20160980 Ver 1 _Mitigation-Plan_report and all appendices _20170515

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056
May 2017

1 *14 11 ►L .YIIu lu I\ 1
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural
land use in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately three miles north of Smithfield. The
project streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted by channelization, impoundment, and
cattle access. The project will involve the restoration and protection of streams in the Neuse River
watershed and the enhancement of adjacent riparian wetlands. The purpose of this mitigation site is to
restore and enhance a stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin.
The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201100050 (USGS, 2012). The 2010
Neuse River Basin Plan (NRBP) identified the Meadow Spring Creek watershed (HUC
03020201100050) as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The Site is in the Meadow Spring Creek
Watershed, a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW). The Site supports many of the Neuse River Basin
Restoration Priorities Pan (RBRP) and Neuse Regional Watershed Pan (RWP) goals. Twenty-three
percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes and twenty-three percent is currently
developed.
The Site is located within the downstream end of HUC 03020201 and includes streams that directly
discharge into Meadow Spring Creek. 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 project presents 7,393 linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement
generating 5,506 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 36.53 acres of wetland restoration and
enhancement generating 17.07 riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WNW).
The site consists of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and wooded areas. The total easement area is
60.93 acres. The wooded areas along the easement corridor designated for restoration activities are
classified as mixed hardwoods. Invasive species are present throughout the wooded areas. Channels
proposed for restoration are both laterally and vertically unstable, impacted by cattle, have disturbed
riparian buffers, and do not fully support aquatic life. Current stream conditions along the proposed
restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation because of impacts from livestock and impoundment to
promote agricultural activities.
The objective for this mitigation site is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet
success criteria. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream characteristics,
such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be
hydrologically reconnected to the channels where feasible to provide natural exchange and storage
during flooding events. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE,
2005), and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional site objectives,
such as restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating
invasive species, are listed in Section 1.
The stream design approach for the Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the
same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create
the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan ii May2017

are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was
developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.
The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority FII restoration, Enhancement Levels III, and 111, and
wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation. Priority I restoration reaches will incorporate the
design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference
site described above, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
Enhancement Level III is proposed along Reaches 9, 12, and 13 due to the channels' current stability
and presence of mature trees located along the top of banks. Similar to Enhancement Level 11 reaches,
the design approach on these reaches will focus on improving the riparian buffer.
The Site will include wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Wetland restoration will
occur adjacent to Priority I stream restoration reaches. The restoration approach is to reconnect the
floodplain wetlands to the stream, fill existing ditches, rough the floodplain surface, and plant native
tree and shrub species commonly found in small stream swamp ecosystems. The wetland enhancement
treatment will primarily be livestock exclusion, improving hydrology via pond removal and ditch
plugging, and planting native tree and shrub species.
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 routine maintenance. The measure
of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and no change in stream channel
classification. Sand bed channels are dynamic and minor adjustments to dimension and profile are
expected. The measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 210 seven-year
old planted trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of year seven of the monitoring
period.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will 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 will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iii May2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Site Selection..........................................................................................................................
7
1.2 Project Components................................................................................................................
7
2 WATERSHED APPROACH.........................................................................................................
8
2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends...............................................................
9
2.2 Soil Survey.............................................................................................................................
9
2.3 Site Photographs..................................................................................................................
12
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT.........................................................................................
15
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information...........................................................
15
4 BASELINE INFORMATION......................................................................................................
16
4.1 Watershed Summary Information........................................................................................
16
4.1.1 Drainage Area...............................................................................................................16
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification........................................................................................16
4.2 Reach Summary Information...............................................................................................
16
4.2.1 Channel Classification..................................................................................................17
4.2.2 Discharge......................................................................................................................17
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification....................................................................................................17
4.2.4 Channel Morphology....................................................................................................18
4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment......................................................................................19
4.2.6 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................21
4.3 Wetland Summary Information............................................................................................
21
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands.........................................................................................................21
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil.....................................................................................................
22
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
.......................................................... 23
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities...............................................................
23
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass........................................................................................23
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation.............................................................
23
5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL.......................................................................................
25
6 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS.............................................................................................
26
7 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................
27
7.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
28
7.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................
28
8 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
29
8.1 Reference Stream Studies.....................................................................................................
29
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions........................................................................................
29
8.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
31
8.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach........................................................................................
31
8.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement........................................................................
37
8.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration.........................................................................
38
8.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)............................................................................
39
8.2.5 Soil Restoration............................................................................................................40
8.3 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................
40
8.3.1 Stream Data Analysis...................................................................................................
40
8.3.2 Mitigation Summary.....................................................................................................43
9 MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
44
10 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................45
10.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria..............................................................
45
10.1.1 Bankfull Events............................................................................................................
45
10.1.2 Cross Sections..............................................................................................................45
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan iv May 2017

List of Tables
Table 1. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation ............................................... 7
10.1.3 Digital Image Stations..................................................................................................
45
Table3. Mapped Soil Series.................................................................................................................
10.1.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria.........................................................................................45
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information............................................................................15
10.2 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
45
11
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................
46
20
11.1 As -Built Survey....................................................................................................................47
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................
11.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
47
25
11.3 Cross Sections......................................................................................................................
47
Table 12a. Stream Credit Release Schedule.........................................................................................27
11.4 Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
47
28
11.5 Vegetative Success Criteria..................................................................................................
47
Table14. Proposed Plant List...............................................................................................................
11.6 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................48
Table15. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
41
11.7 Adaptive Management..........................................................................................................
48
12
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................
49
13
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................................
50
14
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES......................................................................................................
51
15
OTHER INFORMATION............................................................................................................
52
15.1 References............................................................................................................................
52
List of Tables
Table 1. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation ............................................... 7
Table 2. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation ............................................
8
Table3. Mapped Soil Series.................................................................................................................
11
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information............................................................................15
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information..............................................................................16
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics.......................................................................17
Table 7. Channel Stability Assessment Results....................................................................................
20
Table 8. Wetland Summary Information..............................................................................................22
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................
24
Table 10. Functional Benefits and Improvements................................................................................
25
Table 11. Mitigation Credits.................................................................................................................26
Table 12a. Stream Credit Release Schedule.........................................................................................27
Table 12b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule......................................................................................
28
Table13. Scaling Factors.....................................................................................................................
36
Table14. Proposed Plant List...............................................................................................................
39
Table15. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................
41
Table 16. Stable Channel Design Output.............................................................................................
42
Table 17. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses......................................................
42
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities.............................................................
43
Table19. Maintenance Plan.................................................................................................................
44
Table 20. Monitoring Requirements.....................................................................................................
46
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan v May 2017

List of Figures
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2- USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3- Historical Conditions Map
Figure 4- Soils Map
Figure 5- Landowner Map
Figure 6- Land -use Map
Figure 7- Existing Conditions Map
Figure 8- National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 9- FEMA Map
Figure 10- Conceptual Plan Map
Figure 11- Non -Standard Buffer Width Calculations
Figure 12- Monitoring Plan
Appendices
Appendix A
—Site Protection Instrument(s)
Appendix B
— Baseline Information Data
Appendix C
— Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D-
Soil Scientist Report
Appendix E
— Design Plan Sheets (11"x17")
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan vi May 2017

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a primarily rural watershed with
limited residential and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) development in Johnston
County, North Carolina. The project streams proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted
by channelization and agricultural practices. Due to its location and proposed improvements, the Site
will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin.
1.1 Site Selection
The Site is located in Johnston County approximately three miles north of Smithfield, North Carolina
(Figure 1). To access the Site head East on NC 70 from the Town of Wilson Mills, turn right onto
Wilson Mills Road and head south for approximately 1.5 miles. The Site is located in the Neuse River
Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201, 14 -digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03020201100050 (USGS, 2012) (Figure 2). The Site is located in the Rolling Coastal Plains ecoregion.
1.2 Project Components
The project area is comprised of one primary perennial stream (UT to Neuse River) that flows west to
east to a confluence with the Neuse River. The northern easement area captures a single tributary and
a portion of its headwaters. The southern easement area is separated from the northern area by an active
agricultural field, and is divided into three different areas due to a utility crossing and a powerline
easement. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, as well
as Figure 10.
Table 1. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Stream Mitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Existing
ProposedMitigation
Base
Adjusted
Reach
Type
(Proposed)
Length
Length
Ratio
SMUs
SMUs
(LF)
(LF)
S1
Enhancement II
3+47
to
6+00
253
253
2.5:1
51
101
S2
Enhancement I
6+00
to
11+00
500
500
1.5:1
333
333
S6A
P1 Restoration
11+00
to
23+80
1,220
1,280
1:1
1,280
1,280
S6B
P1 Restoration
23+80
to
35+55
1,150
1,175
1 : 1
1,175
1,175
S6B
Enhancement I
35+55
to
37+22
165
167
1.5:1
111
111
S7
Enhancement I
38+08
to
48+01
1,035
993
1.5:1
662
703
S7
Enhancement I
49+04
to
53+20
452
416
1.5:1
277
297
S9
Enhancement III
53+20
to
59+85
665
665
5:1
266
133
S11
P1 Restoration
59+85
to
70+21
898
1,036
1 : 1
1,036
1,047
S12
Enhancement III
70+21
to
74+09
388
388
5:1
155
78
S5
P1 / P2 Restoration
0+76
to
3+06
215
230
1 : 1
230
230
S13
Enhancement III
0+00
to
4+52
452
452
5:1
452
90
Total
7,393
7,555
5,506
5,591
*Credits adjusted using non-standard buffer width guidance.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan
7
May 2017

Table 2. Meadow Spring Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Mitigation Ratio
WMUs
Re-establishment
7.33
1:1
7.33
Re-establishment
2.39
2:1
1.20
Rehabilitation
0.95
1.5:1
0.63
Enhancement
23.73
3:1
7.91
Preservation (no credit)
2.13
N/A
N/A
Total
36.53
17.07
2 WATERSHED APPROACH
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 Site is located in HUC
03020201100050 (Neuse River), a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) that exhibits both the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The watershed includes 52 square miles
of watershed area, with thirty-one percent of the 106 stream miles lacking wooded buffers. Thirty-seven
percent of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes with 13 animal operations occurring in the
watershed.
The Site was identified as a stream, wetland, and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water
quality, habitat, and hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. The Site is located within the downstream
end of HUC 03020201 and includes streams that directly discharge into the Neuse River. 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 project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Nutrient removal,
• Sediment removal,
Invasive species treatment,
Filtration of runoff, and
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Exclusion of livestock,
• Treatment of exotic invasive species,
• Restoration of forested riparian stream buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks due to lack of vegetation and livestock hoof shear,
• Addition of large woody debris, such as log vanes, log weirs, and root wads,
• Preservation and enhancement of hydrology in existing riparian wetland seeps, and
• Restoration of appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 8 May 2017

2.1.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Aerial imagery indicates that the subject Site has been used extensively for agricultural purposes, and
that the agricultural pond has been in place for well over 40 years (Figure 3). Since the early 1990s
little has changed in the project area. The area remains in an agricultural community with some
neighboring property forested. Several watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation,
surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Soil structure and surface texture
have been altered from intensive agricultural operations.
2.2 Soil Survey
The Site is located in the Rolling Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. Existing soil information from
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) shows the property is located within the
Wehadkee-Bibb-Chewacla soil association. This association is on nearly level, well drained to poorly
drained soils that are subject to flooding typically in flood plains and stream terraces. This soil
association is located along major streams and creeks throughout Johnston County. The largest mapped
area of this soils association is along the Neuse River south of Smithfield.
The Johnston County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the site. Map units include 11
soil series (Figure 4). The soil series found on the Site are described below and summarized in Table
3.
Site soils are mapped by the NRCS as Altavista, Augusta, Bibb, Goldsboro, Norfolk, Rains, Roanoke,
and Wagram on the low lying depressions and floodplains at the project Site (Figure 4). Augusta, Bibb,
Goldsboro Rains and Roanoke soils are generally poorly drained sandy loam to loamy soils and range
from 0 to 2 percent slopes. Altavista and Wagram are fine sandy loam and loamy sand well -drained
soils typically located on slopes ranging from 0 to 6 percent. Altavista, Augusta, Bibb, Goldsboro,
Rains, and Roanoke soils are listed on the NRCS hydric soil list as hydric or having hydric inclusions.
The surrounding upland soils are mapped as Marlboro -Cecil complex, Norfolk and Wagram. Norfolk
and Wagram soils are well drained and have moderate permeability. Norfolk and Wagram are found
on slopes ranging from 0 to 6 percent. Marlboro -Cecil complex is sandy loam soil made up of Marlboro
and Cecil soils. This soil type is well -drained and typically located on slopes ranging from 2 to 8
percent.
Altavista fine sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderately to well -drained soil that occurs on stream
terraces of the Coastal Plain. They formed in old loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock, and generally occur on slopes between 0-3 %. Runoff is negligible and permeability
is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Altavista fine sandy loam occurs along the southeast boundary
of the proposed easement throughout most the wetland area.
Augusta sandy loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on stream terraces
of the Southern Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain. They formed in loamy alluvial sediments, and
generally occur on slopes between 0-2%. Runoff is negligible and permeability is moderate. Major us
is cropland. Augusta sandy loam occurs along the northwest end of the of the planned wetland and near
the southern reach of the stream.
Bibb sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil found on flood plains of the Coastal Plain.
Slopes are generally less than 2%. Soils formed in stratified sandy alluvium and have very slow runoff
with moderate permeability. The water table is generally within 8 inches of the surface for six to eleven
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 9 May 2017

months of the year. Bibb sandy loams occurs along the northernmost reach of the easement; it can also
be found in small patches around the project Site.
Goldsboro sandy loam. This is a very deep, moderate well -drained soil that occurs on marine terraces
and uplands of the lower to upper Coastal Plain. They formed in marine and fluviomarine deposits, and
generally occur on slopes between 0-10%. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cropland. Goldsboro sandy loam occurs along the middle of the easement and
is scattered along the project vicinity.
Marlboro- Cecil complex. Marlboro consists of very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on the smooth
uplands of the Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey Coastal Plain sediments, and generally occur in
slopes 0-15%. Runoff is medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Cecil consists
of very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on ridges and side slopes of the Piedmont uplands. They
formed in residuum weathered from felsic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont
uplands, and generally occur on slopes between 0-25%. Runoff is medium to rapid and permeability is
moderate. Major uses are cultivation, pasture, and forest. Marlboro -Cecil complex is found outside of
the easement area in the surrounding cultivated plots.
Norfolk loamy sand. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on interfluves and side slopes
of the Coastal Plain. They formed in marine or fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes
between 0-10%. Runoff is negligible to medium and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland.
Norfolk loamy sand is found along the floodplains of the northwestern stream reaches.
Rains sandy loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on crests of the Coastal Plain.
They formed in loamy and sandy marine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 0-2%. Runoff
is low and permeability is moderate. Major uses are forest and cropland. Rains sandy loam occurs along
the area just north of the easement and along the stream reaches extending out from the site easement.
Roanoke loam. This is a very deep, poorly drained soil that occurs on terraces and drainageways of
the piedmont and the upper and middle Coastal Plain. They formed in clayey fluvial sediments, and
generally occur on slopes between 0-2%. Runoff and permeability are slow to very slow. Major uses
are woodland. Roanoke loam occurs along the left floodplain of the southernmost reach of the
conservation easement.
Wagram loamy sand. This is a very deep, somewhat excessively drained soil that occurs on the
interfluves and side slopes of the upper and middle Coastal Plain. The formed in marine and
fluviomarine deposits, and generally occur on slopes between 0-15%. Runoff is negligible to medium
and permeability is moderate. Major uses are cropland. Wagram loamy sand occurs along the right
stream bank and floodplain of the northernmost reach in the easement.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 10 May 2017

Table 3. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Map Unit Name
Percent
Drainage
Hydrologic
Landscape
Symbol
Hydric
Class
Soil Group
Setting
AaA
Altavista fine sandy
9°
�°
Moderately
C
Stream terraces
loam, 0-2% slopes
well
AsA
Augusta sandy loam,
7%
Somewhat
B/D
Stream terraces
0-2% slopes
poorly
Bb
Bibb sandy loam, 0-
90%
Poorly
A/D
Floodplains
2% slopes
Flats on marine
GoA
Goldsboro sandy
2°
�0
Moderately
B
terraces, broad
loam, 0-2% slopes
well
interstream divides
on marine terraces
Broad interstream
McB
Marlboro -Cecil
0%
Well
B
divides on marine
complex, 2-8% slopes
terraces, ridges on
marine terraces
Flats on marine
NoA
Norfolk loamy sand, 0-
5%
Well
A
terraces, broad
2% slopes
interstream divides
on marine terraces
Flats on marine
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand, 2-
5o
�0
Well
A
terraces, broad
6% slopes
interstream divides
on marine terraces
Carolina bays on
marine terraces,
Ra
Rains sandy loam, 0-
90%
Poorly
B
broad interstream
2% slopes
divides on marine
terraces, flats on
marine terraces
Depressions on
Ro
Roanoke loam, 0-2%
100%
Poorly
C/D
stream terraces,
slopes
backswamps on
stream terraces
Broad interstream
WaB
Wagram loamy sand,
5%
Well
A
divides on marine
0-6% slopes
terraces, ridges on
marine terraces
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 11 May 2017

2.3 Site Photographs
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 12 May 2017

h
=d �
77mgm- or
Reach S5. 10/06/2015 Reach S6. 10/06/2015
kAI /
%b
Reach S6. 10/06/2015 General conditions along Reach ST 10/06/2015
z
.. 4
f:
f
General channel conditions along Reach ST Reach S8. 03/09/2015
10/06/2015
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 13 May 2017

Reach S9. 10/06/2015
Reach S9. 10/06/2015
Reach S 10. 10/06/2015
Reach 11. 10/06/2015
Reach S12. 05/10/2016
Reach S13. 10/06/2015
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 14 May 2017

3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Site includes portions of
the following parcels (Table 4 & Figure 5). Once finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument(s)
will be included in Appendix A.
Table 4. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template was utilized to draft the site protection
instrument. Once finalized, a copy of the final recorded easement will be provided in Appendix A.
EBX-Neuse I, LLC, 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 to the NCWHF. The NCWHF will 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 will 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 approved Mitigation Plan for the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site. The
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site will be authorized under the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella
Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC
Division of Water Resources.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 May 2017
Deed Book
Parcel
Protected
Landowner
Pin
County
and Page
Number
Acreage
Acreage
Stephenson
169500-74-
1997 Family
Johnston
01732-0151
246.34
60.93
Limited
6294
Partnership
The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template was utilized to draft the site protection
instrument. Once finalized, a copy of the final recorded easement will be provided in Appendix A.
EBX-Neuse I, LLC, 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 to the NCWHF. The NCWHF will 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 will 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 approved Mitigation Plan for the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site. The
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site will be authorized under the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella
Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC
Division of Water Resources.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 15 May 2017

