SW5211202_Wetland Determination/Report_20220203

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar
Middlesex, Nash County, North Carolina
July 14, 2015
Terracon Project No. EN 147040
Prepared for:
Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC
Santa Monica, CA
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
North Charleston, South Carolina

Ire1 31N11115•]091•]►111Ell ►11&?
1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................................1
3.0
PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS................................................1
3.1
Topographic Map.........................................................................................................2
3.2
Aerial Photographs.......................................................................................................2
3.3
National Wetland Inventory Map...................................................................................2
3.4
National Hydrology Dataset..........................................................................................3
3.5
Soil Survey...................................................................................................................3
4.0
FIELD INVESTIGATION..............................................................................................5
4.1
Hydric Soils Assessment..............................................................................................5
4.2
Wetland Hydrology Assessment...................................................................................5
4.3
Plant Community Assessment......................................................................................5
4.4
Classification of Wetlands............................................................................................7
4.5
Surface Water and Drainage Feature Observations.....................................................7
5.0
FIELD DELINEATION RESULTS................................................................................8
5.1
Jurisdictional Wetlands.................................................................................................8
5.2
Other Jurisdictional Waters of the US...........................................................................8
5.3
Non -jurisdictional Wetlands..........................................................................................10
5.4
Non -jurisdictional Drainage Features............................................................................10
6.0
REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................10
6.1
USACE Jurisdictional Determination............................................................................10
6.2
NCDENR and Local Riparian Buffers...........................................................................10
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................11
8.0 CLOSING.....................................................................................................................11
APPENDIX A — EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Site Location Map
Exhibit 2: Topographic Map
Exhibit 3: Infrared Aerial
Exhibit 4: Infrared Aerial / USGS NHD / USFWS NWI
Exhibit 5: USDA NRCS Soils Data
Exhibit A: Approximate Depiction of Aquatic Resources Map
Exhibit B: 50 feet NCDENR Riparian Buffers
APPENDIX B — JURISDICTIOAL DETERMINATION REQUEST PACKAGE
APPENDIX C — REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) was retained by Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC (CCR)
to conduct a wetland delineation for the Nash 97 Solar site, hereafter referred to as the site.
The site is approximately 48 acres and is located off of Highway 97 in Middlesex, Nash County,
North Carolina. The center of the review area is located at 35.8527930N, and-78.2061970W.
The purpose of conducting the wetland delineation was to determine if wetlands or Water of the
U.S. (WoUS) are present on the project site and if so, to identify the boundaries. A wetland
delineation was conducted in general accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region. According to U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) guidelines, wetlands generally have three essential characteristics:
hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. All three characteristics
generally must be present for a location to be classified as a wetland.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Terracon conducted the following scope of work:
Terracon reviewed readily available resources to assist with identifying suspect
WoUS and suspect wetland areas on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the
site.
Mobilization to the site to conduct the wetland delineation.
Prepared a Jurisdiction Determination Request (JDR) package depicting wetlands
areas and other WoUS identified during the site visit.
Submit the JDR package to USACE and attend a site visit with USACE to verify
wetland locations, as requested.
Obtain a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) letter from USACE.
3.0 PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS
Prior to conducting the survey Terracon reviewed readily available resources to assist with
identifying suspect WoUS and suspect wetland areas on the site or in the immediate vicinity of
the site. Terracon reviewed readily available resources to assist with identifying suspect WoUS
and suspect wetland areas on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. These sources
include the current United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic Map,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (USFWS NWI) Map, United
States Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), US Department of
Agriculture (USDS) — Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Survey data, and
aerial photographs.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
The site specific sources of data are described in some detail below.
3.1 Topographic Map
The USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps of the site were reviewed to classify topography and
to identify streams, wetlands, and water features on the site. The USGS topographic map does
not depict water features on the site. Turkey Creek runs parallel to the northern boundary of
the site, located north of the site (See Appendix A Exhibit 2).
3.2 Aerial Photographs
Terracon reviewed aerial imagery to identify suspect wetlands or water bodies that may be
present on the site. Aerial images from various sources including ESRI and Google Earth were
used for this review. A 1998 infrared aerial view obtained from nconemap.com was also
reviewed. The color spectrum of infrared aerial provides information regarding the moisture
content of the soil. Generally, darker areas indicate elevated soil moisture content.
The 1998 infrared aerial photograph for the site and immediate vicinity depicts possible hydric
soil conditions on the north central portion of the site (See Appendix A Exhibit 3).
3.3 National Wetland Inventory Map
The USFWS NWI map of the subject site was reviewed to identify potential wetland areas. The
USFWS NWI maps are published by the USFWS and depict probable wetland areas based on
stereoscopic analysis of high altitude aerial photographs.
It should be noted that the Federal Geographic Data Committee document Wetlands Mapping
Standard', which is the basis for wetland determinations used in the USFWS NWI Map, lists
numerous factors affecting the accuracy of the map including:
■ Scale of imagery
■ Mapping scale or base map scale
■ Quality of imagery
■ Season of imagery (leaf -off or leaf -on)
■ Type of imagery or emulsion of imagery
■ Environmental conditions when imagery was captured
■ Difficulty of identifying particular types of wetlands
■ Availability and quality of ancillary or collateral data sources
It should also be noted that the USFWS Wetland Mapper internet site (used to locate/generate
NWI maps) includes the following disclaimer(s):
I Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States. FGDC—STD-004-2013. http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-
proiects/wetlands/nvcs-2013
2 http.//www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
The map displays at this site show wetland type and extent using a biological definition
of wetlands. There is no attempt to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any
Federal, state, or local government, or to establish the geographical scope of the
regulatory programs of government agencies.
Base cartographic information used as part of this Wetlands Mapper has been provided
through third party products. The FWS does not maintain, and is not responsible for the
accuracy or completeness of the base cartographic information.
The review of the NWI map does not depict wetlands on the site (See Appendix A Exhibit 4).
3.4 National Hydrology Dataset
The NHD is used to portray surface water. The NHD represents the drainage network with
features such as rivers, streams, canals, lakes, ponds, coastline, dams, and streamgages. The
NHD does not depict surface water on the site. Turkey Creek runs parallel to the northern
boundary and an unnamed stream runs parallel to the western boundary of the site (See
Appendix A Exhibit 4).
3.5 Soil Survey
Data from the USDA Soil Conservation Service, now known as the NRCS Web Soil Survey
were reviewed to identify soil types, including hydric soils for the site. As previously indicated,
hydric soil is one of the three essential characteristics of a wetland according to the USACE.
