Combined Final Response to Questions 1-19

Triangle Quarry Mining Permit 92-10 Expansion/Modification Application
NC DEMLR July 23, 2020 Request for Supplemental Information Letter
Question 1. Please provide any correspondence and/or documentation regarding environmental
review coordination (e.g. scoping requests, environmental assessments/impact
statements, categorical exclusions) with local municipalities, other state agencies, or
federal agencies for the proposed mine expansion.
WSC response:
Early in our due diligence period, Wake Stone determined that environmental review/coordination for a
project of this scope might potentially require review by local municipalities, various divisions within the
State of North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality, and one or more federal agencies; with
primary review/oversight being with the Mining Program within NCDEMLR. In performance of due
diligence activities prior to submittal of the Mining Permit Modification Application, Wake Stone
considered all applicable local, State, and Federal land use and environmental regulatory programs
under which the proposed mine expansion might require review.
Local Municipality Review
The subject quarry expansion property, Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority's (RDUAA's) "Odd Fellows"
tract, is located outside the corporate limits of the nearby cities of Raleigh, Cary, and Morrisville.
Therefore, no oversight or approval of the project is required from them. The subject property is
situated within Wake County. Under the RDUAA's statutory authority to apply their own land use
regulations, no zoning or other land use permits are required from Wake County. This was confirmed by
the Wake County Manager's office. Wake County's Environmental Services Department, as the
delegated local administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's floodplain management
program, has reviewed and accepted the "no -rise certification" flood study associated with the
proposed Crabtree Creek bridge crossing as submitted by Sungate Design Group, PA on behalf of
Michael Baker International (Wake Stone's retained bridge engineering design firm). A construction
permit will be sought from Wake County for construction of the bridge across Crabtree Creek once final
engineering design is completed. (See attached email chain from Timothy W. Maloney, Director of
Wake County Planning Development & Inspections.)
State of NC Environmental Review
Primary review responsibility for land disturbance activities associated with the expansion of the
Triangle Quarry (Mining Permit 92-10) is delegated to the Mining Program staff of NCDEMLR under the
Mining Act of 1971 (NCGS 74, Article 7). Engineering staff of the Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) have
provided technical review of the application materials as related to the proposed erosion and sediment
control structures/activities to be employed. RRO staff comments have been incorporated in DEMLR's
request for supplemental information and are being addressed individually later in this response
package.
The application was also forwarded to "sister" agencies within the Department of Environmental Quality
(the Division of Water Resources, the Division of Air Quality, the NC Geological Survey, the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission, and the NC Division of Parks and Recreation) for review and comment.

Comments received from these review agencies have been incorporated in DEMLR's request for
supplemental information and are being addressed in the order in which they occur in the ADI letter.
NC Division of Water Resources Review - Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule
With the project area being located within the Neuse River basin, a determination was made as to the
applicability of the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0233) (NRRB). Staff of the Division
of Water Resources visited the site under the accompaniment of Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA
and conducted a buffer applicability determination. Stream features potentially subject to the NRRB
rule were identified in the Division's Buffer Determination Letter dated June 20, 2019 (copy attached).
Wake Stone's site development plans were devised in such a manner as to avoid impacts to any features
subject to the NRRB rule. Under the NRRB, bridges are treated as allowable uses. Allowable impacts to
the Neuse River Riparian Buffer (along Crabtree Creek) associated with the proposed Crabtree Creek
bridge crossing are identified in the NC DWR Buffer Authorization issued by the Division on June 4, 2020
(copy attached).
Federal Agency Environmental Review
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act —Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters
Wake Stone retained the environmental consulting firm Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC)
for assistance with matters pertaining to streams, wetlands, and other potentially jurisdictional water
resources. A detailed delineation of all wetlands and waters was performed by staff of S&EC. All
identified wetlands and waters were field verified by staff of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office under Action Id No. SAW-2019-01286. Following USACE field verification
of all identified wetland and water features, S&EC prepared and submitted a request for an Approved
Jurisdictional Determination (AJD). The USACE issued the Approved Jurisdictional Determination on
January 15, 2020. A copy of the AJD was included in the Mining Permit Modification Application
package submitted to NCDEMLR on April 8, 2020 (copy attached). As identified and detailed in the
application submittal, Wake Stone proposes no impact to any identified jurisdictional wetlands or
waters. No USACE permit or NC DWR 401 Water Quality Certifications are required for the project.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The FAA has determined that the National Environmental Policy Act is not applicable to locating a quarry
operation on the Oddfellows tract. Please see the attached April 29, 2019 letter from Steven Hicks,
Director of the FAA's Office of Airports Southern Region to Michael Landguth, President and CEO of
RDUAA discussing applicability of the NEPA.

From: Timothy Maloney <[e-mail]>
Date: September 3, 2020 at 2:17:54 PM EDT
To: Chris Dillon <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tom Oxholm <[e-mail]>, Michael Orbon <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Wake County Permits
Tom/Chris,
Below is a summary of all permits that may or may not be required for the quarry on RDU leased
property.
Land Use/Zoning Permits
No permits are required from Wake County. The property is under the jurisdiction of RDU Airport
Authority.
Building Permits
Permits are required from Wake County for structures subject to the NC State Building Code. This
includes the bridge over Crabtree Creek.
Stormwater and Erosion Control
No permits are required from Wake County for stormwater or erosion control. This will be addressed
under the mining permit. As for the bridge, the quarry has applied to Wake County for a flood study,
which is required, and to date has submitted a no -rise certificate.
On -Site Septic
Permits are required from Wake County for on -site septic systems.
wells
Permits are required from Wake County for wells used for potable water. Test wells do not require a
permit from Wake County.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks, Tim
Timothy W. Maloney, PLA, ASLA
Director
Wake County Government
Planning Development & Inspections
[e-mail]
919.856.6678 office
P.O. Box 550 Raleigh, NC 27602
wa kegov.com
From: Chris Dillon <Chris.Dillon @wakegov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 4:38 PM

To: Timothy Maloney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Wake County Permits
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Dillon <[e-mail]>
Date: September 2, 2020 at 2:27:00 PM EDT
To: Tom Oxholm <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Wake County Permits
Thanks Tom. I am copying Tim Maloney, Wake County Director of Wake County Planning, Development,
and Inspections for a response.
Tim: Could you please respond to Tom and copy me? Thank you -- Chris
From: Tom Oxholm <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 2:23 PM
To: Chris Dillon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wake County Permits
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Wake County network. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Chris
From our previous meetings and discussions with Wake County government staff, we believe that the
only Wake County permit
we will need in regard to opening our quarry on RDU Airport land (should we get a State Mining Permit)
is a permit to construct the bridge over Crabtree Creek.
The State has asked us to get that in writing.
Would you mind having the correct person in Wake County government, respond to us by their own
email (showing their title and office credentials),
telling us exactly what is required and when we will need it. Of course, if something else is needed,
please include that, too.
Thank you very much.
tom
Thomas B Oxholm
Vice President

Wake Stone Corporation
PO Box 190
Knightdale, NC 27545
[phone]
E-mail correspondence sent to and received from this address may be subject to disclosure under
the North Carolina Public Records Act unless made confidential under applicable law.

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority
Attn: Michael J. Landguth, President
1000 Trade Drive
P.O. Box 80001
RDU Airport, NC 27623
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 20, 2019
Subject: Buffer Determination Letter
NBRRO #19-176
Wake County
Determination Type:
Buffer
Intermittent/Perennial
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
F-1 Intermittent/Perennial Determination (where local
buffer ordinances apply)
❑ Jordan (l 5A NCAC 2B .0267)
(governmental and/or interjurisdictional
projects)
Project Name:
Address/Location:
Stream(s)
Wake Stone Property
Old Reedy Creek Road, Cary, NC; PIN # 0767324317
Crabtree Creek
Determination Date: June 18, 2019 Staff: Stephanie Goss
Stream Feature
E/1/1P
(t)
Not
Subject 0)
Subject
Start @
Stop @
Soil
Survey
USGS
To o
Crabtree Creek
P
X
Throu bout
X
X
Pond 1
X
X
X
1: Above Pond 1
P
X
Off Property
Pond I
X
1: Below Pond 1
I
N/A
N/A
Pond I
Crabtree
Creek
2
I
X
DWR Flag
Crabtree Crk.
X
3
E
X
Throu bout
X
4
P
X
DWR Flag
Crabtree Crk.
X
5
P
N/A
N/A
DWR Flag
Crabtree Crk.
6
P
N/A
N/A
Off Property
Crabtree Crk.
D E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regional Office 1 3800 Barrett Drive i Raleigh. North Carolina 27bO9
awe..cdema«�.�r.owm� 919.791.4200

Wake Stone Property
Wake County
June 20, 2019
Page 2 of 2
1) E = Ephemeral, 1 = Intermittent, P = Perennial, NP = Not Present, NA=Not Applicable
(2) Refers to State riparian buffer rules only. Stream, wetland, or pond impacts are still subject to applicable water
quality standards and permitting requirements.
Explanation: The stream(s)/pond(s) listed above has been located on the most recent published NRCS Soil Survey
of Wake County, North Carolina and/or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1: 24,000 scale.
Each feature that is checked "Not Subject" has been determined to not be an intermittent stream, perennial stream, a
pond connected to a stream feature, or the feature is determined not to be present. Stream features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify them to be subject to the buffer
rules. There may be other streams located on the property that are not depicted on the maps referenced above and
are therefore not subject to the buffer rules. However, if the stream features are present on the tract they are subject
to all other applicable North Carolina stream standards and permitting requirements as outlined in 15A NCAC 02B,
and may be considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or
affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination by
the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter. A
request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing. If sending
via US Postal Service: c/o Karen Higgins; DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit; 1617 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.): Karen Higgins;
DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit; 512 N. Salisbury Street; Raleigh, NC 27604.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, unless an appeal is requested
within sixty (60) days.
This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should
be directed to the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Stephanie Goss at
[phone].
Sincerely, A�l
-1 1 6 4
Karen Higgins
Supervisor, 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
cc: RRO DWR File Copy
Bob Zarzecki via e-mail at Bzarzecki(u)sandec.corn

19-176: Wake Stone Property
WStream I: Subject -Not
depicted on this map Stream 1: Not
depicted on this map
' 4
0 t
Stream 6: Not -
ep d on tMs tl icte map
Stream 5: Not
depicted on this map pond 1: Subject
V1
41,
Stream 2: Subject
Stream 4 Subject t,i'i _
- ' Nat depicted an �, � - Not depicted on
�i ~ r tms map Crabtree Crerk. Subject this map
,a
S o d pi Not Subject
Not depicted on thi3
map
Crabtree Creek: Subject
8� g
E �
Fridges
Ea ke
a
wTF f Af �--► �/ � [ sf
�+STv Map provided by NCDEQ
Legend:
Division of Water Resources
-Approximate Site boundary: . locations are approximate
and are provided for
-2016 USGS Cary, NC Quadrangle reference only

r'.
N
d
= N
m ^ N
z "
3°0
.a,o
d
a
=3 =
a ,no
in o
or n
3
mn m
LL Q
L ^ �
^�ao
Y [TG
aaLLa
N n
(A 4
0
a
a
m� a
C
^ E
3�
to
^
r
i
Y
O`
C;
w+
>
C
O
0 a
Y
c o
v
oU
w
m �
N
f0
jN>j
Q
Y
O
O
U
toy U
m �
3
q
fA
O
N
� l
+ r
a
N

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Direr for
Wake Stone Corporation
Mr. Sam Bratton
PO Box 190
6281 Knightdale Blvd
Knightdale, NC 27545-0190
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 4, 2020
DWR # 2017-1487v3
Wake County
Subject: AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE PER THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROTECTION RULES (15A NCAC 02B .0233) WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Wake Stone Corporation —Triangle Quarry — Bridge Across Crabtree Creek
Dear Mr. Bratton:
You have our approval for the impacts listed below for the purpose described in your
application dated April 7, 2020 and received by the Division of Water Resources (Division) April
7, 2020. Additional information was requested April 22, 2020 and was received on April 23,
2020. This Authorization Certificate shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
These impacts are covered by the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules and the conditions
listed below. Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits before
proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval requires you to follow the following additional conditions:
1. The following impacts are hereby approved upon issuance of modified Mining Permit
92-10 allowing for mining activities on the "Odd Fellows Tract" property and provided
that all of the other specific and general conditions of the Buffer Rules are met. No
other impacts are approved, including incidental impacts [15A NCAC 02B .0233(8)]:
Type of Impact
Amount Approved
Amount Approved
(units)
(units)
Permanent
Temporary
Buffers —Zone 1
Bridge
6,404 (square feet)
1 0 (square feet)
D E Q North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street i 1617 Mail Service Center ! Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1617
r� /"� 919.707.9000

Wake Stone Corporation —Triangle Quarry
Bridge Across Crabtree Creek
DWR # 20171487 v3
Wake County
Page 2 of 3
Type of Impact
Amount Approved
Amount Approved
(units)
(units)
Permanent
Temporary
Buffers — Zone 2
Bridge
5,645 (square feet)
0 (square feet)
2. Diffuse Flow
All stormwater must be directed and maintained as diffuse flow at non -erosive
velocities through the protected stream buffers such that it will not re -concentrate
before discharging into a stream. [15A NCAC 02B .0233(5)]
This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application. The plans and
specifications for this project are incorporated by reference as part of the Application. If
you change your project, you must notify the Division and you may be required to
submit a new application package. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given
a copy of this approval letter and is responsible for complying with all conditions. [15A
NCAC 02B .0233(8)(b)]
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. [G.S. 143-215.51
This Certification can be contested as provided in General Statute 150E by filing a written petition
for an administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH)
within sixty (60) calendar days.
A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at http://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH
Clerk's Office at [phone] for information. A petition is considered filed when the original
and one (1) copy along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal
office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:OOam and 5:OOpm, excluding official state
holidays).
The petition may be faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one copy of
the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5)
business days following the faxed transmission.

Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Wake Stone Corporation —Triangle Quarry
Bridge Across Crabtree Creek
DWR # 20171487 v3
Wake County
Page 3 of 3
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx,
etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to Department of Environmental Quality:
William F. Lane, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
This letter completes the review of the Division under the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer
Rules. Please contact Paul Wojoski at 919-707-3631 or [e-mail] if you have
any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
EDocuSigned by:
�'POV4*GsW0�
949D91 BA53EF4E0...
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
cc: Bob Zarzecki, Soil and Environmental Consultants (via email)
Michael Landguth, RDUAA (via email)
Judy Wehner, DEMLR (via email)
DWR RRO
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
Filename: 20171487v3WakeStoneBridge(Wake)_NRB

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2019-01286 County: Wake U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Cary
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Soil & Environmental Consultants PA
Attn: Bob Zarzecki
Address: 8412 Falls of Neuse Rd. Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
Size (acres) —105 Nearest Town Cary
Nearest Waterway Crabtree Creek River Basin Neuse
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates 35.841639,-78.774819
Location description: The project area is located on the north side of I-40 and the east side of Old Reedy Creek Road in Cary,
Wake County, North Carolina. PIN: 0767324317. The project area is limited to the area within the line labeled "PL" on the
attached survey titled "Plat of Waters of the US Survey for Wake Stone Corporation."
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and
reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. Therefore this
preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However,
since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which is not
sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters, including
wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
® There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the
Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.

SAW-2019-01286
® The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by
the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on 1/15/2020. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David E. Bailey at [phone] X 30 or
David.E.Bailev2 Ausace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: See the Approved Jurisdictional Determination forms dated 01/15/2020.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 03/15/2020.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
� Date: 2020.01.1514:32:34
Corps Regulatory Official:-05'00'
Date of JD: O1/15/2020 Expiration Date of JD: 1/14/2025
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so,
please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located athlt2://colpsmgpu.usace.gM.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Michael Landguth, Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority, 1000 Trade Dr. PO Box 80001, RDU Airport, NC 27623
Stephanie Goss, NCDEQ-DWR, 3800 Barrett Dr, Raleigh, NC 27609

Panel 5
Gf�
Giro ,'��"r rTafPy
rdrPAy k . 9
ky 550 �r
R
.r.^.MMM.Yw.I
".wrdF..w►�iwl yyM.MM4r•�EI[fy1i1R
•Jf ms1
. � �Nj1VI1f IIIIIlIIIry!!
oF�55i4 C�
•_-1.
SEAL
L-3245
+�
c at.'w.tiawww..r.nwrwir�.sr��.x •r IM�Ywa.
5uRv���4r�i
° '�^' I.r... �
Als�n�► Sina
Panel9
� �
�
.w.oelr..rerlr.-
`
...y Date:2020.5-
a... 111512020ry P­+s.
R
}ones Surveying and Cw wItm PLI.0
Plat of
Waters of the us survey for
for
-'
Wake Stone Corporation

Vicinity Map
NA
✓- r
of Raleigh Durham
oaf
p n�.
Iz
Property of Raleigh Durham International Airport
,Pam
Panel 4
D 100' ROO' Boo'
Graphic Scale 1 " = 100'
Jones Sury virigandconsultin&PtLl:
I LR�n yll Jp u. ft5 JL-3iASf
Plat of
Waters of the u5 Survey for
for
Wake Stone Corporation

of Raleigh !Durham International Airport
Property of Raleigh Durham International Airport
Panel 2
.eh L
Panel 5
—t f
Property of the State North
-
of Carolina
William B. Umstead
State Par.
I
r L
�
rrr�rrwwwnaw �
j'
wvms Roma rnw,a
Jw
a Mrw
AMnm�6i
o.ar«arn dMlk
lml �H na
Oe.R dlwre
�V1r•ryxa�l,�
n.weow dYii
>� w�c61 ]��
fi.3 ranew.nr,d
_1It�
�yy�:
OnEesra� d
106 rilwl[f
w N'w.iNuxu�
�
A
rar
ww«c,.esf erw
foW rillrin ss1m�
m �aesai menm.s
rIa YwuwM
na n.r
/
aru.. o... re,r
wow rm.r >aepssr
r� rw.r,wr..r.,.
9vrn.om K
1011 ]irCii NeraaO
NVHwM
��'
pond Wetland Fringe
na..r rre
MA ?WK
wsrsn> ova
. trnrvwr
❑. 143 AC. +/-
.mxw
aO�M rw�reed Mr
w x> xir,
]mra ]aBEa IDirsa
.c,e �.n rw�,..W
Olt
w
0 f00' 200' 300'
Graphic Scale 1 " = 100'
N Lr, m
":Dnd Wetland Frin
1, 143 Ac. +/
m
lanes Surverng and Consulting, PLLC
r ftn ll ]e . pts It-37 j
plat of
Waters of the US Survey For
for
Wake Stone Corporation

Pond Wetland Fringe
0.143 Ac. +/
1lli�f
nd Fringe
I •
Pond Wetland Fringe
0.143 Ac. +/-
Stream 6
245 Linear Feet/
0.022 Ac. +/-
Property of Raleigh Durham International Airport
dream 1
'_
Fal
L4
NeM
M1666.1
4ual I
20fi80II. 51-13�
aWl an
S noel
ma. WI4M
1115
)b166)9
20fi8013.B s1-23
Strtam ]tenter CM1annel
I116
M1650.fi
EOfi®Y.Ls s134
s[rea ]tenter Channel
4
SI-4S
Nrtam l Oeme, CM1annel
cue
n�sm.s
2asannl n-ss
Nreamla
s
7-1i)615663
2068 ea.e SI6B
svea 1Qnte,CM1annel
B
1120
)61s3).1
2060pSB.4 SI)b
Nrtam lOenter CM1annel
6
Stream 1
303 Linear Feet/
Pond/Open Water 1 0.027 Ac. +/-
ti 1MAc.
auh
� 9lream fi
IWn TNFxtl selptlon WI.- an WIMI.�2 20Yg9.2. m66ente,0unnelLO3 20fi9119. r2 mficentvchannel_II069125.sbs4SImambRnte,Channel2a69146 sbs320691 L sb)32lI691"n.%.9) )
1- 2069219.3 -4snea 6CenreCha068252.2 s 104 Scream6QnterCM1annel 4
EM
.N ...
etl d 2
Wwl3 Ww3.14r
Pa el
-A
3..
Panel 5
0
too' 200,
3100'
Graphic
Scale 1 "
= 100'
C
zza
R
A
of z
L� r
V;1.11
Jones Surveying and Consulting, PLLC
L. Randall Jones, PLS (L-3245)
Plat of
Waters of the US Survey for
for
Wake Stone Corporation

l 1
eh
Panel 4
Property of Raleigh Durham International Airport
Stream 4
435 Linear Feel
0.039 At- +/.
Stream 4A
v 20 Linear Feety
0.001 AC. +/-
Property of Raleigh Durham International Airport
fir: Panel4Afateh Line
Panel 7
U too, 200' Sao'
Graphic Scale 1 " = 100'
5t am5
50 Linear Feet/
o. 3 Ac.
Jones Surveying and Consulting, PLLC
wnd cones_PLS lL32/5!
Plat of
Waters of the US Survey for
for
Wake Stone Corporation

�r
-zr - F Ln
M
a a
am 5
Linear Feet/
3 Ar. *1-
Panel z
Panel 5
a
Property of Raleigh Durham International Airport
0 100' Poo' Soo'
Graphic Scale 1 " = 100'
Panel 5
A Lip
Panel 8
Now
�F;531t—'^iT
iEi11
maR3F�F�J�+sTr
"��''r..ifiFiti
�C�'IDF]tffi�itFlil
Stream 2
252 Linear Feet/
0.019 A[. +1-
ilk
aj a
M C
a a
t I
lanes Surveying and Consulting, PLLC
L ifanaNl lone. PLS ll-taesl
Plat of
Waters of the US5urvey for
for
Wake 5tone Corporation
lanes Surveying and Consulting, PLLC
L ifanaNl lone. PLS ll-taesl
Plat of
Waters of the US5urvey for
for
Wake 5tone Corporation

Feed
ti
C
f'[3
sai�c�a�e3�
e�sGol��'ti'
Qsopti��e�
Lo
aoel,3.
Panel
I, L. RAN DAL L ION ES, PLS certify that this project was completed under my direct and responsible
charge from an actual survey made by me; that the boundaries not surveyed are drawn from Wake
County GI5; that the ratio of precision of the positional accuracy is sub -meter, and that this map meets
the requirements of The Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina (21 NCAC 56.1600).
This _ day of A -kf-.l s ,, . 2019,
A CAR'..
SEALCr
��
vSEAL
���L��
L. Randall Jones = 't-3F45 _
co $
NC Professional Land Surveyor (L 3245)a-3Uy�a
Notes:
lj
Waters of the U5 (WoUS) including wetlands, streams, and open waters (pond)shown on this
map were delineated by Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC), 8412 Falls of Neuse
Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, N.C. 27615 and field verified by Ross Sullivan of the US Army Corps of
Engineers on August 21, 2019.
2)
NC State Plane coordinates shown hereon are referenced horixantaliyto the North American
Datum of 1983 using the 2011 Adjustment (NAD8312011).
3)
This is a wetlands and US Regulated Waters Survey referenced to the property lines taken from
Wake County GI5 Data.
4)
This 5urvey meets the horizontal a ccu racy standards for a Class B LIS/GIS SURVEY (sub -meter) as
set forth by the NC Board For Engineers and Land Surveyors in 21 NCAC 56,1609.
5)
Field survey was conducted using the Global Navigation Satellite System (GLASS) on July 8, 2019
using a Trimble GEO 7X (sn 5737479817) with external zephyr 1.1/1.2 Antenna (sn 31211179921)
and post processed in reference to the closest three (3) CORS Stations (NCR0, DURH, NC)L) with
Panel 6
Trimble Pathfinder Office software (versio n 5, 90).
T gie 6)
Several Existing Iron Pipes (EIP) (property comers) were also located along Crabtree Creek at the
Panel 9
time of survey and plotted on this map.
o too' 200, 300,
Graphic Scale 9 " = 100'
J Jones Surveyina and Consulting, PLLC
L ftFWAV l .- PO (L-9345)
Plat of
Waters of [he US survey for
for
Wake Stone Corporation

o ron' zoo' soo'
Graphic Scale 7 " = 7 04'
Jones Surveying and Consulting, PLLC
L Nan,411 mess, P6 I1•3245)
Prat of
Waters of the US Survey for
for
Wake Stone Corporation

Qj
C
S'6 tt3
IM
=��
0��
ny.rwr�
Wetland 1
�� ❑.D91 AC. '�-
,10
xasae
x�9
]n
nwo.
xen].t
Sn
xwac
�
w. arr
3
T0i
ax�L,na dir
sx
Tnsese anfex�
T0i
wn
[mf dw
re.s
>b
xurf LliSN.1
,�.
W
afxlS] s i.,
mi
p...T dine
fa
xwt ]o�i.T
So.
T d
orfi dlnk
ui
s
dick
.1
roi
aat r,i
a
Tq
r.eR.r o..f dir
ffif111S
fp
rbl,re [n.rk der
liffli] x VTYt
Tflf
Orf der
fa
xuff] zfe]nf
Toi
d
xe
xmt.t afleT3a
toi
d
vo
]resrss
diW
TS]
1
6fek duw
T3a
tV
rp
Pak drr
T
rp
hMa Cna d1r
f 10i
Ora dew
1f11fSi
]f16MBe 10f
r.w
1A
ei1]6T1
aMe]!e.] lOP
dens
xvTt1
itN2li ma
S1i
x,ee.i
aatr!'xe
Ie]
x]viT
a]w
P11k dIW
N,
T6,oua
aE¢.i 11x
g1kT dif•k
r
Tessoe
T(x
Gr1k dLs
4'1rf d4,!
]rPOa]
]IWOO Tpi
Oaf dW
>e
]aosii
Tifmle rn
ro.a rear
rcT,oat
rai
r r1w
Property of Wake 5tone Corporation
Wake County Registry gook of Maps 1982, Page 364
^
Panel 5
eh Li
Panel
['n 6trie Creek
wateriurf ce Area 3MAaws+j-
teng1h along CentPfll"e/Pmpp titre 6,Zl3feet
00
Property of Raleigh Durham International Airport
Q.Y
C
�
Cp
fQ
0
too'
200'
300'
Graphic
Scale
T "
= 100'
Jones Surveying and Cansuking, PLLC
L. RrMall ]ene], M R•32451
Plat of
Waters of the US Survey for
For
Wake Stone Corporation

00
0J
01
�
C
r6
ftS
Panel 5
6teh Li
Panel 9
Property of Wake Stone Corporation
Wake County Registry Book of Maps 1982, Page 364
200'
Graphical Scale
and post processed In reference to the closest three (3) CORS Stations (NCRD, DURH, NCJL) with
Trimble Pathfinder Office software (version5.90).
6) Several Existing Iron Pipes (EIP) (property corners) were also located along Crabtree Creek at the
time of survey and plotted on this map.
"This certifies that this copy of this plot accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction of the Section
404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a
period not to exceed five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing
the appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, 33 C.F.R. part 328 and other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers guidance."
Date: 2020.01.15 14:32:03
Regulatory Official:] -05'00'
Title: Regulatory Project Manager
Dare: 1/15/2020
LISACEAction 10 No.: SAW-2019-01286
0 100' 200' S00'
Graphic ,Scale 1 's = 100'
Jones Surveying and Consulting, PLLC
L. Randall Jones, PLS (L-3245)
607 Second Avenue KNIGHTDALE, N. C. 27545
Plat of
Waters of the US Survey for
for
Wake Stone Corporation
Sheet 1 of 10
Date of Survey: Jufy $, 2019
Jones Survo rig and Consu@iM PtLC
L. Randall b M PLS IL-1 45
Plat of
Waters oft he US survey for
for
Wake Stone Corporation

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
A licant: Soil & Environmental Consultants PA, Attn: Bob Zarzecki I File Number: SAW-2019-01286 I Date: 01/15/2020
Attached
is:
See Section below
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission
A
RED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission
B
DENIAL
LAPPROVED
C
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
INARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.q=.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ugulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David E. Bailey
CESAD-PDO
Raleigh Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportuni to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: David E. Bailey, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina
28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

AJD Form 1 - Streams 5 and 6
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section W of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): January 15, 2020
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Wake Stone Corp RDU 105 Acre Property/Wake
Stone Corporation/Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority/Cary NC/Wake County, SAW-2019-01286
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area is located on the north side of I-40 and the
east side of Old Reedy Creek Road in Cary, Wake County, North Carolina. PIN: 0767324317. The project area is limited to the area
within the line labeled "PL" on the attached survey titled "Plat of Waters of the US Survey for Wake Stone Corporation."
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Wake County City: Cary
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.8416387187234°N, Long.-78.7748193820444' W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 700966.44 3968669.84
Name of nearest waterbody: Crabtree Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Neuse, 03020201
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/21/2019
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 748 linear feet, 4 wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.L; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑ shelving
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ sediment deposition
❑ water staining
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
❑ the presence of litter and debris
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ the presence of wrack line
❑ sediment sorting
❑ scour
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:

-5-
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Streams 5 and 6 occur in natural valleys, and display strong bed and banks and several
indicators of ordinary high water marks. Both streams are deeply entrenched in their respective valleys and intercept
groundwater year-round during normal rainfall years. Both streams were determined to have perennial flow by the
consultant (S&EC).
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 748 linear feet 4 wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
'See Footnote # 3.

-6-
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.13.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-7-
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (S&EC)
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit RUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; Cary
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Wake Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC One Map (no date)
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
This form documents Stream 5 and Stream 6 (perennial RPWs).

AJD Form 2 - Stream 2
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section W of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): January 15, 2020
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Wake Stone Corp RDU 105 Acre Property/Wake
Stone Corporation/Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority/Cary NC/Wake County, SAW-2019-01286
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area is located on the north side of I-40 and the
east side of Old Reedy Creek Road in Cary, Wake County, North Carolina. PIN: 0767324317. The project area is limited to the area
within the line labeled "PL" on the attached survey titled "Plat of Waters of the US Survey for Wake Stone Corporation."
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Wake County City: Cary
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.8416387187234°N, Long.-78.7748193820444' W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 700966.44 3968669.84
Name of nearest waterbody: Crabtree Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Neuse, 03020201
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/21/2019
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 252 linear feet, 3 wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 92,971 acres
Drainage area: 12 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through' tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 10-15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS: Stream 2 (UT to Crabtree Creek; seasonal RPW) to Crabtree Creek (RPW) to Neuse
Rive (TNW)
Tributary stream order, if known: 1st
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
® Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: few
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: Flow during the low evapotrnaspiration period of the year (typically December through
April)
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics: Confined to stream banks
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ the presence of litter and debris
® changes in the character of soil
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑ the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® sediment sorting
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑ abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: unknown
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): mixed pine -hardwood; 200 ft.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Seasonal water source for typical wildland-urban interface species.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berrn/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)

-5-
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Stream 2 occurs in a natural valley, and displays bed and banks and indicators of ordinary high water
marks (see Section III.B.L(ii)(c)).
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 252 linear feet 3 wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
'See Footnote # 3.

-6-
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.13.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-7-
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (S&EC)
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit RUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; Cary
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Wake Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC One Map (no date)
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
This form documents Stream2 (seasonal RPW).

AJD Form 3 - Streams 4 and 4a
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section W of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): January 15, 2020
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Wake Stone Corp RDU 105 Acre Property/Wake
Stone Corporation/Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority/Cary NC/Wake County, SAW-2019-01286
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area is located on the north side of I-40 and the
east side of Old Reedy Creek Road in Cary, Wake County, North Carolina. PIN: 0767324317. The project area is limited to the area
within the line labeled "PL" on the attached survey titled "Plat of Waters of the US Survey for Wake Stone Corporation."
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Wake County City: Cary
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.8416387187234°N, Long.-78.7748193820444' W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 700966.44 3968669.84
Name of nearest waterbody: Crabtree Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Neuse, 03020201
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/21/2019
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 455 linear feet, 2-4 wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 92,971 acres
Drainage area: 3 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through % tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 10-15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Stream 4a (UT to Crabtree Creek; seasonal RPW) to Stream 4 (UT to Crabtree
Creek; RPW) to Crabtree Creek (RPW) to Neuse Rive (TNW)
Tributary stream order, if known: 1st
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
® Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: few
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: Flow during the low evapotrnaspiration period of the year (typically December through
April)
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics: Confined to stream banks
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ the presence of litter and debris
® changes in the character of soil
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑ the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® sediment sorting
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑ abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: unknown
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): mixed pine -hardwood; 150 ft.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Seasonal water source for typical wildland-urban interface species.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berrn/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)

-5-
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream 4 occurs in a natural valley, and display strong bed and banks and several indicators of
ordinary high water marks. This stream is deeply entrenched in its respective valleys and intercepts groundwater
year-round during normal rainfall years. The stream was determined to have perennial flow by the consultant
(S&EC).
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Stream 4a occurs in a natural valley, and displays bed and banks and indicators of ordinary high water
marks (see Section III.B.1.(ii)(c)).
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 455 linear feet 2-4 wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:

-6-
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-7-
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (S&EC)
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; Cary
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Wake Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC One Map (no date)
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
This form documents Stream 4 (perennial RPW) and Stream 4a (seasonal RPW).

AJD Form 4 - Streaml, Pond 1, and
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM Pond Wetland Fringe
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section W of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): January 15, 2020
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Wake Stone Corp RDU 105 Acre Property/Wake
Stone Corporation/Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority/Cary NC/Wake County, SAW-2019-01286
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area is located on the north side of I-40 and the
east side of Old Reedy Creek Road in Cary, Wake County, North Carolina. PIN: 0767324317. The project area is limited to the area
within the line labeled "PL" on the attached survey titled "Plat of Waters of the US Survey for Wake Stone Corporation."
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Wake County City: Cary
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.8416387187234°N, Long.-78.7748193820444' W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 700966.44 3968669.84
Name of nearest waterbody: Crabtree Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Neuse, 03020201
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/21/2019
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): r
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 303 linear feet, 4 wide, and/or 1.58 acres.
Wetlands: 0.143 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 92,971 acres
Drainage area: 79 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 10-15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS: Stream 1 (UT to Crabtree Creek; seasonal RPW) to Crabtree Creek (RPW) to Neuse
Rive (TNW)
Tributary stream order, if known: 1st
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Man-made spillway eroded down to bedrock over many
decades. Natural drainageway connection to Crabtree Creek was cut off when erathen
berm dam was constructed.
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4 feet
Average depth: 3 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
® Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Unstable; man-made spillway eroded
down to bedrock
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: few
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: Flow during the low evapotrnaspiration period of the year (typically December through
April)
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics: Confined to stream banks
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ the presence of litter and debris
® changes in the character of soil
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑ the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® sediment sorting
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑ abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
Identify specific pollutants, if known: unknown
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): mixed pine -hardwood; 150 ft.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Seasonal water source for typical wildland-urban interface species.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.143 acres
Wetland type. Explain: PEM
Wetland quality. Explain: medium -high
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: Flow during/following precipitation events.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics: Sheet flow from wetland to Stream 1 and Pond 1 during/following precipitation events
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 10-15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 500-year or greater floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Unknown
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Wetland is within 50 buffer of Stream 1 and Pond 1
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 100 ; herbaceous veg including Juncus effuses and Typha latifolia.
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Year-round cover and food source for common wildland-urban
interface species.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 1
Approximately 0.143 acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:

-5-
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Y 0.143
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: This wetland and others in similar
landscape positions receive preciptation-derived- and ground- water from surrounding land and occasional flooding
from abutting impoundment, retain and slowly release water, physically trap and retain sediment, allow
biogeochemical anaerobic processes (i.e. denitrification) to occur to improve water quality, and serve as
groundwater recharge areas. These wetlands serve as year-round cover and food source for a variety of typical
wildland-urban interface wildlife species.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Stream 1 occurs in a natural valley, and displays bed and banks and indicators of ordinary high water
marks (see Section IILB.L(ii)(c)).

-6-
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 303 linear feet 4 wide.
® Other non -wetland waters: 1.58 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: Pond 1 is an impoundment of Streaml. Pond 1 is formed by a man-made earthen berm
dam, and Stream 1 flows through a man-made spillway out of the eastern side of the dam.
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: Pond Wetland Fringe is a wetland along the edges of Stream 1 and Pond 1. This wetland
extends all the way to the banks of Stream 1 and Pond 1.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.143 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
® Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-7-
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (S&EC)
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; Cary
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Wake Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC One Map (no date)
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
This form documents Streaml (seasonal RPW), Pond 1 (Impoundment of Stream 1), and Pond Wetland Fringe (wetland abutting
seasonal RPW).

-8-
Pond 1 is an impoundment of Streaml. Pond 1 is formed by a man-made earthen berm dam, and Stream 1 flows through a man-
made spillway out of the eastern side of the dam.

AJD Form 5 - Crabtree Creek,
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM Wetland 1, and Wetland 2
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): January 15, 2020
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Wake Stone Corp RDU 105 Acre Property/Wake
Stone Corporation/Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority/Cary NC/Wake County, SAW-2019-01286
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area is located on the north side of I-40 and the
east side of Old Reedy Creek Road in Cary, Wake County, North Carolina. PIN: 0767324317. The project area is limited to the area
within the line labeled "PL" on the attached survey titled "Plat of Waters of the US Survey for Wake Stone Corporation."
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Wake County City: Cary
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.8416387187234°N, Long.-78.7748193820444' W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 700966.44 3968669.84
Name of nearest waterbody: Crabtree Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Neuse, 03020201
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/21/2019
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There � "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 6,219 linear feet, 24 wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.142 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.l.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 92,971 acres
Drainage area: 33,752 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46 inches
Average annual snowfall: 4 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 1 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 10-15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS: Crabtree Creek (RPW) to Neuse Rive (TNW)
Tributary stream order, if known: 5th
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
^ Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 24 feet
Average depth: 4 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ® Sands ❑ Concrete
® Cobbles ® Gravel ❑ Muck
® Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable; natural riparian vegetation
along banks and no signs of scour
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Present
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): <1 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Perennial
Estimate average number of flow events in review arealyear: 1
Describe flow regime: Perennial
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics: Confined to stream banks during normal flow and
overbank flooding during high flow
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® the presence of litter and debris
® changes in the character of soil
® destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® shelving
® the presence of wrack line
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® sediment sorting
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® scour
® sediment deposition
® multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑ abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Water typically clear, although well known fo high sediment load during heavy precipitation events.
Classified as a Nutrient Sensitive Water by the NCDEQ.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Sediment, nitrogen
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): mixed pine -hardwood; >300 ft.
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Present in pockets
® Habitat for:
® Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Known occurences of Atlantic pigtoe and dwarf wedgemussel within
this watershed
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Stream is of appropriate size and has appropriate habitat for numerous fish
species
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Year-round water source for typical wildland-urban interface
species.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.145 acres
Wetland type. Explain: PFO
Wetland quality. Explain: medium
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: Flow during/following precipitation events and flooding.
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined
Characteristics: Flow through cut-off channel for Wetland 2, and overland sheet flow from Wetland 1 to
Crabtree Creek during/following precipitation events.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
® Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Wetland 1 is within the Crabtree Creek 100-year floodplain
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
® Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: Wetland 1 is seperated by the natural levee of Crabtree Creek.
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 10-15 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50 - 100-year floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Unknown
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Wetlands are within 50' buffer of Crabtree Creek
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 25-50%; Platanus occidentalis, Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera,
Carpinus caroliniana, Microstegium vimineum, Arundinaria gigantea
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
® Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: Wetland 1 is a depressional-type wetland that provides
amphibian breeding habitat.
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Year-round cover and food source for common wildland-urban
interface species.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 30 (or more)

-5-
Approximately 585 acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Wetland 2 (Y) 0.51 Wetland 1 (N) 0.091
See attached list of similarly situated wetlands
based on USFWS NWI Mapping along relevant reach
of Crabtree Creek (Crabtree Creek floodplain (Zone AE)
along Stream Order 5)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: This wetland and others in similar
landscape positions receive preciptation-derived- and ground- water from surrounding land and occasional flooding
from adjacent RPWs, retain and slowly release water, physically trap and retain sediment, allow biogeochemical
anaerobic processes (i.e. denitrification) to occur to improve water quality, serve as breeding habitat for amphibian
species, and provide year-round cover, food source, and movement corridors for a variety of typical wildland-urban
interface wildlife species.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section I1I.1): Wetland 2 is hydrologically connected to Crabtree Creek (perennial RPW) as an abutting wetland, and
Wetland 1 is hydrologically connected to Crabtree Creek given its position within a floodplain subject to occasional
flooding. Such wetlands have the capability to capture overland runnoff and floodwaters, retain and slowly release water
and organic carbon downstream, physically trap and retain sediment, and allow biogeochemical anaerobic processes (i.e.
denitrification) to occur to improve water quality. These actions limit sediment and nutrient input into Crabtree Creek,
designated by the NCDEQ as a Nutrient Sensitive Water, which flows directly to the Neuse River within 25 river miles.
Such wetlands also serve as breeding habitat for amphibian species, and provide year-round cover, food source, and
movement corridors for a variety of typical wildland-urban interface wildlife species. As such, Wetlands 1 and 2, and

-6-
similarly situated wetlands, affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of, and have a significant nexus with, the
Neuse River, a TNW.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Crabtree Creek is a named blue -line stream on the USGS topo map, occurs on the Wake Co. Soil
Survey, comprises its own 10-digit HUC (0302020108), and is readily visible on all years of aerial photography. This
stream is known to flow year-round, even in drought years. Crabtree Creek was determined to be perennial by the
consultant.
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 6,219 linear feet 24 wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
Wetland 2 occurs within an abandoned stream channel, cut-off by the construction of the earthen berm dam for
Pond 1. This abandoned channel has subsequently silted in and partially vegetated. Wetland 2 extends all the
way to the banks of Crabtree Creek.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.051 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.091 acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
'See Footnote # 3.

-7-
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):lo
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (S&EC)
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-8-
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; Cary
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Wake Co. Soil Survey
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS data download, clipped in ArcGIS for Crabtree Creek floodplain
(Zone AE) along Stream Order 5 section of Crabtree Creek.
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
® FEMA/FIRM maps: NC Dept. of Emergency Management data download
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC One Map (no date)
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
This form documents Crabtree Creek (perennial RPW), Wetland 1 (wetland adjacent to perennial RPW) and Wetland 2 (wetland
abutting perennial RPW).

Significant Nexus Analysis - Similarly Situated Wetlands (based on NWI data within relevant reach)
FID
Shape *
ATTRIBUTE
WETLAND_TY
Shape _Area (acre)
1
Polygon
PEM1A
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
0.79017
2
Polygon
PEM1 F
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
2.275261
3
Polygon
PFO1/4A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
8.491559
4
Polygon
PFO1/4A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
0.356734
5
Polygon
PFO1/4A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
16.480319
6
Polygon
PFO1/4A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
26.589071
7
Polygon
PFO1/4A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
2.757841
8
Polygon
PFO1/4A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
29.767154
9
Polygon
PFO1/4A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
27.788048
10
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
2.165045
11
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
5.074249
12
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
6.968374
13
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
8.501524
14
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
5.300227
15
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
2.215693
16
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
4.432183
17
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
4.623431
18
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
0.44556
19
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
21.795437
20
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
6.460846
21
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
16.486423
22
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
4.163837
23
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
4.134964
24
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
0.386951
25
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
91.396428
26
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
85.440656
27
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
32.595371
28
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
85.970007
29
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
9.929925
30
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
0.452979
31
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
3.527805
32
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
12.40399
33
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
0.026185
34
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
0.234244
35
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
4.374376
36
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
2.160579
37
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
2.997565
38
Polygon
PFO1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
4.992395
39
Polygon
PFO5F
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
1.047778
40
Polygon
PSS1/4A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
8.302979
41
Polygon
PSS1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
3.085978
42
Polygon
PSS1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
1.285907
43
Polygon
PSS1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
2.376305
44
Polygon
PSS1A
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
8.737129
45
Polygon
PSS1C
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
1.350097
46
Polygon
PUBHh
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
14.076405

Rig-�
R■i;
■..�ee�s�Pea:

a
U.S. Department Airports Division
of Transportation Southern Region
Federal Aviation Alabama. Florida, Georgia,
Administration Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, U.S. Virgin Islands
April 29. 2019
Mr. Michael Landguth
President & CEO
Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority
1000 Trade Drive
P.O. Box 80001
RDLI Airport. NC 27623
Re: Lease Agreement between RDUAA and Wake Stone Corp.
Dear Mr. Landguth:
1701 Columbia Ave.
College Park, GA 30337
This is a follow-up to the letter dated March 21. 2019, from James Lofton. FAA Assistant Chief
Counsel, regarding the RDUAA mining lease (Lease) with the Wake Stone Corporation at the
Raleigh Durham International Airport (RDU). The RDUAA lease agreement involves
approximately 100 acres of airport property located 2.7 miles south of the RDU airport operations
area to the Wake Stone Corporation. This parcel of land borders an existing. oil=airport rock
quarry operated by the lessee. The existing quarry is approximately 8.967 feet from the nearest
aeronautical feature, and the quarry's expansion onto airport property, would be 8.822 feet from
the nearest aeronautical feature. The existing, approved ALP currently designates this parcel for
"Industrial/Quarry' use. The leasehold is comprised of land acquired by the RDUAA. with airport
revenue, between 1972 and 1984.
The FAA's Determination Regarding the Lease
In our March 21 letter, we explained the limitations Section 163(a) of the 2018 FAA
Reauthorization Act places on FAA's regulatory authority over: (1) the acquisition, use, lease.
encumbrance. transfer, or disposal of land by an airport owner or operator; (2) any facility upon
such land; or (3) any portion of such land or facility. We also explained the exceptions to those
limitations.
Based on: (1) information RDUAA has submitted to the FAA, and (2) a review of our records.
including the current Exhibit "A" map and relevant property deeds, we have made the following
determination:

• The lease does not appear to adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of
aircraft or safety of people and property on the ground related to aircraft
operations;
• No federal funding was used in the purchase of this parcel.
Therefore, the FAA will not require a release or other determination with respect to the lease.
Nevertheless, the FAA continues to have authority to ensure that RDUAA receives not less than
fair market value under the lease tenns and that the revenue received from the lease is used for the
capital or operating costs of the airport, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sections 47107(b) and
47133. The FAA may verify compliance with these requirements through a financial compliance
review, the enforcement of grant assurances, or other enforcement mechanisms at a later date.
Moreover, all of RDUAA's federal statutory and grant assurance obligations remain in effect
concerning the parcel. This includes the obligation under Grant Assurance 29 to maintain a current
ALP at all times. The FAA's review of the ALP indicates that the quarry as described in the lease
is already reflected on the ALP. However, should the leaseholder seek future expansion of the
quarry or other material revisions to the terms of the lease, then RDUAA should contact the FAA
to assure any proposed revisions to the lease do not change any of the conclusions reached in this
letter. RDUAA should retain sufficient authority over the parcel to prevent uses which conflict
with its federal obligations and related requirements or create conditions resulting in violations of
the assurances. Subordination clauses or other restrictions may be appropriate.
Applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act EPA
Because the FAA will not require a release or otherwise determine whether RDUAA properly
entered into the lease, and the ALP already reflects the quarry as described in the lease, there is no
FAA action subject to NEPA.
If you have further questions or need for clarification. please feel free to contact me at
404-305-6700.
Sincerely,
Steven Hicks
Director,
Office of Airports Southern Region

Question 2. The proposed mine expansion site, known as the Odd Fellows tract, appears to be
deeded to Wake County, Durham County, City of Raleigh, and City of Durham.
However, Wake County's tax map lists Raleigh -Durham International Airport as the
owner. Please provide substantiation or documentation to support your answers to
the following questions:
a. To whom is the title to the underlying property vested?
b. Does the entity identified in (a) meet the definition of a State Agency under GS
113A-9(9)?
c. Does the proposed mine expansion site include 10 or more acres of public land, as
defined in GS 113A-9(7)?
Response (provided by RDUAA)
2a.
[This information was provided by the Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority upon request.] There
are five parcels that make up Wake Stone's leasehold (sometimes referred to as the "Odd
Fellows Tract"). Three of these parcels are titled in the joint names of the City of Raleigh, the
City of Durham, Wake County and Durham County ("RDWD"). One parcel is titled in the joint
names of RDWD, care of RDU Airport. One parcel is titled in the name of Raleigh -Durham
Airport Authority ("RDUAA"). These parcels were all purchased with RDUAA funds.
Specifically, the deeds associated with the Odd Fellows Tract are recorded in the Wake County
Registry at:
(1) Deed Book 5054/Page 313 (filed February 16, 1972); Blanchard to RDWD
(2) Deed Book 2070/Page 69 (filed May 1, 1972); Barnes to RDWD
(3) Deed Book 2416/Page 433 (filed July 7, 1976); Sir Walter Lodge (the Odd Fellows) to
RDWD
(4) Deed Book 2489/Page 689 (filed April 1, 1977); Collins and others to RDWD "c/o
Raleigh -Durham Airport."
(5) Deed Book 3295/Page 80 (filed April 2/20, 1984); Joyner to Raleigh -Durham Airport
Authority.
RDUAA was created specifically by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1939 by
authorizing the establishment of the Airport and the creation of RDUAA to govern the Airport
property. (1939 N.C. Sess. Laws c.1) ("1939 Act"). The General Assembly has confirmed,
amended and enhanced the enabling legislation of RDUAA several times since 1939 through the
enactment of additional specific session laws that modify the 1939 Act or otherwise make
changes that refer specifically to RDUAA. See, e.g., 1945 N.C. Sess. Laws c. 79 ("1945 Act");
1955 N.C. Sess. Laws c 1096 ("1955 Act"); 1957 N.C. Sess. Laws c.455 ("1957 Act"); 1959
N.C. Sess. Laws c.755 ("1959 Act"). (These Acts and the 1939 Act may be referred to below as
the "RDUAA Acts".)