4 BASELINE INFORMATION
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
4.1.1 Drainage Area
The easement totals 60.9 acres and the project includes one unnamed tributary to the Neuse River. The
total drainage area at the downstream limits of the main project area is approximately 379 acres (0.59
mi'). The land use in the Site watershed is approximately 37% agricultural and 45% forested (Table 5
& Figure 6).
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The current State classification for the Site restoration reaches is undefined. Tributaries of the Site run
directly into a large floodplain wetland adjacent to the Neuse River. Neuse River is defined as WS -IV
and NSW (NCDWQ 2012a). WS -1V waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes. 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.
Table 5. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion
65m - Rolling Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03020201100050
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
379
Percent Impervious Area
<1%
4.2 Reach Summary Information
The project area is comprised of a contiguous easement area along an unnamed tributary to the Neuse
River. The easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural crossing. The
project is divided into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The northern
portion of the project includes Reach S1, Reach S2, Reach S3, Reach S4, Reach S5, and Reach S6. The
southern portion of the project includes Reach S7, Reach S8, Reach S9, Reach 510, Reach S11, and
Reach S 12.
The Meadow Spring stream channels include unnamed tributaries to the Neuse River (Figure 7). The
Neuse River is a FEMA Detailed Studied Stream and all project reaches located in its floodplain are
subject to all applicable floodplain development permit requirements (Figure 9). Stream Classification
Forms were completed at representative locations throughout the project area and stream
determinations were confirmed by NCDWR staff (Appendix B). Results of the preliminary data
collection are presented in Table 6. The Stream Morphology Table is included in Appendix C.
In general, all or portions of S1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, and S11 do not function to their full potential.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agriculture,
historic land uses, and water diversion. Having been channelized in the past, some of the streams do
not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural operations.
In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of
trees or shrubs and active pasture is directly adjacent to both banks of the existing channel. Habitat
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 16 May 2017

along the majority of the restoration reaches is poor in that there is little woody debris or overhanging
vegetation for fish cover or protection for other aquatic species. Morphological parameters are located
in Appendix C.
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
IABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfall stage as estimated using existing conditions
data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
4.2.1 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 and are E-, G-, and C -stream types as classified using the Rosgen
stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994). The design reaches are described in Section 8.2. Channel
characteristics are summarized in Table 6, and Appendix C. Stream determinations have been verified
by NCDWR staff (Appendix B).
4.2.2 Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Meadow Spring Site is difficult due to the channelization and
agricultural impacts of the existing streams. Several models, regression equations, and the Coastal Plain
Regional curves were used to estimate existing bankfull discharges. Land use and slope were
considered when the discharge calculations were developed. All hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are
discussed in Section 8.3. Data and analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as
Appendix C.
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull is difficult and often times impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained channels
and agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other factors may be taken
into consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other factors that may be used are wrack
lines, vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull bench; however, complete confidence should
not be placed on these indicators. Along the proposed restoration reaches, the channel is generally
entrenched and actively maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non-existent.
Therefore, bankfull stage was estimated by using Coastal Plain Regional Curves and other hydrologic
analyses, existing cross-sections, and in-house spreadsheets to estimate bankfull area and bankfull
discharge.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 17 May 2017
Drainage
ABxFi
Width
Mean
Width:Depth
Reach
z
Sinuosity
Slope (ft/ft)
Area (ac)
(ft)
(ft)
Depth (ft)
Ratio
S1
36
1.5
10.1
0.1
70.9
1.01
0.0130
S2
46
1.6
4.9
0.3
15.1
0.93
0.0110
S4
12
1.0
3.0
0.3
9.3
1.04
0.0140
S5
36
1.8
4.6
0.4
11.6
1.18
0.0130
S6A
97
6.2
9.0
0.7
13.7
1.21
0.0039
S613
171
6.6
8.2
0.8
10.2
1.15
0.0060
S7
278
10.2
9.0
1.1
8.0
1.32
0.0032
S9
337
8.7
10.6
0.8
13.0
0.87
0.0033
S11
379
6.6
6.9
1.0
7.4
1.06
0.0041
S12
410
8.8
13.5
0.7
20.7
1.25
0.0030
IABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfall stage as estimated using existing conditions
data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
4.2.1 Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream
Identification Form version 4.11 and are E-, G-, and C -stream types as classified using the Rosgen
stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994). The design reaches are described in Section 8.2. Channel
characteristics are summarized in Table 6, and Appendix C. Stream determinations have been verified
by NCDWR staff (Appendix B).
4.2.2 Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Meadow Spring Site is difficult due to the channelization and
agricultural impacts of the existing streams. Several models, regression equations, and the Coastal Plain
Regional curves were used to estimate existing bankfull discharges. Land use and slope were
considered when the discharge calculations were developed. All hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are
discussed in Section 8.3. Data and analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as
Appendix C.
4.2.3 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull is difficult and often times impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained channels
and agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other factors may be taken
into consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other factors that may be used are wrack
lines, vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull bench; however, complete confidence should
not be placed on these indicators. Along the proposed restoration reaches, the channel is generally
entrenched and actively maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non-existent.
Therefore, bankfull stage was estimated by using Coastal Plain Regional Curves and other hydrologic
analyses, existing cross-sections, and in-house spreadsheets to estimate bankfull area and bankfull
discharge.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 17 May 2017

4.2.4 Channel Morphology
4.2.4.1 Reach S1
Reach S1 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres), and flows southeast from Wilson's Mill
Road through cultivated fields to Reach S2. The planform of this F -type channel is straight (K = 1.0)
and entrenched throughout. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.5 square feet with
approximate dimensions of 10.1 feet width and 0.1 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the
channel at top of bank is 91.7 square feet. The existing length of S 1 is 250 feet, and the dominate bed
material is very coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0130 ft/ft. The reach is
severely oversized with no floodplain access. The riparian buffer is comprised of row crops and grassed
fields with a mix of grassed and small woody vegetation growing within the existing top of bank.
4.2.4.2 Reach S2
Reach S2 has a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (46 acres), and flows east from Reach S1 through
active pasture to Reach S6. The planform of this C-type channel is straight (K = 1.1) with evidence of
past entrenchment. The channel has developed a new limited floodplain and adjusted to a state of
equilibrium. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.6 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 4.9 feet width and 0.3 feet deep, while the cross-sectional area of the channel at top of
bank is 58.7 square feet. The existing length of S2 is 500 feet, and the dominate bed material is very
coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0110 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any
functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle
access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.3 Reach S5
Reach S5 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres), and flows south from through narrow
forest and active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6. The planform of this F -type channel has a
sinuosity (K) of 1.2 and is entrenched throughout. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 1.8
square feet with approximate dimensions of 4.6 feet width and 0.4 feet deep. The existing length of S5
is 215 feet, and the dominate bed material is very medium gravel. The gradient of the reach is
approximately 0.0130 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic
habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.4 Reach S6A
Reach S6A flows east from Reach S2 through active pasture to a confluence with Reach S5 and is an
F -type channel. The drainage area for Reach S6A at the confluence with Reach S5 is 0.15 square miles
(97 acres). The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.2 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 9.0 feet width and 0.7 feet depth. The existing length of S6A is 1,220 feet and the
dominate bed material is fine gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0039 ft/ft. Cattle
access has eliminated any functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment
inputs attributed to cattle access were found throughout the reach.
4.2.4.5 Reach S6B
Reach S6B continues east to Reach S7 and has a drainage area of 0.27 square miles (171 acres). Reach
S6B is an F -type channel but transitions to an E -type channel approximately 940 feet downstream. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.6 square feet with approximate dimensions of 8.2 feet
width and 0.8 feet depth. The existing length of S6B is 1315 feet and the dominate bed material is fine
gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0060 ft/ft. Cattle access has eliminated any
functional riparian buffer or aquatic habitat. Bank erosion and sediment inputs attributed to cattle
access were found throughout the reach.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 18 May 2017

4.2.4.6 Reach S7
Reach S7 has a drainage area of 0.43 square miles (278 acres), and flows south from Reach S6 through
mature forest to S9. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.3 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.1. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 10.2 square feet with approximate dimensions of 9.0 feet
width and 1.1 feet deep. The existing length of S7 is 1487 feet, and the dominate bed material is very
fine gravel. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0032 ft/ft. The reach is slightly oversized but
maintains floodplain access. The riparian buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest; however,
significant invasive vegetation is present throughout the reach.
4.2.4.7 Reach S9
Reach S9 has a drainage area of 0.53 square miles (337 acres), and flows south from Reach S7 through
mature forest to S1 1. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 0.87 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.0. The
approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 8.7 square feet with approximate dimensions of 10.6 feet
width and 0.8 feet deep. The existing length of S9 is 665 feet, and the dominate bed material is coarse
sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0033 ft/ft. The bankfull depth noted above is lower
than water surface depths observed during field visits. Water surface depths observed were abnormally
high due to backwater caused by sediment deposits resulting from Hurricane Matthew (October 2016).
The riparian buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.4.8 Reach S11
Reach S 1 has a drainage area of 0.59 square miles (379 acres), and flows south from Reach S9 through
mature forest and grassed fields to S 12. This E -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.1 and an entrenchment
ratio greater than 2.2. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 6.6 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 6.9 feet width and 1.0 feet deep. The existing length of S 11 is 898 feet, and the dominate
bed material is coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0041 ft/ft. The riparian buffer
is comprised of mature hardwood forest and grassed fields. During field visits a headcut was observed
migrating in the middle of the reach. The headcut appeared to have been stabilized by a substantial
root mass located in the channel bed. Though stabilized, the headcut has left a significant amount of
the reach with vertical and vegetated banks that are acting as a considerable sediment source to the
downstream channel.
4.2.4.9 Reach S12
Reach S9 has a drainage area of 0.64 square miles (410 acres), and flows south from Reach S 11 through
mature forest to the Neuse River. This F -type channel has a sinuosity of 1.25 and an entrenchment
ratio of 0.9. The approximate bankfull cross-sectional area is 8.8 square feet with approximate
dimensions of 13.5 feet width and 0.7 feet deep. The existing length of S 12 is 388 feet, and the dominate
bed material is coarse sand. The gradient of the reach is approximately 0.0030 ft/ft. The dimensions of
this reach are significantly different from the rest of the project due to impacts from Neuse River
backwater. The riparian buffer is comprised of mature hardwood forest and wetlands.
4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in "Assessing Stream
Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions" by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel
stability for the Poplin Ridge existing channels and reference reach. This method may be rapidly applied
on a variety of stream types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.
The original CSA method was designed to evaluate thirteen stability indicators in the field. These
parameters are: watershed characteristics (frequency of watershed disturbances such as agricultural
activities, urbanization, etc), flow habit, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed
material, bar development, presence of obstructions/debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence,
average bank angle, bank vegetation/protection, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank failure, and upstream
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 19 May 2017

distance to bridge. See Appendix B for a detailed description of the stability indicators. As this method
was initially developed to assess stability at bridges, a few minor adjustments were made to remove
indicators that contradict stability characteristics of natural channels in favor of providing hydraulic
efficiency at bridges. First, the "channel pattern" indicator was altered such that naturally meandering
channels scored low as opposed to straightened/engineered channels that are favorable for stability near
bridges. Secondly, the last indicator, "upstream distance to bridge," was removed from the assessment
as bridges are not a focus of channel stability for this project. The twelve indicators were then scored
in the field, and a rating of excellent, good, fair, or poor was assigned to each project reach based on
the total score.
The CSA results (scores and ratings) for the Meadow Spring project are provided in Table 7. Two of
the six project stream reaches received "Fair" ratings, while four reaches received "Poor" ratings. The
reach score trended upward as we move downstream through the project. This improvement correlated
with an increase in forested drainage area in the downstream portion of the project. S 11 does not follow
this trend due to its lack of buffer and the increased sediment inputs from the upstream reaches. Overall,
the upstream project streams appear to be actively adjusting due to constant stress from surrounding
livestock. The downstream portions of the project are stable but have localized areas of erosion and
deposition due to confined upstream flows and sediment inputs. These characteristics are reflected in
the poor CSA scores throughout the project. (Table 7).
Table 7. Channel Stabilitv Assessment Results
S2
S5
S6
S7
S9
Sll
Ref.
Reach
1
Watershed characteristics
11
8
11
7
8
9
8
2
Flow habit
9
8
8
7
7
8
4
3
Channel pattern
7
9
10
4
4
9
3
4
Entrenchment/channel
9
9
9
7
4
6
3
confinement
5
Bed material
10
6
7
8
10
10
5
6
Bar development
9
10
10
9
2
8
5
7
Obstructions/debris jams
7
5
5
7
3
3
3
8
Bank soil texture and coherence
8
9
7
7
7
10
4
9
Average bankangle
8
10
10
7
10
10
4
10
Bank vegetation/protection
12
9
7
7
2
11
3
11
Bank cutting
7
8
9
8
5
8
4
12
Mass wasting/bank failure
8
10
8
8
7
8
2
13
Upstream distance to bridge
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Score
105
101
101
86
69
100
48
Rating*
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
*
Excellent (0 < Score <= 33), Good (33 < Score <=
66), Fair (99 < Score <=
99), Poor (99 < Score <=
132)
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan
20
May 2017

4.2.6 Vegetation
Current land use in the vicinity of the project is primarily pasture, row crop, and forest. There are low-
density residential lots, maintained vegetation, and two lane roads also present in the area surrounding
the project.
Forested riparian areas have been intermittently cattle -grazed and lack a well-developed understory and
shrub strata. The areas most closely resemble a disturbed Coastal Plain small stream swamp and are
dominated by hardwoods and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Canopy species include loblolly pine,
blackgum (Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), and various
oaks (Quercus spp.). Sub -canopy species include sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) and the
main herbaceous species are giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium
vivenium), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and in the wetter areas, common rush (Juncus
effusus), awlfruit sedge (Carex stipata), and netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata).
4.3 Wetland Summary Information
4.3.1 Existing Wetlands
A wetland delineation was performed in November 2016. 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) (Figure 7; Table 8).
Jurisdictional wetlands are present in the enhancement and preservation areas throughout the site. The
wetlands are divided between heavily disturbed and functional. A jurisdictional determination request
was sent to the USACE on January 2, 2017 and is included in Appendix B.
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three wetland areas within the site
(Figure 8). There is a pond mapped as PUBM (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently
Flooded Diked/Impound) on the west end of the project. There are two large wetland areas mapped on
the east end of the project as PSS1C (Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Broad -Leaved Deciduous Seasonally
Flooded) and PFO IC (Palustrine Forested Broad -Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded).
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 21 May 2017

Table 8. Wetland Summary Information
Wetland Summary Information
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland D
Wetland E
Wetland F
Wetland G
Parameters
WA
WB
WD
WE
WF
WG
Size of
Wetland
0.12
0.76
0.22
0.11
4.83
23.09
(acres)
Wetland Type
PEM
PEM
PFO
PFO
PFO
PEM/PSS/PFO
Mapped Soil
Norfolk sandy
Norfolk sandy
Marlboro -Cecil
Marlboro-
Augusta
Augusta sandy
Series
loam
loam
complex
Cecil
sandy loam
loam
complex
Drainage
Somewhat
Somewhat
Class
Well
Well
Well
Well
poorlyoorl
Soil Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Status
Inclusions
Inclusions
No
No
Inclusions
Inclusions
Source of
Freshwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Hydrology
spring
Hydrology
Hydrology
Hydrology
Hydroloav
Hydrologic
N/A
Ditch
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ditches
Impairment
Native
vegetation
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Forest
Forest
Forest
community
Percent
composition
of exotic
<5%
<5%
15010
<51X,
30%
<5%
invasive
vegetation
4.3.2 Existing Hydric Soil
In addition to the jurisdictional wetlands, areas of hydric soil were located and delineated within the
project area. The site is currently in agricultural use that is different from the historic landscape and
hydrologic regime. Past landscape/land use changes at this site includes enhanced drainage, a deeply
incised channel through the floodplain, active livestock resulting in soil compaction and surface
churning, a loss of surface organic matter, and the change of the normal reduction cycle characteristic
of wetlands to an oxidation cycle. The construction of a farm pond within the narrow drainage way has
severely altered the surrounding landscape and drainage, creating a discontinuity of the natural
drainage. Soil borings within the project boundary exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of
the soil surface throughout the natural drain way.
Outside of the NRCS map suitable hydric soil was identified that that extend into the concave nearly
level landform west of the pond dam. Around the pond is evidence of disturbance and spoil over the
natural soil surface extending beyond the limits of the pond and dam. Where excavated spoil is not
spread too thick hydric indicators within 13 inches are observed like those found throughout the
drainage way. The dam structure and inundated pond areas were not investigated but because of the
landscape position and presence of hydric soil above and below it is likely that the pond and dam are
underlain by a hydric soil.
Soils examined within the project area typically have thin dark sandy or loamy surface textures with a
gray subsoil ranging from sandy loam to sandy clay. The improved drainage from the incised channel
has disturbed hydric characteristics in the surface and modification of subsurface indicators was
observed. Many mottle features in the upper 10 inches appear to be relict having sharp boundaries at
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 22 May 2017

the edge of the mottle instead of a diffuse boundary usually observed in active wetland process. The
reduced hydroperiod allows increased mineral oxidation to occur within the matric and blur some of
the typical indicators expected. Hydric Soil Indicators are still present within most areas of the
floodplain. The indicators present are the 173 -Depleted Matrix, F6 -Redox Dark Surface, and F8 -Redox
Depressions. Hydric soils within the proposed enhancement and restoration areas were verified through
auger borings by a licensed soil scientist (Appendix D)
4.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
4.4.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities
There are no major constraints to construction of the Site. There is one utility crossing between S6 and
ST There is also a timber road that crosses Reach ST
4.4.2 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass
Reaches S7, S9, S 11 and S 12 are located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE) but outside
of the floodway of the Neuse River. Grading activities are proposed within the Neuse River floodway
for the wetland enhancement portion of the project. These grading activities will be limited in size and
will result in no net increase of fill within the floodway. This information was conveyed to the
Floodplain Administrators of both Johnston County and the Town of Smithfield. It was agreed that the
impacts were insignificant and could not be accurately modeled. Therefore a No -Rise or CLOMR will
likely not be required for this project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While
designing the Meadow Spring project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic
trespass of the adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed
design, and no detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. RES will verify final
FEMA coordination in the permitting phase of the project.
4.4.3 Environmental Screening and Documentation
4.4.3.1 Threatened and Endangered 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. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 11 May 2016) lists four endangered species for Johnston
County, North Carolina: Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Tar River spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana), Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii). No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during
preliminary site evaluations. No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was
observed during preliminary site evaluations. 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 are mapped
within one mile of the project Site. Results from NHP indicated that there are six known occurrences
within a one -mile radius of the project area. The NHP database shows an occurrence of Kidney Sedge
(Carex reniformis) historically mapped in 1949. Also within the Neuse River the database has
documented occurrences of the Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), Eastern lampmussel
(Lampsilis radiate), and Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) which were mapped in 2005 and
2010. The fifth occurrence is the Two -spotted Skipper which is a species of butterfly. The occurrence
was mapped on the other side of the Neuse River in 2000. The last occurrence is the Oak Toad which
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 23 May 2017

was last observed in 1969. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to federally protected species
are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. RES submitted a request to USFWS for review and
comments on the proposed Meadow Spring Project on May 5, 2017 in regards to any potential impacts
to threatened and endangered species.Documentation is included in Appendix B.
4.4.3.1 Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed 29
March 2017) database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources
in the proposed project area. RES submitted a request to the NC SHPO to search records to determine
the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that may be affected
by the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site on May 5, 2017. Documentation is included in Appendix B.
Table 9. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -
Yes
No
Appendix B
Section 404
Waters of the United States -
Yes
No
Appendix B
Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Section 4.4.3; Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/Coastal Area
No
N/A
N/A
Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 24 May 2017

