20200024 Ver 1_More Info Received_20200128

Strickland, Bev
From: Brad Luckey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:49 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Homewood, Sue
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information; Quarry Hills s/d, Swepsonville,
Alamance Co.; SAW-2019-02210
Attachments: QUARRY HILLS WETLAND EXHIBIT.pdf, NC WAM Rating Calculator v4.1.pdf, QUARRY
HILLS BUFFER IMPACT 2-REV.pdf, QUARRY HILLS DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
David,
Please find attachments and below response. Please let me know if you require additional information to complete your
review. Thanks.
USACE Comment 1) The Corps will consider all proposed/foreseeable impacts for this development as cumulative when
considering Nationwide Permit (NWP) and compensatory mitigation thresholds. Based on your proposed impacts for
Phase 1 as well as the conceptual plans for future phases, the project would not fit within acreage thresholds for NWP
29. Specifically, cumulative impacts would include proposed impacts to wetland WPA (0.243 ac.) and Stream ISF (41 If or
0.004 ac.), and conceptual impacts to all of Pond PF (-0.37 ac.) and Wetland WF (-0.059 ac.), and portions of (proposed
impacts unknown) Stream SB, Stream SD3, and Wetland WD 1-13/WDA 1-12. You may apply for the entirety of this
phased development via the Individual Permit process. Or, as an alternative, you may further avoid or minimize impacts
proposed in Phase 1 and/or amend the conceptual design to show that full build out of this development would fit
within the NWP impact thresholds
Applicant Response: The overall site plan for future phases was conceptually designed to the current Town of
Swepsonville development ordinance requirements to obtain zoning approval. It is the applicant's understanding that
the Town of Swepsonville is considering updates to their residential development ordinance, specifically as it relates to
the implementation of residential cluster development, which is currently not prohibited. Currently, the development
ordinance will allow for 8,000 square foot residential lot minimums, whereas typical residential cluster development
ordinances in similar localities can allow minimums of 5,000 square foot residential lots. If the Town of Swepsonville
updates their development ordinance to allow for cluster development or smaller residential lots prior to the developer
proceeding with future phases, then proposed future phases will be re -designed to avoid conceptual designed impacts
to Pond PF and Wetland WF, thus allowing for the overall project to meet the current permitting requirements of
Nationwide thresholds. If the Town of Swepsonville does not update their current planning regulations for residential
developments to allow for smaller residential lot footprints prior to the developer moving forward with future phases,
then the applicant has alternative options to utilize green space/common elements to the south of future phases not
currently being shown as developed (i.e. green space immediately south of conceptually designed lots 190-220). This
alternative option would also allow the re-design/re-location of lots to avoid conceptual impact to Pond PF and Wetland
WF, such that the overall project could be permitted under current Nationwide Permitting thresholds. The applicant is
committed to exhausting all development and design options as described above to meet the necessary amount of
residential lots for the overall project to be financially viable while avoiding an Individual Permit and/or potential
mitigation thresholds for streams. However, please note that the applicant cannot reasonably foresee or plan for
potential undisclosed updates or changes to the USACE Nationwide Permitting program or the NWP 29 general and
regional conditions, which may very well change cumulative permitting and mitigation thresholds in 2020 or 2022, which