Starting with the 1939 Act and continuing through the remainder of the RDUAA Acts, the
General Assembly established that the RDUAA Board has "complete authority" over airport
lands jointly titled to RDWD. Therefore, pursuant to this statutory structure, these parcels were
purchased with RDUAA funds and jointly titled to RDWD in order to be under RDUAA's
complete authority'.
On November 8, 2019, an Order and judgment was entered in Wake County Superior Court in
The Umstead Coalition et al. v. RDUAA et al., 19 CVS 3859 and Plaintiffs' appeal is currently
before the North Carolina Court of Appeals. This order provides additional relevant information.
2b.
[This information was provided by the Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority upon request.] Neither
RDUAA nor RDWD meets the definition of a State agency under G.S. 113A-9 of SEPA, which
defines the phrase "state agency" to include:
every department, agency, institution, public authority, board, commission, bureau,
division, council, member of Council of State, or officer of the State government
of the State of North Carolina, but does not include local governmental units or
bodies such as cities, towns, other municipal corporations or political subdivisions
of the State, county or city boards of education, other local special-purpose public
districts, units or bodies of and, or private corporations created by act of the
General Assembly....
G.S. 113A-9(9) (emphasis added.) Clearly, RDWD are cities and counties, and are explicitly
excluded from SEPA's definition of State agency. As discussed below, RDUAA is properly
classified under that statute as either or both of the following classifications in the statute: (1) as
a "municipal corporation" or other "local governmental unit or body"; and/or (2) as a "local
special-purpose public district, unit or body. ,2 Thus, RDUAA is explicitly excluded from
SEPA's definition of State agency. 3
RDUAA was created specifically by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1939 by
authorizing the establishment of the Airport and the creation of RDUAA to govern the Airport
property. (1939 N.C. Sess. Laws c.l) ("1939 Act"). In doing so, the 1939 Act created a "special
' Beginning in the late 1970s and early1980s, airport property purchased by RDUAA was titled in its own
name.
2 SEPA defines a "special-purpose unit of government" to include "any special district or public authority." G.S.
113A-9(8). However, this phrase is used only in SEPA's section that allows a local government to require (through
the adoption of ordinance) an "environmental document" of either private developers or a "special-purpose unit of
government." G.S. 113A-8(a). This provision does not apply to this situation.
3 The remaining portion of G.S. 113A-9(9) not quoted provides that "in those instances where programs, projects
and actions of local governmental units or bodies are subject to review, approval or licensing by State agencies in
accordance with existing statutory authority, in which case local governmental units or bodies shall supply
information which may be required by such State agencies for preparation of any environmental statement required
by this Article." This language does not apply to this situation, since RDUAA is not, itself, undertaking any covered
activity; however, even if it were, this language would not make RDUAA a "state agency," but would simply
require it to supply information.

purpose local government" or a "special purpose" municipality. See, Kara K. Millonzi, "special
Purpose Local Governments and Public Authorities," Institute of Government (Feb. 10, 2015).
The North Carolina Supreme Court determined an airport authority created by act of the General
Assembly (as was RDUAA) to be a "quasi -municipal corporation of the type known since
McCulloch v. Maryland...." Greensboro -High Point Airport Authority v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 1,
9, 36 S.E.2d 803 (1946) (italics in the original).
The General Assembly has confirmed, amended and enhanced the enabling legislation of
RDUAA several times since 1939 through the enactment of additional specific session laws that
modify the 1939 Act or otherwise make changes that refer specifically to RDUAA. See, e.g.,
1945 N.C. Sess. Laws c. 79 ("1945 Act"); 1955 N.C. Sess. Laws c 1096 ("1955 Act"); 1957 N.C.
Sess. Laws c.455 ("1957 Act"); 1959 N.C. Sess. Laws c.755 ("1959 Act"). (These Acts and the
1939 Act may be referred to below as the "RDUAA Acts".)
The operation of public and municipal airports is governed generally by Chapter 63 of the
General Statutes governing Aeronautics, portions of which were enacted as early as 1929. G.S.
63-1 et seq. ("Chapter 63 ,)4 Under the 1957 Act, the provisions of Chapter 63 are supplemental
to the powers and authorities granted to it through the specific grants contain in the RDUAA
Acts. However, there are provisions of Chapter 63 that do not apply to RDUAA, such as the
provisions of G.S. 63-56 governing joint airports formed by joint agreement between multiple
local governments, which RDUAA was not: RDUAA was "formed" by the General Assembly.
To that end, through the 1957 Act, the General Assembly amended the airport's enabling
legislation to provide that "[i]n addition to all other rights and powers herein conferred, the
[RDUAA] ... is authorized and empowered to exercise the powers granted to municipalities by
the terms of Article 6, Chapter 63 of the General Statutes of North Carolina concerning public
airports and related facilities." While RDUAA falls within the definition of a municipality or a
"municipal authority," RDUAA is not a "city." See G.S. 160A-1(2) ("[t]he term `city' does not
include counties or municipal corporations organized for a special purpose").
Instead, RDUAA is properly characterized as a municipal special purpose unit of local
government as a "public corporation, authority, or district in this State, which is or may be
authorized by law to acquire, establish, construct, maintain, improve, and operate airports...."
See G.S. 63-1(a)(14). It is an independent governing body with authority provided by its own
enabling legislation.
On November 8, 2019, an Order and judgment was entered in Wake County Superior Court in
The Umstead Coalition et al. v. RDUAA et al., 19 CVS 3859 and Plaintiffs' appeal is currently
before the NC Court of Appeals. This order provides additional relevant information
4 Chapter 63 was largely enacted in its current form in 1945.

2c.
[This information was provided by the Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority upon request.] The
proposed mine expansion site does not include 10 or more acres of public land, as defined in GS
113A-9(7), because none of the land involved falls within the definition of "public land" under
Section 113A-9(7) of SEPA:
"Public land" means all land and interests therein, title of which is vested in the
State of North Carolina, in any State agency, or in the State for the use of and
agency or political subdivision of the State, and includes all vacant and
unappropriated land, swampland, submerged land, land acquired by the State by
virtue of being sold for taxes or by any other manner of acquisition, or escheated
land.
G.S. 113A-9(7) (emphasis added.) Thus, to be public land, title in the land must be vested in the
(1) State of North Carolina or (2) a State agency. The proposed mine site is not vested in the
State or a State agency; therefore, the proposed mine site is not "public land," as defined in G.S.
113A-9(7), let alone 10 acres or more of such land.
On November 8, 2019, an Order and judgment was entered in Wake County Superior Court in
The Umstead Coalition et al. v. RDUAA et al., 19 CVS 3859 and Plaintiffs' appeal is currently
before the NC Court of Appeals. This order provides additional relevant information.

Question 3. Does the proposed project involve any amount of public money, funding or other
assistance? If so, please identify the amount of public money, funding or other
assistance involved and the sources of such money, funding or other assistance.
Response (provided by RDUAA)
[This information was provided by the Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority upon request.]
RDUAA is not expending any public money, funding or other financial assistance that would
offset WSC's costs in leasing, permitting or operation of the mine. For purposes of answering
this Question 3, we assume that the phrases "public money," "public funding" and financial
assistance collectively have had the same meaning as the phrase "public moneys" as used in
SEPA.
RDUAA has leased the proposed mine expansion site to WSC in order to generate funds to
support the operations of RDU Airport. WSC has the sole responsibility under the lease to
undertake and finance all of the activities needed to permit, construct and operate the mine
contemplated under the propose mine expansion site. It is not RDUAA's responsibility to
undertake or pay for those actions.
On November 8, 2019, an Order and judgment was entered in Wake County Superior Court in
The Umstead Coalition et al. v. RDUAA et al., 19 CVS 3859 and Plaintiffs' appeal is currently
before the NC Court of Appeals. This order provides additional relevant information.
5 The phrase "other assistance" is so broad and ambiguous that RDUAA must assume that it is referring only to
financial assistance. RDUAA is supportive of WSC's proposed expansion and operation of the mine, so RDUAA
has made various statements or taken various actions that could be interpreted as being supportive of their efforts,
but we do not interpret Question 3 as covering those types of activities.

Question 4. Please provide documentation that the Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority has the
legal right and authority to lease the Odd Fellows tract and to sell the mineral rights
from this tract.
Response (provided by RDUAA)
[This information was provided by the Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority upon request.] On
November 8, 2019, an Order and judgment was entered in Wake County Superior Court in The
Umstead Coalition et al. v. RDUAA et al, 19 CVS 3859. That Order confirms that RDUAA had
the legal right and authority to enter into a mineral lease for the parcels known as the Odd
Fellows tract.
RDUAA's leasing authority derives from special statutes enacted by the General Assembly
starting in 1939. Per 1939 N.C. Public -Local Laws Ch. 168, § 7, as amended by 1955 N.C.
Sess. Laws ch. 1096, § 1, and 1959 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 755, § 1, RDUAA has, among other
rights, the authority to lease land "without the joinder in the lease agreements of the owning
municipalities, to wit, the Counties of Wake and Durham, and the Cities of Raleigh and Durham"
for terms not to exceed 40 years. Furthermore, as held in the Order, the authority to lease
property in North Carolina includes the authority to enter into mineral leases. See Order at p.9.
The RDUAA Board consists of eight members, two of which are appointed by each of the Cities
and Counties. Pursuant to the statutory authority conferred by the General Assembly, RDUAA
regularly enters into multi -year leases without needing joinder of the City of Raleigh, City of
Durham, County of Wake, and County of Durham as intended by the legislation cited above.
RDUAA currently has at least 44 such leases.
The Order cited herein in currently on appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and
RDUAA is defending the judgment regarding its statutory leasing authority.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
THE UMSTEAD COALITION; RANDAL
L. DUNN, JR.; TAMARA GRANT
DUNN; WILLIAM DOUCETTE; and
TORC (a/k/a TRIANGLE OFF -ROAD
CYCLISTS),
Plaintiffs,
V.
RDU AIRPORT AUTHORITY and
WAKE STONE CORPORATION,
Defendants.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 19 CVS 3859
ORDER
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the undersigned Superior Court
Judge on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This Court held
a hearing on the motions on September 19, 2019.1 With Plaintiffs and Defendants
being represented by counsel, and after hearing all arguments, and reviewing the
record proper and Court file, the Court determines that there are no genuine issues
of material fact and finds the following:
UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. Plaintiff the Umstead Coalition is a North Carolina non-profit corporation that
is dedicated to the appreciation, use, and preservation of the William B.
Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek natural area.
2. Plaintiffs Randal L. Dunn, Jr. and Tamara Grant Dunn are residents of Wake
County, North Carolina and live at 2232 Old Reedy Creek Road, which is
1 As the Court explained at the hearing of this matter, the function of the Court is not to
question the wisdom of the lease by RDUAA or whether other, better alternative uses of the property
at issue exist, but rather, its function in this case is to determine whether RDUAA was entitled to
lease the property without the joinder of the owning municipalities and, if so, whether RDUAA
followed the proper procedures in doing so.
1

adjacent to property to be leased by Defendant Raleigh -Durham Airport
Authority (RDUAA) for use as a quarry.
3. Plaintiff William Doucette is a resident of Wake County, North Carolina and
member of the Umstead Coalition.
4. Plaintiff TORC (a/k/a Triangle Off -Road Cyclists) is a North Carolina non-
profit corporation with the stated mission of ensuring the future of mountain
biking in the Triangle Area of North Carolina through promotion of responsible
riding, establishment and maintenance of mountain biking trails, and
preservation of North Carolina's natural resources.
5. Defendant RDUAA is a municipal corporation established by the City of
Raleigh, City of Durham, County of Wake, and County of Durham pursuant to
Chapter 168 of the Public -Local Laws of 1939 (hereinafter, the "RDU
Charter"). RDUAA's principal office is located at 1000 Trade Drive, RDU
Airport, NC 27623.
6. Defendant Wake Stone is a North Carolina corporation having its principal
office located at 6821 Knightdale Boulevard, Knightdale, NC 27545.
7. RDUAA controls a 105-acre parcel of land (the "Property") located off of Reedy
Creek Road and adjacent to both the William B. Umstead State Park and an
existing stone quarry currently operated by Wake Stone.
8. Title to the Property is vested in the City of Raleigh, City of Durham, County
of Wake, and County of Durham, per the deeds recorded in the Wake County
Register of Deeds in Deed Book 2416, page 433; Deed Book 2489, page 689; and
Deed Book 2070, page 69.
9. On September 8, 2017, RDUAA made the Property available for lease.
10. RDUAA received two offers to lease or purchase the Property. One was an offer
to purchase from the North Carolina Conservation Fund on behalf of William
B. Umstead State Park, and the other was an offer from Wake Stone to lease
the Property for quarrying.
11. RDUAA initially declined both offers on October 19, 2017.
12.On February 27, 2019, RDUAA sent out an e-mail notice that there would be
a special meeting on March 1, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss a long-term lease
proposal from Wake Stone to operate a rock quarry on the Property.
2

13.At the March 1, 2019 meeting, seven of the eight members of the RDUAA board
voted to approve the proposed twenty -five-year lease of the Property to Wake
Stone. The remaining member of the board abstained from voting.
14.A number of protesters were present at the March 1, 2019 meeting, bu_t the
Board did not provide any opportunity for public comment regarding the
proposed lease.
15.On March 1, 2019, RDUAA and Wake Stone signed and executed a twenty-
five -year lease of the Property (the "Lease") to Wake Stone for operation of a
rock quarry. The Lease also contains an option clause to extend the Lease for
an additional term of ten years.
16. The Lease grants to Wake Stone, during its applicable term, the right "to have
and to hold the Premises together with all privileges and appurtenances
thereto ... for the sole and only use of [Wake Stone]."
17. RDUAA did not seek the input or approval of the Cities of Raleigh and Durham
and the Counties of Wake and Durham before entering into the Lease.
18. Revenue generated from the Lease is intended to help fund airport operations.
19. RDUAA is currently party to more than 40 leases of ten years or longer, and
the Cities of Raleigh and Durham and the Counties of Wake and Durham have
never asserted or sought approval authority over such leases.
20. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directs that airport sponsors like
RDUAA use their non -aviation assets (such as non -aeronautical real property)
to generate revenues to subsidize aeronautical activities in order to reduce the
economic impact on aviation users and the aviation public.
21. The Property was included in multiple Airport Layout Plans including the one
approved by the FAA on November 20, 2017 in connection with RDUAA's long-
term development plan known as Vision 2040. That FAA -approved Airport
Layout Plan designated the Property for "industrial/quarry" use.
22. RDUAA acquired the Property with RDUAA funds and no federal funds or
grants from the FAA or other agency were used in the acquisition of the
Property.
23. Subsequent to the filing of Plaintiffs' complaint, the FAA also issued a letter
to RDUAA informing RDUAA that the FAA would not need to provide any sort
of release or approval in order for RDUAA to lease the Property.
3

24. There is no evidence that the Lease is inconsistent with any grant or
agreement under which the airport is held.
25. Plaintiffs filed their Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and
Injunctive Relief on March 12, 2019 in which they assert three causes of action:
a. Plaintiffs request declaratory judgment that RDUAA had no authority
to authorize the Lease pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 63-56(f) without approval
of the Cities of Raleigh and Durham and the Counties of Wake and
Durham, that RDUAA violated the Open Meeting Law in N.C.G.S.
§ 143-318.9, and that RDUAA violated the procedures for the sale of real
property in N.C.G.S. § 160A-272(bl).
b. Plaintiffs request declaratory judgment that RDUAA violated federal
and North Carolina law by approving the Lease without approval of the
FAA as required by N.C.G.S. § 63-47.
c. Plaintiffs request a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary
Injunction, and Permanent Injunction.
26.On August 7, 2019, RDUAA filed its Motion to Dismiss and Motion for
Summary Judgment. RDUAA also filed a supporting memorandum asserting
that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed as a matter of law and that
Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because RDUAA had
specific statutory authority to enter into the Lease, the Lease did not violate
applicable FAA laws and regulations, and RDUAA's decision to enter into the
Lease was not subject to any other statutory constraints asserted by Plaintiffs.
27.On August 7, 2019, Plaintiffs also filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In their supporting memorandum,
Plaintiffs reasserted arguments raised in their causes of action.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2017).
2. There is no genuine dispute as to the material facts found by the Court above.
Accordingly, the Court proceeds to determine whether any party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
4

3. In 1929, the General Assembly enacted An Act Authorizing Cities, Towns and
Counties to Establish, Construct, Improve, Equip, Maintain and Op erate
Airports and/or Landing Fields (hereinafter "First N.C. Public Airport .duct").
1929 N.C. Pub. Laws ch. 87. This First N.C. Public Airport Act allowed
governing bodies of any city, town and county to "jointly acquire, establish,
construct, own, control, lease, equip, improve, maintain, operate, and regulate
airports," id. § 4, but it failed to provide how an airport that was jointly owned
would be operated.
4. In 1939, the RDU Charter enabled the Cities of Raleigh and Durham and the
Counties of Wake and Durham to create what is now known as Raleigh -
Durham International Airport. The legislation provided that the governing
bodies of the cities and counties appoint a board that was legislatively "vested
with the authority to control, lease, maintain, improve, operate, and regulate
the joint airport or landing field." 1939 N.C. Public -Local Laws ch. 168, § 7.
Section 7 further provided that the board would have "complete authority
over any airport or landing field jointly acquired by the several governmental
bodies represented on the board." Id. (emphasis added).
5. In 1945, the General Assembly enacted legislation entitled An Act Relating to
Aeronautics; Defining Terms; Providing for the Acquisition, Establishment,
Construction, Enlargement, Improvement, Maintenance, Equipment,
Operation and Regulation of Airports, Other Air Navigation Facilities and
Airport Protection Privileges by Municipalities; Permitting the Acceptance of
Federal Aid; Authorizing Joint Action by Municipalities, and to Make Uniform
the Law with Reference to Public Airports (hereinafter "Second N.C. Public
Airport Act"). 1945 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 490. The Second N.C. Public Airport
Act expanded the First N.C. Public Airport Act and is now embodied in Chapter
63 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
6. The Second N.C. Public Airport Act filled the gap left by the First N.C. Public
Airport Act by providing for how airports jointly operated under the Second
N.C. Public Airport Act would be governed and operated. The Second N.C.
Public Airport Act provided, among other things, that: (1) municipalities may
by agreement jointly operate an airport, 1945 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 490, § 9(b);
(2) municipalities may create a board for the purpose of operating an airport
and such a board would be vested with the powers given the municipalities, id.
§§ 9(d)-(f). However, unlike the complete authority legislatively vested in the
RDUAA, the municipalities could, by agreement, limit the power and authority
of the board. Id. § 9(f).
5

7. In 1946, Congress passed the Federal Airport Act, which established a federal
program for the development of civilian airports. Federal Airport Act of 1946,
Pub. L. No. 79-377, 60 Stat. 170 (1946); see generally 49 U.S.C. ch. 471. Among
many other things, the Federal Airport Act provides for grants to civilian
airports. 48 U.S.C. §§ 47104-47107. Upon acceptance of a grant or grants, the
civilian airport is required to enter into and abide by a grant agreement.
49 U.S.C. § 47108.
8. The powers granted to the RDUAA board were further defined in 1955 when
the General Assembly revised section 7 of the RDU Charter. Among other
powers and responsibilities, the RDUAA was authorized "[t]o lease (without
the joinder in the lease agreements of the owning municipalities, to wit, the
Counties of Wake and Durham, and the Cities of Raleigh and Durham) for a
term not to exceed 15 years, and for purposes not inconsistent with the grants
and agreements under which the said airport is held by said owning
municipalities, real or personal property under the supervision of or
administered by the said Authority." 1955 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 1096, § 1. This
included the power "[t]o operate, own, control, regulate, lease or grant to others
the right to operate any airport premises, restaurants, apartments, hotels,
motels, agriculture fairs, tracks, motion picture shows, cafes, soda fountains,
or other businesses, amusements or concessions for a term not exceeding 15
years, as may appear to said Authority advantageous or conducive to the
development of said airport." Id.
9. The powers granted to the RDUAA board were further expanded by the
legislature in a 1957 amendment that stated, in part:
In addition to all other rights and powers [conferred in the
RDU Charter], the Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority ...
is authorized and empowered to exercise the powers
granted to municipalities by the terms of Article 6, Chapter
63, of the General Statutes of North Carolina concerning
public airports and related facilities.
1957 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 455 § 2.
10. That power of the RDUAA to lease without joinder in the lease agreements of
the owning municipalities was confirmed and expanded by a 1959 amendment
that increased the authorized lease period to "a term not to exceed 40 years."
1959 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 755, § 1.
1.1

11. Pursuant to these provisions, RDUAA has authority to enter into the Lease
with Wake Stone to operate a business that the authority finds advantageous
or conducive to the development of the airport because the Lease grants to
others the right to operate a business on airport property for a term shorter
than 40 years for the purpose of generating revenue for the airport.
12.Plaintiffs, citing Quinn v. Quinn, 243 N.C. App. 374, 777 S.E.2d 121 (2015)
(giving meaning to the word "otherwise"), and State v. Lee, 277 N.C. 242, 176
S.E.2d 772 (1970) (giving meaning to the phrase "other like weapons"), argue
that the phrase in the RDU Charter "other businesses, amusements or
concessions" is modified or limited by the types of business and uses
immediately preceding that phrase. Effectively, Plaintiffs argue that the other
businesses must be similar to restaurants, apartments, hotels, motels,
agricultural fairs, tracks, motion picture shows, cafes, and soda fountains
because, under the rule ejusdem generis,
where general words follow a designation of particular
subjects or things, the meaning of the general words will
ordinarily be presumed to be, and construed as, restricted
by the particular designations and as including only things
of the same kind, character and nature as those specifically
enumerated.
Quinn, 243 N.C. App. at 382, 777 S.E.2d at 126 (quoting Lee, 277 N.C. at 244,
176 S.E.2d at 774).
However, the Court of Appeals also stated in Quinn:
[A] court must be guided by the fundamental rule of
statutory construction that statutes in pari materia, and
all parts thereof, should be construed together and
compared with each other. Thus, courts must harmonize
such statutes, if possible, and give effect to each, that is, all
applicable laws on the same subject matter should be
construed together so as to produce a harmonious body of
legislation, if possible.
Id. at 381; 777 S.E.2d at 126 (citations omitted).
13. The original RDU Charter gave the RDUAA board complete authority over the
airport. Nothing in the amendments that followed reflects an intent by the
legislature to diminish that authority. Plaintiffs' argument runs contrary to a
7

reasonable reading of the legislation and ignores the General Assembly's broad
grant of authority to the RDUAA board.
14. Plaintiffs also ask this Court to view the phrase "other businesses" in isolation
from subsequent language in the RDU Charter in an attempt to make a
comparison to the catch-all phrases at issue in Quinn and Lee. To limit "other
businesses" to the preceding words "restaurants, apartments, hotels, motels,
agriculture fairs, tracks, motion picture shows, cafes, soda fountains" would
render the words "amusements or concessions" which follow the phrase "other
businesses" redundant as surplusage, as those types of businesses specifically
listed are essentially amusements and concessions. The phrase "other
businesses" must be construed and viewed in light of the remainder of the
sentence that follows, to wit, "other businesses, amusements or concessions for
a term not exceeding 15 years, as may appear to said Authority advantageous
or conducive to the development of said airport." 1955 N.C. Sess. Laws ch.
1096, § 1. Viewed in the light of the remainder of the sentence, it is clear that
the authority to lease extends to other businesses so long as the proposed
business appears to the RDUAA to be advantageous or conducive to the
development of the airport. This interpretation is consistent with the broad
grant of authority given to the RDUAA board.2
15. Furthermore, the Court concludes that the Lease is not inconsistent with any
grant or agreement under which the airport is held. The phrase "grant or
agreement" must refer to the grants and agreements by which RDUAA
operates an airport under the guidance and regulation, and with financial
contributions of the Department of Transportation/FAA under the Federal
Airport Act. The FAA has approved the industrial/quarry use designation of
the Property and maintains that its approval is not necessary for RDUAA to
lease the Property.
16. Because no federal funds were used to acquire the Property and because the
Lease is not subject to FAA approval, the Lease does not violate any federal
laws nor did RDUAA violate the section 63-47 provision that "public officers of
the State, counties and cities shall enforce the rules and regulations of the
Federal Aviation Administration." N.C.G.S. § 63-47 (2017).
2 To hold otherwise would first require each owning municipality to approve of the Lease, and
each owning municipality would thereafter have to agree to the terms of the Lease with the remaining
three owning municipalities. Such a result is not contemplated in any provision of the RDU Charter.
�:3

17. Plaintiffs argued for the first time at the hearing of this matter that the owning
municipalities need not be parties to the agreement but need only approve the
agreement. Nowhere is this apparent in the RDU Charter and it runs contrary
to the expansive powers given to the RDUAA board by the legislature.
Plaintiffs' contention that the governing authorities of the Cities of Raleigh
and Durham and Counties of Wake and Durham must approve the Lease runs
contrary not only to subsections 7(c) and 7(e) of the RDU Charter as amended
in 1959, which explicitly granted to RDUAA exclusive authority to lease the
Property, but also runs contrary to how RDUAA has historically leased
property without objection by the owning authorities. Moreover, with respect
to subsection 7(e) of the RDU Charter, as amended, in order to lease to other
businesses, it is only the RDUAA that must determine that the other business
is conducive or advantageous to the development of the airport.
18. Plaintiffs also are incorrect that the Lease conveys usage rights to the minerals
on the Property that exceeds the property rights associated with the ordinary
type of lease contemplated in the RDU Charter.
19. The term "lease" in the RDU Charter must also include mineral leases because
the General Assembly has indicated its ability and willingness elsewhere in
the General Statutes to exclude mineral leases from the general class of leases.
See N.C.G.S. § 22-2 (2017) (delineating "contracts for leasing land for the
purpose of digging for gold or other minerals, or for mining generally, of
whatever duration," and "all other leases and contracts for leasing lands
exceeding in duration three years" as contracts that must "be put in writing
and signed by the party to be charged therewith"). The General Assembly has
made no such distinction in the RDU Charter.
20.Additionally, the Lease does not represent a profit a prendre because "the
grant of a profit a prendre does not preclude the grantor from exercising a like
right upon the land or granting such right to others," State ex rel. Rohrer v.
Credle, 86 N.C. App. 633, 636, 359 S.E.2d 45, 47 (1987) (quoting Builders
Supplies Co. v. Gainey, 282 N.C. 261, 267, 192 S.E.2d 449, 453 (1972)), while
the language of the Lease here conveys "[a] possessory interest," which
"involves the exclusive possession of a certain space," Builders Supplies Co.,
282 N.C. at 270, 192 S.E.2d at 455.
21.RDUAA is not subject to any restrictions outlined in N.C.G.S. § 63-56(0
because RDUAA is not a board formed by an agreement between two or more
municipalities pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 63-56(d). It is instead an independent
7

creation of the General Assembly formed pursuant to the RDU Charter and its
powers are provided for in that legislation.
22. The RDU Charter was not superseded by the subsequent enactment of
N.C.G.S. § 63-56 because "[a] local statute enacted for a particular
municipality is intended to be exceptional, and for the benefit of such
municipality, and is not repealed by the enactment of a subsequent general
law." Bland v. City of Wilmington, 278 N.C. 657, 663, 180 S.E.2d 813, 817
(1971) (quoting City of Charlotte v. Kavanaugh, 221 N.C. 259, 263, 20 S-E.2d
97, 99 (1942)).
23. The General Assembly confirmed that RDUAA exercises statutory authority
outside of the powers of boards formed pursuant to section 63-56 when the
General Assembly stated in the 1957 amendments to the RDU Charter that,
"[i]n addition to all other rights and powers herein conferred, the Raleigh -
Durham Airport Authority ... is authorized and empowered to exercise the
powers granted to municipalities by the terms of Article 6, Chapter 63, of the
General Statutes of North Carolina concerning public airports and related
facilities." 1957 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 455, § 2.
24. RDUAA satisfied the Open Meetings Law by discussing the Lease at a meeting
noticed to and open to the public, regardless of whether public comment was
allowed, because the Open Meetings Law requires only that the "hearings,
deliberations, and actions of [public bodies] be conducted openly." N.C.G.S.
§ 143-318.9; see also Sigma Constr. Co. v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Educ., 144 N.C.
App. 376, 380-81, 547 S.E.2d 178, 181 (2001).
25. RDUAA is not subject to the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 160A-272 as asserted
by Plaintiffs because RDUAA is not a "city" as contemplated in that statute.
See N.C.G.S. § 160A-1 (2017) ("The term `city' does not include counties or
municipal corporations organized for a special purpose.").
26. As a matter of law, RDUAA has the statutory authority independent of the
Cities of Raleigh and Durham and the Counties of Wake and Durham to enter
into the Lease, and therefore, summary judgment in favor of Defendants is
proper.
As there are no genuine issues of material fact, Defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. That Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.
2. That Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
3. That Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED and the
plaintiffs' claims against them are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice
Signed this -(�— day of November, 2019.
The Honorable A. Graham Shirley
Superior Court Judge Presiding
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day a copy of the foregoing document was served on the
persons indicated below via electronic mail and by depositing a copy thereof in the United
States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Nigle B. Barrow, Jr.
J. Mitchell Armbruster
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500
Steven M. Sartorio
Raleigh, NC 27601
J. Gray Wilson
[e-mail]
SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT
Counsel for Plaintiffs
MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, LLP
PO Box 2611
Isabel Worthy Mattox
Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
Matthew J. Carpenter
[e-mail]
MATTOX LAW FIRM
[e-mail]
127 West Hargett Street, Suite 500
[e-mail]
Raleigh, NC 27601
Counsel for Defendant Raleigh -Durham
[e-mail]
Airport Authority
Counsel for Plaintiffs
This the 8th day of November, 2019.
Patricia P. Shields
HEDRICK GARDNER KINCHELOE &
GAROFALO, LLP
4131 Parklake Avenue, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27612
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant Wake Stone
Corporation
& w I"
Kellie Z. Myer
Wake County Trial Court Administrator
PO Box 1916
Raleigh, NC 27602
[e-mail]

Question 5. Please provide documentation that shows Wake Stone has complied with GS 74-
50(b1): the applicant or operator shall make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify:
(1) The chief administrative officer of each county and municipality in which any part
of the permitted area is located.
(2) The owners of record of land adjoining that lies within 1,000 feet of the permit
boundaries.
(3) The owners of record of land that lies directly across and is contiguous to any
highway; creek, stream, river, or other watercourse; railroad track; or utility or
other public right-of-way and that lies within 1,000 feet of the permit boundaries.
For purposes of this subdivision, "highway" means a highway, as defined in G.S.
20-4.01(13) that has four lanes of travel or less and that has not been designated a
part of the Interstate Highway System.
WSC response:
5(1). As previously mentioned, RDUAA's Odd Fellows tract (and Wake Stone Corporation's Triangle
Quarry property) are situated completely within the limits of Wake County. No portion of either
property lies within the corporate limits of the cities of Cary, Raleigh, or Morrisville. As such, "the chief
administrative officer of each county and municipality in which any part of the permitted area is
located" was determined to be Mr. David Ellis, County Manager for Wake County. On March 30, 2020,
notification of the proposed quarry expansion was sent by Certified Mail -Return Receipt Requested to:
Mr. David Ellis, Wake County Manager
PO Box 550
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(copy attached)
The notification included the "NOTICE" form from the Mining Permit Application booklet and a
generalize location map identifying the relevant properties. A copy of the notification letter was
included in the Mining Permit Application materials filed with NCDEMLR on April 8, 2020.
5(2) and (3). Staff of Wake Stone Corporation queried land ownership records found on Wake County
Tax Department web portal and determined the ownership of parcels lying within 1,000 feet of the
existing and proposed permit boundary. (Copies of Tax Cards are attached.) [Note: Parcels south of
Interstate Highway 40 (8 travel lanes) are excluded from the notification requirement pursuant to 74-50
(b1)(3).] Wake Stone's adjoining property ownership research identified 6 (six) adjoining owners to
whom notification letters, the "NOTICE" form, and a generalized location map were sent via Certified
Mail — Return Receipt Requested. Acknowledgement of delivery ("green cards") were received for all
notification but one. USPS tracking documented that that letter was received by the addressee although
the "green card" was apparently lost by the USPS. Adjoining owners requiring notification were
identified as:
State of North Carolina/Umstead State Park C/O Mr. Dwayne Patterson, Director
121 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615

Randall L. and Tamara G. Dunn
2232 Old Reedy Creek Road
Cary, North Carolina 27513
Betsy Carol Beals
2335 Old Reedy Creek Road
Cary, North Carolina 27513
Lloyd T. Edwards and Ellen E. White ("Edwards Family Heirs")
762 Mudham Road
Wendell, North Carolina 27591
Raleigh -Durham International Airport C/O Mr. Michael Languth
PO Box 80001
Raleigh, North Carolina 27623
NC DOT Wake County District Office C/O Amy Neidringhaus, District Engineer
1575 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Copies of the "green cards" and the USPS tracking documentation (for Mrs. Beals) were forwarded to
Ms. Judy Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist via email on May 4, 2020. Copies of the notification
letters as mailed to the above named 7 individuals were included in the Mining Permit Modification
Application submitted to NCDEMLR on April 8, 2020. (Duplicate copies of the notification letters and
"green cards" returned are attached.)

O
Z -<

\�
30

Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMaas
Account Summary Tax Bills
Real Estate ID 0118364 PIN # 0776275726
Account
Location Address Property Description
WAKE8825 GLENWOOD AVE WILLIAM UMSTEAD STATE PARK �Search
COUNW Pin/Parcel History New Search
NORTH CAROLINA am
Property Owner
NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF
(Use the Deeds link to view any additional owners)
Iwner's Mailing Address
TATE PROPERTY
IFFICE
16 W JONES ST
;ALEIGH NC 27603-1335
Property Location Address
8825 GLENWOOD AVE
RALEIGH NC 27617-7501
Administrative Data
Transfer Information
Assessed Value
Old Map #
403-00000-0001
Map/Scale
077601
Deed Date
1/1/1981
Land Value $525,145,000
VCS
05RA900
Book & Page 02920
0878
Assessed
City
RALEIGH
Revenue Stamps
Bldg. Value $1,615,319
Fire District
Pkg Sale Date
Assessed
Township
CEDAR FORK
Pkg Sale Price
Land Class
EXEMPT
Land Sale Date
ETJ
RA
Land Sale Price
Tax Relief
Spec Dist(s)
Zoning
R-4
Improvement Summary
Land Use Value
History ID 1
Use Value
History ID 2
Total Units
12
Deferment
Acreage
5,245.45
Recycle Units
0
Historic Deferment
Permit Date
Apt/SC Sqft
7,881
Total Deferred Value
Permit #
Heated Area
25,675
Use/Hist/Tax Relief
Assessed
Total Value $526,760,319
Assessed*
*Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at Taxhelp0wakeg ov.com or call 919-856-5400.

Home Wake County Real Estate Data
Ownership History
Real Estate ID 0118364 PIN # 0776275726
WAKELocation Address Property Description
8825 GLENWOOD AVE WILLIAM UMSTEAD STATE PARK
COUNTY Pin/Parcel History
NORTH CAROLINA
iMaps
Tax Bills
Account
Search
New Search
Disclaimer: The information on this site, including but not limited to the real estate "Owner Name" and date of acquisition, is
provided for informational purpose only and is gathered from public records submitted, filed and recorded with various
government departments, agencies, and offices. Although every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented
on this website is accurate and timely, it is not intended to replace information that could be obtained directly from any other
government department, agency, or office, nor should it be used as the exclusive basis for determining ownership or date of
acquisition of real property. Wake County makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information provided herein or the status of title to the subject real estate.
Owner Name Type % Own Stamps Book Page Date
Current NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF ALL 02920 0878 01-01-1981
1 Back NORTH, CAROLINA STATE OF ALL 0
*Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at [e-mail] or call 919-856-5400.

Home Wake County Real Estate Data
Account Summary
Real Estate ID 0068197 PIN # 0766517951
Location Address
WAKE2232 OLD REEDY
COUNTY CREEK RD
NORTH CAROLINA
Property Description
DUKE LD BM1911-75
Pin/Parcel History
iMaps
Tax Bills
Account
Search
New Search Am
Property Owner Owner's Mailing Address Property Location Address
DUNN, RANDAL L JR & TAMARA GRANT 2232 OLD REEDY CREEK 2232 OLD REEDY CREEK
(Use the Deeds link to view any additional owners) RD RD
CARY NC 27513-2111 CARY NC 27513-2111
Old Map #
Map/Scale
Fire District
Township
Land Class
ETJ
Spec Dist(s)
Zoning
History ID 1
History ID 2
Acreage
Permit Date
Permit #
Data
402-00000-0006
076604
05WC900
23
CEDAR FORK
R-0 0-HS
WC
r Information
Value
Deed Date
1/13/2011
Land Value
Book & Page
14236 1037
Assessed
Revenue Stamps
Bldg. Value
Pkg Sale Date
1/4/1988
Assessed
Pkg Sale Price
Land Sale Date
8/22/2005
Land Sale Price
$90,000
Tax Relief
R-40 1Ilmprovement Summary
Total Units
1.20 Recycle Units
10/13/2006 Apt/SC Sqft
0000071158 Heated Area
Land Use Value
Use Value
1 Deferment
1 Historic Deferment
Total Deferred Value
2,400
Use/Hist/Tax Relief
Value
$98,800
$316,684
$415,484
*Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at Taxhelp(Wwakegov.com or call 919-856-5400.

Home Wake County Real Estate Data
Ownership History
Real Estate ID 0068197 PIN # 0766517951
Location Address
WAKE 2232 OLD REEDY
COUNTY CREEK RD
NORTH CA RAt.1 NlA
Property Description
DUKE LD BM1911-75
Pin/Parcel History
iMaps
Tax Bills
Account
Search
New Search
Disclaimer: The information on this site, including but not limited to the real estate "Owner Name" and date of acquisition, is
provided for informational purpose only and is gathered from public records submitted, filed and recorded with various
government departments, agencies, and offices. Although every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented
on this website is accurate and timely, it is not intended to replace information that could be obtained directly from any other
government department, agency, or office, nor should it be used as the exclusive basis for determining ownership or date of
acquisition of real property. Wake County makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information provided herein or the status of title to the subject real estate.
Owner Name Type
% Own Stamps
Book
Page
Date
Current DUNN, RANDAL L JR & TAMARA QCD
ALL
14236
1037
01-13-2011
GRANT
1 Back DUNN, RANDAL L JR
ALL 180.00
11539
1769
08-22-2005
2 Back STRAUGHAN, CHARLES
ALL
04179
0445
01-04-1988
CHRISTOPHER
3 Back STRAUGHAN, CHARLES
1/2
04177
0164
12-31-1987
CHRISTOPHER
STRAUGHAN, VIVIAN W
1/2
4 Back STRAUGHAN, J FLEMING &
ALL
01166
0156
01-01-1954
VIVIAN W
*Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at Taxhelp(cDwakegov.com or call 919-856-5400.

Home Wake County Real Estate Data
Account Summary
Real Estate ID 0079738 PIN # 0766528101
Location Address
WAKE 2300 OLD REEDY
COUNTY CREEK RD
NORTH CAROLINA
Property Description
PT DUKE FARM TR3 BM1911-00075
Pin/Parcel History
imus
Tax Bills
Account
Search
New Search
Property Owner Owner's Mailing Address Property Location Address
BEALS, BETSY CAROL 2335 OLD REEDY CREEK 2300 OLD REEDY CREEK
(Use the Deeds link to view any additional owners) RD RD
CARY NC 27613-2113 CARY NC 27513-2113
Administrative Data
Transfer Information
Assessed Value
Old Map #
402-00000-0010
Map/Scale
076604
Deed Date
7/9/2014
Land Value $122,260
VCS
05WC900
Book & Page
14-E- 2279
Assessed
City
Revenue Stamps
Bldg. Value
Fire District
23
Pkg Sale Date
Assessed
Township
CEDAR FORK
Pkg Sale Price
Land Class
VACANT
Land Sale Date
10/24/1995
ETJ
WC
Land Sale Price
$15,000
Tax Relief
Spec Dist(s)
Zoning
R-40
Improvement Summary
Land Use Value
History ID 1
Use Value
History ID 2
Total Units
0
Deferment
Acreage
1.54
Recycle Units
0
Historic Deferment
Permit Date
Apt/SC Sqft
Total Deferred Value
Permit #
Heated Area
Use/Hist/Tax Relief
Assessed
Total Value $122,260
Assessed*
*Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at Taxhelp a0wakegov.com or call 919-856-5400.

Home Wake County Real Estate Data
Ownership History
Real Estate ID 0079738 PIN # 0766528101
Location Address
2300 OLD REEDY
COUNTY
CREEK RD
NORTH CAROLINA
Property Description
PT DUKE FARM TR3 BM1911-00075
Pin/Parcel History
iMaos
Tax Bills
Account
Search
New Search �A
Disclaimer: The information on this site, including but not limited to the real estate "Owner Name" and date of acquisition, is
provided for informational purpose only and is gathered from public records submitted, filed and recorded with various
government departments, agencies, and offices. Although every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented
on this website is accurate and timely, it is not intended to replace information that could be obtained directly from any other
government department, agency, or office, nor should it be used as the exclusive basis for determining ownership or date of
acquisition of real property. Wake County makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information provided herein or the status of title to the subject real estate.
Owner Name Type
% Own Stamps
Book
Page
Date
Current BEALS, BETSY CAROL WILL
ALL
14-E-
2279
07-09-2014
1 Back BEALS, ALLEN M JR & BETSY
JONES
ALL 30.00
06719
0311
10-24-1995
2 Back WRAY, C W HEIRS WILL
ALL
00677
0-E-
04-02-1993
3 Back WRAY, C W
ALL
02066
0493
01-01-1972
*Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at TaxhelpAwakegov.com or call 919-856-5400.

Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMaps
Account Summary Tax Bills
omoo Real Estate ID 0020176 PIN # 0766414911
WAKELocation Address Property Description Account
0 OLD REEDY CREEK SURVEY EDWARDS PROP BM2006-02617 Search
RD
COUNTY Pin/Parcel History New Search
NORTH CAROUNA
Property Owner
WHITE, ELLEN J EDWARDS
TRUSTEE OF THE CARL EDWARDS TRUST
(Use the Deeds link to view any additional owners
Administrative Data
Old Map # 401--
Map/Scale 076603
VCS CACA001
City
Fire District
Township
Land Class
ETJ
Spec Dist(s)
Zoning
History ID 1
History ID 2
Permit Date
Permit #
23
CEDAR FORK
VACANT
CA
ier's Mailing Address IlProperty Location Address
MUDHAM RD 110 OLD REEDY CREEK RD
JDELL NC 27591-8485 11CARY NC 27513-0000
Information IlAssessed Value
Deed Date 3/9/2017
Land Value
Book & Page 16716 0974
Assessed
Revenue Stamps
Bldg. Value
Pkg Sale Date
Assessed
Pkg Sale Price
Land Sale Date
Land Sale Price
Tax Relief
ORD Illmprovement Summary
Total Units
11.58 Recycle Units
Apt/SC Sqft
Heated Area
Land Use Value
Use Value
0 Deferment
0 Historic Deferment
Total Deferred Value
Use/Hist/Tax Relief
Value
$1,099,802
$1,099
"Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at TaxhelpCa)wakegov.com or call 919-856-5400.