5 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) separates stream functions into five
categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which communicate the interrelations among functions and
illustrate the dependence of higher level functions (biology, physiochemical and geomorphology) on
lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Anticipated functional benefits and improvements
within the project area, as based on the Function -Based Framework are outlined in Table 10.
Table 10. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 25 May 2017
Functional
Objective
Description
Level
(1-5)
Benefit will be achieved through cattle exclusion and direct removal of fecal
Nutrient removal
inputs, filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the conversion of active farm
3,4
fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer zones.
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks
Sediment removal
through cattle exclusion (passive) and bioremediation, bed loss will be
3
arrested with grade control structures, and reduction of sediment loss from re-
forested pasture.
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will
Runoff filtration
receive and filter runoff, thereby reducing nutrients and sediment
3
concentrations reaching aquatic resources.
Benefit will be achieved through the enhancement of floodplain connectivity
Water storage
which will store more water during precipitation events than under current
1,2
drainage conditions.
Improved
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in
groundwater
floodplain wetlands. Greater storage of water will lead to improved
2
recharge
infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Restoration of
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer and wetland buffers to
habitats
hardwood ecosystems.
3
Improved substrate
Substrate will become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream banks
and instream cover
and an overall decrease in the amount of fine materials deposited in the
3
stream.
Addition of large
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of
woody debris
the restoration design. Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, log
3,4
weirs, and log toes.
Reduced water
temperature due to
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the
4
shading
stream buffer areas.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 25 May 2017

6 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design (Figure 10). Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent
with the as -built condition.
Table 11. Mitigation Credits
*Credits adjusted using non-standard buffer width guidance.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 26 May 2017
The Meadow Spring Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
=S tream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
5,591
17.07
N/A
STREAM
Existing
ProposedMitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Base
Adjusted
Reach
Type
(Existing)
Length
Length
Ratio
SMUs
SMUs*
LF
LF
S1
Enhancement II
3+47
to
6+00 253
253
2.5:1
51
101
S2
Enhancement I
6+00
to
11+00 500
500
1.5:1
333
333
S6A
P1 Restoration
11+00
to
23+80 1,220
1,280
1:1
1,280
1,280
S6B
P1 Restoration
23+80
to
35+55 1,150
1,175
1 : 1
1,175
1,175
S6B
Enhancement I
35+55
to
37+22 165
167
1.5:1
111
111
S7
Enhancement I
38+08
to
48+01 1,035
993
1.5:1
662
703
S7
Enhancement 1
49+04
to
53+20 452
416
1.5:1
277
297
S9
Enhancement III
53+20
to
59+85 665
665
5:1
266
146
Sll
P1 Restoration
59+85
to
70+21 898
1,036
1 : 1
1,036
1,047
S12
Enhancement III
70+21
to
74+09 388
388
5:1
155
78
S5
P 1 / P2 Restoration
0+76
to
3+06 215
230
1 : 1
230
230
S13
Enhancement III
0+00
to
4+52 452
452
5:1
155
90
Total
7,393
7,555
5,506
5,591
Wetland
Mitigation Type
Total Acreage
Mitigation
WMUs
Re-establishment
7.33
1:1
7.33
Re-establishment
2.39
2:1
1.20
Rehabilitation
0.95
1.5:1
0.63
Enhancement
23.73
3:1
7.91
Preservation
2.13
N/A
N/A
Total
36.53
17.07
*Credits adjusted using non-standard buffer width guidance.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 26 May 2017

7 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
Department of the Army (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 be restarted
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 in Table 12a.
Table 12a. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total Released
Milestone
Release
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.
(60%**)
5
Third year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
(70%**)
6
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
65%
performance standards are being met.
(80%**)
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
o
10%
75%
erformance standards are beingmet.
85%**
g
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
5%
80%
performance standards are being met.
(90%**)
9
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
90%
performance standards are being met, and project
10%
(100%**)
has received close-out approval.
* *10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 27 May 2017

Table 12b. Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
I
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
10%
60%
performance standards are being met.
6*
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
70%
performance standards are being met.
7
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
80%
performance standards are being met.
8*
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
10%
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.
7.1 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.
d) 404 Permit Approval
7.2 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
performance standards have been achieved. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the Bank 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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 28 May 2017

8 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Reference Stream Studies
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions
The restoration portions of the project 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 stream type. 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
drainage area, land use, soils mapping units from the Johnston County Soil Survey for the watershed
and Site, typical woody debris and habitat available for the area, as well as general topography. The
"Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow the potential
community types that would have existed at the site (Schafale and Weakley, 2003).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region — Inner Coastal Plain,
• Similar drainage area,
• Similar land use onsite and in the watershed,
• Similar watershed soil types,
• Similar site soil types,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat — several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among coastal streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.
8.1.1.1 Reference Site Search Methodology
All the parameters used in Section 4.1 (WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION) were used
to find appropriate reference stream 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. Most streams tend to be modified ditches and may have some of the
characteristics that are sought in a reference, but too few to make it an ideal reference for the project
site. One reference stream site that proves to be ideal in both geomorphology and habitat is located near
the intersection of Little Divine Road and Howard Road. Located approximately 5 miles northeast of
the project site the reference reach is in the wooded area east of Howard Road.
8.1.1.2 Reference Watershed Characterization
The reference stream flows west to east and is the most downstream portion of an unnamed tributary
that drains to Buffalo Creek. The reach that was surveyed and analyzed is approximately 375 feet long.
The drainage area for the unnamed tributary is 0.84 square miles (540 acres). The land use in the
watershed is characterized by mostly mixed pines and hardwoods (40 percent), cultivated row crops
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 29 May 2017

(29 percent), residential (18 percent), and managed herbaceous cover/pasture land (8 percent), pine
plantations (4 percent), and open water (1 percent).
The current State classification for reference reach is undefined, but the tributary runs into Buffalo
Creek. Buffalo Creek 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. Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2012 303d
list for impaired waters (NCDWQ 2012b). It is impaired for aquatic use, receiving a Fair
Bioclassification rating for benthic ecological/biological integrity.
8.1.1.3 Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the reference site.
Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross-sectional area were all factors considered
when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Coastal Plain Regional Curves, in-house
spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing discharge was
found to be around 17 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). See Section 8.3.1.1 for a more detailed description
of the hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
8.1.1.4 Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, the reference reach is approximately the same size to slightly
larger than Reaches S5, S6 and S 11 when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, which is the reason
for using a scaling factor for the design. The scaling factor is based on the difference in bankfull width
of the reference channel. The new reach would then have the necessary dimensions of that of either a
smaller or larger stream corresponding to differences in drainage area. The stream was typically eight
to ten feet wide and one to two feet deep. The cross sectional area was typically around 11 square feet
with a width to depth ratio around 8.
8.1.1.5 Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reach was stable and showed no evidence of incision or erosion in the portion that was
surveyed and analyzed. The stream appeared to maintain its slope and had sufficient amounts of
vegetation to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceeded fifty feet on each side. The CSA results
(scores and ratings) for the reference reach are provided above in Table 8 (Section 4.2.5). The reference
reach received a "Good" rating as the channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and a well
vegetated riparian buffer.
8.1.1.6 Reference Bankfull Verification
Typical indicators of bankfull include vegetation at the bankfull elevation, scour lines, wrack lines,
vegetation lines, benches/inner berm, and point bars. Throughout the entire length of the reference
reach, bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this bankfull stage is verified by
the Coastal Plain Regional Curves and hydrologic analyses using existing cross sections to calculate
area and discharge. Evidence that can further support the location of bankfull is the lack of any bench
or berm features within the channel, and wrack lines present within the floodplain.
8.1.1.7 Reference Riparian Vegetation
The reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a bottomland hardwood forest community.
This community was determined to have had past disturbance altering the species composition.
Common species include red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 30 May 2017

(Liquidambar styraciflua), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora). Some invasive species are present, most
notably Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present at the Meadow Spring site
and will disperse across much of the project. These species are often found in early successional
communities and quickly fill disturbance gaps. Because many of these high dispersal species often
become aggressive in these sites, they are not included in the Restoration Planting List (Section 8.2.2).
Hardwood species typical of the target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities,
and were judged to be more appropriate for this site.
8.2 Design Parameters
8.2.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Meadow Spring Stream
Mitigation site will be accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed
characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of analytical and reference reach based
design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic
improvements. Proposed treatment activities may range from minor bank grading and planting to re-
establishing a stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full restoration, natural
design concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling.
The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat
improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority I Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level
II, and Buffer Enhancement. Priority I Restoration reaches will incorporate the design of a single -thread
meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference site described above,
published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses. As a result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows and a
restored riparian buffer will provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport throughout this
coastal plain watershed. A conceptual plan view is provided in Figure 10.
Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result
of impacts from impoundment and channelization performed to promote agricultural activities.
Additionally, the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout most of the project area where much
of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture is present on both sides of the
existing channel.
The Meadow Spring Site design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including
the onsite streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and
floodplain features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical
design techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the
reference reach based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow Hydrographs, regional
curves and flood frequency analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull
and other significant storm events. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically
referenced as bankfull or dominant discharge) was determined, and the subsequent design was based
on this calculated discharge. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data
and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling were confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function
components within HEC -RAS and through spreadsheet tools.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 31 May 2017

Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream
design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat
features were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat
features, excavated floodplains, and in -stream structures such as rock a -vanes, log sills, brush toes, log
j -hooks, log toes, and log drops were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank
stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability will also be enhanced
through the installation of live stakes that include native species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra) and
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)).
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas
adjacent to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs where
necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will
provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a
combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment
techniques (i.e. bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream
and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a permanent conservation easement.
The Meadow Spring Site has been broken into the following design reaches:
• Reach S1(STA 03+50 to STA 06+00) —Reach beginning at northwestern limits of the project
flowing southeast to Reach S2 totaling 250 linear feet of Enhancement Level Il. Row crops and
active pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S2 (STA 06+00 to STA 11+00) —Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach Sl and
flows southeast through active pasture to Reach S6A. Reach S2 totals 500 linear feet of
Enhancement Level I. Active pasture and row crops surround this reach.
• Reach S5 (STA 00+76 to STA 03+07) — Reach begins north of Reach S6A and flows south
through active pasture to a confluence with Reach S6A totaling 231 linear feet of Priority I and
11 Restoration. Active pasture and maintained lawn surround this reach.
• Reach S6A (STA 11+00 to STA 23+80) —Reach begins at the downstream end of Reach S2
and flows east through active pasture and ends at a confluence with Reach S5. Reach S6A totals
1,280 linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
• Reach S6B —Section 1(STA 23+80 to STA 35+55) —Reach begins at the confluence of Reach
S5 and S6A flowing east to the second section of Reach S6B. Reach S6B-Section 1 totals 1,175
linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
• Reach S6B — Section 2 (STA 35+55 to STA 37+20) — Reach begins at the downstream end of
Reach 6B -Section 1 and flows east to the Duke Energy right-of-way. Reach S6B-Section 2
totals 165 linear feet of Enhancement Level I.
• Reach S7 (STA 38+09 to STA 53+20) — Reach beginning downstream of the Duke Energy
right-of-way and flows south to Reach S9 totaling 1,443 linear feet of Enhancement Level I.
A 68 linear foot easement break is located in this reach to accommodate a proposed farm
crossing. Hardwood forests and active pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 32 May 2017

• Reach S9 (STA 53+20 to STA 59+85) — Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach S7
and flowing south to Reach S 11 totaling 665 linear feet of Enhancement Level III. Hardwood
forests and active hog lagoons are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S11 (STA 59+85 to STA 70+21) —Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach
S9 and flows southeast to Reach S12 totaling 1,036 linear feet of Priority I Restoration.
Hardwood forests and grassed fields are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S12 (STA 70+21 to STA 74+09) — Reach beginning at the downstream end of Reach
S11 and flows southeast toward the Neuse River floodway totaling 388 linear feet of
Enhancement Level III. Hardwood forests are located adjacent to the reach.
• Reach S13 (STA 0+00 to STA 4+52) - Reach beginning downstream of the large wetland
slough along the Neuse River floodplain totaling 452 of Enhancement Level III.
Reaches S1, S2, S6A, S6B, S7, S9, S11 and S12
A combination of Priority I Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II, and
Enhancement Level III is proposed along the primary project channel to address existing impairments,
particularly floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, nutrient input and buffer degradation. The watershed
that drains to the upper end of the project is approximately 36 acres, and land use is primarily
agricultural.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach S1, beginning at the northern limits of the proposed
conservation easement. The channel is stable throughout, except for a few minor areas of erosion, and
provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is severely degraded with row crops and
active pasture directly adjacent to the channel. The project will involve revegetating the buffer with
native vegetation for a minimum 50 -foot width.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S2 which will include stabilization
of localized erosion by installing log cross vanes and sills. Priority I Restoration is proposed for the
downstream portion of Reach S2. The restoration will include the lowering of the stream profile to
provide a bankfull channel and the removal of an existing berm in the right overbank to provide
floodplain access, and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer
will be established along the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much
of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures
will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S6A to address historic straightening, buffer degradation,
impoundment, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed
channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its
floodplain, removing the existing dam embankment and restoring hydrology to historically drained
wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation.
Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade
control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. The drainage
area at the downstream end of the reach is 97 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S6B to address historic
straightening, buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering
the proposed channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 33 May 2017

to its floodplain, and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer
will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid
of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along
the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. A 70 -foot easement break is proposed for an existing
utility easement at the end of S613 -Section 1. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is
171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for the downstream portion of Reach 6B which will include
stabilization of localized erosion by installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point
bars, removal of invasive vegetation and buffer restoration. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be
established along the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The drainage area at
the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S7 to address channel entrenchment, bank -cutting, and
invasive vegetation. The design approach will include stabilization of localized erosion by installing
log vanes, log sills, brush toes, and regrading grading point bars. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be
established and planted with native riparian vegetation. A 68 -foot easement break is proposed for an
existing ford crossing. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 278 acres.
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation,
buffer improvements, and channel preservation. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along
the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 337 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach SI I to address historic straightening, entrenchment and
buffer degradation. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and improving
hydrology to historically impacted wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted
with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation,
woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream
habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 379 acres.
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation,
buffer improvements, and channel preservation. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along
the reach and will be planted with native riparian vegetation.
Reach S5
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S5 to address historic straightening, buffer degradation and
livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and restoring
hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established and planted
with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation,
woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream
habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 36 acres.
8.2.1.1 Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that fall between
model results for the 1.0 -year and 2.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis for each reach. The
selected flows for the restoration reaches are 4 ft'/s, 3 ft3/s, 7 ft'/s, 11 ft'/s, and 15 ft3/s for Reaches S2,
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 34 May 2017

S5, S6A, S613, and S11, respectively. These discharges will provide frequent inundation of the adjacent
floodplain.
The design discharges were selected based on the following rationale:
• The calculated bankfull discharge for the analog/reference reach and existing reaches fall
between the results of the 1.0 -year and 2.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis,
• The results of the 1.0 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis are slightly higher than the NC
regional curve (Doll et al., 2003), and
• Selecting design discharges around the 1.5 -year storm events allows frequent inundation of the
adjacent floodplain.
8.2.1.2 Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog,
empirical, and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it is often best to
utilize more than one method to address site-specific conditions or to verify the applicability of design
elements. This is particularly true in developed watersheds where existing conditions do not always
reflect current inputs and events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some
time. Combinations of analytical and analog methods were used to develop the stream designs for the
Meadow Spring site.
Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams, and can
entail many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes continuity, roughness
equations, hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport functions to derive equilibrium
conditions. Since the project is located within a rural watershed, restoration designs are based on
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, including rainfall -runoff models to determine design discharges
coupled with reference reach techniques.
Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a "template" or reference stream
located near the design reach, and is particularly useful when watershed and boundary conditions are
similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). In an analog approach, the
planform pattern, cross-sectional shape, longitudinal profile, and frequency and locations of woody
debris along the analog reaches are mimicked when developing the design parameters for the subject
stream.
1. The appropriate bankfull cross-sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was calculated using
an in-house spreadsheet based on Manning's Equation. The input parameters included the
design discharge as determined by the hydrologic analysis described above, and proposed slope
based on site conditions, and the sinuosity measured for the analog reach.
2. The cross-sectional shape was adjusted within the spreadsheet to replicate the width -depth
ratios and side slopes surveyed along the analog reach, while also maintaining the CSA
necessary to convey the design discharge.
3. The scaling factor is determined from the ratio of the design top width to the analog top width
(Table 13). For this project, several cross-sections and planform geometry were measured at
the analog site, resulting in an average width of 9.9 feet.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 35 May 2017

