20201129 Ver 1_SAW-2019-01307 - Response to USACE Comments_20210120

White Oak Road Subdivision Page 1 of 4

January 21, 2021

US Army Corps of Engineers NC Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regulatory Office 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Mr. David Bailey Attn: Stephanie Goss
3331 Heritage Trade Drive 512 N. Salisbury Street
Suite 105 Raleigh, NC 27604
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Re: White Oak Road Subdivision
Response to Comments
SAW-2019-01307 and NCDWR #20201129
Sage Project #2019.23

Please find attached response to USACE comments submitted via email on September 22, 2020, and
December 21, 2020. Both sets of comments have been combined under the respective Site Impact Areas.

1) Road Crossing #1:
• Given that there is no stream channel above the proposed culvert (wetlands only), and due
to the risk of headcutting within the wetland following project completion, we strongly
suggest that the proposed culvert not be buried 1’ and that the up- and down-stream culvert
inverts match existing grade. Please confirm with NCDWR regarding whether or not culvert
burial is required/advisable in this situation. If burial of the culvert pipe is not advised,
please redesign accordingly and update the PCN and applicable plansheets;
i. Confirmation from NCDWR and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to
not bury the culvert at Road Crossing #1 was received. Culvert design was revised
as suggested per comments and the PCN impact table and impact maps were
updated to reflect the changes. E-mail correspondence with NCDWR and NCWRC
is attached.
• Please provide a cross‐section view of the rip rap pad to demonstrate how the feature
will comply with NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.6.4 (see attached picture as an example);
i. Cross section view of rip rap pad provided.
• The plan sheet does not clearly show the extent of rip rap in the wetland or stream at the
downstream end of the culvert. It is our experience that rip rap pads generally extend from
wingwall to wingwall, so please show on the plans if this is the case. Further, rip rap placed
White Oak Road Subdivision Page 2 of 4

within wetlands will be considered a permanent impact and require compensatory
mitigation; please update Section D.2 of the PCN accordingly;
i. Rip rap will only be placed within the stream channel. Please see updated plan
sheet and cross section view.
• Still need a cross-section view of the rip rap pad to demonstrate how the feature will comply
with NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.6.4 (see item 1)b in my 9/22/2020 email);
i. Cross section view of rip rap pad has been included.
• I am concerned about the wetlands proposed for temporary impacts in the vicinity of the
downstream headwall, especially given that there is only ~6’ between the edge of the wall
and the stream channel. Be sure that the wetland restoration plan that you provide (see
item 4) in my 9/22/2020 email) addresses how these wetlands will be successfully restored,
especially considering headwall footers or subgrade that extends well beyond the wall
itself. If these areas cannot be successfully restored as wetlands, include them as
permanent wetland impacts and provide compensatory mitigation accordingly.
i. A temporary impacts restoration note was added to the impact maps: Wetlands
are to be returned to original grade and seed with wetland seed mix. Streams
should be returned to original contours and core fiber mat embankments as
needed.

2) Road Crossing #2:
• Road Crossing #2 as designed places the stream in a drainage network with multiple
junction boxes rather than extending the existing 30” culvert. This design reduces the
likelihood of allowing aquatic life passage up- and down-stream of White Oak Road, further
reducing the aquatic function of this stream;
i. This item is resolved in the following points.
• Although the concern related to junction boxes (per item 3b) in my 9/22/2020 email) is
resolved by this design change, the steepness of culvert slope (especially in the most
upstream culvert segment - ~5%) indicates that culvert burial is not advisable. NCDOT
generally does not propose to bury culverts if the slope >2%. Essentially, a slope that steep
will not allow sediment to be retained in the culvert, thereby eliminating the benefit of culvert
burial. Also, headcutting above the culvert inlet is likely in the upstream segment of stream
if the culverts are buried. Similar to item 1)a. in my 9/22/2020 email, we strongly suggest
that the proposed culvert not be buried 0.7’ and that the up- and down-stream culvert
inverts match existing grade. Please confirm with NCDWR/NCWRC regarding whether or
not culvert burial is required/advisable in this situation. If burial of the culvert pipe is not
advised, please redesign accordingly and update the PCN and applicable plansheets;
i. Confirmation from NCDWR and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to
not bury the culvert at Road Crossing #2 was received. Culvert design was revised
White Oak Road Subdivision Page 3 of 4

