20140189 Ver 1_FINAL-Mitigation Plan _20180227

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project is located on a 57.40 acre site three miles
southwest of Goldsboro in western Wayne County, NC. One unnamed channelized drainage feature
that traverses the site exhibits diminished habitat value as a result of past and on-going agricultural
activities. The site was identified by EBX-Neuse I, LLC as having potential to help meet the
compensatory mitigation requirements for wetland impacts in hydrologic unit 03020201 of the Neuse
River Basin.
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project involves the restoration and enhancement of
41.24 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining, agricultural activities, and active
cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents 29.37 acres of wetland restoration and 11.87 acres of
wetland enhancement, generating 32.51 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU's). The proposed project
will be the third of three phases. The Arrington Bridge I & II mitigation sites are located on the north
side of Arrington Bridge Road; Arrington Bridge I is on the east side of John Road, and Arrington
Bridge 11 is on the west side of John Road. These two buffer and nutrient mitigation sites are
hydrologically connected to the Arrington Bridge III site. The three Arrington Bridge sites
complement each other, and, together, will confer a greater water quality benefit to the Neuse River
than any one of the sites alone.
The proposed Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Project is located within the southern portion of the
HUC and includes a channelized drainage feature that discharges into the Neuse River. Due to its
location and proposed improvements, the project will provide numerous ecological and water quality
benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area,
others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching
effects.
Land use immediately surrounding the project includes pasture, surface mining, industrial, and
forestry. The total easement area is 57.40 acres. Numerous old borrow pits, spoil, and fill areas
adjacent to the restoration area are evidence of past sand mining operations. A small unnamed
tributary enters the project from uplands to the north (Arrington Bridge I and II), flowing through a
wooded buffer along the base of the terrace. The channel has been dredged and channelized
throughout most of the project. Soil investigations show that much of the low-lying landscape
exhibits hydric characteristics and a shallow seasonal high water table. The site is located on a large
inside meander of the Neuse River. There are three community types present within the project area:
pasture, forest, and development. The restoration area is primarily pasture and the enhancement areas
are disturbed bottomland forest with a range of hydrology present, from narrow sand ridges to
shallow open water.
The objective for this restoration project is to restore a continuous bottomland wetland system and
enhance the hydrology of existing wetlands. The design will be based on reference conditions,
USACE guidance (USACE, 2005), and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve
success. Initial site design included the construction of three slough habitats to increase surface water
storage and include patches of habitat more typical of reference Cypress -Gum Swamps. Through
coordination with the Interagency Review Team (IRT) and the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
(SJAFB), it was requested that the restoration design minimize standing water features that may be
waterfowl attractants. Therefore, the slough features and Cypress -Gum Swamp wetlands have been
removed from the design and the restoration plan is now exclusively Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
Additional project objectives, such as restoring native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and
eradicating invasive species, are listed in Section 1.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan ii September 2015

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

10:3 N WO 0[419] `QTY 0
1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................... 1
2 SITE SELECTION.........................................................................................................................
1
2.1 Directions to Site....................................................................................................................
1
2.2 Site Selection..........................................................................................................................
2
2.2.1 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin .............................................
2
2.2.2 Project Components........................................................................................................2
2.2.3 Historical Land Use and Development Trends...............................................................
2
2.3 Soil Survey.............................................................................................................................
3
2.4 Site Photographs....................................................................................................................
6
3 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT...........................................................................................
8
3.1 Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information.............................................................
8
4 BASELINE INFORMATION........................................................................................................
9
4.1 Watershed Summary Information..........................................................................................
9
4.1.1 Drainage Area.................................................................................................................
9
4.1.2 Surface Water Classification..........................................................................................
9
4.1.3 Endangered/Threatened Species.....................................................................................9
4.1.4 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................10
4.2 Wetland Summary Information............................................................................................
11
4.2.1 Existing Wetlands.........................................................................................................
11
4.2.2 Existing Hydric Soil.....................................................................................................12
4.2.3 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................12
4.3 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints..........................................................
13
4.3.1 Property Ownership, Boundary, and Utilities...............................................................13
4.3.2 Site Access....................................................................................................................14
4.3.3 FEMA/ Hydrologic Trespass........................................................................................14
5 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS.............................................................................................
15
6 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE...............................................................................................
16
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits..................................................................................
16
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases..................................................................................................
16
7 FUNCTIONAL RATIONALE.....................................................................................................
17
8 MITIGATION WORK PLAN.....................................................................................................
18
8.1 Reference Wetland Studies...................................................................................................
18
8.1.1 Target Reference Conditions........................................................................................18
8.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................
19
8.2.1 Wetland Restoration Approach....................................................................................19
8.2.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration.........................................................................
21
8.2.3 Best Management Practices..........................................................................................
22
8.2.4 Soil Restoration............................................................................................................
22
8.3 Wetland Hydrologic Analysis..............................................................................................
22
8.3.1 Wetland Hydrology Assessment..................................................................................
23
8.3.2 Mitigation Summary.....................................................................................................25
9 MAINTENANCE PLAN.............................................................................................................
26
10 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................
27
10.1 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................
27
10.1.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria.........................................................................................
27
10.2 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
27
11 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................
28
11.1 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................
28
11.2 Vegetative Success Criteria..................................................................................................
28
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan iv September 2015