4. Pool cross-sectional areas were calculated using both typical reference reach techniques and
the analog approach. Design CSA areas were determined using the measured analog ratios of
shallow/riffle CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design CSAs. The pool cross-sectional shape
was adjusted within the in-house spreadsheet as described above in step 2.
Table 13. Scaling Factors
ReachFactor
Drainage
Area (ac)
Proposed Bankfull
CSA (ft2)
Design
Top Width (ft)
Analog Reach
Top Width (ft)
Scaling
S2
46
3.2
5.4
9.9
0.55
S5
36
2.6
4.8
9.9
0.48
S6A
97
5.3
7
9.9
0.71
S613
171
7.8
8.4
9.9
0.85
S11
379
10.2
9.6
9.9
0.97
8.2.1.3 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for shallows and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix E. The
cross-section dimensions were developed for the two design reaches by using a WK Dickson in-house
spreadsheet described in Section 8.3 of this report. The cross-sections were altered slightly to facilitate
constructability; however, the cross-sectional area, width to depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved.
Typical pool sections include pools located on straight reaches and pools on meander bends.
8.2.1.4 Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix E. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide
variability in pattern, to avoid onsite constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel
more constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix C were applied
wherever these deviations occurred.
8.2.1.5 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix E. These profiles extend throughout the entire project
for the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features
that were sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined
for each design reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. A mix
of rock and log structures will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide
additional habitat diversity and stability.
8.2.1.6 In -Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve
aquatic habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures
where applicable. Additionally, rock structures will be utilized intermittently along Reaches S6A, S6B,
and S 11 to provide increased stability and habitat. Typical rock structures that will protect the channel
bed and/or banks will include riffle grade controls, and j -hooks.
Woody debris will be placed throughout the channel at locations and at a frequency that is similar to
those observed in the analog reaches. Woody habitat features installed will include dead brush, root
wads, brush toes, and log vanes. To provide additional bank stability, sod mats harvested onsite will be
installed along stream banks during construction if and when feasible. Sod mats will only be harvested
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 36 May 2017

and used if comprised of appropriate vegetation. The use of sod mats that include aggressive turf grasses
will be avoided. Sod mats are natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when they were cut
during construction, and are about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks are graded
lower than specified to accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top of the bank
to act as a natural stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the combination of coir
fiber matting and seeding. Other bank stability measures include the installation of live stakes, log sills,
brush toes, log vanes, and log toes. Typical details for proposed in -stream structures and revetments
are in Appendix E.
8.2.2 Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
The Meadow Spring Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland
restoration and enhancement is closely tied to the stream restoration. The Site will provide 17.07
WMUs through a combination of wetland restoration and enhancement.
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement is proposed. In the non jurisdictional areas, hydrologic
restoration, at a credit ratio of 1:1, will be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel to
restrict drainage and allowing a natural hydroperiod to return. In addition, re -constructing a stream
channel at a higher bed elevation in the natural valley, backfilling to create shallow depressions within
the old channel, and the removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains will aid in the
restoration of a natural floodplain surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Due to compaction
and long term agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of 8 to 10
inches is called for to create adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic
relief, and improve vegetative survival and growth.
The construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. As
part of the wetland re-establishment, at a credit ratio of 2:1, the pond will be removed and the stream
will be reconnected to the floodplain. The large perennial spring will serve as a source for hydrology
when the pond is removed and the stream is reconnected to the floodplain. Retention and storage within
the floodplain will be returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod. A credit ratio of 3:1
is proposed for the large disturbed Neuse River wetland area. This wetland has been actively managed
for agriculture and waterfowl through drainage manipulations and tree clearing. The wetland mitigation
treatment will primarily be re -planting the disturbed areas, plugging the main ditch, and removing
existing berms within the wetland. These activities will result in a large floodplain slough with a
diversity of microhabitats.
Given the observed soil characteristics indicating past wetland hydrology, and because of favorable
landscape positon, the presence of a restrictive horizon, and the potential source for restoring hydrologic
inputs, this site appears suitable for successful hydrologic wetland restoration.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 37 May 2017

8.2.3 Natural Plant Community Restoration
8.2.3.1 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 reference stream is
located within a disturbed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. Dominant species included sweetgum,
red maple, tulip poplar, swamp tupelo (Nyssa b flora), and various oak species (Quercus sp.) in the
canopy. Shrubs included sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) and American holly (Ilex opaca). The
reference site was chosen due to the stability of the channel, the physical structure of the forest
community, and to evaluate stream habitat. The species present are indicative of early successional
species that have high dispersal rates. The mitigation site also supports many species typical of this
community type due to its past disturbance history. Typically, a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
would occur along the stream banks and adjacent floodplain of the proposed restoration site.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp will be the target community type and will be used for all areas
within the project, as well as for buffer around the site. The plant species list has been developed and
can be found in Table 14.
The restoration of plant communities along the Site will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood, cottonwood (Populus
deltoides) buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), silky willow (Salix sericea), and black willow were
chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth patterns and high success
rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and they stabilize the stream
banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel. When the other species
are bigger, the black willows and silky willows will slowly stop growing or die out because the other
species would outgrow them and create shade that the willows do not tolerate. The live stake species
will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-
foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be spaced one per linear foot with alternate
spacing vertically. See Appendix E for a detailed planting plan.
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled/ripped
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 38 May 2017

Table 14. Proposed Plant List
Planting Zone 1- Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Acres: 32.6
Common Name
% of Total Species Composition
Spacing
Black willow
% of Total
Species
Common Name
(ft)
Unit Type
Species
20
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
20
Composition
Nyssa biflora
Black Gum
9x6
Bare root
15
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
9x6
Bare root
15
Platanus occidentalis
American
9x6
Bare root
15
sycamore
Betula nigra
River birch
9x6
Bare root
15
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
9x6
Bare root
15
Quercus michauxii
Swamoak chestnut
9x6
Bare root
10
Quercus lyrata
Overcup oak
9x6
Bare root
10
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw
9x6
Bare root
5
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species
Common Name
% of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra
Black willow
40
Salix sericea
Silky willow
20
Cornus ammomum
Silky dogwood
20
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
20
On -Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream
restoration. 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 will 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 from the site and properly disposed. 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.
8.2.4 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Diffuse flow structures will 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
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 39 May 2017

easement so that landowners will not have access to the structures. Failure or maintenance of the
structures is not anticipated as these structures will be installed in low -gradient areas, and the areas
proposed to diffuse flow will be well vegetated and matted.
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.
8.2.5 Soil Restoration
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 Data Analysis
8.3.1 Stream Data Analysis
8.3.1.1 Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine
and validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a
single model. Peak flows (Table 15) and corresponding channel cross-sectional areas were determined
for comparison to design parameters using the following methods:
• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD's Hydraflow Hydrographs,
• NC and VA/MD Regional Curves for the Coastal Plain, and
• USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Coastal Plain.
Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mit) which passed the Dalrymple
homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations.
Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2 -year peak discharges based
on the gauge data. Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were
compared to those predicted by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2 -year
discharge equations.
AutoCAD's Hydraflow Express
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall -runoff process and establish peak flows for the
watersheds. This model was chosen over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model HEC -HMS because
it allows the user to adjust the peak shape factor for the watershed conditions. Rainfall data reflecting
100, 284 and 484 peak shape factors were used along with a standard Type I1 distribution, and NRCS
hydrology (time of concentrations and runoff curve numbers), to simulate the rainfall -runoff process.
A 284 peak shape factor was determined to be the most representative for this watershed.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 40 May 2017

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Coastal regional curves by Doll et al. (2003) and Sweet and Geratz (2003), and the
Virginia/Maryland (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007) Coastal Plain regional curves for discharge were used
to predict the bankfull discharge for the site. The NC regional curves predicted flows that are similar to
those predicted by the 1.1 -year flood frequency, while the VA/MD curves are comparable to flows
predicted by the 1.5 -year flood frequency equation. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by
Doll et al. (2003) (1), Sweet and Geratz (2003) (2), and VA/MD (3) discharges are:
(1) Qbk=l6.56*(DA)0.72 (Doll et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkj�=8.79*(DA)0.76 (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
(3) Qak> 28.3076*(DA)o.51134 (Krstolic and Chaplin, 2007)
Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi').
USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood -peak discharges (Gotvald,
et al., 2009). The regression equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic
regions of the Southeastern United States. For this analysis, there was only concern for the 2 -year return
interval. The equation for the rural Coastal Plain (Hydrologic Region 4) is:
(4)
Q2=60.3 *(DA)0.649
Table 15. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach
Drainage
Area
(Ac)
Hydraflow
Q�
FFQ
Q�'�
FFQ
QA's
NC
Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA/MD
Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Qz
Design/
Calculated
Q
S1, S2
46
3.6
2.4
8.8
2.5
1.2
5.9
11
4
S5
36
3.0
1.9
7.4
2.1
1.0
5.1
9
3
S6A
97
4.4
14.3
4.6
2.1
9.2
17.7
7
S6B
171
11.6
7.2
20.9
6.4
3.2
12.8
25.6
11
S7
278
11.6
10.8
28.8
9.1
4.7
17.2
35.1
S9
337
12.4
12.7
32.7
10.4
5.4
19.3
39.8
S 1 1
379
16.2
14.0
35.3
11.4
5.9
20.7
43.0
15
8.3.1.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a
stable sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is
assessed to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various
sediment transport equations may be easily applied when estimating entrainment for gravel bed
streams; however, these equations are not as effectively applied to sand bed channels where the entire
bed becomes mobile during geomorphically significant flows. Therefore, more sophisticated modeling
techniques were used to analyze the stream design for this project. The following methods and functions
were utilized during the sediment transport analysis:
• Permissible Shear Stress Approach
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 41 May 2017

• Permissible Velocity Approach
Stable Channel Design
Design cross-section dimensions as determined from the analog approach were evaluated using the
stable channel design functions within HEC -RAS. These functions are based upon the methods
presented in the SAM Hydraulic Design Package for Channels developed by the USACE Waterways
Experiment Station. The Copeland Method was developed specifically for sand bed channels (median
grain size restriction of 0.0625 mm to 2 mm) and was selected for application at the Meadow Spring
Site. The method sizes stable dimensions as a function of slope, discharge, roughness, side slope, bed
material gradation, and the inflowing sediment discharge. Results are presented as a range of widths
and slopes, and their unique solution for depth, making it easy to adjust channel dimensions to achieve
stable channel configurations. The stable design output parameters are listed in Table 16. The results
are acceptable and match closely with the design reach parameters.
Table 16. Stable Channel Design Output
Reach
Q (ft/s3)
Bottom
Width (ft)
Depth (ft)
Energy
Slope (ft/ft)
Composite
n value
Velocity
(ft/s)
Shear Stress
(lbs/ft )
S2
4
1.8
0.9
0.0029
0.043
1.2
0.16
S5
3
1.6
0.8
0.0028
0.043
1.2
0.13
S6A
7
2.6
1.1
0.0027
0.043
1.4
0.17
S613
11
2.8
1.4
0.0027
0.044
1.5
0.21
S 11
15
3.2
1.6
0.0027
0.045
1.6
0.25
Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses
are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation),
cohesiveness of bank materials, and vegetative cover. The shear stress approach compares calculated
shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a boundary during the
resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:
(5) i = yRS
i = shear stress (lb/ft')
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft')
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Table 17. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Proposed Shear Stress
Allowable Shear Stress'
Reach at Bankfull Stage
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft)
Sand/Silt/Clay
Gravel
Vegetation
z
(lbs/ft)
(lbs/ft2)
(lbs/ft2)
(lbs/ft')
S2 0.10
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S5 0.06
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S6A 0.13
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S613 0.16
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
S11 0.15
>0.06
0.03 to 0.26
0.33 to 0.67
0.2 to 1.7
'(Fischenich, 2001)
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan
42
May 2017

Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Meadow Spring design reaches
fall between the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits.
Therefore, the proposed channel should remain stable.
Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to
aid in the verification of channel stability. Table 18 compares the proposed velocities calculated using
Manning's equation with the permissible velocities presented in the Stream Restoration Design
Handbook (MRCS, 2007).
Table 18. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach
Manning's "n"
value
Design Velocity (ft/s)
Fine Sand
Allowable Velocity' (ft/s)
Coarse Sand Fine Gravel
S2
0.050
1.1
2.0
4.0 6.0
S5
0.045
0.9
2.0
4.0 6.0
S6A
0.050
1.3
2.0
4.0 6.0
SO
0.050
1.5
2.0
4.0 6.0
S 11
0.045
1.6
2.0
4.0 6.0
l(NRCS, 2007
8.3.2 Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be
appropriate for this project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and
have been abated, and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were
developed from the measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The
parameters were then analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and
numerical simulations of fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the
restoration of natural Coastal sand -bed channel features and stream bed diversity to improve benthic
habitat. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread out over
the floodplain, restoring wetland hydrology to the overbank areas.
A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration
channel. However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood
storage. Native woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress,
provide grade control, and increase habitat diversity.
Forested riparian buffers of at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reach. An appropriate riparian plant community will be established to include a diverse mix of
species. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during
construction.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 43 May 2017

9 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum
of once 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 19. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of
in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along
the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -
cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be documented and reported in
annual monitoring reports.
Wctland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include securing of
loose coir matting, channel plug maintenance, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation within the wetland.
Vegetation
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, 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. Vegetation maintenance activities will be documented and
reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary
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 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. Easement monitoring and staking/signage
maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the Site may be maintained only as allowed by
conservation easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of
way, or corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the
responsibility of the landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fencing
Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance
of fencing is the responsibility of the landowner.
Beaver
Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver
management is needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability
or vegetative success, RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as
needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and included
in annual monitoring reports. Beaver monitoring and management will
continue through the monitoring period.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 44 May 2017

10 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the
USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
10.1 Stream And Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
10.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The four
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four
bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
10.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
10.1.3 Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
10.1.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has a current WETs table for Johnston County
upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data
station was determined to be the WETS station for Smithfield, NC. The growing season for Johnston
County is 233 days long, extending from March 18 to November 6, and is based on a daily minimum
temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years.
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual
site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a
hydroperiod for the Bibb soil of 12-16 percent of the growing season. The hydrology success criterion
for the Site is to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil
surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season (approximately 27 days) at each groundwater
gauge location. Based on the extensive management history of the Site and soil compaction, RES
proposes a target hydroperiod of nine percent for monitoring years 1 and 2, with the understanding that
12 percent will be the target hydroperiod for the remainder of the monitoring period.
10.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers 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 between
July 15 and leaf drop. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 45 May 2017

at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees at the
end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average
height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and
included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total
planted stems.
11 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the IRT monitoring template. A detailed monitoring plan
is provided in Figure 12. 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 Site will follow current accepted and approved
success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines, and subsequent agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented in Table 20. Monitoring reports will be
prepared annually and submitted to the IRT.
Table 20. Monitoring Requirements
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed
Pattern
District Stream
Baseline
if monitoring indicates instability or
Mitigation
significant channel migration
Guidelines
As per April 2003
Baseline,
USACE Wilmington
Years
Dimension
District Stream
1,2,
Surveyed cross sections and bank pins
Mitigation
7
and 7
Guidelines
As per April 2003
USACE Wilmington
Additional surveys will be performed
Profile
District Stream
Baseline
if monitoring indicates instability
Mitigation
Guidelines
As per April 2003
Crest gauges and/or pressure
Surface
USACE Wilmington
transducers will be installed on site; the
Water
District Stream
Annual
devices will be inspected on a quarterly
Hydrology
Mitigation
basis to document the occurrence of
Guidelines
I bankfull events
Vegetation
Annual
Vegetation will be monitored per IRT
guidelines
Exotic and
Nuisance
Annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Vegetation
vegetation will be mapped
Project
Semi-
Locations of fence damage, vegetation
Boundary
annual
damage, boundary encroachments, etc.
will be mapped
Stream
/Wetland
Annual
Semi-annual visual assessments
Visual
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 46 May 2017

11.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes
placed near the top of bank every 200 feet.
11.2 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. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
streamwalk and structure inspection. 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 channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
11.3 Cross Sections
Permanent cross-sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in shallows. All cross-section measurements will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio. Cross-sections will be monitored annually. There should be little change in as -built
cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent
movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes
that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the
banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment
ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through
a minimum of two bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
11.4 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration areas.
This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the restoration areas and reference wetland. The gauges will be
downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing season. Gauge
installation will follow current NCIRT guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland
hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
11.5 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. There will be 18 plots within the planted area (22.8 acres). Planted area
indicates all area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included
in 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 controlled so that none become dominant or alter
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 47 May 2017

the desired community structure of the site. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific control
plan.
11.6 Scheduling/Reporting
A mitigation plan and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be developed
within 60 days of the planting completion on the 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 restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. 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 the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE.
11.7 Adaptive Management
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. 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 stream restoration
area, then a remedial/supplemental planting plan will be developed and implemented for the affected
area(s). If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or vegetative success, RES will trap beavers
and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and
included in annual monitoring reports
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 48 May 2017

12 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Site by the IRT, the site will be transferred to the NCWHF:
North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation
[phone]
PO Box 29187
Greensboro, NC 27429
www.ncwh£or
The NCWHF will 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. These guidelines include annual monitoring visits to easements and related communication
with the landowner(s). During the visit a standard report is completed and pictures taken for the record.
If the Site is found to be in violation of the easement terms NCWHF works with the landowner to see
the problem rectified. When appropriate NCWHF pursues legal action to enforce the easement terms.
NCWHF typically requires the site developer to install standard NCWHF signage as part of the
easement transfer package. This includes well marked corners of the easement boundary, as well as
plastic or metal signs identifying the easement. The current sign standard is a 6"x6" aluminum sign
with contact information. Signs are refreshed on an as needed basis. Typically a sign will last 5-10
years before it is no longer legible due to sun fading. An overview of the NCWHF Easement
Stewardship program is included in Appendix A.
NCWHF requires and endowment for each easement it agrees to hold. All endowments are held
together in an investment fund. Endowments are sized so that the interest from the principal will pay
the expected monitoring costs for that easement. This assumes a seven year monitoring period for the
site during which NCWHF will not incur any expenses. It also assumes a 5% annual return. Currently
NCWHF employs a contractor to handle annual monitoring visits and basic easement stewardship. This
flat fee includes a property walkthrough, report, pictures, sign installation, etc. The endowment fee has
not yet been confirmed for the easement transfer of the Meadow Spring Site, and it will be updated
once finalized.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 49 May 2017

13 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of project 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 notify the USACE of the need
to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES
will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 50 May 2017

14 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $585,000 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 $585,000 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 $195,000
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 $195,000 amount includes
contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond
will be reduced by $ 27,500 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 a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee.
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. In the event of Sponsor default, the NCWHF has
agreed to receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed.
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc)
$ 70,000
Sitework
$ 140,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs,logs, rocks, coir,
etc)
$ 190,000
Crossings
$ 20,000
Vegetation
$ 110,000
Miscellaneous
$ 55,000
Total
$ 585,000
Monitoring
Annual Monitoring and Reports
$ 135,000
Equipment (e.g. gauges, markers, etc)
$ 5,000
Miscellaneous
$ 5,000
Contingency (8%)
$ 51,000
Total
$ 195,000
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 51 May 2017