is potentially within advance of future phases of development being fully designed. Conceptual impacts to Stream SB,
SD3 and Wetland WD 1-13/WDA1-12 were not considered as part of the above mentioned reasonably foreseeable
conceptual impact analysis compared to current NWP/IP thresholds based on information detailed below.
USACE Comment 2) Please provide drawings that clearly show the drainage/stormwater plans for Phase 1 of this project.
We will use these plans to ensure that the remaining portions of Wetland WPA and Stream ISF would retain hydrologic
input following grading of the site. For example, culverts currently discharge into the heads of these features. Would the
remainder of these features still have the same/similar drainage flowing to them at the limits of the proposed fill? If
culverts currently carrying flow to these feature will still discharge into these features, please clearly show on the plans,
and also provide profile drawings showing culvert elevation vs. existing wetland/stream bed along with any rip rap
proposed. If existing drainage would be routed around any portion of the remaining features, please note that we will
likely consider indirect impacts to the portion of those features affected
Applicant Response: See attached updated impact exhibit in area of impact to Wetland WPA. Plans have been updated
to allow surface hydrologic inputs to continue to contribute to Wetland WPA. As shown within the initial application
drawings, surface water is being discharged near the impact limits to stream ISF. Based on the continued surface
hydrologic inputs to the above features, it is our opinion that Wetland WPA and Stream ISF will continue with similar
function and quality.
USACE Comment 3) It appears that Wetland WH may be impacted by Lots 244/245; please provide a zoomed in grading
plan for this area showing the limits of proposed fill along with the verified wetland delineation. Further, a sewer
easement is shown extending through this wetland. Is this an existing sewer line? If not, please provide justification that
wetland impacts would be avoided, or provide proposed impacts for this crossing in the revised PCN/plans
Applicant Response: Wetland WH was surveyed following the delineation and was determined to be located off the site
and outside pad grading limits of Lots 244/245. The sewer line easement is an existing sewer line within the area of off -
site Wetland WH. Impacts to Wetland WH as part of the proposed project are not proposed or anticipated.
USACE Comment 4) The Overall Site Impact Map currently shows two proposed stream crossings in future phases of the
development: a road in Phase 1 East extending across Stream SB, and a recreational road extending across Stream SD3.
In order to evaluate cumulative stream impacts for all phases of the Quarry Hills development, and in particular
consideration of the compensatory mitigation threshold for streams, please provide a reasonable estimate of stream fill
required for these future crossings. Please note, if it is reasonably foreseeable that cumulative stream impacts would
exceed the NWP compensatory mitigation thresholds (NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.2), we would require compensatory
mitigation for stream impacts proposed in Phase 1 unless otherwise justified by a functional assessment of that resource
(i.e. NCSAM evaluation)
USACE Comment 6) Please note that the future phase recreational road extending across Stream SD3 and Wetland WD
1-13/WDA 1-12 would occur within the 100 year floodplain. As such, any such impacts resulting in permanent above -
grade fills could not be authorized via NWP 29 (NWP 29 Regional Condition 4.1.4).
Applicant Response: Stream SD3 and Wetland WD 1-13/WDA 1-12 is not anticipated to be impacted in any future
development phases. There is an existing gravel road and crossing that will remain. Updates or improvements to the
existing crossing are not anticipated in any of the future development plans discussed in Applicant Response 1
above. Regardless of the Town of Swepsonville changes to the current development, the conceptually designed crossing
for Stream SB will remain. However, it is anticipated that future impacts to Stream SB will be able to be minimized with
use of head/end walls to be under 108 linear feet of net stream loss. Therefore, it is not reasonable foreseeable that
compensatory mitigation should be required for permanent net loss to the proposed 41 linear feet of stream impact
proposed within this application due to potential cumulative net loss of streams not equaling or exceeding 150 linear
feet.

USACE Comment 5) Per Wilmington District Public Notice dated 4/21/2015, please provide a functional assessment (i.e.
NCWAM) for Wetland WPA to justify a reduced compensatory mitigation ratio
Applicant Response: Please find attached. Based on the attached quality assessment, mitigation for impacts to Wetland
WPA should be mitigated at a 1:1 or less ratio.
Sincerely,
Bradley S. Luckey, PWS
336.708.4997 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)[mailto: David. [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 11:04 AM
To: Brad Luckey <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Homewood, Sue ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information; Quarry Hills s/d, Swepsonville, Alamance Co.; SAW-2019-02210
Brad,
Thank you for your PCN and attached information, dated and received 12/23/2019, for the above referenced project. I
have reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit 29
(http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2017/2017NWP29.pdf). Please submit the requested information below (via e-mail
is fine) within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the Nationwide
Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:
1) The Corps will consider all proposed/foreseeable impacts for this development as cumulative when considering
Nationwide Permit (NWP) and compensatory mitigation thresholds. Based on your proposed impacts for Phase
1 as well as the conceptual plans for future phases, the project would not fit within acreage thresholds for NWP
29. Specifically, cumulative impacts would include proposed impacts to wetland WPA (0.243 ac.) and Stream ISF
(41 If or 0.004 ac.), and conceptual impacts to all of Pond PF (-0.37 ac.) and Wetland WF (-0.059 ac.), and
portions of (proposed impacts unknown) Stream SB, Stream SD3, and Wetland WD 1-13/WDA 1-12. You may
apply for the entirety of this phased development via the Individual Permit process. Or, as an alternative, you
may further avoid or minimize impacts proposed in Phase 1 and/or amend the conceptual design to show that
full build out of this development would fit within the NWP impact thresholds;
2) Please provide drawings that clearly show the drainage/stormwater plans for Phase 1 of this project. We will use
these plans to ensure that the remaining portions of Wetland WPA and Stream ISF would retain hydrologic input
following grading of the site. For example, culverts currently discharge into the heads of these features. Would
the remainder of these features still have the same/similar drainage flowing to them at the limits of the
proposed fill? If culverts currently carrying flow to these feature will still discharge into these features, please
clearly show on the plans, and also provide profile drawings showing culvert elevation vs. existing
wetland/stream bed along with any rip rap proposed. If existing drainage would be routed around any portion of
the remaining features, please note that we will likely consider indirect impacts to the portion of those features
affected;
3) It appears that Wetland WH may be impacted by Lots 244/245; please provide a zoomed in grading plan for this
area showing the limits of proposed fill along with the verified wetland delineation. Further, a sewer easement is
shown extending through this wetland. Is this an existing sewer line? If not, please provide justification that
wetland impacts would be avoided, or provide proposed impacts for this crossing in the revised PCN/plans;

