required restoration, creation, or
enhancement)is to be done on the property]Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions,
Grantor reserves for Grantor, its successors and assigns, the right to construct wetland
and stream mitigation on the Property, in accordance with the [describe mitigation plan
by title, date and permit action id if a single mitigation site; if a mitigation bank, include
the language "detailed mitigation plan approved in accordance with the Mitigation
Banking Instrument for the Mitigation Bank.]
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the
Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting said property to determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes
of this Conservation Easement. The Grantee shall also have the right to enter and go
upon the Property for purposes of making scientific or educational observations and
studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do not include public
access rights.
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee is allowed to prevent
any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this
Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may
be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation

Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify
the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of
such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains
uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by
appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice,
to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the breach
of the term of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or otherwise
materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement. The
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances damage to the Grantee
would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate. The rights and remedies of
the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights
and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement. The
costs of a breach, correction or restoration, including the Grantee's expenses, court costs,
and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be
responsible for the breach. The Corps shall have the same right to enforce the terms and
conditions of this easement as the Grantee.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or
provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a
subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle
Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the Property
resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire,
flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or
from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to
prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Property resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warrantv. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property which
have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor further
warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and
arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title
to the Property against the claims of all persons.

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any interest in
all or a portion of the Property. The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such
transfer at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee
agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee
and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof and shall not be amended,
modified or terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the Grantee
hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation
Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified holder under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee
further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such that
the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severabilitv. This instrument sets forth the entire
agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all
prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation
Easement. If any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property
free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to comply with
federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of the
Reserved Rights.
F. Extinauishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Property for the conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement
may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
G. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Property is taken in the exercise
of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this
Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time
of such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.
H. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of this Property is sold,
exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an extinguishment or the exercise of
eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation

Easement. The parties stipulate that the fair market value of this Conservation Easement
shall be determined by multiplying the fair market value of the Property unencumbered
by this Conservation Easement (minus any increase in value after the date of this grant
attributable to improvements) by the ratio of the value of this easement at the time of this
grant to the value of the Property (without deduction for the value of this Conservation
Easement) at the time of this grant. The values at the time of this grant shall be the values
used, or which would have been used, to calculate a deduction for federal income tax
purposes, pursuant to Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (whether eligible or
ineligible for such a deduction). Grantee shall use its share of the proceeds in a manner
consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
I. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter specified
by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To the Corgs:
[Name, address and fax number]
J. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest
shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate
proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
K. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in a
writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any
applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this grant.
L. [For use if there is a document describing the current condition of the
property. The language provided is applicable if there is a mitigation plan that
accurately describes the current condition and uses of the property. If there is not such a
plan, another document we agree is accurate and can be identified and is in our files can
be referenced.]Present Condition of the Property. The wetlands, scenic, resource,
environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Property, and its current use and
state of improvement, are described in Section , Appendix B of the Mitigation Plan,

dated , prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and
Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee
have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes
in the use of the Property will be consistent with the terms of this Conservation
Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the use of other evidence to
establish the present condition of the Property if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]

Kelly Harrill
Chairman
Greensboro, NC
lenna Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John C, Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
W. Harrison Stewart
Treasurer
Greensboro, NC
Eddie C. Bridges
Executive Director
Greensboro, NC
Dan Barker
Greensboro, NC
Thomas A. Berry
Greensboro, NC
Samuel E. Bridges
Greensboro, NC
Tracy Brooks
Greensboro, NC
Tonnie E. Davis
Roxboro, NC
Johnny Dinkins
Greensboro, NC
William DuBose
Greensboro, NC
Gregory Erwin
Raleigh, NC
John D. Goins
Hendersonville, NC
Stewart Gordon
Winston - Salem, NC
Scott Heffernan
Greensboro, NC
Maurice S. Hull
High Point, NC
John Preyer
Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. Wes Perry
Kinston, NC
Mark Ruffin
Greensboro, NC
John Saslow
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Mark Toland
Asheville, NC
February 26, 2015
EBX Neuse I, LLC
Mr. Ely Perry
518 Plaza Blvd
Kinston, NC 28501
This letter on behalf of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation is in
regards to the Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation project in Wayne County. I have
reviewed the draft Mitigation Plan for this site and believe that the project will provide
real and lasting benefits to wildlife habitat. These benefits are in keeping with the mission
statement of the NCWHF. Therefore our organization is willing to hold a perpetual
conservation easement on this site.
An endowment fee of $15,000 will be required for the easement transfer to take
place in 2015 -2016. This fee will be held in trust according to the best practices of the
Land Trust Alliance. The funds will be used for ongoing monitoring of this specific site
as well as any legal costs which may arise from specific violations of the easement terms.
This offer is subject to a favorable review of the conservation easement
document, boundaries, and details. The current mitigation plan draft indicates acceptable
boundaries and details; only the easement language itself remains to be reviewed. Please
provide a draft easement for review at your convenience. Additionally, EBX will be
responsible for installing standard NCWHF signage on the site.
�Sincerely,
Matthew Harrell
On Behalf of the NCWHF
P.O. Box 29187 . Greensboro, NC 27429 -9187
(336) 375 -4994 c www.ncwhf.org

Kelly Harrill
Chairman
Greensboro, NC
Tenna Koury
Vice Chairman
Burlington, NC
John C. Hagan
Secretary
Greensboro, NC
W. Harrison Stewart
Treasurer
Greensboro, NC
Eddie C. Bridges
Executive Director
Greensboro, NC
Dan Barker
Greensboro, NC
Thomas A. Berry
Greensboro, NC
Samuel E. Bridges
Greensboro, NC
Tracy Brooks
Greensboro, NC
Tonnie E. Davis
Roxboro, NC
Johnny Dinkins
Greensboro, NC
William DuBose
Greensboro, NC
Gregory Erwin
Raleigh, NC
John D. Goins
Hendersonville, NC
Stewart Gordon
Winston- Salem, NC
Scott Heffernan
Greensboro, NC
Maurice S. Hull
High Point, NC
John Preyer
Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. Wes Perry
Kinston, NC
Mark Ruffin
Greensboro, NC
John Saslow
Greensboro, NC
Michelle Sharpe
Greensboro, NC
Mark Toland
Asheville, NC
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is intended to provide a brief overview of the NCWHF Easement
Stewardship program. We currently hold over thirty individual conservation easements
across North Carolina, including over 2,000 acres of land. These perpetual easements
were mostly established through environmental mitigation projects which restored or
preserved important wildlife habitat along with ecological functions of streams and
wetlands. We continue to accept and hold easements that fit with our Mission Statement:
The purpose of the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation is to assist in the
acquisition, management and protection of wildlife habitat within the state of North
Carolina and promote conservation education for the benefit of future generations.
Easements held by the NCWHF are stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines
published by the National Land Trust Alliance. For each easement it accepts, the
NCWHF requires an endowment fee which is held in trust. The funds are used for
ongoing monitoring of the specific site as well as any legal costs which may arise.
Monitoring is conducted on an annual basis. This involves a preliminary review of
ownership via tax records and a GIS -based review of the site each year. After the file is
updated an on -site inspection is conducted to confirm that the terms of the easement are
being honored. Visits are coordinated with the landowner when possible. The visit is
recorded in a written report and with photographs that are then archived. Signs
identifying the boundary of the easement are refreshed as needed during these visits.
Each landowner associated with the site is contacted at least annually and updated on the
status of the easement, even when in full compliance. The aim is to prevent violations by
maintaining a working partnership with the landowners. Any violations of easement
terms are promptly communicated to the landowner. Minor violations are typically
resolved with clear communication and reminders of the easement terms. However, if a
violation occurs that is not resolved through cooperative means in a timely manner, the
NCWHF is prepared to draw on the endowment funds to initiate legal recourse.
For any questions about the Easement Stewardship Program at the NCWHF, please
contact Matthew Harrell, (252) 299 -1655 or Harrell.conservation(a,=aiI.com
Sincerely,
L'ezl
Matthew Harrell
On Behalf of the NCWHF
P.O. Box 29187. Greensboro, NC 27429 -9187
(336) 375 -4994 . www.ncwhf.org

Site :
Address:
Monitor Name:
Others Present: 1)
2)
3)
Conservation Easement Monitoring Report
Date:
Arrival Time:
Departure Time:
Weather Conditions:
Circle appropriately
Y or N 1. Landowner contacted prior to visit?
Y or N 2. Landowner /representative present during visit?
Y or N 3. Recorded easement reviewed prior to inspection?
Y or N 4. Recorded plat reviewed prior to inspection?
Features Present in Easement?
Y or N Powerlines
Y or N Fences
Y or N Stream Crossings
Y or N Deer Stands/ Duck Blinds
5. Indicate monitoring method: Walking ATV Air
6. Indicate observed disturbances to the site:
Y or N a. Beaver activity Explain:
Y or N b. Invasive Vegetation Privet Kudzu Bamboo Multifloral Rose
Y or N c. Other land management issues (Erosion, water quality, fire, etc)
Y or N d. Grading/ Excavation/ or Construction activities
Y or N e. Depositing or dumping (trash, dirt, yard debris, etc)
Y or N f. Vegetative damage, including mowing, trimming, or tree removal
Y or N g. Livestock (present or signs of recent presence)
Y or N h. Vehicle use within easement other than on designated paths
atv dirtbike truck machinery
Y or N Points of access located GPS:
Overview of Observations:
Wildlife:
Y or N i. Photo's taken?
Y or N j. Followup required/ Site under Review? List primary issue:
Other
Notes on Reverse

FLOOD STATEMENT \' /
NOTES:
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE " AE ' ��%r/ / 1. NO NC GRID MONUMENTS WERE LOCATED WITHIN `
AND IS LOCATED WITHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD 2000' OF THIS PROPERTY.
AREA, AS DETERMINED BY NFTP RATE MAP / 2. ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND I
\ MEASUREMENTS IN FEET & DECIMALS THEREOF, ///
DATED DECEMBER 2. 2005 COMMUNITY PANEL / ,P UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. �, I
NUMBER 370255- 2588 -J & 370255- 2597 -J. iO�y n_
�a I V
I \4
EIS \ \ �Q.
dy It
O l� \ JBA PROPERTIES, LLC. \\ \p_L
\� O DB 2572, PG 448
PC M, SL 93 -J
%/ Z \ \\ \ T\ V 1
`.
//l / � JBA PROPERTIES, LLC.
SL \ O
DB 1982, PG 313 °\ }� < s�F
I , / PC L, 90 -F
?� \ TRUSTEES OF
\ \ \ FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH
OB 853 PG 647
\ \\ \\ PC 5, PG 128/
\ �O
LINE TABLE JBA PROPERTIES, LLC.
DB 1982, PG 313 z�
LINE BEARING LENGTH PC L, SL 90 -F \\
L -1 S 22'42'16' E 245.88' pA Aa !\\ JBA PROPERTIES, LLC.
L -2 S 58' 12 28' £ 158.55' 20 S p / D8 2572, PG 448
Q
I n \ \ \ \ PC M, SL 93 -J
L -3 S 3830 20' E 758.65' A \ /
L -4 S 424751' E 486.01'
L -5 S 49'4759" E 71744' JBA PROPERTIES, LLC. /
L -6 S 5J'0929" E 439.16' \ OB PROPERTIES, TI 313 \
L -7 S 4932'08" E 299.92' O /)Z`y O� PC L, SL 90 -F
L -8 N 40'3230' E 100.65'
L -9 S 4930'46" E 464.60' z9 POND ^� \ l
L -10 S 2534'42" W 15.75' L��2fi ���� \\ �'S�CAROLINA POWER & ./
L -11 S 54'1549" E 1317.07' \ / LIGHT COMPANY
OB 1704, PC 681
L -12 N 35'47'14' E 154.12' z6 \O SL 18 -C/
L -13 S 5536'09" E 342.68' EIP
L -14 5 09'2051 " W 272.38'
(CC) BELLSOUTH
L -15 N 773956" W 290.22' A l\ 9 TELECOMMUNICATION.
L -i6 N 49'07'14" W 519.45' �'
�s� EIS OB 2783 PG 87
L -17 N 78'50'49" W 728.00' PC K, SL 27 -C
L -18 N 70'17'15" W 244.78' b ECM \
L -19 N 24'53'03' E 530.48' J DB PROPERTIES, 982, PC 313 C \ AREA 1 °�0 9 L -B l�
L -20 N 70'17'15" W 228.48' PC L, SL 90 -F
0
L -21 S 765755" W 595.51' z4
L -22 N 43'44 23" W 206.30'
L -23 N 34'2629" E 213.12' n
L -24 N 04'42 45" W 379.66' 1 L -10
a�
L -25 N 29'1633' W 42753'
L -26 N 7947'02" W 815.79'
L -27 N 03'33'08' E 361.03' pATN \ -19
L -28 N 2702'07' E 132.00' "PRELIMINARY PLAT" zJ i
L -29 N 6709,57' W 895.54' /
L -3l S 35'47'4" W 25.65- NOT FOR pSALES, CONVEYANCES,
L -32 N 24'53'03" E 320.54' OR RECORDA TION. Zz� D17 CH
L -33 S 40'28'03" W 271.19' �
\ - -21 19
\ \ \
21 JBA PROPERTIES, LLC.
OB 1982, PG 313
PC L, SL 90 -F /
1, CHRISTOPHER K PADERICK, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
NO 4189, CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY IS OF AN07HER
CATEGORY. TO WIT; AN EASEMENT SURVEY.
L -4189
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WAYNE COUNTY
I CHRISTOPHER K. PADERICK , CER77FY THAT THIS
PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVSION FROM AN ACTUAL
SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION; (DEED DESCRIP770M
RECORDED IN MAP & DEED BOOKS NOTED), THAT THE
BOUNDARIES NDT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED AS DRAWN
FROM INFORMATION REFERENCED HEREON' THAT THE RATIO
OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS is 10.000 +: THAT THIS PLAT
WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47 -30 AS
AMENDED. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER AND SEAL THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY . AD.,
2014.
L -4189
INC. /
/
1, REVIEW OFFICER OF
SAMPSON COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP OR PLAT TO
WHICH THIS CER77FIC47ION IS AFFIXED MEETS ALL STATUTORY O
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING.
REVIEW OFFICER
DATE
FILED FOR REGISTRATION ,
2015. _ M
PLAT CABINET , PAGE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
WAYNE COUNTY
LEGEND
R/W = RIGHT -OF -WAY
C/L = CENTERLINE
INV. = INVERT
RCP = REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
DIP = DUCTILE IRON PIPE
G = GATE
EIS = EXISTING IRON STAKE
ECM = EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT
EIP = EXISTING IRON PIPE
O - NO POINT SET
• = NEW IRON STAKE & CAP
�R = 77E LINE
CC) ) = CONTROL CORNER
-E- = ELECTRICAL LINE
- = WIRE FENCE
- - - - = ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE
= EASEMENT LINE
= EASEMENT /BOUNDARY LINE
UCHIYAMA AMERICA, INC.
DB 1550, PG 269
AREA 2-`
VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
EASEMENT CORNER COORDINATE TABLE
III
NORTH /NG
FASTING
1
583,324.2341'
2,293,453.0699'
2
583,0974078'
2,293,5479735'
3
583,013.8765'
2,293682.7372'
4
582,420.1939'
2,294,155.0689'
5
582,063.5818'
2,294,485.2668'
6
581,600.5007'
2,295,033.2450'
7
581,337.1787"
2,295,384.6998'
8
581,142.5393"
2,295,612.8805'
9
581,219.0300
2,295,678.3061'
10
580,917.3748'
2,296,031.6574'
11
580,903.1646'
2,296,024.8556'
12
580,133.9204"
2,297,093.9431'
13
580,258.9443'
2,297,184.0709'
14
580,065.3547'
2,297,466.8276'
15
579,796.5936'
2,297,422.5871'
16
579,858.5889'
2,297,139.0682'
17
580,198.5531'
2,296,746.3170'
18
580,339.3694'
2,296,032.0691'
19
580,421.9327"
2,295,801.6366'
20
580,499.0003'
2,295,586.5424'
21
580,364.6872"
2,295,006.3740'
22
580,513.7335'
2,294,863.7440'
23
580,689.4986'
2,294,984.2792'
24
581,067.8716'
2,294,953.0878'
25
581,440.7916'
2,294,744.0218'
26
581,585.4812'
2,293,941.1663'
27
581,945.8140'
2,293,963.5342'
28
582,063.3904'
2,294,023.5333'
29
582,410.9171'
2,293198.1725'
30
580,766.4707'
2,297,549.9388'
"1
.580,131.1488'
2,295,666.7568'
32
581,543.4915'
2,295,560.7045'
(COORDINATES ARE GROUND COORDINATES
RELATW TD NAD 83/2071)
,o
ECM
/
/
v /
dry' /� PROPERTIES 11, LLC.
DS 2783 Pc 878
1a PC K, SL 27 -C
N\Nll
ECM
s1
OTay
El - \ \ - POND
-_'� D/
JBA PROPERTIES 8 If, LLC.
OB PG 878
POND`!_
\ \ 14 Q JBA PROPERTIES 11, LLC.
\
cc�
PC K SL 27 -C
K,S
DB 2783, PG 878
\s \ L -14 pQ K, SL 27 -C
LfPOND
POND 15
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SURVEY FOR
MATRIX EAST, PLLC
EBX -NEUSE /, LLC.
SOURCES OF TITLE
DB 1982, PG 313 E PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
OF THE ARRINGTON BRIDGE 111 SITE
, ,
PC L, SL 90 -F
DB 2783, Pc 878
906 N. QUEEN ST., SUITE A KINSTON, INC 28501
PC K, SL 27 -C TEL: [phone] FAX: 252 - 522 -4747
GOLDSBORO TOWNSHIP JULY 21, 2014
WAYNE COUNTY, NC 1" = 300'
ACREAGE DATA FIRM LIC. # P -0221 EMAIL: surveyor®matrixeast.net
(BY COMPUTER)
300' 150' 0 300' 600'
AREA 1 = 45.262 Act DRAWN BY: CKP PROJECT NO.: 20130099
AREA 2 = 12.092 act SURVEYED BY: CKP DATE: 07/21/2014
GRAPHIC SCALE
TOTAL = 57354 AC.*
SCALE: 1" = 300' DRAWING NAME: 20130099