15 OTHER INFORMATION
15.1 References
Johnston County, North Carolina. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. [Accessed 25
October 2011.]
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.
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
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 Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-
A.
Doll, Barbara A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton and D.A. Bidelspach. 2003. Hydraulic
Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams. NC Stream Restoration
Institute, Report to N.C. Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project No. EW20011.
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.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials." ERDC Technical Note
No. EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-05-
072.
Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non -urban, non -tidal
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2007-5162)
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.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH
654), USDA
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 52 May 2017

NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (February 2012).
NCDENR 2012b. "2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5." Water Quality Section.
htlp:Hportal.ncdenr.ora/web/wq/home. (August 2012).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2010." (September 2014).
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.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
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.
Sweet, W. V. and Geratz, J. W. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships And Recurrence
Intervals For North Carolina's Coastal Plain. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 39: 861-871.
Tweedy, K. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems.
Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice, November 2008, Asheville,
NC. Unpublished Conference Paper, 2008.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edE/programs/extension/wgg/srp/2008conference/tweedy paper.pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2,
December 24, 2002.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS),
1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 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 (MRCS),
Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (September 2014).
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.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 53 May 2017

United States Environmental Protection Agency, (USEPA, 1999) 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying
Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina."
North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleighh/. (September 2014).
USDA-NRCS. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.
Meadow Spring Mitigation Plan 54 May 2017

Appendix A
Site Protection Instrument (s)
Site Protection Instruments *
Model Conservation Easement
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. Signage. 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. Warran . 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 Severability. 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. Extinguishment. 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 Corps:
[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]

Appendix B
• USACE JD Submittal Package
• NC DWR Stream Determination Letter
• NC DWR Buffer/Nutrient Mitigation Viability
Letter
• Agency Correspondence
• Letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Letter to NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• Letter to NC State Historic Preservation Office

fires
January 23, 2017
RES completed its delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas on this property on November
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Ms. Samantha Dailey
Suite 130
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers
Owings Mills, MD
of Engineers Delineation Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version
217
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
1371/2 East Main St.
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
412 N. 4th St.
documents are attached for your reference. Flags were numbered and placed onsite to mark the
Suite 300
limits of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. Wetland flags were
Baton Rouge, LA
located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with sub -meter accuracy and the
70802
Dear Ms. Samantha Dailey,
Suite 431
approximate size and location of these areas are depicted on the attached Waters of the U.S.
100 Calhoun St.
Resource Environmental Solutions RES is leased to resent this Request for a Preliminary
(RES) p p q rY
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
Jurisdictional Determination for the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site located in Smithfield,
29401
Johnston County, North Carolina. As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to
Suite 110
the U.S. Arm Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S.
Army � gneers ( �)
Soto Montrose Blvd.
and disturbed riparian forest. The site's streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted
Suite 650
on the subject site.
Houston, Tx
restore and enhance a stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin.
p
77006
RES completed its delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas on this property on November
16, 2016 in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
methodology (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as well as the Regional Supplement to the Corps
Lafayette, LA
of Engineers Delineation Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version
70508
2.0). Stream determinations were verified during a site visit on September 1, 2016 by a North
1371/2 East Main St.
Carolina Division of Water Resources representative. Stream and buffer determination
Suite 210
documents are attached for your reference. Flags were numbered and placed onsite to mark the
Oak Hill, WV
limits of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. Wetland flags were
25901
located using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with sub -meter accuracy and the
33 Terminal Way
streams were drawn using the available National Hydrography Dataset Flowlines. The
Suite 431
approximate size and location of these areas are depicted on the attached Waters of the U.S.
Pittsburgh' PA
Delineation Map. All wetland areas are shown on this figure, but only the ones within the
15219
easement limits need confirmation.
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural land
Raleigh, NC
27605
and disturbed riparian forest. The site's streams and wetlands have been significantly impacted
by channelization, impoundment, and cattle access. The purpose of this mitigation site is to
1521 W. Main
restore and enhance a stream/wetland complex located within the Neuse River Basin.
p
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220
Attachments for Reference
- Project Summary Sheet (Pre -JD Form)
- Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
- Landowner Authorization Form
- Project Vicinity Map
- Project Location Map (with topography)
- National Wetlands Inventory Map
- Aerial Imagery
- Soils Map
- Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
- NCDWR Buffer Determination and
Viability Letters
- Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map

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

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): 12/2812016
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Jeremy Schmid, PWS - RES, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Johnston City: Smithfield
Center coordinates of site flat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.546590 ON; Long. -78.344386
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 1983
Name of nearest waterbody: Neuse River
aw.
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
6245 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: R4 and R5
Stream Flow: Intermittent and Perennial
Wetlands: 26.21 acres.
Cowardin Class: PCM and PFO
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:

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

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

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

Waters -Name
State
Cowardin_Code
HGM_Code Meas -Type
Amount Units
Waters_Type
Latitude
Longitude Local_Waterway
Wetland A (WA)
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
0.12 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.549
-78.3424 Neuse River
Wetland B (WB) out of easement
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5479
-78.3412 Neuse River
Wetland C (WC) out of easement
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5487
-78.3352 Neuse River
Wetland D (WD)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.07 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.547
-78.3355 Neuse River
Wetland E (WE)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.11 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5459
-78.3357 Neuse River
Wetalnd F (WF)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
4.07 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5438
-78.3348 Neuse River
Wetland G (WG)
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
21.83 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5436
-78.3304 Neuse River
Pond
NORTH CAROLINA
POW
Area
1.44 ACRE
DELINEATE
35.5491
-78.3413 Neuse River
S1
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
128 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5505
-78.3435 Neuse River
S2
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
1090 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5492
-78.3423 Neuse River
S5
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
248 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.55
-78.3389 Neuse River
S6
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1619 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5495
-78.3381 Neuse River
S7
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1050 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5472
-78.3353 Neuse River
S9
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
558 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5444
-78.3356 Neuse River
S11
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
934 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5432
-78.334 Neuse River
S12
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
617 FOOT
DELINEATE
35.5415
-78.3327 Neuse River

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

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

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 2080 Wilsons Mill goad
City, Mate: Smithfield, NC
County: Johnston
Directions: Follow 1-40 E and US -70 E to Wilsons Mill Road
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 169500-74-6294
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Jeremy Schmid, PWS - Resource Environmental Solutions
Mailing Address: 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Telephone Number: [phone]
Electronic Mail Addressl: [e-mail]
Select one:
1-1 Y am the current property owner.
✓❑ 1 am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
Mailing Address: 2080 Wilsons Mill Road
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address3:
© Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
' If available
a Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 If available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

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

jurisdictional Determination Request
ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
Size of Property or Project Area Easement= 78 5
acres
I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
3D REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
FV71 Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form'.
r35.54659Q -78.344386
% Project Coordinates: Latitude Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11 x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
Aerial Photography of the project area
W1 USGS Topographic Map
Z Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
0 Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
USAGE Assessment Forms
® Upland Data Sheets Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
Landscape Photos, if taken
FField Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
■ All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
■ Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
■ Locations of photo stations
■ Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
11 Project Coordinates:
Latitude Longitude
Maps (no larger than 1 I x 17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
E] Aerial Photography of the project area
11 USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan.
previous delineation maps)
7 1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at.
htt:l/www.usace.army.mil/MissionslCivilWorks/Rei;ulatoryProgramandPermitslreg supp.aspx
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
http;//oortal.ncdenr.org/cldocument library/get file?uuid=76f3c58b-dab8-4960-ba43-45b7faf06f4c&groupld=38364 and,
htti)i//www.saw.usace.army.milPortals 59 docs re ulator ublicnotices 2013 NCSAM Draft_ User Manual 130318. df
8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:.
F1 Wetland Data Sheets`'
Tributaries:
USACE Assessment Forms
Upland Data Sheets Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
Landscape Photos, if taken
Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
9 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 page 7

Jurisdictional Determination Request
REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard-
copy submittals include at least one original PIat (to scale) that is no larger than I I "x17"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11 "x l 7", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed_ The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e-mail to the requester.
(1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
F1Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
Must be legible
FMust include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Information
Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings/metes
and bounds/GFS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
Must clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
When wetlands are depicted:
• Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
• Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

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

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

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

Exhibit C
UANDOWNER AUTHIORIZATION FORM
Site: Stephenson Smith i eld (Homeplacel)
PRO FIER11M 1UEG AL DES C RI11110 N.
Beed Hook Page C aiu nils
117321 151 Johnsten
Parcel IDI Number: 1691`00-74-621914 in Johnston Cciunty Ncirth Carolina as shown cir DxHidit A.
Stlrieet Address: Harm or Joyner Bridge Rd., Four Oaks, NC shown or Bxhihit A
PnopertM Owner (please pnintll: Stepper scan 19917 Family IJimited Partnersp ip
The undensiglned, negistlened property ciwnen(s) of the above prciperty, dai hereby authorize
DHXI, Neuse I, LLC, Rlesciunce Envincinmentlal Solutions (""RES"], the NC Dlepantmentl cif
DnWi nonm ent and Natural Resources, ain d the US Armyl C crops of En gine ens, thein employees,
aiglentsl on assigns tai hame neascinable access to the abome refe renced pnaiperty for the emaluation of
the pnoperlyl as a potential stream, wetland andlon riparian buffer mitigation pnoJlectl, including
ccinductling stream and/or wetland determinatlicros and delineatlicins.
Plrciperty Ownens(s) Address: 2100 Wilsors Mills Rd
Smithfield, NC 217`7171
PlrcipeirtyOwnenTelephcine Number: 9191-E31-1447
I/Wle hereby certifM the aibci a information to be true and accurate to the best cif myl/aiur knowledge.
H ~ b1
(Pr erty 0 wnc in thorized SignaiturK) (Date]

t+,y'a
Smithfield Na"q
- F�ParP'oP
M18hwhY �p �4a
F
LEGEN D
Q, APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Street Map Source:
VICINITY MAP World Street Map
,u A ANGLER_ SSRI ArcGIS Online
14111111111 ENVIRONMENTAL
a OreS company N
MEADOW SPRING
CORPORATE 15367 TELEPHONE ROAD, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 20187
P: 703.393.48" I F: 703.393.3930
www.AnglerEnvironmental.com J O f i N STO N COUNTY, NC
I inch = 700 feet
Document Path: C'\Users\,—d—\D-pb— (RE5)\@KE5 GiSp-sects\NC\Mead— 5pnng (bank site)\MXDW D_fi,j,, ­Wad-5pnn9_Vicinity--d - Date Saved: 1 212 1120 1 6

n e.• I
n
"r ►j
•
p r° • a.
(�a a�4� �' ' — – • °' r� Gravel
a
- 0.4ri •• qPA Pits r,
A.
186
I
wood
In
156
"` ���� I � �. Q• � �� '` rasa
d
•' . 1 • 5g
CJ
- .yye�t Smithfield jl
- f Radia Gravel I�
(WMPMI
.. Pit
�?mit#rlial�i -]
li0 05 APPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS
Street Map Source:
PROJECT LOCATION MAP USA Topo Maps
A ANGLER ESRI ArcGIS Online
ENVIRONMENTAL
N
a Ores company MEADOW SPRING
CORPORATE I5367TELEPHONEROAH, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 20187
P: 703.393.48*11 F: 703.393.2934
www Ang1erEn`ironnien`,1—i1' J O H N STO N COUNTY, NC
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Document Path: C'\Users\,—d—\D-pb— (RE5)\@KE5 G15\projects\NC\M-d— 5p—q (bank site)\MXDWD_figuresW-d-5pnng_Proj-t_L—ti— —d - Date Saved: 1 12 3120 1 7

Document Path: C:\Users\rmedncWrapbox (PE5)\@PPE5 615\pr sects\NC\Meadow 5pring (bank 5ite)\MXD\1D_ligure \Meadow5pring_NWI.m.d - Date Saved: I P ; , I ,

Document Path: C:\Users\rmedncWrapbox (PE5)\@PPE5 615\pr sects\NC\Meadow 5prnng (bank 5ite)\MXD\1D_Rgure \Meadow5pring_Aenal_Imagery.mxd - Date Saved ,

.VA,
rk CoBi Ra NnD rw ,Mx
41 1110f, 1011
)11
dr
+ 41 R
i i i 1woBo
901,
GeB -00
Ra
w .-rF
r�f4r 41?
r r f �X r r �r r� r sw sw ell. No de
Niel 95f,
Ra
4111t. 99f,
Ra Ar
10� r
x 40 dr dr
Ro r r r
CeB
Bb
NnD 99f, 90f,
NnE
NnD
i.t' . t..r� ✓ 9 � Loll,
ar
Inpt 1w ow Mw v -
%(I
LEGEND ' `' ' >' - >' > GOA 'r`
DAPPROXIMATE PROJECT LIMITS �� ALA r
HYDRIC SOIL Yx'" ,90
® SOIL WITH HYDRIC INCLUSIONS Ra
NON HYDRIC 501L��' iSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographi�, CNE�S'/Airbu�
r DSfUSDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the G1. gul Cao ml unity
Source:
SOILS MAP U.S. Department of Agriculture
�A ANGLER_ Natural Resources
14Mw.-"W ENVIRONMENTAL
Conservation Service
a Ores company MEADOW SPRING Soil Survey Geographic N
CORPORATE 15367 TELEPRONEROAD, WARRENTON, VIRGINIA Ie187 (SSURGO)
P: 703.393.48" I F: 703.393.3930
www.AnglerEnvironmental.com J O H N STO N COUNTY, NC
I inch = 700 feet
Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RE5)\@PPE5 615\pr oject5\NC\Ml Jow 5pr,ng (bank site)\MXD\1D_Rgure \Meadow5pring_5oi15—a - Date Saved: 1/23/201 7

