20210678 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20210416

DWR
Division of Water Resources
Initial Review
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
October 26, 2020 Ver 3.3
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
6 Yes
C No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
CYesr No
Change cnly 1 needed.
BIMS # Assigned* Version#*
20210678 1
Is a payment required for this project?*
No payment required
�- Fee received
6 Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office *
Raleigh Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
la. Name of project:
Array Subdivision
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Jim Mason
lb. Primary Contact Email:*
What amout is owed?*
F $240.00
$570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Stephanie Goss:eads\szgoss
lc. Primary Contact Phone:*
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
4/16/2021
Nearest Body of Water
Collins Creek
Basin
Cape Fear
Water Classification
C; NSW
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.959068
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
ID#
Pre -fling Meeting or Request Date*
4/1/2021
Longitude:
-79.192917
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here:*
DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form_Submitted 4-1-21.pdf
Version
54.78KB
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Orange

Is this a NCDMS Project
C- Yes f No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
C- Yes f No
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
[7 Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
C- Yes
G No
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
fJ Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
✓ Yes F No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 29 - Residential Developments
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
Id. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
17 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
If. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
C- Yes f No
F. 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
7 Riparian Buffer Authorization
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
CYes (7 No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
C- Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
lh. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
CYes (7 No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
C- Yes C' No
B. Applicant Information
Id. Who is applying for the permit?
[7 Owner r Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
6 Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Stephen and Sharon Burt
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
✓ Yes 6' No
✓ Yes 6 No

Street Address
7951 Lake Ross Lane
Address Line 2
C7ty State / Province / Region
Sanford FL
Postal / Zip Code Country
32771 USA
2e. Telephone Number: 2f. Fax Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Nancy Oberle
4b. Business Name:
Three Oaks Engineering
4c. Address
Street Address
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Address Line 2
City
Durham
Postal / TZp Code
27701
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Agent Authorization Letter*
Burt_AGEIsIT_AUTHORIZATION_Signed by Owner.pdf
State / Rovince / Region
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
148.91 KB
C. Project Information and Prior Project History C^U
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality/ town:
Chapel Hill
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
9840435353
2c. Project Address
Street Address
near 7900 Orange Grove Rd
Address Line 2
2b. Property size:
54.12
Criy State / Province / Region
Chapel Hill NC
Postal / TZp Code Country
27516 USA
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Collins Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C; NSW
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*

Cape Fear
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030300020507
4. Project Description and History
4a. 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 is made up of mostly dry oak -hickory forest, with small areas of maintained/disturbed, Piedmont headwater stream forest, and an upland pool (pond). In the vicinity of the
project, there is forested land, residential and agricultural uses.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes (' No r Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
ArraySubdivision_Fig1_Topo.pdf 617.57KB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
ArraySubdivision_Fig2_Soils.pdf 1.26MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
5.26
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
3168
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of the proposed project is to build a single road to access 12 residential lots in this low -impact development.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The proposed project is to develop the Array Subdivision on parcel PIN 9840435353, an approximately 54 acre property in Chapel Hill, Orange County, NC. The subdivision will be
accessed off Orange Grove Road. A single road will be built from Orange Grove Road and extend east onto the parcel. The road will cross an unnamed tributary (stream SA) to Collins
Creek and adjacent wetland WA. The road and driveways to residential lots 7 and 8 will impact two wetlands that have been determined to be isolated by the USAGE. Utilities such as
water and electricity will be placed within the roadway shoulder.
Indirect impacts are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Typical construction equipment, such as trucks and dozers, will be used during construction.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
19-018 Rev02 2021-04-12 Plans Only Revised.pdf
19-018 Rev02 2021-04-12 Exhibits Revised.pdf
19-018 Rev02 2021-04-12 Details Only Revised.pdf
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
G Yes
Comments:
9.33MB
1.05MB
6.42MB
r No C Unknown
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? *
G Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2019-00741
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Evan Morgan, LSS
Three Oaks Engineering
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
July 11, 2019
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
CheekSwanBurt_PJD_Package_June2019.pdf 8.38MB
Approved JD form_Array Subdivision_WB_WE.pdf 5.16MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes (' No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
The proposed plan is a build -out of the project site, with the road being constructed first to allow construction access, then the homes. There will be no additional development or
expansion of the site beyond what is shown on the attached Permit Drawings.

D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
rJ Wetlands
r Open Waters
2. Wetland Impacts
7 Streams -tributaries
r Pond Construction
rJ Buffers
2a. Site #* (?)
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W. *
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested *
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area*
1
Culvert
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WA
Yes
Both
0.044
(acres)
1
Access for Temp Pump
Around
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WA
Yes
Both
0.001
(acres)
2
Roadway Fill
P
Headwater Forest
WB
Yes
DWR
0.049
(acres)
2
Erosion Control
T
Headwater Forest
WB
Yes
DWR
0.036
(acres)
3
Driveway
P
Headwater Forest
WE
Yes
DWR
0.083
(acres)
4
Driveway
P
Headwater Forest
WE
Yes
DWR
0.029
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.037
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.242
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.205
2h. Comments:
Temporary wetland impact at Site 1 is less than 40 square feet, which is equal to less than 0.0009 acre of impact. Temporary wetland impact at Site 1
is for access for the temporary pump around of stream SA.
Wetland impacts at Sites 2, 3, and 4 are to wetlands that USACE has determined are isolated (excluded). See attached documentation.
3. Stream Impacts
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type*
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type*
(9)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction*
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
length*
S1
Road Crossing
Permanent
Culvert
SA
Perennial
Both
6
Average (feet)
44
(linear feet)
S2
Road Crossing
Permanent
Stabilization
SA
Perennial
Both
6
Average (feet)
56
(linear feet)
S3
Road Crossing
Temporary
Dewatering
SA
Perennial
Both
6
Average (feet)
26
(ling feet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
100
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
126
3j. Comments:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?
Check all that apply.
r Neuse
r Catawba
✓ Goose Creek
✓ Other
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
26
r" Tar -Pamlico
r Randleman
17 Jordan Lake