as suggested per comments and the PCN impact table and impact maps were
updated to reflect the changes. E-mail correspondence with NCDWR and NCWRC
is attached.
• The plansheets state that these culvert pipes are 42”, but they appear to only be ~33.5”
culverts based on scaling; this culvert size difference is likely to be important based on the
“Min. Depth Per NCDOT” shown on Sheet 5;
i. The culvert at Road Crossing #2 has been revised to depict a 42” RCP.
• An evaluation of relative aquatic function (e.g. NCSAM) would likely be useful information
in this stream, both above and below the existing culvert under White Oak Road, to aid in
our determination of whether compensatory mitigation should be required for stream
impacts for this project.
i. NCSAM form was completed for Stream SA within the proposed area of impact.
The NCSAM score = LOW for this section. No impacts are proposed below the
road crossing and this area is not owned by the client, so no NCSAM form was
completed here.
• As noted on Sheet 5, one would expect rip rap to extend up to the culvert outlet.
i. Rip rap pad extends to culvert outlet. Profile sheet has been updated to reflect this.
3) Wetland Road Crossing
• This area is outside of the wetland delineation review area. Please provide wetland/upland
data sheets, a NCDWQ Stream Form, and site photos to enable office verification of the
delineation provided;
i. A wetland delineation was performed for this area. Data forms and photos are
attached.
4) Based on the following, we are using our discretion (NWP District Engineer’s Decision) to require
compensatory mitigation for currently proposed stream impacts:
• The cumulative proposed permanent loss stream impacts equal the compensatory
mitigation threshold typified in NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.2;
• There are two previously impacted areas along the stream/wetland complex; these areas
include an existing 15” culvert and a maintained path through wetlands below and above
proposed Road Crossing #1, respectively. However, neither of these impacted footprints
were used in the design to minimize wetland/stream impacts;
• The mitigation rule generally prescribes purchasing stream credits first through a mitigation
bank with stream credits available in this 8-digit HUC (03020201), or second through the
NC Division of Mitigation Services; please provide a mitigation acceptance letter from your
proposed compensatory mitigation provider. Typically, compensatory mitigation is required
White Oak Road Subdivision Page 4 of 4

at a 2:1 credit to impact ratio unless otherwise justified based on evaluation of aquatic
function. Please update Section D.2 of the PCN accordingly;
i. After construction of Road Crossing #2, the existing 15” culvert upstream is
proposed for removal. The stream bed and banks will be returned to natural grade
and if soil disturbance is significant, the area will be stabilized with live stakes and
native seed mix. The NCSAM score for the proposed road crossing is LOW. We
believe this will satisfy the previous requirement for compensatory stream
mitigation; however, please advise if additional information is needed.

If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,

Kim Hamlin
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.

Attachments:
Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
Impact Maps (7 sheets)
E-mail correspondence with NCDWR/NCWRC
NCSAM Form
Wetland Delineation Details for Wetland Road Crossing
Photo Log

Page 1 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009

Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? Yes No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
401 Water Quality Certification – Regular Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
401 Water Quality Certification – Express Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?

For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit:

Yes No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
Yes No

1g. Is the project located in any of NC’s twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
Yes No

1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? Yes No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: White Oak Road Subdivision
2b. County: Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Town of Garner
2d. Subdivision name: White Oak Road Subdivision
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: McGrath, Julia R
3b. Deed Book and Page No. DB: 16806, DP: 1121, 1132, & 1137
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address: 8608 Brookdale Drive
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27613
3f. Telephone no.: 919-846-5824
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no. _______________
Form Version 1.4 January 2009

Page 2 of 10
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Mrs. Kim Hamlin
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
5c. Street address: 3707 Swift Drive
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27606
5e. Telephone no.: 919-244-0623
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address: [e-mail]

Page 3 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): Wake Co. PINs: 1720-52-4844, 1720-52-5597, 1720-52-
8735, 1720-53-2042, 1720-53-3317, 1720-52-3554
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.6805° N Longitude: 78.5771° W
1c. Property size: +/- 18.7 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project: White Oak Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C;NSW
2c. River basin: Neuse River (030202011004)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application.
The Site includes six adjacent parcels which include a partially developed single-family lots and a mobile home park.
Approximately 1/3 of the Site is wooded and undeveloped. Land use in the vicinity consists of undeveloped, forested land,
agricultural land, residential, and commercial.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: +/- 0.4 ac.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: +/- 411 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a multi-family residential development with associated driveways,
amenities, utilities, and parking to meet the demand in this area.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The overall project consists of the construction of a residential apartment development. Access to the Site will be provided
by connections to White Oak Road and Salt Hill Road. Parking spaces, sidewalks, garbage facilities, and a clubhouse are
proposed as part of the development. Water and wastewater services will be connected to existing services adjacent to the
Site. A portion of White Oak Road will be widened slightly to accommodate a turn lane into the Project. Heavy equipment
typically used for utility installation projects (e.g. back hoes, bull-dozers, etc.) will be utilized.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Yes No Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of
determination was made? Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Mr. David Gainey
Agency/Consultant Company:
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
PJD issued July 22, 2020 by Mr. David Bailey (SAW-2019-01307). NCDWR Buffer Determination letter issued July 11, 2019
(RRO #19-202).
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases) in the past? Yes No Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to “help file” instructions.

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? Yes No
6b. If yes, explain.

Page 4 of 10
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams – tributaries Buffers Open Waters Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number Permanent
(P) or Temporary (T)
2b.

Type of impact
2c.

Type of wetland
(if known)
2d.

Forested

2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404, 10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.