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -1
Investigator(s): ]. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.545178 Long.: -78.327477 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology �I significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes O No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No O'
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Sampling Point: DP -1
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 , Quercus nigra
)
% Cover
50❑
Cover-
76.9%
Status
-
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Carpinus caroliniana
15
W-23.1%
FAC
3.
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4,
o
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
0.o%
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
50% of Total Cover: 32.5
20% of Total Cover: 13
65
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
1. Acer rubrum
20❑
100.0%
FAC
FAC species 130 x 3 = 390
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
0
❑
0.o%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 145 (A) 420 (B)
5.
o
❑
o.o°i°
6.
0
Ll
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.897
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
-
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 500/o
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
}❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
40
W-100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3.
0
❑
0.00%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4,
o
El
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 20
20% of Total Cover: 8
40
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Arundinaria gigantea
2.
15�f❑
0
❑
100.0%
0.0%
FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
0
❑
4.
0
❑
_0.0%
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
_
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
$,
0
❑
0.0%
Q,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q,
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
o.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 7.5
20% of Total Cover: 3
15
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
30 )
1. Smilax rotundifolia 5 ❑ 100.0% FAC
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 2.5
20% of Total Cover: 1
0
5
❑ 0.0%
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ❑ NO ❑
.
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 7.5YR 5/3 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑ Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 02 -Dec -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -2
Investigator(s): ]. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.548732 Long.: -78.341489 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology OI significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes O No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No O'
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Tree Stratum (Plot size:. 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
8.
50%of Total Cove r: 0 20%of Total Cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 , )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 , Eupatorium capillifolium
2. Juncus effusus
3. Andropogon virginicus
4. Festuca arundinacea
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of Total Cover: 55 20% of Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Sampling Point: DP -2
Absolute Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Cover
Cover Status
0
❑
0.0%
❑
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
0
Ll
0.0%
-
Species Across All Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
0
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
❑
o.o%
0
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
_
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of:
0 0
= Total Cover
OBL species 30
0
0
22
0
0
❑
0.0%
0
0
❑
0.0%
❑
0
❑
0.0%
0.o%
0
❑
0.0%
0
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
o.o%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
= Total Cover
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
= Total Cover
35❑
31.8%
FACU
30❑
27.3%
OBL
30❑
27.3%
FAC
15
❑
13.6%
FAC
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.o%
110
= Total Cover
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.o%
0
❑
0.0%
0
= Total Cover
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
FACW species
0
FAC species
45
FACU species
35
UPL species
0
Column Totals:
110
2 (A)
3 (B)
66.7% (A/B)
Multiplv bv:
x1=
30
x 2 =
0
x3=
135
x 4 =
140
X 5 =
0
(A)
305 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.773
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is > 500/o
0 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of 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.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
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
Present? Yes 0 No O
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 IOYR 4/1 70 10YR 5/8 30 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑d Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 02 -Dec -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: DP -3
Investigator(s): ]. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.549077 Long.: -78.337161 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology OI significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes O No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No O'
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
50%of Total Cove r: 0 20%of Total Cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 , )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 , Eupatorium capillifolium
2. Juncus effusus
3. Festuca arundinacea
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of Total Cover: 32.5 20% of Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2. -
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Sampling Point: DP -3
Absolute Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Cover
Cover Status
❑ 0.0%
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
20d❑
30.8% OBL
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
-
-
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
0 ❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
0
❑
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
o
❑
0.0%
0.0%
o
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
-
Ll
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7% (A/B)
0
❑
o.o%
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
_
0
❑
mo%
Total % Cover of: Multiplv bv:
0 0
= Total Cover
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 30 x 4 = 120
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
0
❑
0.0%
Column Totals: 65 (A) 185 (B)
o
❑
o.o°io
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.846
o
Ll
0.0%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0 ❑ 0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > 500/o
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
El
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
0
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
0 ❑ 0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
0 0
-
= Total Cover
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
13
0
30d❑
46.2% FACU
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
-
❑ 0.0%
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
20d❑
30.8% OBL
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
15❑
23.1% FAC
0 ❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
-
-
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
0 ❑
0.0%
Present?
0 ❑
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
0 ❑
0.0%
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
0 ❑
0.0%
0 ❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
-
Ll
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
0
0.0%
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
0 ❑
0.0%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
0 ❑
o.o%
65 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
0
❑ 0.0%
0
❑ 0.0%
0
❑ 0.0%
0
❑ o.o%
0
❑ 0.0%
Hydrophytic
-
-
Vegetation
Yes 0 No O
0
= Total Cover
Present?
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP -3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 IOYR 5/2 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑d Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WA WET
Investigator(s): ]. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 1.0 % / 0.6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.549021 Long.: -78.342517 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology OI significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No O
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
U High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
] Drainage Patterns (B10)
[ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
[ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
[ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
[ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes 0 No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes 0 No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Tree Stratum (Plot size:. 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
8.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 . Rubus argutus
2.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5 20% of Total Cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 , Juncus effusus
2. Andropogon virginicus
3. Eupatorium capillifolium
4. Microstegium vimineum
5. Carex stipata
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of Total Cover: 37.5 20% of Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Sampling Point: WA WET
Absolute Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Cover
Cover Status
❑
_
0.0%
0
❑
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
❑
0.0%
❑
o.o%
o
❑
Total Number of Dominant
o
Ll
0.0%
-
Species Across All Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
W-100.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
0
❑
_
0.0%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
❑
o.o%
❑
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
_
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of:
0 0
= Total Cover
OBL species 35
0
2
15
0
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
_
0.0%
0
❑
_
0.0%
0
❑
_
0.0%--
.0%_0
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
o.o%
o
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
= Total Cover
10
W-100.0%
FAC
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
_
0.0%
0
❑
_
0.0% _
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
_
0.0%
10
= Total Cover
30
20
10
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
U 40.00% OBL
❑�/ 26.7% FAC
❑ 13.3% FACU
❑ 13.3% FAC
❑ 6.7% OBL
❑ 0.0% !
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
o.o%
0
❑
0.0%
0
= Total Cover
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
FACW species
0
FAC species
40
FACU species
10
UPL species
0
Column Totals:
85
3 (A)
3 (B)
100.0% (A/B)
Multiplv bv:
x1=
35
x 2 =
0
x3=
120
x4=
40
X 5 =
0
(A)
195 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.294
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is > 500/o
0 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of 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.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
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
Present? Yes 0 No O
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 IOYR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (At)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
0 Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: yyg WET
Investigator(s): ]. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.547912 Long.: -78.341262 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology OI significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No O
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
[� Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
W01 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes 0 No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes 0 No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
8.
50%of Total Cove r: 0 20%of Total Cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 , )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 , Juncus effusus
2. Carex stipata
3. Eupatorium capillifolium
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Sampling Point: WEI WET
Absolute Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
0.0%
0
Cover
Cover Status
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.o%
Number of Dominant Species
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2
(A)
o
❑
o.o°io
Total Number of Dominant
0
❑
0.0%
Species Across All Strata:
2
(B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100.0%
(A/B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
_
0
❑
o.o%
Total % Cover of:
Multiplv bv:
0 0
= Total Cover
OBL species 40
x 1 = 40
0
0
11.
12.
50% of Total Cover: 22.5 20% of Total Cover: 9
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ o.o%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
= Total Cover
❑ 66.7% OBL
d❑ 22.2% OBL
❑ 11.1% FACU
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.0%
❑ 0.o%
= Total Cover
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.o%
0
❑
0.0%
0
= Total Cover
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
FACW species
0
x 2 =
0
FAC species
0
x 3 =
0
FACu species
5
x 4 =
20
UPL species
0
x 5 =
0
column Totals:
45
(A)
60 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1.333
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
d❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
d❑ 2 - Dominance Test is > 500/o
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of 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.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
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
Present? Yes 0 No O
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WB WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 IOYR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (At)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
0 Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WC WET
Investigator(s): ]. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.548811 Long.: -78.335309 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology OI significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No O
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
] Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
[ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
[ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes 0 No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
8.
50%of Total Cove r: 0 20%of Total Cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 , )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1 , Microstegium vimineum
2. Arundinaria gigantea
3. Juncus effusus
4. Carex stipata
5. Ludwigia alternifolia
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of Total Cover: 55 20% of Total Cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0 20% of Total Cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Sampling Point: WC WET
Absolute Rel.Strat. Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Cover
Cover Status
0
❑
0.0%
❑
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Total Number of Dominant
0
Ll
0.0%
-
Species Across All Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
0
0
❑
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
0
❑
o.o%
0
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
_
0
❑
0.0%
Total % Cover of:
0 0
= Total Cover
OBL species 30
0
0
22
0
0
❑
0.0%
0
0
❑
0.0%
❑
0
❑
0.0%
0.o%
0
❑
0.0%
0
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
o.o%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.o%
0
= Total Cover
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
= Total Cover
60
d❑
54.5%
FAC
20
❑
18.2%
FACW
15
❑
13.6%
OBL
10
❑
9.1%
OBL
5
❑
4.5%
OBL
0
❑
0.0%
!
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.o%
110
= Total Cover
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.o%
0
❑
0.0%
0
= Total Cover
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
FACW species
20
FAC species
60
FACU species
0
UPL species
0
Column Totals:
110
1 (A)
1 (B)
100.0% (A/B)
Multiplv bv:
x1=
30
x2=
40
x 3 =
180_
x 4 =
0
X 5 =
0
(A)
250 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.273
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is > 500/o
0 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of 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.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
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
Present? Yes 0 No O
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WC WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 IOYR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Sandy Clay Loam
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
0 Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 16 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WD WET
Investigator(s): ]. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel (abandoned) Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 1.0 % / 0.6
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: Long.: Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology OI significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No O
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
[ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
[ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
[� Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
[ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes 0 No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes O No
Depth (inches):
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Sampling Point: WD WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 . Acer rubrum
)
% Cover
30 ❑
Cover-
60.0%
Status
-
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
2. Liriodendron tulipifera
15d❑
30.0%
FACU
3. Pinus taeda
5
❑
10.0%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 88.9% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
o.o°i°_
Total % Cover of: Multiplv bv:
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
= Total Cover
OBL species 30 x 1 = 30
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
1. Acer rubrum
15
❑
75.0%
FAC
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
2. Magnolia virginiana
5
❑
25.0%
FACW
FACU species 15 x 4 = 60
3,
0
❑
o.o%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4,
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 160 (A) 430 (B)
5.
5.
o
❑
o.o°i°
0
Ll
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.688
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
-
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > so -,/o
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
}❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
20
W-100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3,
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4,
o
El
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
20
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Woodwardia areolata
2. Microstegium vimineum
30d❑
30d❑
50.0%
50.0%
OBL
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
o
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
E.
❑
0.0%
0.0%
_
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
$,
0
❑
0.0%
9,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q,
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.0%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 30
20% of Total Cover: 12
60
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Vitis rotundifolia 5❑ 50.00% FAC
2. Smilax rotundifolia
5
W-50.0%
FAC
3.
0
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
0
10
❑ 0.0%
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ❑ NO ❑
.
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WD WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 IOYR 5/1 90 10YR 3/6 10 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
0 Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: 3ohnston Sampling Date: 16 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WE/WF WET
Investigator(s): 3. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: Long.: Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Augusta sandy loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology OI significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No O
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
U High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
] Drainage Patterns (B10)
[ Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
[ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
[ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes * No O
Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes 0 No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes 0 No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Sampling Point: WE/WF WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:. 30
1 . Acer rubrum
)
% Cover
50❑
Cover-
71.4%
Status
-
FAC _
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2. Betula nigra
15
d❑
21.4%
FACW
3. Ilex opaca
5
❑
7.1%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
0
❑
0.0%
5.
6
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
- -
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/13)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8,
0
❑
omo%
Total % Cover of: Multiplv bv:
50% of Total Cover: 35
20% of Total Cover: 14
70
= Total Cover
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 75 x 2 = 150
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
10❑
66.7%
FAC
FAC species 100 x 3 = 300
2. Carpinus caroliniana
5❑
33.3%
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4,
0
❑
o.o%
column Totals: 195 (A) 470 (B)
5.
o
❑
o.o°i°
6.
0
Ll
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.410
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
-
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 7.5
20% of Total Cover: 3
15
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > so -,/o
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
}
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
1. Ligustrum sinense
20d❑
100.0%
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.
❑
0.0%
3.
0
E.
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4,
o
El
o.o%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50%of Total Cover: 10
20% of Total Cover: 4
_
20
= Total Cover
-
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Arundinaria gigantea
2. Woodwardia areolata
60
20d❑
U
66.7%
22.2%
FACW
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3. Athyrium filix-femina
10
❑
11.1%
FAC
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
0
❑
0.0%
Q,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q,
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
o.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
0
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 45
20% of Total Cover: 18
90
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. 0 ❑ o.o%
2.
0
❑
o.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
0
❑ 0.0%
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ❑ NO ❑
.
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WE(WF WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 2.5Y 4/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑d Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site City/County: Johnston Sampling Date: 30 -Nov -16
Applicant/Owner: Resource Environmental Solutions State: NC Sampling Point: WG WET
Investigator(s): ]. Schmid, R. Medric Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope: 0.0 % / 0.0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat.: 35.544247 Long.: -78.329166 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Augusta sandy loam NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes CNo O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology OI significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C No O
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No O
Yes 0 No O
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No O
within a wetland?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2 required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
❑ Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
] Drainage Patterns (B10)
[� Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
kfl Water Marks (Bl)
W01 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No 0
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes O No O
Depth (inches):
Yes 0 No O
Saturation Present?Wetland
Yes 0 No O
Depth (inches): 0
Hydrology Present?
(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/Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
c.. A-7
Sampling Point: WG WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Absolute Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30
1 . Carpinus caroliniana
)
% Cover
25 W-50.0%
Cover
Status
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
15
W-30.0%
FAC
3, Quercus nigra
10
�/❑
20.0%
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4,
o
❑
0.0%
5.
6.
0
0
❑
❑
0.0%
0.0%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
$,
0
❑
0.o%
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
= Total Cover
OBL species 5 x 1 = 5
Sapling or Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
1. Acer rubrum
50❑
100.0%
FAC
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
2.
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3,
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 140 (A) 385 (B)
5.
o
❑
o.o°i°
6.
0
Ll
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.750
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. 0 ❑ 0.0%
8,
0
❑
0.0%
-
❑ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of Total Cover: 25
20% of Total Cover: 10
50
= Total Cover
0 2 - Dominance Test is > so -,/o
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30
}❑
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0 1
1.
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.
0
❑
0.0%
3,
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4,
o
El
o.o%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
5. 0 ❑ 0.0%
6.
0
❑
0.0%
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
50% of Total Cover: 0
20% of Total Cover: 0
0
= Total Cover
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30
)
1 , Arundinaria I antea
99
2. Woodwardia areolata
25
5
d❑
❑
83.3°ro
��
16.7%-
FACW
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
3.
0
❑
0.0%
4.
0
❑
0.0%
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
5.
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
6.
7.
0
0
E.
❑
0.0%
0.0%
_
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
$,
0
❑
0.0%
Q,
0
❑
0.0%
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
1 Q,
0
❑
0.0%
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
11.
0
❑
0.o%
3 ft (1 m) in height.
12.
o
❑
o.o%
50% of Total Cover: 15
20% of Total Cover: 6
30
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
30 )
1. Smilax rotundifolia 10 d❑ 100.0% FAC
2.
0
❑
0.o%
3.
o
❑
o.o%
4.
0
❑
o.o%
5.
50% of Total Cover: 5
20% of Total Cover: 2
0
10
❑ 0.0%
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes 00 NO 0
.
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WG WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe 1 Loc2 Texture
0-18 IOYR 4/2 90 10YR 4/6 C M
1 Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
❑ Stratified Layers (AS)
❑d Depleted Matrix (9)
❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 153B)
❑ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Ochric (Fl l) (MLRA 15 1)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (1`17) (MLRA 151)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (1`18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) 3Indicators of hydrology
mushydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (MLRA 149A) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WaterResIt urCIesi
ED VIRCINP ENTAL GIUPILITI
Septe mit en 1, 3016
"Tepher.isan '.l 9SP Haimii.ly Litriiilad Partnarship
1180 W ilson M:il is Rciad
Smithfield, NC 217`1 j 7
HAT MCCRORIY
Gauernon
DCINALD R. VAN IIFIRI VAART
F lecratary
S. JAY ZIMMB.MMAN
Direa tan
8ubjecll: 8umface Wlallen Del erainmitian Leittem
NBRRO#I16-2'ISI
Johnls:lan C aunity
Determinaliori Tygle:
Buffen Call
Iscilailec an EIIP Call
❑ Neuse Q'I f, A NCIACI 21B .0233;
S2
I
®ElFlhemenal/InlerrriillenlUPerennial Dedeimirialicinl
❑ TEIII-Pamliaa Q19P NCIAC 2B .02199)
❑ ISCIlatEld Wellanc Deitemiminallian
❑ Janc an Q'19A NCIACI 2113 A263:
Pre11act Naunia: Maadow Spring Mitiganlian Sila
Ilocal:ian/Dineicl:ians: The plmojectad arazi is off 2108a Willson Mills Raad in Jahnsloni Count}{
Sul.jact Stiluam: UI to Nausa River
Determination Dalle. (18/1712016
Staff. Cheing 2111han8
Feaituix
RUI/P*'
S l ant@ Stop@
S on US GB 'Doplai
Survey
S2
I
HWM flag
X
93
wcdlamd
84
B
---
SS
P
throughout
X
88
II
81(1
wiatlar Idl
9121
A
End of culvert
812I
1 I
DWRI flag
*EUI/P = Ep1 hle merail/1EItImnitile nt/Fh renniail
5ip.la¢Ialicm: 'Iha feiatumells) l:istad abovei has or Emu Ecan :Iacalcid on thea Soil Survay of Wake Cciunly, North
Carollina an lha miosil nacemil caply ofltha USGS 'I oplcigraplhic map at a ] :,'14,a0C1 scalei. Flach f6aitura that is chackad
"Ncit Sul.feict" hzis bean c atcnnined viol to li a zi slutiam un is nal praseml an thea plroplerty. Featuras tNa l are chackad
"Sul: fact" haiva basin loccitad on tha prapeirty aivd plassusm chareiclar:isfics that qulal:ify it to Ee ai streizim. Theme may bei
athar strlaaris lacailed an yciur property theit da viol shawl up on tha marls mefdmanicad abouei buil, still may, bei
conmidarad jurisdict:iana:l accarding to tha US Army C ares aflEviginacirs ard/ar'ta the Div:isiani afl Wzitar Rasaurcea9
(I]WR).
DiNi;,iclri of Waters Ae:•ources, Raleigh Regicirlal Cffce, V1 alerQua]ity Clpenaticln:' 9lc,(- clnl littp:/iceq.rlc•.glavilat out/civisionis,lwaier•a•esearees
lI 08 Mai 1 1,luivice La niler, R, lei gh, N Q 2111699-16218 I hcm e: 119119; 791-4 200
llocaiiarl: 3f'00 Haneit Drive, Ralleigh, NC XA(09 Fa)I: ilglSl', 788-715SI

meadow spring mitigation Site
Johnston County
08/17/2016
Page 2 oft
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing If sending via US Postal ,Service c/o Karen Higgins D" — 401 &
Buffer Permitting Unit 1617 Mad Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via delivery ,service (TJP!, FedEx,
etc.) Karen Higgins D" — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated
above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-5544884.
If you have questions regarding this etermination, please feel free to contact Cheng Zhang at [phone].
ince ly,
f
i
Danny Smi
Supervisor, Ater Quality Regional Operations Center
CC! RRO DWR File Copy

0-0
I
F,
Legend
Stream
— Prionty 1 Restoration
Enhancement 1
Enhancement II
Wetland
Enhancement High
Enhancement Low
Preservation
Parcels
Easement
Fencing
NBasemap_Source:-Esri
World1magJ
�l�iti���ll1�lL\
Conceptual r "
Meadow Spring Mitigation Siteres
0 450 900
��,ToNiZiZiR Feet

Document Path: C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\JD_Figures\MeadowSpring_WOUS_11x17.mxd - Date Saved: 1/23/2017

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
September 1, 2016
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
2080 Wilson Mills Road
Smithfield, NC 27577
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMME:RMAN
Director
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
NBRRO#16-259
Johnston County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
❑ Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
S2
I
® Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 213 .0259)
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 26 .0267)
Project Name: Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Location/Directions: The projected area is off 2080 Wilson Mills Road in Johnston County
Subject Stream: UT to Neuse River
Determination Date: 08/17/2016
Staff: Cheng Zhang
Feature
E/I/P*
Start@ Stop@
Soil USGS Topo
Survey
S2
I
DWR flag
X
S3
wetland
S4
E
S5
P
throughout
X
S8
E
S10
wetland
S12
P
End of culvert
S13
I
DWR flag
*E/IIP = Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Resources
(DWR).
Division of Water Resources, Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Operations Section http://deq.ne.gov/about/divisions/water-resources
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax: [phone]

Meadow z5prmg Mitigation site
Johnston County
08/17/2016
Page 2 of 2
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing If sending via US Postal Service c/o Karen Higgins DWR — 401 &
Buffer Permitting Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx,
etc.) Karen Higgins DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated
above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this etermination, please feel free to contact Cheng Zhang at [phone].
ince ly,
Danny Smi
Supervisor, ater Quality Regional Operations Center
cc: RRO DWR File Copy

A
•
7
ngure Z.
Conceptual Design Map C
.M Cvi
M1P�
mdnw n nUM—f;— eft

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
November 4, 2016
Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
(via electronic mail)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Meadow Springs Site
2080 Wilson Mills Rd, Smithfield, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Ingram,
On August 2, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request
from Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES), for a site visit near the above -referenced site in
the 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin to determine the potential for
riparian buffer mitigation and nutrient offset. On October 18, 2016, Ms. Merritt performed a site
assessment of the subject site, which is more accurately shown in the attached aerial initialed by Ms.
Merritt on November 2, 2016.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination is
provided in the table below and was assessed with the expectation of the site being constructed as a
stream and/or wetland mitigation site by RES. This determination is only provided for RES and may
need to be re-evaluated if the site does not get constructed as anticipated or involves another
mitigation provider. The evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB) out to 200' for buffer
mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset
credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature
Classification
1Subiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
3Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
to Buffer
0-200'
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
at 2,273
Viable
lbs acre
S2 (at the
Stream
Yes
Actively grazed
Yes
Yes
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B
DWR flag)
pasture w/ a few trees
.0295 (o)(3)
S3
Wetland
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
S4
Ephemeral
No
Actively grazed
Yes
Yes (non-
Non -Forested Riparian areas =
pasture and a pond
forested
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B
(pond is expected to
areas only)
.0295 (o)(7); must stabilize banks to
be drained as part of
maintain discernible banks; must
stream restoration
confirm that the riparian areas are
project)
within the contributing drainage area
to the feature;
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site
per 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (o)(7)
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Meadow Springs Mitigation Site (RES)
November 4, 2016
Feature
Classification
1Subiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
3Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination
to Buffer
0-200'
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
at 2.273
Viable
Ibs acre
S5
Stream
Yes
Actively grazed
Yes
Yes
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B
pasture
.0295 (n)
S6
Stream
Yes
Actively grazed w/
Yes
Yes
Privet is expected to be treated and
dense private
mostly removed as part of stream
providing full canopy
restoration work:
in most areas
Restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (n) were privet is removed and
replanted w/ native trees/shrubs;
S7 (from
Stream
Yes
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas= Preservationz Site
pipeline
w/ a narrow non-
per 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (o)(5)
easement to
forested corridor
S12)
downstream (labeled
Non -forested areas = Restoration site
S11 on map)
per 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (n)
S8
Ephemeral
No
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas - Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7)
S10
Wetland
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
S12
Stream
No
Mature natural forest
Yes
No
Forested Areas= Preservationz Site
w/ non -forested
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
grassed road crossing
Non -forested areas = Restoration site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
S13
Stream
No
Within pipeline
No
No
N/A
conservation
easement
'Subjectivity calls were determined by DWR in correspondence dated September 1, 2016 using the 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by
the NRCS
215A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5) - The area ofpreservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more
than 25% of the total area of buffer mitigation. Therefore, where Preservation Sites were identified, this rule must be
applied to determine the potential creditable acreage.
NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
A map showing the project site and the features is provided and initialed by Ms. Merritt on
November 4, 2016. This letter should be provided in all future stream, wetland, buffer or nutrient
offset mitigation plans for this Site.
This letter does not constitute as an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to
15A NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for
written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
23