6b. Impact Type
Site 1 - Allowable with Authorization
6c. Per or Temp
P
6d. Stream name
SA
6e. Buffer mitigation required?
No
6f. Zone 1 impact
6g. Zone 2 impact
4,643
2,890
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Total Temporary impacts:
Total Permanent impacts:
Total combined buffer impacts:
6i. Comments:
Supporting Documentation
Zone 1
0.00
Zone 1
4,643.00
Zone 1
4,643.00
Zone 2
0.00
Zone 2
2,890.00
Zone 2
2,890.00
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
The road has been designed to cross stream SA perpendicularly as well as wetland WA at a narrower point. There was also a previous crossing at
this point, so the area is already slightly degraded. As the road bends in to the frontage of the 12 lots, it just slightly clips the edge of isolated wetland
WB. Where the road ends in the cul-de-sac, driveway crossings to Lots 7 and 8 will impact either side of isolated wetland WE. An equalizer pipe is
being installed under the driveway of Lot 7 to allow water to drain through. Stream SD is Collins Creek which has a high -quality associated wetland
complex on the eastern side of the parcel that will not be impacted. Collins Creek and the associated wetlands are part of the approximately 27 acres
that will be placed in a Conservation Easement that has been coordinated with Orange County.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Erosion and sedimentation BMPs wnlI be installed prior to construction. Construction has been sequenced and designed to avoid/minimize impacts by
locating temporary pump arounds away from features. Water will be diverted around the work area to prevent sedimentation of downstream aquatic
resources. Impacts will be minimized by strict enforcement of Best Management Practices for the protection of surface waters, restrictions against the
staging of equipment in or adjacent to waters of the US and coordination with appropriate environmental staff.
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?
r Yes
rHo
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
The development has been meticulously planned to avoid impacts to jurisdictional resources as well as uplands. The site cannot be developed without some impacts. These impacts
have been minimized to the extent practical (<0.10 ac. Section 404 wetland impacts and <150 linear feet of stream impacts, allowable buffer impacts). Jurisdictional resources not
impacted have been placed in a Conservation Easement. As such, compensatory mitigation is not proposed at this time.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR) L)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
s Yes
r No
What type of SCM are you providing?
n Level Spreader
n Vegetated Conveyance (lower SHWT)
n Wetland Swale (higher SHWT)
n Other SCM that removes minimum 30% nitrogen
17 Proposed project will not create concentrated stormwater flow through the buffer
Diffuse Flow Documentation
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
rYes rNo
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?

FYes rNo
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
✓ Yes 6' No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
✓ Yes f No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
✓ Yes 6 No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed project is a build -out of the project site. No additional development or expansion of the site is planned and no additional development
outside of the project site is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
✓ Yes 6'Nor N/A
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?*
6 Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
✓ Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
✓ Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
✓ Yes F No
6' No r Unknown
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
6 Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
✓ Yes 6' No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
✓ Yes 6' No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
✓ Yes 6.No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
IPAC; on -site protected species surveys
Consultation Documentation Upload
Array Subdivision USFWS Self -Certification Package.pdf
USFWS_Array Self Certification Receipt Email.pdf
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
✓ Yes 6* No
4.64MB
171.47KB
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*

NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
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?*
C- Yes a No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
HPOWEB, Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
Bakst_Memo(11-06-20).pdf 110 45KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
C- Yes r No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA Floodplain Maps
Miscellaneous
Comments
This PCN is being submitted before the 30-day period required for the state pre -filing meeting request. It is anticipated that USACE will be able to begin their review of the project upon
submission, but the applicant understands that NCDWR will not be able to start their review until after the 30-day period has ended (05/01/2021).
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Signature
*
,I By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Nancy Oberle
Signature
Date
4/16/2021

Authentisign ID: 0CB565D2-84A2-4674-A83E-CBF32E5DF6F8
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID: 9840435353
STREET ADDRESS: near 7900 Orange Grove Rd
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Please print:
Property owner; Stephen and Sharon Burt
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Nancy Oberle/Jim Mason of Three Oaks Engineering
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance
of this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
7951 Lake Ross Lane, Sanford, FL 32771
Telephone: [phone]
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.
James
Mason
Digitally signed by
James Mason
Date'. 2021.04.14
13'.10'.48 -04'00'
D
Nancy O b G I I G Date: 2021g 04.14y12 00 06 04I00'
Authorized Signature
Date: 04/14/2021
Stephen "wit
,-it1i/t 1id21 i pature
04/14/2021
Date:
EQ*-GtX(42 Al4et
4/14/2021 2:39:45 PM EDT
04/14/2021

Z
N
A
•
.t
•
•
•
•
'
r,
M
'
,
IN
r
1T
ID
v
I ERN I
1
'
,
•
i
I
I
,, FERN
/
CRfz-K C. � I �I
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, National Elevation Dataset, Geographic Names
'
Project Parcel Boundary
Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National
' Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; U.S. Census Bureau - TIGER/Line; HERE
Road Data
*V EER/N
S� ��,
1vo
eil-
.61 RI
W Q
y
'S
`443VCS*
Prepared For:
Real Estate Experts
Array Subdivision
PIN 9840435353
USGS Topo Map
Orange County, North Carolina
Dace. Aril 2021
p
FI 9
1
UCe
Scale: 0 100 200 Feet
Job No.:
21-102
Drawn By:
NMSO
Checked By:
MGW

USDA-NRCS Soil Survey
HrB: Herndon silt loam, 2-6% slopes
HrC: Herndon silt loam, 6-10% slopes
Lg: Lignum silt loam, 0-3% slopes
Project Parcel Boundary
@Jana [ D gitaIGlobe,goolEA Mates
AeroGRlDpopQKe(jpQE3 Lbw axkomonliy
�oMIEWAttraut
011 EER/,
yiziez
`�N/R331&' ?
Prepared For:
Real Estate Experts
Array Subdivision
PIN 9840435353
USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Map
Orange County, North Carolina
Date:
April 2021
Scale: 0
100 200 Feet
Job No.:
21-102
Drawn By:
Checked By:
NMSO
MGW
Figure
2

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): July 11, 2019
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington, SAW-2019-00741
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: NC County/parish/borough: Orange City: Chapel Hill
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.959068° I, Long. 79.192917° M.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Collins Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Haw River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 030300020507
ICheck if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
IOffice (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): May 30, 2019
SECTION It SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defmed by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
IWaters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There
"waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defmed by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
111 permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
12 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: A site visit with the USACE was conducted on May 30, 2019, during which Samantha Dailey determined that
Wetlands WB and WE were isolated (excluded).
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defmed as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IILA.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: .
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
General Area Conditions:
Watershed size:
Drainage area:
Average annual rainfall:
Average annual snowfall:
inches
inches
Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are
Project waters are
Project waters are
Project waters are
Intl List
Pick List
Pick List
Pick List
river miles from TNW.
river miles from RPW.
aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

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

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

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

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
ITributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
▪ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
ITributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
▪ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
▪ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
▪ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
▪ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
▪ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
1 Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
Iwhich are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain: .
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
ITributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
▪ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
▪ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
I Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
▪ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: USAGE
(Samantha Dailey) determined no significant nexus during a field visit on May 30, 2019.
▪ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
iiidgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a fmding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
INon -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: 1.42 acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
IMaps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
IData sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 24000 scale, White Cross, NC.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: .
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: .
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date): .
or ❑ Other (Name & Date): .
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter.
Applicable/supporting case law. .
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): .
❑❑❑❑ ❑❑®❑❑❑®
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