Soil types were then compared to the National List of Hydric Soils' (NRCS, February, 2014).
Inclusion on the Hydric Soil List indicates that the soil series or one of its components contain
characteristics which may be hydric and is not an unqualified indication of hydric soil for a
specific location.
Hydric soils listed on the NRCS Hydric Soil List must meet one or more of the following NRCS
hydric criteria codes4:
1. All Histels except Folistels and Histosols except Folists; or
2. Map unit components in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls
suborder, Historthels great group, Histoturbels great group, or Andic, Cumulic,
Pachic, or Vitrandic subgroups that:
a. Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series, will at least in part
meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or
b. Show evidence that the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil;
3. Map unit components that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long
duration during the growing season that:
3 fto.//fto-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Hydric Soils/Lists/hydric soils.xlsx
4 htto.//www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nres142p2 053959
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
a. Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series, will at least in part
meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or
b. Show evidence that the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil; or
4. Map unit components that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long
duration during the growing season that:
a. Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series, will at least in part
meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or
b. Show evidence that the soils meet the definition of a hydric soil.
The following soil types were identified within the project area on the soil survey map:
Excerpt from the NRCS Web Soil Survey
Summary by Map Unit — Nash County, North Carolina (NC127)
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name
Rating*
Acres in
AOI**
Percent of
AOI
aA
Altavista sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
rarely flooded
9
0.0
o
0.1/o
GeB
Georgeville loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
0
16.3
33.5%
GeC
Georgeville loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
0
6.4
13.2%
GeE
Georgeville loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes
0
21.5
44.1 %
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
5
1.3
2.6%
oA
orsham loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
90
3.2
6.6%
Totals for Area of Interest
8.8
100.0%
* This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are
composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not
hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric
components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of
nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform.
**Acreages are approximate only.
It should be noted that the NRCS provides a disclaimer for certain map scales. In this case the
Web Soil Survey Mapper included the following message:
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale (1:5,290).
The site map was created beyond the scale at which the soil map for this area is
intended to be used. Mapping of soils is done at a particular scale. The soil surveys that
comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. The design of map units and the level of
detail shown in the resulting soil map are dependent on that map scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the
detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small
areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
The NRCS soil data depicted hydric soils (WoA) on the southwest corner of the site (See
Appendix A Exhibit 5).
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Terracon personnel conducted a reconnaissance of the site on August 20, 2014 to observe for
the presence of potential wetland characteristics and surface waters.
Characteristics of potential jurisdictional surface waters and wetland areas were assessed
utilizing the criteria detailed in sections 4.1 through 4.5 of this report. The evaluation methods
generally followed the routine on -site determination method referenced in the 1987 USACE
Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region.
Wetlands have three essential characteristics: hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation, hydric soils,
and wetland hydrology. Soils, hydrology, and vegetation were evaluated within the suspect
areas to determine if wetland characteristics were present.
4.1 Hydric Soils Assessment
Subsurface soils were evaluated by digging soil pits in the suspect areas. Soil samples were
collected from ground surface to a depth of 20 inches below ground surface and were visually
compared to Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell, 2009), which aided in the evaluation of hydric
soil characteristics. The soil samples were further examined for hydric soil indicators including,
but not limited to, histosol, thick dark surface, sandy gleyed matrix, sandy redox, loamy gleyed
matrix, redox dark surface, and/or redox depressions. If these or other hydric soil indicators
were observed in the subsurface soil sample, the observation location was considered to have
hydric soil. Soil profile data was recorded on the Wetland Determination Data Forms included in
the JDR Package (Appendix B).
4.2 Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Visual indicators of wetland hydrology were evaluated. Examples of primary wetland hydrology
indicators include, but are not limited to, surface water, high water table, soil saturation, water
marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, iron deposits, inundation visible on aerial imagery,
sparsely vegetated concave surface, and water -stained leaves. If at least one primary or two
secondary indicators were observed, the observation location was considered to have wetland
hydrology. Hydrology indicators were recorded on the Wetland Determination Data Forms
included in the JDR Package (Appendix B).
4.3 Plant Community Assessment
The suspect areas were visually observed to determine the species and percentage of ground
cover for five stratums of plant community types; trees, saplings, shrubs, herbs, and vines.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
Typically, wetland indicator status is evaluated for each species of vegetation observed, and
indicator status determined using the National Wetland Plant Lists. Evaluation of vegetation is
also typically performed during the active growing season, which is the period of the year when
the presence or absence of wetland hydrology indicators is most likely to reflect the true
wetland/non-wetland status of the site. If the wetland delineation is performed outside of the
growing season, surveying and classification of identified wetlands are based on existing
conditions and are subject to change. A follow-up visit may be necessary in the vegetative
growing season to confirm plant species.
For the species of vegetation observed, their wetland indicator status was evaluated. Indicator
status was determined using the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USACE,
2014). Indicator categories for vegetation are presented below:
Obligate Wetland (OBL) - occur almost always (estimated probability greater
than 99%) under natural conditions in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland (FACW) - usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability
67% - 99%) but occasionally found in non -wetlands.
Facultative (FAC) - equally likely to occur in wetlands or non -wetlands
(estimated probability 34% - 66%).
Facultative Upland (FACU) - usually occur in non -wetlands (estimated
probability 67% - 99%) but occasionally found in wetlands.
Obligate Upland (UPL) — rarely occur in wetlands, but occur almost always
(estimated probability greater than 99%) under natural conditions in non -
wetlands.
The percent cover of the stratum was determined and dominance was evaluated. Dominant
species were the most abundant species that accounted for more 20 percent of the absolute
percent coverage of the stratum. The number of dominant species with an indicator status of
OBL, FACW, and/or FAC was compared to the total number of dominant species across the
strata. Typically, when more than 50 percent of the dominant species had an indicator status of
OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, hydrophytic vegetation was present.
If the percentage of dominant species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC was
less than 50 percent, prevalence index and morphological adaptations may have been
evaluated to confirm if hydrophytic vegetation was present or absent.
5 Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant
List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42.
http.//wetland plants.usace.army.mil/
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
4.4 Classification of Wetlands
Following review of wetland criteria at the suspect areas, a wetland determination was made for
the site. Under normal circumstances, if one or more of the wetland criteria are not identified,
the area is not considered to be a wetland. If all three wetland indicators were identified, the
area is classified as wetland. Soil, hydrology, and vegetation assessment data from locations in
