20170537 Ver 1_Appendix B_20170517

Appendix B
Notification of Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
NC DWR Stream Determination Forms Hannah Bridge
Correspondence
- US Fish and Wildlife Service
- NC State Historic Preservation Office
- NC Wildlife Resources Commission
- NC DWR Stream/Buffer Determination Letter
- NC DWR Buffer/Nutrient Mitigation Viability Letter

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2015-01799 County: Johnston U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -FOUR OAKS
Property Owner:
Address:
Telephone Number:
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
EBX an RES company
Daniel Ingram
909 Capability Drive Suite 3100
Raleigh. NC. 27606
919 209-1062
Size (acres) 47.94
Nearest Waterway Hannah Creek
USGS HUC 03020201
Nearest Town Four Oaks
River Basin Upper Neuse
Coordinates Latitude: 35.38172
Longitude: -78.415618
Location description: Proposed Hannah Bridge Mitigation Project located off of Green Pasture Road, adjacent to Hannah
Creek , south of Four Oaks, in Johnston County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area
. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD. Please see remarks section in regard to this Jurisdictional Determination.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification.
There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the
size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any
delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
Page 1 of 2

_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years fi om the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact John Thomas at 919-554-4884 x25 or
John.T.Thomas.JRO.usace armv mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Site includes tributories of Hannole
the Atlantic ocean. Creek wk/ch flows to the Neuse River ar:rl at to
D. Remarks: For the purpose of mitigation bank planning,the Corns concurs with the
review request received on August 16 2016
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Actjurisdiction for the
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants,
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the or anticipate participationlocal office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room IOM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA ford's, it must be received at the above address by 10/18/2016.
**It is not necessary to submit an RF/i f�rin to the
correspondence.** Y
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: August 18, 2016
if you do notAiect to the determination in this

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help LIS ensure We
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
hti://regglatorv�usacesu rvey _corn/.

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Daniel Ingram File Number: SAW-2015-01799WAugust2016
EBX an RES com anAttached is: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) g
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
® PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION n
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at httpc%ivww.usace.2riny.nlil/Missions'Civilworks/RegulatoryProgramandPei-mits asps x or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the forth to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address al l of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This forth must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the forth to the division engineer. This form trust be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
information.
You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Y d
ou o not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION 11 - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
r UUI I wINAL uvIYOKMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Attn: John Thomas
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room IOM 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunit to articipate in all site investipatinnc
of appellant or
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, John Thomas,
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

"a
5 vi
210
A
IS,
Rd
Olt,
Legend
MProposed Easement
�zp
I'rN IF, '
Hannah Bridge
Mitigation Site
T
Newton
Grove
TLW 03020201150020
F FIGURE I
Vicinity Map 11
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
0 2
Johnston County, North Carolina
jLR4 mfl.s pres

j:
r"
1 t'
R
"
GREEN PASTURE, to
1 ^9A�—.
k „r`
i
r 0 225 450
t '::::�
i Feet
W13 W12 W11
W6
W2
W3
FIGURE 7
Exsting Conditions Map
Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Rte:
W8
► "An
Oate. 6/22/2016
Drawn by: BPB
Checkedby: DPI
W10
VirA,
Legend
Proposed Easement
Streams
Wetland Type
V / /Ij Non -Forested
Forested- Not Disturbed
Forested -Disturbed

CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT FORM
Stability Indicator Excellent 11 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor 00 -12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the
activity and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
watershed. Significant rattle activity,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
landslides, channel sand or gravel
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
mining, logging, farming, or
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
construction of buildings, roads, or
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
other infrastructure. Highly urbanized
significant portion of watershed
or rapidly urbanizing watershed
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
3. Channel pattern
Straight to meandering with low
Meandering, moderate radius of
Meandering with some braiding;
Braided; primarily bed load; engineered
radius of curvature; primarily
curvature; mix of suspended and bed
tortuous meandering; primarily bed
channel that is maintained
suspended load
loads; well-maintained engineered
load; poorly maintained engineered
channel
channel
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
straight (step -pool system, narrow
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically)
valley), stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
areas of instability and/or erosion
with few bends. Straight, unstable
around bends. Straightened, stable
reach.
channel.
4. Entrenchment/ channel
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
confinement
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
plain abandoned; levees are moderate
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
back from the river
in size and have minimal setback from
active flood plain; levees are high and
the river
along the channel edge
5. Bed materia
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
sand in the bed
Most material 14 mm. Fs < 20%
material 14 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of
1/2 the stream width at low flow. Bars
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
newly deposited coarse sand to small
are composed of extensive deposits of
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth o
cobbles and/or may be sparsely
fine particles up to coarse gravel with
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation
vegetated. Bars forming for S > 0.02
little to no vegetation. No bars for S <
12, no bars are evident
on portions of the bar. For S > 0.02
and w/y < 12
0.02 and w/y > 12
and w/y <12, no bars are evident
7. Obstructions, including
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
bedrock outcrops, armor layer,
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause
continual shift of sediment and flow.
LWD jams, grade control, bridge
noticeable erosion of the channel.
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
bed paving, revetments, dikes
Considerable sediment accumulation
to migrate and/or widen
or vanes, riprap
behind obstructions
8. Bank soil texture and
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
coherence
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
lenses of noncohesive or
lenses that include noncohesive sands
unconsolidated mixtures
and gravels
9. Average bank slope angle
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H:1 V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive
(where 90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
or unconsolidated materials or over 60°
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
in clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
10. Vegetative or engineered
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with
Woody vegetation band may vary
bank protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
50-70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy,
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney,
than 50% plant density and cover.
deciduous trees with mature,
deciduous trees with maturing,
coniferous trees with young or old
Primarily softwood, piney, coniferous
healthy, and diverse vegetation
diverse vegetation located on the
vegetation lacking in diversity located
trees with very young, old and dying,
located on the bank. Woody
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
on or near the top of bank. Woody
and/or monostand vegetation located
vegetation oriented vertically. In
90% from horizontal with minimal
vegetation oriented at 70-80% from
off of the bank. Woody vegetation
absence of vegetation, both banks
root exposure. Partial lining or
horizontal, often with evident root
oriented at less than 70% from
are lined or heavily armored
armoring of one or both banks
exposure. No lining of banks, but
horizontal with extensive root
some armoring may be in place on
exposure. No lining or armoring of
one bank
banks
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of
bends and at prominent
banks. Raw banks comprise large
some extending over most of the
total bank
constrictions. Raw banks comprise
portion of bank in vertical direction.
banks. Undercutting and sod -root
minor portion of bank in vertical
Root mat overhangs
overhangs
direction
12. Mass wasting or bank
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
failure
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
entire reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
13. Upstream distance to bridge
More than 35 m; bridge is well-
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly
from meander impact point and
aligned with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not
aligned with flow
alignment
centered beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: / O /
Project/Site: PE #F1 J
Latitude:
Evaluator: '� I
County: �'O nS
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream orpeennias at least ifintermittent'3
i!> 19 or perennial if 2 30' �
E hemeral Intermittent. PeTdn-ictal
P
e. Quad Name:
g'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I. S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1aContinuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
411 1.5
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
a
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1 1 1
3
8. Headcuts
0
TJ
2
3
9. Grade control
0
b.5
_
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5>
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloqy (Subtotal = 8 - )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
0 3
14. Leaf litter
1 1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
y.- 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
411 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Y"
C. Bioloqy (Subtotal = b, 5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
?.
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
o
1 1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =A).7
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: S �� O /I
Project/Site: 2-
Latitude:
Evaluator:
J
County: Whh$iOn
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent `�, �s
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if 2! 19 or erennial if t 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent P nni
P
e. Quad Name:
g'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = � )
I Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
®
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0.5
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
0.5
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
25. Algae 1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
Sketch:
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Y =
-artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal= i' Z )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
®
1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0.5
No = 0
s = 3
C. Biclow (Subtotal = f). )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
®
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish flo�
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish 9">
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae 1
0.5
_ "D
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC 5;
BL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
V

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: S 111) l
Project/Site: r r 333
Latitude:
Evaluator:
Strong
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
ifz 19 or perennial if>_30" JJ
Ephemeral Intermittent erenni
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = I _( '� )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
11' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
0 1 1.5
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
FACW = 0.75;
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Y"-=_!)
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discu ions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter
.5 1 .5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 es = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = S_4i )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
el7p
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish t b 7
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae 0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 ther = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: S-/10 1'
Projecttsite: N. I ,;"g � _'
Latitude:
Evaluator: 13 to
County: 70h h5d a
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent2
if 2:19 or rennial if 30' J ZS
Ephemeral Intermittent enni
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology ( Subtotal = 1 5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
Gtr
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
No = 0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
(12D
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
.75� OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
3
9. Grade control
0
.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
/Yes= 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 17i )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
m
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
<Tl
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
&
No = 0
Ye = 3
1.5
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = � ;5' )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
A
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
&
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
�1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =
.75� OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I I
ProjectlSite: t{ _ F (
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: �Sa c�h
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
�I ZS
Stream Determination (circle )
Ephemeral Intermittent ' I
Other
ifa19or erennialift30'
_ren
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= /D. S )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
/1
l�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 90)
Yes = 3
Sketch: D I
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = A S )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 2 3
14. Leaf litter .5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 CD 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Ye ?77 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 10.2 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C32
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = ff.7VOBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: D I