Home Wake County Real Estate Data
Ownership History
Real Estate ID 0020176 PIN # 0766414911
Location Address
0 OLD REEDY CREEK
COUNTY RD
NORTH CAROLINA
iMaps
Tax Bills
Property Description Account
SURVEY EDWARDS PROP BM2006-02617 Search
Pin/Parcel History New Search
4W
Disclaimer: The information on this site, including but not limited to the real estate "Owner Name" and date of acquisition, is
provided for informational purpose only and is gathered from public records submitted, filed and recorded with various
government departments, agencies, and offices. Although every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented
on this website is accurate and timely, it is not intended to replace information that could be obtained directly from any other
government department, agency, or office, nor should it be used as the exclusive basis for determining ownership or date of
acquisition of real property. Wake County makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information provided herein or the status of title to the subject real estate.
Owner Name Type
% Own Stamps
Book
Page
Date
Current WHITE, ELLEN J EDWARDS
33% .00
16716
0974
03-09-2017
TRUSTEE OF THE CARL
34%
EDWARDS TRUST
EDWARDS, LLOYD T
33%
1 Back WHITE, ELLEN J EDWARDS WILL
1/3 .00
91-E-
1543
12-10-1991
EDWARDS, FRANCIS C JR
1/3
EDWARDS, LLOYD T
1/3
2 Back EDWARDS, FRANCIS C HEIRS WILL
ALL
01543
0-E-
01-01-1992
3 Back EDWARDS, FRANCIS C
ALL
00055
0-E-
12-31-1983
4 Back EDWARDS, FRANCIS C & JOYCE
ALL
01273
0167
01-01-1957
L
*Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at Taxhelp(cDwakegov.com or call 919-856-5400.

ml Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMaos
Account Summary Tax Bills
P=q Real Estate ID 0102676 PIN # 0767324317
Location Address Property Description Account
RALEIGH-DURHAM INTN'L AIRPORT 03-766-772 Search
WAKE2800AIRPORTBLVD
COUNTY Pin/Parcel History New Search
NORTH CAROLINA
Property Owner Owner's Mailing Address
RALEIGH DURHAM INTERNATIONAL 11PO BOX 80001
(Use the Deeds link to view any additional owners) 11RALEIGH NC 27623-0001
Administrative Data
Old Map # 345--
Map/Scale 076703
VCS GWWC001
City
Fire District
Township
Land Class
ETJ
Spec Dist(s)
Zoning
History ID 1
History ID 2
Permit Date
Permit #
25
CEDAR FORK
EXEMPT
WC
Information
Deed Date 9/26/1985
Book & Page 03565 0231
Revenue Stamps
Pkg Sale Date
Pkg Sale Price
Land Sale Date
Land Sale Price
AD -II Improvement Summary
Total Units 0
4,790.07 Recycle Units 0
3/24/2020 Apt/SC Sqft
0000034935 Heated Area 3,667,748
Property Location Address
2800 AIRPORT BLVD
MORRISVILLE NC 27560-
0000
Value
nd Value $845,054,569
Value $608,420,97
Relief
and Use Value
se Value
eferment
istoric Deferment
)tal Deferred
slue
se/Hist/Tax Relief
Value $1,453,475,543
*Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at [e-mail] or call 919-856-5400.

Home Wake County Real Estate Data iMa s
F_.W� Ownership History Tax Bills
'"O Real Estate ID 0102676 PIN # 0767324317
WAKELocation Address Property Description Account
2800 AIRPORT BLVD RALEIGH-DURHAM INTN'L AIRPORT 03-766-772 Search
COUNTY Pin/Parcel History New Search
NOR11If( AROI INS
Disclaimer: The information on this site, including but not limited to the real estate "Owner Name" and date of acquisition, is
provided for informational purpose only and is gathered from public records submitted, filed and recorded with various
government departments, agencies, and offices. Although every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented
on this website is accurate and timely, it is not intended to replace information that could be obtained directly from any other
government department, agency, or office, nor should it be used as the exclusive basis for determining ownership or date of
acquisition of real property. Wake County makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy,
completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information provided herein or the status of title to the subject real estate.
Owner Name Type % Own Stamps Book Page Date
Current RALEIGH DURHAM ALL 03565 0231 09-26-1985
INTERNATIONAL
1 Back RALEIGH DURHAM ALL 0
INTERNATIONAL
RALEIGH DURHAM AP RAL DUR ALL
WAKE DURH
"Wake County assessed building and land values reflect the market value as of January 1, 2020, which is the
date of the last county -wide revaluation. Any inflation, deflation or other economic changes occurring after this
date does not affect the assessed value of the property and cannot be lawfully considered when reviewing the
value for adjustment.
The January 1, 2020 values will remain in effect until the next county -wide revaluation. Until that time, any real
estate accounts created or new construction built is assessed according to the 2020 Schedule of Values.
For questions regarding the information displayed on this site, please contact the Department of Tax
Administration at Taxhelp()wakegov.com or call 919-856-5400.

l
f'
C�t
(�<i�
F
' Y Wake
tone Corporation
S-
www.wakestonecorp.com
Quarry Phone Numbers:
Locations: Business Office Address:
919/266-9266 - Knightdale
6811 Knightdale Blvd., Knightdale, N.C. 6821Knightdale Box 190
Blvd.
919/677-0050 - Triangle
919/775-7349 - Moncure
222 Star Lane, Cary, N.C.
9725 Stone Quarry Rd., Moncure, N.C. Knightdale, N.C. 27545
252/985-4411 - Nash County
7379 North Halifax Rd., Battleboro, N.C. Fa919/966-110049
Hwy 9 Business East, Loris, S.C.
843/756-3400 - N Myrtle Beach
3990
March 30, 2020
By Certified Mail
Mr, David Ellis, Wake County Manager
PO Box 550
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Subject: Wake Stone Corporation Triangle Quarry
Mining Permit Modification
Dear Mr, Ellis:
Pursuant to the provisions of NCGS 74-50 (b.1.) of the Mining Act of 1971, we are by this letter
notifying you of our intent to submit a Mining Permit Modification Application to the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEMLR).
These application materials will detail our plans for increasing the permitted areas and expansion of the
existing Triangle Quarry onto the property governed by our Mineral Lease Agreement with the Raleigh -
Durham Airport Authority (see enclosed site map). We anticipate submittal of this application to
NCDEMLR on or before April 2, 2020.
Once submitted to NCDEMLR, the Mining Permit Application materials will be available for
public review and comment. You may also call our corporate office at [phone] and either Samuel
T. Bratton, President and CEO or I will answer any question you may have concerning this mine site
expansion.
Sincerely,
Wake Stone Corporation
Davi F. Lee
Head Geologist/Environmental Supervisor
Enclosures

NOTICE
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50(bI) of The Mining Act of 1971, Notice is hereby given that
Wake Stone Corporation will apply on or about
(Applicant Name) (Date)
to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612, for (check one):
❑ a new surface mining permit,
X a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area; or
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area with no disturbance
in the area proposed. Please note that future modification(s) may be submitted by the applicant to
allow disturbance within this area without re -notification of adjoining landowners.
The applicant proposes to mine stone on 329 acres located
(Mineral, Ore) (Number) (Miles)
North of Interstate 40 northwest of Cary. NC off/near road Old Reedy Creek Road
(Direction) (Nearest Town) (Number/Name)
in Wake County.
*SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARIES AND CORRESPONDING
ADJOINING LANDOWNER NAMES AND LOCATIONS*
In accordance with G.S. 74-50(b 1), the mine operator is required to make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
mining permit boundary; if an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the
mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts must be notified (that are within 1,000 feet of the
mining permit boundary). In addition, the mine operator must also notify the chief administrative officer of the
county or municipality in which any part of the permitted area is located. Any person may file written comment(s)
to the Department at the above address within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the
application for a permit, whichever is later. Should the Department determine that a significant public interest
exists relative to G.S. 74-51, a public hearing will be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day comment period
specified above.
A copy of the permit application materials is on file and available for public review during normal business
hours at the above listed address as well as at the appropriate regional office. For information regarding the
mininty aet"ty nlPasP enntaet the applicant at the following telephone number:
919-266-1100 (Sam Bratton) . For mtormation on the mining
contact the Mining Program staff at [phone]. Please note that
review
review process until a tinal decision is mace on me appnuauuii.
(Addressee/Owner of Record's (Name of Applicant: Include Contact Person
Name and Address) & Company Name, if Applicable)
David Ellis, Wake County Manager Wake Stone Corporation
Wake County Office Attn: Sam Bratton
PO Box 550 PO Box 190
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
(Date of Issuance of this Notice/ (Address of Applicant)
Mailed to Addressee/Owner of Record)

b
�..;.� Wake Stone
Corporation
www. wa kesto neco rp.com
Quarry Phone Numbers: Locations:
919/266-9266 - Knightdale 6811 Knightdale Blvd., Knightdale, N.C.
919/677-0050 - Triangle 222 Star Lane, Cary, N.C.
919/775-7349 - Moncure 9725 Stone Quarry Rd., Moncure, N.C.
252/985-4411 - Nash County 7379 North Halifax Rd., Battleboro, N.C.
843/756-3400 - N. Myrtle Beach 3990 Hwy 9 Business East, Loris, S.C.
March 30, 2020
By Certified Mail
Mr. Dwayne Patterson, Director
North Carolina State Parks
121 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615
Subject: Wake Stone Corporation Triangle Quarry
Mining Permit Modification
Dear Mr. Patterson:
Business Office Address:
P.O. Box 190
6821 Knightdale Blvd.
Knightdale, N.C. 27545
919/266-1100
Fax: [phone]
Pursuant to the provisions of NCGS 74-50 (b.1.) of the Mining Act of 1971, we are by this letter
notifying you of our intent to submit a Mining Permit Modification Application to the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEMLR).
These application materials will detail our plans for increasing the permitted areas and expansion of the
existing Triangle Quarry onto the property governed by our Mineral Lease Agreement with the Raleigh -
Durham Airport Authority (see enclosed site map). We anticipate submittal of this application to
NCDEMLR on or before April 2, 2020.
Once submitted to NCDEMLR, the Mining Permit Application materials will be available for
public review and comment. You may also call our corporate office at [phone] and either Samuel
T. Bratton, President and CEO or I will answer any question you may have concerning this mine site
expansion.
Sincerely,
Wake Stone Corporation
,(its
David F. Lee
Head Geologist/Environmental Supervisor
Enclosures

NOTICE
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50(bl) of The Mining Act of 1971, Notice is hereby given that
Wake Stone Corporation will apply on or about
(Applicant Name) (Date)
to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612, for (check one):
❑ a new surface mining permit,
X a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area; or
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area with no disturbance
in the area proposed. Please note that future modification(s) may be submitted by the applicant to
allow disturbance within this area without re -notification of adjoining landowners.
The applicant proposes to mine stone on 329 acres located
(Mineral, Ore) (Number) (Miles)
North of Interstate 40 northwest of Cam NC off/near road Old Reedy Creek Road
(Direction) (Nearest Town) (Number/Name)
in Wake County.
*SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARIES AND CORRESPONDING
ADJOINING LANDOWNER NAMES AND LOCATIONS*
In accordance with G.S. 74-50(bl), the mine operator is required to make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
mining permit boundary; if an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the
mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts must be notified (that are within 1,000 feet of the
mining permit boundary). In addition, the mine operator must also notify the chief administrative officer of the
county or municipality in which any part of the permitted area is located. Any person may file written comment(s)
to the Department at the above address within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the
application for a permit, whichever is later. Should the Department determine that a significant public interest
exists relative to G.S. 74-5 1, a public hearing will be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day comment period
specified above.
A copy of the permit application materials is on file and available for public review during normal business
hours at the above listed address as well as at the appropriate regional office. For information regarding the
contact
. r or mrormation on
at [phone]. Plea:
is
note
review
(Addressee/Owner of Record's (Name of Applicant: Include Contact Person
Name and Address) & Company Name, if Applicable)
Dwayne Patterson, Director Wake Stone Corporation
North Carolina State Parks PO Box 190
121 West Jones Street Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615
(Date of Issuance of this Notice/ (Address of Applicant)
Mailed to Addressee/Owner of Record)
-27-

i4
A. O j'
Ware Stone Corporation
www.wakestonecorp.com
(quarry Phone Numbers: Locations: Business Office Address:
919/266-9266 - Knightdale 6811 Knightdale Blvd., Knightdale, N.C. 6821 ,Box 190
Knightdale 919/677-0050 - Triangle 222 Star Lane, Cary, N.C.
919/775-7349 - Moncure 9725 Stone Quarry Rd., Moncure, N.C. Knightdale,
jC o7545
252/985-4411 - Nash County 7379 North Halifax Rd., Battleboro, N.C.
843/756-3400 - N. Myrtle Beach 3990 Hwy 9 Business East, Loris, S.C. Fax: [phone]
March 30, 2020
By Certified Mail
Mr, Randall L. and Tamara G. Dunn
2232 Old Reedy Creek Road
Cary, North Carolina 27513-2111
Subject: Wake Stone Corporation Triangle Quarry
Mining Permit Modification
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dunn:
Pursuant to the provisions of NCGS 74-50 (b.1.) of the Mining Act of 1971, we are by this letter
notifying you of our intent to submit a Mining Permit Modification Application to the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEMLR).
These application materials will detail our plans for increasing the permitted areas and expansion of the
existing Triangle Quarry onto the property governed by our Mineral Lease Agreement with the Raleigh -
Durham Airport Authority (see enclosed site map). We anticipate submittal of this application to
NCDEMLR on or before April 2, 2020.
Once submitted to NCDEMLR, the Mining Permit Application materials will be available for
public review and comment. You may also call our corporate office at [phone] and either Samuel
T. Bratton, President and CEO or I will answer any question you may have concerning this mine site
expansion.
Sincerely,
Wake Stone Corporation
&�
Da F.Lee
Head Geologist/Environmental Supervisor
Enclosures

NOTICE
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50(b 1) of The Mining Act of 1971, Notice is hereby given that
Wake Stone Corporation will apply on or about
(Applicant Name) (Date)
to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612, for (check one):
❑ a new surface mining permit,
X a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area; or
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area with no disturbance
in the area proposed. Please note that future modification(s) may be submitted by the applicant to
allow disturbance within this area without re -notification of adjoining landowners.
The applicant proposes to mine stone on 329 acres located
(Mineral, Ore) (Number) (Miles)
North of Interstate 40 northwest of Cary. NC off/near road Old Reedv Creek Road
(Direction) (Nearest Town) (Number/Name)
in Wake County.
*SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARIES AND CORRESPONDING
ADJOINING LANDOWNER NAMES AND LOCATIONS*
In accordance with G.S. 74-50(b 1), the mine operator is required to make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
mining permit boundary; if an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the
mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts must be notified (that are within 1,000 feet of the
mining permit boundary). In addition, the mine operator must also notify the chief administrative officer of the
county or municipality in which any part of the permitted area is located. Any person may file written comment(s)
to the Department at the above address within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the
application for a permit, whichever is later. Should the Department determine that a significant public interest
exists relative to G.S. 74-51, a public hearing will be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day comment period
specified above.
A copy of the permit application materials is on file and available for public review during normal business
hours at the above listed address as well as at the appropriate regional office. For information regarding the
th,. annnrcint nt the fnllnwinQ telenhone number:
919-266-1100 (Sam Bratton) . For information on the mining permit
contact the Mining Program staff at [phone]. Please note that the Dei
(Addressee/Owner of Record's (Name of Applicant: Include Contact Person
Name and Address) & Company Name, if Applicable)
Randall L. and Tamara G. Dunn Wake Stone Corporation
2232 Old Reedy Creek Road Attn: Sam Bratton
Cary, North Carolina 27513-2111 PO Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
(Date of Issuance of this Notice/ (Address of Applicant)
Mailed to Addressee/Owner of Record)
-26-

r
4GILS Co O
Wake Stone Corporation
www.wakestonecorp.com
Quarry Phone Numbers: Locations: Business Office Address:
919/266-9266 - Knightdale 6811 Knightdale Blvd., Knightdale, N.C. 6821P.0.'Box
190
919/677-0050 - Triangle 222 Star Lane, Cary, N.C. Knightdale Blvd
919/775-7349 - Moncure 9725 Stone Quarry Rd , Moncure, N.C. Knightdale, N.C. 27545
252/985-4411 - Nash County 7379 North Halifax Rd., Battleboro, N.C. 919/266-1100
843/756-3400 - N. Myrtle Beach 3990 Hwy 9 Business East, Loris, S.C. Fax: [phone]
March 30, 2020
By Certified Mai!
Betsy Carol Beals
2335 Old Reedy Creek Road
Cary, North Carolina 27513-2113
Subject: Wake Stone Corporation Triangle Quarry
Mining Permit Modification
Dear Mrs. Beals:
Pursuant to the provisions of NCGS 74-50 (b.1.) of the Mining Act of 1971, we are by this letter
notifying you of our intent to submit a Mining Permit Modification Application to the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEMLR).
These application materials will detail our plans for increasing the permitted areas and expansion of the
existing Triangle Quarry onto the property governed by our Mineral Lease Agreement with the Raleigh -
Durham Airport Authority (see enclosed site map). We anticipate submittal of this application to
NCDEMLR on or before April 2, 2020.
Once submitted to NCDEMLR, the Mining Permit Application materials will be available for
public review and comment. You may also call our corporate office at [phone] and either Samuel
T. Bratton, President and CEO or I will answer any question you may have concerning this mine site
expansion.
Sincerely,
Wake Stone Corporation
David F Lee
Head Geologist/Environmental Supervisor
Enclosures

NOTICE
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50(b1) of The Mining Act of 1971, Notice is hereby given that
Wake Stone Corporation will apply on or about
(Applicant Name) (Date)
to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612, for (check one):
❑ a new surface mining permit,
X a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area; or
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area with no disturbance
in the area proposed. Please note that future modification(s) may be submitted by the applicant to
allow disturbance within this area without re -notification of adjoining landowners.
The applicant proposes to mine stone on 329 acres located
(Mineral, Ore) (Number) (Miles)
North of Interstate 40 northwest of Carv. NC off/near road Old Reedy Creek Road
(Direction) (Nearest Town) (Number/Name)
in Wake County.
*SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARIES AND CORRESPONDING
ADJOINING LANDOWNER NAMES AND LOCATIONS*
In accordance with G.S. 74-50(bl), the mine operator is required to make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
mining permit boundary; if an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the
mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts must be notified (that are within 1,000 feet of the
mining permit boundary). In addition, the mine operator must also notify the chief administrative officer of the
county or municipality in which any part of the permitted area is located. Any person may file written comment(s)
to the Department at the above address within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the
application for a permit, whichever is later. Should the Department determine that a significant public interest
exists relative to G.S. 74-51, a public hearing will be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day comment period
specified above.
A copy of the permit application materials is on file and available for public review during normal business
hours at the above listed address as well as at the appropriate regional office. For information regarding the
-f tho nvnnned-d minina netivity_ nleace contact the applicant at the following telephone number:
919-266-1100 (Sam Bratton) . For information on the mining permit application review
contact the Mining Program staff at [phone]. Please note that the Department will consi
(Aaaresseeivwner of necoru
Name and Address)
Betsy Carol Beals
2335 Old Reedy Creek Road
Cary, North Carolina 27513-2113
(Date of Issuance of this Notice/
Mailed to Addressee/Owner of Record)
,Name of Applicant: Include Contact
& Company Name, if Applicable)
Wake Stone Corporation
-25-
Attn: Sam Bratton
PO Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
(Address of Applicant)

sy4o�t C * o;
Wake Stone Corporation
www.wakestonecorp.com
Quarry Phone Numbers:
Locations:
Business Office Address:
919/266-9266 - Knightdale
6811 Knightdale Blvd., Knightdale, N.C.
P.O. Box 190
6821 Knightdale Blvd.
919/677-0050 - Triangle
919/775-7349 - Moncure
222 Star Lane, Cary, N.C.
9725 Stone Quarry Rd., Moncure, N.C.
Knightdale, N.C. 27545
252/985-4411 - Nash County
7379 North Halifax Rd., Battleboro, N.C.
919/266-1 100
Fax: [phone]
843/756-3400 - N. Myrtle Beach
3990 Hwy 9 Business East, Loris, S.C.
March 30, 2020
By Certified Mail
Lloyd T. Edwards and Ellen J. Edwards White
762 Mudham Road
Wendell, North Carolina 27591
Subject: Wake Stone Corporation Triangle Quarry
Mining Permit Modification
Dear Mr. Edward and Mrs. White:
Pursuant to the provisions of NCGS 74-50 (b.1.) of the Mining Act of 1971, we are by this letter
notifying you of our intent to submit a Mining Permit Modification Application to the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEMLR).
These application materials will detail our plans for increasing the permitted areas and expansion of the
existing Triangle Quarry onto the property governed by our Mineral Lease Agreement with the Raleigh -
Durham Airport Authority (see enclosed site map). We anticipate submittal of this application to
NCDEMLR on or before April 2, 2020.
Once submitted to NCDEMLR, the Mining Permit Application materials will be available for
public review and comment. You may also call our corporate office at [phone] and either Samuel
T. Bratton, President and CEO or I will answer any question you may have concerning this mine site
expansion.
Sincerely,
Wake Stone Corporation
4ay. Lee
Head Geologist/Environmental Supervisor
Enclosures

NOTICE
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50(bI) of The Mining Act of 1971, Notice is hereby given that
Wake Stone Corporation will apply on or about
(Applicant Name) (Date)
to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612, for (check one):
❑ a new surface mining permit,
X a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area; or
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area with no disturbance
in the area proposed. Please note that future modification(s) may be submitted by the applicant to
allow disturbance within this area without re -notification of adjoining landowners.
The applicant proposes to mine stone on 329 acres located
(Mineral, Ore) (Number) (Miles)
North of Interstate 40 northwest of Cary, NC off/near road Old Reedv Creek Road
(Direction) (Nearest Town) (Number/Name)
in Wake County.
*SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARIES AND CORRESPONDING
ADJOINING LANDOWNER NAMES AND LOCATIONS*
In accordance with G.S. 74-50(bl), the mine operator is required to make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
mining permit boundary; if an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the
mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts must be notified (that are within 1,000 feet of the
mining permit boundary). In addition, the mine operator must also notify the chief administrative officer of the
county or municipality in which any part of the permitted area is located. Any person may file written comment(s)
to the Department at the above address within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the
application for a permit, whichever is later. Should the Department determine that a significant public interest
exists relative to G.S. 74-51, a public hearing will be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day comment period
specified above.
A copy of the permit application materials is on file and available for public review during normal business
hours at the above listed address as well as at the appropriate regional office. For information regarding the
919-266-1100 (Sam Bratton) . For information on the mining permit application review
contact the Mining Program staff at [phone]. Please note that the Department will consi
-,,4++o„ nnmmantohlnmimpntntinn uAthin the »revisions of the Mining Act of 1971 throughout tl
(Addressee/Owner of Record's (Name of Applicant: Include Contact Person
Name and Address) & Company Name, if Applicable)
Lloyd T. Edwards and Ellen J. Edwards White Wake Stone Corporation
762 Mudham Road Attn: Sam Bratton
Wendell, North Carolina 27591 PO Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
(Date of Issuance of this Notice/ (Address of Applicant)
Mailed to Addressee/Owner of Record)
-24-

C
Ht Co
I '
l Stone CorporationWake
www.wakestonecorp.com
Quarry Phone Numbers: Locations: Business Office Address:
919/266-9266 - Knightdale 6811 Knightdale Blvd., Knightdale, N.C. P.O. Box 190
919/677-0050 - Triangle 222 Star Lane, Cary, N.C. 6821 Knightdale Blvd.
919/775-7349 - Moncure 9725 Stone Quarry Rd., Moncure, N.C. Knightdale, N.C. 27545
252/985-4411 - Nash County 7379 North Halifax Rd., Battleboro, N.C. 919/266-1 100
843/756-3400 - N. Myrtle Beach 3990 Hwy 9 Business East, Loris, S.C. Fax: [phone]
March 30, 2020
By Certified Mail
Mr. Michael Languth, CEO
Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority
PO Box 80001
Raleigh, North Carolina 27623-0001
Subject: Wake Stone Corporation Triangle Quarry
Mining Permit Modification
Dear Mr. Languth:
Pursuant to the provisions of NCGS 74-50 (b.1.) of the Mining Act of 1971, we are by this letter
notifying you of our intent to submit a Mining Permit Modification Application to the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEMLR).
These application materials will detail our plans for increasing the permitted areas and expansion of the
existing Triangle Quarry onto the property governed by our Mineral Lease Agreement with the Raleigh -
Durham Airport Authority (see enclosed site map). We anticipate submittal of this application to
NCDEMLR on or before April 2, 2020.
Once submitted to NCDEMLR, the Mining Permit Application materials will be available for
public review and comment. You may also call our corporate office at [phone] and either Samuel
T. Bratton, President and CEO or I will answer any question you may have concerning this mine site
expansion.
Sincerely,
Wake Stone Corporation
�441U ZA-1
David F. Lee
Head Geologist/Environmental Supervisor
Enclosures

NOTICE
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50(b 1) of The Mining Act of 1971, Notice is hereby given that
Wake Stone Corporation will apply on or about
(Applicant Name) (Date)
to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612, for (check one):
❑ a new surface mining permit,
X a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area; or
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area with no disturbance
in the area proposed. Please note that future modification(s) may be submitted by the applicant to
allow disturbance within this area without re -notification of adjoining landowners.
The applicant proposes to mine stone on 329 acres located
(Mineral, Ore) (Number) (Miles)
North of Interstate 40 northwest of Carv, NC off/near road Old Reedy Creek Road
(Direction) (Nearest Town) (Number/Name)
in Wake County.
*SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARIES AND CORRESPONDING
ADJOINING LANDOWNER NAMES AND LOCATIONS*
In accordance with G.S. 74-50(bl), the mine operator is required to make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
mining permit boundary; if an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the
mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts must be notified (that are within 1,000 feet of the
mining permit boundary). In addition, the mine operator must also notify the chief administrative officer of the
county or municipality in which any part of the permitted area is located. Any person may file written comment(s)
to the Department at the above address within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the
application for a permit, whichever is later. Should the Department determine that a significant public interest
exists relative to G.S. 74-51, a public hearing will be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day comment period
specified above.
A copy of the permit application materials is on file and available for public review during normal business
hours at the above listed address as well as at the appropriate regional office. For information regarding the
on the mining permit application review
contact the Mining Program staff at [phone].
a tinal decision is mace on
(Addressee/Owner of Record's (Name of Applicant: Include Contact Person
Name and Address) & Company Name, if Applicable)
Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority Wake Stone Corporation
Attn: Michael Landguth, CEO Attn: Sam Bratton
PO Box 80001 PO Box 190
Raleigh, North Carolina 2762340001 Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
(Date of Issuance of this Notice/ (Address of Applicant)
Mailed to Addressee/Owner of Record)
-23-

Ohs COt
7
z Wake
Stone Corporation
www.wakestonecorp.com
Quarry Phone Numbers:
Locations: Business Office Address:
919/266-9266 - Knightdale
6811 Knightdale Blvd., Knightdale, N.C. P.O. Box 190
919/677-0050 - Triangle
222 Star Lane, Cary, N.C. 6821 Knightdale Blvd.
919/775-7349 - Moncure
9725 Stone Quarry Rd., Moncure, N.C. Knightdale, N.C. 27545
252/985-4411 - Nash County
7379 North Halifax Rd., Battleboro, N.C. 919/266-1100
843/756-3400 - N. Myrtle Beach
3990 Hwy 9 Business East, Loris, S.C. Fax: [phone]
March 30, 2020
By Certified Moil
Amy Neidringhaus, District Engineer
Wake County District Office
1575 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Subject: Wake Stone Corporation Triangle Quarry
Mining Permit Modification
Dear Ms. Neidringhaus:
Pursuant to the provisions of NCGS 74-50 (b.1.) of the Mining Act of 1971, we are by this letter
notifying you of our intent to submit a Mining Permit Modification Application to the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEMLR).
These application materials will detail our plans for increasing the permitted areas and expansion of the
existing Triangle Quarry onto the property governed by our Mineral Lease Agreement with the Raleigh -
Durham Airport Authority (see enclosed site map). We anticipate submittal of this application to
NCDEMLR on or before April 2, 2020.
Once submitted to NCDEMLR, the Mining Permit Application materials will be available for
public review and comment. You may also call our corporate office at [phone] and either Samuel
T. Bratton, President and CEO or I will answer any question you may have concerning this mine site
expansion.
Sincerely,
Wake Stone Corporation
tiGC�
David .Lee
Head Geologist/Environmental Supervisor
Enclosures

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
NOTICE
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50(b1) of The Mining Act of 1971, Notice is hereby given that
Wake Stone Corporation will apply on or about
(Applicant Name) (Date)
to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612, for (check one):
❑ a new surface mining permit,
X a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area; or
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area with no disturbance
in the area proposed. Please note that future modification(s) may be submitted by the applicant to
allow disturbance within this area without re -notification of adjoining landowners.
The applicant proposes to mine stone on 329 acres located
(Mineral, Ore) (Number) (Miles)
North of Interstate 40 northwest of Cary. NC off/near road Old Reedy Creek Road
(Direction) (Nearest Town) (Number/Name)
in Wake County.
*SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARIES AND CORRESPONDING
ADJOINING LANDOWNER NAMES AND LOCATIONS*
In accordance with G.S. 74-50(bl), the mine operator is required to make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
mining permit boundary; if an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the
mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts must be notified (that are within 1,000 feet of the
mining permit boundary). In addition, the mine operator must also notify the chief administrative officer of the
county or municipality in which any part of the permitted area is located. Any person may file written comment(s)
to the Department at the above address within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the
application for a permit, whichever is later. Should the Department determine that a significant public interest
exists relative to G.S. 74-51, a public hearing will be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day comment period
specified above.
A copy of the permit application materials is on file and available for public review during normal business
hours at the above listed address as well as at the appropriate regional office. For information regarding the
919-266-1100 (Sam Brattonl . ror mrormati
contact the Mining Program staff at [phone].
written comments/documentation within the provisic
review process until a final decision is made on the a
(Addressee/Owner of Record's
Name and Address)
Amy Neidringhaus, District Engineer
NC DOT Div. 5 Wake Co. Dist. Office
1575 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
(Date of Issuance of this Notice/
Mailed to Addressee/Owner of Record)
on the mining
review process, please
ame of Applicant: Include Contact P
Company Name, if Applicable)
Wake Stone Corporation
Attn: Sam Bratton
PO Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
-29-
(Address of Applicant)

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION
1, Samuel T. Bratton , an applicant, or an agent, or employee of an applicant, for a new Mining
Permit, or a modification of an existing Mining Permit to add land to the permitted area, from the N.C. Department
of Environmental Quality, being first duly sworn, do hereby attest that the following are all known owners of
record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the mining permit boundary (including,
where an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the mine tract, all owners
of record of tracts adjoining these tracts, that are within 1,000 feet of the mining permit boundary) and that notice
of the pending application has been caused to be mailed, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested,
to said owners of record at their addresses shown below, such notice being given on a form provided by the
Department:
(Adjoining Landowner Name)
Michael Landauth CEO Raleigh -Durham Airport
Lloyd T Edwards
Betsy Carol Beals
Randall L. and Tamara G. Dunn
Dwayne Patterson — NC State Parks
(Address)
Raleigh, North Carolina
Wendell North Carolina
Cary North Carolina
Cary North Carolina
Raleigh. North Carolina
Amy Neidringhaus — NC DOT Raleigh North Carolina
-
I do also attest that the following individual is the chief administrative officer of the county or municipality in
which any part of the penmitted area is located and that notice of the pending application has been caused to be
mailed, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to said office at the following address:
(Chief Administrative Officer Name) (Address)
[i.e.: City Manager, County Manager, Mayor, etc.]
David Ellis, Wake County Manager Raleigh, North Carolina
The above attestation was made by me while under oath to provide proof satisfactory to the Department that a
reasonable effort has been made to notify all known owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land
that are adjoining the mining pen -nit boundary (including, where an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the
applicant or is owned by the lessor of the mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts, that are
within 1,000 feet of the mining permit boundary) and the chief administrative officer of the county or municipality
in which any part of the permitted area is located in compliance with N.C.G.S. 74-50(bl) and 15A NCAC 5B
.0004(d). 1 understand that it is the responsibility of the applicant to retain the receipts of mailing showing that
the above notices were caused to be mailed and to provide them to the Department upon request.
Signature of Applicant or Agent Date
If person executing Affidavit is an agent or employee of an applicant, provide the following information:
Name of applicant: Samuel T. Bratton
Title of person executing Affidavit President and CEO
1 cla Notar Public of the County of _ c�
P. �t�x
State of North Caro ina, do hereby certify that ���
appeared before me this day and under oath acknowledgedd that h above Affidavit was made byhim/her.
sJ- 20 Z) .
Witness 7V340��o
1 =_day of — my Commission
Notary:_-t ctxiexpires: ------ Notuy ►uDlio. Norrh cc.rohnar
3 0 - wswrcounry
MY C is$ n Expire

C3
rn
Ln
C3 4A On
C3
CD
M
"D
Lq
ni C)s,11 /2020
M ....................
. ..
C3
Postal Service-
m CERTIFIED MAILFRECEIPT
ru Om"es0c M.18 O-IV
...... ...... -
m
-tm-
-40.00
C3
0
$1.21)
Ln
r,
I
_n
m
I
m
f- L
r� (16
Ln
R—Wpl
C2 dA.W-M fln
0
0
"a 63131 /' 2020
ru
M
c,
.. ........ .. ......
In
rn
rn M4;
r,
0
m P~
Ln
O
C3
0 0=1 O=-Z)
-0 41.
Ln ioa, Fpa" & FM.
ru $7.
rM
rr*,x
C3Mt
rl- —I
KA-1: A I
0
m
W"O
M
WD04i4i 1(r 2p.ft I A L
0525
cz
El
C3
FdrM
03/31/2020
$7.61)
—AW
Ln
-r
OW�
P hI
m
2R NC 2
o 1
0528
m
Ln
r- SOAH)
C3 ip (40
C3 p-
0 IE==
In T—ppr &F— (13/31/2010
ru 7 TV—
Nw,
«po*-W'2335r OweY . .......... ...... . .. . . .. . ......... _
AM- .775I3 -A 1)3
CERTIFIE6 MWL RECEIPT
(Damasiic AUIJ OnIj PV& fms�a�ce Coverage ProOded)
m
m
LJ L
C3
m 05,21.
0. (Ki
cz or)
M
C3
C3
M
-M
Ln T�
ru $7.
Mona
...... o.r-
. ..............

David Lee
From: David Lee
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2020 12:55 PM
To: Wehner, Judy
Subject: Scanned green cards sent to Judy Wehner 05042020.pdf
Attachments: Scanned green cards sent to Judy Wehner 05042020
Judy -
Attached are the green cards for the required notifications to adjoining owners and the Wake County Manager. As I
mentioned on the phone earlier today, the green card for the Beals notification was apparently lost in the mail. I
tracked the original and have included documentation that it was delivered on April 2"d
-David
David F. Lee
Geologist/Environmental Supervisor
Wake Stone Corporation
PO Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
Office: 919-266-1100, ext. 134
website: www.wakestonecorp.com
Cell: 919-369-3449
Home: 919-553-4666

s Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
nr nn the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
t_/oyd E ot
�UII� � S �-
elle,,
. 7 492- M t&d ha,+", '?'DO -A
`I enclell t NC a75-1I
9590 9402 3680 7335 8862 61
2. Article Number (Transfer from service /abeq
`70) 5 Ctpoo Alf W I?O 4030
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
r Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
0 Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Mr. MfGhae( 1-4nd8L*M CE0
i al sigh - t7urham Arpori- ✓41f.+rfhdi
t?O 3c x AOW 1
i�,o l a ll� , NC, a� mz3 -- aao )
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9402 3680 7335 8862 54
2. Article Number (rramfer from service 1abeO
701 50&'/o Cxq 6FJfo 4M3
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
s Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
�-r,-� jmJeio�rin�h�s� L7is-�• �
G O-r
N
1575 lal at l Sego ce een-
111111111 [ill II[1III I II1111I I fl IIIII[[1i111 [II
9590 9402 3680 7335 8899 89
2. Article Number (Transfer from service labeO
700-7 a5&0 CWP 530 331r9
PS Fom1 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
a Signaturp�
❑Agent
X �` ' ` ,—
Addressee
B Received (PrirJte¢FNameJ
a Rf Delivery
different from Rem
❑ Yes
D. Is delivery address
If YES, enter delivery address below:
❑ No
3. Service Type
❑ Priority Mall Expresses
❑ Adult Signature
❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
❑Registered Maur'"
❑ Fley ryred Mall Restricted
2tertified Mail&
❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery
❑ Return Receipt for
❑ Collect on Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
Merchandise
❑ Signature ConfirnatlonTM
❑ Signature Confir atim
❑ Insured Mail
❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt
a Signature
gent
X � U ❑ Addressee
B. R slued by (Printed N e) C. Date of Delivery
�v I Z ?C
ILI D. is delivery Rem 1? ❑Yes
If YES, tqr, very address ❑ No
F' s
3. Servipe Typo.
Cl PdoritS' Mall Express®
❑ Adult S' re � r
956�ted DQIiYwr
❑ erect MaHTM
❑ �ry Mail Restricted
Q GertifSd
h iS
'd ReturnReceiptfor
❑ Certified MRII Ddvw
❑ Collect on Mvery
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
❑ Signature Confirmation
`
❑ insured Mall
❑ Signature Corfirr^ , r
Restricted Defive
❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
Domestic Retum Receipt. ;
A Signature
❑ Agent
X ❑ Addressee
B. Received by�(fint�edName)_ G Date of Delivery
Is delivery address different from Rem' ❑ es
1 If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑
APR 0 7 2020
3. SeNT UR—
u rnorny M r ram+.--
13 Registered MallT
❑ Adult Signature
Signature Restricted Delivery
❑ Reeggistered Mail Restricted
Dell
Wutt
nlfled Mall®
❑ Certified Mail Restricted Dorm"
❑ Return Receipt for
ise
❑ Collect on Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
%nature co rM
❑ Signature Corrfirmetion
❑Signature Confirmation
❑ Insured Mall
❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
Restricts Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
M r. jL)Wayne �a rSOn� /�lrtcJ
p jDr4h CILjd -► a, S%�G i�a r1CS
al iNes4- Jones Shreet-
jeiSh POC- �71v99-1�
�I I Ii�ll II�i II I [ ail I II i I II I 1 II I Ilf III Ii I[ I Ill
9590 9402 3680 7335 8899 96
2. Article Number (transfer from service labeO
-ICO'7 a5APv OW,0.5307 3351
A. Signature
o agent
x ❑Addressee
oTo RZ mrta}l A(arfteJ Date a Delivery
Is delivery address different from item 1? U
If YES, enter ti 7PV` dr'Vr: O
f✓iAIL SERVI CE_ .
33 Service Type
❑ Priority Man Express®
❑ Adult Signature
❑ Aduf Signature Restricted Delivery
❑ Registered Malfrm
❑ eQistj Mall Restricted
0 Certified Mall®
❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery
❑ Return Receipt far
[3 Collect on Delivery
El Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
Merchandise
❑ Signature �rmat�na
❑ Insured Mail
❑ Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
(over S50D)
PS Farm 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Ir Attach this card to the back of the malipiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Mr• �otvid E�trs,WG,Mana;
NG -27(a0Z
Illllllllll�l ll�illll llll �I �� ICI �I llllll 111
9590 9402 3680 7335 8861 79
2.�^
Artrticlle Nummb`erg(Tra/n'sffeerfrfrom�seerrviiccelMabeO
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
r Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
�c1at► L -+-'Tamcra G• DUrIJ
Z.232 Oia. �e-a� Cxeetc col
G tU&41 NjcG o^?-y5 l 3— 21 t 1
II1111111111111111i 111 ill11IIIIIIII1l11fII11
9590 9402 3680 7335 8891 18
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label)
-100-7 a5(oo CAW 53d7 33
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
A. Signature
CJ Agent
X Benjemfn R. Thomat ❑ Addressee
B. Received (Printed IV
w7j I C. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery ddress different i 6m item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Service Type
❑ Priority Man Expresse
❑ Adult Signature
❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
❑ Registered MallT
❑ Regl Mail Restricted
U00brtfrtifified Mall®
❑ Ceed Mall Restricted Delivery
❑ Return Receipt for
Merchandise
❑ Collect on Delivery ❑Signature ConfirmationTM
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery,
❑ Insured Mail
❑ Signature Confirmation
ElInsured Mail Restricted Delivery
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt,
A. Signature
❑ agent
X ❑ Addressee
B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
D. is delivery address different from Item 1? ❑Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below p No
3Service Type
❑ Priority Mail Expresso
E Adult Signature
❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
❑ Registered Ma11TM
❑ Regv� Mail Restricted
t2 Certified Mall®
❑ Certified Men Restricted Delivery
❑ Retum Receipt for
Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
Merchandise
❑ Signature ConfirnatlonT"'
❑ Insured Mail
❑ Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
❑ Insured Mail Restricted Delivery
(over $500)
Domestic Return Receipt

LISPS Trac ing0
FAQs )
Track Another Package +
Tracking Number: 70072560000053073337
Remove X
Your item was delivered to an individual at the address at 11:52 am on April 2, 2020 in CARY, NC
27513.
OV Delivered
April 2, 2020 at 11:52 am
Delivered, Left with Individual
CARY, NC 27513
Get Updates v
Text & Email Updates
Tracking History
Product Information
r-
m
rI
rORU
r' A Y r t11 27513
� 1
O
M Po "
c
Certified Fee
O
C3 ReWm Receipt Fee
O (Endorsement RequaerQ
M Resftled Defim" Fee
O (Endo(sement Requked)
—0 # 1.
Ln Total Postage & Fees
ru $7.6_
0523
c l4j
$0.00
Poshrwttt
$0.00 ►"
03/31 /20'20
I TO
(S•
�iu01 BGa.I S
.........----
........
.._........._.._.._.
Q r,;ll ra.:�335 �1d
or Po Box No.
r- ................
�`"M,iN4. Ale �7513—,Z1�3
See Less /\
Can't fired what you're looking for?
Go to our FAQs section to find answers to your tracking questions,

Question 6. Please provide the actual estimated emissions of PM100, PM10, and PM2.5, from the
crushing and processing plant for each of last five years.
WSC response:
The table below gives the actual estimated emissions for the last five calendar years (2015-
2019) for PMloo, PMlo, and PM2.5.These estimated emissions are calculated by using generally
accepted emission factors from EPA (AP-42, Section 11) for crushing, screening, and conveying
of crushed stone processing operations. A material balance (total throughput for each piece of
equipment) is generated using engineering best estimates based on typical flow through the
processing plant and actual tons of each product produced for a given year (calculation
spreadsheets attached). It is important to note that these numbers are utilized by regulatory
authorities to determine permitting requirements and do not represent impacts on air quality at
or near the boundary of a permitted facility. In fact, if criteria pollutant emissions (such as PM1o)
are below 5 tons per year, a facility is considered a "very small source" and is eligible for
exemption from state air permitting. Facilities with emissions of 5 tons to 25 tons per year are
still considered "small sources" and are eligible for registration in lieu of permitting. Only
operations with emissions of 25 tons per year or more of criteria pollutants are required to be
permitted under the North Carolina Division of Air Quality. Wake Stone has elected to
voluntarily maintain its North Carolina Air Permit.
Actual Estimated Emissions
Calendar Year
PMloo (tons)
PM10 (tons)
PM2.5 (tons)
2015
5.83
2.1
0.25
2016
9.06
3.27
0.39
2017
9.46
3.41
0.41
2018
6.26
2.26
0.27
2019
5.42
1.96
0.24

Wake Stone Corporation - Triangle Quarry I I i--_
Calendar Year 2015 Actual Plant Process Emissions based on Published and Draft AP-42 Emission Factors
-
Emission Factors
-
-
Published3'4
Published"'
;'4
Rated
Material BalanceZ
AP-42 Emission
AP-42 Emission
-Published
AP-42 Emission
Process Equipment[
ID No.
Capacity
(tons/hr)
Actual 2015
Throughput (tons)
Prod. Rate
TPH (ave.)
Factor for PM/TSP
(in Ibs/ton)
Factor for PM-10
(in Ibs/ton)
Factor for PM-2.5 PM/TSP PM-10 Actual PM-2.5 -
(in lbs/ton) Emissions (Tons); Emissions (Tons); Emissions (Tons);
0.000050 1.114344 0.374825 0.025326 -
0.000100 0.455868 0.205141 0.037989 Crushing Total Throughput:
0.000100 0.397485 0.178868 0.033124
0.000100 0.212669 0.095701 0.017722
0.000100 0.160733 0.072330 0.013394
0.000050 1.114344 0.374825 0.025326 Screening Total Throughput:
0.000050 1.063026 0.357563 0.024160
0.000050 0.342285 0.115132 0.007779-
0.000050 0.342285 0.115132 0.007779
N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.000013 0.070913 0.023300 0.006585 Conveyors Total Through ;
0.000013 0.070913 0.023300 0.006585
0.000013 0.067647 0.022227 0.006282
0.000013 0.067647 0.022227 0.006282
0.000013 0.003266 0.001073 0.000303
0.000013 0.067647 0.022227 0.006282 _
0.000013 0.024811 0.008152 0.002304
0.000013 0.043564 0.014314 0.004045
0.000013 0.006059 0.001991 0.000563 _
0.000013 0.027843 0.009148 0.002585
0.000013 0.042836 0.014075 0.003978
0.000013 0.018752 0.006161 0.001741
0.000013 0.018752 0.006161 0.001741
0.000013 0.018752 0.006161 0.001741
0.000013 0.018752 0.006161 0.001741
0.000013 0.006059 0.001991 0.000563
0.000013 0.006059 0.001991 0.000563
0.000013 0.006059 0.001991 0.000563
0.000013 0.014993 0.004926 0.001392
_ 0.000013 0.018752 0.006161 0.001741
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A5 N/A' N/AS
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A WAS N/A' N/A5
N/A N/A5 N/A5 N/A'
N/A N/A' N/AS WAS
0.000013 0.002142 0.000704 0.000199
0.000013 0.002142 0.000704 0.000199
0.000013 0.002142 0.000704 0.000199
N/A N/A' N/A S N/A'
0.000013 0.000938 0.000308 0.000087
0.000013 0.000938 0.000308 0,000087
---� -- - I- -
-- 5.83
2.10
25
1.226755 0.552040 0.102230
2.861939 0.962652 0.065044
0.606546 0.199294 0.056322
-- -- - -
n is; engineering best estimate based on typical plant flow patterns. _
line. This information
on the industry source testing sponsored by the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association
_
for screens is utilized in the calculations.
2, -591
_
2,601,763 _
26'x36' Rock Box and 64"00' Feeder
RB-F
1500
1,013,040
944
0.002200
0.000740
Lippman 50" x 62" Primary (Jaw) Crusher
CI
1620
_
759,780
708
0.001200
0.000540
Symons HD T Std. Cone Crusher _
C2
1400
662,475
537
0,001200
0.000540
Symons T Std. Cone Crusher
C3
300
354,448
287
0.001200
0.000540
Symons T S. H. Cone Crusher
C4
800
267,888
217
0.001200
0.000540
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S4
S4
1500
1,013,040
944
0.002200
0.000740
��
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S2
St
1500
966,387
783
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2A
S2A
800
311,168
252
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2B
S213
800
311,168
252
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 24' - 3D Rinsing Screen - ID S3
g
S3
800
267,888
217
N/A
-
N/A
54" Conveyor I
y
Conv. t
1500
1,013,040
944
0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 2
Conv. 2
1500
1,013,040
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 3
Conv.;
1500
956,387
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 4
Conv. 4
1500
966,387
W287
0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 5
42" Conveyor B
Conv. 5
600
46,653
0.000140
0.000046
Conv. B
1400
966,387
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor C
Conv. C
800
354,448
_
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor D
Conv. D
1400
622,336
504
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor E
Conv. E
650
86,560
70
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor F
Conv. F
500
397,760
322
0.000140
0.000046
42" Radial Stacking Conveyor G
Conv. G
900
611,939
496
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor H
Conv. H
650
267,888
217
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor I
Conv.1
650
267,888
217
0.000140
0.000046
80 Ton Surge Bin
80 T Bin
N/A
267,888
217
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor J
Conv. 7
650
267,888
217
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor K
Conv. K
400
86,560
1 70
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor L
Conv. L
400
86,560
70
0.000140
0.000046
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor M
Conv. M
400
86,560 _
70
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor N
Conv. N
500
214,179
174
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor O
Conv. 0
900
267,888
217
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor P
Conv. P
600
81,431
66
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor Q
30" Conveyor R
Conv. Q
Conv. R
600
600
81,431
167,468
66
136
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor S
Conv. S
600
167,468
136
N/A
N/A
36" Conveyor -
Conv.T
600
18,989
15
- N/A
N/A -
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor U
Conv. U
600
18,989
15
N/A
N/A
25 Ton Sand Bin
Sand Bin
N/A
30,597
25
0.000140
0.000046
24" Sand Conveyor V
Conv. V
250
30,597
25
0.000140
0.000046
30" Sand Conveyor V2
Conv. V2
120
30,597
25
0.000140
0.000046
54" Double Screw Sand Screw
Screw
N/A
30,597
25
N/A
N/A
14' 14' Re bin
RWB
N/A
13,394
11
0.000140
0.000046
x -wash
30" Conveyor W
Conv. W
600
13,394
11
0.000140
0.000046
Primary Plant Hours of Operation
1,073--
-
Secondary Plant Hours of Operation
1,234
_
Total Actual PM/TSP Emissions (Tons)
_
_
Total Actual PM-10 Emissions (Tons)
Total Actual PM-2.5 Emissions (Tons)
Emission Source (ES) Crushers Total
-
Emission Source (ES) Screens Total
Emission Source (ES) Conveyors Total
Footnotes:
process equipment
PP
"controlled" emission factors
with the opacity standards
as a screen and the controlled
1-Process Equipment as detailed in Air Permit No.
2-Material Balance determined by applying actual
3-Generally accepted emission factors as published
in cooperation wit the US EPA. Actual plant operation
4-For the purpose of estimating emissions, the 64"
4386
2015 total plant
p
in AP-42, Section
is with
X 30' vibrating
production
p
11,
all control
grizzly
information by_ roduct
� information P
Table 11.19.2-2. Application/use
devices operating in orde
feeder at the primary crusher
size to applicable
� PP
of
r to comply
is treated
in the production
is justified based
of NSPS.
emissions factor
Likewise, the 80 Ton surge bin and 25 ton sand
5-Wet processes, no emissions
bin are treated
as conveyor
transfer points and the
_
controlled
emissions_ factor for conveyors
is utilized in
the calculations.
_