Potential Perennial Stream
Potential Intermittent Stream
Pipe
QApproved JD Review Area
Project_Parcel
Non -Jurisdictional Open Water
Potential Jurisdictional Wetland
Isolated, Non -Jurisdictional Wetland
120#4*
to % oz.
.94'433tiP
Prepared For:
Stephen Burt
Preliminary
Jurisdictional
Determination
Burt Tract
Jurisdictional Features Map
Orange County, North Carolina
Date: April 2021
Scale: 0 100 200 Feet
I I I
Job No.:
19-717
Drawn By:
NMSO
Checked By:
JSM
Figure
1

U.S.
FIEAI &WILDLIFE
SERVICE
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 04/14/2021
Self -Certification Letter
ProjectNameArray Subdivision
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
❑✓
o
o
"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
"no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the "no effect" or
"not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the "may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures - project review package

x
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2021-SLI-1018
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-02235
Project Name: Array Subdivision
April 14, 2021
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

04/14/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-02235 2
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].

04/14/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-02235 3
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

04/14/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-02235 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

04/14/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-02235 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2021-SLI-1018
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-02235
Project Name: Array Subdivision
Project Type: DEVELOPMENT
Project Description: Proposed subdivision in Orange County, NC
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@35.957671000000005,-79.18663699828144,14z
a n, b1e ka`
Counties: Orange County, North Carolina

04/14/2021
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-02235 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 1 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Fishes
NAME
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
STATUS
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

■ ■m
—E■~■ NC DEPARTMENT OF
■ EI= NATURAL AN❑ CULTURAL RESOURCES
■.■■■
April 14, 2021
Three Oaks
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street
Durham, NC 27701
RE: Array Subdivision
Dear Three Oaks:
Roy Cooper, Governor
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Walter Clark
Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-14472
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodnev.butlerncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOVRCES
Q 121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC 'M9.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Array Subdivision
April 14, 2021
NCNHDE-14472
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
N7=ged Ar=71arie Owner
Orange County Easement Orange County
Owner Type
Local Government
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/help. Data query generated on April 14, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q4 January 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Array Subdivision
April 14, 2021
NCNHDE-14472
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
Animal
Assemblage
Bird
Butterfly
Dragonfly or
Damselfly
Natural
Community
EO ID Scientific Name
Common Name Last
servation
Date
18241 Waterbird Colony Waterbird Colony
16506 Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo
34564 Erynnis martialis Mottled Duskywing
33764 Somatochlora Coppery Emerald
georgiana
13086 Dry-Mesic
Oak --Hickory Forest
(Piedmont Subtype)
2003
2001-05-13
1952-07-01
2004-Pre
2010
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating
Pickards Mountain R3 (High)
Element Accuracy
Occurrence
Rank
E 4-Low
CD 4-Low
H
H?
C?
5-Very
Low
5-Very
Low
2-High
Collective Rating
C5 (General)
Federal
Status
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Nam Owne Owner Type
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority Orange County Water and Sewer Authority Local Government
Property
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority Orange County Water and Sewer Authority Local Government
Property
Orange County Easement Orange County Local Government
Orange County Water and Sewer Authority Orange County Water and Sewer Authority Local Government
Property
;State
Global State
Rank Rank
GNR S3
Significantly G5 S2B
Rare
Significantly G3 S2
Rare
Significantly G3G4 S1?
Rare
G4G5 S4
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on April 14, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q4 January 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

April 14, 2021
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Managed Area (MAREA)
NCNHDE-14472: Array Subdivision
watery Fork
Floral pr Twirl Stream• Rn
Hawk Ridge Rd
0 0.2
� r ,
0 0.3
Dodsons
Crossroads
1:23,180
0.4
0.6
0.8 mi
1.2 km
Sources' Esri, HERE, Garmia, Intermap, increment P Corp_. GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esn Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 4 of 4

Natural Resources Inventory
Cheek -Swan and Burt Parcels (PINs: 9840439598 and 9840339815)
Off SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road)
Chapel Hill, Orange County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Jodi Bakst
Real Estate Experts
501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 140
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Prepared by:
5otEER/y�
alWci
LOA
tall"
o
S�
` 44330-
December 2019

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Topics Covered In Natural Resources Inventory 1
3.0 Methodology 2
3.1. Pre -Field Investigation Database Search 2
3.2. Field Investigation 2
3.2.1. Floristics, Natural Communities, Topography, and Geology 2
3.2.2. Faunal Communities 2
3.2.3. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys 3
3.2.4. Water Resources 3
3.2.5. Historic/Cultural Resources 3
3.2.6. Public, Conserved, and/or Recreational Lands and Scenic Resources 3
4.0 Results 3
4.1.1. Floristics, Natural Communities, Topography, and Geology 4
4.1.2. Faunal Communities 5
4.1.3. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys 6
4.1.4. Water Resources 7
4.1.5. Historic/Cultural Resources 8
4.1.6. Public, Conserved, and/or Recreational Lands and Scenic Resources 8
5.0 Conclusions 8
6.0 References 10
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Species in Orange
County
List of Tables
Table 1. Coverage of Terrestrial Communities 5
Table 2. ESA federally protected species listed for Orange County 6
Table 3. Potential streams in the study area 7
Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area 7
Table 5 Potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area 8
Table 6. Potential surface waters in the study area 8
Table 7. Floodplains for potential jurisdictional streams in the study area 8
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page i

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) performed a Natural Resources Inventory for the
subject project. The study site is north of Fern Creek Lane and east along SR 1006 (Orange
Grove Road) in Chapel Hill, Orange County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). The study site is
comprised of two parcels (PINS: 9840439598 and 9840339815) totaling approximately 56 acres.
This inventory will be used to assist in the site development plan and to obtain verification for
the National Green Building Standard (NGBS) for Green Land Development. This survey
covers, but is not limited to, features such as historic buildings and landscapes, forest stands,
streams and associated riparian buffers, floodplains, wetlands, threatened and endangered species
and their associated habitats, steep slopes or other special topographic or geological features, and
public, conserved, or recreational lands (see full list below). This inventory provides a
qualitative reference and baseline inventory of these environmental resources within the area of
interest/study area.
2.0 TOPICS COVERED IN NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
In order to satisfy the requirements for the NGBS Green Land Development guidelines, the
following topics are covered by the following natural resources inventory:
1. Historic buildings and landscapes and other cultural resources
2. Public, Conserved, and/or Recreational Lands
3. Scenic Resources
4. Contiguous forest stands
5. Specimen trees of varying sizes and species
6. Large trees with a diameter -at -breast height (DBH) 24" or greater
7. Field or open -grown trees
8. Tree lines and forest edges
9. Watercourses (i.e., perennial and intermittent drainages) and their associated
riparian buffers
10. Lakes and ponds
11. Wetlands
12. Floodplains
13. Federally threatened and endangered species and their associated habitats
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 1