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

USACE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for the Arrington
Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Ban/ This Mitigation Plan is not a contract between the Sponsor or
Property Owner and USA CE or any other agency or the federal government. Any dispute arising
under this Instrument will not give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property Owner for
monetary damages. This provision is controlling notwithstanding any other provision or statement
in the Instrument to the contrary.
1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified several restoration needs for the
entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC 03020201, specifically. The Arrington Bridge III
Wetland Restoration Project was identified as a wetland restoration opportunity to improve water
quality, habitat, and hydrology within the Neuse 01 River Basin.
The project goals address stressors identified in HUC 03020201 and include the following:
• Nutrient removal,
• Sediment removal,
• Invasive species removal,
• Filtration of runoff, and
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
Converting active pasture to a bottomland wetland system,
• Fill and stabilize existing ditches,
• Restoration of bottomland hardwood habitats, and
• Enhancement of hydrology in existing wetlands.
The proposed Arrington Bridge III project is located within the downstream portion of HUC
03020201 and contains a channelized drainage feature that drains directly to the Neuse River. Due to
its location and proposed improvements, the project will provide numerous ecological and water
quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project
area others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, will have more
far-reaching effects. Many of the project design goals and objectives, including restoration of riparian
buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat, and construction of
in -stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will address the degraded water quality and nutrient
input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse RBRP. The
Arrington Bridge I & II mitigation sites are located on the north side of Arrington Bridge Road;
Arrington Bridge I is on the east side of John Road, and Arrington Bridge 11 is on the west side of
John Road. These two buffer and nutrient mitigation sites are hydrologically connected to the
Arrington Bridge III site. The three Arrington Bridge sites complement each other, and, together, will
confer a greater water quality benefit to the Neuse River than any one of the sites alone.
2 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions to Site
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Site is located in Wayne County approximately three miles
southwest of downtown Goldsboro, NC (Figure 1). The GPS coordinates of the site are 35.342895°N
and -78.009907°W. To access the Site from the town of Goldsboro, travel south on NC HWY 117,
and turn left onto Arrington Bridge Road (NC Highway 581). Turn right onto the dirt entrance road
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 1 September 2015