Wake Stone Corporation - Triangle ( I_
Calendar Year 2016 Actual Plant Process Emissions based on Published and Draft AP42 Emission Factors
1
Emission Factors
Published3'4
Published3'4
Published3,4
Rated
Material Balance
AP-42 Emission
AP-42 Emission
AP-42 Emission
_
Capacity
Actual 2016
Prod. Rate
Factor for PM/TSP
Factor for PM-10
Factor for PM-2.5
PM/TSP
PM-10
Actual PM-2.5
--
---
-
3,318,626
4,108,281
_
_
ughput: 13,183,193
- -
_
j
t
1
Process Equipment'
ID No.
(tons/ Itr)
Throughput (tons)
TPH (ave.)
(in Ibs/ton)
in Ibs/ton)
(in lbs/ton)
Emissions (Tons);
Emissions (Tons);
Emissions (Tons);
--
-
Crushing
Screening
Total Throughput:
Total Throughput:
26'x36' Rock Box and 64"x30' Feeder
RB-F
1500
1,435,736
1189
0.002200
0.000740
0.000050 1.579310 0.531222 0.035893
4819 _
0.00.0.576227 0.173081 59302 0.032052
00001000 00
0.000100 0.384244 0.172910 0.032020
0.000050 1.579310 0.531222 0.035893
0.000050 1.530209 0.514707 0.034777
0.000050 0.704795 0,237068 0.016018
0.000050 0.704795 0.237068 0.016018
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
0.000013 0.100502 0.033022 0.009332
0.000013 0.100502 0.033022 0.009332-
0.000013 0.097377 0.031995 0.009042
0.000013 0.097377 0.031995 0.009042 -
0.000013 0.003125 0.001027 0.000290
0.000013 0.097377 0.031995 0.009042
0.000013 0.044873 0.014744 0.004167
0.000013 0.089701 0.029473 0.008329
0.000013 0.000044 0.000015 0.000004
0.000013 0.034128 0.011213 0.003169
0.000013 - 0.052504 0.017251 0.004875
0.000013 0.044828 0.014729 0.004163
0.000013 0.044828 0.014729 0.004163
0.000013 0.044828 0.014729 0.004163
0.000013 0.044828 0.014729 0.004163
0.000013 0.000044 0.000015 0.000004
0.000013 0.000044 0.000015 0.000004
0.000013 0.000044 0.000015 0.000004
0.000013 0.018376 0.006038 0.001706
0.000013 0.044828 0.014729 0.004163
N/A N/A' N/A S N/A' -
N/A N/A' N/AS N/A'
N/A N/A S N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A N/As N/A5 N/A5
0.000013 0.002625 0.000863 0.000244 -
_ - 0.000013 0.002625 0.000863 0.000244
0.000013 0.002625 0.000863 0.000244
N/A N/A5 N/A' N/A'
0.000013 0.002241 0.000736 0000208
0.000013 0.002241 0.000736 0.000208
PPt
(Crusher) Crusher
12
Cone
SymonsHD T S d. Co
C2
1400
960,378
594
0.001200
0 000540
Symons 7 Std. Cone Crusher
0300
641,039
396
0.001200
0.000540
Symons T S. H. Cone Crusher
C4
800
640,407
396
0.001200
0.000540
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S4
S4
1500
1,435,736
1189
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S2
S1
1500
1,391,099
860
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2A
S2A
800
640,723
396
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2B
S2B
800
640,723
396
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 24' - 3D Rinsing Screen - ID S3
S3
800
640,407
396
N/A
N/A
54" Conveyor I
Conv. 1
1500
1,435,736
1189
0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 2
Conv. 2
1500
1,435,736
1189
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 3
Conv. 3
1500
1,391,099
1152
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 4
Conv. 4
1500
1,391,099
1152
0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 5
Conv. 5
600
44,637
?
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor B
Conv. B
1400
1,391,099
860
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor C
Conv. C
800
641,039
396
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor D
Conv. D
1400
1,281,446
792
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor E
Conv. E
650
632
0
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor F
Conv. F
500
487,539
301
0.000140
0.000046
42" Radial Stacking Conveyor G
Conv. G
900
750,060
464
0,000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor H
Conv, H
650
640,407
396
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor I
Conv.1
650
640,407
396
0.000140
0.000046
80 Ton Sure Bin
8o T Bin
N/A
640,407
396
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor J
Conv. J
650
640,407
396
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor K
Conv. K
400
632
0
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor L
Conv. L
400
632
0
0.000140
0.000046
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor M
Conv. M
400
632
0
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor N
Conv. N
500
262,521
162
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor O
Conv. 0
goo
640,407
396
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor P
Conv. P
600
126,931
78
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor Q
Conv. Q
600
126,931
78
N/A
N/A
30"Conveyor R
Conv.R
600
499,108
308
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor S
Conv. S
600
499,108
308
N/A
N/A
36" Conveyor T
Conv. T
600
14,368
9
N/A
-
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor U
Conv. U
600
14,368
9
N/A
N/A
25 Ton Sand Bin
Sand Bin
N/A
37,503
23
0.000140
0.000046
24" Sand Conveyor V
Conv. V
250
37,503
23
0.000140
0.000046
30" Sand Conveyor V2
Conv. V2
120
37,503
23
0.000140
0.000046
54" Double Screw Sand Screw
Screw
N/A
37,503
23
N/A
N/A
14' x 14' Re -wash bin
RWB
N/A
32,020
20
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor W
Conv. W
600
32,020
20
0.000140
0.000046
Primary Plant Hours of Operation
1,208
Secondary Plant Hours of Operation
1,618
Total Actual PM/TSP Emissions (Tons)
- 9.06
Total Actual PM-10 Emissions (Tons)
_
_
_
_
1.991176
4.519109
0.922824
3.27
Total Actual PM-2.5 Emissions (Tons)
0.896029
1.520064
0.303213
0.39
0.165931
0.102707
0.085691
Emission Source (ES) Crushers Total
Emission Source (ES) Screens Total
-
Emission Source (ES) Conveyors Total
Footnotes:
1-Process Equipment as detailed in Air Permit No.
4386
--
2-Material Balance determined by applying actual 2016 total plant production information by product size to applicable process equipment in the production line. This information is an engineering best estimate based on typical plant flow patterns.
_-
3-Generally accepted emission factors as published in AP-42, Section 11, Table 11.19.2-2. Application/use of "controlled" emission factors is justified based on the industry source testing sponsored by the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association
in cooperation wit the US EPA. Actual plant operation is with all control devices operating in order to comply with the opacity standards of NSPS.
4-For the purpose of estimating emissions, the 64" X 30' vibrating grizzly feeder at the primary crusher is treated as a screen and the controlled emissions factor for screens is utilized in the calculations.
Likewise, the 80 Ton surge bin and 25 ton sand bin are treated as conveyor transfer points and the controlled emissions factor for conveyors is utilized in the calculations.
_T
5-Wet processes, no emissions
I
_+_
i
--
-
- __
I
I

Wake Stone Corporation - Triangle Quarry
Calendar Year 2017 Actual Plant Process Emissions based on Published and Draft AP42 Emission Factors
Emission Factors
Published3'4
Published3'4
Published3'4
Rated
Material Balance
AP42 Emission
AP42 Emission
AP42 Emission
Capacity
Actual 2017
Prod. Rate
Factor for PM/TSP
Factor for PM-10
Factor for PM-2.5
PM/TSP
_ PM-10
_
Actual PM-2.5
Process Equipment'
ID No.
(tons/hr)
Throughput (tons)
TPH (ave.)
(in Ibs/ton)
(in Ibs/ton)
(in Ibs/ton)
Emissions (Tons)3
Emissions (Tons)3
Emissions (Tons)3
Screening
Total Throughput:
Total Throughput:
Total Throughput:
3,503,220
r 0_
4,306,560
26'x36' Rock Box and 64"x30' Feeder
RB-F
1500
1,460,619
1017
0.002200
0.000740
0.000050 1.606681 0.540429 0.036515
0.000100 0.657279 0.295775 0.054773 _Crushing
0.000100 0.590720 0.265824 0.049227
0.000100 0.427250 0.192263 0.035604
0.000100 0.426683 0.192007 0.035557
0.000050 1.606681 0.540429 0.036515
0.000050 - 1.564991 0.526406 0.035568 -
0.000050 0.782772 0.263296 0.017790
0.000050 0.782772 0.263296 0.017790
N/A N/A' N/A5 N/A'
0.000013 0.102243 0.033594 0.009494 -
0.000013 0.102243 0.033594 0.009494
0.000013 0.099590 0.032723 0.009248
0.000013 0.099590 0.032723 0.009248
0.000013 0.002653 0.000872 0.000246
0.000013 0.099590 0.032723 0.009248 -
0.000013 0.049846 0.016378 0.004629
0.000013 0.099626 0.032734 0.009251
0.000013 0.000066 0.000022 0.000006
0.000013 t 0.032334 0.010624 0.003002
0.000013 0.049744 0.016345 0.004619
0.000013 0.049780 0.016356 0.004622
0.000013 0.049780 0.016356 0.004622
0.000013 0.049780 0.016356 0.004622
0.000013 0.049780 0.016356 0.004622 y
0.000013 0.000066 0.000022 0.000006
0.000013 0.000066 0.000022 0.000006
0.000013 0.000066 0.000022 0.000006
0.000013 0.017411 0.005721 0.001617
0.000013 0.049780 0.016356 0.004622
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A5 N/A5 N/A5
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
_ N/A N/AS N/A' N/A5
N/A N/A5 N/AS N/AS
0.000013 0.002487 0.000817 0.000231
0.000013 0.002487 0.000817 0.000231
0.000013 0.002487 0.000817 0.000231
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A'
0.000013 0.002489 0.000818 0.000231
0.000013 0.002489 0.000818 0.000231
-
9.46
- 3.41 -
0.41
2.101932 0.945869 0.175161
4.737216 1.593427 0.107664
0.961718 0.315993 0.089302
- __ _-__ - - -
-
-
Lippman 50" x 62" Primary (Jaw) Crusher
Cl
1620
1,095,464
763
0.001200
0.000540
Symons HD 7' Std. Cone Crusher
C2
1400
984,533
534
0.001200
0.000540
Symons 7' Std. Cone Crusher
0
300
712,084
386
0.001200
0.000540
Symons T S. H. Cone Crusher
Ca
800
711,138
385
0.001200
0.000540
_
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S4
S4
1500
1,460,619
1017
0,002200
0.000740
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S2
Sl
1500
1,422,719
771
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2A
S2A
800
711,611
386
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2B
S2B
800
711,611
386
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 24' - 3D Rinsing Screen - ID S3
S3
800
711,138
385
N/A
N/A
nveyors
-I
54" Conveyor 1
Conv. l
1500
1,460,619
1017
0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 2
Conv. 2
1500
1,460,619
1017
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 3
Conv. 3
1500
1,422,719
991
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 4
Conv. 4
1500
1,422,719
991
0.000140
0.000046
_
48" Conveyor 5
Conv. 5
600
37,900
?
0.000140
0.000046
_
42" Conve or B
Conv. B
1400
1,422,719
771
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor C
Conv. C
800
712,084
386
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor D
30" Conveyor E
Conv. D
Conv. E
1400
650
1,423,222
946
771
1
0.000140
0.000140
0.000046
0.000046
_
36" Conveyor F
Conv. F
500
461,913
250
0.000140
0.000046
42" Radial Stacking Conveyor G
Conv. G
900
710,635
385
0.000140
0.000046
_
30" Conveyor H
Conv. H
650
711,138
385
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor I
Conv.1
650
711,138
385
0.000140
0.000046
80 Ton Surge Bin
80 T Bin
N/A
711,138
385
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor J
Conv. J
650
711,138
385
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor K
Conv. K
400
946
1
_
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor L
Conv. L
400
946
1
0.000140
0.000046
_
_
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor M
Conv. tvt
400
946
1
0.000140
0.000046
_
36" Conveyor N
Conv. N
Soo
248,722
135
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor O
Conv. 0
900
711,138
385
0.000140
0.000046
-
30" Conveyor P
Conv. P
600
123,880
67
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor Q
Conv. Q
600
_
123,880
67
N/A
N/A
30" Conveyor R
Conv. R
600
572,480
310
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor S
Conv. S
600
572,480
310
N/A
N/A
36" Conveyor T
Conv. T
600
14,778
8
N/A
N/A
- --
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor U
Conv. U
600
14,778
8
N/A
N/A
_
t-
25 Ton Sand Bin
Sand Bin
N/A
35,532
19
1 0.000140
0.000046
24" Sand Conveyor V
Conv. V
250
35,532
19
0.000140
0.000046
30" Sand Conveyor V2
Conv. V2
120
35,532
19
0.000140
0.000046
54" Double Screw Sand Screw
Screw
N/A
35,532
19
N/A
__N/A
14' x 14' Re -wash bin
RWB
N/A
35,557
19
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor W
Conv. W
600
35,557
19
0.000140
0.000046
Primary Plant Hours of Operation
1,436
Seconda Plant Hours of Operation
1,845
Total Actual PM/TSP Emissions (Tons)
Total Actual PM-10 Emissions (Tons)
-
_
Total Actual PM-2.5 Emissions (Tons)
_
Emission Source (ES) Crushers Total
_
_
Emission Source (ES) Screens Total
Emission Source (ES) Conveyors Total
Footnotes:
1-Process Equipment as detailed in Air Permit No.
4386
2-Material Balance determined by applying actual
2017 total plant
production
information by product
size to applicable
process equipment
in the production
line. This information is an engineering best estimate based on typical plant flow patterns.
3-Generally accepted emission factors as published in AP42, Section 11, Table 11.19.2-2. Application/use of "controlled" emission factors is justified based on the industry source testing s onsored by the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association
in cooperation wit the US EPA. Actual plant operation is with all control devices operating in order to comply with the opacity standards of NSPS.
4-For the purpose of estimating emissions, the 64" X 30' vibrating grizzly feeder at the primary crusher is treated as a screen and the controlled emissions factor for screens is utilized in the calculations.
Likewise, the 80 Ton surge bin and 25 ton sand bin are treated_ as conveyor transfer points and the controlled emissions factor for conveyors is utilized in the calculations.
_
5-Wet no emissions
processes,
-

Wake Stone Corporation - Triangle Quarry
_
Calendar Year 2018 Actual Pant Process Emissions based on Published and Draft AP42 Emission Factors
Emission Factors
Published3'4
Published3'4
Published3'4
jRated
Material Balance
AP-42 Emission
AP-42 Emission
AP-42 Emission
acity
Actual 2018
Prod. Rate
Factor for PM/TSP
FactorforPM-10
FactorforPM-2.5
PM/TSP
PM-10
Actual PM-2.5Process
Equipment'
ID No.
ns/hr)
Throughput (tons)
TPH (ave.)
(in Ibs/ton)
(in Ibs/ton)
(in lbs/ton) Emissions (Tons)3 Emissions (Tons)3 Emissions (Tons)3
0.000050 1.095477 0.368479 0.024897
0.000100 0.448150 0.201667 0.037346
0.000100 0.388431 0.174794 0.032369
0.000100 0.268754 0.120939 0.022396
0.000100 0.268748 0.120937 0.022396
0.000050 1.095477 0.368479 0.024897
0.000050 1.040766 0.350076 0.023654
0.000050 0.492710 0.165730 0.011198
0.000050 0.492710 0.165730 0.011198
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A5
0.000013 0.069712 0.022905 0.006473
0.000013 0.069712 0.022905 0.006473
0.000013 0.066231 0.021761 0.006150
0.000013 0.066231 0.021761 0.006150
0.000013 0.003482 0.001144 0.000323
0.000013 0.066231 0.021761 0.006150
0.000013 0.031355 0.010302 0.002912
0.000013 0.062709 0.020604 0.005823
0.000013 0.000001 0.000000 0.000000
0.000013 0.022669 0.007448 0.002105
0.000013 0.034876 0.011459 0.003238
0.000013 0.031354 0.010302 0.002911
0.000013 0.031354 0.010302 0.002911
0.000013 0.031354 0.010302 0.002911
0.000013 0.031354 0.010302 0.002911
0.000013 0.000001 0.000000 0,000000
0.000013 0.000001 0.000000 0.000000
0.000013 0.000001 0.000000 0.000000
0.000013 0.012207 0.004011 0.001133
0.000013 0.031354 0.010302 0.002911
N/A N/A5 N/A' N/A'
_ N/A N/A' N/A5 N/A'
N/A N/A5 N/A' N/A'
N/A N/A5 N/A' N/A5
N/A N/A5 N/A5 N/A'
N/A WAS N/A5 N/A'
0.000013 0.001744 0.000573 0.000162
0.000013 0.001744 0.000573 0.000162
0.000013 0.001744 0.000573 0.000162
N/A N/A' N/A' - N/A'
0.000013 0.001568 0.000515 0.000146
0.000013 0.001568 0.000515 0.000146
- 6.26
2.26
0.27
1.374083 0.618337 0.114507
3.121664 1.050014 0.070947
0.635887 0.208934 0.059047
Crushing
Screening
Total Throughput:
Total Throughput:
26'x36' Rock Box and 64"x30' Feeder
RB-F
1500
995,888
1066
0.002200
0.000740
Lippman 50" x 62" Primary (Jaw) Crusher _
Cl
1620
746,916
800
0.001200
0.000540
Symons HD T Std. Cone Crusher
C2
1400
647,385
494
0.001200
0.000540
Symons T Std. Cone Crusher
C3
300
447,924
342
0.001200
0.000540
Symons T S. H. Cone Crusher
C4
800
447,913
342
0.001200
0.000540
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S4
S4
1500
995,888
1066
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S2
St
1500
946,151
722
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2A
S2A
800
447,919
342
0.002200
0.000740
_
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2B
S2B
800
447,919
342
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 24' - 3D Rinsing Screen - ID S3
S3
800
_
447,913
342
N/A
N/A
Conveyors
Total Throughput:
9,084,095
54" Conveyor I
Conv.1
1500
995,888
1066
1 0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 2
Conv. 2
1500
995,888
1066
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 3
Conv. 3
1500
1013
0.000140
0.000046
_
42" Conveyor 4
Conv. 4
1500
_946,151
946,151
1013
0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 5
Conv. 5
600
49,737
?
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor B
Conv. B
1400
946,151
722
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor C
Conv. C
800
447,924
342
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor D
Conv. DJ900
895,837
683
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor E
Conv. E
11
0
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor F
Conv. F
323,848
247
0.000140
0.000046
42" Radial Stacking Conveyor G
Conv. G
498,227
380
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor H
Conv. H
447,913
342
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor I
Conv.1
447,913
342
0.000140
0.000046
80 Ton Sure Bin
80 T Bin
N/A
447,913
342
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor J
Conv. J
650
447,913
342
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor K
Conv. K
400
11
0
0.000140
0.000046
_
36" Conveyor L
Conv. L
400
11
0
0.000140
0.000046
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor M
Conv. M
400
11
0
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor N
Conv. N
500
174,379
133
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor O
Conv. 0
900
447,913
342
0.000140
0.000046_
_
30" Conveyor
Conv.P
600
87,209
67
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor Q
Conv. Q
600
87,209
67
N/A
N/A
30" Conveyor R
Conv.R
600
359,542
274
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor S
Conv. S
600
359,542
274
N/A
N/A
36" Conveyor T
Conv. T
600
1,162
1
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor U
Conv. U
600
1,162
1
N/A
N/A
25 Ton Sand Bin
Sand Bin
N/A
_
24,911
19
0.000140
0.000046
24" Sand Conveyor V
Conv. V
250
24,911
19
0.000140
0.000046
30" Sand Conveyor V2
Conv. V2
120
24,911
19
0.000140
0.000046
54" Double Screw Sand Screw
Screw
N/A
24,911
19
N/A
N/A
14' x 14' Re -wash bin
RWB
N/A
22,396
17
0.000140
0.000046
_
30" Conveyor W
Conv. W
600
22,396
17
_ 0.000140
0.000046
Primary Plant Hours of Operation
Secondary Plant Hours of Operation
934
1,311
Total Actual PM/TSP Emissions (Tons)
Total Actual PM-10 Emissions (Tons)
Total Actual PM-2.5 Emissions (Tons)
Emission Source (ES) Crushers Total
Emission Source (ES) Screens Total
Emission Source (ES) Conveyors Total
Footnotes:
1-Process Equipment as detailed in Air Permit No. 4386
2-Material Balance determined by applying actual 2018 total plant production information by product size to applicable process equipment in the production line. This information is an engineering best estimate based on typical plant flow patterns.
3-Generally accepted emission factors as published in AP-42, Section 11, Table 11.19.2-2. Application/use of "controlled" emission factors is justified based on the industry source testing sponsored by the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association
in cooperation wit the US EPA. Actual plant operation is with all control devices operating in order to comply with the opacity standards of NSPS.
_ __._
4-For the purpose of estimating emissions, the 64" X 30' vibrating grizzly feeder at the primary crusher is treated as a screen and the controlled emissions factor for screens is utilized in the calculations.
Likewise, the 80 Ton surge bin and 25 ton sand bin are treated as conveyor transfer points and the controlled emissions factor for conveyors is utilized in the calculations.
_
5-Wet processes, no emissions
I
_
i

Wake Stone Corporation - Triangle Quarry I I-
-
Calendar Year 2019 Actual Plant Process Emissions based on Published and Draft AP-42 Emission Factors
_
Emission Factors
Published3,4
Published3.4
Published3'4
_
Rated
_
Material Balance
AP42 Emission
AP42 Emission AP-42 Emission
Capacity
Actual 2019
Prod. Rate
Factor for PM/TSP
Factor for PM-10
Factor for PM-2.5
PM/TSP
PM-10
Actual PM-2.5
Process Equipment'
ID No.
(tons/hr)
Throughput (tons)
TPH (ave.)
(in lbs/ton)
(in lbs/ton)
(in Ibs/ton)
Emissions (Tons);
Emissions (Tons);
Emissions (Tons);
Crushing Total Throughput: 1,982'
Screening Total Throughput: 2,457,909
----
Total Throughput: 7,861,127
-_
_
_
_
_ {
26'x36' Rock Box and 64"x30' Feeder
RB-F
1500
864,315
1006
0.002200
0.000740
0.000050 0.950747 0.319797 0.021608
0.000100 0.388942 0.175024 0.032412
0.000100 0.333264 0.149969 0.027772
0.000100 0.233678 0.105155 0.019473_
0.000100 0.233638 0.105137 0.019470
0.000050 0.950747 0.319797 0.021608
0.000050 0,896207 0.301452 0.020368
0.000050 0.428373 0.144089 0.009736 --
0.000050 s, 0.428373 0.144089 0.009736
N/A N/A' N/A' N/A5
0.000013 0.060502 0.019879 0.005618[Conveyors
0.000013 0.060502 0.019879 0.005618
0.000013 0.057031 0.018739 0.005296
0.000013 0.057031 0.018739 0.005296
0.000013 0.003471 0.001140 0.000322
0.000013 0.057031 0.018739 0.005296
0.000013 - 0.027262 0.008958 0.002532
0.000013 0.054520 0.017914 0.005063
0.000013 _ 0.000005 0.000002 0.000000
0.000013 0.019350 0.006358 0.001797
0.000013 0.029769 0.009781 0.002764
0.000013 0.027258 0.008956 0.002531 -
0.000013 0.027258 0.008956 0.002531
0.000013 0.027258 0.008956 0.002531
0.000013 0.027258 0.008956 0.002531
0.000013 0.000005 0.000002 0.000000
0.000013 0.000005 0.000002 0.000000
0.000013 0.000005 0.000002 0.000000
0.000013 0.010419 0.003423 0.000967 -
0.000013 0.027258 0.008956 0.002531
N/A N/A' N/A5 N/A'
N/A N/A5 N/A' N/A'
_ N/A N/A' N/A' N/A5 -
N/A N/A5 N/A' N/AS
N/A N/A' N/A5 N/A5
N/A N/A' N/A5 N/A5 -
0.000013 0.001488 0.000489 0.000138
0.000013 0.001488 0.000489 0.000138
0.000013 0.001488 0.000489 0.000138
N/A N/AS N/A' N/AS
0.000013 0.001363 0.000448 0.000127
0.000013 0.001363 0.000448 0.000127
Lippman 50" x 62" Primary (Jaw) Crusher
Cl
1620
648,236
755
- 0.001200
0.000540
Symons HD 7' Std. Cone Crusher
C2
1400
555,440
545 _
0.001200
0.000540
Symons T Std. Cone Crusher
0
300
389,463
382
0.001200
0.000540
Symons 7' S. H. Cone Crusher
C4
800
389,397
382
0.001200
0.000540
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S4
S4
1500
864,315
1006
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 16' - 2D Screen - ID S2
SI
15oo
814,734
799
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2A
S2A
800
389,430
382
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 20' - 3D Screen - ID S2B
-
S2B
800
-
389,430
382
0.002200
0.000740
8' x 24' - 3D Rinsing Screen - ID S3
S3
800
389,397
382
N/A
N/A _
54" Conveyor 1
Conv. I
1500
864,315
1006
0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 2
Conv. 2
1500
864,315
1006
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 3
Conv. 3
1500
814,734
948
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor 4
Conv.4
1500
814,734
948
0.000140
0.000046
48" Conveyor 5
Conv. 5
600
49,581
?
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor B
Conv. B
1400
814,734
799
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor C
Conv. C
800
389,463
382
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor D
Conv. D
1400
778,860
764
0.000140
0,000046
30" Conveyor E
Conv. E
650
66
0
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor F
Conv. F
500
276,426
271
0.000140
0.000046
42" Radial Stacking Conveyor G
Conv. G
900
425,271
417
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor H
Conv. H
650
389,397
382
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor I
Conv.1
650
389,397
382
0.000140
0.000046
80 Ton Surge Bin
80 T Bin
N/A
389,397
382
0.000140
0.000046
42" Conveyor J
Conv. J
650
389,397
382
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor K
Conv. K
400
66
0
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor L
Conv. L
400
66
0
0.000140
0.000046
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor M
Conv. M
400
66
0
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor N -
Conv. N
5o0
148,845
146
0.000140
0.000046
36" Conveyor O
Conv. 0
goo
389,397
382
0.000140
_ 0.000046
30" Conveyor P
Conv. P
-
600
96,089
94
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor Q
Conv. Q
600
96,089
94
N/A
N/A
30" Conveyor R
Conv. R
600
292,983
287
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor S
Conv. S
600
292,983
287
N/A
N/A
36"Conveyor T
Conv.T
600
325
_
0
N/A
N/A
30" Radial Stacking Conveyor U
Conv. U
600
325
0
N/A
N/A
25 Ton Sand Bin
Sand Bin
N/A
21,264
21
0.000140
0.000046
24" Sand Conveyor V
Conv. V
250
21,264
21
0.000140
0.000046
_
30" Sand Conveyor V2
Conv. V2
12o
21,264
21
0.000140
0.000046
54" Double Screw Sand Screw
Screw
N/A
21,264
21
N/A
N/A
14' x 14' Re -wash bin
RWB
N/A
19,470
19
0.000140
0.000046
30" Conveyor W
Conv. W
600
19,470
19
0.000140
0.000046
_
Primary Plant Hours of Operation
859
Secondary Plant Hours of Operation
1,020
_
Total Actual PM/TSP Emissions (Tons)
_ 5.42 _
_ 1.96
_ 0.24
1.189521 0.535285 0.099127 -
2.703700 0.909426 0.061448
_ 0.550279 0.180806 0.051097
line. This information is an engineering best estimate based on typical plant flow patterns.
Total Actual PM-10 Emissions (Tons)
_ _ _ _
Total Actual PM-2.5 Emissions (Tons)_
Emission Source (ES) Crushers Total
Emission Source (ES) Screens Total
ta
Emission Source (ES) Conveyors Tol
-
Footnotes:--
_
in the production
1-Process Equipment as detailed in Air Permit No.
2-Material Balance determined by applying actual
4386
2019 total plant
production
information by product
size to applicable
process equipment
3-Generally accepted emission factors as published in AP-42, Section 11, Table 11.19.2-2. Application/use of "controlled" emission factors is justified based on the industry source testing sponsored by the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association
- - -- --
in cooperation wit the US EPA. Actual plant operation is with all control devices operating in order to comply with the opacity standards of NSPS.
4-For the purpose of estimating emissions, the 64" X 30' vibrating grizzly feeder at the primary crusher is treated as a screen and the controlled emissions factor for screens is utilized
in the calculations.
Likewise, the 80 Ton surge bin and 25 ton sand bin are treated as conveyor transfer points and the controlled emissions factor for conveyors is utilized in the calculations.--
5 -Wet processes, no emissions_-

Question 7. Please provide for last 5 years, by year, the number of blasts per year of shot(s) (sic)
greater than 5-holes, and the average duration of shots.
WSC response:
Calendar Year Number of Blasts Average Duration (milliseconds)
2015
54
259
2016
67
242
2017
76
239
2018
44
253
2019
48
248
(Note: tally of all production blasts is attached)

Blast Data 2015
Date
# of holes Max
Delay Shot #
Elevation
1/6/2015
41
277
1
40
1/15/2015
42
277
2
80
1/22/2015
40
257
3
80
2/4/2015
32
306
4
80
2/11/2015
38
247
5
40
3/4/2015
28
257
6
80
3/11/2015
25
257
7
40
3/18/2015
31
257
8
80
3/24/2015
41
277
9
40
4/2/2015
53
315
10
40
4/8/2015
32
237
11
80
4/15/2015
33
297
12
40
4/20/2015
38
267
13
80
4/24/2015
13
207
14
40
5/5/2015
42
243
15
40
5/7/2017
40
297
16
40
5/14/2017
32
228
17
40
5/20/2015
31
267
18
80
5/27/2015
36
198
19
40
6/1/2015
14
215
20
40
6/3/2015
32
286
21
80
6/10/2015
30
277
22
40
6/16/2015
38
238
23
0
6/24/2015
39
238
24
80
7/1/2015
32
297
25
40
7/8/2015
36
238
26
80
7/13/2015
44
302
27
40
7/17/2015
36
238
28
80
7/24/2015
30
250
29
80
7/30/2015
38
332
30
40
8/6/2015
43
313
31
80
8/13/2015
33
238
32
40
8/18/2015
33
228
33
40
8/25/2015
32
228
34
40
9/3/2015
29
218
35
80
9/10/2015
36
307
36
40
9/16/2015
32
228
37
40
9/22/2015
29
218
38
80
9/28/2015
35
286
39
40
10/1/2015
28
316
40
10/7/2015
28
208
41
10/13/2015
31
267
42
10/19/2015
24
286
43
10/22/2015
24
199
44
10/27/2015
24
247
45
10/29/2015
31
321
46
11/5/2015
32
218
47
40
11/11/2015
26
296
48
80
11/16/2015
13
178
49
40
11/24/2015
47
277
50
40
12/3/2015
57
307
51
80
12/9/2015
34
247
52
40
12/15/2015
40
267
53
40
12/18/2015
28
225
54
0
Average Duration: 259.2963 milliseconds

Blast Data 2016
Date #
of holes Max
Delay Shot #
Elevation
1/6/2016
36
247
1
40
1/12/2016
28
208
2
40
1/20/2016
27
257
3
80
1/28/2016
43
297
4
0
2/1/2016
31
208
5
40
2/3/2016
21
188
6
80
2/10/2016
44
257
7
0
2/22/2016
46
248
8
0
2/25/2016
17
237
9
80
3/1/2016
31
188
10
40
3/8/2016
43
277
11
0
3/14/2016
49
258
12
0
3/21/2016
34
208
13
80
3/24/2016
29
247
14
40
3/31/2016
46
288
15
0
4/5/2016
23
244
16
80
4/11/2016
44
378
17
40
4/14/2016
45
334
18
80
4/20/2016
46
333
19
40
4/27/2016
44
278
20
0
5/5/2016
44
268
21
80
5/12/2016
50
321
22
40
5/19/2016
43
237
23
40
5/26/2016
85
181
24
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
6/1/2016
28
275
25
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
6/7/2016
41
289
26
40
6/21/2016
43
268
27
0
6/22/2016
73
186
28
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
6/27/2016
23
237
29
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
7/6/2016
36
228
30
40
7/12/2016
26
168
31
40
7/14/2016
40
258
32
40
7/19/2016
24
227
33
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
7/25/2016
29
208
34
40
7/25/2016
21
168
35
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
8/1/2016
39
228
36
0
8/3/2016
25
124
37
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
8/5/2016
43
258
38
0
8/10/2016
24
188
39
40
8/17/2016
26
147
40
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
8/19/2016
35
248
41
0
8/25/2016
36
238
42
0
8/25/2016
24
143
43
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
9/1/2016
27
228
44
40
9/1/2016
32
162
45
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
9/12/2016
34
290
46
40
9/16/2016
40
247
47
0
9/22/2016
25
257
48
40
9/19/2016
52
177
49
40 to 80 (ramp
development)
9/29/2016
38
307
50
40
10/4/2016
36
231
51
0
10/7/2016
22
208
52
40
10/13/2016
42
297
53
0
10/19/2016
36
231
54
0
10/21/2016
24
247
55
40
10/25/2016
31
261
56
0
11/1/2016
35
336
57
40
11/7/2016
34
218
58
0
11/14/2016
33
231
59
40
11/17/2016
34
335
60
0
11/28/2016
34
277
61
40
12/1/2016
31
208
62
0
12/7/2016
37
247
63
0
12/13/2016
33
198
64
40
12/15/2016
29
208
65
0
12/21/2016
23
305
66
40
12/28/2016
28
208
67
0
Average Duration: 241.597 milliseconds

Blast Data 2017
Date # of holes Max Delay Shot # Elevation
1/6/2017 34 247 1 40
1/16/2017 32 231 2 40
1/18/2017 28 208 3 0
1/20/2017 34 233 4 40
1/26/2017 17 178 5 40
1/27/2017 51 357 6 0
2/1/2017 36 277 7 0
2/7/2017 20 227 8 0
2/10/2017 41 336 9 0
2/16/2017 43 307 10 0
2/20/2017 24 247 11 40
2/27/2017 47 311 12 0
3/3/2017 33 268 13 0
3/7/2017 30 287 14 40
3/8/2017 44 165 15 40
3/13/2017 37 265 16 0
3/17/2017 42 258 17 0
3/17/2017 40 120 18 40 to 80 (ramp development)
3/23/2017 27 247 19 40
3/27/2017 40 272 20 0
3/28/2017 44 120 21 40 to 80 (ramp development)
4/3/2017 17 168 22 40
4/7/2017 32 208 23 40 to 80 (ramp development)
4/10/2017 34 307 24 0
4/12/2017 44 276 25 0
4/19/2020 33 217 26 0
4/19/2017 22 155 27 40 to 80 (ramp development)
4/27/2017 29 218 28 40 to 80 (ramp development)
5/2/2017 34 267 29 40
5/9/2017 29 238 30 40
5/16/2017 30 247 31 40 to 80 (ramp development)
5/19/2017 41 278 32 0
5/22/2017 41 248 33 0
5/26/2017 31 238 34 40
6/2/2017 32 238 35 0
6/13/2017 96 288 36 40 to 80 (ramp development)
6/15/2017 33 228 37 40
6/22/2017 29 238 38 40
6/29/2017 38 248 39 0
7/6/2017 32 218 40 40
7/11/2017 49 258 41 0 to 40 (ramp development)
7/17/2017 50 267 42 0
7/20/2017 25 188 43 40
7/26/2017 36 415 44 40
8/1/2017 37 267 45 0
8/4/2017 39 184 46 0 to 40 (ramp development)
8/11/2017 32 208 47 0
8/16/2017 47 274 48 0 to 40 (ramp development)
8/22/2017 21 237 49 40
8/25/2017 38 248 50 0
8/25/2017 6 80 51 0 to 40 (ramp development)
9/1/2017 48 241 52 0
9/6/2017 21 178 53 40
9/14/2017 50 291 54 0
9/20/2017 34 232 55 0
10/4/2017 50 318 56 0
10/11/2017 39 278 57 3
10/17/2017 62 236 58 -40 to -80 (sink)
10/18/2017 48 377 59 0
10/20/2017 18 179 60 0
10/25/2017 64 195 61 -40 to -80 (sink)
10/26/2017 29 169 62 0
10/31/2017 34 268 63 0
11/6/2017 31 268 64 0
11/9/2017 52 298 65 0
11/14/2017 44 273 66 0
11/17/2017 36 268 67 0
11/28/2017 15 119 68 0
11/28/2017 32 298 69 0
11/30/2017 42 161 70 -40 to -80 (sink)
12/5/2017 32 229 71 0
12/8/2017 34 190 72 -40 to -80 (sink)
12/8/2017 31 283 73 0
12/14/2017 21 149 74 0
12/19/2017 38 193 75 -40 to -80 (sink)
12/22/2017 30 139 76 0
Average Duration: 238.6842 Milliseconds

Blast Data 2018
Date
# of holes
Max Delay Shot #
Elevation
1/9/2018
27
193
1
-40 to -80
1/11/2018
31
198
2
0
1/16/2018
42
245
3
-40 to -80
1/24/2018
32
317
4
0
1/31/2018
32
327
5
0
2/12/2018
36
160
6
-40 to -80
2/19/2018
33
229
7
0
2/27/2018
59
219
8
-40 to -80
3/6/2018
31
189
9
0
3/9/2018
33
164
10
-40
3/13/2018
40
317
11
0
3/26/2018
38
287
12
-40
4/3/2018
34
223
13
-40
4/10/2018
29
208
14
-40
4/17/2018
33
228
15
-40
4/20/2018
27
238
16
0
4/24/2018
24
237
17
-40
4/27/2018
36
228
18
-40
5/4/2018
32
208
19
-40
5/11/2018
39
288
20
-40
5/22/2018
46
268
21
-40
5/30/2018
33
237
22
-40
6/5/2018
29
258
23
0
6/11/2018
36
278
24
-40
6/18/2018
37
228
25
-40
6/25/2018
40
238
26
-40
6/28/2018
28
238
27
0
7/2/2018
21
198
28
0
7/10/2018
40
258
29
-40
7/20/2018
44
238
30
-40
7/26/2018
41
318
31
-40
8/7/2018
38
282
32
-40
8/14/2018
35
238
33
-40
8/29/2018
29
258
34
0
9/11/2018
38
253
35
-40
10/3/2018
46
278
36
-40
10/16/2018
42
238
37
0
10/22/2018
46
338
38
-40
10/30/2018
45
278
39
-40
11/7/2018
44
318
40
-40
11/21/2018
46
338
41
-40
12/7/2018
41
298
42
-40
12/19/2018
42
318
43
-40
12/19/2018
32
228
44
-40
Average Duration: 252.79545 Milliseconds

Blast Data 2019
Date
# of holes Max Delay Shot #
Elevation
01/03/19
44
258
1
0
01/11/19
37
248
2
-40
01/18/19
38
248
3
-40
01/29/19
46
348
4
-40
02/08/19
33
228
5
-40
02/18/19
36
243
6
-40
02/26/19
31
233
7
-40
03/01/19
31
223
8
-40
03/07/19
33
218
9
-40
03/13/19
36
298
10
0
03/22/19
26
198
11
0
03/29/20
38
258
12
0
04/05/19
36
277
13
-40
04/16/19
29
218
14
-40
04/24/19
30
238
15
0
05/08/19
34
346
16
-40
05/17/19
41
238
17
0
05/22/19
57
177
18
-80 to -130
06/04/19
41
268
19
-40
06/07/19
53
192
20
-80 to -130
06/18/19
37
278
21
-40
06/25/19
46
444
22
-40
07/01/19
50
192
23
-80 to -130
07/08/19
49
337
24
-40
07/12/19
53
192
25
-80 to -130
07/19/19
23
218
26
0
07/30/19
45
337
27
-40
08/07/19
37
277
28
0
08/13/19
26
228
29
-40
08/22/19
39
317
30
0
08/29/19
36
297
31
0
08/30/19
49
177
32
-80 to -130
09/10/19
25
218
33
0
09/13/19
28
208
34
-80 to -130
09/19/19
26
218
35
-40
09/24/19
31
238
36
-80 to -130
09/27/19
1
0
37
-40
10/03/19
31
204
38
-80-to-130
10/11/19
20
184
39
0
10/15/19
30
262
40
-80 to -130
10/18/19
27
209
41
-40
10/29/19
28
262
42
-80 to -130
11/06/19
28
213
43
-80 to -130
11/11/19
19
208
44
-40
11/14/19
46
478
45
-40
11/25/19
28
296
46
-130
12/05/19
20
278
47
-40
12/05/19
13
145
48
0
12/18/19
28
274
49
-130
Average Duration: 247.83673 Milliseconds

Question 8. Please provide a description of the Company's dust suppression activities at the
current and proposed mine sites.
WSC response:
WSC's Triangle Quarry is covered under NC Division of Air Quality Permit No. 04386/R15 which details
our responsibilities for management of fugitive dust emissions generated from the stone mining and
processing activities at the site. At the currently operating quarry WSC utilizes a variety of industry
standard methods for control and management of fugitive dust emissions.
Pit operations, haul roads, and stockpile yard areas
In preparation of blasts areas, WSC utilizes down -hole hammer percussion rock drills equipped with
water injection devices for control of drill -generated dust. WSC uses an 8,000-gallon capacity water
truck for application of wet suppression sprays to active mine areas, haul roads, and customer travel
areas within the stockpile yard area. The water truck is also used to wet blasted rock muck piles in the
pit prior to loading for transport to the primary crushing station in the pit. Muck piles are typically wet
2-3 times per day during pit loading activities. Water is applied to in -pit haul roads and customer travel
areas on the stockpile yard area throughout the operational day. Water spray application typically
occurs once or twice per hour, or more frequently on an as -needed basis. Two fill -up stations are
available for use by the water truck operator, one at the -40' elevation in the pit and one on the lower
stockpile yard. Utilization of two fill -up stations improves efficiency and turn -around times due to the
haul road distances and stockyard areas requiring water application.
Customer entrance road and paved office parking areas
WSC utilizes a sprinkler system installed along the customer entrance road (Star Lane) to
minimize/control fugitive dust emissions from being generated by customer truck during ingress and
egress. The 8,000-gallon water truck is also utilized periodically for application of additional dust
suppression sprays to the entrance road, and in periodic washing of the paved road and parking areas.
Additionally, a contracted sweeper service performs weekly sweeping operations on Star Lane and the
immediately adjacent portion of North Harrison Avenue.
Processiniz plant dust control measures
Wet suppression spray devices are utilized throughout the primary and secondary stone processing
plants. Within the in -pit primary production plant, spray devices are located at:
• Truck dump hopper,
• Feed opening of the primary (jaw) crusher,
• At the tail end of Conveyor #1 beneath the primary crusher,
• On the 8'X16' scalping screen,
• At the feed opening of the 7' Standard Cone secondary crusher,
• At the tail end of Conveyor #3 beneath the secondary cone crusher, and on
• The transfer to Conveyor #4.

In the secondary processing plant, wet suppression spray devices are utilized at:
• The feed and discharge areas of the 7' tertiary and quaternary crushers, and
• On Conveyors C, F, G, J, and M.
Additionally, variable height radial stacking conveyors are used for stockpiling of unwashed products
(ABC and Screenings). Use of variable height stackers allows operations staff to monitor and minimize
product drop heights from the conveyor to the stockpile, thereby minimizing the opportunity for
generation of fugitive dust emissions. Water spray devices at the discharge end of these conveyors
further reduce emissions.
Vegetative controls
Vegetated earthen berms are in place along the common boundary with Umstead State Park and along
portions of 1-40. These berms are densely vegetated with pine and other tree species. In addition to
providing visual screening of the operation, the placement of these vegetated berms aid in containment
of fugitive dust emissions.
RDUAA Odd Fellows tract expansion area
Control of fugitive dust on the Odd Fellows tract pit expansion site will be by application of water sprays
to all active excavation and travel areas. The water truck will be utilized as needed during initial land
clearing/grubbing activities, during overburden removal activities, and during the construction of the
proposed perimeter earthen berms. Exposed soil areas will be minimized during all phases of site
development. Establishment of temporary and permanent vegetative cover will be employed in as
timely a manner as practicable during all phases of site development to minimize the extent of soil areas
exposed to wind erosion and traffic generated dust.