14. At Risk Species likely to be present which may warrant protection
15. Notable topographical or geological resources (e.g., steep slopes or rock
outcroppings)
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1. Pre -Field Investigation Database Search
Prior to conducting field surveys, Three Oaks staff reviewed previously documented survey
results , regarding rare plant and animal species and natural communities, that included the area
of interest. Resources used to review this information include: The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) systematic inventory database of rare plant and animal species; the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) website; and the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of threatened and endangered species for Orange County.
Appendix B contains a list of Threatened, Endangered and At Risk Species known from Orange
County. Other online resources, such as the United States Depaitiuent of Agriculture (USDA),
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) — Soil Survey of Orange County; USDA Web
Soil Survey (WSS); and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) mapping website were also
used in the pre -field investigation phase of this survey.
3.2. Field Investigation
Three Oaks staff conducted the site investigation on October 25, 2019. The investigation
consisted of floral and faunal inventories, a natural community inventory, threatened and
endangered species inventories, topographic and geologic surveys, dendrological surveys, and
historical/cultural surveys. Stream and wetland delineations were completed between April —
June 2019 as part of a separate contract and are included in this document.
3.2.1. Floristics, Natural Communities, Topography, and Geology
A floristic and natural community survey was conducted during the field investigation by Three
Oaks staff. Natural communities follow those described in Schafale (2012). A natural
community is defined as, "A distinct and reoccurring assemblage of populations of plants,
animals, bacteria, and fungi naturally associated with each other and their physical
environment". Natural communities significantly altered by human disturbance typically do not
fall into a natural classification and are thus categorized in general terms (e.g., pine forest,
shrub/scrub, maintained/disturbed, etc.). Forest stands, specimen trees, open -grown trees, trees
of significant size, and forest edges and tree lines were also surveyed for in conjunction with the
natural communities and overall floristic inventory. Due to their ecological influence on one
another, topographic and geologic features were also noted during this portion of the survey.
3.2.2. Faunal Communities
Three Oaks staff conducted a faunal inventory during the field investigation. This inventory
included field identification of species encountered (visual observation of species, scat and/or
tracks) to the highest taxonomic level as practicable in the allocated timeframe. Important faunal
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 2

locations, if any, observed during the field investigation were noted and mapped. A list of
potential species that could be located at the site was also compiled.
3.2.3. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys
In addition to database searches prior to field work, Three Oaks staff surveyed for terrestrial
federally protected species, candidate species, and their associated habitats while on -site. The
NCNHP Data Explorer website was referenced to determine proximity of nearest federally
protected species occurrences. Aquatic species were assessed to determine whether they could
potentially be located within the area of interest; however, they were not surveyed as part of this
contract.
3.2.4. Water Resources
Three Oaks staff conducted a jurisdictional waters assessment (including streams, wetlands,
ponds, lakes) of the site using methods set forth by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR; streams) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE;
wetlands, ponds, lakes). This investigation (excluding floodplains, which were part of the
current contract) was completed under a separate contract in April 2019 and revised in June 2019
after a site verification meeting with regulatory agencies was held on May 30, 2019. The
information in this document reflects any changes made during the site verification meeting.
Floodplains were analyzed for the current document using existing topographic mapping and
Quality Level 2 (QL2) LiDAR.
3.2.5. Historic/Cultural Resources
Three Oaks staff surveyed for significant cultural and historical buildings and structures while
on -site, as well as public, conserved, or recreational lands and scenic resources. Any potential
structures that may have been located immediately adjacent to the property were also noted.
Three Oaks also ran the subject property through the SHPO data explorer and National Park
Service (NPS) National Register of Historic Places viewer to verify the absence of significant
historical and cultural features on the site.
3.2.6. Public, Conserved, and/or Recreational Lands and Scenic Resources
Three Oaks staff surveyed the site for public, conserved, and/or recreational lands and scenic
resources during the site visit. The NCNHP Data Explorer, which has a database of all such
resources, was also reviewed.
4.0 RESULTS
This section provides results for the detailed surveys listed in Section 3 (see above).
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 3

4.1.1. Floristics, Natural Communities, Topography, and Geology
Natural Communities & Floristics
Four community types are located within the study area (Figure 4). Coverage of these
communities is included in Table 1. These community types include:
Maintained/Disturbed: The maintained/disturbed community is comprised of a residential yard
and horse pasture area at the western end of the project area, as well as a power line right-of-way
near the eastern end of the project area. The vegetation in this community is variable and
characterized by herbs, shrubs, and trees. Non-native invasive plant species tend to proliferate in
these communities, which is evident in this site. This community is highly variable in plant
associations with some areas lacking canopy and sub -canopy structure due to routine
maintenance; therefore, it cannot be associated with a natural plant community.
Dry oak -hickory forest (Piedmont subtype): Dry oak -hickory forests are characterized by
upland hardwood forests of acidic soils in the driest typical topographic positions, on south
slopes and ridge tops; where white oak (Quercus alba), post oak (Q. stellata), and southern red
oak (Q. falcata) predominate in the canopy. They contain acid -tolerant flora and lack more base -
loving plants. This community exists in the easternmost corner of the project. Species observed
within this community include northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak, post oak, mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), and species of Viburnum and Chasmanthium. There are also
sections of the study area that fall into this community but are differentiated by a loblolly pine-
(Pinus taeda) dominant canopy and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) dominant understory.
Pignut hickory (Carya glabra), white oak, red maple (Acer rubrum), and tree -of -heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) are also present. This pine -dominant variant exists as a successional result
of disturbance in the central and northwestern parts of the study area.
Piedmont headwater stream forest (Typic subtype): These communities contain species of
broad ecological tolerance and of upland species, but occur on distinct floodplains, have
vegetation in combinations not usually found in upland community types, and have a few
floodplain species. These communities are distinguished from other floodplain communities by
the absence of alluvial species such as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula
nigra), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). This community exists in the eastern section of the
study area surrounding Stream SD. Species observed in this area include tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum, red maple, Vaccinium sp., mockernut hickory, ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Upland pool (Typic Piedmont subtype): This community includes depression wetlands that
hold enough water to sustain a tree canopy. These wetlands are not associated with rivers or
streams. Some trees may be present within the pool but are mainly present around pool edges.
The pool may be partially shaded by nearby trees but should have sufficient light to allow shade -
intolerant plants to survive within the pool. This community is present in two of the wetlands in
the study area, Wetlands WB and WE. Species found in this community include loblolly pine,
sweetgum, and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 4