immediately after crossing the railroad tracks (approximately 0. 15 miles). Turn left after 0.3 miles. In
0.1 miles, follow the left fork to access the northern end of the Site. Following the path to the right
will lead to the middle and southern portions of the Site.
2.2 Site Selection
2.2.1 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin
The project is located within the Neuse River Basin (8 -digit USGS HUC 03020201, 14 -digit USGS
HUC 03020201200040, NC DWQ 03-04-12) (Figure 2). The 2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP
identified several restoration needs for the entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC 03020201,
specifically. Goals include promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by
restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
2.2.2 Project Components
The project area is comprised of a single easement located on a 57.40 acre site three miles southwest
of Goldsboro in western Wayne County, NC. One unnamed channelized drainage feature that
traverses the site exhibits diminished habitat value as a result of past and on-going agricultural
activities. The proposed project is the third of three phases. The Arrington Bridge I & II mitigation
sites are located on the north side of Arrington Bridge Road; Arrington Bridge I is on the east side of
John Road, and Arrington Bridge 11 is on the west side of John Road. These two buffer and nutrient
mitigation sites are hydrologically connected to the Arrington Bridge III site. The three Arrington
Bridge sites complement each other and, together, will confer a greater water quality benefit to the
Neuse River than any one of the sites alone. The proposed project involves the restoration and
enhancement of 41.24 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining, agricultural
activities, and active cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents 29.37 acres of wetland restoration
and 11.87 acres of wetland enhancement, generating 32.51 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU). The
wetland mitigation components are summarized in (Table 1 & Figure 9).
Table 1. Arrington Bridge III Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Type
Total Acres
Mitigation Ratio
WMUs
Enhancement
5.80
3:1
1.93
Enhancement Low
6.07
5:1
1.21
Restoration
29.37
1:1
29.37
Non -Wetland Buffer
16.16
N/A
N/A
TOTAL:
57.40
32.51
2.2.3 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Aerial imagery and information provided by the property owners indicate that the Site has been used
extensively for mining and agricultural purposes, and that the location of the central channel has not
changed in over 40 years (Figure 4). By 1974, the area was cleared, much of the borrow removed,
and conversion of area to agricultural production was occurring. The current ditch system was mostly
in place. Land use patterns have remained constant since then with surrounding land use developing
slowly. Vegetation cover has modulated between regrowth and clearing, with areas converted to
pasture. Between 2005 and 2006 McArthur Lake was expanded and the access road moved north
along a small ridge. Very little has changed across the site during the last 40 years. Across much of
the site, soil structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive mining operations.
Although the soils characterized on the restoration area are classified as poorly drained, the ditching
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 2 September 2015

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

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

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

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

Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 7 September 2015
=
Y
i -
s '
Facing northwest along bottom portion of the
Facing southeast along central portion of the
easement- active pasture. 01/06/2015
easement- active pasture. 01/06/2015
Facing north in central portion of the easement-
Facing northwest- pasture along access road and
active pasture. 01/06/2015
fence.
01/06/2015
li "1
f
Facing north along upper portion of the easement-
Facing southeast along upper portion of the
active pasture. 01/06/2015
easement- active pasture. 01/06/2015
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 7 September 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.3.1 Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Runoff from the local watershed and stream flow from the unnamed tributary will provide sufficient
hydrologic input and will provide the opportunity for nutrient and pollutant removal in these
wetlands. To determine the general input to the site from the local watershed in terms of providing
significant hydrology that is needed to sustain saturated conditions a runoff calculation and stream
baseflow estimate was performed.
Runoff Calculations
Runoff onto the wetland creation/enhancement site was determined using the TR -55 Curve Number
Method as described by Pierce 1993. This was done by first determining the amount of rainfall
required over a 24-hour period to produce runoff (Q) for the drainage area. Q is measured in inches of
rainfall. The drainage area was delineated using Southeast Goldsboro and Southwest Goldsboro 7.5
Minute USGS topographic quadrangles (Figure 2).
The value of Q for the drainage area was then subtracted from daily precipitation values over the
period of record. Those days that returned positive values (i.e. runoff occurred) were then summed to
return the total amount of runoff (R) produced within the watershed area. The equation for calculating
runoff is as follows:
Q=
(P24 - 0.2S)2
(P24 + 0.8S)
S = C10001_ 10
CN J
Where P24 is the maximum rainfall occurring in a 24-hour period (over the period of record), CN is
the composite curve number, and S is the storage capacity of the soil. A composite curve was
calculated by subdividing the watershed with respect to soil hydrologic group and land use, then
determining the appropriate curve number for each subdivision using tables published by the USDA
(1986). The area and curve number were multiplied, summed and divided by the total watershed area
to calculate the composite curve number as described below.
CN —_ E (CN * SubdividedArea )
(WatershedArea)
By this method, the composite curve number for the proposed wetland restoration/enhancement site
was 81.1.
P4
A 24-hour rainfall record was determined using precipitation data. The maximum
climatological -day precipitation over the 27 -year period of record, excluding tropical storms,
occurred on June 6, 1994, with 6.6 inches of rainfall. No rainfall was recorded on June 5 or
June 7, 1994 and therefore the maximum adjacent -climatological -day precipitation is 6.6
inches.
P24 = (max. climatological -day P) + .5(max. adjacent -climatological -day P)
P24 = (6.6 in) + 0.5(0.0 in)
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 23 September 2015