Area of
impact
(acres)
Site 1 (P) Road Fill Headwater Yes Corps 0.105
Site 1 (T) Road
Construction Headwater Yes Corps 0.027
Site 3 (P) Road Fill Headwater Yes Corps 0.001
Site 3 (T) Road
Construction Headwater Yes Corps 0.001
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.134
2h. Comments: Total permanent wetland impacts = 0.106 ac. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be obtained at a 2:1 ratio.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial
(PER) or
intermittent
(INT)?
3e.
Type of jurisdiction

3f.
Average stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
Site 1 (P) Culvert Stream A Intermittent Corps 5 59
Site 1 (P) Rip Rap Stream A Intermittent Corps 5 16
Site 2 (P) Culvert Stream A Intermittent Corps 5 90
Site 2 (P) Rip Rap Stream A Intermittent Corps 5 23
Site 2 (T) Dewatering Stream A Intermittent Corps 5 5
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 193
3i. Comments: Total permanent stream impacts due to culverting are 149 LF. Total permanent, no loss stream impacts due to rip
rap dissipator pads are 39 LF. Total temporary stream impacts due to dewatering are 5 LF.

Page 5 of 10
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the
U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water impact
number – Permanent
(P) or Temporary (T)
4b.
Name of
waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.

Type of impact
4d.

Waterbody type
4e.

Area of impact
(acres)
- Choose One Choose
4f. Total open water impacts 0
4g. Comments: No open water impacts are proposed for this project.

5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID
number
5b.

Proposed use or
purpose of pond

5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland (acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavat
ed Flooded
P1 Choose One
P2 Choose One
5f. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5g. Comments: This project does not propose Pond or Lake construction
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below.
If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? Neuse Tar-Pamlico Catawba Randleman
Other:
6b.
Buffer
impact
number –
(P) or (T)
6c.

Reason for impact
6d.

Stream name
6e.

Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.

Zone 1 impact
(square feet)
6g.

Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
Site 1 (P) Road (Allowable) Stream A No 7,566 4,353
Site 1 (T) Grading (Exempt) Stream A No 0 3,461
Site 2 (P) Road (Allowable) Stream A No 4,037 1,962
6h. Total buffer impacts 11,603 9,776
6i. Comments: Proposed riparian buffer impacts are “Allowable Upon Authorization” or “Exempt” per the Table of Uses.

Page 6 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed buildings, roads, and parking lots were aligned so as to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, streams,
and riparian buffers to the maximum extent practicable while still meeting the required parking and stormwater
requirements for the Town. The proposed design was altered to reduce impacts from the initial design. Construction
fencing will be used to define the construction corridor and prevent any accidental additional impacts, while silt fencing will
be installed to provide additional protection from runoff.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
General techniques include the use of construction fencing to define the construction corridor and prevent any accidental
additional impacts. Silt fencing will also be used to prevent sediment runoff into the stream(s).
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No

2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): DWQ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
Mitigation bank
Payment to in-lieu fee program
Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: Wildlands Holdings III – McClenny Acres II Mitigation Site
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one Quantity N/A
Type: Choose one Quantity N/A
Type: Choose one Quantity N/A
3c. Comments: N/A
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 0 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): 0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0.21 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4h. Comments: N/A
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.

Page 7 of 10
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) – required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes No

6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)

Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) 0
Zone 2 1.5 0
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 0
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:

Page 8 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? Yes No
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The diffuse flow plan is part of the Stormwater Management Plan being
reviewed by the Town of Garner.
Yes No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 45.9 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? Yes No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The project requires a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) which will be reviewed by the Town of Garner. The SMP will
include 2 SCMs on each side of the drainage.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? Town of Garner
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government’s jurisdiction is this project? Town of Garner
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
Phase II
NSW
USMP
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
Coastal counties
HQW
ORW
Session Law 2006-246
Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? Yes No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? Yes No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? Yes No

Page 9 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? Yes No
1b. If you answered “yes” to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Yes No
1c. If you answered “yes” to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments:
Yes No
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
Yes No
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes No
2c. If you answered “yes” to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes No
3b. If you answered “yes” to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered “no,” provide a short narrative description.
Utilities are already available in the area. The development of this property will neither increase or decrease the likelihood
of future development in this area.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The proposed project will tie into existing municipal sewer lines adjacent to the site.

Page 10 of 10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The NC Natural Heritage Database (2019) was queried and a report (dated June 19, 2019) was received from NCNHP
which identified no recorded federally listed species on the project site or within a 1-mile radius.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? Yes No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The proposed project takes place in Wake County which is not near any coastal or tidal habitat that would support EFH
(i.e. salt marshes, oyster reefs, etc.).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/ NCSHPO lists one “Survey Only” property (House WA6340) on the Site and seven state historic
properties are listed within 0.25 miles of the Site based on a query of the NCSHPO database. Six additional historic sites are
located within 0.25 miles of the Site and are listed as “Surveyed Only”. The 0.25-mile buffer also overlaps the Bryan Farms
Historic District (WA7351). This area has been “Determined Eligible as a Historic District.”
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Flood Map Service Center NC Flood Risk
Information System DFIRM Panel #2000; Dated May 2, 2006.