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: > L
ProjectfSite:9 >f t Z
Latitude:
Evaluator: 6
County:kkS r
Longitude:
Total Points: r
Stream is at least intermittent a S
Stream Determination circle one)
Other
if 2t 19 or perennial if 2:30-
Ephemeral 1 rmitte' Perennial
P
e. Quad Name:
g'
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = IU )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1.5 1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
Yes = 3
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1 2 1
3
8. Headcuts
0
Cy
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
<
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No av
Yes = 3
Sketch:
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal= _ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
©
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 TOTY-
2
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1
C. Bioloov (Subtotal= S 5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /� 0 /
Project/Site:40� 2
Latitude:
Evaluator: G
County:
Longitude:
Total Points: /I �7
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determi (circle one)
Other
if? 19 or perennial f 2:30* !iL ,
Ephemeral ermi t Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = '' `
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
No = 0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
COD
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2 1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
t)
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
Notes:
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
rjumi 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = °
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
?i�)
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
D 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5[i
'j 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
y
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
(J
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI =1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j /' C) A
Project/Site:/ 703
n nc n
Latitude:
Evaluator: ��
County: n�,o�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
00.Ephemeral
Stream Determiircle one)
Perennial
Other
ifzl9or erennialif>_30'
4e'rmfttegv
e.g. Quad Name:
N
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I v
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1.5
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
Yes = 3
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75;
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5 !
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artmcial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloqy (Subtotal = r )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1
G. Bioloqy (Subtotal = S 5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

fires
April 8, 2016
100 Calhoun St.
Benjamin,
Dear Mr. Ben
J ,
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Mr. Pete Benjamin
Suite 130
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Owings Mills, MD
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the Neu-
21117
Raleigh Field Office
Suite 650
Houston, Tx
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
412 N. 4th St.
of stream. The site is currently in agricultural use and the stream channels have been straightened
Suite 300
Subject: Project Scoping for Hannah Bridge Stream Mitigation Project in Johnston County.
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
100 Calhoun St.
Benjamin,
Dear Mr. Ben
J ,
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration
29401
The Hannah Bridge Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) to
15219
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the Neu-
solo Montrose Bled.
Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. EBX-Neuse I, LLC, a RES entity, is the bank sponsor for the Site.
Suite 650
Houston, Tx
The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,000 linear feet
77006
of stream. The site is currently in agricultural use and the stream channels have been straightened
and channelized.
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
THE US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (http://www.fws.gov/endan eg red0 lists
70508
four endangered species for Johnston County, North Carolina: Red -cockaded woodpecker
1371/2 East Main St.
(Picoides borealis), Tar River spinymussel (Eliptio steinstansana), dwarf wedgemussel
Suite 210
(Alasmidonta heterodon), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). We have determined that no
Oak Hill, WV
suitable habitat for the listed species' exists within the proposed project boundary.
25901
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
33 Terminal Way
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
Suite 431
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the construction of a stream restoration
Pittsburgh, PA
project on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the
15219
conservation easement are enclosed.
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
Raleigh, NC
27605
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at bbreslowkres.us with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220
Sincerely yours,
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 5, 2016
Brad Breslow
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: Hannah Bridge Mitigation Project — Johnston County, NC
Dear Mr. Breslow:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally -protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally -protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
The tern "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

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

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Emily Wells of this office
at [phone] ext. 25.
Sincerely, //11
al� dSJ
P to Benjamin
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
0
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

fires
April 8, 2016
Sincerely yours,
Brad Breslow
Restoration 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 Hannah Bride Site has been identified b Resource Environmental Solutions LLC RES to
Bridge Y � (RES)
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the Neu-
29401
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 7,000 linear feet
5020 Montrose Blvd.
of stream.
Suite 650
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 Hannah Bridge site (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation
Lafayette, LA
easement is 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 April 8, 2016) was performed as part of the site due
oak Hill, WV
diligence evaluation. According to this website, the Ashley A. Blackman House and Cemetary is
25901
within one mile of the Hannah Bridge site. The proposed project will not have any adverse effects
33 Terminal Way
to historical structures or viewsheds at the referenced historical site. No architectural structures
Suite 431
or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for
Pittsburgh, PA
restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to
15219
agricultural practices.
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
Raleigh, NC
27605
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
may return the comment to my attention at the address below, or via email. Please feel free to
1521 W. Main
contact me at bbreslow(a�res.us with an questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
Y q Y Y g
Rod Floor
Richmond, VA
disturbance associated with this project.
23220
Sincerely yours,
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
April 14, 2016
Brad Breslow
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Hannah Bridge Stream and Wetland Restoration, Johnston County, ER 16-0636
Dear Mr. Breslow:
Thank you for your letter of April 8, 2016, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
67( Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