Appendix B
Baseline Information
Arrington Bridge III Baseline Information Table
Arrington Bridge III Routine Wetland Data Forms

Project Information
Project Name Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Site
County Wayne
Project Area (acres) 57.4
Project Coordinates 350 20'35.776" N 780 0'39.808" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Inner Coastal Plain
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
DWQ Sub -basin
3020201
3020201200040
03 -04 -02
Project Drainage Area (acres) 403
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 0.07
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland A Wetland B Wetland C
Size of Wetland (acres)
Mapped Soil Series
Drainage Class
Soil Hydric Status
Source of Hydrology
4.65
Pantego Loam
Coxville Loam
Very Poorly /Poorly
Hydric
Groundwater; Surface
Hydrology
5.57
Pantego Loam
Coxville Loam
Very Poorly /Poorly
Hydric
Groundwater; Surface
Hydrology
1.89
Pantego Loam
Weston Loamy Sand
Very Poorly /Poorly
Hydric
Groundwater; Surface
Hydrology
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditching
Ditching
Ditching
Native Vegetation Community
Pasture/Forest
Pasture/Forest
Planted Cypress Stand
Percent composition of invasive
< 5%
< 5%
<5%
vegetation
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States- Section 404
Yes
No
Appendix E
Waters of the United States- Section 401
Yes
No
Appendix E
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.1.3; Appendix E
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.1.4; Appendix E
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) /Coastal Area Management Act
No
N/A
N/A
(CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
N/A
Section 4.4.3; Appendix E
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Kalmia loamy sand
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 200 -H
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave- linear Slope ( %): <1
Lat: 35.3478360527 Lon g: -78.0158777364 Datum:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?
NWI classification:
No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Y/ V/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is in active pasture. Ditching has increased runoff rate. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(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 (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 200 -H
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Pinus taeda
15 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B)
6.
15 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
Q 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 •
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
2
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Carex lurida
10 Yes OBL
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Rubus hispidus
10 Yes FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Cynodon dactylon
10 Yes FACU
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Juncus coriaceus
5 No FACW
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5 Polygonum pensylvanicum
5 No FACW
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
$•
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
40 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth exposed from livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 200 -H
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So1ls3:
Redox Features
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type'
Loc`
Texture Remarks
0 -4
10YR 2/2
100
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
LS
4 -9
10YR 3/3
80
10YR 3/6 20 C
PL
S
9 -16
10YR 5/2
80
10YR 4/6 20 D
PL
SCL
16 -22
10YR 6/1
60
10YR 5/8 10 C
PL
SC
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Kalmia loamy sand
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 201
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - linear Slope (oho): 1
Lat: 35.3475530381 Lon g: -78.01578556 Datum:
NWI classification: No
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Y/ V/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is in active pasture. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(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 (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 201
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Pinus taeda
15 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B)
6.
15 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
2•
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4•
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Juncus coriaceus
25 Yes FACW
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Eupatorium capillifolium
20 Yes FACU
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Rubus hispidus
10 No FACW
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4,
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
$•
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
55 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Campsis radicans
2 No FAC
2.
3.
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
2 = Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth exposed from livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
Sampling Point: 201
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Black Histic (A3)
Redox Features
— Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) %
Type'
Loc`
Texture Remarks
0 -4
10YR3/2
95
10YR 4/6 5
C
PL
LS
4 -9
10YR 4/4
95
10YR 4/6 5
C
M
SL
9 -14
10YR 5/6
65
10YR 6/1 45
D
M
SL
14 -20
10YR 6/1
75
10YR 5/6 20
C
M
Sic
--
--
--
10YR 4/6 5
C
M
--
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
11
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Pantego loam
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 202 -H
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - concave Slope ( %):
Lat: 35.34566578 Lon g: -78.01480918 Datum:
NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Y/ V/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is in active pasture. Ditching has increased runoff rate. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): -14
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): -14 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(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 (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 202 -H
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A/B)
6.
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
Q 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 •
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
2
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Carex lurida
5 Yes OBL
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Juncus coriaceus
5 Yes FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Polygonum pensylvanicum
5 Yes FACU
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
q Cyperus rotundus
5 Yes FACW
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5. Eupatorium capillifolium
5 Yes FACU
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6. Diodia virginiana
2 No FACW
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8•
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
27 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth (40 to 50 percent) exposed from livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
Sampling Point: 202 -H
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Redox Features
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
— Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type'
Loc`
Texture Remarks
0 -4
10YR 2/1
96
10YR 4/2 4 C
PL
SL
4 -20
10YR 2/1
75
10YR 3/6 15 C
PL
CL
--
--
--
10YR 3/2 10 C
M
--
20-26
10YR 6/1
85
10YR 5/8 10 C
PL
SCL
--
--
--
10YR 4/6 5 C
PL
--
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Lakeland sand
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 203 -H
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concvex- linear Slope (oho): 1
Lat: 35.3455288 Lon g: -78.01492859 Datum:
NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 ✓ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Y/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is in active pasture. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(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 (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 203 -H
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Pinus taeda
10 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
6.
10 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species 2 x 2= 4
1
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2
FACU species 27 x 4 = 108
3
4
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 39 (A) 142 (B)
5
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.6
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
2•
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree –Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Digitaria sanguinalis
20 Yes FACU
Sapling –Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Eupatorium capillifolium
5 No FACU
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Rubus hispidus
2 No FACW
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Lespedeza cuneata
2 No FACU
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8•
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
29 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation
F-1
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No W/
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth exposed from livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 203 -H
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 -12 10YR2/2 95 10YR 3/6 5 C PL SL
12 -22 10YR 5/2 95 10YR 4/6 10 C PL SC
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Johnston sandy loam
City /County: Wayne
State: NC
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Lat: 35.34644983 Lon g: -78.01568837
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?
Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
Sampling Point: 204 -H
NWI classification: NA
Slope ( %): <1
Datum:
No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Y/ V/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is in active pasture and occasionally tilled. Ditching has increased runoff rate. Rainfall is above
normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): -17
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): -14 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Rainfall above average prior to determination. Ditching has increased runoff rate.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 204 -H
4b = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth (40 to 50 percent) exposed from livestock impacts.
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.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
6.
0 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
OBL species 25 x 1 = 25
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
1
FACW species x 2 =
2
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species 20 x 4 = 80
3
4
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 45 (A) 105 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.3
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 •
❑✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4•
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Carex lurida
25 Yes OBL
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Digitaria sanguinalis
20 Yes FACU
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
4,
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8•
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
4b = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth (40 to 50 percent) exposed from livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 204 -H
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks
0 -4 10YR 2/1 100 SiL
4 -19 10YR 2/1 92 10YR 3/4 8 C PL SiL
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Coxville loam
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 205 -H
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - linear Slope ( %): !0
Lat: 35.34686317 Lon g: -78.01432521 Datum:
NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Y/ V/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is in forest. Ditching has increased runoff rate. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(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 (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 205 -H
MultiDIv bv:
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
45
Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2
2 Ulmus americana
25
Yes FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66
6.
50% of total cover:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius
1 Acer rubrum
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Acer rubrum
2 Hypericum hypericoides
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Juncus coriaceus
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Smilax rotundifolia
2 Campsis radicans
3.
4.
5.
' = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
4 No FAC
4 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
1 No FAC
1 No FAC
2 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
1 No FACW
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
60 Yes FAC
5 No FAC
bn = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Limited herbaceous vegetation due to dense woody vines.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
MultiDIv bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
(B)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation n
Present? Yes • No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So1ls3:
Sampling Point: 205 -H
Profile Description: (Describe
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Redox Features
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc`
Texture Remarks
0 -5
10YR 3/2
100
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
SL
5 -9
10YR 4/2
80
10YR 3/6 20 C PL
SCL
9 -19
10YR 4/1
80
10YR 3/6 25 D PL
SCL
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Pantego loam
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 9, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 206 -J
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - linear Slope ( %): !0
Lat: 35.34592615 Long: 35.34592615 Datum:
NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Site is in forest. Rainfall is above normal. Ditching has increased runoff rate.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): -4
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V/ No
(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 (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
= Total Cover
Sampling Point: 206 -J
OBL species
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
35
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8
2 Acer rubrum
30
Yes
FAC
15
Yes
OBL
10
Total Number of Dominant
N ssa biflora
3. Y
25
Yes
OBL
Species Across All Strata: 9
4 Salix nigra
5
No
OBL
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 89
6.
50% of total cover:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
2 Cyrilla racemiflora
3 Ilex verticillata
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Saururus cernuus
2 Woodwardia areolata
3 Carex crinita
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Toxicodendron radicans
2 Campsis radicans
3.
4.
5.
Z20 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
0
= Total Cover
_ 20% of total cover:
OBL species
x 1 =
10
Yes
FAC
5
Yes
FACW
3
No
FACW
(A) 0
= Total Cover
18
20% of total cover:
15
Yes
OBL
10
Yes
OBL
3
No
FACW
zZ5 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
5 Yes FAC
5 Yes FAC
1u = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Limited herbaceous vegetation due to dense woody vines.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
MultiDIv bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
(B)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation n
Present? Yes • No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Sampling Point: 206 -J
Profile Description: (Describe
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks
0 -6
10YR 2/1
100
mucky L
6 -14
10YR 2/1
100
Sic
14 -23
10YR 4/3
100
SCL
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
✓ Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
✓ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Pantego loam
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 9, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 207 -H
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave- concave Slope
Lat: 35.3456825 Long: 35.3456825 Datum:
NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Site is in active pasture and occasionally tilled. Ditching has increased runoff rate. Rainfall is above
normal and data point likely affected by floodwater from Neuse River..
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): -4
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): -4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V/ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Rainfall above average prior to determination. Data point likely affected by floodwater from Neuse
River.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 207 -H
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.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66 (A/B)
6.
0 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
OBL species x 1 =
1
FACW species x 2 =
2
FAC species x 3 =
3
FACU species x 4 =
4
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 •
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
2•
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4•
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Juncus coriaceus
10 Yes FACW
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Rhynchospora sp.
5 Yes
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Eupatorium capillifolium
5 Yes FACU
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
q Carex lurida
5 Yes OBL
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
$•
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation n
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes • No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth ( -25 percent) exposed from
livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 207 -H
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 -18 7.5YR 2.5/1 95 10YR 3/4 5 C PL SiCL
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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): Hydric Soil Present? Yes W1 No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Weston loamy sand
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 9, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 208 -H
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - linear Slope ( %): !0
Lat: 35.34479247 Lon g: -78.01350857 Datum:
NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Y/ within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Site is in pasture Ditching has increased runoff rate. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): -5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V/ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Rainfall above normal. May not meet jurisdictional hydrology during normal years. Site has been
ditched and channelized. Current surface /groundwater affected by floodwater backed up from
Neuse River.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 208 -H
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.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
0 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
OBL species x 1 =
1
FACW species x 2 =
2
FAC species x 3 =
3
FACU species x 4 =
4
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 •
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
2•
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4•
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Cyperus rotundus
20 Yes FAC
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Polygonum pensylvanicum
15 Yes FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3 Juncus tenuis
5 No FAC
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4 Echinochloa crus -galli
2 No FACW
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8.
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
42 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation n
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes • No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth ( -25 percent) exposed from
livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
Sampling Point: 208 -H
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Redox Features
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
— Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type'
Loc`
Texture Remarks
0 -5
10 YR 3/1
92
10 YR 3/6 8 C
PL
SiL
5 -17
10 YR 3/1
85
10 YR 3/6 15 C
PL
Sic
17 -24
10 YR 5/1
90
10 YR 5/6 2 C
PL
Sc
--
--
--
7.5 YR 3/4 8 C
PL
--
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Weston loamy sand
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 209 -U
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - linear Slope (oho): 1%
Lat: 35.34446299 Lon g: -78.01398765 Datum:
NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 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 ✓ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Y/ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is in active pasture. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
V/ 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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): -22
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): -17 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Rainfall above normal.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 209 -U
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 Pinus taeda
15 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
6.
15 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species 40 x 2 = 80
1
2
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species 55 x 4 = 220
3
4
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 95 (A) 300 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
2•
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4•
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
0 = Total Cover
Tree –Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Digitaria sanguinalis
55 Yes FACU
Sapling –Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Diodia virginiana
40 Yes FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
4,
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8.
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
95 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 •
No FAC
2.
3.
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation
F-1
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No W/
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth exposed ( -10 %) from livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 209 -U
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 -17 10 YR 2/2 100 LS
17 -28 10 YR 6/4 90 10 YR 5/8 10 C CS
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
11
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
Applicant /Owner: EBX State: NC Sampling Point: 210 -U
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex - linear Slope (oho): 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A Lat: 35.34404495 Long: - 78.01036423 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Wickham loamy sand NWI classification: NA
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V/ Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is forested. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Rainfall above normal.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Total % Cover of:
Sampling Point: 210 -U
= Total Cover
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
40
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8
2 Acer rubrum
30
Yes
FAC
FACW
3 Quercus falcata
3
No
Total Number of Dominant
3 Pinus taeda
5
NO
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 9
4 Nyssa sylvatica
5
No
FAC
6.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
16
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 89
6.
20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
30 foot radius )
9 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Juncus coriaceus 2 No FACW
2 Sorghastrum nutans 1 No FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
3 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: _
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Vitis rotundifolia 5 Yes FAC
2 Smilax rotundifolia 3 Yes FAC
3 Campsis radicans 1 No FAC
4.
5.
9 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in forest.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
O1
= Total Cover
x 1 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FAC species
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
30 foot radius
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
1 Acer rubrum
(A) 0
5
Yes
FAC
2 Quercus phellos
5
Yes
FACW
3 Quercus falcata
3
No
FACU
4 Pinus taeda
3
No
FAC
5.
6.
16
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
30 foot radius )
1 Quercus phellos
3
Yes
FACW
2 Pinus taeda
3
Yes
FAC
3 Ligustrum sinense
3
Yes
FAC
4.
5.
6.
9 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Juncus coriaceus 2 No FACW
2 Sorghastrum nutans 1 No FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
3 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: _
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Vitis rotundifolia 5 Yes FAC
2 Smilax rotundifolia 3 Yes FAC
3 Campsis radicans 1 No FAC
4.
5.
9 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in forest.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
MUItIDIV bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
(B)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation n
Present? Yes • No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So1ls3:
Sampling Point: 210 -U
Profile Description: (Describe
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Redox Features
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc`
Texture Remarks
0 -4
10 YR 2/2
100
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
SL
4 -14
10 YR 4/3
70
10 YR 4/6 30 C
SL
14 -20
10 YR 4/6
60
10 YR 7/1 40 D
SCL
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
11
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Pantego loam
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 9, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 211 -J
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - linear Slope ( %): !0
Lat: 35.34377355 Lon g: -78.01045591 Datum:
NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Site is in forest. Ditching has increased runoff rate. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
✓ Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): -10
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): - 10 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V/ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Rainfall above normal. Site has evidence of past ditching and channelization.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Total % Cover of:
Sampling Point: 211 -J
OBL species
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum
40
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2
2 Betula nigra
20
Yes
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3 Salix nigra
5
No
OBL
Species Across All Strata: 2
4. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5
No
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100
6.
50% of total cover:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Acer rubrum
2 Liquidambar styraciflua
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Rubus hispidus
2 Boehmeria cylindrica
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover: 14.8
0 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
1 No FAC
1 Yes FACU
2 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
3 No FACW
1 No FACW
4 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
50% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
MultiDIv bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
(B)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation n
Present? Yes • No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 211 -J
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks
0 -2 10 YR 2/2 100 Sic
2 -18 10 YR 5/1 90 10 YR 5/8 10 C PL SiL
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 8, 2013
Applicant /Owner: EBX State: NC Sampling Point: 212 -U
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex - linear Slope (oho): 1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A Lat: 35.34242708 Long: - 78.00844218 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Wickham loamy sand NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V/ Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Site is in forested. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Rainfall above normal.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Total % Cover of:
Sampling Point: 212 -U
OBL species
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
40
Yes
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8
2 Pinus taeda
20
Yes
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3. Quercus laurifolia
5
NO
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 8
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100
6.
50% of total cover:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius
1 Acer rubrum
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
1 Quercus laurifolia
2 Ligustrum sinense
3 Ilex verticillata
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 20 foot radius )
1 Smilax rotundifolia
2 Toxicodendron radicans
3.
4.
5.
°J = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 13
5 Yes FAC
5 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
1 Yes FACW
2 Yes FAC
2 Yes FACW
5 = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
u = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
20 Yes FAC
10 Yes FAC
au = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in forest.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
MultiDIv bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals: 0
(A) 0
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
(B)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH),
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation n
Present? Yes • No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: 212 -U
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm
the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc`
Texture Remarks
0 -5 10 YR 2/2 100
SL
5 -11 10 YR 4/2 70
10 YR 4/4 5 C PL
LS
11 -16 10 YR 5/6 60
10 YR 5/8 15 C M
cLS
--
10 YR 6/3 10 D M
--
16-26 7.5 YR 6/6
7.5 YR 6/2 20 D M
cLS
--
7.5 YR 5/8 20 C PL
--
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
11
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
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: Arrington Bridge
Applicant /Owner: EBX
Investigator(s): G Lankford, B Hockett
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 133A
Soil Map Unit Name: Coxville loam
City /County: Wayne Sampling Date: July 9, 2013
State: NC Sampling Point: 213 -J
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave - linear Slope ( %): !0
Lat: 35.34173187 Lon g: -78.00667436 Datum:
NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No ✓ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _/ 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Site is in forest. Ditching has increased runoff rate. Rainfall is above normal.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that aDDly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓ High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓ Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
— Moss Trim Lines (1316)
✓ Water Marks (B1) _
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)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (135) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
✓ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
✓ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): -3
Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V/ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Rainfall above normal. May not meet jurisdictional hydrology during normal years. Site has been
ditched and channelized.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 213 -J
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum
60 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2 Nyssa biflora
5 No OBL
Total Number of Dominant
Li uidambar st raciflua
3. q y
5 FAC
NO
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
70 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover: 14
Total % Cover of: MUItiDIV bv:
SaDlina Stratum (Plot size:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species x 3 =
2
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 =
4
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
❑✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
Q 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 Acer rubrum
2 No FAC
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01
2 Liquidambar styraciflua
2 No FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
3.
4.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
6.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
4 = Total Cover
Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
1 Saururus cernuus
25 Yes OBL
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2 Woodwardia areolata
20 Yes OBL
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
3. Arundinaria gigantea
5 No FACW
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4,
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
7
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
8.
3 ft (1 m) in height.
9.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
10.
11.
50 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover: 8
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius )
1 Toxicodendron radicans
10 Yes FAC
2 Smilax laurifolia
2 No FACW
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
12 = Total Cover
Vegetation
n
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover: 2.4
Present? Yes
•
No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Data point in pasture. Bare earth ( -25 percent) exposed from livestock impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Sampling Point: 213 -J
Profile Description: (Describe
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks
0 -20
7.5 YR 2.5/1
100
mucky L
22 -24
N 2.5/-
100
mucky L
24 -28
10YR 5/1
100
cLS
'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 So1ls3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (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)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
✓ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ 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:
W1
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0