Runoff
P24 = 6.6 in
(P24 — 0.2S)2
Q=
(P24 + 0.85)
S _ (10001_
10
CN J
1-10�J`
1(
—0.2 1
JQ=P24 CN
1000_
P24 + 0.8
( )
10)JI
CN
1000)_
2
J
6.6in — 0.2
(Q=
10
81.1
J
1000)_
1
6.6in + 0.8
((81.1
10
J
Q = 2.33
Using this value, the runoff produced by each rain event was calculated by subtracting the
minimum 24-hour rainfall amount needed to produce runoff (Q) from the amount of
precipitation (P) on each day. Those events that return positive values (i.e. runoff occurred)
are then summed to return the amount of runoff (R) produced by each acre in the watershed.
These values are then averaged by month for the entire period to give the average monthly
runoff for the watershed. Once runoff values were calculated for the drainage area, it was
necessary to adjust these values to reflect the amount of water seen on the site as follows:
R = (Watershed Runofj) * (Watershed Area) / (Site Area)
Stream baseflow is estimated to be between 0.5 and 1.25 cubic feet per second during the non -
growing season months. Baseflow may drop to zero during drier growing season months. The
combination of baseflow, storm runoff, and groundwater inflow from the adjacent terrace will provide
sufficient hydrology to restore the appropriate (and historically present) cypress -gum slough habitats
with adjacent bottomland hardwoods.
The proposed wetland restoration/enhancement area is generally mapped as Coxville, Pantego, and
Weston soils. All three mapping units are poorly drained, found on flats and depressions, and have
moderate to slow permeability. Seasonal high water tables range from 0 to 12 inches below the
surface, and runoff is negligible. Infiltration into the soil on the site was based upon the permeability
range (0.0 to 0.05 in/hr) indicated for hydrologic soil group D soils (USDA 1986). During months
where the seasonal high water table is within 12 inches, the infiltration is assumed to be negligible.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 24 September 2015

8.3.2 Mitigation Summary
The Arrington Bridge III Wetland Mitigation Project involves the restoration and enhancement of
41.24 acres of wetlands that have been disturbed by historic mining, agricultural activities, and active
cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents 29.37 acres of wetland restoration and 11.87 acres of
wetland enhancement, generating 32.51 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU's). Wetland Restoration
activities will include: plugging the main channelized drainage feature and side ditches, removing fill,
and regrading the area to reconstruct historical contours. A credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for higher -
uplift wetland enhancement areas, including a drained area of planted cypress, an excavated pond,
and forested areas along the north side of the main ditch. A ratio of 5:1 is proposed for the lower -
uplift wetland enhancement areas, which are primarily along the north side of the main ditch. Both
levels of Wetland Enhancement will be treated by enhancing the hydrology. This will be
accomplished by filling the ditches across the site to raise the water table and restore a more natural
drainage pattern. Additionally, the pond will be backfilled with the adjacent spoil pile and planted
with trees and a permanent seed mix. Although this area will be restored to a wetland, it will receive
Enhancement credits at a ratio of 3:1 because the pond is already a jurisdictional feature.
The Wetland Restoration/Enhancement areas will be restored to a Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods target community, as described in Schafale and Weakley. The selection of plant species is
based on what was observed at the reference wetland, species present in the forest surrounding the
restoration site, and what is typically native to the area.
The proposed project will be the third of three phases. The Arrington Bridge I & 11 mitigation sites
are located on the north side of Arrington Bridge Road; Arrington Bridge I is on the east side of John
Road, and Arrington Bridge II is on the west side of John Road. These two buffer and nutrient
mitigation sites are hydrologically connected to the Arrington Bridge III site. The three Arrington
Bridge sites complement each other, and, together, will confer a greater water quality benefit to the
Neuse River than any one of the sites alone.
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 25 September 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 OTHER INFORMATION
15.1 References
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Conner, W.H. and J. W. Day. (19 76) Productivity and Composition of a Baldcypress- Water Tupelo
Site and a Bottomland Hardwood Site in a Louisiana Swamp. American Journal of Botany 63 (10).-
1354-1364.
10):1354-1364.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FW5/0BS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2, December
24, 2002.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE), 2013. April 2003 NC Wetland Mitigation Guidelines.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2. 0), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-20. Vicksburg, MS.- U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS),
Web Soil Survey; http://Websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (September 2014)
Arrington Bridge III Mitigation Plan 33 September 2015