fires
April 8, 2016
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 Hannah Bridge Stream Mitigation Project in Johnston County.
100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
Dear Mr.Stancil,
29401
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on an possible issues that might
p� q y p s"
5020 Montrose Blvd.
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream restoration project on
suite 650
Houston, TX
the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
77006
disturbance are enclosed).The Hannah Bridge Site has been identified by Resource Environmental
Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
impacts through the Neu -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposed project involves the
Lafayette, LA
restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,000 linear feet of stream. The site is currently in
70508
agricultural use and the stream channels have been straightened and channelized.
1371/2 east Main St.
Suite 210
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
Oak Hill, WV
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at bbreslow(kres.us with any
25901
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
33 Terminal way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
Sincerely yours,
15219
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
Brad Breslow
Restoration Ecologist
1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

From:
Stancil, Vann F
To:
Brad Breslow
Subject:
RE: Hannah Bridge Mitigation Project
Date:
Monday, May 2, 2016 11:44:53 AM
Brad,
I've reviewed your information on the Hannah Bridge Site, located on tributaries to Hannah Creek in
Johnston County. There are no records for sensitive aquatic or terrestrial wildlife resources in the
vicinity of this project. We do not anticipate any issues to fish and wildlife from this project as long
as restoration activities are conducted properly. Thanks for the opportunity to review this and
please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Vann Stancil // Research Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
215 Jerusalem Church Road
Kenly, North Carolina 27542
office: 919-284-5218
fax: [phone]
van n.stancil&ncwildlife.org
ncwildlife.ora
f i WAGI [ —9you I

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
April 24, 2015
EBX NEUSE l LLC
Daniel Ingram EBX (RES)
909 Capability Dr. Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
Subject: Buffer Determination
NBRRO#15-144
Wake County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
® Neuse (15A NCAC 26.0233)
Start@
Stop@
❑ Ephemeral/IntermiDetermination Determination
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 2B
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
.0267)
—_ JI
Project Name: Thompson Mitigation Bank
Location/Directions: Property is located at Green Pastures Rd. Johnston County,. NC
Subject Stream: Hannah Creek
Determination Date: April 16, 2015
Staff: James Graham
Feature
Not
Subject
E/1/P*
Start@
Stop@
Soil
USGS
/Flag
Subject
To Buffers
Survey
Topo
To Buffers
A UT2
X
P
X
X
Reaches
A -C, F,
H
M UT2
X
P
X
X
Reach B
N UT2
X
Ditch
Reach E
N UT2
X
Ditch
Reach D
N UT2
X
Ditch
Reach G
UTI
X
Ditch' -
Reach A
UT1
X
Ditch
Reach B.,One
NatllCQa!�t, J
North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone [phone]
Internet: www.ncwatercualitv.orc Location: 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Thompson Mitigation Bank
Wake County
April 24, 2015
Page 2 of 2
K
X
X
(Hannah
Wetland**
Creek)
(Riverine
Swamp
Forest)
LUTI
X
I
X
Reach C
J
X
Wetland**
X
X
Pond 1
X
X
Pond 2
X
X
Pond 3
X
*E/I/P - Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
**Feature J and K are wetlands Wetlands are subject to 404 permitting. Impacting a wetland by filling, dredging,
and/or draining can result in a Wetlands Standard Violation 115A NCAC 02.B 0231 (a), 15A NCAC 02B. 0231(6).
Please contact US Army Corps. of Engineers for permitting information if needed
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 maybe
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).
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 (PIPS, FedEx,
etc.) Karen Higgins DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 2760.
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 determination, please feel free to contact James Grab t(919) 91-4256.
6yespec fully,
Smith, SSSSGupervisor
Water Quality Section
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: RRO/SWP File Copy

t—Ift
UTI Reach A, B Ditch
Not Subject to buffer$
Pond 3
Not Subject to buffers
Feature J Wetland
Not Subject to buffers
Pond 1
Not Subject to buffers
(.., H
Feature A UT2 Reach A Perennial 1,;
Subject to buffers Ow
Feature L UTI Reach C
Intermittent
Not Subject to buffers
rs, r
.mss
Feature K Wetland Not Subject
to buffers (Riverine Swamp Forest)
GO^
Pond 2
Not Subject to buffers
s
1f .!
;, rFeacure A UT2 Reach H Perennial
ect to buffers
Feature -A UT2 Reach F Perennial
Subject to buffers
Feature N UT2 Reach E,D,G Ditch
e ; Not Subject to buffers
Feature A UT 2 Reach C Perennial
Subject to buffers
Feature M UT2 Reach B Perennial
Subject to buffers "
C. eft
JRG 4/16/2015 15-14
1 . L`Ocl