each project site were recorded on a USACE Wetland Determination Data Form — Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. The recorded data forms for the subject site can be found in
Appendix C and the data point locations can be seen in Appendix B within the Jurisdictional
Determination request Package.
4.5 Surface Water and Drainage Feature Observations
Terracon also made observations of site features to identify jurisdictional WoUS. If a surface
water body or drainage feature was identified, observations regarding its characteristics were
recorded. Surface water bodies/drainage features were evaluated based on the observation of
the following characteristics:
Flow Characteristics:
o Perennial: contains water at all times except during extreme drought.
o Intermittent: carries water a considerable portion of the time, but ceases
to flow occasionally or seasonally.
o Ephemeral: carries water only during and immediately after periods of
rainfall or snowmelt.
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM): The limit line on the shore established by
the fluctuation of the water surface. It is shown by such things as a clear line
impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in soil character, destruction of
terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris or other features
influenced by the surrounding area.
Bank Shape Descriptions:
o Undercut: banks that overhang the stream channel
o Steep: bank slope of approximately greater than 30 degrees
o Gradual: bank slope of approximately 30 degrees or less
Aquatic Habitat Descriptions:
Pool: deeper portion of a stream where water flows slower than in
neighboring, shallower portions, smooth surface, and finer substrate
Riffle: shallow area in a stream where water flows swiftly over gravel and
rock or other coarse substrate resulting in a rough flow and a turbulent
surface
o Run: section of a stream with a low or high velocity and with little or no
turbulence on the surface of the water.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
5.0 FIELD DELINEATION RESULTS
On August 20, 2015, Terracon performed field a field delineation to identify potential wetlands
and WoUS on the site as discussed in Section 4 above. Wetland Determination Data Forms
included in the JDR package and ground photographs in Appendix B provide an indication of
the physical characteristics observed during the site visit. Descriptions of the evaluated areas
are listed in the following sections. Exhibit A in Appendix A shows locations of the wetlands.
Wetlands and WoUS areas were marked in the field using highly visible colored flagging
mapped with a Trimble GeoExplorer XH 6000 Series GPS with GNSS receiver and the data
saved to an electronic file for future reference. The following subsections summarize the
wetlands, WoUS, and non -jurisdictional features on the site.
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Field observations indicated that one area within the site exhibited criteria sufficient to be
classified as a wetland.
A summary of the wetland area is provided in the table below:
Wetland ID
Jurisdictional Wetland 1
Size
0.11 acres
Sampling Points
DP-1
Association w/ WUS
Buffers Relatively Permanent Water Stream 1
Jurisdictional Opinion
Jurisdictional
Wetland Description
Forested freshwater wetland
Upland Non -Wetland Description
Data Point(s) I DP-2
Was there a marked difference between the wetland and Yes
upland?
Was there a gradual change in vegetation between the Vegetation appeared defined
wetland and upland creatina a "transition zone"?
5.2 Other Jurisdictional Waters of the US
Field observations indicated that three areas within the site exhibited criteria sufficient to be
classified as a Relatively Permanent Water (RPW).
A summary of the WoUS are provided in the table below:
WoUS
Jurisdictional Stream 1 (RPW Tributary 1)
Approximate Length Onsite
200 linear feet
Name of Water Body
Unnamed tributary to Turkey Creek
Location
Northeast corner of the site
WUS Type
Relatively Permanent Water
Flow Characteristics
Seasonal
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
Yes
Defined Bed & Bank
Yes
Average Channel Width Across OHWM
7 feet
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
Irerracon
WoUS
Jurisdictional Stream 1 (RPW Tributary 1)
Average Channel Width Across Bank Top
10 - 15 feet
Average Channel Width Across Water
Surface or Dry Bottom
5 feet
Water Depth
2 inches to 12 inches
Stream Flow Direction
North
Average Bank Height
Left Bank: 1.5 feet
Right Bank: 1.5 feet
% Slope On Banks
Left Bank: 45 to 85 percent
Right Bank: 45 to 85 percent
Bank Substrate
80% Soil, 20% Organic
Bed Substrate
75% Soil, 25% Rock/Debris
WoUS
Jurisdictional Stream 3 (RPW Tributary 3)
Approximate Length Onsite
750 linear feet
Name of Water Body
Unnamed tributary to Turkey Creek
Location
Southwestern corner of the site
WUS Type
Relatively Permanent Water
Flow Characteristics
Perennial
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
Yes
Defined Bed & Bank
Yes
Average Channel Width Across OHWM
5 to 10 feet
Average Channel Width Across Bank Top
15-20 feet
Average Channel Width Across Water
Surface or Dry Bottom
5 feet
Water Depth
6 inches to 24 inches
Stream Flow Direction
Northwest
Average Bank Height
Left Bank: 3-4 feet
Right Bank: 3-4 feet
% Slope On Banks
Left Bank: 45 to 85 percent
Right Bank: 45 to 85 percent
Bank Substrate
80% Soil, 20% Organic
Bed Substrate
70% Soil, 30% Rock/Debris
WoUS
Jurisdictional Stream 4 (RPW Tributary 4)
Approximate Length Onsite
275 linear feet
Name of Water Body
Unnamed tributary to Turkey Creek
Location
Southwestern corner of the site
WUS Type
Relatively Permanent Water
Flow Characteristics
Perennial
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
Yes
Defined Bed & Bank
Yes
Average Channel Width Across OHWM
5 -10 feet
Average Channel Width Across Bank Top
15 - 20 feet
Average Channel Width Across Water
Surface or Dry Bottom
5 feet
Water Depth
6 inches to 24 inches
Stream Flow Direction
Northwest
Average Bank Height
Left Bank: 3-4 feet
Right Bank: 3-4 feet
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
WouS
Jurisdictional Stream 4 (RPW Tributary 4)
% Slope On Banks
Left Bank: 45 to 85 percent
Right Bank: 45 to 85 percent
Bank Substrate
80% Soil, 20% Organic
Bed Substrate
70% Soil, 30% Rock/Debris
5.3 Non -jurisdictional Wetlands
Non -jurisdictional wetlands were not observed on the site.
5.4 Non -jurisdictional Drainage Features
Non -jurisdictional drainage features were not observed on the site.
6.0 REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Following the field delineation, Terracon submitted a JDR package to the applicable USACE
office in North Carolina. Terracon coordinated with USACE and the North Carolina Department
of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources (DWR)
regarding the field delineation results detailed in the JD package (Appendix B). Applicable
regulatory concurrence letters are included in Appendix C.
6.1 USACE Jurisdictional Determination
Terracon personnel accompanied USACE to the site to observe delineated wetlands and/or
WoUS on the site on December 5, 2014. USACE concurred with the field delineation depicted
in Appendix A Exhibit A during the site visit. USACE provided Terracon with a copy of the
Jurisdictional Determination Letter Included in Appendix C.
6.2 NCDENR and Local Riparian Buffers
A riparian buffer is a vegetated area bordering a body of water, such as a stream, lake or pond.
There are state riparian buffer protection programs in the Neuse River Basin, Tar -Pamlico River
Basin, Catawba River Basin, Randleman Lake Watershed, Jordan Lake Watershed and Goose
Creek Watershed of North Carolina.
The site is located in the Neuse River Basin and based on coordination with NCDENR-DWR,
Jurisdictional RPW Tributary 1 (Stream 1) on the northeast corner of the site and Jurisdictional
RPW Tributary 3 (Stream 3) and Jurisdictional RPW Tributary 4 (Stream 4) located on the
southwest corner of the site will require will require 50 foot riparian buffers. The applicable 50
foot buffers are depicted in Appendix A Exhibit B. NCDENR-DWR provided Terracon with a
copy of the Surface Water Determination Letter Included in Appendix C.
There are also local buffer protection programs across the state of North Carolina; however, the
project site is not located in an area where local governments have been delegated authority to
implement the riparian buffer protection programs.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Wetland Delineation Report
Nash 97 Solar Middlesex, North Carolina
July 14, 2015 Terracon Project: EN147040
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Wetlands and WoUS were delineated on the site by Terracon on August 20, 2014. Based on
the field observations, the wetland delineation, and USACE Jurisdictional Determination, the site
contained the following wetlands and WoUS:
Approximate Total Jurisdictional RPW: 1,275 Linear Feet
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 0.11 Acres
Jurisdictional RPW Tributary 1 (Stream 1) on the northeast corner of the site and Jurisdictional
RPW Tributary 3 (Stream 3) and Jurisdictional RPW Tributary 4 (Stream 4) located on the
southwest corner of the site are subject to state riparian buffer protection requirements.
8.0 CLOSING
Terracon appreciates the opportunity to provide you with natural resources services. If you
have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Ted Melchers, IV
Environmental Scientist
/AndZyRuocco
Environmental Manager
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