Table 1. Coverage of Terrestrial Communities
Community
Coverage (ac.)
Maintained/Disturbed
3.4
Dry oak -hickory forest
(Piedmont subtype)
45.8
Piedmont headwater stream
forest (Typic subtype)
5.5
Upland pool (Typic
Piedmont subtype)
1.5
Total
56.2
Thirty-eight large trees (greater than 24" DBH)/small groups of large trees were observed during
the site visit. The locations of these trees and their species are depicted on Figure 5. All trees
were both GPS'ed with sub -meter accuracy and flagged in the field. No field or open -grown
trees were observed. Tree lines/forest edges within the area of interest were located at the
western end, where the forest transitions to maintained pasture, and the eastern end, where the
power line runs through the site.
Topography and Geology
The elevation in the study area ranges between 540 — 580 feet above sea level (FASL).
Geologically, the project is located within the Carolina Slate Belt. However, no significant,
unique or otherwise notable topographic or geologic resources were identified within the study
area.
4.1.2. Faunal Communities
Three Oaks staff conducted an observational inventory of fauna within the study area. Fauna
identified (by observation or other indicators, such as call, scat, or tracks) or species likely to be
found on -site are listed below (those identified in the field are indicated with an asterisk).
Species include, but are not limited to, the following:
Birds
1) Black vulture*
(Coragyps atratus)
2) American robin
(Turdus migratorius)
3) Northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis)
4) Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis)
5) Tufted titmouse*
(Baeolophus bicolor)
6) Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus)
7) Barred owl
(Strix varia)
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
8) Red -shouldered hawk*
(Buteo lineatus)
9) Red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis)
Mammals
1) Gray squirrel*
(Sciurus carolinensis)
2) Raccoon
(Procyon lotor)
3) Coyote
(Canis latrans)
4) Gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
December 2019
Page 5

5) White-tailed deer*
(Odocoileus virginianus)
Herps
1) Box turtle*
(Terrapene carolina carolina)
2) Black rat snake
(Pantherophis obsoletus)
3) Copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix)
4) American toad
(Anaxyrus americanus)
5) Cope's gray treefrog
(Hyla chrysoscelis)
6) Green anole
(Anolis carolinensis)
Aquatic
1) Crayfish*
(Cambarus spp.)
2) Mosquitofish*
(Gambusia affinis)
3) Northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus)
4) Various benthic macroinvertebrates*
4.1.3. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys
As of December 2, 2019, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists five federally
protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Orange County. In addition to
these species, three additional species, one listed as Proposed Endangered and two listed as
Proposed Threatened, are also listed in Orange County (Table 2).
Table 2. ESA federally protected species listed for Orange County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Notropis mekistocholas
Cape Fear shiner
E
Unknown
Unresolved
Nocurus furiosus
Carolina madtom
PE
No
No Effect
Necturus lewisi
Neuse River waterdog
PT
No
No Effect
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
PT
No
No Effect
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
No
No Effect
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Yes
No Effect
Lindera melissifolia
Pondberry
E
Yes
No Effect
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
Yes
No Effect
E — Endangered ; PE — Proposed Endangered; PT — Proposed Threatened
Three Oaks identified no terrestrial threatened or endangered species within the study area.
Additionally, no aquatics species, except for Cape Fear shiner, occur within this portion of
Orange County (it is outside of their known ranges). The project does occur within the range of
Cape Fear shiner. Although no known occurrences of this species occur in the county, Collins
Creek in the study area cannot be ruled out as potential habitat at this time. If Collins Creek is
potentially impacted in the future, a habitat assessment/survey will be required.
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 6

A review of the October 2019 NCNHP dataset revealed no known occurrences of protected
species within the project site or within 1.0 mile of the project.
4.1.4. Water Resources
The study area is part of the Cape Fear River Basin (United States Geological Survey [USGS]
Hydrologic Unit [HUC] 03030002) and are subject to the Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer Rules
administered by NCDWR.
Four potential streams/stream channels were identified in the study area (Tables 3 and 4). The
locations of these potential streams are shown on Figure 3. These features were field verified by
regulatory agencies in May 2019.
Table 3. Potential streams in the study area
Stream Name
Map
ID
NCDWR
Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Bank
Height
(ft.)
Bankfull
width
(ft.)
Depth
(in.)
Unnamed Tributary
(UT) to Collins
Creek
SA
16-30-(0.5)
WS-V; NSW
1-4
3-6
4-18
UT to Collins Creek
SB
16-30-(0.5)
WS-V; NSW
1-2
1-3
2-10
UT to Collins Creek
SC
16-30-(0.5)
WS-V; NSW
1-2
1-2
2-8
Collins Creek
SD
16-30-(0.5)
WS-V; NSW
3-5
8-10
4-36
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters within 1.0
mile downstream of the study area. Watery Fork (NCDWR Index No. 16-27-4-[2]), which is 0.8
mile north of the study area, is classified as Water Supply II (WS-II), High Quality Water
(HQW), Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW), and Critical Area (CA). However, it is not
downstream of the project site or Collins Creek, but in its own sub -watershed leading to the Haw
River. The North Carolina 2018 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies Collins Creek
within the area of interest as impaired due to poor benthos (NAR AL, FW). No other impaired
waters were found within the project site or within 1.0 mile downstream of the project.
Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID
Length
(ft.)
Classification
Compensatory
Mitigation Required
River Basin
Buffer
SA
1,071
Perennial
Yes
Subject
SB
223
Perennial
Yes
Subject
SC
167
Intermittent
No
Not Subject
SD
1,708
Perennial
Yes
Subject
Total
3,169
Five potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Table 5). The
locations of these wetlands are shown on Figure 3. These features were also verified by agencies
in May 2019.
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 7