Kim Hamlin

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name

_____________________________
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
01/20/2021
Date

FDC
11112222FDC
11112222FDC1 1
11
2
2
2
2
FDC11112222FDC1 1
11
2
2
2
2
FDC1 1
11
2
2
2
2
FDC11112222FDC11112222FDC11112222FDC11112222FDC11112222FDC1 1
11
2
2
2
2
F.E.C.
F.E.C.FDC11112222RECYCLINGRECYCLING
WHITE OAK ROAD - SR 2547SALT HILL ROAD - SR 2708ROAD
CROSSING #1
ROAD
CROSSING #2
WETLAND
IMPACT #3
NORTH0
SCALE: 1" =
150'150'300'
150'
GARNER, NC
REVISIONS:
301 GLENWOOD AVE.
SUITE 220
RALEIGH,NC 27603
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
ELEVATE WHITE OAK
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 381,760 SF
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE = 45.9%
SHEET 1
ELEVATE WHITE OAK
OVERALL IMPACT MAP
IMPACT TOTAL
WETLAND ROAD IMPACT 4,656 SF
WETLAND TEMP. CONST. IMPACT 1,243 SF
ZONE 1 ROAD IMPACT 11,603 SF
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT 6,315 SF
ZONE 2 GRADING IMPACT (EXEMPT)3,461 SF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 149 LF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT -
NO LOSS (RIPRAP) 39
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT 5 LF
RESTORATION NOTES FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS:
WETLANDS ARE TO BE RETURNED TO ORIGINAL
GRADE AND SEED WITH WETLAND SEED MIX.
STREAMS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO ORIGINAL
CONTOURS AND CORE FIBER MAT EMBANKMENTS
AS NEEDED.
6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WM6''WMSFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM74 LF 36" RCP CULVERT AND FES
WETLAND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
806 SF
WETLAND
ROAD IMPACT
4,585 SF
20'ZONE 2BUFFER30' ZONE 1 BUFFERPROPOSED 8"
SAN
ITARY
SEWERPROPOSED 6"
WATER
MA
INPROPOSED 4"
FORCE
MA
IN
PROPOSED POND PROPOSED 30" RCPAND HEADWALLEXISTING
WETLAND PROPOSED 30
"
RCPAND HEADWALL
PROPOSED POND
340345335345335345340348
346
344
343
340
335
340
348347
WETLAND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
362 SF
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT
1,982 SF
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT
2,371 SF ZONE 2 GRADING IMPACT
2,534 SF
ZONE 2 GRADING IMPACT
927 SF
ZONE 1 ROAD IMPACT
7,566 SF
STREAM PERMANENT
-NO LOSS IMPACT 16 LF
(RIP RAP) *
STREAM PERMANENT
IMPACT 59 LF
NORTH0
SCALE: 1" =
20'20'40'
20'
ELEVATE WHITE OAK
GARNER, NC
REVISIONS:
ROAD CROSSING #1301 GLENWOOD AVE.
SUITE 220
RALEIGH,NC 27603
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
IMPACT TOTAL
WETLAND ROAD IMPACT 4,585 SF
WETLAND TEMP. CONST. IMPACT 1,168 SF
ZONE 1 ROAD IMPACT 7,566 SF
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT 4,353 SF
ZONE 2 GRADING IMPACT (EXEMPT)3,461 SF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 59 LF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT -
NO LOSS(RIP RAP) 16 LF
WETLAND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
SHEET 2
ZONE 1 ROAD IMPACT
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT
WETLAND ROAD IMPACT
ZONE 2 GRADING IMPACT
*RIP RAP TO MATCH EXISTING CHANNEL GEOMETRY
335
340
345
335
340
345
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
30" R
C
P
FES
INV IN =333.1
HEADWALL
INV OUT=331.7
RIPRAP
STREAM BOTTOM
PROPOSED GRADE
335
340
345
335
340
345
10 20
30" RCP
EXISTING CHANNEL SEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALLRIPRAP PAD TO
MATCH EXISTING
CHANNEL GEOMETRY
IMPACT ROADWAY CROSS SECTION CHANNEL CROSS SECTION AT RETAINING WALL
0
SCALE: 1" =
20'20'40'
20'
ELEVATE WHITE OAK
GARNER, NC
REVISIONS:
ROAD CROSSING #1301 GLENWOOD AVE.
SUITE 220
RALEIGH,NC 27603
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
SHEET 3
PROFILE
IMPACT TOTAL
WETLAND ROAD IMPACT 4,585 SF
WETLAND TEMP. CONST. IMPACT 1,168 SF
ZONE 1 ROAD IMPACT 7,566 SF
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT 4,353 SF
ZONE 2 GRADING IMPACT (EXEMPT)3,461 SF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 59 LF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT -
NO LOSS(RIP RAP) 16 LF
ZONE 2
ROAD IMPACT
1272 SF
ZONE 2
ROAD IMPACT
690 SF
ZONE 1
ROAD IMPACT
4,037 SF
CI 107HEADWALL 107AEXISTING 15" CUL
V
E
R
T
EXISTING STREAM
NEW 34 LF 42" RCP
CULVERT AND HEADW
A
L
L
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

3
0
"