Question 9. Please provide the following information for the proposed bridge over Crabtree Creek:
a. Design and construction sequencing details.
b. Design considerations for wildlife passage along the Crabtree Creek corridor.
c. A storm water and sediment control management plan for run-on to and runoff
from the bridge.
WSC response:
9.a. Bridge Design and Construction Sequence
Design of the proposed bridge across Crabtree Creek has been contracted to the engineering design firm
Michael Baker International (MBI). MBI is well respected in the field of bridge design engineering.
Preliminary bridge design has been completed. Final engineering and development of construction
drawings will be completed upon receipt of the requested Mining Permit Modification. Following are
the basic design consideration for the proposed bridge:
• Provide an engineered bridge design to safely support loaded 65-ton capacity mine haul trucks.
• Provide sufficient bridge width to provide for two-way traffic for mine haul trucks.
• Design the bridge and bridge approaches such that there will be minimal disturbance to the
Neuse Riparian Buffer alongside Crabtree Creek.
• Design the bridge such that no support structure is required within Crabtree Creek and such that
end bents are placed outside of the 100-year floodway fringe.
• Design the bridge with no through -deck ("scupper") drains, and at a longitudinal gradient that
provides positive drainage across the bridge to the depleted Triangle Quarry pit.
As illustrated on the attached drawings, MBI has provided an initial bridge design that satisfies these
design considerations. The bridge will consist of poured -in -place concrete end bents (placed outside the
floodway fringe). The end bents will be set atop poured -in -place concrete footings. The concrete
footings will be supported by driven steel piles. Once the end bents and associated wing walls are in
place, compacted fill will be placed to proposed grade, and precast concrete beams set in place to
complete the bridge support structure. Following placement of the 72" Modified Bulb Tee beams, stay -
in -place corrugated metal forms will be installed to allow pouring of the V-3" thick solid concrete bridge
deck. Concrete barrier rails and concrete median barrier will be poured -in -place following bridge deck
slab installation.
Bridge Construction Sequence
• Flag clearing limits for bridge approaches, end bents, and wing walls.
• Clear and grub flagged area for bridge approaches, end bents, and wing walls.
• Install perimeter silt fencing/reinforced silt fencing/silt fence outlets and temporary basins #3
(and associated culvert and diversion channels) and #7 as illustrated on the E&SC Plan sheets.
• Excavate area required for foundations/footings. Remove spoil to suitable storage areas.
• Install driven HP 12 X 53 steel piles to refusal.
• Install forms for placement of concrete foundations/footings.
• Place concrete in foundations.
• Remove concrete forms from foundations once cured.
• Install forms for placement of concrete in end bents, pour end bents, and strip forms once
cured.

• Install forms for placement of concrete in wing walls, pour wing walls, and strip forms once
cured.
• Backfill approach areas behind end bents and wing walls.
• Set precast concrete beams.
• Form, pour, and strip concrete bridge deck.
• Form, pour, and strip concrete barrier rails and median barrier.
• Form, pour, and strip east end and west end approach slabs.
• Grade final approaches to provide positive drainage to the depleted Triangle Quarry pit.
• Install permanent seeding/establish ground cover on disturbed areas.
9.1b. Design considerations for wildlife passage along the Crabtree Creek corridor
In designing the bridge such that end bents are to be placed outside of the Crabtree Creek Floodway
Fringe, suitable wildlife passage zones will be maintained along both banks of Crabtree Creek. The
bridge design as discussed above and as illustrated on the accompanying preliminary design drawings
provides 10-12' of overhead clearance and 14-18' of width for wildlife passage. With no support
structure required within the creek, passage of aquatic organisms will be unaffected by the bridge.
9.c. A stormwater and sediment control management plan for run-on to and runoff from the bridge.
Temporary basin #3, temporary basin #7, and associated diversions and culverts will be constructed
prior to bridge construction. Once the end bent and wing walls are complete on the south end (east side
of Crabtree Creek) of the bridge, the approach area will be filled and compacted to final grade to
provide drainage to temporary basin #7 during the remainder of bridge construction. Once the
perimeter retaining wall on either side of the bridge is complete, the entire perimeter area, including
the bridge approach, will be graded to provide positive drainage to the existing quarry pit. Once the end
bent and wing walls on the west side of the Crabtree Creek are completed, the approach area between
the wing walls will be filled and compacted with a -0.5% grade from the end bent back to temporary
basin #3 for the for the remainder of bridge construction. Once the bridge deck and barrier rails are
completed, the approach area on the north end (west side of Crabtree Creek) of the bridge will be
brought to final grade to provide positive drainage across the bridge to the existing quarry pit. However,
all areas north of the wing walls will be graded to provide positive drainage to temporary basin #3 until
such time as pit development in the expansion area allows for capture, treatment, and discharge to the
existing pit.

CRABTREE
r CREEK-��►
Z
UNI ONi J
O O O
OD co
O O
S
N
x /W
U7 /m
m
m
� m
m r O / m /~I
Z
N O
m
O m r
o�
m
p
I N
m
r
z
G
(<
I a
o 71
co
v
u
I�98'
9
/ N
/ O
I 7� \
'0
1
T
I
l J1
I
Z
I
y
T
�z
r•
O
0
m�
�� r
Z
0
N)O
O
I J N
O <
O �
r
I
�
1
m I a
m
m
m
W
m
o
z
N
m
o I
�'0
r+
- m
�fO I
O U m
r O
m
"O
Ul
C ;u 0,1
ZO I
ox_
�K:
70
Z D I
mm
D
o
m
z ID
D Im
I
m
m
rn \

SUBMITTAL FOR
STRUCTURE PLANS
60'-0"
-L-
30'-0" 30'-0"
-9" 27'-41/2" 1'-9" 27'-41/2„
(CLEAR ROADWAY) (CLEAR ROADWAY)
t
CONC. MEDIAN CONC
.�
/2"SLAB a, BARRIER BARRIER RAIL
r (TYP.)
" ~ 0.020 FT/FT GRADE POINT 0.020 FT/FT
ih d
i r
METAL STAY -IN -PLACE 72"MODIFIED
FORM (TYP.) BULB TEE (TYP.)
2'-101/2" 7 SPA. 0 7'-9"= 54'-3" 2'-10%2"
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
5
� PRELIMINARY
Michael Baker
TYPICAL SECTION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL I N T E R N A T I O N A L
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED E4gi �oMa" caneraEECREEKSRiocE

G) Cn -1
--� —
D �
F- - D
+ O
N M F7
o � en
N N FT-1
z
F- o
F7
z
N
D
ZJ N J
fTl
F O CDF- u -0 Q0
O J N
cn
rTm
m I
z
o
O
Uj
D
z
o
�
m
N

Question 10. Please provide the following information for any proposed night-time production:
a. A description and explanation of any planned fixed or mobile lighting.
b. Submit a plan to reduce light pollution above current ambient levels.
WSC response:
Night-time Light Pollution Mitigation Plan
Wake Stone Corporation has no plans to operate the existing quarry or expansion pit beyond the hours
of daylight to dusk. As such, no fixed or mobile lighting are proposed or anticipated. Typical production
day hours at the Triangle Quarry are 06:30 AM to 6:00 PM. Should such night-time activities be
necessary, mobile light towers will be utilized only in the immediate work area. Such mobile light
sources will be directed towards the immediate work area in a manner to reduce or prevent elevation of
ambient light conditions beyond the permitted area.
Question 11. Please provide the following information for any proposed night-time maintenance:
a. A description and explanation of any planned fixed or mobile lighting.
b. Submit a plan to reduce light pollution above current ambient levels.
WSC response:
Night-time Maintenance Activity Light Pollution Mitigation Plan
At the current time, Wake Stone Corporation does not anticipate the need to perform night-time
maintenance activities. Time for Preventative Maintenance (PM) activities are included in weekly
production schedules. Should such night-time activities be necessary, mobile light towers will be utilized
only in the immediate work area. Such mobile light sources will be directed towards the repair or
maintenance work area in a manner to reduce or prevent elevation of ambient light conditions beyond
the permitted area.

Question 12. Please conduct an aquatic survey for the Atlantic pigtoe mussel in Crabtree Creek
within the project area of the proposed mine pit. We recommend consulting with the
US Fish and Wildlife Service for appropriate field survey methodologies.
WSC response:
Wake Stone Corporation contracted with the firm Alderman Environmental Services (AES) for
completion of the required freshwater mussel survey. On August 26, 2020 AES completed a survey of
Crabtree Creek. The survey was designed to target the Atlantic pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia masoni), but
all freshwater mussel species encountered were documented and population densities estimated. The
team of three biologist from AES surveyed Crabtree Creek from a point 400 meters downstream of the
eastern property boundary/permit boundary of the existing Triangle Quarry to the discharge tailrace of
the Lake Crabtree dam upstream of the North Cary Water Reclamation Plant effluent discharge point (a
stream length of 3,700 meters +/-). Although four individual freshwater mussel species were
documented, no representatives (living or dead) of the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) were
located. A report prepared by AES summarizing their findings is attached.

Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.
30 August 2020
PROJECT: Wake Stone Corporation Freshwater Mussel Surveys Within Crabtree
Creek, Wake County, North Carolina
TARGET SPECIES: Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
Staff: Joseph D. Alderman
John M. Alderman
Dr. Logan Williams
STATION 200826.1jda
LOCATION: Reach 1; see associated map at end of report
SURVEY DATE: 26 August 2020
SITE COMMENTS: Excellent survey conditions: water very low and clear to slightly
turbid within the surveyed perennial stream; stream size and patches of substrate
appropriate for the Atlantic Pigtoe; extremely strong effluent odor from North Cary
Water Reclamation Facility; only common, more pollution tolerant mussel species
documented
HABITAT FOR SURVEY REACH 1
WATERBODY TYPES
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
Stream
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
90
Clay, organics, woody debris, silt, sand, pebble,
gravel, cobble, boulder, bedrock; substrates varied
by reach
Normal and unconsolidated
Present
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)

WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH:
BANK HEIGHT:
BANK STABILITY:
BUFFER WIDTH:
RIPARIAN VEGETATION:
LAND USE:
PERCENT COVER:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Low
None
20 meters
Up to 3 meters
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Wooded, shrub -brush
Urbanizing
50
Clear to slightly turbid
Low
Hot; Sun -Cloud
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 2 person -hours
DOCUMENTED MUSSEL TAXA:
Elliptio complanata — 29 live, shells uncommon
Utterbackia imbecillis — 2 live
OTHER DOCUMENTED TAXA:
Corbicula fluminea - abundant

STATION 200826.2jda
LOCATION: Reach 2; see associated map at end of report
SURVEY DATE: 26 August 2020
SITE COMMENTS: Excellent survey conditions: water very low and clear to slightly
turbid within the surveyed perennial stream; stream size and patches of substrate
appropriate for the Atlantic Pigtoe; extremely strong effluent odor from North Cary
Water Reclamation Facility; only common, more pollution tolerant mussel species
documented
HABITAT FOR SURVEY REACH 1
WATERBODY TYPES
FLOW:
RELATIVE DEPTH:
DEPTH (%<2 FEET):
SUBSTRATE:
COMPACTNESS:
SAND/GRAVEL BARS:
WOODY DEBRIS:
BEAVER ACTIVITY:
WINDTHROW:
TEMPORARY POOLS:
CHANNEL WIDTH:
BANK HEIGHT:
BANK STABILITY:
BUFFER WIDTH:
RIPARIAN VEGETATION
LAND USE:
PERCENT COVER:
VISIBILITY:
WATER LEVEL:
WEATHER:
Stream
Run, riffle, slack
Shallow
50
Clay, organics, woody debris, silt, sand, pebble,
gravel, cobble, boulder, bedrock; substrates varied
by reach
Normal, unconsolidated, and compact
Present
Average
Evidence (gnawed sticks)
Moderate
None
20 meters
Up to 3 meters
Some erosion/undercutting
Wide
Wooded, shrub -brush
Urbanizing
50
Clear to slightly turbid
Low
Hot; Sun -Cloud
TECHNIQUES AND SURVEY TIME:
TECHNIQUES: Visual, tactile
SURVEY TIME: 9.75 person -hours

DOCUMENTED MUSSEL TAXA:
Elliptio complanata — 529 live, shells uncommon
Elliptio angustata — 3 live
Elliptio icterina — 1 live, 1 shell
Utterbackia imbecillis — 4 live, 1 shell
OTHER DOCUMENTED TAXA:
Corbicula fluminea - abundant
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
The Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) has been documented within Crabtree Creek
downstream from the project area during past decades; however, there have been no
documented occurrences of the species within the Crabtree Creek Subbasin since 2003.
Since 2003, there have been significant increases in urbanization within the subbasin
resulting in significant increases in point and nonpoint pollution. For project planning
purposes, the Biological Conclusion is "No Effect on the Atlantic Pigtoe."

Question 13. Please provide a noise study that evaluates the potential for noise impacts to William
B. Umstead State Park (Umstead Park). The protocol for the study must be approved
by the Mining Program before the study is conducted.
WSC response:
Wake Stone Corporation has contracted with the firm WSP USA, Inc. to develop a noise study protocol
acceptable to the Mining Program staff of NCDEMLR. A modified study protocol was accepted by
DEMLR on November 5, 2020. A final report will be submitted to NCDEMLR upon completion of the
noise study.

Question 14. Please provide the following information concerning the berm along the northern and
western portions of the Odd Fellows tract:
a. How long will it take to construct the screening berm?
b. When will construction of the screening berm begin?
c. How will the berm be vegetated, including the number and type of trees to be
planted?
d. What is the long-term maintenance plan for the vegetated berms?
WSC response:
As proposed, the visual screening berms will require placement, rough shaping, and final grading of
approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill material. We anticipate this process will take on the order of 2
months to complete. Construction of the perimeter berms will be initiated as early as possible in the
site development activities. It is our intention to have the berms in place and stabilized with vegetation
as soon as is possible.
Once the bridge across Crabtree Creek is in place (a process that is estimated to take upwards of one
year to complete),site access will be established to allow internal mobilization of the grading equipment
necessary for the initial overburden removal and berm construction activities. Our plan is to utilize the
fill material generated during initial pit stripping and grading of the 280' elevation staging area in the
construction of the perimeter berms. Berm construction will begin at the eastern end of the berm
illustrated along the boundary with Umstead Park and progress to the west to the northeast corner of
the Dunn property. For the berm proposed along Old Reedy Creek Road, construction will progress from
the southwest terminus back to the northeast along Old Reedy Creek Road and progress around the
Dunn tract for connection at the northeast corner of the Dunn tract.
As berm segments are brought to final lines and grades, seasonally appropriate grasses will be planted
for surface stabilization. Pursuant to the suggestions of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission during
their review of the application, native warm season grasses will be utilized to the extent practicable.
Strict use of native warm season grasses is not likely due to the seeding difficulties associated with those
grasses. Native warm season grass seeds tend to be "fluffy'/bearded, and for successful establishment
typically require placement by specialized planting equipment (warm season grass drill). Such
equipment (drills) cannot be operated on steep slopes such as berms. Our primary goal will be the
timely establishment of grass cover to prevent erosion on the newly established berm slopes, with a
secondary goal of utilizing native warm season grasses where appropriate.
Once berm slopes are adequately stabilized with grasses and require no further grading or other slope
repair activities, installation of tree species may occur. In the past, Wake Stone Corporation has
successfully employed loblolly pine plantings on berm slopes to augment the visual and noise buffering
provided by such earthen structures. Loblolly pine seedlings experience rapid growth, and when
planted at a spacing of 10' along rows 7' apart in a staggered pattern along berm slopes (approx. 620
seedlings/acre), provide tremendous visual screening value in just a few years. Wake Stone anticipates
installing loblolly pine plantings (as bare root seedlings) within the first or second dormant season
following successful establishment of grass cover. It is anticipated that loblolly pines will be planted on
both internal and external slopes of the berms. We also anticipate a certain amount of natural

regeneration by native hardwoods due to the proximity of existing mature mixed pine and hardwood
trees throughout the Odd Fellows tract an on adjoining Umstead Park property.
Throughout the life of the quarry expansion project, berm slopes will be monitored and repaired as
necessary. Dense vegetative cover will be maintained. Diseased, dead, or damaged trees will be
removed and/or replaced as necessary to retain esthetically pleasing vegetative cover, particularly on
those external slopes that will potentially be visible to the public.

Question 15. Please provide additional information regarding screening for the following locations:
a. Future reserve section — The operation would be visible to 1-40 and parts of Old Reedy Creek
Road.
b. East side of the proposed pit — Pit operations may be visible from Umstead Park.
WSC response:
a) The future reserve area will not be logged or cleared as part of this permit action, and therefore
provides 1000-1400 feet of undisturbed vegetation between Interstate 40 and the southern end
of Old Reedy Creek Road from any proposed mining activity. In addition, the 1-40 right of way
provides an additional 100-200 feet of dense vegetation, and the topography rises sharply above
1-40. The dense, mature hardwood and pine vegetation on this slope rises well above the line of
site for any proposed mining activity. The photo below clearly illustrates that there is no need
for additional screening in this area. However, conditions will be evaluated again at such time as
a mining permit modification application is submitted to impact the future reserves, and
additional berming and/or vegetative screening will be considered at that time if warranted.
_y
s
View looking northeast from Old Reedy Creek Road bridge over 1-40

b) On the east side of the proposed pit, additional undisturbed dense vegetation exists on both
sides of Foxcroft Lake. Additionally, the topographic ridge east of Foxcroft Lake and the ridge
across Crabtree Creek on the existing mine site (which extends 50 feet vertically above creek
level) provide attenuation of line -of -site views from Umstead State Park. These buffered areas
provide complete screening for most of the Park. The only area of the park with the potential for
visibility into the mining operation is the small area immediately to the northeast of Foxcroft
Lake along the property boundary. The photos below illustrate the dense vegetation on either
side of Foxcroft Lake. The west side of the lake will have a 50'+ undisturbed buffer, and the
topography rises 10-18 feet in elevation in this buffer. It is also important to note that initial
stripping and pit development will be in the area west of Foxcroft Lake, which will very quickly
put all mining activity in this area below grade and behind a cut -slope that will essentially act as
an already vegetated, undisturbed visual and noise attenuating berm. If upon clearing the area
west of Foxcroft Lake it is determined that operations are visible from the park, additional
screening could be added in the form of dense evergreen vegetation or fabric screening on the
proposed security fence.
Photo Locations
Photo I
Photo 2
Photo 3

7 ti}
lip '
G

Question 16. Please provide a certification from a qualified professional engineer that the
geological structure with retaining walls left between Crabtree Creek and the pits will
not breach, fail, or overtop in a major storm event.
WSC response:
As part of the due diligence activities undertaken during the planning phase of this quarry expansion
project, Wake Stone examined published flood elevation data for Crabtree Creek available through the
National Flood Insurance Program. Panel 0766 of Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number
3720076600J provides engineering estimates of the "100-Year Flood" (1% Annual Chance Flood) water
surface elevation for the portion of Crabtree Creek situated between the existing Triangle Quarry Pit and
the Odd Fellows Tract. Surveyed channel cross sections illustrated on the FIRM place the 100-Year Flood
elevation for Crabtree Creek at elevation 266.6' MSL just upstream of the 1-40 overpass bridges and
elevation 261.3' MSL at the location of Wake Stone's proposed bridge crossing. As discussed elsewhere
in the application materials, the proposed bridge was designed in such a manner as to prevent the need
for placement of any portion of the bridge support structures within the channel of Crabtree Creek,
within the regulatory "floodway", or within the "floodway fringe". The bridge deck is to be placed at
elevation 280' MSL +/- (see response to Question #9 above).
All proposed pit development planning for the Odd Fellows Tract expansion (as illustrated on Site Plan
maps and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan maps submitted as part of the Mining Permit Modification
Application) utilized the 100-year flood elevation as the design flood elevation. All development
activities have been designed in such a manner as to provide protection against potential future flooding
events — all activities planned will be located well above the reported 100-year flood elevation for
Crabtree Creek. The minimum existing land surface elevation near any proposed development activities
occurs along the south side of the proposed pit in the vicinity of Skimmer Sediment Basin No. 4, where
the basin embankment will be constructed. The base flood elevation of Crabtree Creek in this area is
estimated to be elevation 264'MSL +/- (based on interpolation of data provided on FIRM Map
3720076600J). Construction of the basin embankment (which is designed to serve as a future perimeter
roadway) at a planned width of 18' and crest elevation of 272' MSL provides an additional 8' of
freeboard above 100-year flood elevation. Once this basin is decommissioned following overburden
removal activities, the embankment will remain as an elevated pit perimeter roadway for passenger
vehicles. As such, the roadway will provide flood protection throughout the life of the operation and
during post -reclamation usage of the property.
The existence of Lake Crabtree immediately upstream of the project area provides protection against
potential future flooding events. Lake Crabtree was constructed in 1987 under the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954. Multiple public agencies participated in construction of
the flood control project (the Wake County Board of Commissioners, the Wake and Durham Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, and Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture). The
water surface area of the lake is approximately 520 acres at an average normal pool elevation of 276'
MSL (as indicated by published Wake County GIS LIDAR and NOAA LIDAR topographic mapping). The
100-year flood pool area for the lake encompasses approximately 1,150 acres, with a total flood storage
of 6,915 acre-feet (information bronze plaque posted at the lake dam). The 100-year base flood
elevation for Lake Crabtree is indicated to be at elevation 282.6' MSL (FIRM Number 3720076600J,

Panels 0766 and 0765). The trapezoidal emergency spillway for the lake has a crest elevation of 284.25'
MSL (according to published NOAA LIDAR mapping). Lake Crabtree is designed to store the 100-year
flood event without activation of the emergency spillway. Based on the flood protection provided by
Lake Crabtree and the vertical (elevation) and lateral setback distances designed into quarry related
development activities, Wake Stone is confident that flood breaching of the existing or proposed pit
walls will not occur.
Signature:
Date:
M C A 0
�O ,.DRESS/p� 29
SEAL
27899
GINS
P. E. Seal

Question 17. Please provide a determination from the Division of Waste Management, that the
disposal of surplus overburden from the proposed modification area and pit into the
existing pit is acceptable.
WSC response:
Wake Stone Corporation contacted Mr. Jason Watkins of the North Carolina Division of Waste
Management concerning placement of overburden from the expansion pit into the depleted Triangle
Quarry pit. Mr. Watkins has responded via email that such mining refuse is specifically excluded from
the current statutory definition of solid waste provided in G.S. 130A-290(35) and is covered by the North
Carolina Mining Act (G.S. 74-46 through 74-68). Mr. Watkins states that "As long as the overburden
material in question isn't a hazardous waste, it meets the Mining Act definition of mining refuse, and
complies with all other conditions of any DEMLR issued mining permit, it would be outside Solid Waste
Section regulatory authority". (See attached email chain between David F. Lee of Wake Stone
Corporation and Jason Watkins of the Division of Waste Management.)
It is Wake Stone Corporation's belief that overburden removed from the expansion site constitutes
mining "refuse" as defined in G.S. 74-49. (14). "Refuse" means all waste soil, rock, mineral, scrap,
tailings, slimes, and other material directly connected with the mining, cleaning, and preparation of
substances mined...". Any other waste materials generated during the mining and processing activities,
that do not fit the definition of mining refuse are/will be disposed of/recycled off -site through accepted
waste management procedures.

David Lee
From: Watkins, Jason <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 11:12 AM
To: David Lee
Cc: Sam Bratton; Tom Oxholm; Cole Atkins; Mussler, Ed; Scott, Michael
Subject: RE: [External] Triangle Quarry Expansion - overburden storage
Mr. Lee,
Regarding the placement of the future generated overburden material into/onto the existing pit property for
reclamation or other reuse, we offer the following response to your inquiry:
The current statutory definition of solid waste 130A-290(35) specifically excludes: "(e) Mining refuse covered by the
North Carolina Mining Act, G.S. 74-46 through 74-68 and regulated by the North Carolina Mining Commission (as
defined under G.S. 14313-293.1). However, any specific mining waste that meets the criteria for hazardous waste under
RCRA shall also be a solid waste for the purposes of this Article."
As long as the overburden material in question isn't a hazardous waste, it meets the Mining Act definition of mining
refuse, and complies with all other conditions of any DEMLR issued mining permit, it would be outside Solid Waste
Section regulatory authority. The improper management or disposal of the material in question could subject this
determination to re-evaluation.
Hope this helps. Let me now if you need anything additional.
e:!we:-Pf D,=E
aa�� E Q7>
Jason M. Watkins. CPM
Field OBe>•ations Branch Head
Division of Waste. Management — Solid Waste Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
336.776.9674 (Office)
919.208.0765 (Mobile)
Email corresl:xyadeoce to and from this address is subject to Me
North Garofirka Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Question 18. Please provide a comprehensive archaeological survey conducted by an experienced
archaeologist on the Odd Fellows tract. We recommend consulting with the NC Office of State
Archaeology Review for guidance on field methodologies.
WSC response:
Wake Stone Corporation retained the services of Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC)
for completion of the required comprehensive archaeological survey. ACC coordinated their study
protocol with staff of the NC DNCR Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and remained in contact with staff
of OSA throughout the fieldwork portion of the survey. A report detailing ACC's findings is attached.

A.I,wologtcal
co/""Itants of the
Carolinas
7 October 2020
121 E. First Street, Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[phone] fax [phone]
archcon.org
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Early
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street, 2nd Floor
Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: Archaeological Survey of the Oddfellows Tract, Wake County, North Carolina,
(GS 20-0841) - SHPO Submission Materials
Dear Renee:
Please find enclosed one (1) bound copy of the draft report entitled Archaeological Survey of the
Oddfellows Tract, Wake County, North Carolina, for your review. A disc containing a digital copy of the
report, as well as the archaeological site forms, is also enclosed.
We are requesting review of this document on behalf of our clients, the Wake Stone Corporation.
Please don't hesitate to call me at [phone] if you have any questions about this project. I look
forward to receiving your comments.
incerely
I
Dawn Reid
President
Enclosures: 1 Bound Report
1 CD

Archaeological Survey of the
Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
GS 20-0841
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
October 2020

Archaeological Survey of the
Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
GS 20-0841
Prepared for
Wake Stone Corporation
Knightdale, North Carolina
Prepared by
44
Bobby Southerlin
Principal Investigator
Luan Thanh Cao
Archaeologist
Michael O'Neal
Archaeologist
and
Brooke Brilliant
Lab Director
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
October 2020

Management Summary
Between 12 and 20 August 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted an
archaeological survey of the Oddfellows tract located in Wake County, North Carolina. This investigation
was conducted on behalf of the Wake Stone Corporation. This survey was requested by the North Carolinas
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a letter dated 7 May 2020. The goals of this investigation
were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project tract, assess those resources for
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations,
as appropriate.
The project tract is approximately 105 acres (42.5 ha) in size and is located south of the Raleigh -
Durham Airport (RDU). The tract is bounded by Old Reedy Creek Road on the northwest, Umstead State
Park on the north, and Crabtree Creek on the southeast and southwest. The tract is primarily characterized
by a mixed pine and hardwood forest. A small pond is present in the eastern portion of the tract, and several
trails extend throughout the tract.
Background research was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) located in Raleigh
and included a review of archaeological site forms, cultural resource reports, and historic maps of the project
area. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located in the project tract. A review of the Office of
Survey and Planning's website (HPOWEB) was also consulted to determine the presence of any recorded
architectural resources within the project tract. None are present in the project tract.
Prior to beginning field work, factors such as soil drainage and topography were used to define
portions of the project tract that had high potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. These areas
total approximately 35 acres (14.2 ha) and include ridge tops, knolls, and ridge toes. Shovel tests were
excavated at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart in high potential areas. The
remaining 70 acres (28.3 ha) were considered to have low archaeological potential. Low potential areas
were surveyed by pedestrian walkover and judgmentally placed shovel tests. All areas of exposed ground
surface, including the cleared trails, were inspected for cultural remains.
Five archaeological sites (31 WA2327 through 31 WA2331) were identified during this
investigation (Table i.1). These sites include two prehistoric sites and three historic sites. The prehistoric
components are of an unknown age. The historic components date to the twentieth century. These resources
have been adequately documented during this investigation and determined to be unlikely to yield
significant data pertaining to the prehistory or history of the area. All identified archaeological sites are
recommended not eligible for the NRHP. As no significant archaeological sites will be impacted by the
proposed development, clearance to proceed is recommended.
Table U. Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Odd Fellows Project Tract.
Site Number
Description
NRHP
Recommendation
31 WA2327
20' century house site and outbuildings
Not Eli ible
31 WA2328
Middle 20th centuryrecreation area
Not Eli ible
31 WA2329
Middle 20th centurylogging site
Not Eligible
31 WA2330
Unknown prehistoric lithic scatter
Not Eligible
31 WA2331
Unknown prehistoric lithic scatter
Not Eligible
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
ii

Table of Contents
Page
ManagementSummary................................................................................................................................ ii
Tableof Contents........................................................................................................................................iii
Listof Figures............................................................................................................................................. iv
Listof Tables.............................................................................................................................................. vi
Chapter1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
ProjectTract.....................................................................................................................................1
Methodsof Investigation................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview................................................................................ 9
Environmental Overview................................................................................................................9
CulturalOverview.........................................................................................................................12
Chapter 3. Background Research Results............................................................................................ 21
Cultural Resources Background Research Results....................................................................... 21
Chapter 4. Field Survey Results.......................................................................................................... 33
Summary and Recommendations................................................................................................. 59
ReferencesCited........................................................................................................................................ 61
Appendix A. Artifact Catalog and PPK Report
Appendix B. Artifact Photographs
Appendix. C. Resume of Principal Investigator
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
iii

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1.
Map showing the location of the project area......................................................................1
Figure 1.2.
Topographic map showing the project tract........................................................................
2
Figure 1.3.
General view of the woods bordering Umstead State Park, facing north ..........................
3
Figure 1.4.
View of the pond in the eastern part of the tract, facing south . ...........................................
3
Figure 1.5.
View of the metavolcanic outcrop in the project tract, facing northwest .............................
4
Figure 1.6.
View of the quartz outcrop in the project tract, facing west ................................................
4
Figure 1.7.
View of portion of trail in the project tract, facing southeast . .............................................
5
Figure 1.8.
General view of bank along Crabtree Creek and bike trail, facing northeast ......................
5
Figure 1.9.
Aerial view of the project tract............................................................................................
6
Figure 1.10.
LiDAR map showing areas considered to have high archaeological potential . ..................
7
Figure 2.1.
Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area . ................
9
Figure 2.2.
Map of the Neuse River Basin showing the location of the project area ...........................10
Figure 2.3.
Map showing the soils present in the project tract.............................................................11
Figure 2.4.
LiDAR map showing the geology of the project tract.......................................................12
Figure 2.5.
Map showing the project tract in Cedar Fork Township on an 1871 map of Wake County
(Bevers 1871)...................................................................................................................19
Figure 3.1.
Map showing the previously recorded sites in the project vicinity ....................................
21
Figure 3.2.
Map showing the historic resources recorded in the project vicinity ................................
23
Figure 3.3
Map showing the four original parcels comprising the project tract ..................................
25
Figure 3.4.
1911/1913 Plat map showing project tract parcels in relationship to the C.L. Duke farm
tracts...................................................................................................................................
25
Figure 3.5.
1914 soil map of Wake County showing structures present in the project tract ................
29
Figure 3.6.
1938 highway map of Wake County showing structures present in the project tract........
30
Figure 3.7
Aerials from 1938, 1959, and 1971 showing land use changes in tract .............................
31
Figure 3.8.
Topographic maps from 1964 (top) and 1973 (bottom) showing structures present in the
projecttract........................................................................................................................
32
Figure 4.1.
LiDAR map showing survey coverage in the project tract ................................................
33
Figure 4.2.
Map showing the identified archaeological sites in the project tract .................................
34
Figure 4.3.
View of 1938 (top), 1959 (middle) and 1971 (bottom) aerial views of 3 1 WA2327 . .......
36
Figure 4.4.
Plan map and foundation details of 31 WA2327................................................................
37
Figure 4.5.
View of a representative soil profile at 31WA2327...........................................................
38
Figure 4.6.
View of general setting at 31 WA2327, facing north.........................................................
39
Figure 4.7.
View of front steps and chimney rubble pile at Structure 1, at 31WA2327, facing north.
39
Figure 4.8.
View of intact and displaced foundation piers at Structure 1 at 31 WA2327, facing east...
40
Figure 4.9.
View of rear steps at Structure 1 at 31 WA2327, facing south ...........................................
40
Figure 4.10.
Aerial photograph from 1971 showing 31 WA2328..........................................................
42
Figure 4.11.
Plan map of shelter area and grills at 31 WA2329.............................................................
42
Figure 4.12.
View of dam at south end of pond at 31 WA2328, facing northeast ..................................
43
Figure 4.13.
View towards dam from back of pond at 31 WA2328, facing southeast ...........................
43
Figure 4.14.
View of shelter area and asphalt pad at 31 WA2328, facing southeast ..............................
44
Figure 4.15.
View of two grills made from tire rims at 31 WA2328, facing southeast ..........................
44
Figure 4.16.
View of stone firepit ring and wood picnic table at 31 WA2328, facing south . ................
45
Figure 4.17.
View of eroded soil profile at 31 WA2328........................................................................
45
Figure 4.18.
General view of 31 WA2329 on 1959 aerial photograph ...................................................
47
Figure 4.19
General view of Locus 1 at 31 WA2329, facing northwest ................................................
47
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
iv

Figure 4.20.
General view of Locus 2 at 31 WA2329, facing southwest ..................................
Figure 4.21
Plan map of 31 WA2329.......................................................................................
Figure 4.22.
Close-up view of Locus 1 and 2 pit features at 31 WA2329................................
Figure 4.23.
View of surface artifacts found at Locus 1, 31WA2329......................................
Figure 4.24.
View of the soil profile inside the Locus 1 pit feature at 31 WA2329...............
Figure 4.25.
View of the general soil profile at 31 WA2329 upslope from the Locus 1 pit...
Figure 4.26.
Plan map of 31 WA2330.......................................................................................
Figure 4.27.
View of setting at 31WA2330, facing west .........................................................
Figure 4.28.
View of soil profile at 31WA2330.......................................................................
Figure 4.29.
View ofridgetop at 31WA2331, facing southeast ...............................................
Figure 4.30.
Plan map of 31 WA2331........................................................................................
Figure 4.31.
View of a representative soil profile at 31WA2331.............................................
Figure 4.32.
View of an outcrop of low quality quartz on side slope at 31 WA2331, facing
northwest..............................................................................................................
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
....... 59
u

List of Tables
Page
Table i.1.
Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Odd Fellows Project Tract . ...................... ii
Table 2.1.
Summary of Soils Present in the Project Tract (USDA 2020)................................................10
Table 3.1.
Summary of Previously Recorded Site in the Project Vicinity ...............................................
22
Table 3.2.
Summary of Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity..........................................................
24
Table 4.1.
Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Project Tract ...........................................
34
Table 4.2
Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from 31 WA2327...................................................
38
Table 4.3
Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31 WA2329, Locus 1.............................
51
Table 4.4.
Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31 WA2329, Locus 2..............................
51
Table 4.5
Summary of Prehistoric Artifacts Collected from 31 WA2331...............................................
58
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
v1

Chapter 1. Introduction
Between 12 and 20 August 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted an
archaeological survey of the Oddfellows tract located in Wake County, North Carolina. This investigation
was conducted on behalf of the Wake Stone Corporation. This survey was requested by the North Carolinas
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a letter dated 7 May 2020. The goals of this investigation
were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project tract, assess those resources for
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations,
as appropriate. Mr. Bobby Southerlin served as Principal Investigator. Mr. Luan Cao served as Field
Director. He was assisted by Ms. Abigail McCoy and Mr. Robert Jordan. The project was conducted over
12 person days.
Project Tract
The project tract is located south of the
Raleigh -Durham Airport (RDU) near the
western boundary of Wake County (Figure 1.1).
The tract measures approximately 105 acres
(42.5 ha) in size and is bounded by Old Reedy
Creek Road on the northwest, Umstead State
Park on the north, and Crabtree Creek on the
southeast and southwest (Figure 1.2). The tract
is primarily characterized by a mixed pine and
hardwood forest (Figure 1.3). A small pond is
present in the eastern portion of the tract (Figure
1.4). Metavolcanic and quartz outcrops are
present in several areas within the tract,
particularly along Crabtree Creek (Figures 1.5
and 1.6). An extensive network of walking and
bicycle trails is present throughout the tract
(Figure 1.7). Figure 1.8 presents a view of the
Crabtree Creek frontage. An aerial view of the
project tract is presented in Figure 1.9.
Methods of Investigation
This investigation consisted of four
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the project
separate tasks: Background Research, Field
Investigations, Laboratory Analysis, and Report area.
Production. Each of these tasks is described below
Project Are • m_,Y �,` f~ ,.
WAKE °..
g, COUNTY
W
0 fi 12
NONE—] -
Kilamelers
i
Background Research. Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms,
maps, and reports on file at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina, as well as
the Office of Survey and Planning's website (HPOWEB). This review served to identify previously
recorded resources in the project tract and its vicinity, in addition to providing data on the prehistoric and
historical context of the project tract.
lnc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
1

Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project tract (1993 Cary, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle).
Background research also included a review of available historic aerials, historic maps including
the 1871 Map of Wake County, 1914 Wake County soil map, and 1938 Wake County highway map, and
USGS topographic maps dating between 1943 and 2002.In addition, we were able to identify details of the
project area using aerial photographs from 1938, 1959, and the 1970s. Background research also included
a chain of title review. In addition. communications with the Independent Order of Odd Fellows Sir Walter
Raleigh Lodge 411 were established to understand land use during their ownership of part of the tract.
Field Investigations. Close -interval contour topographic maps, Light Detecting and Ranging
(LiDAR) images, and soil data of the survey area were consulted prior to initiation of fieldwork. These data
were used to identify portions of the tract with high potential for the presence of archaeological remains
prior to commencement of fieldwork. Approximately 35 acres (14.2 ha) within the project tract were
defined as having high potential. These areas were comprised of uplands and ridge toes adjacent to
drainages and wetlands. Figure 1.10 presents a map showing the defined high potential areas and the
locations of shovel tests. The remaining 70 acres (28.3 ha) were considered to have low archaeological
potential. Low potential areas were surveyed by pedestrian walkover and judgmentally placed shovel tests.
All areas of exposed ground surface, including the cleared trails, were inspected for cultural remains.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
2

It
eT rt� f,
J'I!
�.k
'• S 'r' 4 +M y: XF E
lr�
mnz
12
i.
Figure 1.3. General view of the woods bordering Umstead State Park,
facing north.
Figure 1.4. View of the pond in the eastern part of the tract, facing south.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
3

Figure 1.5. View of the metavolcanic outcrop in the project tract, facing
northwest.
Figure 1.6. View of the quartz outcrop in the project tract, facing west.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
11

r
Figure 1.7. View of portion of trail in the project tract, facing southeast.
Figure 1.8. General view of bank along Crabtree Creek and bike trail,
facing northeast.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
E

�a
`gym
l w�
a
O •*
K
Oddfellows Tract
Project Tract -Road
ao 0 50 100 150 200 N
Meters s
Figure 1.9. Aerial view of the project tract.
Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated to
10 centimeters into subsoil or to the water table. Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25-inch wire mesh.
Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts were collected
and placed in plastic bags labeled with the date, field site number, grid point locations (i.e., shovel
test/transect or north/east coordinate), depth of artifacts, and initials of the excavator. To delineate
archaeological resources, a combination of surface inspection and short interval (15-meter) shovel testing
was used.
A site is defined as an area containing one or more artifacts within a 30-meter (98 ft) or less diameter
of surface exposure or where surface or subsurface cultural features are present. Artifacts and/or features
less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site without a specific research or management reason.
Site settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field showing the
locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The location of each site was recorded using a Trimble Pathfinder
Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and relayed onto project maps. Field investigations also included
metal detection at selected archaeological sites. A Fisher F-75 metal detector was used. Metal detection hits
were recorded with the Trimble GPS unit.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
6

Figure 1.10. LiDAR map showing areas considered to have high archaeological potential.
Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways,
and its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria that must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association" and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of history; The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources
and evaluate their potential research value or significance. Although the determination of the site
significance is made by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data is gathered to allow us to make a
significance recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not
eligible for the NRHP, and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be
obtained at the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is
advocated. It is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively
determine that a site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended
eligible for the NRHP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not possible,
mitigation options (e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.
Laboratory Analysis. All recovered cultural material was processed in the Clayton laboratory
facilities of ACC. All artifacts were washed and allowed to thoroughly air dry. A provenience number,
based on artifact contexts (i.e., grid coordinate, depth, etc.), was assigned to each positive excavation
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
7

location. Within each provenience, individual artifacts or artifact classes were then assigned a catalog
number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the
case of lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics.
Diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were compared to published type descriptions (e.g., Charles and
Moore 2018; Coe 1964; Herbert 2009; Oliver 1999; Peck 1982; Sassaman 1993; Ward and Davis 1999;
and Whatley 2002;) and cataloged by type when possible. Lithics artifacts were examined in detail and
classified by artifact type and raw material.
Historic artifacts were identified by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g.,
slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-
1820), and intended function (e.g., tableware). Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges
were categorized using Aultman et al. (2016), Brown (1982), Feldhues (1995), Florida Museum of Natural
History (FLMNH; 2009), Majewski and O'Brien (1987), Noel Hume (1969), and South (1977, 2004).
Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights were recorded, and all diagnostic and cross -mended artifacts were
labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -free permanent ink.
All artifacts were placed in acid -free resealable plastic bags with acid -free labels listing the
provenience and field identification information. Upon acceptance of the final project report, all analysis
sheets, field notes, photographs, maps, and artifacts will be prepared according to federal guidelines and
submitted to OSA for final curation.
Report Production. Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the
previous tasks. This report includes a discussion of the investigation methods, background findings, field
survey results, and management recommendations. Each individual site is discussed and shown on a variety
of project maps. The data obtained from laboratory analyses, background research, and field investigations
is included in the site discussions. Finally, the report includes an assessment of the NRHP eligibility of each
archaeological site recorded during this investigation.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
8

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
Environmental Overview
Wake County is located in central North Carolina and encompasses 864 square miles (2,238 square
km; Cawthorn 1970). The county is bounded by Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Granville, Harnett, and
Johnston counties. The majority of Wake County falls within the Piedmont physiographic province (Figure
2.1); the project area is located in the Piedmont. The southeastern portion of the county lies on the Fall Line
separating the Piedmont from the Coastal Plain. Rolling hills dissected by intermittent and perennial streams
are the most frequent landforms within this transitional area. The average elevation of the county is 140.8
meters above mean sea level (amsl; Cawthorn 1970). Elevations in the project tract range from 91.5 to
106.7 meters amsl.
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
Kilometers
Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area.
Drainages
The project area falls within the Neuse River watershed (Figure 2.2). The Neuse River flows from
the Falls Lake Reservoir through the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, emptying into Pamlico Sound. Numerous
small streams and creeks extend through Wake County. The southern and eastern portions of the project
tract front Crabtree Creek, a tributary of the Neuse River. Crabtree Creek begins in Cary and empties into
the Neuse River near Anderson Point Park in east Raleigh. The creek is known for frequent flooding due
to its often restricted floodplain, and development in Wake County has increased storm runoff resulting in
flooding.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
9

LORANGE
niI
GRANVIL LE
FRANKLIN
HAM
WAKE
NASH r I I' ""'
/ EOGECOMBE
WILSON
PITT BEAUFORT
JOHNSTON PITT
na GREENE y�
HARNETT WAYNE
LENOIR
CRAVEN
I
JONES
SAMPSON
OUPLIN
Odd Fellows Tract
North Caorlina Boundary
Gounty
Neuse River Basin
0 10 20 30 40
Kilos
ONSLOW
r
Figure 2.2. Map of the Neuse River Basin showing the location of the project area.
Soils
There are five soil types present in the project tract (Table 2.1;Figure 2.3). Well -drained soils
account for 86.6 percent of the project tract with Nanford silt loam being the most prevalent soil type,
followed by Georgeville silt loam. Well -drained and moderately well drained soils on slopes less than 15
percent are generally considered to have high potential for the presence of archaeological remains.
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are somewhat poorly drained and are present in 13.4 percent of the tract
(USDA 2020). This soil type, along with well -drained soils with greater than 15 percent slope, was viewed
as having low archaeological potential.
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Proiect Tract (USDA 2020).
Soil Type
escription
Percent
Coverage
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils ChA
Somewhat poorly drained, 0-2% slope, forms on floodplains
13.4
Geor eville silt loam GeB, GeC
Well drained, 2-10% slope, forms on interfluves
21.5
erndon silt loam HrC
Well drained, 6-10% slope, forms on interfluves
3.8
anford silt loam (NaD, NaE
Well drained, 10-25% slope, forms on interfluves
61.1
ilkes loam (WkF)
Well drained, 15-30% slope, forms on interfluves
0.1
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
10

Figure 2.3. Map showing the soils present in the project tract.
Climate
Like most of central North Carolina, the climate of Wake County is temperate, characterized by
relatively mild winters and warm summers. Average temperatures range from the upper 40s Fahrenheit (F)
in the winter to the mid-70s F in the summer.
Geology
The Piedmont was formed by volcanic activity and is composed of sedimentary, igneous, and
metamorphic rock irregularly distributed through the region (Ward 1983). The major geologic formation
within the project area is the Carolina Terrane. The Carolina Terrane is a 370-kilometer long band of
volcanic and metamorphic rock associated with oceanic volcanic islands dating to 540 to 630 million years
ago. Metamorphic rock within the project tract include Big Lake -Raven Rock schist, Sycamore Lake
greenstone, and Reedy Creek metagranodiorite (NCGS 1985; Figure 2.4). These materials have been mined
for agricultural and industrial purposes. Other metavolcanic materials, particularly rhyolite from the
Uwharrie Mountains region, have been used during prehistoric times for the production of stone tools.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
11

Figure 2.4. LiDAR map showing the geology of the project tract.
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into two general eras: Prehistoric and Historic.
The Prehistoric Era is extensive. It includes at least 12,000 years of Native American groups and cultures
present prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Historic Era, in comparison, is relatively brief. This era refers
to a time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent through the colonization,
industrialization and emergence of the modern era. Fine-grained chronological and cultural subdivisions
are defined within these eras to permit discussions of particular events and the lifeways of North America's
prehistoric inhabitants. The following discussion summarizes the various periods of prehistoric and historic
occupation in the project vicinity.
Prehistoric Overview
Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter -gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent
during the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades
has begun to cast doubt on this theory.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
12

In the past two decades, investigations at Paleoindian sites have produced radiocarbon dates
predating 12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay
1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits
dating to 9,500 BC. Current research conducted at the Topper Site indicates occupations dating between
15,000 and 19,000 (or more) years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia
have yielded similar dates. One contentious point about these early sites is that the occupations predate
what has been recognized as the earliest New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts identified at pre -Clovis sites
include flake tools and blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and lanceolate -like points (Adovasio et al. 1998;
Goodyear 2006; Johnson 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; McDonald 2000).
The major artifact marker for the Clovis period is the Clovis lanceolate -fluted point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been recovered throughout
the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in the eastern United
States (Ward and Davis 1999). Most Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, although
some sites (e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined subsurface Clovis contexts.
The identification of pre -Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the
United States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last
glaciation), and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type has led some researchers to hypothesize
other avenues of New World migration (see Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories
contend that the influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice -free corridor 12,000 years ago
and that multiple migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the
one presumed to have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic
Ocean and the Pacific rim (see Stanford 2006). Coastal migration theories envision seafaring people using
boats to make the journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).
In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate
spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983).
Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States (Ward and
Davis 1999); this indicates that population density was extremely low during this period and that groups
were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were probably well -
scheduled, and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate arrangements for
procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
O'Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, while later sites were distributed widely in the
uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for
the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on
smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been a factor.
Paleoindian tools have been found all across North Carolina. Nine Paleoindian points have been
documented from Wake County. Eight Clovis point or Clovis variants have been identified, as well as a
Redstone point (Daniel 2000).
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
13

Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Sites dating to this period are ubiquitous in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe and
McCormick 1970). Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures.
Coe's excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont established a chronological
sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. The Archaic period has been divided into
three subperiods: Early (8000 - 6000 BC), Middle (6000 - 3500 BC), and Late (3500 - 1000 BC) (Coe
1964). Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and
Kirk Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner notched
points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points),
but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as
representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1981; Chapman 1985). The Early Archaic points of
the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although occasional chert,
quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.
Claggett et al. (1982) use a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980), to
classify late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical." Logistical task groups, in this
definition, target a particular resource or set of subsistence or technological resources for collection and use
at a residential base camp. Their analysis identifies an increase in residential mobility beginning in the Early
Archaic and extending into the Middle Archaic (Claggett et al. 1982). Early Archaic peoples transitioned
from logistical orientation to foraging. Foraging refers to a generalized resource procurement strategy
enacted in closer proximity to a base camp. Subsistence remains recovered from Early Archaic sites in
southern Virginia include fish, turtle, turkey, small mammals, and deer, as well as a wide variety of nuts
(McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).
Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of
increased population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories (Sassaman 1983); this increase
in population led to increasing social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled
aggregation for mate exchange. In Sassaman's view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly
expedient; this is reflected in an almost exclusive use of local resources, especially lithic material.
The appearance/introduction of Stanly points, a broad -bladed stemmed form defines the transition
to the Middle Archaic subperiod. These were followed by Morrow Mountain points, which are
characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from numerous small sites
throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often made of quartz, follow Morrow
Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence. Morrow Mountain and Guilford points were the most frequently
recovered projectile point types in the Jordan Lake survey area (Coe and McCormick1970). The latter were
typically found on low knolls or ridge toes overlooking perennial streams (Autry 1976).
The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe 1964). This
large, broad -bladed and stemmed point type is found widely over the eastern United States and in nearly
every setting during the Jordan Lake survey (Autry 1976). It is associated with Late Archaic occupations
in the mountains and uplands as well as at coastal midden sites of the period. Also, the earliest ceramics
produced in North America are associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and date to around 2000 BC.
These ceramics are Stallings Island Fiber Tempered and are primarily a coastal phenomenon, stretching
from northern Florida to southern North Carolina.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
14

Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier sites
(Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are typically in riverine
settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to reflect greatly increased sedentism during the Late
Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and floodplain resources. Small Late Archaic sites in the uplands
of the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical collection and hunting camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988).
Abbott et al. (1986) have speculated that an increase in population during the Late Archaic led to a
restriction in resource ranges and an increase in trade networks.
Woodland Period (1000 BC -1450 AD). A transition between the preceramic Archaic cultures and
the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy triangular
point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Other cultural expressions of the
Early Woodland are the ceramics and projectile points of the Badin culture. These points are generally
crude triangulars while the ceramics are heavily tempered and undecorated. Unlike Oliver, Miller (1962)
noted little change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland transition other than the
addition of pottery. Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between Archaic and Woodland
occupations, also describes little technological or subsistence change other than ceramics.
Ceramic technology evolved from Badin styles into the Yadkin Phase wares during the Middle
Woodland subperiod (300 BC - 1000 AD). Yadkin ceramics have crushed quartz temper and are either cord
marked or fabric impressed. Occasionally, Yadkin ceramics contain grog (i.e., crushed fired clay) temper,
suggesting the influence of coastal populations who more commonly utilized grog temper in their ceramics
(Coe 1964). Yadkin phase projectile points differ from the Badin styles in that they reflect significantly
better workmanship (Coe 1964) and are more suited to the newly adopted bow and arrow technology. The
introduction of the bow and arrow necessitated significant changes in hunting strategies, allowing for more
independent procurement of animals rather than the group hunts generally associated with spear hunting.
Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period, so subsistence strategies remained focused on hunting
animals and gathering wild plants.
The Late Woodland subperiod (1000 — 1450 AD) in the study area is represented by the Uwharrie
Phase. The Uwharrie Phase projectile points have small triangular forms. Uwharrie ceramics are heavily
tempered with crushed quartz and are predominantly net impressed with scraped interiors (Eastman 1996).
Although they continued to hunt and gather wild plants, agriculture began to supplement, and later
dominate, Native American subsistence strategies. Corn, beans, squash, and fruit were cultivated with the
aid of stone hoes and wooden implements, and settlement patterns indicate conditions favorable to
agriculture were significant to decision -making (Hantman and Klein 1992; Ward 1983).
Historic Indian / Protohistoric Period
Spain initiated the exploration of the southeastern United States in the hopes of preserving their
claims to American lands west of the Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation. Hernando de Soto (1539-
1543) and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of
North Carolina during the mid -sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages
near the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Hargrove 1998). The Spanish
also built garrisons in the vicinity of Marion and Salisbury (Hargrove 1998). Recent work at the Berry site
in Burke County identified the remains of the Spanish garrison of Xualla (also called Joara) visited by de
Soto in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s. Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not be sustained
despite their best attempts to establish a permanent presence with interior outposts and coastal settlements.
Mounting pressure from hostile Native Americans and English privateers also contributed to their
withdrawal to St. Augustine in 1587 (South 1980). Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
15

disastrous effects on contemporary Native American peoples. Populations collapsed and entire
communities disappeared (Fossett 1976).
Sir Walter Raleigh heavily promoted England's interest in the New World. In 1585 Raleigh used
his position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I to secure backing to outfit an English attempt at colonizing
the Atlantic coast (Powell 1989). Although this effort failed, Raleigh's single-minded ambition led to
establishment of a colony on the James River in 1607 (Noel Hume 1994).
The first years of settlement at Jamestown were hampered by disastrous mismanagement resulting
in starvation, loss of life, and hostilities with neighbouring Powhatan. In 1624 the Crown revoked the
Virginia Company's charter and established a royal government (Noel Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the
civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, these authorities showed little interest
in North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period traders, hunters, trappers, rogues, and tax evaders
began living in the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina (Powell 1989). Even
then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-reliant.
Historic Overview
Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and distributed rewards to loyal Royalist supporters
(Powell 1989). Seven supporters were awarded the charter to establish a proprietary colony south of
Virginia. The boundaries of this deed were set to include the Albemarle Sound settlement of Charles Town
south to the frontier of Spanish -held La Florida. Proprietors maintained control over a single Carolina until
1712, when the colonies were separated. After a popular South Carolina uprising in 1719, the proprietors
forfeited control of that colony to the Crown. That divestment forced the Proprietors' sale of their North
Carolina charter to King George II in 1729.
John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project area.
In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the Pacific
Ocean (Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South Carolina.
During this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Catawba and Waxhaw. The
Catawba Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South Carolina. Inspired
by Lederer, John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South Carolina through the North Carolina Piedmont
to Pamlico Sound. Lawson's 1700-1701 excursion followed a well -established Native American trading
path that passed near present day Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967). Lawson's journey took
him through Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would soon come into close
contact with European colonists.
The principle economic focus of the Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade.
This trade revolved around the exchange of European manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and
captives. It drew Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing
intertribal hostilities. Itinerant traders based in Charleston (South Carolina), and Virginia vied for clients
among the North Carolina Piedmont settlements.
Severe fighting between North Carolinian settlers and Tuscarora Indians broke out in 1711 after
the death of the colony's Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of the Tuscarora (Powell 1989).
The war ended in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. These conditions persisted
until the Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell
1989).
As the number of settlers began to multiply in the Northeast, many began to look to the wilderness
of the South and the West to build new lives. German and Scotch -Irish settlers first walked the Indian
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
16

footpaths connecting present-day Pennsylvania and Georgia (Rouse 2001). In 1744, a series of treaties
allowed the colonies to formally take over the trail, then known as the Warrior Path, from the Five Nations
of the Iroquois (NCOAH 2O04; Rouse 2001). Dubbed the Great Wagon Road settlers from northern
colonies used the route to populate the farmlands and new towns of the Carolinas and Georgia well into the
1800's.
Few settlers resided in the central Piedmont prior to 1748. In just a few years, this population
dramatically increased and in 1752 it was determined that a new county government was needed. Land
grants were issued to new settlers arriving via the Great Wagon Road. Predominantly Scots -Irish and
German, these settlers established farms along the major streams and engaged in cultivation of staples and
cash crops. For most of the eighteenth century, land grants and farm sizes were modest. The first English
and Scotch -Irish settlers in Wake County received land grants ranging from 100 to 640 acres (40.5-259 ha;
Murray 1983). Land holdings were typically small yeoman farmsteads interspersed with a few large
plantations (Powell 1989). By mid-century, farmsteads, grist mills, churches, court houses, and taverns
dotted the landscape. Joel Lane, a well-known and politically active plantation owner, operated a tavern in
what was then western Johnston County. Lane's tavern would become the site of Wake County's first
courthouse (Murray 1983).
Wake County was formed in 1771 from portions of Cumberland, Johnston, and Orange counties.
It was named for Margaret Wake, the wife of William Tryon who was the Royal Governor ofNorth Carolina
at the time. This same period was the height of the Regulator Movement, a period of antagonism between
the affluent settled east and the frontier west. North Carolina's citizens were unable to have their grievances
effectively addressed by a centralized government dominated by wealthy merchants and plantation
aristocrats. By 1768, much of the back country was in open revolt against increased taxes and oppressive
local officials. The creation of Wake County was one of the reforms carried out by Governor Tryon in the
wake of the rebellion (Murray 1983).
At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, a local Committee of Safety was raised from the
citizens of Wake County. The Committee of Safety was supported by the Wake militia which maintained
a muster ground near Woodward's Mill on Middle Creek (Murray 1983). An army camp operated at Wake
Courthouse throughout the war. The recruitment and training of soldiers, provisioning the army, and raids
against local Tory enclaves were the focus of the county's war effort. Tory troops led by Colonel David
Fanning continued small scale military operations in the Cumberland -Orange -Wake County area until the
surrender of the British Army at Yorktown in 1781 (Fanning 1861; Rankin 1959).
New Bern continued to be the capital of the state for several years after the British defeat. As early
as 1779, Wake County was being considered as a potential site for a new state capital. In 1792, after several
years of political wrangling, the General Assembly ratified its decision to locate the state capital in Wake
County (Murray 1983). The city was named Raleigh after Sir Walter Raleigh, the colony's sixteenth century
benefactor. Soon after, it was decided that the plantation of Joel Lane would make a suitable site for the
new capital. The first town lots were sold in June of 1792. Revenues from the real estate sale were used to
construct the first statehouse, which opened on December 30, 1794 (Murray 1983).
The formation of the capital city did little to alter the rural character of Wake County. The slow
pace of urban development in the county is reflected in the fact that the next town did not incorporate until
1837 (Murray 1983). Local commerce was dominated by the exchange of farm produce for manufactured
goods. Important food and cash crops during this period included corn, sweet potatoes, wheat, peas, beans,
cotton, and tobacco. Subsistence farming dominated the economic landscape (Lally 1994). This
arrangement ensured a steady flow of country people into Raleigh for both business and pleasure. A county
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
17

market house was constructed in Raleigh before the end of the century to facilitate trade between city
dwellers and the rural community (Murray 1983).
The first three decades of the nineteenth century saw a concerted effort to develop the county's
infrastructure. However, poor maintenance of existing roads was a problem well into the twentieth century
and was made worse by the frequent flooding of Crabtree and Walnut creeks. Road improvement projects
were limited to the significant highways which carried mail service and passenger stages (Murray 1983).
Dependable access to regional markets was not achieved until the coming of the railroads during
the middle 1800s. The 86-mile long Raleigh and Gaston Railroad was completed in 1840. This line, together
with the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, opened up northern markets to planters and commercial
farmers. Access to the Petersburg market encouraged the expansion of cotton and tobacco production by
slave holders, who attained a measure of prosperity during this period. Nevertheless, most of the county's
farm families continued the subsistence farming traditions of their pioneer ancestors (Lally 1994).
The poor quality of the transportation system in the Wake County area resulted in the sporadic
development of the area's industrial potential prior to 1850. Throughout much of antebellum period
manufacturing was limited to "looms, leather, and liquor" (Murray 1983:136). Grist mills and cotton gins
were common. These small-scale commercial enterprises produced commodities for local consumption.
Limited iron manufacturing and a few paper mills were operating in the county by the end of the 1850s.
On the eve of the Civil War, the county's population of 20,370 people resided in Raleigh, on 1,410
farms in the surrounding countryside, and in the developing communities of Wake Forest, Rolesville,
Wakefield, Eagle Rock, Holly Springs, Cary, and Morrisville (Murray 1983).
North Carolina separated from the Union in May 1861 and ratified the constitution of the
Confederate States of America. Camps, hospitals, and supply depots were soon in operation at several
locations in Wake County. By the end of 1861, Wake County had the facilities to manufacture bayonets,
uniforms, and ammunition. The capital city of Raleigh was fully enclosed by light earthworks with cannon
emplacements by 1863. Military operations by the residents of Wake County were largely confined to guard
duty and occasional forays into the countryside to round up deserters. This changed in April 1865, when
General William T. Sherman's Union forces advanced on the county, meeting Confederate troops under
the command of General Joseph Johnston. The city of Raleigh was evacuated, and skirmishing continued
along roads and railroad lines west of Raleigh for several weeks. It is estimated that more than 100,000
Union troops camped in and around Raleigh during that period. On April 29, 1865, several corps of
Sherman's army departed Raleigh for Virginia, bringing a close to the military operations in Wake County
(Murray 1983).
The post -Civil War period was a time of distress for many of the farmers in rural Wake County.
The end of slavery resulted in the collapse of the plantation economic system. It was replaced by a new
labor system based on share cropping and cash rents (Powell 1989). Under the sharecropping system, the
landowner retained ownership of the crop while the sharecropper provided the labor to work the land. The
tools, seeds, housing, fuel, draft animals, and other essentials were supplied by the landowner. Typically,
the crop was split between both parties, although most small farmers preferred the rent system as it allowed
them to retain control of the crop.
This new agricultural system resulted in the intensification of cash cropping (Powell 1989). The
tenant was encouraged to squeeze production out of marginal lands leading to erosion and soil depletion
across the state. The act of "settling up" at the end of the harvest season often left the tenant cash poor
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
18

leading to a cycle of debt peonage, which was difficult to escape. During the postwar decades, farms became
smaller and more dispersed (Murray 1983; Powell 1989).
Figure 2.5 shows the project vicinity in 1871. Significant advances in the development of North
Carolina's industrial base occurred after 1870. For example, by 1880 49 textile mills were operating in the
state (Powell 1989). This represents a substantial increase in industrial capacity over that which existed in
1860. By the 1890s, furniture and tobacco factories dotted the Piedmont landscape. In Wake County, the
Falls of the Neuse Manufacturing Company continued to produce paper until near the end of the century,
when it was converted to textile production (Lally 1994). Although small scale manufacturing entities, such
as sawmills, grist mills, and distilleries, flourished, Wake County remained largely rural well into the
twentieth century.
• If
tk
R
Y may_ sa '
fI-D. P if
A 4r, y RDU Quarry
Quarry Addition w F
Umstead Park
T � n o 1,000 2,000 3,000
',1r,11 Meters
Figure 2.5. Map showing the project tract in Cedar Fork Township on an 1871 map of Wake County
(Bevers 1871).
The collapse of the cotton market in the 1920s and the Depression of the 1930s resulted in rapid
pre -World War II urbanization (Murray 1983). The economic importance of the county has grown since
the middle twentieth century. Much of this growth has occurred in the public sector, which provides
statewide government services, and as a result of the success of the Research Triangle Park, a regionally
important center for technology -based industries (Powell 1989).
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
19

By the late 1800s, poor farming practices in the North Carolina Piedmont had impacted many area,
depleting soils of nutrients and creating serious erosion. During the years of the Great Depression, farmers
along Crabtree Creek made the situation worse by attempting to grow cotton on already worn out land. In
1934, approximately 5,000 acres of submarginal land was bought by federal and state agencies to develop
a recreation area. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration helped
construct four camps with day use and picnic facilities. The park, known as the Crabtree Creek Recreation
Area, was opened to the public in 1937. The state purchased the park and built more facilities in the 1940s.
In 1950, more than 1,000 acres of the park were set aside to establish Reedy Creek State Park, a separate
park for African Americans. Within a few years, Crabtree Creek Recreation Area was renamed Umstead
State Park, in honor of the conservation efforts of former Governor William Bradley Umstead. In 1966, the
two parks were merged to form William B. Umstead State Park (Moss 1995; N.C. Parks n.d.).
In 1995, William B. Umstead State Park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as
the Crabtree Creek Recreational Demonstration Area (Moss 1995). This resource was determined to have
areas of significance for the period between 1933 and 1943 related to: Architecture; Landscape
Architecture; Entertainment/Recreation; Political/Government; and Conservation. Moss (1995; Section 8
Page 11) notes:
The William B. Umstead State Park Historic District has local significance as a recreational
demonstration area established by the federal government to reclaim depleted natural resources and
provide public recreation facilities. The planned and reclaimed landscape, is the result of one of
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's most successful human conservation efforts, while the rustic
architecture the men of the CCC and the WPA constructed is representative of the rising popularity
of parks, organized camping, and motoring to and from natural settings that was facilitated by
automobiles and the boom in park and parkway construction.
Another important development in the project vicinity is the Raleigh -Durham International Airport
(RDU). The Raleigh -Durham Aeronautical Authority was first chartered in 1939, and its name was changed
to the Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority (RDUAA) in 1945. During World War 11, in 1942, the airport
was taken over by the U. S. government, and the Raleigh -Durham Army Airfield was established in 1943.
By 1946 1,223 acres had been acquired by RDUAA (No Author 2020a), and it has been, and continues to
be, an important factor in the growth of the Research Triangle region.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
20

Table 3.1. Summary of Previously Recorded Site in the Project Vicinity.
Site
Number
Description
NRHP
Status
31WA104
Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Not Eligible
31 WA 105
Late 19th — Earl 20' Century S rin house
Not Eligible
31WA107
Unknown Prehistoric Quartz Quarry Site
Not Eligible
31 WA108
Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Late 19th -20th Century Artifact Scatter
Not Eligible
31WA141
Unknown Historic Artifact Scatter with Pits
Unassessed
31WA156
Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Unassessed
31 WA1459
19th — 20' Century Mill Remains
Unassessed
Site 31WA141 is an unknown historic site recorded during a survey of the Raleigh Durham Airport
(Hall and Littleton 1978). Little data is provided on the site in the report aside from noting the collection of
one bottle fragment and one miscellaneous concretion. The site map provided on the site form indicates the
presence of pits at the site, but no description of the size or function of the pits is provided. No further work
was recommended for this site; however, its NRHP eligibility remains unassessed.
Site 31WA156 was recorded in 2003 based on a private artifact collection. This prehistoric site
yielded unifacial tools, but no specific details regarding the number or tool types is provided on the site
form. This site has not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
Site 31WA1459 was recorded by students from Western Carolina University in 1975. This site is
the remnants of a mill consisting of a breeched stone dam and mill stones. These remains are associated
with the Company Mill Dam in Umstead State Park. The mill stones have been mounted for a public
interpretation display. The site was not assessed for NRHP eligibility, and evaluation of the site and archival
research were advocated.
There are 16 previously recorded historic resources within a 1.6-kilometer radius of the project
tract (Figure 3.2; Table 3.2). Eleven of these resources are located within William B. Umstead State Park.
The park itself is a NRHP Listed Historic District recorded as Crabtree Creek Recreational Demonstration
Area. Recorded as Resource WA0721, the district includes CCC buildings, administrative and recreational
buildings, a cemetery, mill remains, and the park entrance from Interstate 40. The NRHP eligibility status
of the different elements of the district is noted as Survey Only (SO) on HPOWEB, indicating they are not
eligible for the NRHP. However, some of these resources may be contributing elements to the significance
of Umstead Park as a historic district.
Resource 0733, a circa 1900 house, and Resource WA2255, the Williams House, have both been
destroyed. Likewise, Bridge No. 322 (Resource WA5068), located along Old Reedy Creek Road and
crossing Crabtree Creek, was destroyed after the road was slightly rerouted and a new bridge constructed.
Resource WA7189, the Floyd Sorrell House, is a 1910 side gable traditional/vernacular house. Resource
WA7190 is a circa 1970 side gable Colonial Revival house. These houses are not eligible for the NRHP
and listed as Survey Only.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
22

�t
sr•

Table 3.2. Summary of Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity.
Resource
Description
NRHP Status
WA0721
Umstead State Park/Crabtree Creek Recreational Demonstration Area
Listed
WA0722
CCC Buildings — Umstead State Park Buildings
Survey Only
WA0733
John McGee Farm Gone
Destroyed
WA2255
Williams House Gone
Destroyed
WA4124
Old Middle Hillsboro Road Umstead State Park
Survey Only
WA4125
Reedy Creek Office — Administration Area Umstead State Park
Survey Only
WA4126
Reedy Creek — Ranger's Residence Umstead State Park
Survey Only
WA4129
Reedy Creek Picnic Area Umstead State Park
SurveyOnl
WA4130
Reedy Creek Picnic Area and Shelter(Umstead State Park
Survey Only
WA4121
Company Mill Trail Umstead State Park
SurveyOnl
WA4132
Com an Mill Site Umstead State Park
Survey Only
WA4133
Old Mill Road Trace Umstead State Park
Survey Only
WA4135
Interstate 40 Entrance Umstead State Park
Survey Only
WA4187
Young and King Family Cemeteries 1 of 2; Umstead State Park
Destroyed
WA5068
Bridge No. 322 Gone
Destroyed
WA7189
Floyd Sorrell House 1910
Survey Onl
WA7190
House 1970
Survey Only
Chain of Title
Prior to the present ownership of the project tract by the County of Wake, County of Durham, City
of Durham, and City of Raleigh, under the management of Raleigh -Durham Airport Authority, it was
comprised of four separate parcels owned by Blanchard, Barnes, Collins, and the Sir Walter Lodge No. 411
Independent Order of Odd Fellows (Figure 3.3). The Blanchard, Barnes, and Collins tracts were once part
of the C.L. Duke farm (Figure 3.4).
Blanchard Parcel
The Blanchard Parcel was originally about 50 acres with a portion of overlapping with the now I-
40 and running southwest across it. The small portion a part of the project tract, 0.0146 acres, was deeded
to the counties and cities in 1972.
Date
Grantor
Grantee
Description
Book/Pa e
2/16/1972
Bernard B. Blanchard and Charles
City of Raleigh,
0.0146 Acres
2054-313
F. Blanchard, her husband;
City of Durham,
Geraldine M. Carney and Charles
County of Wake,
B. Carney, her husband
and County of
Durham
8/13/1959
Kate J. Rogers (Mrs. W.F.
Bernard B.
50 Acres
1376-265
Rogers), Widower
Blanchard and
Geraldine M
Carney
3/30/1949
Max Collins, Sr. and wife, Gladys
W.F. Rogers
50 Acres
1019-217
Collins
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
24

V1
r.
Legend
Project Tract
Parcel
a.—
_ Blanchard
Collins
Joyner
Odd Fellows
u T 0 50 100 150 200 250
Meters
s
Figure 3.3 Map showing the four original parcels comprising the project tract.
I
v
Q
Legend
Pm}ect Tract
Parcel
Barnes
Blanchard
Collins
Joyner
Odd Fellows
r 0 50 100 150 200 250
Meters
Figure 3.4. 1911/1913 Plat map showing project tract parcels in relationship to the C.L. Duke farm
tracts.
Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
25

Max Collins, Sr. was a barber in Maysville, North Carolina through 1935, moving to Cary by 1940
according to census data. Census records list Kate J. Rogers as a dressmaker through 1940. Her husband,
Walter, was the manager of a tobacco warehouse in Fuquay Varina prior to his death in 1957.
Barnes Parcel
Similar to the Blanchard Parcel, the Barnes Parcel was originally 15 acres from the Collins in 1952
with a portion of that original acreage overlapping with I-40.
Date
Grantor
I Grantee
Description
Book/Pa e
5/1/1972
Charles B. Barnes and wife, Ada
City of Raleigh,
Tract 2/Parcel B,
2070-69
Barnes
City of Durham,
7.9386 Acres
County of Wake,
and County of
Durham
4/4/1952
Max Collins, Sr. and wife, Gladys
Charles B Barnes
15 Acres
1096-154
Collins
and wife, Ada
Barnes
Collins Parcel
Max Collins, Sr., and wife, Gladys Collins, acquired 87.5 acres from the Palmer family in 1947.
During the 40s and 50s, Mr. Collins sold portions of this tract creating the Blanchard, Barnes, and a portion
of the Odd Fellows tract. The remaining 12.5 acres was passed down through his descendants.
Date
Grantor
I Grantee
Description
Book/Page
3/XX/1977
Max Collins, Jr., and Wife, Melba
County of Wake, County
12.52254 acres
2489/689
W. Collins; Frederick McDaniel
of Durham, City of
Collins, divorced; Ruffin B.
Raleigh, City of Durham,
Holder, and wife, Ednabel C.
c/o Raleigh -Durham
Holder
Airport
10/3/1947
O.A. Palmer and wife, Julie W.
Max Collins and wife,
87.5 acres
974-494
Palmer
Gladys Collins
10/1/1932
National Carolina Jointstock
O.A. Palmer and wife,
87.5 acres
638-501
Landbank of Durham, Act of
Julie W. Palmer
Congress, Federal Farm Loan Act
L2/20-/1903
Florence P. Tucker (without living
C.L. & J.A. Duke
Asa Blake Tract,
173-537
husband)
501 Acres
Florence Perkins Tucker (1838-1909) was the widow of Major Rufus Sylvester Tucker who died
in 1894. Rufus Sylvester Tucker was the son of Ruffin and Lucinda Tucker. Ruffin was a prominent
merchant in Wake County during the early nineteenth century. Rufus, along with his two brothers, inherited
his father's business upon his death in 1851 and continued their father's success. Rufus entered the
Confederate army in April 1861 as a captain. He was appointed by then Governor John Ellis to be
quartermaster and commissary for the Raleigh post. Rufus mustered into the Wake Rangers, Company I,
41st Regiment in February 1862. He received a mention for distinguished gallantry in the Battle of
Washington in September 1862 and was subsequently promoted to major. In 1863, he was appointed
assistant adjutant general, serving General Daniel G. Fowle and Brigadier General R.C. Gatlin until he left
the military in 1863. In 1864, he was elected principal clerk in the House of Commons and was considered
as a gubernatorial possibility in 1888, although he never ran. After the war he devoted himself to his
mercantile business, expanding its operations until it became the leading dry goods house in the state. He
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
26

turned his business over to his son-in-law, James Boylan, in 1883 and turned to agriculture operating a
valuable plantation in Pitt County and developing 540 acres in northwest Raleigh, known as Camp
Mangum, into one of the finest farms in the state. Camp Mangum had previously been a Confederate
training ground and is today the campus of Meredith College. He gifted Tucker Hall, Raleigh's first public
amusement building, to the city in 1867. The building was dedicated by former Governor David L. Swain.
Rufus Tucker was active in forming the Raleigh Chamber of Commerce and was chosen its first
president in 1887. He served as director and president of the Institution for the Deaf, Dumb and Blind at
Raleigh, and was a director of the North Carolina, Raleigh and Gaston, Raleigh and Augusta, and Carolina
Central Railroads, in addition to being the largest private stockholder in the Atlantic and North Carolina
Railroad. With his very considerable agricultural and real estate holdings, Tucker was reputed to be
Raleigh's wealthiest citizen at the time of his death in 1894 (Hatcher 1996). Both he and Florence are buried
in Oakwood Cemetery in Raleigh.
Sir Walter Lodge No. 411 Independent Order of Odd Fellows Parcel
The Odd Fellows parcels, containing 83.79242 acres, was combined from 68 acres from the Capital
Development Company and the remainder, 15 acres, from Max Collins. No information could be found
on Lusetto Blake or J.P.H. Adams. Paschal B. Price was a cooper by trade in 1880 but is listed as a carpenter
on census records for 1900, shortly before he sold the property. Deeds for property transfers of this parcel
occurring in 1949, 1955, and 1958 refer to the property as formerly part of the C.L. Duke farm. Rufus and
Florence Tucker acquired their property, the Collins parcel, from C.L. and J.A. Duke, who acquired it from
Asa Blake, presumably through a colonial land grant.
Collins Portion
Date
Grantor
Grantee
Description
Book/Page
7/7/1976
Sir Walter Lodge No. 411
City of Raleigh, City of Durham, County
83.79242
2416-433
Independent Order of
of Wake, County of Durham
Acres
Odd Fellows,
Incorporated
10/8/1958
Max Collins, Sr., and
Sir Walter Lodge No. 411 Independent
83.79242
1337-100
wife, Gladys McDaniel
Order of Odd Fellows, Incorporated
Acres
Collins
10/3/1947
O.A. Palmer and wife,
Max Collins and wife, Gladys Collins
87.5 Acres
974-494
Julie W. Palmer
Capital Development Company Portion
Date
Grantor
Grantee
Description
I Book/Page
8/27/1958
Capital Development Company
Sir Walter Lodge No. 411
68 Acres
1332-385
Independent Order of Odd
Fellows, Incorporated
8/1/1958
C.O. Weaver and wife, Nella D.
Capital Development
68 Acres
1324-400
Weaver
Company
7/31/1958
C.O. Weaver and wife, Nella D.
Babcock Lumber Company
Timber
1329-620
Weaver
Rights to the
68 Acres
7/31/1958
Cyrus Thompson and wife Annie
C.O. Weaver and wife, Nella
68 Acres
1324-355
McE. Thompson
D. Weaver
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
27

C.F. Parrish and Wife Juanita B.
Cyrus Thompson and wife
70 Acres
1212-346
11/4/1955
Parrish
Annie McE. Thompson
Lena Klein (Widow of E. Klein),
70 Acres
877-147
Cecilia Klein Lee and Husband
12/9/1949
R. E. Lee, Jr.
John J. Klein
J. P. H. Adams and Cora Adams,
70 Acres
301-344
12/27/1915
his wife
E. Klein
10/22/1903
P.B. Price and Wife
J. P. H. Adams
70 Acres
187-112
4/12/1897
P.B. Price
J. P. H. Adams
70 Acres
140-488
Robert H. Wilson, trustee for
128 Acres
65-794
1/10/1882
Lusetto P. Blake
P.B. Price
The Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) is a charitable organization whose goals are to
"visit the sick, relieve the distressed, bury the dead, educate the orphans, and protect the widows" (Powell
2006). Although beginning in Europe in the seventeenth century, it was organized in the United Sates in
1805. Over the years, the Sir Walter Raleigh Lodge has acquired large tracts of land and a number of
buildings in Raleigh. These include the Odd Fellows building (Commerce Building) which was built as the
Grand Lodge of the IOOF in 1923 and designed by Atlanta architect G. Lloyd Preacher. It was Raleigh's
first tall office building. Office space in the skyscraper was also rented out with the proceeds supporting
the IOOF orphanages (RHDC 2020). The building was sold in 2004. Their landholdings, such as the parcel
within the project tract, were often used for recreational activities.
Joyner Parcel
Date
Grantor
I Grantee
Description
Book/Pa e
4/20/1984
Stephen Wynn Joyner and wife,
Raleigh -Durham
1.00330 acres
3295-80
Linda Lee Joyner
Airport Authority
2/16/1984
Isaac D. Lee and wife, Virginia K.
Stephen Wynn
Correction Deed
3247-624
Lee
Joyner and wife,
Linda Lee Joyner
12/6/1983
Isaac D. Lee and wife, Virginia K.
Stephen Wynn
1 acre
3212-584
Lee
Joyner and wife,
Linda Lee Joyner
6/20/1958
Annie Lee Baker and husband,
Virginia Lee
1 acre
1320-102
Hubert Baker, Charles King, and
Virginia Lee and husband, Isaac
Lee
The Raleigh Durham International Airport is governed by the Raleigh Durham Airport Authority
which was established in 1939. An eight -member board manages the airport's day-to-day operations. Two
board members are each appointed by Wake County, the city of Raleigh, Durham County, and the city of
Durham. The number of passengers served has increased 55 percent since 2011. To address this growth,
the airport plans to invest over 2 billion dollars in the next 10 years on facility expansion (No Author
2020b).
Historic Map Review
A review of historic maps was conducted to see if any structures or houses were present in the
project tract. The earliest indication of any houses or structures in the project tract is from 1911 when the
property was part of the C. L. Duke Farm. A structure is shown on the property plat (see Figure 3.4) in the
approximate location of archaeological site 31WA2327 (discussed below). This structure can also be seen
on the 1914 soil survey map of Wake County (Figure 3.5).
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
28

I
0
D !f... r
—AI
■ f elk
,
Co �!
f cd 1 4� Qn
Ir
1914 Soil Map
QuarryAddi#ion
^� ^ ,� 0 200 400 600 800
FF� w-
�''ti � a � Meters s
Figure 3.5. 1914 soil map of Wake County showing structures present in the project tract.
The 1938 Wake County highway map shows the project tract in relation to the recently established
Crabtree Creek Recreation Area. Several structures appear to be within or in the vicinity of the tract, but
the map scale limits the reliability of precisely plotting them. A 1938 aerial photograph of the tract shows
a single structure in the tract, the same one shown on the 1911 plat and 1914 soil survey map (Figure 3.6).
An aerial photograph from 1959 shows the same structure present, and it appears that the tract was
recently logged. A clearing shown on this aerial is in the location of archaeological site 31 WA2329
(discussed below) and is the location of a small logging sawmill. Another aerial photograph from 1971
shows that an additional structure has been added next to the original structure dating back to the 1911 plat,
as well as several small outbuildings. However, on the east side of the tract, a pond and dam have been
constructed, and a structure is shown just west of the pond. Figure 3.7 presents these aerial views. A 1964
topographic map of the project area does not show the pond and structure, indicating they were constructed
between 1964 and 1971. Figure 3.8 shows details of the tract on USGS topographic maps from 1943 and
1971.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
29

Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
30

I
1933 Aerial
F.pdT.d — Roed
0 50 100 150 200
Meters,
1971 Aerial
Pmjad Tact — Ro
0 50 100 150 200 w
MO —
Figure 3.7 Aerials from 1938, 1959, and 1971 showing land use
changes in tract.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
31

Figure 3.8. Topographic maps from 1964 (top) and 1973 (bottom) showing
structures present in the project tract.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
32

Chapter 4. Field Survey Results
This archaeological survey resulted in the comprehensive examination of the 105-acre (42.5-ha)
Oddfellows tract. Survey coverage is shown in Figure 4.1. The survey methods consisted of excavating
shovel tests at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart in areas deemed to have
high archaeological potential. Low potential areas were surveyed through pedestrian walkover.
v ,
f • f • • • i
.� • m w 0
� a a a��•
•
RDU Quarry
Quarry_Addition 2-ft Contour
a
High_Potential Road
# 0 90 180 270 N
W�
Meters s
Figure 4.1. LiDAR map showing survey coverage in the project tract.
Five archaeological sites, 31 WA2327 through 31 WA2331, were identified during this survey
(Figure 4.2; Table 4.1). These sites include one prehistoric site, two historic sites, and two sites with both
prehistoric and historic components. Prehistoric remains date to unknown periods, and historic components
date between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Due to the severe disturbance to these sites, they are
not likely to contribute significantly to our understanding of the prehistory and history of the region. They
are all recommended not eligible for the NRHP. The sites are described individually below.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
33

Figure 4.2. Map showing the identified archaeological sites in the project tract (1993 Cary, NC USGS
7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).
Table 4.1. Summary of Identified Archaeological Sites in the Proiect Tract.
Site Number
Description
NRHP Recommendation
31 WA2327
201h century house site
Not Eligible
31 WA2328
20' century logging operation
Not Eligible
31 WA2329
20' century recreation area
Not Eligible
31 WA2330
Unknown prehistoric lithic scatter
Not Eli ible
31 WA2331
Unknown prehistoric lithic scatter
Not Eligible
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
34

Site 31WA2327
Site Type: Historic House Site UTM Coord 17N (NAD83): 3968616 N 700461 E
Component: 201 Century Landform: Ridge Top
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Georgeville silt loam and Herndon silt loam
Site 31 WA2327 is a historic house complex located in the western edge of the project tract, fronting
Old Reedy Creek Road. The site is situated on a ridge top that slopes southeast towards Crabtree Creek.
The vegetation of the site area consists of mixed hardwoods and pine woods but cedar, black walnut, and
beech trees were noted in the site vicinity. Understory vegetation consisted of moderate weed and briar
undergrowth. Surface visibility was generally poor except along a bike trail bisecting the site. However,
with minimal clearing, structural features were readily identifiable.
A structure is shown in this location as early as 1911 when the property was part of the C.L. Duke
Farm (see Figure 3.4). This structure is also shown on the 1914 Wake County soil map (see Figure 3.5). A
review of USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs shows that a second structure and several
outbuildings were added sometimes between 1964 and 1971. We found foundation elements of the older
structure, referred to as Building 1 in this discussion. The later structure is our Building 2. A small
agricultural plot is shown surrounding these structures in the 1938, 1959, and 1971 aerial photographs
(Figure 4.3).
A total of 48 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals at this site. The site boundary,
measuring 120 by 60 meters were established from two positive shovel tests and the remains of four
buildings and general surface debris (Figure 4.4). A typical soil profile is shown in Figure 4.5. This profile
consisted of a topsoil zone (0-10 centimeters below surface [cmbs]) of dark brown (10YR3/2) silt loam.
Beneath this, at a depth of 10-20 curbs, was reddish yellow (7.5YR6/6) loamy clay overlying red
(2.5YR4/8) clay subsoil. All artifacts were found in the topsoil zone.
Although foundation remains of multiple structures were found, artifacts were only found in two
shovel tests and a single surface find in a bike path. The two positive shovel tests are both in the vicinity of
Building 1. Twenty-nine artifacts and .9 grams of charcoal was collected during field investigations (Table
4.2). The artifact assemblage includes ceramics (n=3), glass (n=14), metal (n=7), asbestos siding (n=1),
terra cotta drainage pipe (n=2), and plastic (n=2) fragments. Some of these artifact types have a long span
of manufacture, possibly extending back into the nineteenth century. In addition, both machine cut and wire
nails were collected from the site, indicators of nineteenth and twentieth century activities, respectively.
Building 1 is the remains of a dwelling measuring 40 by 35 feet overall. This is the original structure
at 31 WA2327 shown on the 1911 plat and the 1914 soil survey map. Figure 4.6 through Figure 4.9 show
details of Building 1. The original mass of the dwelling, measuring 35 by 15 feet, is outlined by brick piers
and a one stretcher wide continuously running foundation between the piers. The remains also include a set
of concrete stairs. The additional extends southeast from the original mass running the full width extending
25 feet. The addition is also set the same foundation. Within the interior of the dwelling is a brick scatter,
and a concrete and brick scatter, probably the remains of a chimney.
Building 2 is the remains of a building measuring 30 by 20 feet. It is defined by concrete block
footers at the corners with a continuous concrete partition block foundation running between the footers.
Building 3 is the remains of an outbuilding measuring 12 by 10 feet. It is defined by a continuous concrete
block foundation. Two concrete blocks extending outward 8 feet away are likely footers to a shed overhang.
Building 4 is the remains of an outbuilding, likely a shed, measuring 15 by 10 feet. It is a plywood shed set
on concrete block footers.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
35

s
•,'i:e.. � spy
'I, . �.
1938 Aerial
- Qn rreci
Qn. aeoligical Sid
e
1959 Aerial
� �r-vgen nen
QA�Neeolopirel si4o
IL
Ilk
low
1971 Aerial
Project Tract
. i
= Arrna eolMical Site
0 7.5 15 22.5 30
Meters
Figure 4.3. View of 1938 (top), 1959 (middle) and 1971 (bottom) aerial views of 31WA2327.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
36

O c o O
r
r
i 0 0 0
0
v
F
O O a O r o
C m
Y 105
m 1 w
/ 1 N
Yth �� \ on N
0' C O O 0 r L
en d N N 1 L9
O
+ a
v O p m
v�wO O 0 n ! ° c
1
tV m cLii Zon
�(U., 16
an
M V1 Za n
m m
.............................
- - -- ._._._- - ``-_._._._......`.. ....
_ -
---•-•---•---- Old Reedy Creek Road ......
_.
on
"jo
vi
on
',�
1.7
C, C,
on is
77
m
an
LLJ
`Z
m
v
v
+• - - o
V �
b
O
2
V m
IT.4
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
37

� ..;,
�
� ,
ate+ �`', � .y � <- s'` • -,"
'd
Figure 4.5. View of a representative soil profile at 31WA2327.
Table 4.2 Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from 31 WA2327.
Artifact Content
Descri tion
Quantity/Weight
Ceramics:
Ironstone, undecorated
post 1840'
1
Whiteware, undecorated
1
Stoneware, Bristol glazed/slipped
popular post 1880s2
1
Glass:
1 base with knurling, post 1940'
4
Bottle glass, brown
Bottle glass, clear
7
Bottle glass, green
1
Bottle glass, light green
frosted
1
Tableware glass, milk lass
1
Metal:
Bolt, Iron
hex bolt
1
Nails/nail fragments, cut
dominant 1810-18904
2
Nails/nail fragments, wire
common post 18904
4
Organic:
Charcoal
0.1
Other:
Asbestos cement siding fragment
popular 1920s-1970ss
1
Drainage pipe fragments, terra cotta
with possible limestone or shell
2
aggregate
Plastic fragment
burned
2
Total
29/0.1
'Aultman et al. 2016; `Stelle 2001;'Lindsey 2020; 4IMACS 2001;'Wilson and Snodgrass 2008
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
38

'f I
k [[ !T

,,,,gyp-r
.�•. � �i ,� %. ,
e
Figure 4.8. View of intact and displaced foundation piers at Structure 1 at
31 WA2327, facing east.
Figure 4.9. View of rear steps at Structure 1 at 31 WA2327, facing south.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
40

In summary, 31 WA2327 appears to have been first occupied during the early twentieth or possibly
the late nineteenth century. Maps and aerial photographs reveal a single house surrounded by a small
field/pasture was here until at least 1964. However, by 1971 a second house and several outbuildings are
present. Structural remnants of four structures were identified during field investigations, including the
foundation of the original house (Building 1), as well as three of the later structures. Artifacts were found
in proximity to the original structure, but surprisingly, none were found in proximity to the more recent
structures. Based on the results of our field investigations, it is not likely that 31WA2327 can contribute
new or significant information about twentieth century occupations in the tract beyond the survey level of
evaluation and the site is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WA2328
Site Type: Possible Scouts recreation area UTM Coord 17N (NAD83): 3968593 N 700987 E
Component: Middle 201 Century Landform: Side slope
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Nanford silt loam/Chewacla and Wehadkee
soils
Site 31 WA2389 is a historic site located in the eastern part of the survey tract. This site is associated
with middle twentieth century recreational activities. The site includes three main loci: a pond and dam, a
shelter and grill area, and a picnic table and fire pit.
A review of twentieth century aerial photographs shows this setting as woodlands in 1938 and was
logged in 1958 or 1959. However, by 1964 a pond and structure are shown on the USGS topographic map
and are clearly visible on a 1971 aerial photograph (Figure 4.10). This recreation area was constructed
during the period of ownership of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Attempts were made to contact
representatives of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows to see if they had records of past ownership and
land use. Mr. Vincent Doria was contacted. He is the current Treasurer and former State Grand Master for
the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Mr. Vincent was aware that the Independent Order of Odd Fellows
once owned the property. He said that they were heavily involved with Scout groups back then and had
granted permission for camping and jamboree activities. He said that until about 2007 there was a close
connection between the Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Scouting groups. He was unsure exactly
when the pond and recreation area were constructed, but our background research indicates the pond and
recreation area was built during their ownership of the property. Mr. Doria said he was not aware of any
other Odd Fellows functions or activities associated with the property.
Overall dimensions for 31WA2327 are approximately 180 by 200 meters (Figure 4.11). The pond
encompasses approximately 1.5 acres. There is a shelf/ledge bordering the pond allowing for easy access
for fishing and swimming. The dam is at the southern end of the pond, about 100 meters upslope from
Crabtree Creek. Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13 show views of the pond.
The remains of the structure consist of a rectangular asphalted area measuring 20 by 40 feet (Figure
4.14). Three poles associated with the shelter are still standing. Just to the west of the asphalt pad are two
metal grills (Figure 4.15). These are made from tire rims and mounted on a segment of angle iron.
Approximately 150 feet west is a wood picnic table and a stone ring fire pit (Figure 4.16). Additional
scattered stone ring fire pits are scattered in the project area, but when metal detected only modern glass
and aluminum items were found.
Limited metal detecting was conducted in this area. Aluminum container debris was common, but
wire nails were also identified. A single shovel test was excavated in the site vicinity, revealing an eroded
soil profile, consisting of a thin layer of humus overlaying red (2.5YR4/8) clay (Figure 4.17).
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
41

a'
y + -
t
r
Picnic
Tahles? '�
'•j
1971 Aerial
- -Project Tract
Archaeological Site
0 10 20 30 40
j Meters
Figure 4.10. Aerial photograph from 1971 showing 31 WA2328.
Shelter Remains
a
Wheel Grill
31WA2328
Picnic Area Details c
zz
o Negative Shovel Test
E] Pole Fragment (in situ)
Pole (not in situ)
0 10 20 feet
MENTEMEn
O 3 b meters
Figure 4.11. Plan map of shelter area and grills at 31 WA2329.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
Asphalt Pad
�j
42

I
t
b
r
CiS
+.1
Figure 4.12. View of dam at south end of pond at 31 WA2328, facing
northeast.
Figure 4.13. View towards dam from back of pond at 31 WA2328, facing
southeast.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
43

MW
i-- J-za
-�
17

;� s �
■ �
,�
_ -. ;� ��
_ ,__
�-:
�� _ _ ,
._ �.
•_ � �_ ;- _
_ _
�u�� y
_ _ �• •r
- =� � � -J �
��� `�. - -
4 � _ � r �r
—� r -- ''} '§�
� r
,�~_ � � �- ram.
.r .:v
Ce i� - � �.
� � _ �
�;
L_ �
•.r �ti,.<
•"T I„�t
` � ��r` � � � e1 ,may:
_ � � :,
'p, �y y '��
�'' — `� rr
�. .tr.'. � .k' .