['able 5 Potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area
Map ID
NCWAM Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
Area (ac.)
WA
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
2.20
WB
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.99
WC
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.01
WD
Headwater Forest
Riparian
1.64
WE
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.43
Total
5.27
One potential surface water was identified within the study area (Table 6). The location of this
pond is shown on Figure 3.
Table 6. Potential surface waters in the study area
Surface Water
Map ID of
Connection
Area (ac.)
PA
N/A
1.25
Floodplains along all potential jurisdictional streams were calculated using both current
topographic mapping and QL2 LiDAR and are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Floodnlains for potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID
Floodplain Area (ac.)
FEMA Zone (if
applicable)
Based off
LiDAR/Topo or
FEMA?
SA/SB Complex
5.23
N/A
LiDAR/Topo
SC/SD Complex
11.37
N/A
LiDAR/Topo
Total
16.60
4.1.5. Historic/Cultural Resources.
No historic or cultural resources were identified within the study area during the site visit.
Additionally, neither the SHPO interactive mapping service nor the NPS National Register of
Historic Places identifies any historical or cultural structures, properties, or other objects of
notable importance within the area of interest or within proximity of the project site.
4.1.6. Public, Conserved, and/or Recreational Lands and Scenic Resources
No public, conserved, and/or recreational lands are located within the project site. However,
there is an Orange County easement (per the NCNHP Data Explorer) at the eastern end of Fern
Creek Lane along Collins Creek. No Scenic Resources are present with the project area.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The study area is comprised of forests with varying levels of disturbance, which harbor floral and
faunal assemblages typical of such habitats. There appear to be no significant or sensitive
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 8

natural habitats within the area of interest that would support rare flora and fauna. However,
additional aquatic assessments for the Cape Fear shiner in Collins Creek (Stream SD) may be
required if it were to be impacted by any future development. No protected flora or fauna were
discovered during site visits. Four potential jurisdictional streams, five potential jurisdictional
wetlands, and one pond were identified on the project site. No historical or cultural resources
were identified on the project site.
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 9

6.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual,
memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.
North Carolina Depailiuent of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2019. Final 2018 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2017. Protected Wildlife Species
of North Carolina. Accessed: December 5, 2019.
https://www.ncwildlife. org/Portals/0/Learning/documents/Publications/Conserving/ETSC
UPDATE 120117 FINAL.pdf.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2019. Natural Heritage Data Explorer
[Web Application], October 2019 quarterly dataset. NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC.
http://ncnhde.natureserve.org. (Accessed: December 5, 2019).
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO). 2019. HPOWEB 2.0 [Web
Application]. NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC.
https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=79ea671 ebdcc45639f0860
257d5f5ed7. (Accessed: December 5, 2019).
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Raleigh, North Carolina. 208 pp.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed.
J. F. Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-12-9.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Web Soil Survey; https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). 1977. Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina.
United States Depailiuent of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National
Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 10

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina: Orange County. Updated December 2, 2019.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/orange.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Species Status Assessment Report for
the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Version 1.3.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/167891.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Cape Fear shiner. http://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/fish/CFS_Fact Sheetl.pdf.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas).
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/fish/cfshiner.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Species Status Assessment Report for
the Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus), Version 1.1.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/161998.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Dwarf Wedgemussel.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es dwarf wedgemussel.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Michaux's Sumac.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/esmichauxssumac.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Species Status Assessment Report for
the Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi), Version 1.1.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/161997.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry
(Lindera melissifolia). Atlanta, Georgia. 56 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Smooth Coneflower Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 31 pp.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. White Cross, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
Weakley, Alan S. (Working Draft) 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States.
University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina Botanical Garden.
Chapel Hill, NC. 1,320 pp
Orange Grove Road
Three Oaks Job No. 19-618
December 2019
Page 11

Appendix A
Figures

N
Legend
nArea of Interest
Orange Co. Parcels
Roads
Prepared For:
Jodi Bakst
Real Estate Experts
501 Eastowne Drive
Suite 140
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Orange Grove Road
Natural Resources Inventory
PINs: 9840439598 and 9840339815
Vicinity Map
Orange County, North Carolina
Dale.
December 2019
Scale.
0
190
380 Feet
I
I
Job No.
19-618
Drawn By:
Checked By'.
JSM
PG
Figure
1

1
1
17
SPq;
Z
a.
16"sma\
•
lior ■
r
m
0
•
apci
c
c
O i- 1
Fern rs -
k
Floral
Q ■
f
[ Twin Streams
Legend
AiLli
Area of Interest
1 Orange Co. Parcels
•
Roads
���1WfiVikG
o
4-+
*0. lifit if
4241/833&
Prepsrec For:
Jodi Bakst
Real Estate Experts
501 Eastowne Drive
Suite 140
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Orange Grove Road
Natural Resources Inventory
PINs: 9840439598 and 9840339815
Topographic Map
Orange County, North Carolina
Date:
December2019
Figure
LJ
sae:
0 190 380 Feet
obNo.:
19-618
Drawn By
JSM
Checked By
PG

%AC,1KIERjy
W
1
y
8331il
> .7• -•. -. , ..•
N .. ti .. 4 'Z't?1q'- :•r.? s.%-1r_.r ri R Y� yz ` ,.
r' :;;-1.% :,,,, •.,. 'x, ��y .1y1
j,.:- i- yr• Y -fir •, •�' 7 ' 'e` d/ • • x i I
... ti
n F`' --'iA :•'r: �.= gu: 4 +�%''``a �"
'+.l. 1' . fir.. : wy 6 -y Y ;.r
:• . , f►' S. 'p t_!:
. A.
!.II. 1']{
i
• i T
Legend
Area of Interest
Potential Non -Wetland WOOS Stream
Perennial ( )3
nter ittent
Potential Wetland WOOS
Jurisdictional Wetland
Isolated, Non -Jurisdictional Wetland
Non -Jurisdictional Open Water
Re• nds
Prepared For:
Jodi Bakst
Real Estate Experts
501 Eastowne Drive
Suite 140
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
iPry��p;yr-
} 1:•.c. ,ti.• �.� _,-•- : r,:•' :-•" - `..
Y+ lit, Y,gy :?-`i,,•
•
II•
p r ;_ t,SB '� r
�` :. yA , • ma_" ! I' ; V.' � y .
, R h :r ,,.t r•�' .
I�� - ' . , y - - 7 �'ti �., W.- • _41 ? � _ _ ' •;: ter.' ,, - '� ••' ; . s -
i CDC *t '• • v , i
10 ikrr ,}}��a� i / i +' �' ��� f A, �• ?I , f.. 4 r A1'4r
Orange Grove Road
Natural Resources
Inventory
PINsIn9840439598
and 9840339815
Jurisdictional
Resources
Map
Orange County, North Carolina
rO
�rt
..,, . ti'1'.r.:...: s . a .; }x`'' riE��
w Yr RN �� r..:�:�: r.•• VC Rs w. i• A
} . �J • eR :` w . „ rr+S� ,�, e ace ` y 'n t ,
, _• �r ; ,r.l.' 4- k• .. t••t• 7+t '^ •.4, s� Yam' , � r Y-
:r r . �. , ' .; "wk � , '"�`- vim-• �� . :. ': -r-•t*?e,• ,'#• r= . N ;14
y L s �. L,� ' w s f�'�• ►0. t• ^ter -• C
-s:. • ` w• • r
} ,'�, I' }t,:r ,?#` ;., _.: X: •r WA N.v I\::..ry'. '' .LtP.• •�} 4 ...- �':i L,,.7...........,.l•i, ;;v. kfe •, y- •_
a • 4. N•' .1 a. y . 4 :. "` L:: .f
r.x ;;, SL. �..' ._ . k• brit Mom' ti + ^7 � �o •t
y '- 'Y •.. •'tiyy .. r - er>
- : ,►1$}„ • � lsue ice' `tiY' �. j•><•
:1;, ^^rSS 2 �' hs ;: it •; L• - yi^�%:' T ' _' ' '�i ..v
',y`, _ -ys { :.:"1` ��A.F*,L� 1�.^ :�i�r:!•i►y .r.. �. tie
•
ti� ' i_4 _ T `' ++ +'+§`k y A 4{ s7+ 4_{ '�
r,�• RR l . { i .1 •. a� .ry
��. + + .2tix��' :i�f'� .. � ir:r'-t `��.ri� ,�� � - � r't:L�Y.".�,y^�k'•i�v'���.:--5+�T�":"`•
^r�.jf .. *�:.y•,.•.. . • �SL�yr ;0
•'•
a-I19618
� `vi •'-- Sel= - :A }r Y; :r.,....r...:::t1
+ ir...' .� Yr: •"•S'? Sy �,
•
r % s * r_:- f ••.fi, •r Rrti{a,S •Yn 'n"tir r.. v'!- • ]I.S.. • - -5 tr{. ." ,,..� •.r: ti'�
{ •�� e * .' a ;�} .t #"I' .- ' x•f.��. j a t•.
•
+.�' .. w .+' •
' 3!�. ::: • a�,.,
r 6 + 1 ' *.l' �• .:;.. pfir-'_ ., .,tir: ..
- J Qwitor 770.°y-.i 13Jr t ui uArr-mh3b
Date
December 2019
Scale:•
110 220 Feet
I I
Job No.:
Drawn By:
JSM
Checked By:
PG
Figure