R
C
P

T
O

B
E
AB
A
N
D
O
N
E
D

W
I
T
H
FL
O
W
A
B
L
E

F
I
L
L

P
E
R

N
C
D
O
T
NEW 84 LF 15" RCP AND CATCH BASIN WITHIN BUFFERCI 111
NEW 16 LF 15" RCP AND
CATCH BASIN WITHIN BUFFER
45 LF TOTAL
STREAM
PERMANENT
IMPACT 90 LF
NEW 72 LF 18" RCP AND CATCH BASIN WITHIN BUFFERSTREAM
PERMANENT-NO LOSS
IMPACT 23 LF (RIP RAP) *
NEW 85 LF 42" RCP
CULVERT AND HEA
D
W
A
L
L
STREAM
TEMPORARY
IMPACT 5 LF
ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE
EXISTING 15" CULVERT TO
BE REMOVED AND CHANNEL
RE-ESTABLISHED.
NORTH0
SCALE: 1" =
20'20'40'
20'
ELEVATE WHITE OAK
GARNER, NC
REVISIONS:
ROAD CROSSING #2301 GLENWOOD AVE.
SUITE 220
RALEIGH,NC 27603
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
SHEET 4
ZONE 1 ROAD IMPACT
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT
*RIP RAP TO MATCH EXISTING CHANNEL GEOMETRY
IMPACT TOTALS
ZONE 1 ROAD IMPACT 4,037 SF
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT 1,962 SF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 90 LF
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT 5 LF
PERMANENT STREAM
NO LOSS (RIPRAP) 23 LF
325
330
335
325
330
335
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
42" RCP
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
HEADWALL 108
INV OUT=324.0
RIPRAP
HEADWALL 107A
INV IN=327.20
CI 107
BC=330.93
INV IN=325.00 (42" RCP)
INV IN=326.00 (CI 106)
INV IN=325.48 (CI 111)
INV OUT=325.00
42"
R
C
P
MIN.
DEPTH
PER
NCDOT
ROAD SUBGRADE
EX. 12" WM
TOP 321.7
EX. 4" GAS
TOP 322.1
EX. 4" WM
TOP 323.5
PROPOSED
CONCRETE
CRADLE
14"
0
SCALE: 1" =
20'20'40'
20'
ELEVATE WHITE OAK
GARNER, NC
REVISIONS:
ROAD CROSSING #2301 GLENWOOD AVE.
SUITE 220
RALEIGH,NC 27603
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
SHEET 5
PROFILE
IMPACT TOTALS
ZONE 1 ROAD IMPACT 4,037 SF
ZONE 2 ROAD IMPACT 1,962 SF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 90 LF
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT 5 LF
PERMANENT STREAM
NO LOSS (RIPRAP) 23 LF
WETLAND
ROAD IMPACT
71 SF
NEW HEADWALL
EXISTING
WETLAND
10' WETLAND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT 75 SF
NEW 101 LF 18" RCP
NEW 25 LF 24" RCP
NEW 2
0
L
F
30" RC
P
EXISTING 48 LF 30" RCPNORTH0
SCALE: 1" =
20'20'40'
20'
ELEVATE WHITE OAK
GARNER, NC
REVISIONS:
WETLAND IMPACT #3301 GLENWOOD AVE.
SUITE 220
RALEIGH,NC 27603
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
IMPACT TOTAL
WETLAND ROAD IMPACT 71 SF
WETLAND TEMP. CONST. IMPACT 75 SF
WETLAND ROAD IMPACT
WETLAND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
SHEET 6
ROCKWOOD RETAINING WALL DETAIL
SCALE: NONE
RETAINED SOIL
FOUNDATION SOIL
REINFORCED SOIL
SITE CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL 8 INCH
MIN. LOW PERMEABLE SOIL WITH GROUND
COVER TO PREVENT EROSION
LEVELING PAD
UNIT DRAINAGE FILL
(NO. 57 STONE) TO BOTTOM
ELEVATION OF DRAINAGE PIPE
SETBACK 1 INCH
ROCKWOOD CAP UNIT
GEOGRID LENGTH
(SEE PROFILE)
LOW PERMEABLE SOIL
GRIDMAXX GMX GEOGRID(PER PROFILES)
ROCKWOOD CLASSIC 8 UNIT
FINISHED GRADE PER CIVIL
PLANS - 3(H):1(V) MAX
4 INCH PERFORATED PVC
OR HDPE DRAINAGE PIPE
WITH MIN 2% GRADE
IF GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ARE
PRESENT ABOVE THE FOUNDATION
ELEVATION CONTACT DESIGN
ENGINEER OR GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
1
Kim Hamlin
From:Sean Clark
Sent:Wednesday, October 7, 2020 12:15 PM
To:Goss, Stephanie; Kim Hamlin
Subject:RE: Request for Additional Information - White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County;
SAW-2019-01307 and DWR Project 20201129
Thanks Stephanie. We’ll make the change. 