Meadow Springs Mitigation Site (RES)
November 4, 2016
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient load -reducing measure
shall be submitted to DVWR for approval.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Aerial prepared by RES
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
3�3

r ��Rn rii+�R/�L► J'y ���
rif�llt��Z�0 450 ••. res

fires
May 5, 2017
100 Calhoun St.
Dear Mr. Ben
Benjamin,
J ,
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Pete Benjamin
Suite 130
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Owings Mills, MD
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
21117
Raleigh Field Office
Houston, TX
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
412 N. 4th St.
linear feet of stream and 36.53 acres of wetland. The site is currently in agricultural use and the
Suite 300
Subject: Project Scoping for Meadow Spring Mitigation Project in Johnston County.
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered 302 Jefferson St.
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
project on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the 27605
conservation easement are enclosed.
1521 W. Main
We thank you in advance for our timely response and cooperation. You may return the 2 Floor
Y Y Y p p Y Richmond, VA
comment to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at rmedricgres.us 23220
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with
this project.
Sincerely,
Ryan Medric
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
100 Calhoun St.
Dear Mr. Ben
Benjamin,
J ,
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401
The Meadow Spring Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. EBX-Neuse I, LLC, a RES entity, is the bank sponsor for
Houston, TX
the Site. The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,555
77006
linear feet of stream and 36.53 acres of wetland. The site is currently in agricultural use and the
1200 Camellia Blvd.
stream channels have been straightened and channelized.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 14 March 2017) lists four
70508
endangered species for Johnston County, North Carolina: Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
1371/2 East Main St.
borealis), Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio
Suite 210
steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). No protected species or potential habitat
Oak Hill, WV
for protected species was observed during preliminary site evaluations. A review of The NHP
25901
database documented aquatic habitat of Neuse River Waterdog historically mapped in 1979
33 Terminal Way
within a one -mile radius of the project area. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to
Suite 431
federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered 302 Jefferson St.
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
project on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the 27605
conservation easement are enclosed.
1521 W. Main
We thank you in advance for our timely response and cooperation. You may return the 2 Floor
Y Y Y p p Y Richmond, VA
comment to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at rmedricgres.us 23220
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with
this project.
Sincerely,
Ryan Medric
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

fires
March 29, 2017
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Vann Stancil
Suite 130
Habitat Conservation Biologist
Owings Mills, MID
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
21117
215 Jerusalem Church Road
412 N. 4th St.
Kenly, NC 27542
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Subject: Project Scoping for the Meadow Spring Mitigation Project in Johnston County.
100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
Dear Mr.Stancil,
29401
Thepurpose of this letter is to request, review, and comment on an possible issues that might
p� q y p g
5020 Montrose Blvd.
suite 650
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream restoration project on
Houston, TX
the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
77006
disturbance are enclosed). The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream
Suite 220
and wetland impacts through the Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposed project
Lafayette, LA
involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,555 linear feet of stream and 36.53
70508
acres of wetland. The site is currently in agricultural use and the stream channels have been
1371/2 East Main St.
straightened and channelized.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the
25901
comment to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at rmedric(ares.us
33 Terminal Way
with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with
Suite 431
this project.
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
Sincerely yours,
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
1521 W. Main
Ryan Medric
2n1 Floor
Ecologist
Richmond, VA
23220
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

fires
May 5, 2017
Ryan Medric
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Renee Gledhill -Earley
suite 130
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
Owings Mills, MD
21117
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
100 Calhoun St.
The Meadow Spring Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
29401
Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. EBX-Neuse I, LLC, a RES entity, is the bank sponsor for
the Site. The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,555
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
linear feet of stream and 36.53 acres of wetland.
Houston, Tx
77006
RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream and wetland mitigation
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
project on the Polecat site (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is
Lafayette, LA
attached).
70508
1371/2 East Main St.
A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
Suite 210
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed March 28, 2017) was performed as part of the site due
Oak Hill, WV
diligence evaluation. The results indicated that there are no historic sites located on or adjacent
25901
to the proposed project.
33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
15219
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
may return the comment tom attention at the belor via email. Please feel free to
�' y ene abelow,
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
contact me at rmedricC&res.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
Raleigh, NC
disturbance associated with this project.
27605
1521 W. Main
2n1 Floor
Richmond, VA
Sincerely,
23220
Ryan Medric
Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

Appendix C
Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analysis
Meadow Spring Morphological Parameters
Existing Cross Section Charts

Meadow Springs Morphological Parameters
Existina
Bankfull stage was estimated usinq NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll at al. (2003) 6.2 6.6 10.2 6.6
3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003) 9.0 8.2 9.0 6.9
S1
S2
S2
S5
S5
S6A
S6A
S613
S6B
S6B
S6B
S7
S7
S7
S9
S9
S11
S11
S11
S12
S2
S5
Feature
RUN
RIFFLE
POOL
POOL
RIFFLE
RIFFLE
RIFFLE
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
POOL
RIFFLE
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Drainage Area (ac)
36
46
36
97
171
278
337
379
410
46
36
Drainage Area (mit)
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.15
0.27
0.43
0.53
0.59
0.64
0.07
0.06
NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2
2.1
2.5
2.1
4.3
6.4
9.1
10.4
11.4
12.0
2.5
2.1
NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3
1.0
1.2
1.0
2.1
3.2
4.7
5.4
5.9
6.3
1.2
1.0
Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)
4
3
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
10.1
4.9
2.9
5.6
4.6
8.6
9.4
9.1
5.9
7.2
6.8
9.1
8.5
9.0
10.4
10.6
10.0
8.0
5.9
13.5
5.4
5.4
4.8
4.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
10
6
6
6
14
13
11
8
15
9
17
12
19
12
22
>30
>30
>30
18
>11
>11
>11
>11
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft?)
1.5
1.6
2.1
5.4
1.8
7.1
5.3
6.8
9.0
6.3
9.3
10.5
16.1
9.8
12.2
8.7
15.8
6.9
6.3
8.8
3.2
3.8
2.6
3.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.5
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.6
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.3
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.7
1.6
0.8
1.1
1.9
1.1
1.7
1.6
2.5
1.6
1.6
1.1
2.6
1.5
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.2
0.8
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
70.9
15.1
4.0
5.8
11.6
10.5
16.8
12.2
3.9
8.1
5.0
7.9
4.5
8.2
8.9
13.0
6.4
9.2
5.5
20.7
9.0
7.7
9.0
7.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
2.0
2.0
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.4
2.0
1.3
1.9
1.4
2.2
1.2
2.0
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
0.9
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.2
5.1
4.0
7.3
5.0
9.4
9.9
10.5
8.7
8.4
13.1
10.7
15.0
10.5
11.8
11.4
12.1
9.0
7.7
13.8
5.8
6.0
5.2
5.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)l
0.1 1
0.3
1
0.5 1
0.7
1
0.4 1
0.8
1
0.5
1 0.6
1
1.0
0.8
0.7
1 1.0
1.1
0.9 1
1.0
1
0.8
1 1.3
0.8
0.8
1 0.6 1
0.6
0.6 1
0.5
1
0.6
Substrate
Description LD50) VERY COARSE SAND
VERY COARSE SAND
MEDIUM GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
VERY FINE GRAVEL
COARSE SAND
COARSE SAND
VERY COARSE SAND
VERY COARSE SAND
MEDIUM GRAVEL
D16 (mm)
0.54
0.86
-
0.58
0.51
-
0.37
1
-
-
D50 (mm)l
1
1.2
1
11
1-1
6.6
1
2.5
-
0.84
1-
-
D84 (mm)l
1
9
1
23
1
1
23
1
14
1
4.3
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
16
74
22
48
27
51
22
62
-
16
28
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
35
8
26
10
27
6
19
-
-
9
14
Radius of Curvature Ratio
1.2
3.9
1.0
3.2
1.1
3.0
0.6
1.8
-
1.9
2.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
65
130
32
90
24
132
19
75
-
-
21
40
Meander Width Ratio
1.8
8.2
2.7
5.9
3.0
5.6
2.1
5.8
-
-
3.3
5.8
Profile
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Shallow Length ft
6
16
2
9
2
11
1
9
5
23
2
10
Run Length (ft)
3
13
2
8
-
3
84
1
14
-
-
2
44
4
11
Pool Length (ft)
8
28
3
28
-
4
30
2
31
-
-
5
28
3
10
Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft)
18
61
15
53
10
48
5
46
21
113
20
53
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
242
460
185
1041
1147
1
1173
1
527
1
844
1 310 1
460
185
Channel Length (ft)
250
500
215
1220
1315
1511
1
665
1
898
1 388 1
500
231
Sinuosity
1.03
1.09
1.16
1.17
1.15
1.29
1.26
1.06
1.25
1.09
1.25
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0110
0.0130
0.0057
0.0033
0.0041
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0130
0.0110
0.0130
0.0039
0.0060
0.0032
0.0033
0.0041
0.0030
0.0030
0.0020
Rosgen Classification
F5
C5
F4
F4
F4 - E4
E4
E5
E5
F5
E5
E4/5
Bankfull stage was estimated usinq NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll at al. (2003) 6.2 6.6 10.2 6.6
3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003) 9.0 8.2 9.0 6.9

Morphological Parameters
Dimension
BB Reference
S5
S6A
S66
S11
BF Width ft
9.9
4.8
7
8.4
9.6
Profile
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Shallow Length ft
4
19.9
1.94
9.65
2.83
14.07
3.39
16.88
3.88
19.30
Shallow Length Ratio
0.40
2.01
Shallow Slope
0.20%
0.65%
0.30%
0.98%
0.30%
0.98%
0.30%
0.98%
0.25%
0.81%
Shallow Slope Ratio
1.00
3.25
Run Length ft
7.8
23 1
3.78
11.15
5.52
16.26
6.62
19.52
7.56
22.30
Run Length Ratio
0.79
2.32
Run Sloe
0.00%
1.90%
0.00%
2.85%
0.00%
2.85%
0.00%
2.85%
0.00%
2.38%
Run Sloe Ratio
0.00
9.50
Glide Length ft
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Glide Length Ratio
0.00
0.00
Glide Sloe
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Glide Sloe Ratio
0.00
0.00
Pool Length ft
6.9 1
21.6
3.35
10.47
4.88
15.27
5.85
18.33
6.69
20.95
Pool Length Ratio
0.70
2.18
Pool -to-Pool Spacing ft
40.3
109.8
19.54
53.24
28.49
77.64
34.19
93.16
39.08
106.47
Pool -to-Pool Ratio
4.07
11.09
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Length ft
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
Channel Slope ft/ft
0.20%
0.30%
0.30%
0.30%
0.25%
Ros en Classification

Upstream Downstream
Reach S7 - XS1 (Riffle)
100
99.5
Ov-
99
^. 98.5
0 98
w
y 97.5
W
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
—Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S7 - XS2 (Pool)
101
100
99
w
0 98
CD
w 97
96
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S7 - XS3 (Riffle)
100.5
100
99.5
�. 99
p 98.5
Y
m 98
w
97.5
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
--*--Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S11 - XS4 (Pool)
102
101
100
y
v
0 99
M
W
98
97
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

�l ar .,v;

Upstream Downstream
Reach S11 - XS6 (Riffle)
101
100.5 —
100
99.5
_ 99
c
0 98.5
ca
> 98
W
97.5
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S6 - XS7 (Riffle)
99.5
99
98.5
98
w
c
97.5
0
R 97
W
96.5
96
95.5
95
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S6 - XS8 (Pool)
101
100
99
w
98
c
0
97
m
U' 96
95
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
100
99
98
97
C
0
96
m
w 95
94
93 +
0
Downstream
Reach S5 - XS9 (Pool)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
}Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
40 45

Upstream Downstream
Reach S5 - XS10 (Riffle)
100
99 ---
98
Y
0 97
Y
m 96
Lu
95
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
—Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

t.,
R
R �..
R.yhi
k .a
.4 �JiR jy
5
�t f
o.
-
AX,
•.
r
v�.'wMILK

Upstream
Downstream
100
Reach S9 - XS12 (Shallow)
99.5
99
r
98.5
98
C
Y
M
97.5
C>
W
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S2 - XS13 (Pool)
100
99
98
97
C
0
> 96 -
d
w
95
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

100
99
98
0
> 96
a)
Ou
95
94
0
Upstream
Reach S2 - XS1 4 (Riffle)
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
-Ground -Approx. Bankfull - Floodprone Area
40 45

Upstream
Downstream
100
Reach S1 - XS15 (Shallow)
99.5
99
98.5
98
Y
C
97.5
0
>
97
96.5
W
96
95.5
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S6 - XS16 (Pool)
101
100.5
100
99.5
.r
99
98.5
0
98
m 97.5
U
97
96.5
96 -L--
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S6 - XS17 (Riffle)
101
100.5
100
_ 99.5
c
0 99 -
c�
W 98.5 -
98
97.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

99.5
99
98.5
98
97.5
97
c
0 96.5
w
> 96
d
W 95.5
95
94.5
94
Upstream
Reach S2 - XS18 (Run)
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

�.IM�� W� &

Upstream Downstream
Reach S2 - XS20 (Riffle)
100
99.5
99
_ 98.5
c
98 -
c�
W 97.5
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
�!
t
Upstream Downstream
Reach S2 - XS20 (Riffle)
100
99.5
99
_ 98.5
c
98 -
c�
W 97.5
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Reach S4.5 - XS21 (Riffle)
99.5
99
-
98.5
Y
98
0
R
y 97.5 -
W
97
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
-Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Appendix D
Soil Scientist Report

Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study - FINAL
Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
Johnston County NC
Prepared for:
Mr. Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Prepared by:
George K Lankford Soil Scientist, LSS #1223
George K Lankford, LLC
238 Shady Grove Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312
March 2017
Sail Scicntist Seal
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site in Johnston County, NC.
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.