4) The Overall Site Impact Map currently shows two proposed stream crossings in future phases of the
development: a road in Phase 1 East extending across Stream SB, and a recreational road extending across
Stream SD3. In order to evaluate cumulative stream impacts for all phases of the Quarry Hills development, and
in particular consideration of the compensatory mitigation threshold for streams, please provide a reasonable
estimate of stream fill required for these future crossings. Please note, if it is reasonably foreseeable that
cumulative stream impacts would exceed the NWP compensatory mitigation thresholds (NWP 29 Regional
Condition 3.2), we would require compensatory mitigation for stream impacts proposed in Phase 1 unless
otherwise justified by a functional assessment of that resource (i.e. NCSAM evaluation);
5) Per Wilmington District Public Notice dated 4/21/2015, please provide a functional assessment (i.e. NCWAM) for
Wetland WPA to justify a reduced compensatory mitigation ratio;
6) Please note that the future phase recreational road extending across Stream SD3 and Wetland WD 1-13/WDA 1-
12 would occur within the 100 year floodplain. As such, any such impacts resulting in permanent above -grade
fills could not be authorized via NWP 29 (NWP 29 Regional Condition 4.1.4).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

EXHIBIT
EXISTING WETLANDS
FOR
UARRY HILLS PHASE 1 EAST
ALAMANCE COUNTY
SWEPSONVILLE~NORTH CAROLINA
JANUARY 27, 2020
40 0 20 40
1 inch =40ft.
4609 Dundas Drive
QZOSi�nce1974FTE
OWNER/DEVELOPER: Greensboro,
DESCO GC INVEST, LLC North Carolina 27407
600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 600 Fax [phone]
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 Phone [phone]
PHONE: [phone] Engineers Surveyors Planners Firm License No.: C-0168
CONTACT: ERIC DISCHINGER
[e-mail] [PROJECT: 320-31]—[H:\DRAWINGS\QUARRY HILLS GOLF COURSE\QUARRY HILLS BASE—AMY 12-19-19.DWG]

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
RQLI119 IiQIL.V IQLVI VCI.7I VII •►.1
Wetland Site Name Wetland WPA Date 1.2819
Wetland Type Basin Wetland Assessor Name/Organization Luckey, Pilot
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Haw River
River Basin Cape Fear USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 0303002
Yes 4 No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ii Yes i`" No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
r- Anadromous fish
F Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
r- NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
r- Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F Publicly owned property
r- N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
r- Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
r- Designated NCNHP reference community
r- Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) `" Lunar i`" Wind `" Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? _- Yes i* No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?
(t Yes (: No
f- Yes (+' No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
i— A r A Not severely altered
4- B C: B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A ( A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B (- B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C (: C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief - assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. f- A (-" A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B f" B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
(- C (- C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
(: D C-9 D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. (" A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
(" B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet

i+ C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. i`" A Sandy soil
is B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
f- C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
f- D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
f� E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. t: A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
{� B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
f- B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
" A C" A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B fe B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
. C C" C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F_ A r A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B F_ B r B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C F_ C r C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F D F_ D F D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
F E F_ E r E >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
Rl F F--' F r F >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G F_ G r G >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
r- H F_ H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
fo- Yes i No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
r' A >_ 50 feet
is B From 30 to < 50 feet
r' C From 15 to < 30 feet
r' D From 5 to < 15 feet
r' E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
,:: <_ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide r Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
i` Yes ,0_ No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
,:: Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
i-- Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box
in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the
wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
C A
f A
>_ 100 feet
(- B
i` B
From 80 to < 100 feet
C C
f C
From 50 to < 80 feet
[: D
[-e D
From 40 to < 50 feet
" E
[" E
From 30 to < 40 feet
" F
[" F
From 15 to < 30 feet
" G
[" G
From 5 to < 15 feet
" H
[" H
< 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(i A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
C B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
" B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
C A C A A >: 500 acres
B f- B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C f- C" C From 50 to < 100 acres
D f- D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E f- E" E From 10 to < 25 acres
" F f- F" F From 5 to < 10 acres
G f- G" G From 1 to < 5 acres
H f- H" H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
+` I GI {" I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J f- J {" J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K [" K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
i` A Pocosin is the full extent (>: 90%) of its natural landscape size.
i` B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
is A C A >: 500 acres
is B B From 100 to < 500 acres
is C C From 50 to < 100 acres
is D D From 10 to < 50 acres
is E E < 10 acres
F: F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
i`: Yes ; No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect - wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas > 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
C B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
6- C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity- assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
C B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
(+ C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure - assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes i No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
f: A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
,: B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the
assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
o(-"
A
A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m
C B
(-` B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
M C
(* C
Canopy sparse or absent
o
(" A
(`A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
(- B
(` B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
-o
(+` C.`
C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
�0 ('A (--A Dense shrub layer
(' B
(t B
Moderate density shrub layer
0 (* C
(* C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
(" A
( A
Dense herb layer
C. - B
( B
Moderate density herb layer
(+ C
(: C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags - wetland type condition metric
i A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
r*- B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution - wetland type condition metric
( A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris - wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion - wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
1 A B C ,:: D
f" ( r'•. -
22. Hydrologic Connectivity- assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
( B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
(' C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
(+' D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland WPA
Basin Wetland
Date 1.2819
Assessor Name/Organization Luckey, Pilot
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

0".0000—
�_q
\ � l
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
DESCO GC INVEST, LLC
600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 600
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516
PHONE: [phone]
CONTACT: ERIC DISCHINGER
[e-mail]
n
WETLAND IMPACTS =
PERMANENT IMPACTS = 0.244 AC
SHEET 3 OF 4
WETLANDS IMPACT MAP
FOR
UARRY HILLS PHASE 1 EAST
ALAMANCE COUNTY
SWEPSONVILLE~NORTH CAROLINA
JANUARY 24, 2020
50 0 25 50 1O�,
inch =50ft
4609 Dundas Drive
m Greensboro,
North Carolina 27407
Fax [phone]
Since 1974 Phone [phone]
I Engineers Surveyors Planners Firm License No.: C-0168
[PROJECT: 320-31]—[H:\DRAWINGS\QUARRY HILLS GOLF COURSE\QUARRY HILLS BASE—AMY 11-14-19.DWG]

9
IN ---Z-
4KK
/xz"" N�
0
00
EXHIBIT
EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS
FOR
QUARRY HILLS PHASE 1 EAST
F
ALAMANCE COUNTY
/ SWEPSONVILLE~NORTH CAROLINA
-.1 \ \ / _ JANUARY 27, 2020
1 inch=100ft.
4609 Dundas Drive
�I OWNER/DEVELOPER: I � � Greensboro,
DESCO GC INVEST, LLC North Carolina 27407
600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 600 Fax [phone]
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 Since 1974 Phone [phone]
PHONE: [phone] Engineers Surveyors Planners Firm License No.: C-0168
CONTACT: ERIC DISCHINGER
[e-mail] [PROJECT: 320-31]—[H:\DRAWINGS\QUARRY HILLS GOLF COURSE\QUARRY HILLS BASE—AMY 12-19-19.DWG]