Appendix C
Soil Scientist's Report

Arrington Bridge Mitigation Project
Wayne County, North Carolina
2015 Hydric Soil Assessment
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 782 -0495
George Lankford, NC LSS # 1223
January 2015
Soil Scientist Sea]
This report describes the results of this soil
evaluation. Any subsequent transfer of the
report by the user shall be made by transferring
the complete report, including figures, maps,
appendices, all attachments and disclaimers.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Site is located in Wayne County approximately three miles
southwest of downtown Goldsboro, NC (Figure 1). The site is located on approximately 57 -acre
site three miles southwest of Goldsboro in western Wayne County, NC. Access is off of
Arrington Bridge Road (SR 1915).
The project site is located along the floodplain of the Neuse River adjacent to an active sand
mine. The site land use is currently agricultural livestock grazing and forested areas. The historic
land use in the project vicinity is sand and gravel mining with current conditions variously
impacted from these activities.
The project extends southeastward from the access road along the edge of the floodplain and toe
of slope. A small tributary enters the nearly level floodplain from the north. A drainage ditch runs
southeasterly the length of the site to provide drainage with numerous small ditches to support
existing agricultural activities. The ditch flows into the Neuse River. The north side of the ditch is
forested and to the south is actively grazed. The soils in the project area were evaluated for the
presence of hydric soil, hydric soil indicators, and restoration potential.
1.2 General Watershed Information
The site is located on a large, nearly level floodplain along the north side of a bend in the Neuse
River between the levee and toe slope of the terrace in a normal backwater landscape. The project
is in hydrologic unit 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin.
1.3 Methodology
A series of soil borings were performed to described and verify the presence of hydric soil and
determine the extent along the floodplain. These soil borings document the presence of hydric
soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil surface where present within the project area. Where
disturbance was noted, hydric characteristics below 12 inches depth were also evaluated. The
boring observations do not contain adequate detail to classify these soils.
Hydric soil indicators develop over time under saturated conditions. The characteristic indicators
are formed in an anaerobic environment predominantly by accumulation or loss of iron,
manganese, sulfur, or carbon compounds (organic matter). Many of these indicators remain long
after saturated conditions have been removed by man -made alterations. Modifications at this site
include clearing of natural vegetation, mining (excavation and filling), and ditching.
Hydric soils are therefore typically identified by color and spatial patterns created by the chemical
changes formed under past anaerobic conditions, even where these conditions currently no longer
exist due to site modifications. Indicators of hydric soil typically are mostly found within the
upper 12 inches of the soil and consist of dark or gray colors and redoximorphic spatial patterns.
Dark colors indicate accumulation of organic matter, gray colors indicate migration or depletion
of minerals, and bright colors indicate concentration of minerals. Hydric soils have soil matrix
colors with a chroma 2 or less within the top 12 inches and may contain various color mottles and
usually occupy the lowest part of the landscape. The presence of Hydric Indicators indicates a soil
has undergone saturated conditions in the past, but does not verify current conditions of
saturation.

Arrington Bride III Mitigation Project
2015 Hydric Soil Assessment
January, 2015
Soil profiles across the study area were evaluated for morphologic characteristics and divided into
soils having hydric indicators within 12 inches and soils lacking hydric indicators. Additionally,
areas appearing to have current wetland hydrology and obvious disturbed profiles were identified.
Using criteria based on "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (USDA, NRCS,
2010, Version 7.0), approximately 41.3 acres were identified that show hydric characteristics
within 12 inches, excluding Jurisdictional Wetlands. Indicators valid for the Regional Supplement
to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
(Version 2.0) were used. Additionally, areas having jurisdictional hydrology were also identified.
The project is located in Land Resource Region (LLR) P (Inner Coastal Plain) and in Major Land
Resource Area (MLRA) 133A (Southern Coastal Plain)
2.0 Site Soils
2.1 NRCS Soil Survey
General Soil Description
The soils of Wayne County are acid and strongly leached and are mostly low to very low in
natural fertility. They require applications of lime. Fertilizer is also needed to increase the content
of calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and potassium. The organic- matter content of the soils is
mostly low to very low except for some very wet soils in which water has retarded oxidation. The
site is shown to straddle two Soil Associations: the Johnston - Chewacla- Kinston Association and
the Wickham -Johns Association.
The Johnston - Chewacla- Kinston Association is found along major streams such as the Neuse
River. The major soils found in this Association are Chewacla, Johnston, and Kinston. They are
naturally somewhat poorly to very poorly drained. Wetness is a severe limitation for these soils
and they are subject to very frequent floods. The Wickham -Johns Association is found on fairly
broad, long, low ridges and depressions on stream terraces. It is on the terrace along the Neuse
and Little Rivers. The major soils are Wickham and Johns. The site appears more aptly described
by the Johnston - Chewacla- Kinston Association.
Site Mapped Soil Series
The Wayne County Soil Survey shows eight mapping units across the project site. Map units
include eight soil series and borrow pits (Figure 2). The upland soils found in this area of the
county formed in sandy sediments from marine and fluviomarine deposits or loamy alluvium. The
upland soils at this site are on a river terrace above the active floodplain. The soil series found on
the site are described below and summarized in Table 3.
Map
ed Soil Series
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
Bp
Borrow pit
--
--
--
--
Co
Coxville loam
10/80%
Poorly
C/D
Concave
Concave
Jo
Johns sandy loam
5%
Moderately
C
Convex
well
Convex
KaB
Kalmia loamy sand, 2
5%
Well
B
Convex
to 6 percent slopes
Convex
La
Lakeland sand
5%
Excessively
A
Convex
Convex
2

Arrington Bride III Mitigation Project
2015 Hydric Soil Assessment
January, 2015
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
Po
Pantego loam
10/80%
Very Poorly
B/D
Linear
Concave
Rm
Rimini sand
5%
Excessively
A
Convex
Convex
We
Weston loamy sand
10/80%
Poorly
A/D
Linear
(Woodington)
Concave
WhB
Wickham loamy sand,
5%
Well
B
Convex:
2 to 6 percent slopes
Linear
Soil Series Descriptions
The Wayne County Soil Survey shows eight soil series and borrow pits across the project site.
The upland soils found in this area of the county formed in sandy sediments from marine and
fluviomarine deposits or loamy alluvium.
Coxville loam (Co). This is a poorly drained soil found across flats, Carolina bays, and
depressions. They have moderately slow permeability and runoff is negligible. The seasonal high
water table ranges from 0 to 12 inches below the surface. It has clayey subsoil. Major uses are
forest, pasture and cropland. This soil is considered hydric when undrained by the NRCS.
Johns sandy loam. This is a somewhat poorly to moderately well drained soil found on stream
terraces. They have moderate permeability and runoff is negligible to low. The seasonal high
water table ranges from 18 to 36 inches below the surface. It typically has clayey subsoil. This
soil unit is typically cultivated or forested. This soil is considered to have hydric inclusions by the
NRCS.
Kalmia loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes. This is a well drained soil found on stream terraces.
It has moderate permeability and runoff is negligible to low. The seasonal high water table ranges
from 42 to 72 inches below the surface. It has clayey subsoil. This soil unit is typically cultivated
or forested. This soil is considered to have hydric inclusions by the NRCS.
Lakeland sand. This is a moderately excessively drained soil found on broad to narrow uplands.
The seasonal high water table is greater than 80 inches below the surface. It has typically has sand
subsoil to greater than 80 inches. It has rapid to very rapid permeability and runoff is slow. Uses
are for pasture and cropland. This soil is considered to have hydric inclusions by the NRCS.
Pantego loam. This is a very poorly drained soil found on nearly level and slightly depressional
areas. This soil is very poorly drained. It has very slow runoff, has moderate permeability, and is
often ponded. The seasonal high water table ranges from 0 to 12 inches below the surface. It has
clayey subsoil. Major uses are forest with limited pasture and cropland. This soil is considered
hydric when undrained by the NRCS.
Rimini sand. This is a moderately excessively drained soil found on rims around "Carolina
Bays" and on broad smooth divides in the Coastal Plain. The seasonal high water table is greater
than 80 inches below the surface. It has typically has sand subsoil to greater than 80 inches. It has
rapid to very rapid permeability and runoff is slow. This soil is mostly forested. This soil is
considered to have hydric inclusions by the NRCS.

Arrington Bride III Mitigation Project
2015 Hydric Soil Assessment
January, 2015
Weston loamy sand. This is a poorly drained soil found across flats, Carolina bays, and
depressions. It has moderately slow permeability and runoff is very slow. The seasonal high water
table ranges from 0 to 12 inches below the surface. It often has clayey subsoil. This soil is mostly
forested with limited use as cropland. This soil is considered hydric when undrained by the
NRCS.
Wickham loamy sand. This is a well drained soil found on stream terraces. It has moderate
permeability and runoff is medium to rapid. The seasonal high water table is greater than 80
inches below the surface. It sometimes has clayey subsoil. This soil unit is typically cultivated or
forested. This series has two slope phases (0 to 2 percent and 2 to 6 percent slope) and one eroded
phase. This soil is considered to have hydric inclusions by the NRCS.
Borrow Pits. This is a mapping unit indicating the area has significant disturbance in the past due
to soil removal and earth work. The borrow pits located near the project area most likely were
mined for sand or gravel, leaving non -sand overburden distributed unevenly across the area. The
material removal results in exposure of silty or clayey subsoils that tend to have high compaction,
low organic matter, and low fertility. The natural establishment of vegetation is slow and uneven.
Often areas of excavation are below the groundwater and result in ponded areas of varying depth.
2.2 On -Site Soil Investigation
This report describes soils having hydric soil indicators located on a historic backwater landscape
with most lacking jurisdictional hydrology due to drainage modifications. The soils lack
hydrology for jurisdictional wetland primarily due to ditching and contour modification related to
the mining operations. Approximately 80 auger borings were evaluated across the proposed site
and the adjoining non - hydric areas and 36 representative profiles were recorded (Appendix) by
George Lankford, a licensed soil scientist (Figure 3). Depth to hydric criteria was recorded and
typical soil profiles were documented.
Soils having hydric indicators present are located in areas proposed for wetland restoration and
enhancement. The enhancement areas are located within the forested community northeast of the
ditch and the restoration area is located southwest of the ditch in the pasture. Jurisdictional
wetlands appear to be present in the enhancement area to the northeast of the site. This wetland
appears to have hydrology due to slope seepage, but is impacted by drainage from the ditch. The
wetland soils are variable with the strongest indicators adjacent to the slope. The ditch is currently
well maintained along the edge of the pasture. Numerous small feeder ditches exist and the
topography has likely been surface contoured in many places to provide as much drainage as
possible.
The site evaluation identified four distinct soil areas; 1) having hydric indicators without wetland
hydrology, 2) disturbed soils having hydric indicators and lacking wetland hydrology 3) having
hydric indicators and appear to have wetland hydrology, and 4) lack both hydric indicators and
hydrology (Figure 3). Small inclusions of disturbed soil were observed throughout the site, but
were not significant and not identified separately. This total area within the easement is
approximately 57 acres.
Hydric indicators without wetland hydrology
The areas have hydric indicators without wetland hydrology comprise the majority of the site.
This centrally located area is visually lower and generally parallels the toe slope. Soils tended
toward thicker darker surfaces. Based upon the present soils, it is likely that ponding or long term
saturation existed to allow darker soil to form. Textures consist largely of silty or clayey
4

Arrington Bride III Mitigation Project
2015 Hydric Soil Assessment
January, 2015
mineralogy. Most of this area is in pasture and currently grazed with a small portion forested.
This area is approximately 16.6 acres.
Disturbed soils having hydric indicators and lacking wetland hydrology
The areas of disturbed soils having hydric indicators are likely due to historic mining activities.
These include large areas in a lower landscape position as well as some of the adjacent higher
areas. The area identified is also located adjacent to visible borrow pits. The soils in these areas
have variable textures that are exhibiting hydric indicators. The surface textures are often clayey
and subsoils are usually heavier clays exhibiting depleted matrices and some redoximorphic
concentrations beginning to accumulate. The lowest areas have redoximorphic concentrations
beginning to form in the upper horizons. Formation of these indicators likely occurred during
extended ponding due to beaver activity observed in summer of 2013. The ponding was removed
after elimination of the beaver activity. All of this area is in pasture and currently grazed. This
area is approximately 12.6 acres.
Hydric indicators and appear to have wetland hydrology
There are areas with hydric indicators that appear to have wetland hydrology. They are also in the
lower landscape positions paralleling and adjacent to the toe slope. Located on the north side of
the ditch these areas are forested. Soils are very dark brown to black with typically a higher
organic content. These soils have a loamy surface underlain by silty or clayey subsoils. This area
is approximately 12.1 acres.
Lack both hydric indicators and hydrology
The areas lacking hydric indicators and hydrology surround the previous areas and are visually
higher, most often appearing as low linear ridges. The soils are more brown with a sandy textured
surface underlain by clayey or sandy subsoils. This area is approximately 16.1 acres.
Generally, soils in the proposed wetland restoration areas typically exhibited a dark surface
having a loamy or silty texture. Clayey or silty subsoils are present within 12 inches. In the
subsoil, mottles of redoximorphic concentrations along pore linings are present. The most
common hydric indicators observed were At I (Depleted Below Dark Surface), Al2 (Thick Dark
Surface), F3 (Depleted Matrix), and. F6 -Redox Dark Surface. Other indicators observed include
A7 (5 cm Mucky Mineral), and S7 (Dark Surface). The surrounding upland areas typically have a
brown loamy surface underlain by clayey or silty clay soils having gray and yellowish brown
mottles. It appears that in both the proposed wetland areas and the adjacent upland areas, the
clayey layers found in the subsoil restricts vertical water movement in the soil. Combined the
nearly level topography this creates conditions that would allow a perched water table in the
lower elevations occupied by soil having hydric indicators. Six representative soil profiles having
hydric indicators are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Typical Hydric Soil Profiles (non - jurisdictional areas)
Depth
(inches)
Color
Mottle
Percentage
Texture
Matrix
Mottle
Soil Boring #203
0 - 12 10YR 2/2 10YR 3/6 5% Sandy Loam
12 - 22 10YR 5/2 l OYR 4/6 10% Sandy Clay
Hydric Indicator F3- Depleted Matrix
F6 -Redox Dark Surface