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
Study Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the study was to determine the existence and delineate the extent of hydric soils that are
potentially suitable for hydrologic restoration and mitigation. This evaluation is a soil delineation and all
boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation. Potential of soils for hydrologic restoration
in this study is evaluated considering the existing land use and conditions with the sites potential for
creating a hydroperiod suitable for the landscape and soils. Restoration potential assumes the successful
restoration of the stream to access the floodplain. Practical modifications that utilize the sites natural
hydrology may include, but are not limited to surface drainage modifications, plugging drainage ditches,
removal of fill materials, and microtopographic alteration such as surface roughening or enhancing
existing depressions. Removal of fill material is typically limited due to cost and environmental impacts if
an extensive area is involved.
A detailed hydric soil delineation was completed in February, 2017 for areas along an unnamed tributary
to the Neuse River located in Johnston County, North Carolina. This report presents an evaluation of the
subject property based upon a field evaluation the purpose of which is to confirm the presence and extent
of hydric soil and assess the suitability for wetland restoration/mitigation at the site. This evaluation is a
soil delineation and all boundaries shown are based on the detailed field evaluation.
The observations and opinions stated in this report reflect conditions apparent on the subject property at
the time of the site evaluation. My findings, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the
locations and boundaries of the property as evident in the field and professional experience.
Project Information and Background
The location is approximately 2.5 miles north of Smithfield east of Wilsons Mills Road (SR 1913) within
an active livestock operation (Figure 1 -Appendix A). The project area is within a wide natural
topographic crenulation along an unnamed tributary that flows southward to the Neuse River. The
tributary is a 0 or 1St order channel draining agricultural uplands. A second small unnamed tributary enters
the site from the north. Several small farm ponds are located within the watershed. At the downstream
end of the area evaluated is a large overhead utility line.
Current land use is livestock grazing with access to all areas evaluated. Vegetation is heavily disturbed
due to the livestock. The surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped land, and single-family homes.
A hog farm operation near the site to the and the upland adjacent is used as a spray area for the lagoon
waste. Livestock grazing has resulted in unstable stream banks and significant down cutting. The surface
soil layer and underlying subsoil are exposed by the channel eroding.
In the upper area of the drainage way an excavated pond is located. West of the pond dam extending
outward from the drain way up into a nearly level ridge summit is a shallow concave -linear depression in
the pasture. Jurisdictional wetlands have previously been delineated within this linear depression and
above the pond. A shallow ditch system has been constructed through this depression to enhance drainage
of surface water. Soils near the pond and dam show extensive earth work with fill with some areas having
deep disturbance of the soil. The pond dam extends across the natural drain way.
Methodology
A series of soil borings were performed across the site to delineate the boundary between hydric soil and
upland soil to described current soil characteristics, and evaluate the extent of hydric soil suitable for
restoration. Soils were evaluated using morphologic characteristics to determine hydric indicators and
evaluate current hydrology using criteria based on "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States"
(USDA, NRCS, 2016, Version 8.0). The boring observations do not contain adequate detail to classify
these soils to a series. Indicators used are valid for the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), Land Resource
Region P (133A Southern Coastal Plain) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010).
The boundary was delineated based on soil borings information, landscape position, and topographic
relief. Soil boring locations were approximately located using the Trimble Outdoor Navigator smart
phone application and exported to Google Earth. The hydric soil boundary points from field observations
were collected with a Trible GPS system by RES staff and are used to draw the soil boundaries on the
figures.
At the Meadow Springs site, more than 90 shallow borings from 12 to 24 inches were evaluated to
delineate the hydric soil boundary. An additional thirteen boings were described to document a
representative range of soil characteristics at this site (Appendix B). Characteristics evaluated include
texture, color, mottling, and saturation or water table where present. Other important observations were
noted as observed.
NRCS Soil Mapping
The landscape is within the upper part of the Southern Coastal Plain on the floodplain and terraces of the
Neuse River. The soils are moderately weathered derived from relatively recent deposit of sediments.
The soils mapped by the USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey of Johnston
County (USDA 1994) indicate the surrounding uplands are the Norfolk -Goldsboro -Rains map unit and
occur on nearly level to gently sloping upland interstream areas dissected by small drainageways. Soil of
the floodplain and terraces of the Neuse as well as the small drainage extending up into the uplands
having low relief are in the Wehadkee-Bibb-Chewacla map unit that is poorly drained and somewhat
poorly drained. Expected soil textures in this landscape and landscape position are a sandy or loamy
surface and a subsoil that is predominantly loamy. Soil texture and slope has the largest effect on natural
drainage of these landscapes.
The area evaluated focused upon areas with high potential for containing hydric soil. These areas have
suitable landscape position and NRCS county soil mapping indicates the presence of a hydric soil
(Table 1). The NRCS has two series mapped within the project area, a well drained Norfolk sandy loam in
the higher convex to linear upland landscapes and a poorly drained Bibb in the lower concave to nearly
level landscape areas. Listed as a potential inclusion in the Bibb soil (10 percent) on the NRCS Web Soil
Survey website is the Johnston series but is not mapped in the County. In the published Soil Survey for
Johnston County (1994) the NRCS mapping unit includes small areas of Rains, Grantham, and Toisnot
soils. The Rains soil is found on flats and depressions, but can occur on floodplains. The Grantham soils
are typically on nearly level uplands. The Toisnot soils have a brittle sandy loam layer around 22 inches.
Rains and Grantham have more clay in the subsoil and the Toisnot has a dense restrictive horizon. The
Bibb soil is classified as hydric by the NRCS. The Norfolk soil is not hydric and is Prime Farmland.
Much of the site is within a natural drainage having a relatively level floodplain between the steeper
slopes below gently sloping uplands. The upper portion of the drainage extends into a concave flat and
seepages are located along the gently dissected slopes above an excavated pond. This area is mapped as
Norfolk but is in a concave landform and has characteristics comparable to a Rains soil that is mapped
nearby in the county.
Bibb sandy loam soils are mapped "on floodplains and in narrow drainageways throughout the Coastal
Plain." (MRCS- Soil Survey of Johnston County 1994). Bibb soils on slopes of 0 to 2 percent are poorly
drained with slow runoff. They have moderate permeability and moderate available water capacity. The
depth to the seasonal high water table is within 8 inches between 6 and 11 months of the year with
frequent flooding. Within the project site the Bibb map unit is shown along a narrow drainage way
throughout the length of the site, including the pond and dam. A Bibb soil typically has a thin dark sandy
textured surface layer underlain by a sandy or loamy textured subsoil. The inclusions of Johnston have a
2
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
deep organic surface. The Bibb series does not include sandy clay loam or other clayey textured horizons
within its textural range. Johnston soils have an organic surface.
Table 1. NRCS Soil Mapping Units at the Meadow Springs Site
Mapping
Drainage
Hydric
Seasonal
Farmland
Taxonomic
Unit/Series
Class
(NRCS)
High Water
classification
Class
Table
Bibb
poorly
Yes
0-8
Not
Typic
sand loam
6 to 11 months
prime farmland
Fluvaquents
Grantham
poorly
Yes
0-12
Prime farmland
Typic Paleaquults
silt loam
if drained
Johnston
very poorly
Yes
0-12
Not
Cumulic
prime farmland
Humaquept
Norfolk
well
No
40 to 72
All areas
Typic
loamy sand,
5% Rains
(Jan -Mar)
prime farmland
Kandiudults
Rains
poorly
Yes
surface -undrained
Prime farmland
Typic Paleaquults
sandy loam
12 to 36 if drainied
if drained
Roanoke
poorly
Yes
0-12
Farmland of
Typic
silt loam
statewide importance
Endoaquults
Toisnot loam
Poorly
Yes
0-12
Not
Typic Fragiaquults
prime farmland
Tomotley
poorly
Yes
0-12
Prime farmland
Typic Endoaquults
sandy loam
if drained
The pond in the upper area of the narrow drainage way was constructed through the Bibb soil map unit. It
is surrounded by gently sloping upland where the WB wetland was delineated, the soils are mapped as
Norfolk loamy sand, a non -hydric soil. Rains is a hydric soil associated with the general map unit
containing Norfolk. Rains soil typically has a gray sandy loam surface underlain by gray sandy clay loam
with mottles. The pond and immediately surrounding landscape has been altered by the earthwork of
excavation and spoil from pond construction.
Results and Discussion
Soil borings within the project boundary exhibited hydric soil indicators within 12 inches of the soil
surface throughout the natural drain way (Figure). Outside of the NRCS map suitable hydric soil was
identified that that extend into the concave nearly level landform west of the pond dam. Around the pond
is evidence of disturbance and spoil over the natural soil surface extending beyond the limits of the pond
and dam. Where excavated spoil is not spread too thick hydric indicators within 13 inches are observed
like those found throughout the drainage way. The dam structure and inundated pond areas were not
investigated but because of the landscape position and presence of hydric soil above and below it is likely
that the pond and dam are underlain by a hydric soil.
Soils examined within the project area typically have thin dark sandy or loamy surface textures with a
gray subsoil ranging from sandy loam to sandy clay. Much of the variation across the site was determined
to be related to natural topography and existing land use. An organic surface or mucky mineral is absent.
This indicates the hydric soil at this site does not meet the definition of a Bibb soil. Based upon the
detailed study performed at the site, the representative soil has more similarity to the Roanoke or
Tomotely series and are Typic Endoaquults. The improved drainage from the incised channel has
disturbed hydric characteristics in the surface and modification of subsurface indicators was observed.
Many mottle features in the upper 10 inches appear to be relict having sharp boundaries at the edge of the
mottle instead of a diffuse boundary usually observed in active wetland process. The reduced hydroperiod
allows increased mineral oxidation to occur within the matric and blur some of the typical indicators
expected. Besides reduce organic matter, changes in matrix color can occur and any mottles that are
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
destroyed are not likely to reform until the long saturation periods are restored. Increases of red and
yellow color saturation of the matrix were observed. This occurs over time where the oxidation-reduction
process is not balanced by a normal reduction cycle. Surface disturbance may also have destroyed mottle
indicators. Hydric Soil Indicators are still present within most areas of the floodplain. The indicators
present are the F3 -Depleted Matrix, F6 -Redox Dark Surface, and F8 -Redox Depressions.
The F3 indicator is the most common indicator found across the site. The F3 indicator is present where
the reduction phase allows removal of iron minerals that give color to the soil resulting in gray color of
parent material. Often traces of the iron as reddish mottles are visible in soil conditions. The F6 indicator
is present where long term saturation at the surface has inhibited decomposition of organics that results in
the accumulation of dark organics. Iron minerals periodically introduced form characteristic dark red
mottles but are often nearly obscured by the high organic content. The F8 indicator occurs in depressions
and exhibits iron concentrations along pore linings and can occur as large masses.
Potential Hydroperiod of Restored Soils
Based upon field observation across the site, the NRCS mapped units lack strong correlation to actual site
conditions at the site. Soils across the site have clayey textures subsoil of a sandy clay loam or sandy
clay. The mapped soil series of Bibb is classified as a Typic Fluvaquents but field observations indicate a
more developed profile with a clayey subsoil more like a Typic Endoaquults may be present. In the upper
reaches, west of the pond, hydric indicators found extends from the pond and drainage way into the
upland field. Soils in this area have a more developed profile with a clayey subsoil that is most like the
Rains series, classified as a Typic Paleaquults.
Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a hydroperiod for the Bibb soil (Typic
Fluvaquents) of 12-16 percent during which the water table is within 12 inches of the surface (US Army
Corps of Engineers 2016). Soils documented near the site that are more like Typic Endoaquults are
similar Roanoke loam and Tomotely sandy loam and found in similar landscapes. Both soils are
characterized by having a clayey (argillic) horizon. The guidance for this soil suggests a hydroperiod of
10 to 12 percent where the water table is within 12 inches of the surface.
Hydrologic success for these soils should be expected to range from 9 to 12 percent saturation during the
growing season. The hydroperiod suggested for the Rains series follows the guidance of 10 to 12 percent.
Table 2. Wetland Hydroperiod Table for Soil at the Meadow Springs Site
Mapping
Taxonomic Classification
Hydroperiod
Unit/Series
Range*
Bibb sandy loam
Coarse -loamy, siliceous, active, acid, thermic
12-16-%
Frequently flooded
T is Fluva uents
Rains sandy loam
Fine -loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic
10-12%
Frequently flooded
Typic Palea uults
Roanoke
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
9-12%
silt loam
T is Endoa uults
Coarse -loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic
Toisnot loam
T is Fra is uults
**
Tomotley
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic
o
9-12/o
sandy loam
Endoaquults
*Source: US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016
**No hydrologic criteria provided but likely similar to surrounding Endoaquults.
4
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
Summary Conclusions and Recommendations
The site is currently in agricultural use that is different from the historic landscape and hydrologic regime.
Past landscape/land use changes at this site includes enhanced drainage, a deeply incised channel through
the floodplain, active livestock resulting in soil compaction and surface churning, a loss of surface
organic matter, and the change of the normal reduction cycle characteristic of wetlands to an oxidation
cycle. The construction of a farm pond within the narrow drainage way has severely altered the
surrounding landscape and drainage, creating a discontinuity of the natural drainage.
The observed soils over the site have different taxonomy from the mapped soil units. Much of the site has
a clayey subsoil that that is restrictive and would normally results in a perched water table condition. The
soils observed across the site appear to be Typic Endoaquults (Roanoke or Tomotley) and Typic
Paleaquults (Rains) are suitable for restoration having a hydroperiod of 10 to 12 percent in the upper
reaches of the drainage and 9 to 12 throughout the lower reaches drainage way. Natural variability across
the site should be expected with wetter areas ranging to 16 percent in the lower elevations and
depressions and 9 percent near the upland boundary.
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position hydrologic restoration of the soil
may be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel is to restrict drainage and allow a natural
hydroperiod to return. Additional backfilling that create shallow depressions throughout the old channel is
allowable if the plugging material and construction are adequate to protect erosion prior to vegetative
establishment. Surface roughening and enhancing shallow depressions across the restoration area will
provide an appropriate landscape for diverse microhabitats. Due to compaction and long term agricultural
use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of 8 to 10 inches is called for shallow
decompaction and to create adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic
relief, and improve vegetative survival and growth.
The Meadow Springs project is located within a landscape suitable for wetland restoration and has soil
exhibiting hydric indicators. An available water source for hydrology will be available when the pond is
removed and the stream is reconnected to the floodplain. Retention and storage within the floodplain will
be returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod. Given the observed soil characteristics
indicating past wetland hydrology, and because of favorable landscape positon, the presence of a
restrictive horizon, and the potential source for restoring hydrologic inputs, this site appears suitable for
successful hydrologic wetland restoration.
This report describes the results of the soil evaluation performed at the Meadow Spring Mitigation Site in
Johnston County, NC. 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.
References
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team -October 24, 2016. SAW -2013 -00668 -PN
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W.
Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
USDA 1994. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Soil
Survey of Johnston County North Carolina. October 1994)
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. Field Indicators
of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.).
USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
6
April 2017

GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study -Final, Meadow Springs Mitigation Site
APPENDICE
Appendix 1 Figures
Appendix 2 Soil Boring Log
Appendix 3 Photo Log
7
April 2017

G
O
ch o0
rCDac
co O b
O
0)
rn
co
CD
'- N! 41
O O
V' cn
Opp Q M
co) C c�
rte, CIV O
CO �
N
fN rN O
J N r')
Co 00
c7
�7 O
c�
J r` cn,)
c ) lJ0
4MCA
�' rn
\r C)
sn LoCID
LO
�R
LO i
v
L
W)
N kc) _
�
U cv
D tD c)
,n o r -
o
r— CON
ti 20 rC%4 Lo
-
03
O o0
O r-
rn
LO
rn
f
00
co
a) m
00w
N CW)
1 a
4--1
CD
00
Lo

c�
vt`
r04
r-
0
C
00 Q ��
0
Cif
D an7
a7 to MRQ
rn
C
�o
N �r
o c7
�- rn
m7 C r)
1 �
C]� M r-
rN N` O
0o
N
00 00
lm N o l
Cpi c)
cr7J
- CIS
ce) O \
0
U-)
CO
LO
LO
� a
v Zoo
N 4r)
Ln 0) cLi
00
a rn cL? _ .
C 11? C r r
N I cD C,`} �� ~ CLQ
~ CO
N t��
It
(T
d)
�n
C3 O f�
f 00
fX7 co
00 00

4
'.'
CV131
t
O
N
` co
m
C
(n C �o
O
3 T �
Min o
L
O
ti
CO
co
as a
o
ao vi
w _
y
a�
C>7 f] U
N SO
Q Q
co
IC 11
i:5 a
L, a ° m c
a m
cEN�o
W 8 —
Uemp£ c
Z U d ME
n
LLI ZNEoCm
W m.Q�
LL
ujy
"O I+ m m Fi
C EZ�nQo
� o
C C
Q U U
E v
f
-,f7]j �V f 3 N
IIIdI B.�J
-.. wi�+eu rK..vmM"ewee �'H.� ea+wewaanrrrt.re�wn.�wun.�r�4u v'a

Appendix 2
Meadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Table Representative Soil Profiles in Meadow Springs Pronnsed WPtlnnrl A—
Depth
Inches
Color
MottleTexture*F
Percent! e
_ Notes u
Matrix Mottle
SB 38 (3-2-17)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-4 10 YR 4/3
SL
4-10 10 YR 4/1
10 YR 3/6
4%
SL
10-16 10 YR 4/1
10 YR S/2
10 YR 4/6
25%
3%
SL
16-26 10 YR 6/2
10 YR 5/8
20%
SC
no hydrology observed
SB 39 (2-7-17)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-3 10 YR 3/3
--
--
SL
3-10 10 YR 4/1
10 YR 3/6
15%
SCL
10-15 10 YR 3/1
10 YR 3/4
5%
SL
15-32 7.SYR 5/1
7.5YR 518
20%
S
water table at -20 inches
SB 40 (2-7-17)
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
F8 -Redox Depressions
.�
0-8 10 YR 4/2
10 YR 3/4
10 YR 4/6
3%
1%
SiCL
8-14 10 YR 3/1
10 YR 5/2
8%
SL
14-22 7.5YR 6/2
7.5YR 5/3
10%
LS
22-34 7.5YR 5/2
7.5YR 5/6
40%
Sc
massive at -22 inches
SB 41(2-7-17)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
178 -Redox Depressions
0-3 7.5YR 3/2
7.5YR 3/4
5%
SL
relict mottles
3-6 7.5YR 4/2
7.5YR 4/6
5%
SL
relict mottles
6-10 7.5YR 5/2
7.5YR 4/6
10%
SL
10-17 7.5YR 6/2
T5YR 5/8
10%
SL
17-33 7.5YR 5/2
7.5YR 4/6
250N
Sc
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
11.17

Appendix 2
TMeadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Depth
inches}
Color
Mottle
Percentage
Texture*
Notes
Matrix Mottle
SB 55 (3-2-17)
F3 -De leted Matrix
0-4 10 YR 4/2
10 YR 3/6
5%
L
4-9 10 YR 5/1
10 YR 4/2
10%
LS
9-17 10 YR 4/6
10 YR 5/2
10%
SC
17-24 10 YR 4/6
10 YR 6/2
10%
SC
clay films in
pore linings
SB 87 (2-14-17) near pond dam
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-3 10 YR 3/4
3-8 10 YR 4/4
SL
SL
may be fill material from pond
excavation
8-12 10 YR 4/3
10 YR 3/6
8%
SL
12-15 10 YR 6/2
10 YR 2/2
2%
SL
15-21 10 YR 6/2
10 YR 5/8
20%
SCL
21-31 1 10 YR 6/6
10 YR 5/8
25%
SC
no hydrology
observed
SB 88 (2-1447)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-4 10 YR 2/2
L
4-9 10 YR 6/2
7.5YR 4/6
15%
SL
9-23 10 YR 5./2
7.5YR 4/6
30°/o
SCL
no 434rology
observed
SB 89 (3-2-17)
F6 -Redox Dark Surface
FS -Redox Depressions
0-5 10YR 3/2
10 YR 5/4
10%
SL
appears depositional
5-15 10 YR 3/1
10 YR 3/4
9%
SiL
15-20 2.5YR 5/1
10 YR 4/1
15%
SL
20-29 10 YR 5/1
10 YR 5/6
30%
gravel 10%
no hydrology
observed
SB 90 (3-2-17)
F3 -Depleted Matrix
0-3 10 YR 2/2
SL
3-6 lOYR 3/2
SULS
6-9 l OYR 4/2
10 YR 3/6
2%
SL
9-17 10 YR 5/4
10 YR 4/3
5%
S
17-29 7.5YR 2.5/1
7.5YR 3/401=j;4.SiCL
no hydrology
observed
SOIL SC��
=f w.
1223 ��
Z0(7
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix 2
Meadow Springs Site
Soil Boring Descriptions
March 2017
Depth
I Color
Mottle
Percentage
�Q&tare*
Notes
Matrix Mottle
SB 91 (3-2-17)
F3 -De leted Matrix
0-3
10 YR 2/2
SiL
3-7
l OYR 4/2 10 YR 3/6
10% SL
7-12
10 YR 4/3 10 YR 4/3
10% SL
10 Y4 3/6
5%
12-15
l OYR 4/2 10 YR 3/6
100/0 SL
15-30
10 YR 5/1 10 YR 3/6
1 8% SCL water table at -20 inches
30-34
10 YR 6/1 10 YR 5/4
2% SL
10 YR 3/4
5%
SB 92 (3-2-17) pt below pond dam --T from ditch and near overflow from pond
F3 -Depleted Matrix
04
10YR 2/2
SL
4-16
10YR 4/2
10 YR 3/3
5%
SL
16-26
l OYR 4/2
10 YR 6/4
10 YR 5/8
10%
10%
SC-
water table at -16 inches
SB 96 (3-2-17) cut stream bank near profile SB 40
F3 -Depleted Matrix (surface is disturbed with potential spoil adjacent to channel)
F8 -Redox Depression
0-15
1OYR 4/2
10YR 4/6
10°
fSL
15-18
10 YR 5112
10 YR 4/2
15%
SL
10 Y4 4/6
5%
18-39
10 YR 6/1
10 YR 5/8
25%
SCL/ SL
massive, brittle/indurate
fragipan
39-44 1
1OYR 5/2
1 10 YR 6/1
15%
SL
massive
SB 97 (3-2-17) cut stream ban[
F3 -Depleted Matrix
F8 -Redox Depression
0-7
l OYR 4/2
10 YR 3/4 10% 1
SL
7-28
l OYR 4/1
10 YR 3/4 10%
SCL saturated at -26 inches
stream elev at -32 inches
m 1 exture (rotlowS U;A)A textural classification)
S = sand, L = loam, Si = silt, C = clay
f = textural modifier for fine
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix 3
Meadow Springs Site
Photo Log
March 2017
1. F3 Depleted Matrix with fill surface below pond dam (Profile # 87)
2. F3 Depleted Matrix and F8 Redox Depression Profile on incised stream bank with brittle shelf visible.
(Profile # 96)
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC

Appendix 3
Meadow Springs Site
Photo Log
3. F6 Redox Dark Surface. F8 Redox Depression (Profile # 40)
4. F3 Depleted Matrix. (Profile # 91)
2
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC
March 2017

Appendix 3
Meadow Springs Site
Photo Log
March 2017
5. F3 Depleted Matrix and F8 Redox Depression. Stream bank profile (Profile # 96)
GEORGE K LANKFORD, LLC