/_1»=1L,IQkAVC1
Exhibit 1: Site Location Map
Exhibit 2: Topographic Map
Exhibit 3: Infrared Aerial
Exhibit 4: Infrared Aerial / USGS NHD / USFWS NWI
Exhibit 5: USDA NRCS Soils Data
Exhibit A: Approximate Depiction of Aquatic Resources Map
Exhibit B: 50 feet NCDENR Riparian Buffers

ON, V
� PD 3 �Wildcr(Oo u
rlt A
c 7h " 3 Ra n o
o N P Z n
C Sr � ao. ey Ra
a 4 q
abs P a 0
6 °
lard P°
( 440
raj Carlyle Rd
( /o
ews t;
Lynyrd Lo Ra
LJ Ln 4 Col. Rd Anaer n a
/ so
C7rnton Car-` - / R
/ Nada Ra
/
/
i
/
/
0
Lewis Rd //Sandefs Rd eat Rd
/ o
N / N
u 4
LaIM
` a /
Rd e R
0o
�G 11 Ha9woodR N°sy`ey
yF a
t /
I - /
I a /
\ m t
So'" P/atn 14C.97
E /
\I y
/ NC-97 /
/ f
N 97 —
c �
Legend 'Rd
= Approximate —Site —Boundary
N
0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
2
h
�m
°� rc
u
V
P
0
0.
SITE
i
Mitchell Rd
RObk"s
Ra
C%
"Ra
�7
C U•�1 at, :.
NC-Z \\
Naae Rd I `-=" i
Valley Ra
Bryant /ya
C�
x
PD
'P
c �q
i
Qc e
u o\a
0
3
— 4
W NC.97 94-i
Srri°k/�/a
'Po
3
Bryant
Ruch Deam
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
PM:
Project No.
Site Location
EXHIBIT NO.
JTM
EN147040
Drawn
Scale:
JTM
As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
d
Checked By:
File Path:
JAR
Approved By:
Date:
17455 Fifth street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR
7114115
Nash County North Carolina
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Rolity Creme
I iJ
J • - etc=:==-le� J'7^�, --- 'f • �
Cern
t i "SITE '
J
Creek
! Clem i
Legend
Nash97_Approximate_Site_Boundary
'Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
N
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllVli1es
PM:
Project No.
Current Middlesex, NC-USGS Topographic Map
EXHIBIT NO.
JTM
EN147040
Drawn
Scale:
JTM
As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
2
d
Checked By:
File Path:
JAR
Approved By:
Date:
111K Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR
7114111
I
Nash County North Carolina
phone: [phone] Fax[phone]

raw �•r. .. T, • _ '► ifs
t i
-- *IrW64,
MAIL J
Ir
Mil
• /'fi
• ° �► r � �� . 1 • r �� i�t . •'�, fi jr� ,�/ +wry 1
' i `.' J ys st " str�, .f� •.d` A� � �'.. l: n -r r1 + �y � �', r p ' -•
or
{
Legend, 56
Approximate_Site_Boundary `" ems.
N
0
1
250 500 1,000
Feet
PM:
Project No.
1998 Infrared Aerial
EXHIBIT NO.
JTM
EN147040
Drawn
Scale:
JTM
As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
3
d
Checked By:
File Path:
JAR
Approved By:
Date:
11450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR
7114115
Nash County North Carolina
phone: [phone] Fax[phone]