..,r 0 Wit
.�3.
3 08)30
^
[ w. I
- '
P• • t'yay = .� �•; ,.t. k.
Legend
l Area of Interest Terrestrial Communities Potential Non -Wetland WOUS (Stream)
Potential Wetland WOUS
DOHF (Piedmont Subtype) - Pine Dominant Perennial
Jurisdictional Wetland DOHF (Piedmont Subtype)
Intermittent
Isolated, Non -Jurisdictional Wetland Maintained/Disturbed - Roads
Non -Jurisdictional Open Water Piedmont Headwater Forest(Typic Subtype)
Upland Pool
L
Prepared For:
Jodi Bakst
Real Estate Experts
501 Eastowne Drive
Suite 140
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
r,• ' aJ!�'..: .�Y C� y'�.•-' �, ;,`-'•,:.. ti , r
+� ••Ir • • - a + rt `w •yr • R . r,, - Mr'=:_:wr; :;sue;,'•:`?'` ;. y'.
2` r• r g Y- r "
r �'I y is
• �� ;`.. ti- i'1y''.e. 1, c. y ;- f: t `; }�' ' • ;' '" ..
191
I`{10 ilL"__4YI ypi irT _ ..
. r" -i- +' 7. Gf2.
1I VD;'* ` +. r•'' F� -" P ti
'
III Gi `+ } y� �x 4- , }' ' -y .. ... .
' a.y. ` �"
Orange Grove Road
Natural Resources
Inventory
PINs: 9840439598
and 9840339815
Terrestrial
Communities
Map
Orange County, North Carolina
--
o
v e �-:.1:'�"'' .,
0.h: • , i }� •a _ ..
F
o*i � I
�•�.ta •J �'-Y �•� p.
•�x b, ip
•.1
7 �:+ -•., iV 14 • y �:.� ac+•- c ` •_;. ' r '1 ,;:
zr iu y r� '�x y`
�.�.rr `a1` • - - 17- •? C
J}1Y ;'• .�+ •r - ai y -
v ,,
Date: December 2019
Scale:
0 110 220 Feet
I I I
Job No.:
j7c
, I
to C. .;;;;,�•
•. ; •}� �.;[a .1 y.
_ x __ ,.�!! .A 700 . i1;r'. i •.•1 +r Fi ,,. �' y, r)r,yr •Ity ' • 'E••`'- }:•
•
; c - =.1 : a! - .. • ,* art - .,--
'4b� • ( ! 1:} .;:.� `ate,
�. Mom, �- l `' al . { iCw 'h n'f(;
'1a r To? a•°S,�r2A%IG7tJ Ji]LAytit ,b
7 1 . .Zi �re ,� rr
Drawn By:
JSM
Checked By:
PG
Figure
__.

Mixed Harwood Stand
v
•
• `e
•
Legend
O 24' DBH or Greater Tree Potential Wetland WOOS
QArea of Interest Jurisdictional Wetland
Potential Non -Wetland WOUS (Stream) I I Isolated, Non -Jurisdictional Wetland
Perennial Non -Jurisdictional Open Water
Intermittent - Roads
Red Maple, Sweetgurn, White Oak Stand
r-
•
Red Maple, White Oak, Hickory Stand
� � titERI yer
O%VI
Prepared For:
Jodi Bakst
Real Estate Experts
501 Eastowne Drive
Suite 140
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Orange Grove Road
Natural Resources
Inventory
PINs: 9840439598
and 9840339815
24" Diameter at
Breast Height (DBH)
or Greater
Trees
Orange County, North Carolina
Date
December 2019
Scale:
0 120 240 Feet
I I
Job No.:
Drawn By:
JSM
19-618
Checked By:
PG
Figure
5

Appendix B
Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Species in
Orange County

United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and At Risk Species, Orange County, North
Carolina, Updated: 12-02-2019 (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/orange.html)
Common Name
Scientific name
Federal
Status
Record Status
Habitat
Present
Observed
(Y/N)
Vertebrate
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA
Current
No
No
Cape Fear shiner
Notropis mekistocholas
E
Current
Unknown
--
Carolina madtom
Noturus furiosus
PE
Current
No
No
Neuse River waterdog
Necturus lewisi
PT
Current
No
No
Invertebrate
Atlantic pigtoe
Fusconaia masoni
PT
Current
No
No
Brook floater
Alasmidonta varicosa
ARS
Current
Unknown
--
Dwarf wedgemussel
Alasmidonta heterodon
E
Current
No
No
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
ARS
Current
Unknown
--
Savannah lilliput
Toxolasma pullus
ARS
Current
Unknown
--
Vascular Plant
Michaux's sumac
Rhus michauxii
E
Historic
Yes
No
Pondberry
Lindera melissifolia
E
Current
Yes
No
Smooth coneflower
Echinacea laevigata
E
Historic
Yes
No
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range."
BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
ARS = At Risk Species. Species that are Petitioned, Candidates or Proposed for Listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA is not required for Candidate or Proposed species; although a Conference, as
described under Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA is recommended for actions affecting species proposed for listing.
P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as "PE" or "PT", respectively.
Definitions of Record Status:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Obscure - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Bald and Golden Ea2le Protection Act (BGPA):
"In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register (72:37346-37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and
removed (de -listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took
effect August 8,2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C.
668-668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and
golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb". The USFWS has
developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers,
landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles. For more information, visit
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/baldeagle.htm" (USFWS 2019).

Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
April 15, 2021
Jodi Bakst
Real Estate Experts
501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 140
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Subject: Array Subdivision Aquatic Survey Memo, PIN 9840435353, Chapel Hill, Orange County, NC
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) completed a Natural Resources Inventory on the subject project in
December 2019. Findings of that report were that no habitat exists on the subject property for threatened or
endangered species, except for the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). On April 9, 2021, Three Oaks
personnel, led by Tom Dickinson (USFWS License No. Te102324-0; NCWRC Permit No. NC ES 34) performed a fish
survey on the subject property of the unnamed tributary (UT) to Collins Creek, which will be impacted by a roadway
crossing for the proposed property. Collins Creek, which is also on the subject property, will not be impacted by the
project and will be protected by a conservation easement. The survey team assessed the survey reach depicted in
the attached map. Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) comprised the whole of the fish fauna in the UT. As no
other fish species were found and considering the small size and distance to known Cape Fear Shiner records, the
proposed project will have No Effect on the Cape Fear Shiner.
Sincerely,
Ill H
Nancy S. Oberle
Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
[phone]
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

1
Project Parcel Boundary
Potential Perennial Stream
Potential Intermittent Stream
Pipe
Potential Jurisdictional Wetland
Isolated, Non -Jurisdictional Wetland
Non -Jurisdictional Open Water
Cape Fear Streams
tu_k.1\
INW
Egtglo
Doo ohrd ao (gig MAP
liK(4.10
otEER/,ti..1\4k1
Prepared For:
Real Estate Experts
Array Subdivision
PIN 9840435353
Field Survey Map
Orange County, North Carolina
Date:
April 2021
Scale: 0
100 200 Feet
Job No.:
21-102
Drawn By:
Checked By:
NMSO
MGW
Figure
2

Jim Mason
From: Nancy Oberle
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 4:35 PM
To: Jim Mason
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Array Subdivision, Chapel Hill, NC - USFWS Online Project Review Certification Letter
Is this what you typically get after sending that email?
From: Raleigh, FW4 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 4:32 PM
To: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automatic reply: [EXTERNAL] Array Subdivision, Chapel Hill, NC - USFWS Online Project Review Certification
Letter
Thank you for submitting your online project package. We will review your package within 30 days of
receipt. If you have submitted an online project review request letter, expect our response within 30
days. If you have submitted an online project review certification letter, you will typically not receive a
response from us since the certification letter is our official response. However, if we have additional
questions or we do not concur with your determinations, we will contact you during the review period.
i

ORANGE COUNTY
Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
MEMORANDUM
To: Patrick R. Mallett, Planner II, Planning and Inspections Department
From:
Christian Hirni, DEAPR Land Conservation Manager
Peter Sandbeck, DEAPR Cultural Resources Coordinator
Date: November 6, 2020
Re: Bakst Minor Subdivision- Flexible Development
Thank you the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Bakst Minor subdivision. The
development would create 12 single-family lots on approximately 60 acres located east of Orange Grove
Road (Haw River Unprotected Watershed). The subject property is compiled of two separate parcels
(PIN's 9840-33-9815 and 9840-43-9598).
The property is directly adjacent to a County -held conservation easement along the southeastern border
upon land owned by Michael Hughes and Dale Morgan. The purpose of that conservation easement is to
permanently protect the forested buffer of Collins Creek in its current state of mature bottom land and
upland mixed pine hardwood forest types and the wildlife associated with such. Collins Creek, and a
small tributary flow through and along the entire eastern boundary of the subject property.
DEAPR comments on subdivisions are generally intended to a) address any concerns with respect to
potential impacts on important natural or cultural resources, and b) identify any areas that might be
desirable for possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open space pursuant to Section 7.11.5
of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Natural Resources Review Comments:
The plan calls for setting aside 31 acres of Open Space (56 percent) including areas around the farm pond,
riparian buffers that help protect Collins Creek along the eastern boundary and an unnamed tributary
through the center of the property, and most of the wetlands as delineated within the site plan. The
proposed Open Space appears to be adequate to protect the stream corridors and all of the Jurisdictional"
wetlands. The open space area a was determined after a Natural Resource Inventory conducted by Three
Oaks Engineering in Durham, NC that the developer has provided a copy to DEAPR staff. The inventory
does not have a listed author or contact information.
There are, however, two areas delineated as "non jurisdictional wetlands" within the Natural Resource
Inventory performed by Three Oaks Engineering and confirmed by DEAPR staff during a recent visit. It
appears the northern most occurrences of these isolated, upland pools will be located within the proposed
Open Space. The southernmost occurrence appears to be partially contained within the Open Space, with
a portion being cut off by either the construction of the cul-de-sac or by the southeastern most lot (Lot 7).
Final determination of delineated wetlands and protective measures is left to the appropriate, regulatory
authorities. It is DEAPR staff recommendation that the entirety of the isolated wetlands be contained
within the protected Open Space to allow for the continuance of wildlife benefits associated with these
ecosystems.

Overall, the plan appears consistent with the County's desire to minimize adverse environmental impacts
with respect to the protection of floodplains, wetlands, natural areas and wildlife habitat. There are no
additional natural resource areas of high significance (e.g., natural heritage sites, proposed wildlife
corridors, threatened or endangered species) located on this property that would warrant further potential
DEAPR recommendations for open space.
Cultural Resources Review Comments: There are no previously identified historic properties or resources
located on the subject parcel. The existing stone chimney feature located adjacent to the picnic shelter
appears to date from the mid -late 20th century; it was built to serve as a heat/cooking source for the picnic
shelter, using local rocks found on the site and thus may incorporate stones salvaged from a fallen
chimney of an earlier house that once stood there. This feature is not historic.
As with any development, care should be taken to locate, identify and protect any potential human burial
sites or cemeteries. The current Cemetery Census does not show any identified burials on this parcel.
Anyone who encounters what appears to be a burial or grave should immediately contact the Orange
County Cultural Resources Coordinator at 919-245-2517
If you have questions please contact Christian at x-2514 or Peter at x-2517.