Site 31 WA2328 is the remains of a recreational area created when the property was owned by the
Independent Oder of Odd Fellows. The site is a simple recreational facility with a shelter, pond, and a
primitive camping area. The site was created sometime after 1964, thus it barely has the 50-year age
requiring evaluation. The area was used by Scouting groups for camping and jamboree activities and is an
example of one of the many ways the Independent Order of Odd Fellows provided for the community.
However, there are no significant events or unique characteristics linked to the site. For this reason,
31 WA2328 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and no additional evaluation is recommended.
Site 31WA2329
Site Type: Historic Logging operation UTM Coord 17N (NAD83): 3968811 N 701216 E
Component: Middle 201 Century Landform: Side slope
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Nanford silt loam
Site 31 WA2329 is a historic site associated with middle twentieth century logging operations at the
Odd Fellows tract. The site is located in the central part of the tract, on the side slope. A review of historic
aerial photographs shows that this area was woodlands in 1938, some areas appearing as remnant fields or
pasture. The 1959 aerial photograph shows the area as recently logged, with a dendritic pattern of logging
trails visible. At the location of 31 WA2329 is an obvious clearing, but no details are discernable.
Archaeological evidence of sawmill activities was identified at this location.
This property was owned by the Independent Order of Odd Fellows between 1958 and anl976.
Prior to the sale of the land to the Odd Fellows the timber rights were specifically sold to Babcock Lumber
Company (7/31/1985, DB1329:P620). The 1959 aerial photograph shows the area has been logged and
location of 31 WA2329 appears as a bare clearing, surrounded by logging trails and logged woodlands
(Figure 4.18). However, no sheds or structures are visible in the photograph.
There are two loci at the site (Figure 4.19 and Figure 4.20). Locus 1 is a large rectangular pit
surrounded by an earthen berm. Locus 2 is about 50 feet to the south of Locus 1. Locus 2 is the location of
a smaller rectangular pit. Artifact scatters are associated with both loci. The overall site dimensions are
approximately 50 meters northwest -southeast by 40 meters northeast -southwest (Figure 4.21).
Locus 1 is a pit feature surrounded by an earthen berm (Figure 4.22). The feature measures about
45 feet north -south by 20 feet east -west. From the top of the berm to the base of the pit is about 5 feet. The
interior of the Locus 1 pit, the berm, and surrounding areas were metal detected. While metal detecting,
several surface finds were noted, including a distinctive Pepsi Cola bottle from circa 1951-1957, a glass
bottle, a glass jar fragment, and two metal can fragments. Seventeen metal detection hits were collected
from Locus 1, representing about 50 percent of the hits detected at the site. Table 4.3 summarizes artifacts
collected from Locus 1. The most common items are wire nails (n=8), can fragments (n=2), and unidentified
iron fragments. Also collected were an iron bolt, a cotter pin, a saw tooth, a piece of wire, and a spoon
fragment. Figure 4.23 shows glass containers and metal cans not collected.
The pit feature at Locus 2 is smaller than at Locus 1, measuring approximately 3 by 1 meter in area
and about 50 centimeters deep (see Figure 4.22). However, a similar number of artifacts were found by
metal detection here as at Locus 1. Table 4.4 summarizes the artifacts from Locus 2. Most of the items are
wire nails (n=7) and can fragments (n=6). Additional items include a small hoe, two chain links, an
unidentified copper alloy item, and an unidentified iron item. One of the chain links is of particular interest.
It is rectangular in shape and is common at portable sawmills and logging operations. This is part of a drag
chain used to clear the sawdust away from the machinery.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
46

r ;
dP
.0 { r
d s y A # 16
v e {
i
r + Fj _
� �F
m
Wit
L ]f
A 9
w
,ill
f
Odd Fellows Tract
Project Tract
Archaeological Site
A 0 7.5 45 22.5 30
Meters wr
Figure 4.18. General view of 31 WA2329 on 1959 aerial photograph.
Figure 4.19 General view of Locus 1 at 31 WA2329, facing northwest.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
47

w
.. a -.a ... f ,....y
VIM
s r «'
--
Figure 4.20. General view of Locus 2 at 31 WA2329, facing southwest.
It was determined that metal detection instead of shovel tests would be used to recover artifacts
from 31 WK2329. Metal detection was conducted in the immediate vicinity of the two loci, and within a
10-meter surrounding area. However, two shovel tests were excavated at 31 WA2329 to examine the soil
profile (Figure 4.24 and Figure 4.25. Neither shovel test yielded artifacts. A shovel test excavated at the
bottom of the Locus 1 pit revealed a soil profile consisting of an upper zone of reddish yellow (10YR6/8)
silt loam. This zone is likely associated with erosional deposition after the site was abandoned. Beneath this
was an approximately 10 centimeters thick layer of strong brown (7.5YR5/6) silt loam. At the base of this
zone was a dark organic band, possibly the remains of decayed wood. Below this was undisturbed yellowish
red (5YR5/6) saprolitic silt loam. A shovel test excavated upslope from the Locus 1 pit showed a shallow
(0-10 cmbs) upper soil zone consisting of brown (10YR5/3) silt loam overlaying yellowish red (5YR5/8)
clay.
Site 31 WK2329 is the remains of a middle twentieth century portable sawmill. The area was
probably logged by the Babcock Lumber Company in 1958. However, the features and artifacts found at
the site suggest some limited sawmill activity. The artifacts collected from the site indicate a structure or
structures was once present covering the two loci, probably simple pole sheds. An open shed -like structure
would have been sufficient to protect the logging/sawmill machinery. Artifacts confirming that sawmill
operations occurred include a rectangular sawdust drag chain link and a saw tooth cover.
Logging and lumber practices offered one way that money could be made from the submarginal
land in the project vicinity. Partially intact pit features and representative artifacts were found during the
archaeological survey, but it is unlikely that this site can contribute new and significant information beyond
the survey level of evaluation. For this reason, 31 WA2329 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and
no further evaluation is warranted.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
48

26
0
N
d fa
Grid North
O
True North
CD
LL. Lr)
> O —� lil
CD
LS)
CJ
O O
r-I
fV
Qj Z
d [Z
a
v
gon 5
v v U
Mi7i
Z`2toaoO
o0 x ,a
_j Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
Io

0•
Mound
Locus 2
Locus 1
•' Bicycle Trail
/Mound
Small Trench 29f1y`Trench �!11
1 �c�
Btcyc�P T , o,
Locus 1
North Profile
bxc ae iraih .
31 WA2329
Locus 1 and 2 Details t
o Negative Shovel Test 3
Metal Detector Find
O 10 20 feet
0 3 G meters
Figure 4.22. Close-up view of Locus 1 and 2 pit features at 31 WA2329.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
50

Table 4.3 Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31WA2329, Locus 1.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity
Glass:
Bottle glass, clear
Pepsi bottle with ACL, manufactured from
1951-1957'
1
Metal:
Bolt head, Iron
square head
1
Can fragments, Iron
2
Hair pin cotter, iron
remnants of red paint present, possibly used
I
with a hitch
Nails, wire
common post 18902
8
Saw tooth, iron
insertable tooth for circular saw
1
Unidentified form, iron
wire -like fragment
1
Unidentified hardware, iron
1 possible bolt fragment or square U-bolt; 1
2
possible label holder for machine or drawer
Utensil fragment, iron
spoon bowl fragment, likely stainless steel,
I
post 1921
Total IF
18
'Stoddard 2003; 21MACS 2001;3Magid 2010
Table 4.4. Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31 WA2329, Locus 2.
Artifact Content
Descri tion
Quantity
Metal.
Can fragments, iron
6
Chain links iron
1 bend close e, 1 sawdust dragchain e
2
Hoe, iron
small, blade a rox. 5" wide
1
Nails, wire
common post 1890'
7
Unidentified form, copper alloyossible
hardware
1
Unidentified form, iron
likel can fragment
1
Total
18
'IMACS 2001
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
51

f �
f
.�
- Apt •- - .�
� rY � �fJ ��,
4!' 1 !��{r,.l
-T". �
Figure 4.23. View of surface artifacts found at Locus 1, 31 WA2329.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
52

Figure 4.24. View of the soil profile inside the Locus 1 pit feature at
31 WA2329.
r
.
4
r
A
..
Figure 4.25. View of the general soil profile at 31WA2329 upslope from
the Locus 1 pit.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
53

Site 31WA2330
Site Type: Lithic Scatter UTM Coord 17N (NAD83): 3968323 N 701064 E
Component: Unknown Prehistoric Scatter Landform: Floodplain
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Chewacla and Wehadkee soils
Site 31WA2330 is an unknown prehistoric lithic scatter located in the southeastern corner of the
project tract. The site is located in a floodplain setting bordering Crabtree Creek (Figure 4.26 and Figure
4.27). The site is situated on a small sandy levee, with Crabtree to the south and a narrow back -swamp at
the base of the deep slope to the north. The vegetation in the site area consisted of mixed hardwoods and
pine with light understory vegetation. The site was first identified when several quartz flakes were found
on the ground surface in a bike trail that passes through the site.
A total of seven shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals at 31 WA2330. The site boundary,
measuring approximately 15 meters in diameter, was defined by a light scatter of quartz artifacts. The soils
at 31WA2330 consisted of a topsoil zone (0-20 cmbs) of brown (7.5YR4/3) sandy loam. Beneath this, to a
depth of 55 centimeters was reddish yellow (7.5YR6/8) loamy sand. The deepest soil zone (55-75 cm+ was
strong brown (7.5YR5/8) sandy clay. The soil profile is shown in Figure 4.28.
Pines and
Hardwood
31WA2330
Site Plan 30°
o Negative Shovel Test �2
Surface Find(s) °s 5
0 Datum: N500 E500
0 15 30
>u7crs�
Figure 4.26. Plan map of 31WA2330.
Backswam
0
Site Boundary
Floodplain� 0
c .cle.ra�l /' .e, y
......p 0 ..0,., 0
Crabtree Creek — -
A total of eight artifacts were recovered from the site. All artifacts were quartz flake fragments and
no diagnostic artifacts were found at the site. All artifacts were recovered from the surface along the bike
path.
Site 31WA2330 is the remains of a prehistoric lithic scatter in the flood plain of Crabtree Creek.
All of the artifacts collected are nondiagnostic lithic debitage, and none were found in subsurface contexts.
There is no exposure of quartz outcrops in the site vicinity, and there was no surface cortex on any of the
artifacts indicating the items were the result of reducing stream cobbles. The chances of intact feature or
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
54

Figure 4.27. View of setting at 31 WA2330, facing west.
T�
AW
3
My x
Figure 4.28. View of soil profile at 31 WA2330.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
55

midden contexts is considered low, and no evidence of preserved organic remains (bone and charcoal) was
found. For these reasons we feel that 31 WA2330 is not likely to yield new or significant information beyond
the survey level of evaluation about prehistoric settlement in the North Carolina Piedmont and the site is
recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WA2331
Site Type: Lithic Scatter UTM Coord 17N (NAD83): 3968526 N 700709 E
Component: Unknown Prehistoric Scatter Landform: Floodplain
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Nanford silt loam
Site 31WA233lis a prehistoric lithic scatter located in the center -western portion of the project
tract. The site is situated on a ridge top and extends southeast down a ridge toe and onto the floodplain of
Crabtree Creek (Figure 4.29). The vegetation in the site area consisted of mixed hardwoods and pine with
light understory vegetation. A bike trail passes through the site; along the trail surface visibility is very good
(75-100%).
A total of 57 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals at the site. The site boundary,
measuring approximately 150 meters northwest -southeast by 40 meters northeast -southwest, was defined
by one shovel test and three surface collection points (Figure 4.30). Soil stratigraphy consisted of 10 to 15
centimeters of brown (1OYR 5/3) silt loam overlying yellowish red (5YR 5/7) silty clay (Figure 4.31). The
soil had quartz rocks common, and an exposure of quartz bedrock was present on the southeastern part of
the site. However, it did not look as if the quartz exposure had been used by prehistoric inhabitants due to
the fractured nature of the material.
Figure 4.29. View of ridgetop at 31 WA2331, facing southeast.
A total of 26 lithic artifacts were collected from 31 WK2331 (Table 4.5). Only one of these, a quartz
core, was from a subsurface context and the rest were surface finds from along the bike trails that cross the
site. The only non -quartz artifact was a projectile point blade fragment of a good quality metavolcanic
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
56

�C
i°
O
b O
4=
O O
O
arc
0 o 0
,Site Boundary
0 0 0
3.1Pines
0 0
say
�.
P
X
and
Hardwoods \
0 o ^o O
0 0 4.0 0
Quartz Vein------
0
0 0
47
S
S O
45=
O
4a�
Project Boundary
s
.
~ Crab?;.
41
31 WA2331
Cr
ee
0
Site Plan
.
o Negative Shovel Test
0
g=
• Positive Shovel Test
•��
X Surface Find(s)
S Slope, No Dig
8�
Datum: N500 E500
0 15 30
m L'C(T.5
36
479
495
590
S15
539
545
560
575
590
695
629
535 659
35C
665
Figure 4.30. Plan map of 31WA2331.
rhyolite. The flaking pattern indicates the tool was made by a skilled flintknapper, possibly during the
Archaic Period. The remainder of the artifacts are quartz flakes and flake fragments. The quartz outcrop
within the site boundary is a translucent variety. This material will produce sharp edges but would be
unsuitable for manufacturing bifacial tools. Most of the quartz flakes are more of a milky quartz, indicating
that the artifacts found at the site may not be related to the raw material naturally occurring within the site
boundary.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
57

Figure 4.31. View of a representative soil profile at 31WA2331.
Table 4.5 Summary of Prehistoric Artifacts Collected from 31 WA2331.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity
Lithics:
Projectile point fragment
shape and flaking suggest Early Archaic
1
Core, quartz
1
Flakes/flake fragments, quartz
1 with possible use wear
24
Total
26
None of the quartz artifacts had cobble cortex indicating that creek cobbles were being used. The
southern part of the site follows a long narrow ridge toe down to the edge of Crabtree Creek. At the very
base of this landform is an outcrop of metavolcanic material. The material is not suitable for flintknapping
stone tools.
Site 31WA2331 is a prehistoric site consisting of a sparse scatter of quartz artifacts and a single
metavolcanic projectile point fragment. Despite the presence of an exposure of quartz material within the
site boundaries (Figure 4.32), there is no indication that quarrying activities took place at the site. The
eroded setting has little potential for the presence of intact features or buried cultural zones. Site 31 WA2331
is unlikely to contribute new or significant information about prehistoric settlement in the Crabtree Creek
watershed and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
58

Figure 4.32. View of an outcrop of low quality quartz on side slope at
31WA2331, facing northwest.
Summary and Recommendations
Between 12 and 20 August 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted an
archaeological survey of the Oddfellows tract located in Wake County, North Carolina. This investigation
was conducted on behalf of the Wake Stone Corporation. This survey was requested by the North Carolinas
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a letter dated 7 May 2020. The goals of this investigation
were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project tract, assess those resources for
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations,
as appropriate.
Background research was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) located in Raleigh
and included a review of archaeological site forms, cultural resource reports, and historic maps of the project
area. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located in the project tract. A review of the Office of
Survey and Planning's website (HPOWEB) was also consulted to determine the presence of any recorded
architectural resources within the project tract. None are present in the project tract.
Prior to beginning field work, factors such as soil drainage and topography were used to define
portions of the project tract that had high potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. These areas
total approximately 35 acres (14.2 ha) and include ridge tops, knolls, and ridge toes. Shovel tests were
excavated at 30-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 30 meters apart in high potential areas. The
remaining 70 acres (28.3 ha) were considered to have low archaeological potential. Low potential areas
were surveyed by pedestrian walkover and judgmentally placed shovel tests. All areas of exposed ground
surface were inspected for cultural remains.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
59

Five archaeological sites (31 WA2327 through 31 WA2331) were identified during this
investigation. These sites include two prehistoric sites and three historic sites. The prehistoric components
are of an unknown age. The historic components date to the twentieth century. These resources have been
adequately documented during this investigation and determined to be unlikely to yield significant data
pertaining to the prehistory or history of the area. All identified archaeological sites are recommended not
eligible for the NRHP. As no significant archaeological sites will be impacted by the proposed development,
clearance to proceed is recommended.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
60

References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist 19:
317-41.
Adovasio, J. M. and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology's Greatest Mystery. Random House, New
York.
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286.
Anderson, David G. and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. National Park Service,
Interagency Archaeological Services., Atlanta, GA.
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon -Harper
2016 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual:
Ceramics. Electronic document. http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/
Ceramics.pdf.
Autry, William O.
1976 An Archaeological Assessment of the Relocation of State Roads 1008 and 1715 in the B.
Everett Jordan Reservoir, North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
Bevers, Fendol
1871 Map of Wake County. Nichols and Gorman.
Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper, eds.
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principle Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics for Identification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series
15.
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States. James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 312-321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
61

Cawthorn, Joel W.
1970 Soil Survey of Wake County. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology. Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Charles, Tommy and Christopher R. Moore
2018 Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tools of South Carolina. Piedmont Archaeological Studies
Trust, Inc., Glendale, SC.
Claggett, Stephen R, John S. Cable, and Larsen, Curtis E Larsen
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, MI.
Coe, Joffre L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern United
States. James B. Griffin, ed., pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
Coe, Joffre Lanning and Olin F McCormick
1970 Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. University of
North Carolina, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill.
Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Daniel, I. Randolph
2000 Paleoindian Points in North Carolina. Research in the Pleistocene 17:14-16
Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological
Context and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Driver, J. C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada. Quaternary
International 49:141-150.
Eastman, Jane M.
1996 Searching for Ritual: A Contextual Study of Roasting Pits at Upper Saratown. Paper presented
at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham, AL.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
62

Fanning, David, Thomas Hicks Wynne, John Hill Wheeler, and David Lowry Swain
1861 The Narrative of Colonel David Fanning, (a Tory in the Revolutionary War with Great
Britain,) Giving an Account of His Adventures in North Carolina, from 1775 to 1783, as
Written by Himself. Richmond, Va., Printed for private distribution only, in the first year of the
independence of the Confederate States of America. Electronic Document.
http://archive.org/details/narrativeofcolon00fann.
Feldhues, William J.
1995 Guide to Identifying and Dating Historic Glass and Ceramics. Manuscript on file,
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/
histarch/gallery—types/.
Fossett, Mildred B.
1976 History of McDowell County. McDowell County American Revolution Bicentennial
Commission, Marion, NC.
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Occasional Paper, 1. Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Washington
D.C.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.P.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Courtland.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 42(3):382-395.
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen and Bradley T. Lepper, eds., pp. 103-112. Texas A & M
University Press, College Station.
Griffin, James B.
1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States.
James B Griffin, ed., pp. 352-364. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175191.
Hall, Wesley K. and Tucker R. Littleton
1978 Cultural resources Survey of the Raleigh -Durham Airport Area. Manuscript on file at the
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC.
Ham, Eugene J. and Jo Watson
1975 The Crabtree Creek Interceptor Archaeological Survey. Manuscript on file at the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, NC.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
63

Hantman, J. L. and M. J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137-164. Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication, 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Courtland.
Hargrove, Thomas
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cold Water Creek and Back Creek Interceptor
Project, Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates,
Raleigh, NC.
Hatcher, Susan Tucker
1996 Tucker, Rufus Sylvester. Electronic document, ncpedia.org/biography/tucker-rufs-
sylvester, accessed September 24, 2020.
Herbert, Joseph M.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hudson, Charles M
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press., Tuscaloosa.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704. Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser,
eds., pp. 74-103. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) Guide
2001 Nails. Electronic document. vhttps:Hanthro.utah.edu/—documents/imac-s/470-nails.pdf
Jackson, L. E., F. M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E. C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:
73-94.
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapter—
ASV's 1993 and 1995 Excavation. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus
Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, eds. DHR Research Report,
8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
Lally, Kelly A.
1994 The Historic Architecture of Wake County. Wake County Government, Raleigh, NC.
Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Lewis, Thomas M. N. and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
64

Lindsey, Bill
2020 Bottle Glass Colors. Electronic document. www.sha.org/bottle/colors.htm.
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. Academic Press, New York.
McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No 8.
Magid, Barbara H.
2010 Alexandria Archaeology Laboratory Reference Book. City of Alexandria, Virginia.
McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia with Special
Attention to a Bone Tool. Jeffersonia 9:1-59.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2:1-53.
Meltzer, D. J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, et al.
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 44(1):
172-179.
Moss, Helen P.
1995 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Crabtree Creek Recreational
Demonstration Area. Electronic manuscript, www.files.nc.gov/ncdcr/nr/WA0721.pdf,
accessed 3 September 2020.
Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River Virginia -North Carolina.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 182. River Basin Surveys Papers. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Murray, Elizabeth Reed
1983 Wake: Capital County of North Carolina: Prehistory through Centennial. Capital County
Publishing Company, Raleigh, NC.
No Author
2020a History of RDU. Electronic document, rdu.com, accessed September 28, 2020.
2020b RDU. Electronic document, rdu.com, accessed September 27, 2020.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
65

Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
1994 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's View of Colonial Life and History, with a New
Afterward. University Press of Virginia, Richmond.
North Carolina Office of Archives and History (NCOAH)
2004 Natives and Newcomers: North Carolina Before 1770. Electronic Document.
http://www.waywelivednc.com/before-1770/wagon-road.httn.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. Electronic document,
https://usgeologymorphology.com/NC-geologic-map-NCGS-1985.pdf
North Carolina State Parks
n.d. Umstead State Park. Electronic document accessed 15 September 2020,
www.ncparks.gov/william-b-umstead-state-park/history.
Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology. Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1999 Uwharrie Lithics Conference Projectile Point Chronology Workbook. North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
O'Steen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast. David G Anderson
Peck, Rodney M.
1982 Indian Projectile Point Types from Virginia and the Carolinas. Privately printed.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
RHDC
2006 Odd Fellows Lodge. Electronic document, ncpedia.org/odd-fellows-lodge, accessed
September 24, 2020.
2020 Odd Fellows Building (Commerce Building), Raleigh Historic. Electronic document,
https://raleighhistoric.org/items/show/81, accessed September 28, 2020.
Rankin, Hugh F.
1959 North Carolina in the American Revolutions. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Rouse, Parke, Jr.
2001 The Great Wagon Road: From Philadelphia to the South. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
66

Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Master's Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series, 165. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Stanford, Dennis
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, D. Gentry Steele, and Bradley T
Lepper, eds., pp. 313-353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Stelle, Lenville J.
2001 An Archaeological Guide to the Historic Artifacts of the Upper Sangamon Basin, Central
Illinois, USA. Center for Social Research, Parkland College, Champaign, IL. Electronic
document. http://virtual.parkland.edu/Istellel/len/archguide/documebnts/arcguide.htm.
Stoddard, Bob J.
2003 The Big Nickel Drink, The Pepsi -Cola Story and a Lot More. Double Dot Enterprises,
Claremont, California.
Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2020 Web Soil Survey. Electronic Document. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS).
1943 Cary, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
1964 Durham South, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
1973 Cary, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
1993 Cary,NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
67

Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium. Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J.
Crow, eds., pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill
Whatley, John S.
2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. In Early Georgia
30(1): 7-133.
Wilson, Richa and Kathleen Snodgrass
2008 Early 20rh-Century Building Materials: Siding and Roofing. Facilities Tech Tip 0873-
2308-MTDC. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula Technology and
Development Center, Missoula, Montana.
Inc. Oddfellows Tract
Wake County, North Carolina
68

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog and PPK Report

Artifact Catalog
Odd Fellows
Site Number 31 WA2327
Provenience Number:
1.1
Site 1, N500 E485, 0-20 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 ml
3
8.4
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
2 roofing nails
2 m2
1
5.3
Nail Fragment Wire (Post 1890)
3 m3
1
5.5
Nail Cut (1810-1890)
4 m4
1
5.1
Nail Fragment Cut (1810-1890)
5 m5
1
31.3
Metal Bolt Iron
hex bolt
6 m6
2
6.6
Plastic
burned
7 eb7
1
0.1
Charcoal
8 m8
1
0.8
Other Historic
asbestos cement siding
9 m9
3
4.9
Brown Bottle Glass
2 body fragments, 1 base fragment
with khurling (post 1940, Lindsey
2020)
10 m10
1
3.7
Green Bottle Glass
1 body fragment
11 m l l
1
2.6
Light Green Flat Glass
frosted
12 m12
6
28.1
Clear Bottle Glass
6 body fragments
Provenience Number:
2.1
Site 1, N500 E500, 0-10 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 p13
1
17.7
Undecorated Ironstone Ceramic
base fragment
2 p14
1
1
Undecorated Whiteware Ceramic
body fragment
3 p15
2
48.5
Other Ceramic
terra cotta drainage pipe fragments
with possible limestone or shell
aggregate
4 m16
1
3.6
Clear Bottle Glass
body fragment
5 m17
1
1.7
Brown Bottle Glass
body fragment
6 m18
1
1.4
Milkglass Tableware
rim fragment
Provenience Number:
3.0
Site 1, General
Surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 p19
1
16.8
Bristol Glazed/Slipped Stoneware Ceramic
body fragment
Site Number 31 WA2329
Provenience Number:
1.1
Site 2, MD 21
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 ml
1
8
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
2.1
Site 2, MD 22
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m2
1
14.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
clenched
Provenience Number:
3.1
Site 2, MD 16
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m3
1
14.8
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
4.1
Site 2, MD 15
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 1 of 4

Artifact Catalog
1 m4
1
518
Metal Hoe Iron
small hoe, blade is 5" wide
Provenience Number:
5.1
Site 2, MD 14
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m5
1
53.7
Metal Unidentified Form Copper Alloy
possible hardware, slighly concave
fragment
Provenience Number:
6.1
Site 2, MD 23
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m6
2
31.4
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
7.1
Site 2, MD 25
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m7
1
13.7
Utensil Iron
spoon bowl fragment, likely stainless
steel (post 1921, Magid 2010)
Provenience Number:
8.1
Site 2, MD 17
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m8
1
5
Metal Hardware Iron
insertable saw tooth for circular saw
Provenience Number:
9.1
Site 2, MD 7
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m9
1
4.3
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
10.0
Site 2, surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m10
1
454
Clear Bottle Glass
Pepsi bottle, wave style, ACL with
single dot, base embossed with
"1478/16 A/enircled B/S
57/T?EMPO?ROL?; manufactured b/t
1951 and 1957, likely 1957 according
to date code (Stoddard 2003)
Provenience Number:
11.1
Site 2, MD 10
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 ml l
1
6.8
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
12.1
Site 2, MD 08
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m12
1
6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
13.1
Site 2, MD 24
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m13
6
3
Metal Other Iron
can fragments
Provenience Number:
14.1
Site 2, MD 1
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m14
1
17
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
15.1
Site 2, MD 18
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m15
1
23.4
Metal Hardware Iron
hair pin cotter with remnants of red
paint, possibly used with hitch
Page 2 of 4

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
16.1
Site 2, MD 26
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m16
1
15.3
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
17.1
Site 2, MD 12
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m17
1
15.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
18.1
Site 2, MD 11
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m18
1
3
Metal Unidentified Form Iron
likely can fragment
Provenience Number:
19.1
Site 2, MD 6
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m19
1
6.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
20.1
Site 2, MD 9
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m20
1
46.3
Metal Hardware Iron
bend close type chain link
Provenience Number:
21.1
Site 2, MD 5
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m21
1
7.3
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
22.1
Site 2, MD 27
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m22
1
6.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
23.1
Site 2, MD 13
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m23
1
1.5
Metal Unidentified Form Iron
wire like
Provenience Number:
24.1
Site 2, MD 2
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m24
1
63.6
Metal Hardware Iron
round stock bent in "C" shape, possible
fragment of bolt or square U-bolt
Provenience Number:
25.1
Site 2, MD 19
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m25
1
23.1
Metal Hardware Iron
square bolt head, body broken off
Provenience Number:
26.1
Site 2, MD 3
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m26
1
18.5
Metal Hardware Iron
possible label holder for machine or
drawer
Provenience Number:
27.1
Site 2, MD 4
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m27
1
15.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
28.1
Site 2, MD 20
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 3 of 4

Artifact Catalog
1 m28
2
11.9
Metal Other Iron
can fragments
Provenience Number:
29.1
Site 2, MD 101
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m29
1
64.4
Metal Hardware Iron
chain link for sawdust drag chain
Site Number 31 WA2330
Provenience Number:
1.0
Site 4, N500 E500, surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 ml
8
39.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Site Number 31 WA2331
Provenience Number:
1.0
Site 5, N395 E605, surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 ml
19
83.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 with possible use wear
Provenience Number:
2.0
Site 5, N425 E590, surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m2
5
36.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience Number:
3.1
Site 5, N500 E500, 0-15 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m3
1
136.1
Quartz Core
Provenience Number:
4.0
Site 5, surface find
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 a4
1
20.2
Metavolcanic P. Point Fragment
distal blade and tip fragment, shape
and flaking suggest Early Archaic, but
not diagnostic without base
Page 4 of 4

PPK Fragment Report
Site Number 31WA2331
Provenience: 4.0 1
Lithic Material Metavolcanic
General Measurements
Length
52.7 mm
Width
38.5 mm
Weight
20.2 g
Fracture Type Hinge
Fragment Type Body
Base Type
Unknown
Comments
distal body and tip fragment; shape and
flaking suggest Early Archaic; weathered
Page 1 of 1
N

Appendix B. Artifact Photographs

M'
CA
U)
m
Q9
4 Cll
4-1
O
fr► m
N � �
O
L
lie
�f
! N CO
T
Z •L c
0
mCf)
T
T
N
N
0
N
O
cu
L
O
U
N
C

Figure B.2. A sample of artifacts collected from site 31 WA2329.
Page 2 of 3

11 1 2
Figure B.3. Quartz flakes/flake fragments collected from site 3 1 WA23 3 0.
Quartz Core, 3.1 :1
Quartz Flakes/Flake Fragments, 2-0:1 Projectile Point Fragment, 4.0:1
Figure BA A sample of artifacts collected from site 3 IWA233 1.
Page 3 of 3

Appendix C. Resume of Principal Investigator

BOBBY GERALD SOUTHERLIN
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Office [phone] Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
EDUCATION
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Georgia, 1993.
B.A. in Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1988.
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Archaeological Field Investigation Methods
Material Culture Replication (lithics and ceramics)
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Society for American Archaeology Southeastern Archaeological Conference
North Carolina Archaeological Society (Life Member) North Carolina Archaeological Council
Society for Georgia Archaeology (Life Member) Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists
Archaeological Society of South Carolina (Life Member)
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
CEO, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Senior Archaeologist, Principal Investigator, Field Director, Zooarchaeologist
Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II)
• Utility Corridors for ANR Pipeline Company (Detroit), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Duke Power
Company (Charlotte), Oglethorpe Power Corporation, and Transco Pipeline Company (Houston).
Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina Department
of Transportation (Columbia)
Development Tracts for Consolidated Government of the City of Columbus/Muscogee County (Georgia),
Macon County (North Carolina), U.S. Corps of Engineers (Savannah and Mobile Districts), U.S. Forest
Service (South Carolina), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Columbia), and various private
developers (Georgia and South Carolina)
Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) — Representative Examples
Yemasee Indian occupations at the Chechessee Old Field sites (38BU1605 and 38BU1609) for the
Chechessee Creek Club
Three prehistoric sites (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) in Horry County, South Carolina for
Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club (Myrtle Beach, S.C.)
Two Prehistoric sites (38LX50 and 38LX141) in Lexington County, South Carolina for the South Carolina
Department of Transportation
The Callawassie Burial Mound and Village site (38BU19) in Beaufort County, South Carolina
Two prehistoric sites (9FL203 and 9FL206) in Floyd County, Georgia for the Georgia Department of
Transportation

Experience at Military Facilities
• Fort Jackson, SC; Camp Lejeune, NC; Robbins Air Force Base, GA; Fort Benning, GA; Hurlbert Field, FL;
Coastal Systems Station Panama City, FL; Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL; Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico;
Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Related Investigations
• Georgia Power Company: Flint River Hydroelectric Project
• Duke Energy: Shoreline Surveys at Lake James and Lake Norman North Carolina and Fishing Creek
Lake, South Carolina
• Crisp County Power Commission: Lake Blackshear, Georgia
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED*
Reid, Dawn and Bobby Southerlin
2015 Archaeological Survey of the Tubbs Solar Farm Tract, Lenoir County, North Carolina. Archaeological
Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby
2014 An Archaeological Assessment of the Piedmont Natural Gas Vulcan Quarry Relocation Lines, Mecklenberg
County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby, Dawn Reid, Brooke Brilliant, and George Price
2013 Cultural Resources Survey of the Locust Stake Timber Sale, Habersom and Stevens Counties, Georgia
Chattahoochee- Oconee National Forests. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby
2013 Faunal Analysis of Remains from the Simkins House, Columbia, South Carolina. Archaeological Consultants
of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Tibbetts, Rachel, Brooke Brilliant, Dawn Reid, and Bobby Southerlin
2012 Archaeological Survey of Part One of the Macedonia II Analysis Area, Francis Marion National Forest
(prepared for USFS). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby
2011 Archaeological Evaluation of the Original Site of the Rebecca Vaughan House, Southampton County,
Virginia (prepared for Southampton County Historical Society). Archaeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
Reid, Dawn, Michael K. O'Neal, Rachel Tibbetts, and Bobby Southerlin
2010 Phase H Archaeological Testing of Six Sites at the Northwest Regional Water Reclamation Facility Tract,
Onslow County, North Carolina (prepared for ARCADIS). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas,
Clayton, NC.
Reid, Dawn, April Montgomery, Michael K. O Neal, Rachel Tibbetts, and Bobby Southerlin
2009 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station 230 kV and 525 kV
Transmission Lines, Cherokee and Union Counties, South Carolina (prepared for Devine Tarbell Engineers,
Inc.). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC.
* A full listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VIII
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITENESSEL NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: ACC, Inc.
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: 2 - Historic
31 WA2327
CODE: 113
Site 01
7. SITE REMAINS: B - Above -ground Remains
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION
8. COUNTY: Wake
9. QUAD MAP: 1993 Cary, NC
10. BODY OF WATER:
11. COORDINATE SYSTEM: 1 - UTM
12. MAP ZONE: 2 - 17
13. MAP EASTING: 700461
14: RECORDED W/ GPS?: 1 - Yes
MAP CODE:
MAP UNITS: 1 -Meter
MAP DATUM: 1 - NAD 83
MAP NORTHING: 3968616
GPS DATA POST -PROCESSED?: 1 - Yes
* **ATTACH USGS MAP AND ANYADDITIONAL SITE MAPS***
15. DATE RECORDED: 8/20/20
16. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes
17. PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER(S): GS20-0841
18. CODING DATE:
19. CURATION FACILITY:
1. OSA
2.
3.
21. ARTIFACT INVENTORY ATTACHED:
22. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECORDED BY: Bobby Southerlin
PROJECT NAME: Archaeological Survey of the Oddfellows
Tract
CODED BY:
20. ACCESSION NUMBER: ORDER:
1. not yet rec'd l .
2. 2.
3. 3.
1 -Yes
1 - No Further Work
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
24. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 12 - Hill or Ridgetop
25. ELEVATION/DEPTH: 350 FT. AMSL
26. SLOPE PERCENT: LOW 0 % HIGH 8 % SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 4 - Southeast

Site #: 31 WA2327
27. SOILBOTTOM COMPOSITION: 8 - Silty Loam
28. NRCS SOIL TYPE CODE: Georgeville silt loam SOIL SERIES NAME:
29. MODERN VEGETATION: 4 - Forested
30. DISTANCE TO WATER/FROM SHORE: 100 (Meters)
31. NEAREST PERMANENT WATER TYPE: 2 - River, Creek, Stream
32. DRAINAGE BASIN: 9 - Neuse
33. SITE SIZE 6 - 5001-10,000 sq. m./5981-11,960 sq. yds.
34. GROUND VISIBILITY: LOW 0 %
35. UNDERWATER VISIBILITY (FEET):
36. SITE CONDITION: 11 - Totally Destroyed
37. PERCENT DESTROYED: 5 - 76% - 100%
GROUND VISIBILITY: HIGH 50 %
DATE DESTROYED:
38. DESTRUCTION CAUSES: 9 - Other
INVESTIGATIONS
39. COLLECTION MADE: 1 -Yes
40. COLLECTION STRATEGY:
1 - Controlled
41. AREA COVERED IN CONTROLLED COLLECTION: 10000 (SQ. M.)
42. TEST MADE: 1 -Yes
43. TESTING METHODS: 3 - Shovel Test 48 STPs, 2 positive
44. EXCAVATION DATE: 45. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING: ACC
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
45. CULTURAL COMPONENT(S):
46. SITE FUNCTION(S):
47. MIDDEN:
48. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts.
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
49. TOOL TYPES AND FREOUENCIES: #
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
❑ 7 Secondary Debitage
❑ 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 10 Shatter
❑ 99 Other
1 - Clovis
Lj
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
2 - Hardaway Blade
Lj
32 - PPt. Fra . Notched/Stemmed
3 - Hardaway -Dalton
Lj
33 - PPt. Fra (Triangular)
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
34 - PPt. Fra . Indeterminate
5 - Palmer Corner Notched
Lj
35 - End Scraper (Type I
LJ
6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
36 - End Scraper (Type II
❑
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑
37 - End Scraper (Type III
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
Lj
38 - Side Scraper (Type I)
❑
9 - Kanawha Stemmed
❑
39 - Side Scraper (Type II)
❑
10 - Kirk Serrated
❑
40 - Side Scraper (Type III)
1 ❑
11 - Kirk Stemmed
❑
41 - Pointed Scraper
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 2

Site #: 31 WA2327
12 - Stanly Stemmed
H
42 - Oval Scraper
Ll
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
43 - Pisgah Triangular
❑
14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
❑
44 - Haywood Triangular
15 lford Lanceolate
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
❑
16 - Halifax Side -Notched
❑
46 - Co ena Triangular
❑
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
❑
47 - Connestee Triangular
❑
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
❑
48 - Madison
❑
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
❑
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
❑
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
❑
50 - Transylvania Triangular
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
H
51 - Otarre
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
H
52 - Plott
23 --Roanoke Large Triangular
H
53 - Big Sand
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
H
54 - MacCorkle
25 - Caraway Triangular
55 - BradleySpike
❑
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
❑
56 - Swansboro
❑
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
H
57 - Yadkin -Eared
❑
28 - Randol h Stemmed
❑
58 - Piscataway
❑
29 - PPt.(Notched)
❑
59 - Roanoke Small Triangular
❑
30 - PPt. Stemmed
❑
60 - Swansboro
99 - Other
50. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
❑ 1 Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 2 Non -Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 3 Antler
❑ 4 Unworked Marine/River Shell
❑ 5 Worked Marine/River Shell
❑ 6 Turtle Shell
❑ 7 C-14 Sample(s)
❑ 8 Pollen Sample(s)
PREHISTORIC CERAMICS:
51. CERAMIC TEMPER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
❑
9 Phytolith Sample(s)
❑
10 T-L Sample(S)
❑
11 Sediment Sample(s)
❑
12 Wood
❑
13 Fiber
❑
14 Fabric
❑
15 Fire -Cracked Rock
❑
99 Other
52. SURFACE TREATMENT:
53. TYPE NAME:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN: 5 - 20th Century
55. REFINED DATE FROM: 1911
56. HISTORIC AFFILIATION:
57. HISTORIC DEFINITION:
58. SITE TYPE/FEATURE:
PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END: 5 - 20th Century
REFINED DATE TO: 1971
0-Unknown
1 - Domestic
51 - Home/Residence remains of outbuildings
(NOTE: IF RESPONSE 58 IS #65, WATER VESSEL, COMPLETE ITEMS 59 - 76,
AND APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM HISTORIC ARTIFACTS)
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 3

Site #: 31 WA2327
NINE -VESSEL INFORMATION
59. DATA SOURCE:
60. PRIMARY HULL CONSTRUCTION: DETAIL:
61. HULL FASTENINGS: DETAIL:
62. HULL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
63. WRECKAGE DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
64. ESTIMATED ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH:
HOW DETERMINED:
65. ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL VESSEL REMAINING: %
66. MEANS OF PROPULSION: PRIMARY:
SECONDARY: DETAILS:
67. SAIL POWERED: NUMBER OF MASTS:
OBSERVABLE REMAINS:
SAIL CONFIGURATION
(IF POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE):
DETAILS:
68. ENGINE POWERED: MECHANISM:
DETAILS:
ENGINE NUMBER:
TYPE:
BOILER NUMBER:
TYPE:
69. ALTERNATE MEANS OF POWER (IF ANY):
DETAILS:
70. CAUSE OF LOSS: DETAILS:
71. COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION (IF KNOWN):
72. ARTIFACT CATEGORIES OBSERVED: ❑ Cargo
❑ Ordnance
❑ Ship's Equipment
❑ Personal Effects
❑ Other
73. PURPOSE OF CRAFT: DETAILS:
74. TYPE OF VESSEL:
75. VESSEL DESCRIPTION:
76. VISIT HISTORY (DATE, ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE, RESULTS):
77. ACTIVITIES GROUP: ❑ 1 - Construction Tools
❑ 2 - Farm Tools
❑ 3 - Toys
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII
FUEL:
FEET
❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
❑ 9 - Other
Page 4

Site #: 31 WA2327
78. AGRICULTURE:
79. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
80. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Farm Tool
❑ 2 - Assoc. w/ Stable/Barn
❑ 1 - Window Glass
® 2 - Nails
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 3 - Fencing Material
❑ 9 - Other
® 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
® 9 - Other drain pipe fragments,
siding
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue ❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls ❑ 9 - Other
81. CLOTHING GROUP: ❑ 1 - Buckles ❑ 6 - Hook & Eye Fasteners
❑ 2 - Thimbles ❑ 7 - Bale Seals
❑ 3 - Buttons ❑ 8 - Glass Beads
❑ 4 - Scissors ❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Straight Pins
82. HISTORIC MISCELLANEOUS: ❑ 1 - Bone Fragment ❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware ❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
83. KITCHEN GROUP:
84. MILITARY OBJECTS
® 1 - Ceramics
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 4 - Tumbler
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 3 - Bayonets
85. PERSONAL ITEMS: ❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 2 - Keys
86. PIPES: ❑ 1 -Tobacco Pipe
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
87. TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS:
COMMENTS
❑ 6 - Glassware
® 7 - Tableware
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
® 9 - Other bottle glass
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Pipe Stems
❑ 9 - Other
88. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Property managed by RDU Authority
89. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: Site is located on east side of Old Reedy Creek Road —100 meters north of its intersection with I-
40 in Cary, NC
90. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: None
91. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: This site is the remains of a 20th century farm complex that has been razed.
It is not a unique site type and lacks any architectural integrity.
92. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
93. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS:
94. TESTING RESULTS: 2 of 48 shovel tests yielded artifacts; others were recovered from the ground surface. Push piles are
abundant.
95. FEATURE DESCRIPTION: foundation remains
96. OTHER IMPORTANT ARTIFACT TYPES:
97. HISTORIC CERAMIC TYPES: ironstone, whiteware, stoneware
98. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTION: Remains of 20' century farmstead
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII
Page 5

Site #: 31 WA2327
99. COMMENTS:
100 -107: OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
100. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:
101. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION:
102. DATE ON NATIONAL REGISTER:
103. TYPE OF FORM:
104. RECORDER STATUS:
105. FORM RELIABILITY:
106. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
107. FORM DATA CHECKED BY: DATE:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 6

Site #: 31 WA2327
Artifact Catalog
Odd Fellows
Site
31WA2327
Provenience Number:
1.1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
1
ml
3
2
m2
1
3
m3
1
4
m4
1
5
m5
1
6
m6
2
7
eb7
1
8
m8
1
9
m9
3
10
m10
1
11
mll
1
12
m12
6
Provenience Number:
2.1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
1
p13
1
2
p14
1
3
p15
2
4
m16
1
5
m17
1
6
m18
1
Provenience Number:
3.0
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
1
p19
1
Site 1, N500 E485, 0-20 cm
Weight (g)
Description
8.4
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
5.3
Nail Fragment Wire (Post 1890)
5.5
Nail Cut (1810-1890)
5.1
Nail Fragment Cut (1810-1890)
31.3
Metal Bolt Iron
6.6
Plastic
0.1
Charcoal
0.8
Other Historic
4.9
Brown Bottle Glass
3.7 Green Bottle Glass
2.6 Light Green Flat Glass
28.1 Clear Bottle Glass
Site 1, N500 E500, 0-10 cm
Weight (g) Description
17.7 Undecorated Ironstone Ceramic
1 Undecorated Whiteware Ceramic
48.5 Other Ceramic
3.6 Clear Bottle Glass
1.7 Brown Bottle Glass
1.4 Milkglass Tableware
Site 1, General Surface
Comments
2 roofing nails
hex bolt
burned
asbestos cement siding
2 body fragments, 1 base fragment with
khurling (post 1940, Lindsey 2020)
1 body fragment
frosted
6 body fragments
Comments
base fragment
body fragment
terra cotta drainage pipe fragments
with possible limestone or shell
aggregate
body fragment
body fragment
rim fragment
Weight (g) Description Comments
16.8 Bristol Glazed/Slipped Stoneware Ceramic body fragment
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 7

Site #: 31 WA2327
a
f 0 0 0
� I
v 0 0
V �
C (.1
f -X
m�
V �7 \
rd h
i° v O
C
v� W M 0 b
O > �
p
c
o !
m
O O p O
N ' �
0% c Q b f
m 7
1 mV
N C Cu L Z \
en_
r4 ro i ai O b -,0 �- O c O a`
d Z 2: E
3
_ y
M cn Z 0i a 6• n a O 0 FO
Q O j O` 0 a 0� rO
m m 1
• - - - • Old Reedy Creek Roac1
2
et
tj
o� ec
�..
s
CO
r
Nr'D
0 0
a
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 8

FA..