PUBHh
f.
r PF01A
PSS1A
r
,
t
PF01A r
Legend
Approximate_Site_Boundary B .'�.
NHD Flowline '
Type rS
t
ArtificialPath PF01A
StreamRiver
NWI •i
NWI Code+
F PF01A
PSS1A UBH
PUBHh �►
ti.
N PM: PfOJeCt No 1998 Infrared Aerial / USGS NHD / USFWS NWI EXHIBIT NO.
JTM EN147040
Drawn d Scale: Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
JTM As Shown
Checked By: File Path: 4
0 300 600 1,200 JAR
Feet Approved By: I Date: 1450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR 7114115 phone: [phone] Fax[phone]Nash County North Carolina

NoB
AaA
AaA /
GeE
f
WoA j
t
GgC
AaA
�. . .
--` Wh
Legend GeE
Approximate_ Site Boundary
USDA NRCS Soils Data j 1
Soils Code
� AaA
FaB FaB
WoA
GeB
GeC � �`�� GeC
GeE
C GGeB gB
Ra
F GgC
C GoA
NoB
�.
N rB GeC ) W'
0 /
Ra
To NoB
W GoA
C Wh NrB
C WoA
FaB
N
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
PM:
Project No.
1998 Infrared Aerial / USDA NRCS Soils Data
EXHIBIT NO.
JTM
EN147040
Drawn
Scale:
JTM
As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
5
d
Checked By:
File Path:
JAR
Approved By:
Date:
11450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR
7/14/15
Nash County North Carolina
phone: [phone] Fax:'

The Approximate Wetland Lines depicted on this drawing were
flagged and surveyed with a Trimble GeoExplorer XH 6000 Series
GPS with GNSS reciever in the field by Terracon Consultants on
8/20/14. Each survey point was at sub -meter accuracy.
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Streams: 1,275 Linear Feet
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 0.11 Acres
DP-6
Approximate Total Uplands: 47.89 Acres
Approximate Total Site Acreage: 48 Acres
SITE
DP-1
Dp-2 Jurisdictional Wetland 1
Approximately 0.11 Acres
Aline
17 Flags
B line
42 Flags
Jurisdictional Stream 3
97
Jurisdictional Stream,l
Approximate lyj75+Linear Feet
Approximately,250 Linear Feet
Average 15 Feet Wide
1
Average,7iFeet Wide
DP-3 Average 3.5 Feet Deep
Average 1:5 Feet Deep
C line
18 Flags
-
,t
�I
DP-4 r
•,
Jurisrea dictional Stm 4
Legend
Approximately,275 Linear Feet
Averagee,15 Feet Wide
Approximate_Site_Boundary
Average 3.5 Feet Deep
Uplan d_Datat_Point
�h y
o Wetland
�•'
—Data
—Point
— — Jurisdictional_RPW_Tributary_Channel
- ..�
97
Jurisdictional —Wetland
Source: E-sri,'DigitalGiobe, GeoEz, Eat�rthstar ONES/Airbus DS, USDA, USES, AE�X,
® Jurisdictional_RPW_Tributary
Getpp ng; A r ri IGN, IGP,
phios,
swisstopo; d the GIS Use Commun Copyrighta®2 Esri,
aoGeogr
•, , ,
RPM.Riel ERE, T mTom
N
PM:
Project No.
Approximate Depiction of Aquatic Resources EXHIBIT NO.
Drawn By:
JTM EN147040
Scale:
JTM As Shown
Irerraccin
Highway 97
Checked By:
File Path:
Nash 97 Solar A
0 200 400
800
JAR
Feet Approved By:
Date: 1450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR 7113115 Phone: 843.7S4.1234 Fax[phone] Middlesex, Nash County North Carolina

The Approximate Wetland Lines depicted on this drawing were
flagged and surveyed with a Trimble GeoExplorer XH 6000 Series
GPS with GNSS reciever in the field by Terracon Consultants on
8/2O/14. Each survey point was at sub -meter accuracy.
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Streams: 1,275 Linear Feet
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 0.11 Acres
DP-6 Approximate Total Uplands: 47.89 Acres
Approximate Total Site Acreage: 48 Acres
SITE
DP-1
Jurisdictional Stream�l
Approximately�2O0 Linear Feet
DP-2 !' Average 7 Feet Wide
�` Average 1�5 Feet Deep
Jurisdictional Stream 3 e7
Approximately�75O _Linear Feet
Averag�15 Feet Wide
Average 3.5 Feet Deep
.t
Le end
g Jurisdictional Stream 4
Approximately'275 Linear Feet
Approximate_Site_Boundary Average115 F et Wide
Average 3.5 Feet Deep
50 Foot Stream Bufferat
0 Upland_Datat_Point ' . �^� '
— — Jurisdictional_RPW_Tributary_Channel • �
S urc-: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, E��a,,��r, G--Co r ph , CNES/Airbu CIO, USDA, U GAS, AEX,
® JUrISdICtlOnal_RPW_Trlbutary Ge ... ing, Aerogrid, IGN, IG wiss opo, 08 U§W C , em.© 230IL4 E @
DeLa ne, HERE, Toil as
N PM: Project No. 50 Feet NCDENR Riparian Buffers EXHIBIT NO.
JTM EN 147040
Drawn By: Scale: Irerraccin
Highway 97
Checked By: JTM As Shown File Path: Nash 97 Solar B
0 200 400 800 JAR
Feet Approved By: Date: 1a50 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29105
JAR 7113115 Pnone: aa3.aaa.1234 Fax: [phone] Middlesex, Nash County North Carolina

Jurisdictional Determination Request Package

October 6, 2014
Project Manager
USACE Regulatory
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Irerracon
Re: Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Nash 97 Solar
Middlesex, Nash County, North Carolina
Terracon Project EN147040
Dear Project Manager:
On behalf of our client, Pine Gate Holdings, LLC, Terracon Consultants, Inc. is requesting a wetland
location review of the approximately 75 acre site located North off W NC 97 1.5 miles west of NC
231 in Middlesex, Nash County, North Carolina. The approximate center of the review area is
located at 35.8527930-78.2061970. Please review the following attached information to determine
the accuracy of our wetland delineation:
Jurisdictional Determination
Request
Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination Form
USGS Topographic Map
Infrared Aerial Photographs
Data forms
NWI data
■ NRCS Soils Data
■ Photographs
■ Approximate Depiction of Aquatic
Resources
■ Tax map and property card
■ Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
■ Exempt Subdivision and
Recombination Plat for: J.D. Goldston,
Jr. Dated August 6, 2013
If you have any questions regarding the attached information, please contact me at 843-884-1234,
843-568-8749 or itmelchers(a-)terracon.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Terracon Consultants Inc.,
Ted Melchers
Environmental Scientist
Andy Ruocco
Environmental Manager
Terracon Consultants, Inc. 1450 Fifth Street West North Charleston, SC 29405
P [843] 884 1234 F [843] 884 9234 terracon.com