Arrington Bride III Mitigation Project
2015 Hydric Soil Assessment
January, 2015
Depth
(inches)
Color
Mottle
Percentage
Texture
Matrix
Mottle
Soil Boring #208
20
l OYR 2/1
10YR 3/6
0 - 5
10YR 3/1
10YR 3/6 8%
Silt Loam
5 - 17
10YR 3/1
10YR 3/6 15%
Silt Clay
17 - 24
10YR 515
10YR 5/6 8%
Sandy Clay
10%
Sandy Clay Loam
10YR 3/4 2%
Hydric Indicator
Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
Soil Boring #202
0 -
4
1OYR 2/1
1OYR 4/2
4%
Sandy Loam
4
20
l OYR 2/1
10YR 3/6
10%
Clay oam
y
10YR 3/2
15%
20
24
1OYR 6/1
10YR 5/8
10%
Sandy Clay Loam
I OYR 4/6
5%
Hydric Indicator
Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
Soil Boring #223
Appears disturbed.
0 -
12
1OYR 2/2
10YR 3/4
40%
Loam
12 -
21
10YR 5/2
10YR 5/8
15%
Sandy Loam
21 -
26
10YR 511
10YR 5/8
10%
Sandy Clay Loam
Hydric Indicator
Al l- Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3- Depleted Matrix
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
Soil Boring #226
Soil appears to be disturbed.
0 -
6
10YR 3/2
Sandy Clay Loam
6 -
23
10YR 511
10YR 5/6
25%
Sandy Clay
10YR 5/8
20%
23 -
27
10YR 511
10YR 6/2
15%
Sandy Clay
7.5YR 5/8
8%
Hydric Indicator
Al l- Depleted Below Dark Surface
173- Depleted Matrix
Soil Boring
#234
0 -
4
10YR 3/1
Sandy Loam
4 -
11
IOYR 4/1
7.5YR 3/4
5%
Sand Loam
y
5YR 4/6
3%
11 -
21
7.5YR 4/1
7.5YR 4/6
15%
Sandy Clay
Hydric Indicator
Al l- Depleted Below Dark Surface
173- Depleted Matrix
3.0 Conclusion
Hydric soils were located in three areas on the Arrington Bridge III project. These areas occur
along the floodplain of the Neuse River and have been impacted by the mining activities,
agricultural, and ditching. A drainage ditch runs southeasterly the length of the site to provide
drainage with numerous small ditches to support on -going agricultural activities. The ditch flows
into the Neuse River. The north side of the ditch is forested and to the south is actively grazed.
The site evaluation identified four distinct soil areas; 1) having hydric indicators without wetland
hydrology, 2) disturbed soils having hydric indicators and lacking wetland hydrology 3) having
hydric indicators and appear to have wetland hydrology, and 4) lack both hydric indicators and
hydrology. Combined the nearly level topography this creates conditions that would allow a
0

Arrington Bride III Mitigation Project
2015 Hydric Soil Assessment
January, 2015
perched water table in the lower elevations occupied by soil having hydric indicators. Within the
project boundary approximately 41.3 acres were identified as having hydric indicators.
Soil Indicators Status I Approximate Acres
Hydric indicators without wetland hydrology, 16.6
Disturbed soils having hydric indicators and lacking wetland hydrology 12.6
Hydric indicators and appear to have wetland hydrology 12.1
Lack both hydric indicators and hydrology 16.1
Total 57.4
Based upon field observation, these areas have significantly altered hydrology due to the drainage
modifications. These modifications have increased the rate of surface runoff and lowered the
groundwater elevation throughout the area containing hydric soil on the right bank of the channel.
Modifications observed include surface contouring, ditching, and excavation/fill.
This report describes the results of this soil evaluation. Any subsequent transfer of the report by
the user shall be made by transferring the complete report, including figures, maps, appendices,
all attachments and disclaimers.
4.0 References
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1974 Soil
Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V.
Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric
Soils.
VA

�O
adrk A
3
S
irdg
Ydy
e � 1 dray
Gol d s bo
8
o O. ra
Arrington Bridge III Site ♦ o
f
ar •N,a 0.
O 4 ^ 0 `♦
O Y.
O
der
O
Legend
Streams V
- Proposed Easement �\
d Sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
waterbody ,NRCAN �Esri.JapanFIM'E� I, Esri Chia( Hong Kong), Esr (Thailand),
0 HUC 03020201200040 TomTo�, Mapmylndia, © @PeenStreetMap contributors; and the GIS User/
Community 41-70 1
Figure
Project Vicinity Map
rA "
Miles
1 inch = 1.5 miles

"4
R.
e
� F
Soil Symbol Name
Soil Symbol Name
Bp
Borrow pit
W
Water
Co
Coxville loam
WaB
Wagram loamy sand, 0 - 6% slopes
Jo
Johns sandy loam
We
Weston loamy sand (Woodington)
KaA
Kahnia loamy sand, 0 -
2% slopes WhA
Wickham loamy sand, 0 - 2% slopes
KaB
Kahnia loamy sand, 2 -
6% slopes WhB
Wickham loamy sand, 2 - 6% slopes
La
Lakeland sand
WkB2
Wickham sandy loam, 2 - 6% slopes, eroded
Po
Pantego loam
Figure 2.
NRCS Soils Map
Arrington Bridge III Site
0
300 600 1,200
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
�v
A14A
I
it p`
C
c
41�
Roads
Streams
Proposed Easement
Wayne County Soils

r •twf1�^tiF1720 f1 ayYs i,
•.4r. .! ';'-ryk 'SB 201
r'
t M.
Wwt
u' .
r
t SR X30 } m" k
IV
q, -
B 205
r *`t
SB 204
�
FA N �# SB 202
ki
SIB 20
r SB 33 it
SO 208
r Fy
( -r �. � `� "• w - � 7 ^" _ ate'. a � ;'� a
se 209 !
t fr r y� 3 SB-Z3
ItV ' .r
rte\ .: +}30
f"T ,of {32
"+ + It
t.
lcr
!''e S6215
� F �
rIT
4.
w
_SB 2 '
SB:229 215
`����k
5B
B 223
88 222
IK L., 313 221
_LJ ,yew• ���tiT��`�A r ~� �y . *0 -..-
N 1 �.
Y r ; ' Soils Acres 'SB 27 ) j ! -
�, :may �. �., r Hydric indicators without g
16.6 SB 220
� s"�= '��,� •` /`[� wetland hydrology
'0 1 .r# 4' Disturbed soils having hydric
indicators without wetland 12.6
hydrology
Hydric indicators and
12.1
wetland hydrology
Soil Scientist's Seal Lack bath hydric indicators 16.1
and hydrology
FigUre SoilBQringa
PrQpQaed Easement
Soil Boring Locations PrQperty64trndary
r�
Arrington Bridge III Site �HydrieIndiCatorg without wetland hydrology
Q 200 400 800 E5 Disturbed Soils having hydric indicatrm without wetland hydrology
Feet Hydric IndicatQrs and wetland hydrology
1 in = 400 ft Lack both hydric indicators and hydrology
;10
r •twf1�^tiF1720 f1 ayYs i,
•.4r. .! ';'-ryk 'SB 201
r'
t M.
Wwt
u' .
r
t SR X30 } m" k
IV
q, -
B 205
r *`t
SB 204
�
FA N �# SB 202
ki
SIB 20
r SB 33 it
SO 208
r Fy
( -r �. � `� "• w - � 7 ^" _ ate'. a � ;'� a
se 209 !
t fr r y� 3 SB-Z3
ItV ' .r
rte\ .: +}30
f"T ,of {32
"+ + It
t.
lcr
!''e S6215
� F �
rIT
4.
w
_SB 2 '
SB:229 215
`����k
5B
B 223
88 222
IK L., 313 221
_LJ ,yew• ���tiT��`�A r ~� �y . *0 -..-
N 1 �.
Y r ; ' Soils Acres 'SB 27 ) j ! -
�, :may �. �., r Hydric indicators without g
16.6 SB 220
� s"�= '��,� •` /`[� wetland hydrology
'0 1 .r# 4' Disturbed soils having hydric
indicators without wetland 12.6
hydrology
Hydric indicators and
12.1
wetland hydrology
Soil Scientist's Seal Lack bath hydric indicators 16.1
and hydrology
FigUre SoilBQringa
PrQpQaed Easement
Soil Boring Locations PrQperty64trndary
r�
Arrington Bridge III Site �HydrieIndiCatorg without wetland hydrology
Q 200 400 800 E5 Disturbed Soils having hydric indicatrm without wetland hydrology
Feet Hydric IndicatQrs and wetland hydrology
1 in = 400 ft Lack both hydric indicators and hydrology

Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Project
APPENDIX
Hydric Soil Assessment
Soil Boring Log
Depth
Color
Mottle
Mottle
Boring No. /Date
Texture
Notes
Hydric Indicator
From
To
Matrix I
Mottle
Description
Location
SB 200
0
4
l OYR 2/2
LS
7/8/2013
4
9
IOYR 3/3
IOYR 3/6
20 %
PL
S
F3- Depleted Matrix
9
16
10YR 5/2
l OYR 4/6
20%
PL
SCL
16
22
1OYR 6/1
10YR 5/8
40%
PL
SC
SB 201
0
4
l OYR 3/2
l OYR 4/6
5%
PL
LS
7/8/2013
4
9
l OYR 4/4
I OYR 4/6
5%
M
SL
9
14
IOYR 5/6
IOYR 6/1
45%
M
SL
None
lOYR 5/6
20%
M
14
20
1OYR 6/1
Sic
IOYR 4/6
5%
M
SB 202
0
4
10YR 2/1
l OYR 4/2
4%
PL
SL
> 90% CSG
7/9/2013
IOYR 3/6
15%
PL
I 4
20
1OYR 2/1
CL
WT -14
l OYR 3/2
10%
M
Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
IOYR 5/8
10%
PL
20
24
10YR 6/1
SCL
I OYR 4/6
5%
PL
SB 203
0
12
1OYR 2/2
IOYR 3/6
5 %
PL
SL
F3- Depleted Matrix
7/9/2013
12 I
22
I 10YR 5/2 I
l OYR 4/6
I 10 %
I PL
I Sc I
I 176 -Redox Dark Surface
SB 204
0
4
1OYR 2/1
SiL
WT -17
Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
7/9/2013
4
19
1OYR 2/1
10YR 3/4
8%
PL
SiL
Sat. -14
SB 205
0
5
IOYR 3/2
SL
Forested
7/9/2013
5
9
l OYR 4/2
l OYR 3/6
20%
PL
SCL
All- Depleted Below Dark Surface
9
19
1OYR 4/1
IOYR 3/6
25%
PL
SCL
SB 206
0
6
10YR 2/1
I mucky L
WT -4
7/9/2013
6
14
1OYR 2/1
1
Sic
I
Sat. surface
A7 -5 cm Mucky Mineral
14
23
l OYR 4/3
SCL
Forested
SB 207
I 0 I
18
17.5YR 2.5/2 I
10YR 3/4
I 5%
I PL
I SiCL I
WT -4
I F6 -Redox Dark Surface
7/9/2013
January 2015 1

Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Project
APPENDIX
Hydric Soil Assessment
Soil
Boring Log
Depth
Color
Mottle
Mottle
Boring No./D..-
From I
To
Matrix I
Mottle
Description
Location
Texture
SB 208
0
5
10YR 3/1
10YR 3/6
8%
PL
SiL
7/9/2013
5
17
IOYR 3/1
IOYR 3/6
15%
PL
Sic
l OYR 5/6
8%
PL
17
24
lOYR 5/1
Sc
IOYR 3/4
2%
PL
SB 209
0
I
17
1 OYR 2/2
11 11
I
I LS/SL
7/9/2013
17
28
OYR 6/4
OYR 5/8
10 °/,
PL
CS
SB 210
0
4
l OYR 2/2
SL
7/9/2013
4
14
l OYR 4/3
l OYR 4/6
30 %
M
SL
14
20
1OYR 4/6
1OYR 7/1
40%
M
SCL
SB 211
0
2
1 OYR 2/2
Sic
7/9/2013
2 I
18
I lOYR 5/1 I
10YR 5/8
I 10 % I
PL
I SiL
SB 212
0
5
10YR 2/2
SL
7/9/2013
5
11
l OYR 4/2
l OYR 4/4
5%
M
LS
l OYR 5/8
15 %
M
11
15
l OYR 5/6
cLS
10YR 6/3
10%
M
l OYR 5/8
20%
M
15
26
l OYR 6/6
cLS
l OYR 6/2
20%
PL
SB 213
0
20
7.5YR 2.5/1
mucky L
7/9/2013
20
24
N 2.5/-
mucky L
24
28
1OYR 511
cLS
SB 214
0
5
10YR 3/2
fLS
7/9/2013
5
15
IOYR 5/4
10YR 5/8
15%
M
SL
15
19
l OYR 5/3
l OYR 4/6
15%
PL
SL
19
22
1OYR 6/1
1OYR 5/8
15%
PL
SCL
SB 215
0
7
10YR 2/1
SL
7/9/2013
7
18
7.5YR 2.5/1
7.5YR 3/4
2%
PL
CL
18
25
IOYR 5/2
7.5YR 4/6
15%
PL
SC
SB 216
0
12
10YR 2/2
SL
7/9/2013
12
18
10YR 5/3
1OYR 5/8
10%
PL
cSL
18
23
l OYR 5/3
10YR 5/8
20%
PL
SCL
January 2015 2
Notes Hydric Indicator
Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
WT -22 None
Sat. -12
None
WT -10 All- Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3- Depleted Matrix
Forested
173- Depleted Matrix
WT -3 Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
Sat. surface A7 -5 cm Mucky Mineral
Forested
Forested
None
WT -23
Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
None

Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Project
APPENDIX
Hydric Soil Assessment
Soil
Boring Log
Depth
Color
Mottle
Mottle
Boring No./D..;
From I
To
Matrix I
Mottle
Description
Location
Texture
Notes
Hydric Indicator
SB 217
0
8
IOYR 3/1
SL
>90 % CSG
7/9/2013
8
14
IOYR 3/1
IOYR 4/6
20%
PL
SL
WT -19
Al2 -Thick Dark Surface
S7- Dark Surface
14
35
l OYR 3/2
cLS shallow surface water observed
SB 218
0
3
I OYR 3/2
SL
WT -19
7/9/2013
3
6
l OYR 3/2
l OYR 3/6
10%
PL
SL
Sat. surface
S7- Dark Surface
6
10
IOYR 3/1
IOYR 3/6
20%
PL
LS
10
44
l OYR 3/2
S
SB 219
1 0
5
l OYR 4/3
1 OYR 5/6
SC
Appears disturbed throughout
1/6/2015
5YR 4/6
12%
PL
5
7
10YR 5/2
IOYR 5/8
2 %
M
SC
IOYR 6/1
2%
M
F3- Depleted Matrix
7
15
IOYR 5/1
5YR 4/6
25%
PL
SC
5 a o
M
15
22
IOYR 5/1
5YR 4/6
SC
5%
PL
22
26
10YR 5/1
5YR 4/6
35%
M
SC
SB 220
0
5
l OYR 4/3
l OYR 4/6
20 %
M
SCL
Appears disturbed throughout
1/6/2015
l OYR 5/8
10%
M
5
15
l OYR 6/3
SC
None
IOYR 6/2
5%
PL
10YR 5/8
35%
M
15
21
1OYR 6/2
SC
IOYR 6/1
5%
PL
SB 221
1 0
6
l OYR 4/2
l OYR 4/6
10 %
PL
SCL
Appears disturbed throughout
1/6/2015
6
16
l OYR 5/2
5YR 4/6
20%
PL
C
173- Depleted Matrix
IOYR 4/1
30%
M
16
20
10YR 5/8
C
l OYR 4/6
2%
PL
January 2015 3

Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Project
APPENDIX
Hydric Soil Assessment
Soil
Boring Log
Depth
Color
Mottle
Mottle
Boring No./D..;
From I
To
Matrix I
Mottle
Description
Location
Texture
Notes
Hydric Indicator
SB 222
0
5
1 OYR 4/2
SCL
WT -27
1/6/2015
5
25
IOYR 5/8
LS
Sat. -25
None
25
34
1 OYR 6/4
2.5YR 4/8
10%
PL
S
SB 223
0
12
l OYR 2/2
l OYR 3/4
40%
PL
L
WT -23
All- Depleted Below Dark Surface
1/6/2015
12
21
10YR 5/2
IOYR 5/8
15%
PL
SL
Sat. -22
F3- Depleted Matrix
21
26
10YR 511
l OYR 5/8
10%
M
SCL
Appears disturbed
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
SB 224
0
4
l OYR 4/3
SL
WT -22
1/6/2015
4
11
IOYR 6/3
10YR 5/8
30%
M
SL
Sat. -20
None
11
17
10YR 5/2
1OYR 5/8
15%
M
SL
17
28
IOYR 7/2
cS
SB 225
0
6
IOYR 3/2
10YR 5/6
5%
M
SL
WT -17
1/6/2015
6
15
IOYR 2/1
5YR 3/4
5%
M
SiL
Sat. -15
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
15
24
7.5YR 2.5/1
7.5YR 3/4
3%
PL
Sic
SB 226
0
6
l OYR 3/2
SCL
Sat. -26
1/6/2015
I 6
23
IOYR 511
IOYR 5/6
25%
M
Sc
Disturbed
All- Depleted Below Dark Surface
7.5YR 5/8
20%
M
173-Depleted Matrix
p
IOYR 6/2
15%
M
23
27
IOYR 5/1
Sc
7.5YR 5/8
8%
PL
SB 227
0
11
10YR 4/2
l OYR 4/6
5%
PL
SCL
WT -18
1/6/2015
11
16
1OYR 511
1OYR 4/4
5%
PL
SCL
F3- Depleted Matrix
16
20
1 OYR 6/2
l OYR 4/6
15%
PL
Sic
SB 228
0
11
10YR 2/1
SL
WT -25
1/6/2015
11
19
1OYR 4/1
SCL
Sat. -25
None
19
25
10YR 4/1
10YR 6/2
5%
M
SCL
May be disturbed
25
29
l OYR 4/1
SL
SB 229
0
7
l OYR 2/1
SiL
Sat. -28
1/6/2015
7
19
IOYR 3/1
SiCL
None
19
29
IOYR 6/1
IOYR 4/1
2%
PL
CL
L
WT -5
I I
I
I
' F3- Depleted Matrix
01/6/2015
24
33
IOYR 5/3
10YR 5/8
20%
M
Sc
January 2015 4

Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Project
APPENDIX
Hydric Soil Assessment
Soil
Boring Log
De)th
Color
Mottle
Mottle
Boring Nofl)aL.
From
To
Matrix
Mottle
Description
Location
Texture
SB 23 t
0
7
10YR 21l
SCL
011612015 i
7
25
IOYR3f[
lOYR 3?6
4"/a
PL
sic
S.13 232
0
6
10YR 112
SL
11612015
6
17
lOYR 411
5YR 416
100/0
M
SC
10YR 3!1
20%
M
17
32
10YR 612
SC
10YR 518
10%
PL
SB 233
0
5
10YR 212
SL
11612015
5
17
10YR 311
iOYR Y6
2%
PL
SC
lOYR VI
30%
M
17
25
1 OYR 512
SC
10YR 516
100/0
PL
SR 234
04
10YR 311
SL
1!612015
4
11
104'8411
7- 5 YR 314
5%
PL
SL
5Y R 416
3%
PL
1. 1
21
7._)YR 411
7.5YR 416
15%
Pl,
SC
SR 235 f
15
I OYR 2JI
IL
11612015 E
_0
15
19
7.5YR 311
7,5YR 416
4?/.
PL
SL
18
36
7.5Y R 314
7.5YR 2.511
3%
PL
SL
SB 236
0
3
1 OYR 411
SL
1/612015
3
15
10YR 311
I OYR 4/6
2016
M
C
1 OYR 516
15%
M
15
23
10YR 411
C
10YR 314
4%
M
1 OYR 311
15%
PL
23
29
10YR 512
SC
I OYR 518
8%
M
January 2015 5
Notes Hydric Indicator
WT-15 176-Redox Dark Surface
AI I-Depleted Below Dark Surface
F6-Redox Dark Surface
A11- Depleted Below Dark Surface
F3-Depleted Matrix
WT -20
Sat. -15 None
F6-Redox Dark Surface

Appendix D
Arrington Bridge III Design Plan Sheets
(11 "x17")

VICINITY MAP
NTS
Mitigation Type Total Acres Mitigation Ratio WMUs
Enhancement (High)
5.6
3: 1
1.9
Enhancement (Low)
6.1
511
1.2
Restoration
29.4
1:1
29.4
Non - Wetland Buffer
16.16
WA
N/A
TOTAL
57.4
D1
32.5
ARRINGTON BRIDGE III WETLAND MITIGATION PROJECT
NEUSE RIVER BASIN: CU 03020201
SEPTEMBER 2015
LOCATION: WAYNE, NORTH CAROLINA
EBX -NEUSE I, LLC
302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110
RALEIGH, NC 27605
(),ohir
HORIZ. 1 inch = 300ft.
Sheet List Table
Sheet Number
Sheet Title
COVER
E1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
E2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PC1
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
PC2
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
F1
FENCING PLAN
P1
PLANTING PLAN
M1
MONITORING PLAN
D1
DETAILS 1
D2
DETAILS 2
D3
DETAILS 3
PERMITTING ONLY -NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN CONSULTANT
w'%WK
DICKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
720 CORPORATE CENTER DR
RALEIGH, NC 27607
(919) 782 -0495
NC LICENSE NO. F -0374

COPyR,
FILE NA
—111 'H'8 DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
L
co9 ,ccf (SON
iransppryation + Wafer Resources
Urban Development + Geomalics
720 Corporate DHVe
Raleigh, NC 27607
(0 919.78 9J
�'w.wktlickson.�m
� Nc, ucrnse no. rw.r>e
l
0 FULL SCALE: I- =100
100 200
YcFULL SCALE I
1 = HALF SCALE
W �
F- �n
O°
F-- N
z
O
U
co
rn
z
O
U
ir
O
z LL
O I-
O
� 2
v
y J
O Z O z
W
L._ O co
g ¢ W
a
l
1 �
PPOJ. ND.:
201,qol 14.0o. RA
W U
3ZZ
y N
z z
LU m z
O
C Q O
Jo
l.
Z
mQF O
c 2 0
CS W
OF=,�z-
(7 x
2 wN
CD
U m
2
X ¢T
W
2
lli¢
5Q 1yj
Z o
p mod
Upppm��
z ~
=yNO
N
~
NMQ jI
UD _z
umm
W
Z
C,
a a
0 9
I 'o
i
PR-- DATE: EB 2015
Q.C.
I,,.
Q.C'
DATE: AUG 2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
E1
PPOJ. ND.:
201,qol 14.0o. RA

COPYRIGHT @,W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OFTHE CONTENTS OFTHIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, INWHOLEORIN PART, WITHOUTWRITTEN CONSENTOFW.K. DICKSON &CO.,INC., ISPROHIBITED. ONLYCOPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BEVALID, TRUECOPIES.
FILE NAME: I:\PmIects \EBX(2013011400RA - Arrington Bridge III Design \CADD\Plan Set\2013011400 Existing Conditions.dwg - September 15, 2015 - Frasier Mullen
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickscn.com
0
FULL SCALE: 1" =100
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE
Iii
O N
F �
CL
z
O_
v
I �
O
a z
o u)
Y N
Q J
I cc i.
0
Z
u
5
3 Y Z
Z
N
z
Z
O
S3
oO:
Z
OU
?�
0
Qt=O
mi l!!
Or
z m
mN
Z
Z
w
H }
_
b
X
FN
Z
�
lil
O E' �
�°n
IZ
a
U ro �m
Q
=own
i
z
W
z
N m tL
¢yww
3
Z¢zm
0
O
Co
O
a
¢=az
PROJ. DATE:
FEB
2015
O.C.:
FM
Q.C. DATE:
AUG
2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
E2
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA

I - -y
1
I \ \t\ \ \\ ANGELA ANN JONES ERIC SCOTT ANN I II III \\ a \11 DB 2840, P93 45 PC M SL Sd�OTT ERIC EASSIION
HELEN McARTHUR JERNIGAN LS
I DB 2572. PG 456 PC M, SL 93 -J I
II I \\ \ \\11 DB ?951, P9 _J PC r, SL
1
I 1 I \ \ I
I I a
I I ,
II 1 1 \1 I
I I I R I
I I I
1
II II II �` JBA PROPERTIES, LLC,
I DB 2572, PG 448 PC M, SL 93 -1
I I I I I
I I \xg I
I I I
I
I I II JBA PROPERTIES, LLC. &` 1
I DB 2572, PG 448 PC M. SL 93 -J TRUSTEES II I OB 85834, PG 604P7 PC U SCPGSH28 DB 2572PPG
I � II II
1 I I I
I JBA PROPERTIES LLC. `
I 1
JS PROPERTIES LL C. ` - - -- Y
I - __
OB 1982. PG 313 PC L SL 90 -F
-^ _� x•
CONSTR.,.. r I, or.nv
65 - -/ MI (ELEVATION 59.50' TO DISSIPATE
}xx�=
JRA , PG 313 PC L LLC. (I I ( ENERGY FROM DITCH ENTERING
INSTALL DB 1982, Pc 31a PC L, SL 90-F REMOVE WOODEN MATTING AND
i
------------------ (PR CHANNEL PLUG AND FILL POND lµ/'114 FROM NORTH. INSTALL
I
FLOODPLAIN SILL I LIVES STAKES ALONG THE
_II
- -- OPOSE ELEVATION 61 SPOIL PILE BRIDGE 11 PERIMETER OF THE DEPRESSION. _ _ _ _65—
=x
- II 1 I - -_ -- 64
<y
n _
62 80 65
_
-__ - -__ -- REMOVE N - - - -_- - - I. -- _ - -_-�- - -_ SPOIL PILE — -- - _ -
LL DITCH TO
PROPOSED
\ _ - ELEVATIONS.
X61.20 `— 61
6090` -fL 10, . X6050-
r e2 v
II I i i ,' X 61.00 =
I /
—"6— \ I 0 � —X 60 90 - T z B�P r � \
I ----------- 62, .
I
SW Mtn
Ss3@. REMOVE 24„
-63 / V 918 _ - _ _
_ /�' 61.20' IN -� -IN = REMOVE 24" X60.10 i-
II I I -------- -- -- / 63' WIN59.03 DIP CULVERT REMOV
- _ LEAVE BEROAD yy� E
/• 9
ROAD BED
1 I _ / `r
X61.00'
60.90
FILL DITCH
I ` - - - -- ELEVATION
\
_ . � _ -' � '., DTO z, �
z �
PROPOSE /
JBA PROPERTIES, LLC.
I DB 1982, PG 313 PC L SL 90 �. X 60.90 - "
JBA DB 1982, 3E3 PC L. SL 90 -F
bl-
I I�� � �{' FILL DITCH TO _ LEGEND
JBA PROPERTIES, LLC. J' ,�i'� _- ,
PROPOSED DB 1982, PG 313 PC L. SL 90 -F
ELEVATION , / EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR - - - - 50 - - - - -
X60.90 ' - EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR --------46--------
I EXISTING TOP OF BANK - — -- - "- - -„ ------ -
L /
63.00 EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK - - - ®-
II II JBA PROPERTIES, LLC. EXISTING CHANNEL CENTERLINE
I I DB 1982, PG 313 PC L, SL 90 -F i A
�� EXISTING FENCELINE ___ _____ -
EXISTING TREELINE
I
I WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (HIGH)
1
1
II I
I I I 1 I I JBA PROPERTIES, LLC.
WELD ENHANCEMENT (LOW)
DB 1982,
- — -
PG 313 PC L, SL 90 -F PROPOSED WETLAND
1 I RESTORATION LIMITS
III PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
I
1
I I NOTES PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG WITH
I I SPILLWAY
1. CHANNEL PLUG TOP ELEVATION SHOULD BE 6" TO 12" ABOVE TOP OF BANK, OR PROPOSED PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SPOT ELEVATION. PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
2. ALL OPEN AREAS PROPOSED FOR WETLAND RESTORATION ARE TO BE RE- GRADED AND PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
SMOOTHED. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE SUCH THAT SURFACE RUNOFF IS
DIRECTED DOWN VALLEY AND NOT TOWARDS (PERPENDICULAR) DITCHES TO BE FILLED. PROPOSED ELEVATION X 58.00
3. REMOVE ALL EXISTING ROAD BEDS LOCATED WITHIN PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
AREAS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. FLOODPLAIN SILL
4. PRIOR TO PLANTING, CONTOUR RIP ALL AREAS PROPOSED FOR WETLAND RESTORATION.
RIPPING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PERPENDICULAR TO THE EXISTING VALLEY. BRUSH BED SILL Em
COPYRIGHT @, W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALL RIGHTSRESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF W. K. DICKSON& CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
FILE NAME: I: \Projects \EBX12013011400RA - Arrington Bridge III Design \CADD \Plan Set\2013011400 PROPOSED CONDITIONS.dwg - September 15, 2015 - Frasier Mullen
WD &SON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(V) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO, U—SE NO. F 4 J
i
FULL SCALE: 1" =100
0 100 200
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCAL
i H
O N
F �
O �
a
O �
U
Wo Q
WO
aCID D
O a F
N L
2 > J C
i � ¢ w L
L
0
z
�i z Z
Z
W m � �
000 O
m Q O U
W wo
z Z U) 0 O
0
¢ a
w<
2 F
Z
U Z
0
a o
PROJ. DATE: IFEB
0
m
N
U
Z
J P.
W Q
� O
W
Z m
m
W N
3
Um
Z¢N
o
-.
o o2.
¢ „
mmN m
W w . L
Z LZm
O < c-
?015
PC1
PROD. NO.:
20130114.00. RA

\
\
I � \
I � 1
I I \
I I \
I � \
� I \
I \
3A PROPERTIES, LLC. I I \
572, PG 448 PC M, SL 93 -J I I \
� I \
I I \
I I \
BELLS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. \
I DB B 27 2]83, PG 878 PC K BL 27-C
CAROLINA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY \
08 1704, PG 681 PC L, SL 1 B -C
I I \
--------------
____- 65. -1 -- _ - -_ ---z: - 65 - -
a
- INSTALL CHANNEL
PLUGAND
REMOVE FLOODPLAIN SILL
ROADBED
6
'6050`x- 5990
UCHIYAMA AMERICA, INC.
DB 1550. PC 269
INSTALL CHANNEL
PLUG WITH
SPILLWAY AFTER —
PLANTING 1
9'/
I
I
I JBA PROPERTIES II, LLC.
DB 2783, PG 878 PC K, SL 27 -C
1
I L
LEAVE
ROAD BED
—I — R
UCHIYAMAAMERICA,INC.
OB 15501, PG 269
_ .LCE
X 58.10
�.
kit; / . _ .. < _ . , •A: _ _ =REMOVE _ -
1 FILL DITCH TO MATCH " " _ ` "� ' ' ' _ ,. ' ROAD BED =
EXISTING GROUND /58.50/
ELEVATION ADJACENT TO DITCH. _ -60 ti =. x 58.50
\{\ REMOVE TWIN 12 `„ n
. 583
DIP CULVERTS Are
X60.10 - 1 -" " - - -- '
NE NE INV INV 57:34'
12" DIP \1 BE INV= 57.64'
60� NE INV57.21' X59.50
/ SW NV_ 57.]4'
/ X 60.50 REMOVE 1 /
1 2 ROAD BED x 58.81, / \L
X59.40
-- --------
59 30 � \
JBA PROPERTIES II, LLC,
LEAVE V / / 7 / \ \ DB 2783, PG 878 PC K, SL 27-C
D BED
JBA PROPERTIES, LLC. ROA
J
B 1982, PG 313 PC L, SL 90 -F V �
X 60.00
JBA PROPERTIES, LLC.
/ DB 1982, PG 313 PC L, SL 90 -F 1
I � J
II X 59.30
X 58.30
60
,
L Lill \
X 58.50
X59.00
/ 59 50, X 59 50 b0
X 60.20 60.00
I - ] 301 371 . 0,
JBA PROPERTIES II, LLC.
DB 2783, PG 878 PC K, SL 27 -C
NOTES
1. CHANNEL PLUG TOP ELEVATION SHOULD BE 6" TO 12" ABOVE TOP OF BANK, OR PROPOSED
SPOT ELEVATION.
2. ALL OPEN AREAS PROPOSED FOR WETLAND RESTORATION ARE TO BE RE- GRADED AND
SMOOTHED. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE SUCH THAT SURFACE RUNOFF IS
DIRECTED DOWN VALLEY AND NOT TOWARDS (PERPENDICULAR) DITCHES TO BE FILLED.
3. REMOVE ALL EXISTING ROAD BEDS LOCATED WITHIN PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
AREAS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
4. PRIOR TO PLANTING, CONTOUR RIP ALL AREAS PROPOSED FOR WETLAND RESTORATION.
RIPPING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PERPENDICULAR TO THE EXISTING VALLEY.
NW INV -54)
BE INV =54.�
X 58.30
01 ��
59 '
l
REMOVE 12" RCP
CULVERT. RE -GRADE AND
INSTALL COIR MATTING
AND LIVE STAKES.
REMOVE SPOIL PILES AND FILL
DEPRESSIONAL AREAS. RE -GRADE
AREA SUCH THAT THERE IS
POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS
THE EXISTING DITCH. SEE SPOT
ELEVATIONS.
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR 50 - — — -
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR -- 46
EXISTING TOP OF BANK - - -- ----- _--- - - - - -_
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK - -- ----------------- -
EXISTING CHANNEL CENTERLINE —
EXISTING FENCELINE - - - -- - - - -- ----- - - - - -
—
EXISTING TREELINE ....... ..... .................
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (HIGH)
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (LOW)
PROPOSED WETLAND
RESTORATION LIMITS
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG
PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG WITH
SPILLWAY
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR Q2
PROPOSED ELEVATION X 58.00
FLOODPLAIN SILL
BRUSH BED SILL
COPYRIGHT @,W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, INWHOLEORIN PART, WITHOUTWRITTEN CONSENTOFW.K. DICKSON &CO.,INC., ISPROHIBITED. ONLYCOPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL 10 BEVALID, TRUECOPIES.
FILE NAME: I:\ProlectalEBX12013011400RA - Arrington Bridge III Design \CARD \Plan Set\2013011400 PROPOSED CONDITIONS.dwq - September 15. 2015 - Frasier Mullen
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO, U—SE No. F03]4 ,
0
FULL SCALE: 1" =100
0 100 200
FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE
Hm
O N
F �
Q.
0 I h
o (
v "
I O O
0
z
° O w.
Y N
1 i cc Ed L
0
5 °
3 Y Z z
m m
ED Q U Z X m
Z Z O w
Z Z ¢N
O Z o
¢ U o
Or U
Z -0 Nmrnrn
0 O.
w z0 ¢NUw
30C Z ¢zm
a Oa O ¢=a0
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2015
O.C.: FM
O.C. DATE: AUG 2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
PC2
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA
COPYRIGHT @,W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, INWHOLEORIN PART, WITHOUTWRITTEN CONSENTOFW.K. DICKSON &CO.,INC., ISPROHIBITED. ONLYCOPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL 10 BEVALID, TRUECOPIES.
FILE NAME: I:\ProlectalEBX12013011400RA - Arrington Bridge III Design \CARD \Plan Set\2013011400 PROPOSED CONDITIONS.dwq - September 15. 2015 - Frasier Mullen
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO, U—SE No. F03]4 ,
0
FULL SCALE: 1" =100
0 100 200
FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE
Hm
O N
F �
Q.
0 I h
o (
v "
I O O
0
z
° O w.
Y N
1 i cc Ed L
0
5 °
3 Y Z z
m m
ED Q U Z X m
Z Z O w
Z Z ¢N
O Z o
¢ U o
Or U
Z -0 Nmrnrn
0 O.
w z0 ¢NUw
30C Z ¢zm
a Oa O ¢=a0
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2015
O.C.: FM
O.C. DATE: AUG 2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
PC2
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA
DRAWING NUMBER:
PC2
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA

I
�T-
1 I
1 1
II II
III
I I
I I
II TIEINTO
IiXISING FENCE
I I
I
I _
REMOVE 76 LF OF
EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT
I I i
1
-
1 I f
I I
1
1 I REMOVE 1,313 LF OF
I EXISTING FENCE
I 1 WITHIN EASEMENT
I 1
1 I I
I
I I
1
1 I I
II
III I I
I
I I
REMOVE 1,992 LF OF
EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT - - -_ - --
REMOVE 671 LF OF
EXISTING FENCE
ZIN EASEMENT —
-ra
TIE INTO
EXISTING FENCE
INSTALL 7,506 LF OF WOVEN
WIREFENCE. SEEDETAIL
SHEET D4
REMOVE 1,992 LF OF _
EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT REMOVE 86 LF OF \)
EXISTING FENCE i
WITHIN EASEMENT
I
I I \
I I \
I \
I I I \
I I I \
REMOVE 91 LF OF I \
EXISTING FENCE I I \
WITHIN EASEMENT
I \
REMOVE 43 LF OF
EXISTING FENCE I \
WITHIN EASEMENT REMOVE 2,3$4 LF OF
EXISTIN ENCE -
WITHIN EAS ENT
INSTALL 7,506 LF OF WOVEN
-- WIRE FENCE. SEE DETAIL
REMOVE 2,304 LF OF SHEET D4
EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT
TIE IN TO ,)
EXISTING FENCE
\1
REMOVE 2,403 LF OF
EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT
I
it
I
I
II
EMOVE 2,403 LF OF
EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT
REMOVE 148 LF OF
EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT
J{
L�
1�
REMOVE 2,403 LF OF
EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT
TIE IN TO
MISTING FENCE
INSTALL 7,506LF OF WOVEN
WIRE FENCE. SEE DETAIL
SHEET D4
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR ----
50 - - - --
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR ----
- - - -46 --- - - - - - -
EXISTINGTOPOFBANK -
-•_ - - - -••
EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK — ---------------------
—:-
EXISTING CHANNEL CENTERLINE
EXISTING FENCELINE — ----
----- ------------ —
EXISTING TREELINE
EXISTING WETLAND
PROPOSED WE IAND
RESTORATION LIMITS
PROPOSEDFENCE
X
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
af�
12' ACCESS GATE
•
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO, U—SE No. ­4 J
FULL SCALE: 1"=200
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
IY 1" = HALF SCALE f'
w
O N
F �
a
0
z
I O
U
0
O
z
0
rL z
}
z
o = O
O O
a 65 Z
I o
w ¢
I .2 cc cc EL
L
,
0
Z
3 `S Z
_ Z
m
W
00=
ma°
W
0 }
Q
Z Z
Fr g
IlJ Or jj CL
2 o
z F_ Z
I- OU
O �LL
a o
PROJ. DATE: FEB
0
m
N
U
Z
JP.
m
w �
m o
w
Z m
m
w w
Um
Q N
z o
ozo�
2 �mN
= p N I
W � h
N �
d m m
W w W W
Z.z
O < o_ 2
?015
NOTES _,..
ALL PROPOSED GATES SHALL HAVE A 12' WIDTH. r J
PROJ. NO,; I
20130114.00. RA
COPYRIGHT @,W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALL RIGHTSRESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE ORIN PART',WI'I- HOUT'WRITTEN CONSEN'TOF W. K. DICKSON& CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
FILE NAME: I:\PmiectalEBXi201301140011A - Arrington Bridge III Design\CADUPlan Set\2013011400 PROPOSED CONDITIONS.dwq - September 15. 2015 - Frasier Mullen

11 '11`1\
1 \
I
1 `
I 1
I I
\> �LCE
-
y
1
1 -
,t /
1 I f
I 1
1
1 II
II I
1 � I
I
I 1
t
t I I
II
I
z
LEAVE EXISTING
HARDWOOD FORE;
PLANTING TABLES
Permanent Wetland Seed Mix
Common Name Scientific Name Percent
Composition
Virginia Wiidrye €Jymus vi cioicus I 25%
Switc'9m. Pao— vrr1ewm r ���
Little Blue Stem SMizac�ynum scopenum 25%
Soft Rush Junncus eHusus 25%
L ve Staking Tree Species
Common Name Scientific Name Percent
Composition
Silky dogwood Comuc amomum 20h
Silky willow g#"t,a%q'ciii 29�
Black willow Sax rngm 60%
Bare Root Planting Time Species
Botto)tyiand Hardwood Forest
Common Name
Scientific Name
PerceM
Composition
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quemus michauxii
5yy
River Birch
zut room
20
American Sycamore
Mo.— occidentalis
20%y
Over�'�lp Oak
Quemus )'rata
5%
Re Ple
Acerrubrum
15%
Water Oak
6uercus mgrs
5%
Bald Cyppmss
Taxlo/did, disfichum
1Sy
Swamp tupelo
Nyssa 6i/�om
15%
NOTES:
1. Bare root planting Is proposed for all areas within Me easement not
carranuvloraated.
2. Bare root planting density is approximately 680 stems per acre.
3. Live stakes should be Installed at the direction of the engineer.
4. Permanent riparian seed mix shall be applied to all disturbed areas within
the conservation easemeof at a rate of 151bs/acre.
LOE
LEAVE EXISTING
CYPRESS PLANTATION
l
PLANTING NOTES
ALL PLANTING AREAS
1. EROSION CO OL EASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT
VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING
PROPERLY.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10
WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL
BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL
BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR
SPRING -TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL
BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENTAND THE FINAL PASS SHALL
FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS,
4. COIR FABRIC MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE CUT WITH PLANTING IMPLEMENTS. THE SMALLEST
OPENING NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE EACH PLANT SHALL BE CUT INTO COIR FABRIC
USING A SHARP KNIFE OR SHEARS. NO HOLES LARGER THAN 12 INCHES SHALL BE MADE.
5. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE
GROUPED TOGETHER.
6, BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D3.
LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D3.
7. TREATMENT /REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6" DBH
SHALL BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
8. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG DITCH BANKS THAT ARE TO REMAIN OPEN.
I
II
II
I
I
- \ 2
w.v .., . La
PLANTING LEGEND
PLANTING ZONE- BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST /
(TOTAL AREA= 41.0 ACRES, t2 ACRES)
COPYRIGHT @, W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OFTHE CONTENTS OFTHIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TOTHIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUTWRITTEN CONSENTOFW.K. DICKSON & CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLYCOPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OFTHIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
FILE NAME: I:\ProiectslEBX1201301140019A - Arrington Bridge III Design\CADDdo1an Set\2013011400 PROPOSED CONDITIONS.dwq - September 15. 2015 - Frasier Mullen
J r
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(1) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickson.com
NO. LICENSE No. F03]4
FULL SCALE: 1" =200
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALES
O N
F �
a
z ,
o ,
� Q 1
Ld
o,
CD o
I ° O rwn
Y N
0
Z
_ z
m
W
00=
m0,
Id'
W
0 }
Z Z
g
EL
¢a Z
z —
H
U Z Z
g
a o
PROJ. DATE: IFEB
O.C.: FM
Q.C. DATE: AUG
0
ro
N
U
Z
JIT
m
w �
w o
w
z m
m
'00
H
O h ^O
U m? �
= or°vn
N mrnrn
cc on
cc W W
z¢zm
O < OL
zli
2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
P1
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA

1i 1
' 1
I
I
I
I
I
al,
,I
.I
I
I
EXISTING TREELINE
— �--- -mm
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (HIGH) �..
z
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (LOW)
.
PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION LIMITS
PROPOSED VEGETATION PLOT (0.02 AC)
3 Y
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER GAUGE
N
z
PROPOSED RAIN GAUGE
O
COPYRIGHT @,W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT'; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE ORIN PART', WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENTOF W.K. DICKSON& CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
FILE NAME: I:\PmiectalEBXt2013011400RA - Arrington Bridqe III Deagn\CADMPlan Set\2013011400 Monitoring_ E &SC.dwq -September 15, 2015 - Frasier Mullen
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f) 919.782.9672
www.wkdickscn.com
NO, uCENSE NO. F 4 J
FULL SCALE: 1 -200
0 200 400
2" = FULL SCALE
HALF SCALE
w
H 'p
O N
F �
O�
J O1
a
o �
O
W W C
a
o- O a
I °k
2 > J C
cc cc E
L
3
J
0
z
N
5
3 Y
N
z
Z
Q
°
m
LU M
09 =
L)
°
QF—U
mQLLI
z m
m=
Z U—Z
z
Ww
O F
0
Z
g
F m
<N
z
a-
o 12
¢
Cr
C7
z
U = of
�Q
JQ
2 �ctN
= N N
Z
H 0
C7—
N m c c
w
zZ
ymm
mww
O�
z
O ¢zm
a
¢ate
PROJ. DATE
IFEB
2015
QC:
FM
O.C. DATE:
AUG
2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
M1
PROJ. NO.:
2O13O114.00.RA

SIVfflffi 15 F LICABLE- M AREAS:
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100 -FEET.
WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS
2H:1 V.
THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS.
DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.
CONSTRICTON 'PFC.1RCATON5L
1. USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR
POLYESTER, WHICH IS CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING
TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D 6461. SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN
ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS
OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0' TO 120' F.
2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LBAINEAR FT STEEL WITH A
MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET. MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO
FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.
CONSTRUCTION:
1. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.
2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES
ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER
SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THE STRUCTURE.)
3. CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE
BARRIER TO AVOID JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE
FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4 FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT
POST.
4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH 6 FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE
MESH SUPPORT FENCE. SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS.
WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM 50 POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.
5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE
PROPOSED LINE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.
6. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.
7. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT.
THOROUGH COMPACTION OF THE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.
8. DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.
MAINTENANCE:
INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL MAKE ANY
REQUIRED REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY.
SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME
INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT PROMPTLY.
REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR
THE NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID
UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.
REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA
TO GRADE AND STABILIZE IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY
STABILIZED.
INSTALLATION NOTES
SITE PREPARATION
GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.
REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING
WILL HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.
PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL
GRADE.
TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO
THE ENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE
SOIL IF NEEDED,
SEEDING
SEE SHEETS ##, ##, ## FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.
APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.
INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK
SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND ON SHEET## FOR
INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE EROSION CONTROL
MATTING.
OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 3" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR
EVERY 12" ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER
THE DOWNSTREAM MAT.
EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER,
LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.
ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINS.
CUT 8" x 8" TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FOR MATTER INATION AS SHOWN IN
FIGURES 182. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.
PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.
SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH,
AND COMPACT SOIL.
STAPLE AT 12' INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.
STREAM BANK MATTING TO BE INSTALLED FROM TOE OF BANK TO A MINIMUM OF
2.0' PAST TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK.
IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF
BANK DOWN TO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• 100 %COCONUT FIBER(COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO
HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.
• THICKNESS - 0.351N. MINIMUM.
• TENSILE STRENGTH -1032 LB /FT MINIMUM
• SHEARSTRESS- 4.5LBS /SQFT
• FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED 12 FT /SEC
• WEIGHT -23 OZ/SV
• OPEN AREA (MEASURED) -48%
• SLOPES - UP TO A MAXIMUM OF I:1
1.25 LB./LINEAR FT. STEEL POSTS\ L
EXTRA STRENGTH
FILTER FABRIC,
BACKFILL TRENCH I
COMPACTED EARTH
USE EITHER FLAT- BOTT01
OR V- BOTTOM TRENCH
SHOWN BELOW
FILTER FABRIC\
1"
COMPACTED ry
EARTH O
RUNOFF °
- Iff II
1 .. :d
FILTER
FABRIC
FLAT - BOTTOM TRENCH DETAIL
FLOW
L ~'B
A A
B
PLAN VIEW
SEE NOTE
SEE NOTE L
HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIE
LOWEST POINT f L VELND
FOR STEEL POSTS _
EARTH SURFACE
SECTION A -A
BURY FABRIC NOTE: END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BE
HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST POINT OF FLOW
CHECK. SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE
PLACED TO PREVENT SCOURING.
SILT FENCE INSTALLATION
FILTER FABRIC\
COMPACTED
EARTH p
r
RUNOFF m
6T v
� -III III y
FILTER FABRIC
V- SHAPED TRENCH DETAIL
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
ITS
"_Y -IN MATTING PE"
FIG. i OR FIG. 2
KEY -IN AND /OR
STAKE MATTING
JUST ABOVE
CHANNEL TOE
v
- TRENCH APPROX.
SOIL PILE 8" WIDE X 8" DEEP
FROM TRENCH
FLOW
I I-
1 ROW OF STAPLES
OR STAKES, MIN. OF
24" O.0
TRENCH APPROX.
8° WIDE x e" DEEP
SOIL PILE
FROM TRENCH
FLOW �I
__-- -- _ 18" -' 1
I
i ROW OF STAPLES
OR STAKES, MIN. OF
/INTAKE
24" O.0
STEP 1
STEP 1
1 ROW OF STAPLES 1 ROW OF STAPLES
FLO� STAKES. MIN. OF STAKES, MIN. OF
IS
r� 18° O.0 12 12° O.0
FLOW -`
/ �OW
SOIL FILLED
FROM SOIL PILE,
COMPACT WITH FOOT _ SOIL FILLED
FROM SOIL PILE,
STEP 2 COMPACT WITH FOOT
STEP 2
FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
NTS
SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF
SANDBAGS, THE BOTTOM LAVER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF BAGS, THE
MIDDLE LAVER SHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND THE TOP LAYER SHALL
CONSIST OF 1 ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED
SANDBAG SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1.5 FT.
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE
ITS
MIDDLE LAYER // TOP LAVER
BOTTOM LAYER
EARTH SURFACE
TRENCH 0.25' DEEP ONLY WHEN
ENDS OF BAGS IN ADJACENT PLACED ON EARTH SURFACE
ROWS BUTTED SLIGHTLY
TOGETHER
SECTION B -B
PURPOSE:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE
LEAVING A CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD.
CONSTRICTION SPFCIFICATONS-
1. CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE
MATERIAL AND PROPERLY GRADE IT.
2. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND
SMOOTH IT.
3. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.
4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS
SUBJECT TO SEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.
NOTES:
1. EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND /OR
ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS
FROM STREAM FLOW.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN
BE STABILIZED IN ONE WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET
MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING
PUMP SIZE SUFFICIENT TO PUMP BASE FLOW.
5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON- ERODIBLE MATERIALS
SUCH AS SANDBAGS.
=UENCF OF CONSTRUCTON FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUND
1. INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS
A RIP RAP AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED
PROJECT WORKING AREA.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND
THE TEMPORARY PIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW
FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREA TO THE STABILIZED
OUTFALL.
3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING
OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING
PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED
AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF
SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER
WILL ALSO BE PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS
A RIP RAP.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT
AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATER MUST BE PUMPED
THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND
TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE
DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
6. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP
AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH
SEED AND MULCH.
7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING
IMPERVIOUS DIKE.
FLOW
HOSE
LASS A
STONE
/INTAKE
PUMP
PUMP
MAINTENANCE:
WORK
MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE DE- WATERING AREA
CONSTRUCTION SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2_ INCH STONE. AFTER EACH
PUMP
IMMEDIATELY INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY.
LL,
IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC
ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS. IMPERVIOUS
DIKE
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
NTS
GFNFRAL NOTES: FLOW CLASSA DISCHARGE HOSE
1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION g IVI /j 5 WASHED STONE
CONTROL MANUAL. /STONE
2. ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLASS I AND NOTE: HOSE SHOULD BE
II A A KEPT OUTSIDE OF WORK
3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS SILT BAG AREA
B RIP RAP ROCK APRON 5 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE LOCATION
OF ROCK DAM.
STABILIZED OUTFALL FILTER FABRIC
CLASS A STONE
1.5' THICK I
5' -0' MIN. CLASS B g.J
ROCK APRON
PLAN DISCHA
SPILLWAY 2:1 GROUIND HOSE
1 MIN OF j/ 5 W (SPILLWAY)
3:1 WASHED STONE MIN 2/3 STREAM WIDTH STABILIZED - 15'7020'
CLASS I AND 2 OUTFACE CLASS
aFLOW ASTONE I --
II RIP RAP
1.5' THICK \ \:•v ? „ \:�� i, /»"
CLASS B 2' -2' MIN. BELOW
ROCK APRON LOWEST BANK
LEVEL (MIN)
1
.. .............. ,_ CLASS I AND FILTER FABRIC
CUTOFF FILTER II RIP RAP FILTER 8" OF CLASS A
TRENCH FABRIC SECTION A -A FABRIC STONE
SECTION B -B EXISTING
CHANNEL
SILT BAG PROFILE
TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM PUMP AROUND & DEWATERING DETAIL
NTS NTS
COPYRIGHT O, W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF W.K. DICKSON & CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
FILE NAME:
MV WVD CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f)
91 9.782. 9672
.W
wwwkdickson.com
NC. �CMSE N0. ­4
Ill
H m
❑ N
F �P
O
J Or
a
O_
U
w
N W O
m Q N ❑
w ° _O CO
Y N W
Q J
it it
U OIL! Z ¢rn ..w
Z¢Zm
w�
a O❑ O ¢aM
PROJ. DATE: FEB 2015
O.C.: FM
O.C. DATE: AUG 2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
D1
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA
Z
o
m
?�`LZ n
cJ
_ZQ c
Z
0zzz J
J m
000
w
w
LU OC F- U r
ra o
«
Z U Z z
z m
0 = r m
m
r'n
0 >
«
Ir Q
Q n
Or z
z-
L L
L� ¢
¢'6m
Z H
H J N
= N O N
CDQ
y m m
JU
DRAWING NUMBER:
D1
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA

EXISTING TOB
TYPICAL SECTION
ROLANKA BioD MAT 90 OR
EQUIVALENT
TIGHTLY COMPACTED BACKFILL
(80% PER STANDARD PROCTOR TEST)
I.O'MINIMUM
ROLANKA BioD MAT 90 OR
EQUIVALENT
INSTALL LIVE STAKES
ALONG SPILLWAY OUTLET
10 PER DETAIL ON SHEET 111
i EXISTING DITCH
INVERT
INSTALL LOG SILL PER
DETAIL ON SHEET D3.
INSTALL MATTING PER
MANUFACTURER'S
_ 3' 10' _
INSTRUCTIONS
Z
EXISTI NG DITCH TO
BE FILLED NOTES:
g
ROLANKA BioG MAT
LU
Y Z
90 OR EQUIVALENT
SPILLWAY SECTION VIEW
CHANNEL PLUG WITH SPILLWAY
NTS
BANKFULL ELEVATION
111 TO 113 OF LOG
DIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSED
SZ PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING
\\\\/ \ \�\ \� [PROPOSED BED
\ \\ \ \�
— MINIMUM OF k TO JJ OF LOG
WOOD DIAMETER BEDDED BELOW
STAKES CHANNEL INVERT
12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)
NOES
I . INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL.
TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.
2. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (DEPTH APPROX i TO} OF
LOG DIAM) FOR PLACEMENT OF ROLL.
3, COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER
OF 121N,
COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION)
NTS
SECTIONAL VIEW A - A'
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE FLOODPLAIN SILL
SHALL BE PLACED BY
OLD CHANNEL TO BE
OVERLAPPING DIVERTED NTS
WITH THE FLOW R WATER
NEW CHANNEL TO BE /CHANNEL BLOCK
CONSTRUCTED
NOTES 7;�
1. FINISHED GRADE SHOULD EXTEND 6' ABOVE TOP OF
HIGHEST BANK OR TO SPOT ELEVATION IN DESIGN;
WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
2. CHANNEL PLUG MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN 12- 18" MIN.
COMPACTED LIFTS. PLAN VIEW
3. CHANNEL PLUG MUST BE KEYED -IN TO CHANNEL BANKS 7 _25' _ _ MAX. 75' _
-2'.
4. CHANNEL PL OF
UG MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN DRY EXISTING TOP
CONDITIONS AND ALL SATURATED OR UNSUITABLE OF BANK
BE MATERIAL EXCAVATED AND REPLACED WITH - /
APPROPRIATE FILL. / �\ 6' TO 12"
.— - CHANNEL '(���� \�� \� / \ \� \i� \ % \i \i \V \���
F
OMPACTED BACKFILL UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL BANKFULL ELEVATION N B A N)f BOTTOM
C
(12'LIFTS) 1.5'MINIMUM
�L
5' _
COMPACTED BACKFILL
FINISHED GRADE NEW CHANNEL BED SHALL (18- LIFTS) TREATED AS SPECIFIED
1 IN PLANS In
NO ES:
1. FILL } -" EXISTING P BANK ELEVATION.
MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18 "LIFTS.
2. CHANNEL
TYPICAL SECTION
WOODY DEBRIS FILL
(LOGS, BRANCHES, AND
DOWN VALLEY A BRUSH) COMPACTED
DITCH TOP OF WITH SOIL
BANK
COMPACTED FILL
DITCH BOTTOM I y \
OF BANK A
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
EXISTING �\
GROUND PROPOSED
MIN GROUND 17
WOODY DEBRIS FILL
(LOGS, BRANCHES, A
j\/\\ \ BRUSH) COMPACTED ND
R SH)COMPACTEDND
COMPACTED FILL WITH SOIL TO PROPOSED
GRADE.
EXISTING DITCH
INVERT
SECTION A -A
WOODY DEBRIS FILL (LOGS,
BRANCHES, AND BRUSH)
COMPACTED WITH SOIL TO
PROPOSED GRADE. PROPOSED
GROUND
DOWN VALLEY
12" MIN DIAM.
LENGTH VARIES (TYP 10'TO 20 —.{ HARD WOOD LOG;
TT MINLENGTH =20'
MIN 1.0']
EXISTING DITCH -
INVERT
COMPACTED FILL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (TYP.)
PROFILE VIEW
BRUSH BED SILL
NTS
CHANNEL PLUG CHANNEL BACKFILL
MS NTS
COPYRIGHT 0, W.K. DICKSON & CO., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF W.K. DICKSON & CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WfTH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL 0 BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
FILE NAME:
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f)
91 9.782. 9672
www.Wkdicksom.com
NC. NcE No.FN]4
Hm
O N
F �
a
0 I P
o (
ME
I ° ¢O
Lu
LL
N
° o w k
Y N
¢I¢ [
0
DOWN VALLEY
Z
EXISTI NG DITCH TO
BE FILLED NOTES:
g
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY
LU
Y Z
HARVESTED.
Z
= m
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
Z
W Z
COARSE AGGREGATE MIN DIAM. =1Z , MIN LENGTH= 10', OVERALL LENGTH =25'TO 40'
REBAR OR MIN 3'
_ I _ A I
MI 10'
BACKFILL (1" TO 4" I 3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3' 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 2'
ALONG THE LOG
DUCKBILL
L
S '
4. REBAR MINIMUM DIAMETERMIN.LENGTHTYPICAL)SHOULD BE
ANCHOR
_ _
PLACED 7' TO 3' FROM END OF LOG, ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED
T T
d
z z
AT 6 OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED V TO T FROM END OF
i
— —
LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR,
'
2 PER LOG.
Z
LOGS 5. INSTALL I TO 2 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF
��-
LOGS.
Q
Q
�r
o
O S ^On
w
A f
DOWN VALLEY
Z
LENGTH VARIES —
PROPOSED
GROUND COARSE
O.t' TO 0.25'
0
U
UJ
z
—
BACKFILL (1" TO 4'T
I� 3.0' LL(1"T 4")
r
Z¢z
O
a
REBAR OR
1.5'TO Z.o'
PROJ. DATE
PLAN VIEW
DUCKBILL
jL
O.C.:
FM
ANCHOR
D.C. DATE:
AUG
s.o'
---- - - - - --
------------------ - - --
5.0' NON -WOVEN
EXISTING DITCH GEOTEXTILE
INVERT FABRIC (TYP.)
SECTIONAL VIEW A - A'
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE FLOODPLAIN SILL
SHALL BE PLACED BY
OLD CHANNEL TO BE
OVERLAPPING DIVERTED NTS
WITH THE FLOW R WATER
NEW CHANNEL TO BE /CHANNEL BLOCK
CONSTRUCTED
NOTES 7;�
1. FINISHED GRADE SHOULD EXTEND 6' ABOVE TOP OF
HIGHEST BANK OR TO SPOT ELEVATION IN DESIGN;
WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
2. CHANNEL PLUG MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN 12- 18" MIN.
COMPACTED LIFTS. PLAN VIEW
3. CHANNEL PLUG MUST BE KEYED -IN TO CHANNEL BANKS 7 _25' _ _ MAX. 75' _
-2'.
4. CHANNEL PL OF
UG MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN DRY EXISTING TOP
CONDITIONS AND ALL SATURATED OR UNSUITABLE OF BANK
BE MATERIAL EXCAVATED AND REPLACED WITH - /
APPROPRIATE FILL. / �\ 6' TO 12"
.— - CHANNEL '(���� \�� \� / \ \� \i� \ % \i \i \V \���
F
OMPACTED BACKFILL UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL BANKFULL ELEVATION N B A N)f BOTTOM
C
(12'LIFTS) 1.5'MINIMUM
�L
5' _
COMPACTED BACKFILL
FINISHED GRADE NEW CHANNEL BED SHALL (18- LIFTS) TREATED AS SPECIFIED
1 IN PLANS In
NO ES:
1. FILL } -" EXISTING P BANK ELEVATION.
MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18 "LIFTS.
2. CHANNEL
TYPICAL SECTION
WOODY DEBRIS FILL
(LOGS, BRANCHES, AND
DOWN VALLEY A BRUSH) COMPACTED
DITCH TOP OF WITH SOIL
BANK
COMPACTED FILL
DITCH BOTTOM I y \
OF BANK A
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
EXISTING �\
GROUND PROPOSED
MIN GROUND 17
WOODY DEBRIS FILL
(LOGS, BRANCHES, A
j\/\\ \ BRUSH) COMPACTED ND
R SH)COMPACTEDND
COMPACTED FILL WITH SOIL TO PROPOSED
GRADE.
EXISTING DITCH
INVERT
SECTION A -A
WOODY DEBRIS FILL (LOGS,
BRANCHES, AND BRUSH)
COMPACTED WITH SOIL TO
PROPOSED GRADE. PROPOSED
GROUND
DOWN VALLEY
12" MIN DIAM.
LENGTH VARIES (TYP 10'TO 20 —.{ HARD WOOD LOG;
TT MINLENGTH =20'
MIN 1.0']
EXISTING DITCH -
INVERT
COMPACTED FILL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (TYP.)
PROFILE VIEW
BRUSH BED SILL
NTS
CHANNEL PLUG CHANNEL BACKFILL
MS NTS
COPYRIGHT 0, W.K. DICKSON & CO., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF W.K. DICKSON & CO., INC., IS PROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WfTH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL 0 BE VALID, TRUE COPIES.
FILE NAME:
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, INC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f)
91 9.782. 9672
www.Wkdicksom.com
NC. NcE No.FN]4
Hm
O N
F �
a
0 I P
o (
ME
I ° ¢O
Lu
LL
N
° o w k
Y N
¢I¢ [
0
Z
g
LU
Y Z
0
°
Z
= m
Z
W Z
J rn
Z
❑00
_m
DO W
w
d
z z
Zm
0 F-
m '�
Z
U m
cc
~
Q
Q
o
O S ^On
w
N
U°
Z
H
H J
= N O N
N m rn rn
0
U
UJ
z
—
umm
¢rn ..w
w�
O�
Z¢z
O
a
¢=a2
PROJ. DATE
IFEB
2015
O.C.:
FM
D.C. DATE:
AUG
2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
D2
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA

COIR FIBER
MATTING
0.75' TO 2' J
FLAT TOP END
j1 05' T01.5'
LATERAL yli
BUD IIII I
,Z
SIDE BRANCH 1
REMOVED AT SLIGHT
ANGLE
� MIN 18"
WATERTABLE
45 DEGREE
TAPERED BUTT END
SECTION VIEW
LIVE STAKES SHALL BE
SPACED 3 FEET APART,
ALTERNATE SPACING.
DETAIL
LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE LONG ENOUGH
TO REACH BELOW THE GROUNDWATER
TABLE. (GENERALLY, A LENGTH OF 2 TO
3 FEET IS SUFFICIENT.) ADDITIONALLY,
THE STAKES SHOULD HAVE A DIAMETER
IN THE RANGE OF 0.75 TO 2INCHES.
40 6>taei�:�
NOTE:
1. ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA), SILKY WILLOW
(SALIX SERICEA) AND SILKY DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM).
2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING 3 FEET OUT FROM
TOP OF BANK TO JUST BELOW BANKFULL.
LIVE STAKE
NTS
111 II
I 11 -11 II 11 -1 II II 11 -11 II =1 =11 II 11 �:If
11 -11 =.. II 11 =11= II II 11 =11 II- 11 = "11 I 111 -11=
I 11 =11? II 11 =1 11 II 11 =11 II I =11 II 11 =11
11 -11: Ilall 11 =11E II II II 11 =11 II II 'II II 11 11 =11=
I II -11� II II. I II II II =11 II 1:: =11 1 II: II. II
II 11 =1 II 11' II? II II II. II II II II'. 11 II II II: 11=
I 11 ill �� I� I1.��11:111 IInII. IL��11 ill ��Il ��II' =Ili II rll� 11 =11
-;f S
4. PULL HANDLE OF 5. PUSH
BAR TOWARD HANDLE
6 LEAVE
COMPACTION
PLANTER, FIRMING FORWARD
HOLE OPEN.
SOIL AT BOTTOM. FIRMING SOIL
AT TOP.
WATER
THOROUGHLY.
PLANTING NOTES: !
NOTES:
PLANTING BAG
BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED 6
FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM
DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS
SPACING, AVERAGING 8 FT. ON
SHALL BE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS
BAG SIMILAR
CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 680
E OT SYSTEMS F
PREVENT THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM
PLANTS PER ACRE.
DRYING.
KBC PLANTING BAR
�-
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
Jm
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS
SECTION, AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES
LONG, 41NCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH
THICK AT CENTER.
ROOT PRUNING
ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT
OE r
PRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO
�•
Z
ROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10
INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
BARE ROOT PLANTING
NTS
LINE
—UNE POST
BARBED OR
ELECTRIC WIRE UNE POST Z
4" TO 6.1
WOVEN WIRE
GROUND LINE
r e
WOVFN WIRE WITH ONE RARE DETAIL.,
LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 41N. DIAM. OR 41N. SQUARE.
LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U. OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.
MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBEI (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 18' DEEP AND MUST BE AT
LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH
SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIES SUCH AS RED CEDAR,
BLACK LOCUST OR OSAGE- ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, OR NON- DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE
PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS. /CUBIC FOOT CCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON -CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED
PINE.
WOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)
NTS
NOTES:
1. CONSERVATION AREA SIGNS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO A TREE OR FENCE
POST.
2. SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM SPACING OF I PER 200 LF OF
EASEMENT BOUNDARY.
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT SIGN
NTS
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS:
• MATERIAL ALUMINUM
•
GAUGE .032
• SIZE: 6' X 6"
COARSE
DITCH TOP
BANK � I
I A I
I I
I I
DITCH BOTTOM— '
OF BANK
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
FLOW
PROPOSED
GROUND
FLOW _ MIN. 5.0' _
I -
COARSE AGGRE(
BACKFILL (1" TO
FILTER FABRIC)
(804.2.11 CLASS 2)
TACK FABRIC
TO LOG
C
REBAR OR DUCKBILL
ANCHOR
COARSE AGGREGATE
�BACKFILL (1" TO 5 ")
HEADER LOG
FOOTER
REBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN.
LENGTH) OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
SECTION B -B
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND
RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOG DIMENSIONS:
MIN DIAM. = 12 ", MIN LENGTH - 15'
NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON
NAIL EVERY IS ALONG THE LOG
3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.
LOG SILL
Mrs
COPYRIGHT @,W.K. DICKSON &CO., INC. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION OR USE OFTHE CONTENTS OFTHIS DOCUMENT; ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT, INWHOLEORIN PART, WITHOUTWRITTEN CONSENTOFW.K. DICKSON &CO.,INC., ISPROHIBITED. ONLY COPIES FROM THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED WITH AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BEVALID, TRUECOPIES.
FILE NAME:
�D CKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Transportation + Water Resources
Urban Development + Geomatics
720 Corporate Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(v) 919.782.0495
(f)
91 9.782. 9672
www.WkcIickson.COm
NC. LICENSE No. FN]4
W
H m
❑ N
F V1
O
J Or
a
� I h
O (
v '
° O
LL �
Q N ❑
° o w k
Y N
i
it it c
DRAWING NUMBER:
D3
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA
N
ZQ
U
Z
(32Z
Jm
090
w
Z Z
z m
OE r
m r'n
Z
U m
N
R
Q H
Q
I2 _ '
0 0
Ed co
r ch
6 ch
Q
Z
H CQ
HJ_
= O N
N m6ct
U
LLJ
Z¢
~
¢ ymm
a
Uj
O❑
UU
O
¢=a2
PRO). DATE:
FEB
2015
Q.C.:
FM
Q.C. DATE:
AUG
2015
DRAWING NUMBER:
D3
PROJ. NO.:
20130114.00. RA

Appendix E
Regulatory Compliance and Resource Agency
Correspondence
Seymour Johnson AFB Site Approval Letter
Seymour Johnson AFB Meeting Attendance
NC DWR Comments — Final Mitigation Plan
IRT Meeting Minutes- November 2013
Agency Scoping Letters and Responses:
- US Fish and Wildlife Service
- NC Natural Heritage Program
- NC Wildlife Resources Commission
- NC State Historic Preservation Office

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Signed By:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Daniel,
Hughes, Andrea W SAW <Andrea.W.Hughes @usace.army.mil>
Monday, August 17, 2015 3:12 PM
Daniel Ingram
FW: Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Bank Project near Seymour Johnson AFB
(UNCLASSIFIED)
SJAFB Response - Arrington Bridge Road Mitigation Prcject.pdf
HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Please see the attached letter from SJAFB regarding the Arrington Bridge
Phase III project.
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
(919) 846 -2564
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
I

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
4TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NC
AUG 7 2915
Mr. Dennis G. Goodson, P.E.
Deputy Base Engineer
1095 Peterson Avenue
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531
Mr. Henry Wicker
Deputy Chief, Regulatory Division
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 -1343
Dear Mr. Wicker
This letter is in reference to the Arrington Bridge Road wetland mitigation site project
proposal described in your letter dated 3 Aug 15. The proposed project will restore and enhance
approximately 32.22 acres of riparian wetlands including Cypress -Gum Swamp wetlands and
Bottomland Hardwood Forest wetlands.
To minimize standing water features that attract birds, we request the proposed wetlands
be exclusively Bottomland Hardwood Forest wetlands in lieu of the proposed Cypress -Gum
Swamp wetlands.
We appreciate the opportunity to assess this plan and to comment on it. If additional
information or clarification is required, please contact me at (919) 722 -5142.
Sincerely
GOODSON, P.E.