Sean Clark 
Sage Ecological Services, Inc. 
Cell: 919.559.1537 
[e-mail] 

From: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:25 AM 
To: Sean Clark <[e-mail]>; Kim Hamlin <[e-mail]> 
Subject: FW: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐2019‐01307 and 
DWR Project 20201129 

Kim and Sean, 
Please see Gabriella’s response below regarding culvert burial for this project. 

Stephanie Z. Goss 
Environmental Program Consultant 
Division of Water Resources 
Raleigh Regional Office 
3800 Barrett Drive 
Raleigh, NC 27609 
919-791-4256 

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the 
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 

From: Garrison, Gabriela  
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 5:44 PM 
To: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐2019‐01307 and 
DWR Project 20201129 

Hi Stephanie,  

Thanks for reaching out!  Yep, the question of bury vs. no bury seems to be problematic.   

I checked with Travis (Wilson) to get his input as well.  In this case, culvert burial should not be required (or 
recommended) since there is no stream channel above the culvert.  Additionally, limiting the amount of rip rap above 
the surface in the channel at the outlet will help with potential wildlife usage of the structure. 

2
Hope all is well,  
Gabriela   

Gabriela Garrison 
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator 

NC Wildlife Resources Commission 
Sandhills Depot, P.O. Box 149 
Hoffman, NC  28347 
Office and Cell: 910‐409‐7350    
[e-mail] 

www.ncwildlife.org 

From: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 3:27 PM 
To: Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐2019‐01307 and DWR 
Project 20201129 

Gabriela, 
Hope you are having a good week!!! At your convenience, would you please review the above referenced project 
regarding culvert burial. David is requesting that they not bury the culvert because this is at the start of the stream 
channel and I wanted to get your opinion before I reply. You guidance is very much appreciated. I have included a link to 
take you directly to the Laserfiche file: 

https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?id=1283801&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources 

Thank you!! 

Stephanie Z. Goss 
Environmental Specialist II 
Division of Water Resources 
Raleigh Regional Office 
3800 Barrett Drive 
Raleigh, NC 27609 
919-791-4256 

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the 
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 

From: Sean Clark [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 1:12 PM 
To: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] FW: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐2019‐
01307 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
[e-mail] 

3
Stephanie, 
When you get the chance please give me a call about David’s request below to not burry the  culvert. 

Thanks 

Sean Clark 
Sage Ecological Services, Inc. 
Cell: 919.559.1537 
[e-mail] 

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:52 AM 
To: Kim Hamlin <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>; Sean Clark <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐2019‐01307 

All, 

Thank you for your PCN and attached information, dated 8/31/2020, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed 
the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 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) Road Crossing #1:  
a. Given that there is no stream channel above the proposed culvert (wetlands only), and due to the risk of 
headcutting within the wetland following project completion, we strongly suggest that the proposed 
culvert not be buried 1’ and that the up‐ and down‐stream culvert inverts match existing grade. Please 
confirm with NCDWR regarding whether or not culvert burial is required/advisable in this situation. If 
burial of the culvert pipe is not advised, please redesign accordingly and update the PCN and applicable 
plansheets; 
b. Please provide a cross‐section view of the rip rap pad to demonstrate how the feature will comply with 
NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.6.4 (see attached picture as an example); 
c. The plan sheet does not clearly show the extent of rip rap in the wetland or stream at the downstream 
end of the culvert. It is our experience that rip rap pads generally extend from wingwall to wingwall, so 
please show on the plans if this is the case. Further, rip rap placed within wetlands will be considered a 
permanent impact and require compensatory mitigation; please update Section D.2 of the PCN 
accordingly; 
2) Wetland Road Crossing: This area is outside of the wetland delineation review area. Please provide 
wetland/upland data sheets, a NCDWQ Stream Form, and site photos to enable office verification of the 
delineation provided; 
3) Based on the following, we are using our discretion (NWP District Engineer’s Decision) to require compensatory 
mitigation for currently proposed stream impacts:  
a. The cumulative proposed permanent loss stream impacts equal the compensatory mitigation threshold 
typified in NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.2; 
b. Road Crossing #2 as designed places the stream in a drainage network with multiple junction boxes 
rather than extending the existing 30” culvert. This design reduces the likelihood of allowing aquatic life 
passage up‐ and down‐stream of White Oak Road, further reducing the aquatic function of this stream; 
c. There are two previously impacted areas along the stream/wetland complex; these areas include an 
existing 15” culvert and a maintained path through wetlands below and above proposed Road Crossing 
#1, respectively.  However, neither of these impacted footprints were used in the design to minimize 
wetland/stream impacts; 
4
The mitigation rule generally prescribes purchasing stream credits first through a mitigation bank with stream 
credits available in this 8‐digit HUC (03020201), or second through the NC Division of Mitigation Services; please 
provide a mitigation acceptance letter from your proposed compensatory mitigation provider. Typically, 
compensatory mitigation is required at a 2:1 credit to impact ratio unless otherwise justified based on 
evaluation of aquatic function. Please update Section D.2 of the PCN accordingly; 
4) Please submit a wetland restoration plan for the temporary wetland impact areas; 
5) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full 
evaluation of the proposed project 
Please let me know if you have any questions.  