Jurisdictional Determination Request
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via, mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A current list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on-line at: hM://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/ReRWatoryPennitProgam.aMx , by
telephoning: 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: (910) 2514610
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number. 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
Version: December 2013 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part G.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that all JD
requests must include the curreni property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed with the
determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be
signed by the current property owner to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS:. Property owner authorization/notification for JD
requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be
conducted according to the current NCDOTIUSACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD may not
be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or
your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you
should also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: December 2013 Page 2

jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
B.
C
4
Street Address:
City, State:
County:
Directions:
West NC Highway 97
Middlesex, NC
Nash
Travel west on W NC 97 from the inlerserxon oP NC 231 for approximatley 1 5 miles
The Site is on the right of off of W NC 97.
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address':
273600468353,273600651688
Ted Melchers ! Terrawn
1450 Fifth Street West
[phone]
[e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑✓ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address3.
James Goldston / Louise Goldston
13100 Old Creedmoor Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27613
oProof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GiS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
1 If available
Z Must attach completed Agent Authorization form
If available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTMCATION4
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
ZY) Go�7e� 0, 10,2_11A
Property Owner (please print) Date
fi�opefty Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
WI am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence of WoUS5 and provide an #pproved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property/project
area and provide an WpMved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property/project area and provide an improved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
`For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
5 Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
Size of Property or Project Area --75
acres
I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
❑✓ Completed and signed Preliminga Jurisdictional Determination Form6.
Project Coordinates: 35.852793° _ Latitude-78.2061970 Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
0 Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
0 Aerial Photography of the project area
❑✓ USGS Topographic Map
❑✓ Soil Survey Map
0 Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable)7:
Wetlands:
❑� Wetland Data Sheetss
Tributaries:
❑� USACE Assessment Forms
❑✓ Upland Data Sheets ❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑✓ Landscape Photos, if taken
0 Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
■ All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
■ Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
■ Locations of photo stations
■ Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
❑ Project Coordinates:
Latitude Longitude
Maps (no larger than 11x17) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑ Aerial Photography of the project area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan,
previous delineation maps)
7 1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
htto://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ReizulatoryProaramandPermits/re& suna.asnx
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
httortal.ncdenr.or c document library/get file?uuid=76f3c58b-dab8-4960-ba43-45b7faf06f4c& rou Id=38364and,
httwww.saw.usace.arm .mil Portals 59 docs re ulato ublicnotices 2013 NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318.12df
s Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑ Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
❑ Upland Data Sheets ❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
❑ Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
9 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013

Jurisdictional Determination Request
L REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard -
copy submittals include at least one original Plat to scale that is no larger than 11 "x 17"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11"x17", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed. The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
plats and return them via e-mail to the requestor.
(1) PLATS SUBNHTTED FOR APPROVAL
Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
Must be legible
Must include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Information
Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings/metes
and bounds/GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
❑ Must clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
When wetlands are depicted:
Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
* Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ When tributaries are depicted:
• Must include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OHWM) of tributary
Must identify each tributary using an alphanumeric system
Must include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using approximate
widths or surveyed OHWM)
• Must include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project/property boundaries
❑ Must include the location of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment
reaches
Must include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently
subject to the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands", "non -
jurisdictional waters"). NOTE: An approved JD must be conducted in order to
make an official Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not
jurisdictional.
Must include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that
transport WoUS
Version: December 2013 Page 9

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(2) CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE
1-1 When the entire actual Jurisdictional Bounder is doicted:
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the undersigned on this date.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, the determination of
Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five (5) years from
this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the appropriate Regional
Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official.
Title:
Date:
USACE Action ID No.:
When uplands may be present within a de icted Jurisdictional Boun
include the following Corps Certification language:
"This certifies that this copy of this plat identifies all areas of waters of the United States
regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years from this date. The undersigned completed this determination utilizing the
appropriate Regional Supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual."
Regulatory Official. _
Title:
Date:
USACE Action ID No.:
Version: December 2013 Page 10

Jurisdictional Determination Request
(3) GPS SURVEYS
For Surveys prepared using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the Survey must include
all of the above, as well as:
be at sub -meter accuracy at each survey point.
0 include an accuracy verification:
One or more known points (property corner, monument) shall be located with the
GPS and cross-referenced with the existing traditional property survey (metes and
bounds).
include a brief description of the GPS equipment utilized.
Version: December 2013 Page 11

ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD
Ted Melchers / Terracon
1450 Fifth Street West, North Charleston, SC 29405
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
West NC Highway 97, Middlesex, NC
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Nash City. Middlesex
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.852793° ____
0N; Long.-78.206197' °W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Turkey creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters:
2,290 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: Freshwater Stream
Stream Flow: Jurisdictional seasonal and Perennial Relatively Permanent Water Tributary
Wetlands:0.89 acres.
Cowardin Class: Freshwater Jurisdictional Wetlands
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
1

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL
APPLY):
❑✓ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: August2014
❑� Field Determination. Date(s): August 20, 2014
THAT
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
❑✓ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: Terracon
❑✓ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
app ' nt/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheetsldelineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ ✓ USGS NHD data
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
❑✓ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Middlesex
❑✓ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: USDA NRCS - Websoil Survey
❑✓ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS NWI
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
IN
100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
0 Photographs: 0 Aerial (Name & Date): 2010 ESRI World Imagery or
❑� Other (Name & Date): U.S. Geological Survey 1998 Color Infrared
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
2

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
3

This preliminary JD finds that there "maybe" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessari!y been verified by the Cor s and should not be relied u on for
later 'urisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
4
. d s;ry
nature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Feature
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardin Class
Estimated
Classification
Amount of
Aquatic
Resources in
Review Area
Jurisdictional
35.853409'
-78.202540'
Freshwater
250 LF
Non -section 10
Stream 1
Stream
stream
Jurisdictional
35.854479'
-78.208520'
Freshwater
1,130 LF
Non -section 10
Stream 2
Stream
stream
Jurisdictional
35.853409'
-78.202540'
Freshwater
0.136 Acres
Non -section 10
Wetland 1
Wetland
stream
Jurisdictional
35.854479'
-78.208520'
Freshwater
0.753 Acres
Non -section 10
Wetland 2
Wetland
stream
Jurisdictional
35.850621'
-78.208621'
Freshwater
750 LF
Non -section 10
Stream 3
Stream
stream
Jurisdictional
35.850248'
-78.208969'
Freshwater
275 LF
Non -section 10
Stream 4
Stream
stream