From:
EVANS, DENISE A GS -11 USAF ACC 4 CES /CENPL <denise.evans @us.af.mil>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:38 AM
To:
Daniel Ingram; Andrea.W.Hughes @usace.army.mil
Subject:
Arrington Bridge III Wetlands Mitigation Area -- Meeting Attendence Sheet
Attachments:
14 Jul 15 meeting attendence.pdf
Signed By:
EVANS. DENISE.ANNETTE.1046769097
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Dear Daniel and Andrea,
It was a pleasure meeting and speaking with you yesterday.
Please find attached the meeting attendance sheet.
I will work on the notes today, send them to folks for a quick turn - around, and get them to you as soon as possible.
Also, I sent everyone the link provided by Dan to obtain the mitigation plan with directions for downloading.
V /r,
Denise
/ /SIGNED //
DENISE A. EVANS, DAF
Community Planner
Portfolio Optimization, CENP
4th Civil Engineering Squadron
Seymour Johnson AFB
DSN: 722 -5572
Comm: (919)722 -5572

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Hughes, Andrea W SAW <Andrea.W.Hughes @usace.army.mil>
Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:27 AM
Daniel Ingram
FW: Arrington Bridge III Final Mitigation Plan and NCIRT Comments Summary
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Follow up
Flagged
Below are comments received from Anthony. The language sounds like the structures are necessary to achieve the
hydrology - not as an erosion protection device. Maybe an oversight in the response?
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Scarbraugh, Anthony [ mailto :anthonv.scarbrauRh @ncdenr.Rovl
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 4:07 PM
To: Hughes, Andrea W SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Arrington Bridge III Final Mitigation Plan and NCIRT Comments Summary
Ms. Hughes,
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) has reviewed the Final Mitigation Plan, dated June 2015 and the NCIRT
Comments Summary, dated June 10, 2015. Our comments are as follows:
* The DWR is satisfied with the response provided by WK Dickson regarding DWR's concerns over FEMA /Hydrologic
Trespass and the recommendation to incorporate soil ripping within the Mitigation Plan.
* As previously stated in the review of the Prospectus and previous mitigation plan review, the DWR is concerned
and discourages the use of permanent structures to achieve and maintain hydrology. The comments provided by WK
Dickson within the NCIRT Comments Summary stated "Due to the level of manipulation over the last 50 years (i.e. no
mature tree /root masses), the use of permanent structures will be necessary to contain sheet flow and mimic natural
feature typically seen in undisturbed wetland slough habitats." The DWR has considered these comments and request
additional information as to why a permanent grade control structures are required en lieu of other self- sustaining
alternative design methodology.
Thanks,
Anthony Scarbraugh

From:
Daniel Inaram
To:
"Elv Perrv" (elv(cbDerrvsinc.com); Burt Rudoloh (burt(cbDerrvsinc.com); Norton Webster ( norton(( ebxusa.com)
Cc:
Kelly Roth
Subject:
FW: Arrington Bridge III conceptual plan and meeting summary
Date:
Friday, November 15, 2013 12:34:00 PM
Attachments:
Arrinaton Bridae Conceptual Plan 111513.Ddf
ON
The draft meeting summary is included below and the attached figure shows the updated
conceptual plan. Please review and let me know if you have any comments or corrections. I will
finalize the summary once I get your OK.
Also, I discussed with Norton and Burt the possibility of splitting the buffer and nutrient portion off
of A133 and adding it to AB1. This would simplify A133 and make more sense as part of AB1. Let me
know what you think. Thanks.
Daniel Ingram
O 919.782.0495
M 919.622.3845
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Site
IRT Site Visit Meeting Summary
Date: November 12, 2013
Time: 10:30 am to 1:30 pm
Attendees:
Daniel Ingram, WK Dickson
Kelly Roth, WK Dickson
Norton Webster, EBX
Ely Perry, EBX
Burt Rudolph, EBX
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Tyler Crumbley, USACE
Bill Biddlecome, USACE
Emily Greer, USACE
Summary by Mitigation Component:
Wetland Preservation Area at Upper End of Project
• Todd Tugwell expressed concern that this area is not a high quality wetland, and would not
be a good candidate for preservation. It is also not a good preservation area because it is

too small and disconnected from other preservation areas. He suggested that preservation
could be approved at a lower ratio, such as 10:1.
• Mr. Tugwell suggested that this area could benefit from Enhancement. Hydrology could be
improved by filling the ditch /swale. Mr. Tugwell stressed that EBX would need to be able to
demonstrate functional uplift if Enhancement is chosen for this area.
Pond Behind Church (Upper End of Project)
• Mr. Tugwell and other IRT members suggested that this pond could be included with the
adjacent enhancement areas. Mr. Tugwell said that this area is supposed to be a wetland,
and, ideally, he would like to see it restored, however it would be considered enhancement
since it is already a jurisdictional feature.
• Tyler Crumbley stressed that if the pond is going to be converted, EBX must explicitly
describe the conversion in the project narrative.
• IRT members suggested that another option is to leave the pond inside the easement, but
not claim credit for it.
Stream Enhancement
• Mr. Tugwell and Emily Greer stated that this channel is a ditch - tributary, not a functioning
stream, and, therefore, is not a good mitigation project for offsetting stream impacts.
• Mr. Tugwell stated that the riparian buffer enhancement would provide a nutrient offset
benefit, and questioned whether any additional benefit would be gained through stream
enhancement.
• Mr. Tugwell questioned whether this drainage feature would be able to access its floodplain
in a storm event.
Wetland Enhancement — Planted Cypress Area
• Mr. Tugwell discussed treating this area with Rehabilitation rather than Enhancement
because it is likely to be at least a medium - quality wetland by the NCWAM methodology,
and the only feature that would need to be changed is to restore hydrology.
• IRT members ultimately agreed that Enhancement was likely most appropriate due to the
existing vegetation.
Wetland Restoration /Preservation
• Mr. Tugwell and Ms. Hughes questioned whether there is enough water on the site for
successful wetland mitigation.
• Bill Biddlecome inquired whether a water budget has been prepared for the site.
Wetland Preservation Adjacent to Neuse River
• Mr. Tugwell stated that these wetlands are not in good enough condition to be considered
for high quality preservation at a 5:1 ratio; however, they could be preserved at a lower
credit ratio, such as 7.5:1.
• Mr. Tugwell stated that there is unlikely to be much threat to these wetlands. Threat would
need to be demonstrated in order for these wetlands to be considered for preservation.
The IRT members agreed that the project has merit and no fatal flaws were identified. Wetland

rehabilitation was discussed in reference to the restoration /rehabilitation /enhancement approach
to disturbed wetlands. The IRT members also questioned the proposed hydroperiod, it was
explained that the site would include a continuum of wetland conditions from seasonally inundated
to seasonally saturated with varying hydroperiods.
From: Kelly Roth
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:23 PM
To: Daniel Ingram
Subject: Arrington Bridge conceptual plan
Kelly Roth
Staff Scientist
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
919 - 782 -0495 x5654
919 - 782 -9672 (fax)

iftwl<
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
January 5, 2015
Mr. Pete Benjamin
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636 -3726
Subject: Project Scoping for Arrington Bridge Wetland Mitigation Project in Wayne County.
Dear Mr. Benjamin,
The Arrington Bridge site has been identified by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts through the EBX Neu -Con Umbrella
Mitigation Bank The proposed project is the third of three phases. The proposed project involves the
restoration and enhancement of 41.6 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining,
agricultural activities, and active cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents 29.0 acres of wetland
restoration and 12.6 acres of wetland enhancement, generating 32.3 Wetland Mitigation Units
(WMU).
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (http: / /www.fws.gov /endangered /) lists one
endangered species for Wayne County, North Carolina: Red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis). We have determined that no suitable habitat for the listed species exists within the proposed
project boundary.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a wetland restoration project
on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the conservation
easement are enclosed.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to
my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
Daniel Ingram
Enclosures
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com Transportation • Water Resources • Urban Development • Geomatics

United States Department of the Interior
Daniel Ingram
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
January 29, 2015
Re: Arrington Bridge Wetland Mitigation- Wayne County, NC
Dear Mr. Ingram:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally - protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached'county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field.Office for a list of.iederally- protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern[ that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non - federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally - listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally - protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
t The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

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

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Emily Wells of this office
at (919) 856 -4520 ext. 25.
Sincerely,
Pe Benjamin
Field Supervisor

P&WK
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
January 5, 2015
Allison Weakley
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 -1601
Subject: Environmental Review for Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project in Wayne County.
Dear Ms. Allison Weakley,
The Arrington Bridge III Site has been identified by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts through the EBX Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank.
The proposed project is the third of three phases. The proposed project involves the restoration and
enhancement of 41.6 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining, agricultural activities, and
active cattle grazing. One unnamed tributary ditch that traverses the site exhibits diminished habitat value as a
result of past and on -going agricultural activities.
WK Dickson requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered,
threatened, significantly rare, or of special concern species associated with a potential wetland mitigation project
on the Arrington Bridge III site (a vicinity and USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is
attached).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) website ( http : / /portal.ncdenr.org/web /nhp /database - search;
accessed December 16, 2014) and GIS dataset, were performed as part of the site due diligence evaluation.
According to this website, there are 13 potentially occurring species located within the Southeast and Southwest
Goldsboro USGS Quadrangles with a state status of endangered, threatened, significantly rare, or of special
concern. No listed species or element of occurrences (EO) have been observed within the project area or noted
during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has historically
been disturbed due to agricultural practices and historic mining.
We ask that you review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to natural heritage
occurrences or other trust resources from the construction of a wetland restoration project on the subject
property. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to
my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at dingram @wkdickson.com with any questions
that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
Daniel Ingram
Enclosures
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com
Transportation • Water Resources • Urban Development • Geomatics

AP15%
VLOt"A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat McCrory Bryan Gossage Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Director Secretary
January 21, 2015
Mr. Daniel Ingram
W.K. Dickson & Company, Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
dingram @wkdickson.com
RE: Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
W.K. Dickson Project No. 20130114.00.RA
Dear Mr. Ingram:
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 in the maps 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:
The occurrence records for Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat, Southern Hognose Snake and Pine Barrens
Treefrog have very low accuracy due to the lack of site - specific locational information associated with
these records, but Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat has been documented in Wayne County, and Southern
Hognose Snake and Pine Barrens Treefrog have been documented in the Goldsboro area. The
occurrence of Least Bittern is located ca. 0.25 miles northeast of the proposed project area, in the
Arrington Bridge II Mitigation Site.
In addition, the NCNHP database shows that the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base is located just east of
the project area, and a property considered to be Wayne County open space is located ca. 0.6 miles
southwest of the project area.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -8600 \ Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper
ELEMENT
OCCURRENCE
STATE
FEDERAL
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
STATUS
ACCURACY
STATUS
STATUS
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat - Coastal
macrotis
Plain subspecies
Historical
Very Low
SC
FSC
Heterodon simus
Southern Hognose Snake
Current
Very Low
SC
FSC
Hyla andersonii
Pine Barrens Treefrog
Historical
Very Low
SR
- --
Ixobrych us exilis
Least Bittern
Current
High
SC
- --
*For status and accuracy definitions, please see the Rare Species Definitions and Element
Occurrences documents at
httos: / /ncnhde.natureserve.orfz/content /help.
The occurrence records for Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat, Southern Hognose Snake and Pine Barrens
Treefrog have very low accuracy due to the lack of site - specific locational information associated with
these records, but Rafinesque's Big -eared Bat has been documented in Wayne County, and Southern
Hognose Snake and Pine Barrens Treefrog have been documented in the Goldsboro area. The
occurrence of Least Bittern is located ca. 0.25 miles northeast of the proposed project area, in the
Arrington Bridge II Mitigation Site.
In addition, the NCNHP database shows that the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base is located just east of
the project area, and a property considered to be Wayne County open space is located ca. 0.6 miles
southwest of the project area.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -8600 \ Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
W.K. Dickson Project No. 20130114.00.RA
January 21, 2015
Page 2
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.
Feel free to contact me at 919 - 707 -8629 or Allison.Weaklev @ncdenr.gov if you have questions or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
Allison Schwarz Weakley, Conservation Planner
NC Natural Heritage Program

iftWK
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
January 5, 2015
Vann Stancil
Habitat Conservation Biologist
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
215 Jerusalem Church Road
Kenly, NC 27542
Subject: Project Scoping for Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project in Wayne County.
Dear Mr. Stancil,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential wetland restoration project on the attached
site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are
enclosed). The Arrington Bridge III site has been identified by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC to
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts through the EBX Neu -Con
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. One unnamed tributary ditch that traverses the site exhibits diminished
habitat value as a result of past and on -going agricultural activities. This site has been disturbed by
historic mining, agricultural activities, and active cattle grazing.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to
my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at dingram @wkdickson.com with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
Daniel Ingram
Enclosures
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com
Transportation • Water Resources • Urban Development • Geomatics

From: "Stancil, Vann F" <vann.stancil @ncwildlife.org>
Date: January 27, 2015 at 10:21:55 AM EST
To: "Daniel Ingram (dingram @wkdickson.com)" <dingram @wkdickson.com>
Subject: Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Project
Mr. Ingram,
I have reviewed the information you submitted for the Arrington Bridge III wetland restoration project
located north of the Neuse River near Goldsboro in Wayne Co. This site has been identified to become
part of the EBX Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The site has been disturbed in the past by mining,
agriculture, and channelization. The NCWRC does not anticipate any issues concerning fish and wildlife
resources resulting from this proposed wetland restoration project. Thank you for the opportunity to
review this project and please contact me if you have any additional requests.
Vann F. Stancil — Research Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
215 Jerusalem Church Road
Kenly, NC 27542
919 - 284 -5218
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

P&WK
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
January 5, 2015
Renee Gledhill - Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 -4617
Subject: Environmental Review for Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project in Wayne County.
Dear Ms. Gledhill - Earley,
The Arrington Bridge III Site has been identified by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts through the EBX Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank.
The proposed project is the third of three phases. The proposed project involves the restoration and
enhancement of 41.6 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining, agricultural activities, and
active cattle grazing. One unnamed tributary ditch that traverses the site exhibits diminished habitat value as a
result of past and on -going agricultural activities.
WK Dickson requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential wetland mitigation project on the Arrington
Bridge III site (a vicinity and USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is attached).
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
(http: / /gis.ncdcr.gov /hpoweb /; accessed December 16, 2014) was performed as part of the site due diligence
evaluation. According to this website, there are no National Registered listings within the proposed project area
within a one -mile radius. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted
during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has historically
been disturbed due to agricultural practices and historic mining.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to
my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at dingram @wkdickson.com with any questions
that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
Daniel Ingram
Enclosures
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com Transportation • Water Resources • Urban Development • Geomatics

�.�. STATE
m. iryy (A91
V
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
January 27, 2015
Daniel Ingram
W.K. Dickson & Company, Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project, Wayne County, ER 15 -0062
Dear Mr. Ingram:
Thank you for your letter of January 5, 2015, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
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 .review(&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
�5eRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599