Pond 3
Not Subject to buffers
LJT i
&4 -4
Feature J Wetland
Not Subject to buffers 4
J.'
Pond 1
Not Subject to buffers
55
UT s i
0
0 312.5 625
ri
0 JRG 4/16/2015 15-144
1.2,5a
r
0
O. N
Pond 2
9N
Not Subject to buffe
r
I

Feature J Wetland
Not Subject to buffers
W. j __. -tel I^
Pond 1
Not Subject to buff
yIAh
u
Feature A Perennial
Subject to buffers
Feature K Wetland Not Subject
to buffers
Pond 2
Not Subject to buffers
t .. YiCJI is"ilVtia_
tel_ •tom
w #
P.M.Wweature A Perennial
Subject to buffers
JRG 4/16/2015 15-144
Feature M UT2 Reach B Perennial
Subject to buffers

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
June 11, 2015
Daniel Ingram
EBX Neuse I, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
(via electronic mail)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset —Thompson/Hannah Bridge Mitigation Site
Green Pastures Road near Hwy 96, Dunn, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Ingram,
On April 8, 2015, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request from EBX
Neuse I, LLC (EBX) an affiliate of Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) for a site visit near the above -
referenced site to determine the potential for nutrient offset and Neuse riparian buffer mitigation. On April
16, 2015, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of the subject site, which is more accurately described in
the attached aerial map. If approved, mitigating this property could provide riparian buffer credits and/or
nutrient offset credits within the Neuse River Basin, 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201, with the
exception of the Falls Lake Watershed. The viability of this site for nutrient offset and riparian buffer
mitigation is determined based on the Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument signed by EBX and the DWR
on November 10, 2008. If EBX chooses to apply 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (Rule .0295) towards its buffer
mitigation, EBX will have to submit a Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) specific for this site. The existing
Neuse Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument is not compatible for use of the temporary Rule .0295 for
buffer mitigation.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the property for buffer and nutrient offset mitigation is shown below:
Thompson Propertv
• A stream buffer determination letter was issued for the subject site by the DWR Raleigh Regional
Office on April 24, 2015.
• Streams and conveyances onsite drain offsite into Hannah Creek, a Riverine Swamp Forest.
• Land use adjacent to the streams and conveyances is described as grazed pasture from livestock.
Exclusion of cattle is required within the entire mitigation area.
• Features determined to be viable for generating nutrient offset credits were determined onsite to
be directly hydrologically connected to intermittent or perennial streams.
• Some streams determined to be viable for generating buffer credits were partially dependent on
the stream being restored through stream mitigation.
Division of Water Resources - 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

• Buffer mitigation and nutrient offset cannot be proposed within the same square feet.
• The following table describes where nutrient offset and riparian buffer mitigation is viable for
generating mitigation credits:
Feature/
Reach
Classification Buffer
Credit
Viability
Nutrient Offset
Viability at 2,273
lbs/acre
Type of Mitigation
Aa
Stream (P) Yes
Yes
Restoration
Ac
Stream (P) Yes
No
Preservation
Af
Stream (P) Yes
Yes
Restoration, Enhancement
1
Wetland No
No
N/A
La
Ditch No
Yes
Restoration, Enhancement
Lb
Ditch No
Yes
Restoration
Lc
Stream (1) Yes
Yes
Restoration
Mb
Stream (P) Yes
Yes
Restoration
Ne
Ditch No
Yes
Restoration
Ng
Ditch No
No
Not within mitigation area
No
Ditch No
Yes
Enhancement in some areas
P1
Pond (not in-line) No
No
N/A
P2
Pond (not in-line) No
No
N/A
P3
Pond (not in-line) No
No
N/A
Hannah
Creek
Riverine Swamp No
Yes
Restoration
A map showing the project site and the features is provided and signed by Ms. Merritt on June 11, 2015.
For any areas depicted as not being viable for nutrient offset credit above, EBX 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. Alternative
buffer mitigation options, such as Preservation, may be proposed under 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (m).
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Sincerely,
Karen7��
Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Map
cc:File Copy (Katie Merritt)

a
0
3
a
y
0
a
E44