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

0
.."4P o
� o
O o
a�
4Z
Goldsboro o l Goldsboro
ap
° 0
Q
Arrington Bridge III Site
op �
O
° G
ar- a o-
- D
ISM
�{5 /
Q
Legend
Streams
- Proposed Easement
Waterbody
HUC 03020201200040
R
�F kilo
°YaI+A,-
gh
12
x�
r=frn Rr -
fi�ymoL\
Jo hnsc'n
F4 kr E.- - -
o0 1 rmlj 11�.. ` I
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermaap,i'ncrementIftGorNUse
NRCAN, Esri Japan, METH Esri China (Hong Kong�Es�i (Thailand
he GI
TomTom, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and tS
GoMmu n ity
Figure
Resource Project Vicinity Map
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site
Solutions 4
0 1 •NTSWMiles Scale: NTS

�x hAn6iaiitM159
Goa
-,k V
Ail
Dil
Arrington Bridge I
Mitigation Site
Iota
Arrington Bridge II - _ -
# .k Mitigation Site
pd
• w' M 74 /
IMP
9 �4,
Arrington Bridge III McArfA-
Proposed Mitigation Site -
.. - - _ -
MP
Sat
� Fara
■ fes' '
s F
Source: Southeast Golds6oro,and'Southwest Goldsboro Quadrangles Copyri9, t:©:2013 National Geographice- ociety, i -cubed
Figure 2.
Resource USGS Topographic Map Proposed Easement
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site C Arrington Bridge I
Solutions
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Arrington Bridge 11
Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet

9rr /'7
✓r. AL..�.
i
Soil Symbol Name Soil Symbol Name
Bp Borrow pit W Water
Co Coxville loam WaB Wagram loamy sand, 0 - 6% slopes
Jo Johns sandy loam We Weston loamy sand (Woodington)
KaA Kalmia loamy sand, 0 - 2% slopes WhA Wickham loamy sand, 0 - 2% slopes
KaB Kalmia loamy sand, 2 - 6% slopes WhB Wickham loamy sand, 2 - 6% slopes
La Lakeland sand WkB2 Wickham sandy loam, 2 - 6% slopes, eroded
Po Pantegoloam Source: NRCS Soil Data, Wayne County
Figure 3. Roads
Resource Soils Map Streams
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site
Solutions 0 300 600 1,200 Proposed Easement
Feet Wayne County Soils
1 inch = 600 feet

m©
rLi
PUBH
X0, , �j
4PN
.r7
Fx
PEM
PF01A
.............
Source: National Wetlands
Figure 4. -Roads
Resource NWI Map Streams
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site
Solutions NWI Wetlands
0 300 600 1,200
Feet Proposed Easement
1 inch = 600 feet

Existing Vegetation Conditions
Target Community
w
m
Absent
CL
rn
LPresent
rresent ivia
No Fill
M I
-.,AM
Figure 5. Roads
Resource Existing Conditions Map Existing Ditch
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site Streams
Solutions
0 300 600 1,200 Feet Proposed Easement
1 inch = 600 feet 0 Existing Wetlands

Resource
Environmental
Solutions
Figure 6.
FEMA Map
Arrington Bridge III Site
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Roads
Streams
LJ Proposed Easement
® FEMA 100 -yr Floodplain
® FEMA 500 -yr Floodplain
FEMA Floodway

= nt°nlstl
1,
`oo
�1
tog
CO
y
��
9 a'ia
J
{
Figure 7.
Roads
Resource LIDAR Map
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site Streams
Solutions Proposed Easement
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet Parcel Boundaries
1 inch = 1,000 feet

e Bei
��NN
XN
e
30
�z
t
Vj
Source: USGS 1950 Aerial PhotograpF
u
Figure 8.
Resource 1950 Historical Conditions
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site Roads
Solutions
0 500 1,000 2,000 Proposed Easement
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet

yF S
ly
�X.13P X
�r
' f # itA
yr. `
r.
Flow
Pattern
k
Fill pond with
adjacent spoil pile
r '�a
74
Y'{ .* i
Remove fill
A �4
from access road4
0.
Y
w \Ank
r
Wetland Enhancement 3:1 (5.8 Ac.)
Wetland Enhancement 5:1 (6.1 Ac.)-�,..a
Wetland Restoration 1:1 (29.37 Ac.)
Proposed Easement *_
Property Boundary of
Existing Ditch t
Stream - No Credit (327 LF)
Roads
Figure 9. ti
Resource Conceptual Design Plan
Environmental Arrington Bridge III Site
Solutions
0 200 400 800
Feet
1 in= 400 ft