The Approximate Wetland Lines depicted on this drawing were
flagged and surveyed with a Trimble GeoExplorer XH 6000 Series
Jurisdictional Wetland 2
GPS with GNSS reciever in the field by Terracon Consultants on
Approximately 0.753 Acres
8/2O/14. Each survey point was at sub -meter accuracy.
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Streams: 2,405 Linear Feet
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 0.89 Acres
DP-5
Approximate Total Uplands: 74.11 Acres
Approximate Total Site Acreage: 75 Acres
Jurisdictional Stream 2
Approximately'f1,13O Linear Feet
Average 8 Feet Wide
Average 1:5 Feet Deep
�-
DP-1
SITE
t
DP_2 Jurisdictional Wetland 1
Approximately 0.136 Acres
Jurisdictional Stream 3
97
Jurisdictional Stream,1
Approxirnatelyi75+Linear Feet
Approximately;250 Linear Feet
Average 15,Feet Wide
1
Average,7iFeet Wide
DP-3 Average 3.5 Feet Deep
Average 1:5 Feet Deep
Legend
Approximate_Site_Boundary
Upland_Datat_Point
`�t
04
o Wetland Data Point
Jurisdictional.Stream 4 �
��' ,'
® Jurisdictional_pRPW_Tributary
Approximately,275 Linear Feet
WWN
Source: E-sri, DigitalGiobe, GeoEye, mum Earthstar Geogr phics, ONES/Airbus DS, USDA, USG@,
Jurisdictional_Wetland11
AM Gem pp ng, Aero id,
M, W, Wib&A waft GIS User affl , , C«opyri h :®2 114 E-sri,
DeLorme, HERE, TomTom
N PM:
Project No.
Approximate Depiction of Aquatic Resources EXHIBIT NO.
Drawn
JTM EN147040
Scale:
JTM As Shown
I rerracon
Nash 97 Solar
d
Checked By:
File Path:
A
0 200 400 800
JAR
Feet Approved By:
Date: 1450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR 1218114 phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Nash County North Carolina

ON, V
� PD 3 �Wildcr(Oo u
rl\ A
c 7h " 3 Ra n o
o N P Z n
C Sr � d� ey Ra
a 4 q
abs P a 0
6 °
lard P°
( 440
raj Carlyle Rd
( /o
ews fi
Lynyrd Ln Ra
LJ Ln 4 Col.
An'/e n a
Rd / so
C7rnton Car-` - / R
/ Nada Rd
/
i
/
0
/ o
Lewis Rd //Sandefs Rd eatRu
/ o
N / N
u 4
,o ?
LaIM
1 /
Rd
0
�G 11 Ha9woodR FtOSSre1
sF a
t /
73
I - /
I a /
So'" P/arn 14C.97
E /
\I y
/ NC-97 /
/ f
N 97
o `A
c
Legend 'Rd
= Nash_97_Approximate_Site_Boundary
N
0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
Valley Ra
C PD
°ne Ra Po¢e
2 ycc o11
�
i
m a o\a
m' rc o
u
V Wit.
P
Co+r at1
SITE
3
\v NC 97 a
W NC.97 94-i
K
0
U
0 tri°k/
arra
'Po
z'
3
Buck Dean- ^,� .
Sources:'Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
PM:
Project No.
Site Location
EXHIBIT NO.
JTM
EN147040
Drawn
Scale:
JTM
As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
d
Checked By:
File Path:
JAR
Approved By:
Date:
17455 Fifth Street west N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR
8113114
Nash County North Carolina
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Off\ �fj� .
e� /cem ` 9
Hurrays
i asp IJ ` \� willpo►ld -
. Can
nas k f�,
Rocky Crosb fee i�
Cerra. ��j._ — SITE i Cem
Cern
7.
'.� 4... -
4� Cem �4 _ ' Samara . z5
Cem Cer
� Creek
M
l . 3zc
1i cam„cem
Y•ti
r I I i HsWk�e.
,,
Landing.\ zcoStriv
ttb� Union Hope
•> Cem
•i 33 • • In I l • �i .
Legend �• `�"� --\
Nash_97_Approximate_Site_Boundary
Copyright:©`2013 National Geographic•Society, i-cubed
N
0
1
0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
PM:
Project No.
Current Middlesex, NC-USGS Topographic Map
EXHIBIT NO.
JTM
EN147040
Drawn
Scale:
JTM
As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
2
d
Checked By:
File Path:
JAR
Approved By:
Date:
11450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR
.1U114
Nash County North Carolina
phone: [phone] Fax[phone]

.
The Approximate Wetland Lines depicted on this drawing were
0, ► r _
` `" x • .
_
"'
flagged and surveyed with a Trimble GeoExplorer XH 6000 Series
GPS with GNSS reciever in the field by Terracon Consultants on
r
8/20/14. Each survey point was at sub -meter accuracy.
4.
SITE
DP-6
DP 1 l
r'
.a
DP-2
V c
Y-
won
S-3
DPs
'
Legend
RDP-4ot
Nash_97_Approximate_Site_Boundary
,
Upland _Datat_Point
o Wetland_ Data Point,
® Jurisdictional_pRPW_Tributary
- -
•�:
® Jurisdictional_sRPW
a
--•-- Non
—Jurisdictional —Ditch
N
PM:
Project No.
1998 Infrared Aerial EXHIBIT NO.
JTM
Drawn
EN147040
Scale:
JTM
As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
d
Checked By:
File Path:
3
0 250 500 1,000
JAR
Feet
Approved By:
JAR
Date:
8/29/14
1450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
phone: [phone] Fax[phone]
Nash County North Carolina

dr/ .
t f PF01A
.e
-,• _ 4i
.. SITEIr
AN f
n
i r �' .fir, '� 7 � 1►
��1_�''".�,•.� r fir• `� J� v -R!' 4'IC�� .
PSS1A 1 g r ! I
Legend
Pi Nash _97_Approximate _Site _Boundary �Ir ♦f'".r
NHD Flowline
r �} ,e • r
Type .� '• ., '�` �/`�' " • ,�� .�'s
ArtificialPath
StreamRiver
=a �,+ ♦ • .,sir' ��:.
NWI
F
NWI Code w -,, *•,' PF01A
P PF01A
Ps
PSS1A
PUBHh �& �--
Fs_ a
N PM: Project No. 1998 Infrared Aerial / USGS NHD / USFWS NWI EXHIBIT NO.
JTM EN147040
Drawn d Scale: Irerraccin
JTM As Shown Nash 97 Solar
Checked By: File Path: 4
I JAR
0 300 600 1,200
I. Feet Approved By: Date: 1450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR 8113114 phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Nash County North Carolina