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VIII
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITENESSEL NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: ACC, Inc.
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: 2 - Historic
31 WA2328
CODE: 113
Site 02
7. SITE REMAINS: B - Above -ground Remains
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION
8. COUNTY: Wake
9. QUAD MAP: 1993 Cary, NC
10. BODY OF WATER:
11. COORDINATE SYSTEM: 1 - UTM
12. MAP ZONE: 2 - 17
13. MAP EASTING: 700987
14: RECORDED W/ GPS?: 1 - Yes
MAP CODE:
MAP UNITS: 1 -Meter
MAP DATUM: 1 - NAD 83
MAP NORTHING: 3968593
GPS DATA POST -PROCESSED?: 1 - Yes
* **ATTACH USGS MAP AND ANYADDITIONAL SITE MAPS***
15. DATE RECORDED: 8/20/20
16. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes
17. PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER(S): GS20-0841
18. CODING DATE:
19. CURATION FACILITY:
1. OSA
2.
3.
21. ARTIFACT INVENTORY ATTACHED:
22. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECORDED BY: Bobby Southerlin
PROJECT NAME: Archaeological Survey of the Oddfellows
Tract
CODED BY:
20. ACCESSION NUMBER: ORDER:
1. not yet rec'd l .
2. 2.
3. 3.
2-No
1 - No Further Work
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
24. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 1 - Floodplain
25. ELEVATION/DEPTH: 350 FT. AMSL
26. SLOPE PERCENT: LOW 0 % HIGH 8 %
21 - Toe Slope or Ridge Slope
SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 4 - Southeast

Site #: 31 WA2328
27. SOILBOTTOM COMPOSITION: 8 - Silty Loam
28. NRCS SOIL TYPE CODE: Nanford silt loam SOIL SERIES NAME:
29. MODERN VEGETATION: 4 - Forested
30. DISTANCE TO WATER/FROM SHORE: 0 (Meters)
31. NEAREST PERMANENT WATER TYPE: 8 - Pond
32. DRAINAGE BASIN: 9 - Neuse
33. SITE SIZE 8 - 25,001-50,000 sq. m./29,901-59,800 sq. yds.
34. GROUND VISIBILITY: LOW 0 % GROUND VISIBILITY: HIGH 50 %
35. UNDERWATER VISIBILITY (FEET):
36. SITE CONDITION: 99 - Other
37. PERCENT DESTROYED: 3 - 26% - 50% DATE DESTROYED:
38. DESTRUCTION CAUSES: 9 - Other
INVESTIGATIONS
39. COLLECTION MADE: 2 - No
40. COLLECTION STRATEGY:
41. AREA COVERED IN CONTROLLED COLLECTION: 40000 (SQ. M.)
42. TEST MADE: 1 -Yes
43. TESTING METHODS:
9 - Other shovel tests to expose soil only; site area
metal detected
44. EXCAVATION DATE: 45. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING: ACC
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
45. CULTURAL COMPONENT(S):
46. SITE FUNCTION(S):
47. MIDDEN:
48. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts.
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
49. TOOL TYPES AND FREOUENCIES: #
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
❑ 7 Secondary Debitage
❑ 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 10 Shatter
❑ 99 Other
1 - Clovis
Lj
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
2 - Hardaway Blade
0
32 - PPt. Fra . Notched/Stemmed
3 - Hardaway -Dalton
Lj
33 - PPt. Fra (Triangular)
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
34 - PPt. Fra . Indeterminate
5 - Palmer Corner Notched
Lj
35 - End Scraper (Type I
LJ
6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
36 - End Scraper (Type II
❑
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑
37 - End Scraper (Type III
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
Lj
38 - Side Scraper (Type I)
❑
9 - Kanawha Stemmed
❑
39 - Side Scraper (Type II)
❑
10 - Kirk Serrated
❑
40 - Side Scraper (Type III)
1 ❑
11 - Kirk Stemmed
❑
41 - Pointed Scraper
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 2

Site #: 31 WA2328
12 - Stanly Stemmed
H
42 - Oval Scraper
Ll
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
43 - Pisgah Triangular
❑
14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
❑
44 - Haywood Triangular
15 lford Lanceolate
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
❑
16 - Halifax Side -Notched
❑
46 - Co ena Triangular
❑
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
❑
47 - Connestee Triangular
❑
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
❑
48 - Madison
❑
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
❑
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
❑
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
❑
50 - Transylvania Triangular
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
H
51 - Otarre
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
H
52 - Plott
23 --Roanoke Large Triangular
H
53 - Big Sand
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
H
54 - MacCorkle
25 - Caraway Triangular
55 - BradleySpike
❑
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
❑
56 - Swansboro
❑
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
H
57 - Yadkin -Eared
❑
28 - Randol h Stemmed
❑
58 - Piscataway
❑
29 - PPt.(Notched)
❑
59 - Roanoke Small Triangular
❑
30 - PPt. Stemmed
❑
60 - Swansboro
99 - Other
50. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
❑ 1 Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 2 Non -Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 3 Antler
❑ 4 Unworked Marine/River Shell
❑ 5 Worked Marine/River Shell
❑ 6 Turtle Shell
❑ 7 C-14 Sample(s)
❑ 8 Pollen Sample(s)
PREHISTORIC CERAMICS:
51. CERAMIC TEMPER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
❑
9 Phytolith Sample(s)
❑
10 T-L Sample(S)
❑
11 Sediment Sample(s)
❑
12 Wood
❑
13 Fiber
❑
14 Fabric
❑
15 Fire -Cracked Rock
❑
99 Other
52. SURFACE TREATMENT:
53. TYPE NAME:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN: 5 - 20th Century
55. REFINED DATE FROM: 1964
56. HISTORIC AFFILIATION:
57. HISTORIC DEFINITION:
58. SITE TYPE/FEATURE:
PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END: 5 - 20th Century
REFINED DATE TO: 2007
0-Unknown
99 - Other
99 - Other remains of scout recreation area
(NOTE: IF RESPONSE 58 IS #65, WATER VESSEL, COMPLETE ITEMS 59 - 76,
AND APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM HISTORIC ARTIFACTS)
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 3

Site #: 31 WA2328
NINE -VESSEL INFORMATION
59. DATA SOURCE:
60. PRIMARY HULL CONSTRUCTION: DETAIL:
61. HULL FASTENINGS: DETAIL:
62. HULL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
63. WRECKAGE DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
64. ESTIMATED ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH:
HOW DETERMINED:
65. ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL VESSEL REMAINING: %
66. MEANS OF PROPULSION: PRIMARY: SECONDARY: DETAILS:
67. SAIL POWERED: NUMBER OF MASTS: OBSERVABLE REMAINS:
SAIL CONFIGURATION (IF POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE):
DETAILS:
68. ENGINE POWERED: MECHANISM: DETAILS:
ENGINE NUMBER: TYPE:
BOILER NUMBER: TYPE:
69. ALTERNATE MEANS OF POWER (IF ANY): DETAILS:
70. CAUSE OF LOSS: DETAILS:
71. COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION (IF KNOWN):
72. ARTIFACT CATEGORIES OBSERVED: ❑ Cargo
❑ Ordnance
❑ Ship's Equipment
❑ Personal Effects
❑ Other
73. PURPOSE OF CRAFT: DETAILS:
74. TYPE OF VESSEL:
75. VESSEL DESCRIPTION:
76. VISIT HISTORY (DATE, ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE, RESULTS):
77. ACTIVITIES GROUP: ❑ 1 - Construction Tools
❑ 2 - Farm Tools
❑ 3 - Toys
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII
FUEL:
FEET
❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
❑ 9 - Other
Page 4

Site #: 31 WA2328
78. AGRICULTURE:
❑ 1 -Farm Tool
❑ 3 - Fencing Material
❑ 2 - Assoc. w/ Stable/Barn
❑ 9 - Other
79. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
❑ 1 - Window Glass
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 2 - Nails
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 9 - Other
80. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
81. CLOTHING GROUP:
❑ 1 - Buckles
❑ 6 - Hook & Eye Fasteners
❑ 2 - Thimbles
❑ 7 - Bale Seals
❑ 3 - Buttons
❑ 8 - Glass Beads
❑ 4 - Scissors
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Straight Pins
82. HISTORIC MISCELLANEOUS:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
83. KITCHEN GROUP:
❑ 1 - Ceramics
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 4 - Tumbler
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
84. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
85. PERSONAL ITEMS:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
86. PIPES:
❑ 1 -Tobacco Pipe
❑ 3 - Pipe Stems
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
❑ 9 - Other
87. TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS:
COMMENTS
88. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Property managed by RDU Authority
89. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: Site is located at end of unpaved road extending east from Old Reedy Creek Road, includes a
pond
90. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: None
91. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: This site is the remains of a modern day Boy Scout recreation area. It has
not been recently maintained and is largely overgrown.
92. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
93. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS:
94. TESTING RESULTS: Metal detecting identified nails, UID metal, and modern debris - none of which was collected.
95. FEATURE DESCRIPTION: pond, picnic area, grills, fire pit
96. OTHER IMPORTANT ARTIFACT TYPES:
97. HISTORIC CERAMIC TYPES:
98. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTION: Remains of mid to late 20t' century recreation area
99. COMMENTS: This recreation area was developed when the Odd Fellows owned they property. They allowed the Boy
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 5

Site #: 31 WA2328
Scouts to use the property
100 -107: OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
100. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:
101. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION:
102. DATE ON NATIONAL REGISTER:
103. TYPE OF FORM:
104. RECORDER STATUS:
105. FORM RELIABILITY:
106. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
107. FORM DATA CHECKED BY: DATE:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 6

Site #: H WA2328
ii r 7r
+ 1971 Aerial
Project Tract 4,
Archaeological Site
0 10 20 30 40
Meters
Shelter Remains -
0
f.;
Wheel Grill
31 WA2328
Picnic Area Details
�a
zz
0 Negative Shovel Test
rj Pole Fragment (in situ)
:>Pole (not in situ)
0 10 20 feet
0 3 6 meters
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 7

FA..

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VIII
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITENESSEL NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: ACC, Inc.
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: 2 - Historic
31 WA2329
CODE: 113
Site 03
7. SITE REMAINS: A - No Above -ground Remains
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION
8. COUNTY: Wake
9. QUAD MAP: 1993 Cary, NC
10. BODY OF WATER:
11. COORDINATE SYSTEM: 1 - UTM
12. MAP ZONE: 2 - 17
13. MAP EASTING: 701216
14: RECORDED W/ GPS?: 1 - Yes
MAP CODE:
MAP UNITS: 1 -Meter
MAP DATUM: 1 - NAD 83
MAP NORTHING: 3968811
GPS DATA POST -PROCESSED?: 1 - Yes
* **ATTACH USGS MAP AND ANYADDITIONAL SITE MAPS***
15. DATE RECORDED: 8/20/20
16. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes
17. PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER(S): GS20-0841
18. CODING DATE:
19. CURATION FACILITY:
1. OSA
2.
3.
21. ARTIFACT INVENTORY ATTACHED:
22. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECORDED BY: Bobby Southerlin
PROJECT NAME: Archaeological Survey of the Oddfellows
Tract
CODED BY:
20. ACCESSION NUMBER: ORDER:
1. not yet rec'd l .
2. 2.
3. 3.
1 -Yes
1 - No Further Work
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
24. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 10 - Upland or Talus Slope
25. ELEVATION/DEPTH: 350 FT. AMSL
26. SLOPE PERCENT: LOW 0 % HIGH 10 % SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 4 - Southeast

Site #: 31 WA2329
27. SOILBOTTOM COMPOSITION: 8 - Silty Loam
28. NRCS SOIL TYPE CODE: Nanford silt loam SOIL SERIES NAME:
29. MODERN VEGETATION: 4 - Forested
30. DISTANCE TO WATER/FROM SHORE: 120 (Meters)
31. NEAREST PERMANENT WATER TYPE: 2 - River, Creek, Stream
32. DRAINAGE BASIN: 9 - Neuse
33. SITE SIZE 5 - 601-5000 sq. m./719-5980 sq. yds.
34. GROUND VISIBILITY: LOW 0 % GROUND VISIBILITY: HIGH 100 %
35. UNDERWATER VISIBILITY (FEET):
36. SITE CONDITION: 11 - Totally Destroyed
37. PERCENT DESTROYED: 5 - 76% - 100% DATE DESTROYED:
38. DESTRUCTION CAUSES: 3 - Land Clearing 6 - Erosion
39. COLLECTION MADE: 1 -Yes
40. COLLECTION STRATEGY: 1 - Controlled
41. AREA COVERED IN CONTROLLED COLLECTION: 4000 (SQ. M.)
42. TEST MADE: 1 -Yes
43. TESTING METHODS: 3 - Shovel Test 9 - Other metal detection conducted
across both loci
44. EXCAVATION DATE: 45. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING: ACC
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
45. CULTURAL COMPONENT(S):
46. SITE FUNCTION(S):
47. MIDDEN:
48. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts.
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
49. TOOL TYPES AND FREOIJENCIES: #
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
❑ 7 Secondary Debitage
❑ 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 10 Shatter
❑ 99 Other
1 - Clovis
Lj
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
2 - Hardaway Blade
L
32 - PPt. Fra otched/Stemmed
3 - Hardaway -Dalton
33 - PPt. Fra (Triangular)
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
34 - PPt. Fra . Indeterminate
5 - Palmer Corner Notched
35 - End Scraper (Type I
LJ
6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
36 - End Scraper (Type II)
❑
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑
37 - End Scraper (Type III)
❑
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
❑
38 - Side Scraper (Type I)
❑
9 - Kanawha Stemmed
❑
39 - Side Scraper (Type II)
1 ❑
10 - Kirk Serrated
❑
40 - Side Scraper (Type III)
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 2

Site #: 31 WA2329
11 - Kirk Stemmed
H
41 - Pointed Scraper
12 - Stanly Stemmed
42 - Oval Scraper
❑
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
❑
43 - Pisgah Triangular
14 -Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
H
44 - Haywood Triangular
❑
15 -Guilford Lanceolate
❑
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
❑
16 -Halifax Side -Notched
❑
46 - Co ena Triangular
❑
17 -Savannah River Stemmed
❑
47 - Connestee Triangular
❑
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
❑
48 - Madison
❑
19 -Gypsy Stemmed
❑
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
50 - Transylvania Triangular
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
51 - Otarre
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
H
52 - Plott
23 --Roanoke Large Triangular
H
53 - Big Sand
Ll
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
Ll
54 - MacCorkle
❑
25 - Caraway Triangular
❑
55 - Bradley Spike
❑
26 -Clarksville Small Triangular
56 - Swansboro
❑
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
❑
57 - Yadkin -Eared
❑
28 - Randolph Stemmed
❑
58 - Piscataway
❑
29 - PPt.(Notched)
❑
59 - Roanoke Small Triangular
❑
30 - PPt. Stemmed
60 - Swansboro
99 - Other
50. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
❑ 1 Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 2 Non -Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 3 Antler
❑ 4 Unworked Marine/River Shell
❑ 5 Worked Marine/River Shell
❑ 6 Turtle Shell
❑ 7 C-14 Sample(s)
❑ 8 Pollen Sample(s)
PREHISTORIC CERAMICS:
51. CERAMIC TEMPER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
❑
9 Phytolith Sample(s)
❑
10 T-L Sample(S)
❑
11 Sediment Sample(s)
❑
12 Wood
❑
13 Fiber
❑
14 Fabric
❑
15 Fire -Cracked Rock
❑
99 Other
52. SURFACE TREATMENT:
53. TYPE NAME:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN: 5 - 20th Century
55. REFINED DATE FROM: 1958
56. HISTORIC AFFILIATION:
57. HISTORIC DEFINITION:
58. SITE TYPE/FEATURE:
PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END: 5 - 20th Century
REFINED DATE TO: unk
0-Unknown
3 - Commercial
63 - Saw Mill/Lumber Yard remains of
temporary logging operation
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 3

Site #: 31 WA2329
(NOTE: IF RESPONSE 58 IS #65, WATER VESSEL, COMPLETE ITEMS 59 — 76,
AND APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM HISTORIC ARTIFACTS)
VESSEL INFORMATION
59. DATA SOURCE:
60. PRIMARY HULL CONSTRUCTION: DETAIL:
61. HULL FASTENINGS: DETAIL:
62. HULL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
63. WRECKAGE DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
64. ESTIMATED ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH:
HOW DETERMINED:
65. ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL VESSEL REMAINING: %
66. MEANS OF PROPULSION: PRIMARY: SECONDARY: DETAILS:
67. SAIL POWERED: NUMBER OF MASTS: OBSERVABLE REMAINS:
SAIL CONFIGURATION (IF POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE):
DETAILS:
68. ENGINE POWERED: MECHANISM: DETAILS:
ENGINE NUMBER: TYPE:
BOILER NUMBER: TYPE:
69. ALTERNATE MEANS OF POWER (IF ANY): DETAILS:
70. CAUSE OF LOSS: DETAILS:
71. COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION (IF KNOWN):
72. ARTIFACT CATEGORIES OBSERVED: ❑ Cargo
❑ Ordnance
❑ Ship's Equipment
❑ Personal Effects
❑ Other
73. PURPOSE OF CRAFT: DETAILS:
74. TYPE OF VESSEL:
75. VESSEL DESCRIPTION:
76. VISIT HISTORY (DATE, ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE, RESULTS):
HISTORIC ARTIFACTS
FUEL:
FEET
77. ACTIVITIES GROUP: ❑ 1 - Construction Tools ❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 2 - Farm Tools ❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
❑ 3 - Toys ❑ 8 -Associated With Stable Or Barn
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 4

Site #: 31 WA2329
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
78. AGRICULTURE:
❑ 1 - Farm Tool
❑ 3 - Fencing Material
❑ 2 - Assoc. w/ Stable/Barn
❑ 9 - Other
79. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
❑ 1 - Window Glass
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
® 2 - Nails
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 9 - Other
80. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
81. CLOTHING GROUP:
❑ 1 - Buckles
❑ 6 - Hook & Eye Fasteners
❑ 2 - Thimbles
❑ 7 - Bale Seals
❑ 3 - Buttons
❑ 8 - Glass Beads
❑ 4 - Scissors
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Straight Pins
82. HISTORIC MISCELLANEOUS:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
® 9 - Other hardware assoc. with
logging machinery
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
83. KITCHEN GROUP:
❑ 1 - Ceramics
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 4 - Tumbler
® 9 - Other bottle glass
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
84. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
85. PERSONAL ITEMS:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
86. PIPES:
❑ 1 - Tobacco Pipe
❑ 3 - Pipe Stems
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
❑ 9 - Other
87. TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS:
COMMENTS
88. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Property managed by RDU Authority
89. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: Site is located at the head of a drainage extending off of Crabtree Creek, approximately 0.5 km
east of Old Reedy Creek Raod and 0.4 km north of I-40
90. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: None
91. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: This site is the remains of a temporary logging operation; artifacts
associated with portable logging machinery were recovered and pits indicating the placement of the portable saw were
identified.
92. EXCAVATION RESULTS: 2 shovel tests were excavated to expose soil profiles; enitre site area and a 10-m buffer was
metal detected. Items associated with logging machinery were recovered.
93. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS:
94. TESTING RESULTS: Metal detecting identified nails, UID metal, a hoe, bolt and cotter pin, a saw tooth,a nd chain links,
as well as modern debris
95. FEATURE DESCRIPTION: 2 pits
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 5

Site #: 31 WA2329
96. OTHER IMPORTANT ARTIFACT TYPES:
97. HISTORIC CERAMIC TYPES:
98. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTION: Remains of mid to late 20t' century temporary logging operation
99. COMMENTS:
100 -107: OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
100. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:
101. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION:
102. DATE ON NATIONAL REGISTER:
103. TYPE OF FORM:
104. RECORDER STATUS:
105. FORM RELIABILITY:
106. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
107. FORM DATA CHECKED BY: DATE:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 6

Site #: 31 WA2329
Artifact Catalog
Odd Fellows
Site 31WA2329
Provenience Number:
1.1
Site 2, MD 21
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 ml
1
8
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
2.1
Site 2, MD 22
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m2
1
14.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
clenched
Provenience Number:
3.1
Site 2, MD 16
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m3
1
14.8
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
4.1
Site 2, MD 15
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m4
1
518
Metal Hoe Iron
small hoe, blade is 5" wide
Provenience Number:
5.1
Site 2, MD 14
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m5
1
53.7
Metal Unidentified Form Copper Alloy
possible hardware, slighly concave
fragment
Provenience Number:
6.1
Site 2, MD 23
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m6
2
31.4
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
7.1
Site 2, MD 25
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m7
1
13.7
Utensil Iron
spoon bowl fragment, likely stainless
steel (post 1921, Magid 2010)
Provenience Number:
8.1
Site 2, MD 17
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m8
1
5
Metal Hardware Iron
insertable saw tooth for circular saw
Provenience Number:
9.1
Site 2, MD 7
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m9
1
4.3
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
10.0
Site 2, surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m10
1
454
Clear Bottle Glass
Pepsi bottle, wave style, ACL with
single dot, base embossed with
'11478/16 A/enircled B/S
57/T?EMPO?ROL?; manufactured b/t
1951 and 1957, likely 1957
according to date code (Stoddard
Provenience Number:
11.1
Site 2, MD 10
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 7

Site #: 31 WA2329
Artifact Catalog
Odd Fellows
1 mll
1
6.8
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
12.1
Site 2, MD 08
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m12
1
6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
13.1
Site 2, MD 24
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m13
6
3
Metal Other Iron
can fragments
Provenience Number:
14.1
Site 2, MD 1
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m14
1
17
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
15.1
Site 2, MD 18
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m15
1
23.4
Metal Hardware Iron
hair pin cotter with remnants of red
paint, possibly used with hitch
Provenience Number:
16.1
Site 2, MD 26
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m16
1
15.3
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
17.1
Site 2, MD 12
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m17
1
15.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
18.1
Site 2, MD 11
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m18
1
3
Metal Unidentified Form Iron
likely can fragment
Provenience Number:
19.1
Site 2, MD 6
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m19
1
6.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
20.1
Site 2, MD 9
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m20
1
46.3
Metal Hardware Iron
bend close type chain link
Provenience Number:
21.1
Site 2, MD 5
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m21
1
7.3
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
22.1
Site 2, MD 27
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m22
1
6.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number:
23.1
Site 2, MD 13
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m23
1
1.5
Metal Unidentified Form Iron
wire like
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 8

Site #: 31 WA2329
Artifact Catalog
Odd Fellows
Provenience Number: 24.1
Site 2, MD 2
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m24 1
63.6
Metal Hardware Iron
round stock bent in "C" shape,
possible fragment of bolt or square U-
Provenience Number: 25.1
Site 2, MD 19
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m25 1
23.1
Metal Hardware Iron
square bolt head, body broken off
Provenience Number: 26.1
Site 2, MD 3
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m26 1
18.5
Metal Hardware Iron
possible label holder for machine or
drawer
Provenience Number: 27.1
Site 2, MD 4
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m27 1
15.6
Nail Wire (Post 1890)
Provenience Number: 28.1
Site 2, MD 20
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m28 2
11.9
Metal Other Iron
can fragments
Provenience Number: 29.1
Site 2, MD 101
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1 m29 1
64.4
Metal Hardware Iron
chain link for sawdust drag chain
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 9

Site #: 31 WA2329
Pines and
Hardwood
Site Boundary
31 WA2329
Site Plan
o Negative Shovel Test
rn
a
• Metal Detector Finds)
3
3
x Surface Find (s)
. • `Bicycle Trail
ADatum: N500 E500
0 15
30
meters
Locus 1
Bicycle Trail
I
VI '
II III I+ I
O l i4 Locus 1
' North Profile
I
Mound-
0
Locus 2
Mound
Small Trench
31 WA2329
Locus 1 and 2 Details
o Negative Shovel Test
s Metal Detector Find a
0 10 20 feet v�
r�
0 3 6 +r+eten
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 10

. -aF KIN,
����\\0
,� \ ,

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VIII
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITENESSEL NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: ACC, Inc.
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: I - Prehistoric
31 WA2330
CODE: 113
Site 04
7. SITE REMAINS: A - No Above -ground Remains
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION
8. COUNTY: Wake
9. QUAD MAP: 1993 Cary, NC
10. BODY OF WATER:
11. COORDINATE SYSTEM: 1 - UTM
12. MAP ZONE: 2 - 17
13. MAP EASTING: 701064
14: RECORDED W/ GPS?: 1 - Yes
MAP CODE:
MAP UNITS: 1 -Meter
MAP DATUM: 1 - NAD 83
MAP NORTHING: 3968323
GPS DATA POST -PROCESSED?: 1 - Yes
* **ATTACH USGS MAP AND ANYADDITIONAL SITE MAPS***
15. DATE RECORDED: 8/20/20
16. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes
17. PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER(S): GS20-0841
18. CODING DATE:
19. CURATION FACILITY:
1. OSA
2.
3.
21. ARTIFACT INVENTORY ATTACHED:
22. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECORDED BY: Bobby Southerlin
PROJECT NAME: Archaeological Survey of the Oddfellows
Tract
CODED BY:
20. ACCESSION NUMBER: ORDER:
1. not yet rec'd l .
2. 2.
3. 3.
1 -Yes
1 - No Further Work
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
24. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 1 - Floodplain
25. ELEVATION/DEPTH: 330 FT. AMSL
26. SLOPE PERCENT: LOW 0 % HIGH 10 %
SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 5 - South

Site #: 31 WA2330
27. SOILBOTTOM COMPOSITION: 5 - Sandy Loam
28. NRCS SOIL TYPE CODE: Chewacla and Wedhakee SOIL SERIES NAME:
29. MODERN VEGETATION: 4 - Forested
30. DISTANCE TO WATER/FROM SHORE: 10 (Meters)
31. NEAREST PERMANENT WATER TYPE: 2 - River, Creek, Stream
32. DRAINAGE BASIN: 9 - Neuse
33. SITE SIZE 4 - 101-600 sq. m./121-718 sq. yds.
34. GROUND VISIBILITY: LOW 0 %
35. UNDERWATER VISIBILITY (FEET):
36. SITE CONDITION: 11 - Totally Destroyed
37. PERCENT DESTROYED: 5 - 76% - 100%
GROUND VISIBILITY: HIGH 50 %
DATE DESTROYED:
38. DESTRUCTION CAUSES: 6 - Erosion
INVESTIGATIONS
39. COLLECTION MADE: 1 -Yes
40. COLLECTION STRATEGY:
1 - Controlled
41. AREA COVERED IN CONTROLLED COLLECTION: 1000 (SQ. M.)
42. TEST MADE: 1 -Yes
43. TESTING METHODS:
3 - Shovel Test
44. EXCAVATION DATE: 45. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING: ACC
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
45. CULTURAL COMPONENT(S): Lithic
46. SITE FUNCTION(S):
47. MIDDEN:
48. LITHICS: ❑ 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts.
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
49. TOOL TYPES AND FREOUENCIES: #
1 - Limited Activity
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
® 7 Secondary Debitage
® 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 10 Shatter
❑ 99 Other
1 - Clovis
Lj
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
2 - Hardaway Blade
L
32 - PPt. Fra . Notched/Stemmed
3 - Hardaway -Dalton
33 - PPt. Fra (Triangular)
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
34 - PPt. Fra . Indeterminate
5 - Palmer Corner Notched
35 - End Scraper (Type I
LJ
6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
36 - End Scraper (Type II
❑
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑
37 - End Scraper (Type III
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
Lj
38 - Side Scraper (Type I)
❑
9 - Kanawha Stemmed
❑
39 - Side Scraper (Type II)
❑
10 - Kirk Serrated
❑
40 - Side Scraper (Type III)
❑
11 - Kirk Stemmed
❑
41 - Pointed Scraper
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 2

Site #: 31 WA2330
12 - Stanly Stemmed
H
42 - Oval Scraper
Ll
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
43 - Pisgah Triangular
❑
14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
❑
44 - Haywood Triangular
15 lford Lanceolate
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
❑
16 - Halifax Side -Notched
❑
46 - Co ena Triangular
❑
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
❑
47 - Connestee Triangular
❑
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
❑
48 - Madison
❑
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
❑
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
❑
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
❑
50 - Transylvania Triangular
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
H
51 - Otarre
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
H
52 - Plott
23 --Roanoke Large Triangular
H
53 - Big Sand
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
H
54 - MacCorkle
25 - Caraway Triangular
55 - BradleySpike
❑
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
❑
56 - Swansboro
❑
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
H
57 - Yadkin -Eared
❑
28 - Randol h Stemmed
❑
58 - Piscataway
❑
29 - PPt.(Notched)
❑
59 - Roanoke Small Triangular
❑
30 - PPt. Stemmed
❑
60 - Swansboro
99 - Other
50. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
❑ 1 Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 2 Non -Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 3 Antler
❑ 4 Unworked Marine/River Shell
❑ 5 Worked Marine/River Shell
❑ 6 Turtle Shell
❑ 7 C-14 Sample(s)
❑ 8 Pollen Sample(s)
PREHISTORIC CERAMICS:
51. CERAMIC TEMPER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
❑
9 Phytolith Sample(s)
❑
10 T-L Sample(S)
❑
11 Sediment Sample(s)
❑
12 Wood
❑
13 Fiber
❑
14 Fabric
❑
15 Fire -Cracked Rock
❑
99 Other
52. SURFACE TREATMENT:
53. TYPE NAME:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN:
55. REFINED DATE FROM:
56. HISTORIC AFFILIATION:
57. HISTORIC DEFINITION:
58. SITE TYPE/FEATURE:
PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END:
REFINED DATE TO:
(NOTE: IF RESPONSE 58 IS #65, WATER VESSEL, COMPLETE ITEMS 59 - 76,
AND APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM HISTORIC ARTIFACTS)
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 3

Site #: 31 WA2330
NINE -VESSEL INFORMATION
59. DATA SOURCE:
60. PRIMARY HULL CONSTRUCTION: DETAIL:
61. HULL FASTENINGS: DETAIL:
62. HULL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
63. WRECKAGE DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
64. ESTIMATED ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH:
HOW DETERMINED:
65. ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL VESSEL REMAINING: %
66. MEANS OF PROPULSION: PRIMARY: SECONDARY: DETAILS:
67. SAIL POWERED: NUMBER OF MASTS: OBSERVABLE REMAINS:
SAIL CONFIGURATION (IF POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE):
DETAILS:
68. ENGINE POWERED: MECHANISM: DETAILS:
ENGINE NUMBER: TYPE:
BOILER NUMBER: TYPE:
69. ALTERNATE MEANS OF POWER (IF ANY): DETAILS:
70. CAUSE OF LOSS: DETAILS:
71. COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION (IF KNOWN):
72. ARTIFACT CATEGORIES OBSERVED: ❑ Cargo
❑ Ordnance
❑ Ship's Equipment
❑ Personal Effects
❑ Other
73. PURPOSE OF CRAFT: DETAILS:
74. TYPE OF VESSEL:
75. VESSEL DESCRIPTION:
76. VISIT HISTORY (DATE, ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE, RESULTS):
77. ACTIVITIES GROUP: ❑ 1 - Construction Tools
❑ 2 - Farm Tools
❑ 3 - Toys
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII
FUEL:
FEET
❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
❑ 9 - Other
Page 4

Site #: 31 WA2330
78. AGRICULTURE:
❑ 1 -Farm Tool
❑ 3 - Fencing Material
❑ 2 - Assoc. w/ Stable/Barn
❑ 9 - Other
79. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
❑ 1 - Window Glass
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 2 - Nails
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 9 - Other
80. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
81. CLOTHING GROUP:
❑ 1 - Buckles
❑ 6 - Hook & Eye Fasteners
❑ 2 - Thimbles
❑ 7 - Bale Seals
❑ 3 - Buttons
❑ 8 - Glass Beads
❑ 4 - Scissors
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Straight Pins
82. HISTORIC MISCELLANEOUS:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
83. KITCHEN GROUP:
❑ 1 - Ceramics
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 4 - Tumbler
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
84. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
85. PERSONAL ITEMS:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
86. PIPES:
❑ 1 -Tobacco Pipe
❑ 3 - Pipe Stems
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
❑ 9 - Other
87. TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS:
COMMENTS
88. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Property managed by RDU Authority
89. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: Site is located in the floodplain of Cradtree Creek, 0.8 km east of Old Reedy Creek Road
90. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: None
91. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: This site is a light scatter of non -diagnostic quartz debitage along a bike
trail.
92. EXCAVATION RESULTS: 7 shovel tests were excavated but all artifacts recovered from ground surface.
93. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS:
94. TESTING RESULTS:
95. FEATURE DESCRIPTION:
96. OTHER IMPORTANT ARTIFACT TYPES:
97. HISTORIC CERAMIC TYPES:
98. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTION:
99. COMMENTS:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 5

Site #: 31 WA2330
100 -107: OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
100. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:
101. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION:
102. DATE ON NATIONAL REGISTER:
103. TYPE OF FORM:
104. RECORDER STATUS:
105. FORM RELIABILITY:
106. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
107. FORM DATA CHECKED BY: DATE:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 6

Site #: 31 WA2330
Artifact Catalog
Odd Fellows
Site 31WA2330
Provenience Number: 1.0 Site 4, N500 E500, surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description Comments
1 ml 8 39.2 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 7

Site #: 31 WA2330
Pines and
Hardwoods
31 WA2330
Site Plan 30°
o Negative Shovel Test `°o z
X Surface Find(s) �s
A Datum: N500 E500
0 15 30
meters
BackswaT-1)
0
Site Boundary
Floodplal� o
,�icyde,Trail.......
.....,0. 0 .�... 0
-o
` Crabtree Creek
5
im
5
470
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 8

. -aF KIN,
����\\0
,� \ ,

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VIII
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITENESSEL NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: ACC, Inc.
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER:
6. SITE COMPONENT: I - Prehistoric
31 WA2331
CODE: 113
Site 05
7. SITE REMAINS: A - No Above -ground Remains
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION
8. COUNTY: Wake
9. QUAD MAP: 1993 Cary, NC
10. BODY OF WATER:
11. COORDINATE SYSTEM: 1 - UTM
12. MAP ZONE: 2 - 17
13. MAP EASTING: 701709
14: RECORDED W/ GPS?: 1 - Yes
MAP CODE:
MAP UNITS: 1 -Meter
MAP DATUM: 1 - NAD 83
MAP NORTHING: 3968526
GPS DATA POST -PROCESSED?: 1 - Yes
* **ATTACH USGS MAP AND ANYADDITIONAL SITE MAPS***
15. DATE RECORDED: 8/20/20
16. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 - Yes
17. PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER(S): GS20-0841
18. CODING DATE:
19. CURATION FACILITY:
1. OSA
2.
3.
21. ARTIFACT INVENTORY ATTACHED:
22. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECORDED BY: Bobby Southerlin
PROJECT NAME: Archaeological Survey of the Oddfellows
Tract
CODED BY:
20. ACCESSION NUMBER: ORDER:
1. not yet rec'd l .
2. 2.
3. 3.
1 -Yes
1 - No Further Work
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
24. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION: 1 - Floodplain
25. ELEVATION/DEPTH: 350 FT. AMSL
26. SLOPE PERCENT: LOW 0 % HIGH 10 %
SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 5 - South

Site #: 31 WA2331
27. SOILBOTTOM COMPOSITION: 8 - Silty Loam
28. NRCS SOIL TYPE CODE: Nanford SOIL SERIES NAME:
29. MODERN VEGETATION: 4 - Forested
30. DISTANCE TO WATER/FROM SHORE: 10 (Meters)
31. NEAREST PERMANENT WATER TYPE: 2 - River, Creek, Stream
32. DRAINAGE BASIN: 9 - Neuse
33. SITE SIZE 6 - 5001-10,000 sq. m./5981-11,960 sq. yds.
34. GROUND VISIBILITY: LOW 0 %
35. UNDERWATER VISIBILITY (FEET):
36. SITE CONDITION: 11 - Totally Destroyed
37. PERCENT DESTROYED: 5 - 76% - 100%
GROUND VISIBILITY: HIGH 25 %
DATE DESTROYED:
38. DESTRUCTION CAUSES: 6 - Erosion
INVESTIGATIONS
39. COLLECTION MADE: 1 -Yes
40. COLLECTION STRATEGY:
1 - Controlled
41. AREA COVERED IN CONTROLLED COLLECTION: 7000 (SQ. M.)
42. TEST MADE: 1 -Yes
43. TESTING METHODS:
3 - Shovel Test
44. EXCAVATION DATE: 45. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING: ACC
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
45. CULTURAL COMPONENT(S): Lithic
46. SITE FUNCTION(S):
47. MIDDEN:
48. LITHICS: ® 1 Hafted Bifaces/Projectile Pts.
❑ 2 Bifaces
❑ 3 Unifacial Tools
❑ 4 Other Unifacial Tools
❑ 5 Cores
49. TOOL TYPES AND FREOUENCIES: #
1 - Limited Activity
❑ 6 Primary Debitage
® 7 Secondary Debitage
® 8 Tertiary Debitage
❑ 9 Ground Or Pecked Stone
❑ 10 Shatter
❑ 99 Other
1 - Clovis
Lj
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
2 - Hardaway Blade
L
32 - PPt. Fra . Notched/Stemmed
3 - Hardaway -Dalton
33 - PPt. Fra (Triangular)
4 - Hardaway Side -Notched
34 - PPt. Fra . Indeterminate
5 - Palmer Corner Notched
35 - End Scraper (Type I
LJ
6 - Kirk Corner -Notched
36 - End Scraper (Type II
❑
7 - St. Albans Side Notched
❑
37 - End Scraper (Type III
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem
Lj
38 - Side Scraper (Type I)
❑
9 - Kanawha Stemmed
❑
39 - Side Scraper (Type II)
❑
10 - Kirk Serrated
❑
40 - Side Scraper (Type III)
❑
11 - Kirk Stemmed
❑
41 - Pointed Scraper
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 2

Site #: 31 WA2331
12 - Stanly Stemmed
H
42 - Oval Scraper
Ll
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
43 - Pisgah Triangular
❑
14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed
❑
44 - Haywood Triangular
15 lford Lanceolate
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
❑
16 - Halifax Side -Notched
❑
46 - Co ena Triangular
❑
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
❑
47 - Connestee Triangular
❑
18 - Sm. Savannah R. Stemmed
❑
48 - Madison
❑
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
❑
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal
❑
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed
❑
50 - Transylvania Triangular
21 - Badin Crude Triangular
H
51 - Otarre
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular
H
52 - Plott
23 --Roanoke Large Triangular
H
53 - Big Sand
24 - Uwharrie Triangular
H
54 - MacCorkle
25 - Caraway Triangular
55 - BradleySpike
❑
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
❑
56 - Swansboro
❑
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
H
57 - Yadkin -Eared
❑
28 - Randol h Stemmed
❑
58 - Piscataway
❑
29 - PPt.(Notched)
❑
59 - Roanoke Small Triangular
❑
30 - PPt. Stemmed
❑
60 - Swansboro
99 - Other
50. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
❑ 1 Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 2 Non -Human Bone Or Teeth
❑ 3 Antler
❑ 4 Unworked Marine/River Shell
❑ 5 Worked Marine/River Shell
❑ 6 Turtle Shell
❑ 7 C-14 Sample(s)
❑ 8 Pollen Sample(s)
PREHISTORIC CERAMICS:
51. CERAMIC TEMPER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
❑
9 Phytolith Sample(s)
❑
10 T-L Sample(S)
❑
11 Sediment Sample(s)
❑
12 Wood
❑
13 Fiber
❑
14 Fabric
❑
15 Fire -Cracked Rock
❑
99 Other
52. SURFACE TREATMENT:
53. TYPE NAME:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN:
55. REFINED DATE FROM:
56. HISTORIC AFFILIATION:
57. HISTORIC DEFINITION:
58. SITE TYPE/FEATURE:
PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END:
REFINED DATE TO:
(NOTE: IF RESPONSE 58 IS #65, WATER VESSEL, COMPLETE ITEMS 59 - 76,
AND APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM HISTORIC ARTIFACTS)
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 3

Site #: 31 WA2331
NINE -VESSEL INFORMATION
59. DATA SOURCE:
60. PRIMARY HULL CONSTRUCTION: DETAIL:
61. HULL FASTENINGS: DETAIL:
62. HULL DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
63. WRECKAGE DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH: FEET
HOW DETERMINED:
64. ESTIMATED ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS: LENGTH: FEET WIDTH: FEET DEPTH:
HOW DETERMINED:
65. ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL VESSEL REMAINING: %
66. MEANS OF PROPULSION: PRIMARY: SECONDARY: DETAILS:
67. SAIL POWERED: NUMBER OF MASTS: OBSERVABLE REMAINS:
SAIL CONFIGURATION (IF POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE):
DETAILS:
68. ENGINE POWERED: MECHANISM: DETAILS:
ENGINE NUMBER: TYPE:
BOILER NUMBER: TYPE:
69. ALTERNATE MEANS OF POWER (IF ANY): DETAILS:
70. CAUSE OF LOSS: DETAILS:
71. COUNTRY OF CONSTRUCTION (IF KNOWN):
72. ARTIFACT CATEGORIES OBSERVED: ❑ Cargo
❑ Ordnance
❑ Ship's Equipment
❑ Personal Effects
❑ Other
73. PURPOSE OF CRAFT: DETAILS:
74. TYPE OF VESSEL:
75. VESSEL DESCRIPTION:
76. VISIT HISTORY (DATE, ORGANIZATION, PURPOSE, RESULTS):
77. ACTIVITIES GROUP: ❑ 1 - Construction Tools
❑ 2 - Farm Tools
❑ 3 - Toys
❑ 4 - Fishing Gear
❑ 5 - Colonial -Indian Pottery
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII
FUEL:
FEET
❑ 6 - Storage Items
❑ 7 - Ethnobotanical
❑ 8 - Associated With Stable Or Barn
❑ 9 - Other
Page 4

Site #: 31 WA2331
78. AGRICULTURE:
❑ 1 -Farm Tool
❑ 3 - Fencing Material
❑ 2 - Assoc. w/ Stable/Barn
❑ 9 - Other
79. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP:
❑ 1 - Window Glass
❑ 4 - Construction Hardware
❑ 2 - Nails
❑ 5 - Door Lock Parts
❑ 3 - Spikes
❑ 9 - Other
80. ARMS GROUP:
❑ 1 - Musket Balls, Shot, Sprue
❑ 3 - Gun Parts, Bullet Molds
❑ 2 - Gun Flints, Gunspalls
❑ 9 - Other
81. CLOTHING GROUP:
❑ 1 - Buckles
❑ 6 - Hook & Eye Fasteners
❑ 2 - Thimbles
❑ 7 - Bale Seals
❑ 3 - Buttons
❑ 8 - Glass Beads
❑ 4 - Scissors
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Straight Pins
82. HISTORIC MISCELLANEOUS:
❑ 1 - Bone Fragment
❑ 4 - Silversmithing Debris
❑ 2 - Furniture Hardware
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Button Manufacturing Blanks
83. KITCHEN GROUP:
❑ 1 - Ceramics
❑ 6 - Glassware
❑ 2 - Wine Bottle
❑ 7 - Tableware
❑ 3 - Case Bottle
❑ 8 - Kitchenware
❑ 4 - Tumbler
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 5 - Pharmaceutical Bottle
84. MILITARY OBJECTS:
❑ 1 - Swords
❑ 4 - Artillery Shot & Shell
❑ 2 - Insignia
❑ 9 - Other
❑ 3 - Bayonets
85. PERSONAL ITEMS:
❑ 1 - Coins
❑ 3 - Personal Items
❑ 2 - Keys
❑ 9 - Other
86. PIPES:
❑ 1 -Tobacco Pipe
❑ 3 - Pipe Stems
❑ 2 - Stub -Stemmed Pipes
❑ 9 - Other
87. TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS:
COMMENTS
88. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION: Property managed by RDU Authority
89. DIRECTIONS TO SITE: Site is located in the floodplain of Cradtree Creek, 320 m east of Old Reedy Creek Road
90. RESEARCH POTENTIAL: None
91. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS: This site is a light scatter of non -diagnostic quartz debitage and one
metavolcainc PPK blade fragment; majority of artifacts from surface of bike trail; no intact deposits, no diagnostics.
92. EXCAVATION RESULTS: 57 shovel tests were excavated; 2 yielded artifacts.
93. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: Area has been impacted by flooding and erosion
94. TESTING RESULTS:
95. FEATURE DESCRIPTION:
96. OTHER IMPORTANT ARTIFACT TYPES:
97. HISTORIC CERAMIC TYPES:
98. HISTORIC SITE DESCRIPTION:
99. COMMENTS: Quartz outcrop in site area
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 5

Site #: 31 WA2331
100 -107: OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
100. NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS:
101. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION:
102. DATE ON NATIONAL REGISTER:
103. TYPE OF FORM:
104. RECORDER STATUS:
105. FORM RELIABILITY:
106. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
107. FORM DATA CHECKED BY: DATE:
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 6

Site #: 31 WA2331
Artifact Catalog
Odd Fellows
Site 31WA2331
Provenience Number: 1.0 Site 5, N395 E605, surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
1 ml
19
83.2 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience Number:
2.0
Site 5, N425 E590, surface
Catalog Specimen
Number Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
1 m2
5
36.6 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience Number:
3.1
Site 5, N500 E500, 0-15 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 m3 1 136.1 Quartz Core
Provenience Number: 4.0 Site 5, surface find
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 a4 1 20.2 Metavolcanic P. Point Fragment
Comments
1 with possible use wear
Comments
Comments
Comments
distal blade and tip fragment, shape
and flaking suggest Early Archaic, but
not diagnostic without base
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 7

Site #: 31 WA2331
Project Bounnddary
2.0
31 WA2331 CraPe creek !- o
Site Plan1.o;
o Negative Shovel Test ZZ �•
* Positive Shovel Test •�
350
North Carolina Archaeological Site Form VIII Page 8

. -aF KIN,
����\\0
,� \ ,

Question 19. Please provide a certified plan, designed by a qualified professional engineer, detailing
how and when flow from Crabtree Creek into the existing or proposed pit from
fractures in the rock would be addressed.
WSC response:
During the due diligence investigations for the potential quarry expansion project on RDUAA's Odd
Fellows tract, Wake Stone Corporation contracted with Groundwater Management Associates, Inc.
(GMA) to provide a hydrogeological evaluation of the existing and proposed quarry sites. GMA devised
and implemented a groundwater evaluation designed to:
• Estimate the extent of the groundwater cone of depression resulting from approximately 40
years of pit development at the Triangle Quarry. This effort allowed GMA to estimate the extent
of the cone of depression that might develop in response to pit development of the RDUAA
tract, and
• Address potential interactions between surface water flow occurring in Crabtree Creek and
groundwater seepage into the existing and proposed quarry pits.
Based on measurements taken of static groundwater levels in available domestic and monitoring wells,
GMA generated a groundwater surface contour map depicting the interpreted groundwater elevations
beneath the existing and proposed quarry sites. GMA also conducted field measurements of Crabtree
Creek stream flow, and through use of accepted instrumentation, and the velocity -area technique,
calculated stream discharge (Q) at three surface water monitoring stations in the project vicinity. GMA's
measured stream gauging data provided no evidence of measurable losses from Crabtree Creek
adjacent to the active quarry pit.
GMA also made site visits to the active quarry pit (individually and in the presence of DEMLR and DWR
personnel) in order to observe characteristic of the crystalline bedrock mass being mined, including
indications of groundwater seepage into the existing pit. Based on their observations made during site
visits, GMA noted that "the quarry pit did not indicate local wetting or other indications of significant
preferential flow of groundwater into the pit..." and "the active mine pit at the Triangle Quarry exhibits a
remarkably dry mine face." In their summary report, GMA states "It was especially notable that the
mine face closest to Crabtree Creek along the western and northern portions of the pit exhibited only
minimal wetness or groundwater seepage into the pit." Additionally, GMA researched estimated
groundwater recharge rates anticipated for piedmont terrain crystalline bedrock and Wake Stone
Corporation's reported pit sump withdrawal data. When GMA factored estimated stormwater runoff
for the active pit catchment area against reported sump withdrawal volumes, they concluded "it is
evident the groundwater flow contribution into the pit from outside the active mine must be very
small."
The above noted GMA observations concerning the small degree of groundwater influx into the Triangle
Quarry pit through fractures in the bedrock corroborate the conditions experienced by Wake Stone
Corporation throughout the systematic development of the Triangle Quarry pit over the past 38 years.
As evidenced by examination of bedrock cores collected during exploration drilling activities on the
RDUAA tract, bedrock fabric and fracture patterns within the bedrock proposed for mining in the new
pit are like those exposed in the Triangle Quarry pit. Based on these observations, Wake Stone
Corporation anticipates potential groundwater influx into the proposed new pit will be similar in nature

and volume to that experienced in the active Triangle Quarry pit. As such, it is impossible for us to
predict "how and when flow from Crabtree Creek into the existing or proposed pit from fractures in the
rock would be addressed." Our observations and experiences throughout the history of the
development of the Triangle Quarry pit, when coupled with the observations and conclusions drawn by
GMA in their Hydrogeologic Evaluation of the Triangle Quarry, give us great confidence that significant
groundwater influx into either pit is not likely to occur. Wake Stone Corporation is a very responsible
quarry operator. In attempting to respond to this question and provide the DEMLR with the information
you requested, we can assure you that should anomalous groundwater influx (suggestive of connectivity
to Crabtree Creek) be experienced while developing the new quarry pit, we will respond accordingly and
to the degree necessary to mitigate concerns for loss of Crabtree Creek flow into either pit. Mitigative
measures could include pressure injection of grouting materials into fracture zones in the bedrock if
proven warranted.
Signature: 2f��ZJared K. Miede P. E.
Date: © —2 7 — 2--a
C A f?0`
�o�oFEssioti92�'
SEAL -_
27899
INEE����`�
K.
P. E. Seal