Sincerely, 

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: (919) 554‐4884, Ext. 30. 
Fax: (919) 562‐0421 
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. 

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1
Kim Hamlin
From:Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, January 4, 2021 12:50 PM
To:Kim Hamlin; Goss, Stephanie
Cc:Sean Clark
Subject:RE: [External] FW: Request for Additional Information - White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County;
SAW-2019-01307
Hi Kim,  
Apologies for the delay in response – just getting back into the office after being off the last few weeks.  
I agree with David’s concerns as stated below and do not advise burying the culvert.  
Thanks,  
Gabriela  

Gabriela Garrison 
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator 

NC Wildlife Resources Commission 
Sandhills Depot, P.O. Box 149 
Hoffman, NC  28347 
Office and Cell: 910‐409‐7350    
[e-mail] 

www.ncwildlife.org 

From: Kim Hamlin <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 1:01 PM 
To: Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]>; Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Sean Clark <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] FW: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐2019‐
01307 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
Report Spam. 

Good afternoon, 

David has concerns for Road Crossing #2 (see note 1 below). Specifically, we’d like to confirm whether culvert burial is 
advised for this area due to the steep slopes. I’ve attached the most recent design for your review. Please let me know if 
you need additional information.  

Thanks, 
Kim Hamlin 

Kim Hamlin, PWS 
Sage Ecological Services, Inc. 
2
Cell: 919.244.0623 
[e-mail] 

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 2:56 PM 
To: Sean Clark <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐2019‐01307 

Crossing 2: 
1) Although the concern related to junction boxes (per item 3b) in my 9/22/2020 email) is resolved by this design 
change, the steepness of culvert slope (especially in the most upstream culvert segment ‐ ~5%) indicates that 
culvert burial is not advisable. NCDOT generally does not propose to bury culverts if the slope >2%. Essentially, a 
slope that steep will not allow sediment to be retained in the culvert, thereby eliminating the benefit of culvert 
burial. Also, headcutting above the culvert inlet is likely in the upstream segment of stream if the culverts are 
buried. Similar to item 1)a. in my 9/22/2020 email, we strongly suggest that the proposed culvert not be buried 
0.7’ and that the up‐ and down‐stream culvert inverts match existing grade. Please confirm with 
NCDWR/NCWRC regarding whether or not culvert burial is required/advisable in this situation. If burial of the 
culvert pipe is not advised, please redesign accordingly and update the PCN and applicable plansheets; 

‐‐‐ 
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: (919) 554‐4884, Ext. 30. 
Fax: (919) 562‐0421 
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. 

From: Sean Clark <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 11:16 AM 
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐
2019‐01307 

David, 
When you get a chance please give me a call about the attached. There are some tweaks that still need to occur to the 
maps but generally I wanted to get you feedback on the redesign on Road Crossing #2, which is the widening of the 
existing White Oak Road. The new design straightens the crossing which had the intended result of removing the 
junction boxes that you were concerned with. 

Thanks  

Sean Clark 
Sage Ecological Services, Inc. 
3
Cell: 919.559.1537 
[e-mail] 

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:52 AM 
To: Kim Hamlin <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>; Sean Clark <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Request for Additional Information ‐ White Oak Road, s/d, Garner, Wake County; SAW‐2019‐01307 

All, 

Thank you for your PCN and attached information, dated 8/31/2020, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed 
the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 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) Road Crossing #1:  
a. Given that there is no stream channel above the proposed culvert (wetlands only), and due to the risk of 
headcutting within the wetland following project completion, we strongly suggest that the proposed 
culvert not be buried 1’ and that the up‐ and down‐stream culvert inverts match existing grade. Please 
confirm with NCDWR regarding whether or not culvert burial is required/advisable in this situation. If 
burial of the culvert pipe is not advised, please redesign accordingly and update the PCN and applicable 
plansheets; 
b. Please provide a cross‐section view of the rip rap pad to demonstrate how the feature will comply with 
NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.6.4 (see attached picture as an example); 
c. The plan sheet does not clearly show the extent of rip rap in the wetland or stream at the downstream 
end of the culvert. It is our experience that rip rap pads generally extend from wingwall to wingwall, so 
please show on the plans if this is the case. Further, rip rap placed within wetlands will be considered a 
permanent impact and require compensatory mitigation; please update Section D.2 of the PCN 
accordingly; 
2) Wetland Road Crossing: This area is outside of the wetland delineation review area. Please provide 
wetland/upland data sheets, a NCDWQ Stream Form, and site photos to enable office verification of the 
delineation provided; 
3) Based on the following, we are using our discretion (NWP District Engineer’s Decision) to require compensatory 
mitigation for currently proposed stream impacts:  
a. The cumulative proposed permanent loss stream impacts equal the compensatory mitigation threshold 
typified in NWP 29 Regional Condition 3.2; 
b. Road Crossing #2 as designed places the stream in a drainage network with multiple junction boxes 
rather than extending the existing 30” culvert. This design reduces the likelihood of allowing aquatic life 
passage up‐ and down‐stream of White Oak Road, further reducing the aquatic function of this stream; 
c. There are two previously impacted areas along the stream/wetland complex; these areas include an 
existing 15” culvert and a maintained path through wetlands below and above proposed Road Crossing 
#1, respectively.  However, neither of these impacted footprints were used in the design to minimize 
wetland/stream impacts; 
The mitigation rule generally prescribes purchasing stream credits first through a mitigation bank with stream 
credits available in this 8‐digit HUC (03020201), or second through the NC Division of Mitigation Services; please 
provide a mitigation acceptance letter from your proposed compensatory mitigation provider. Typically, 
compensatory mitigation is required at a 2:1 credit to impact ratio unless otherwise justified based on 
evaluation of aquatic function. Please update Section D.2 of the PCN accordingly; 
4) Please submit a wetland restoration plan for the temporary wetland impact areas; 
4
5) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full 
evaluation of the proposed project 
Please let me know if you have any questions.  

Sincerely, 

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: (919) 554‐4884, Ext. 30. 
Fax: (919) 562‐0421 
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. 

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): 2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County: 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ab
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi
2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi
2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed ( I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? Yes No
1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
BNot A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
BNot A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
BNot A
5. Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
White Oak Road 10/15/2020
35.6802, -78.5782
SA2 30
Julia R. McGrath 4. Assessor name/organization: S. Clark / Sage Ecological
Wake
Neuse White Oak Creek
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
1-2
2-3
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No
Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
mowing
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
NN
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
BBBBFrom 50 to < 100-feet wide
CCCCFrom 30 to < 50-feet wide
DDDDFrom 10 to < 30-feet wide
EEEE< 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
BBNon-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
BBBBBBMaintained turf
CCCCCCPasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
DDDDDDPasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
CCNo wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
CCVegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Photo attached
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
S. Clark / Sage Ecological
10/15/2020
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name White Oak Road Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NO
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
Stream A
SA01 Start Stream
Wetland WA
WA01 TT Stream
WA57 TT Stream
WA32
WA01 & WA06
WA03 & WA04 TT Culvert
Off-Site Feature B
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Figure 3
Wetland Sketch Map
Off-Site White Oak Road Project
Sage Project # 2019.23
June 25, 2020
Map Location
WAKE
JOHNSTON
HARNETT
DURHAM FRANKLIN
NOTE: Location, shape and size of
depicted features on the evaluated
site are approximate and should be
surveyed by a licensed NC
surveyor for final site planning.
³
010050
Feet
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
Office: 919-335-6757
Cell: 919-559-1537
Drawn By:
David Gainey
All Features must be confirmed by
the NC-DWR and the USACE.
Legend
Off-Site Boundary
Project Study Area
Intermittent Stream - Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Wetlands - Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
2
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Wetter than Normal conditions per Antecedent Precipitation Tool
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:White Oak Road Wake
DPB1 Wet
10/15/2020
Julia R. McGrath NC
No
Section, Township, Range:S. Clark
0.1concavedrainage
Datum:NAD83-78.577935.67901LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:ApC2
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)100 sf
=Total Cover
FACYes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
15
0
0
Multiply by:
0
3.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
5
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
13
30
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
5
Microstegium vimineum 5
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DPB1 Wet
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
15
0
5
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
95
Loamy/Clayey
Sandy
98 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 4/2
10YR 2/2 10YR 5/6
10Yr 5/610-14
0-10
DPB1 WetSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
PL5
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
2 PL
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:White Oak Road Wake
DPB2 UP
10/15/2020
Julia R. McGrath NC
No
Section, Township, Range:S. Clark
0.1concavedrainage
Datum:NAD83-78.577935.67901LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:ApC2
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Wetter than Normal conditions per Antecedent Precipitation Tool
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DPB2 UP
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
0
0
0
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
)
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Festuca sp.80
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
80
1640
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
0
Multiply by:
0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)100 sf
=Total Cover
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%Texture
DPB2 UPSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 5/4
10YR 3/4
4-12
0-4
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Sandy
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site: Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination: Other:
e.g. Quad Name: Stream is at least intermittent if
•19 or perennial if •30

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = )

Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
*perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes:

Bank Height (feet)
Bankfull Width (feet)
Water Depth (inches)
Channel Substrate
Velocity:
Clarity:
Sketch:

Oct 15, 2020
12
Ephemeral
3.5
5.5
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0.5
0
0
0
1.5
0.5
1
0.5
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
sand/clay
N/A
N/A
N/A
5'
0
Evaluation completed within the section of the drainage where
road widening impacts are proposed. Although a marginal stream
exists further updrainage (+/-100 feet), the area where impacts
are proposed is adjacent to the road shoulder and part of a
residential lawn prior to entering an existing ditch.
Elevate White Oak
35.679024
-78.578061
SB1
WakeSean Clark
3
SITE PHOTOS
Photo 1: Existing culvert on Stream A to be removed and stream restored after construction of
Road Crossing #2.
Photo 2: Location of NCSAM Form SA2.

Photo 1: Data Form DPB1 Location.
Photo 2: Data Form DPB2 Location.