FaB
NoB To
AaA
GgC
NoB
GeC
g
W
AaA
AaA
SITE
FaB
GoA
Legend
Nash_97_Approximate_Site_Boundary
!
i
Ra
USDA NRCS
Soils Data
Go
Soils Code
GeE
GeB
AaA
i� , 1
3.V
FaB
L r-. -•'
GeB
fir' .F
`
Al
GeB
}
GeC
C GeE
Fa B
CG B
J
g
y
GeC
GgC
GoA
NoB
NrB
Ra
Wh
H^
To
W
a
NoB
Wh
NrB .. 3
WoA
r
N
PM:
Project No.
0 300
600 1,200
98 Infrared Aerial / USDA NRCS Soils Data
EXHIBIT NO.
JTM
EN 147040
Drawn By:
Scale:
JTM
As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
5
Checked By:
File Path:
JAR
Approved By:
Date:
1450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405

Numbers correspond to photos in
attached photo log
DP-5
22 /23--11
SITE
25
DP-6
DP-1
/
7 2
/9
DP-2
97
DP-3
Legend
4
4-- 15 11/2
13
Nash_97_Approximate_Site_Boundary
14
,
Upland_Datat_Point
19
Source: E-sri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, E-arthstar Geogr phics, ONES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
� Wetland_Data_POlnt
AE�X, Ge mappng, Aero id, IGN, IGP, s
i s opo, nd the'GIS User Cnomm , , C«opyri h :� 2 114 Esri,
DeLorme, HERE, TomTom
N
PM:
Project No.
2010 Aerial / Photo Log Legend EXHIBIT NO.
Drawn
JTM EN147040
Scale:
JTM As Shown
Irerraccin
Nash 97 Solar
d
Checked By:
File Path:
6
0 165 330 660
JAR
Feet Approved By:
Date: 450 Fifth Street West N.Charleston, SC 29405
JAR 8129114 phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Nash County
North Carolina

r �
,j 4,
' r iiR;i
Lik ir$
9
' F
�

&V"&p&-Q�'�

U.
l
4As
ir is
1
j
411,di
f�y
4"

Project No. EN147040
Date Photos Taken: August 20, 2014
k •�
3 •�i 1F + ,
Photo l l View of DP-3 wetland soils.
Photo 12 View of area surrounding DP-3 looking north.
Irerracon
Nash 97 Solar

Project No. EN147040
Date Photos Taken: August 20, 2014
Irerracon
r =
- i d,.
w40.y f
i-.
Y Lyy
.i
Photo 13 View of area surrounding DP-3 looking east.
Photo 14 View of area surrounding DP-3 looking south.
Nash 97 Solar

0
P
X�
R, r S�►1ry'.1 �--.tk.�',

s f
_ w
-L... .. . -. f..�. ....- "' � 3. _ ., .ut'+Akita ... � w ~ .. v'�.i�i.:• _

F
ftV
a �
�
:.t'�.'�+st

Project No. EN147040
Date Photos Taken: August 20, 2014
Photo 21 View of DP-5 wetland soils.
F
Photo 22 View of area surrounding DP-5 looking north.
Irerracon
Nash 97 Solar

Project No. EN147040
Date Photos Taken: August 20, 2014
Photo 23 View of area surrounding DP-5 looking east.
Photo 24 View of area surrounding DP-5 looking south.
Irerracon
Nash 97 Solar

Project No. EN147040
Date Photos Taken: August 20, 2014
Photo 25
View of area surrounding DP-5 looking west.
Photo 26 View of DP-6 upland soils.
Irerracon
Nash 97 Solar

t ,
ar I y. at:.
rf 44XV
4 .�i - ter' ._ ,+n -b„R• ..
W-A.:
;,..: `

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Projecf/site: Nash 97 Solar City/County: Middlesex / Nash
Applicant/Owner: James Goldston / Louise Goldston
Ted Meichers / Terra
State: NC
Sampling Date: 8-20-14
_ Sampling Point: DPA Wet
Investigator(s): OOn Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): tefraCe Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LR Let: 35.853409° Long:-78.2025400 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map unit Name: (GeE) Georgeville loam 10 to 25 percent slopes
Are climatic / h drol is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes = No (If no..
NWI classification: Upland
explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes' ' I No ❑
Are Vegetation , Soil Imo, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Noi--i Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes �I No within a Wetland? Yes = No [�
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes J Ile L No =
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that a
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Q Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3;
❑ Water Marks (Bi)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (1219)
Aquatic Fauna (813)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes Q No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No
Q Depth (inches): 12"
Saturation Present? Yes Q No ❑ Depth (inches): 6" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No =
(includes caoillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) -- Use scientific names of plants.
30 ft radius Absolute Dominant indicator
Tree ,�t� rm {Plat size: ) _WCover Species? tatus
1. Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) 20 Y FACU
2. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) 5 Y FAC
4.
5.
25
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
12.5% 20% of total cover:
5%
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius t
1. Tullptrce (Liriodendron tullpifera L.)
15
Y
FACU
2. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.)
10
Y
FAC
3. Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
10
Y
FAC
4. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
5
N
FAC
6.
50% of total cover: 20%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1 Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
3.
4.
40 = Total Cover
_ 20% of total cover: 8%
5 Y FAC
6.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 2.5% 20% of total cover: 1 %
Herb tratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1,
3.
5.
Sampling Point: DPA Wet
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5
Total Number of Dominant 7
Species Across All Strata: _
Percent of Dominant Species 71.4%
That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC:
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species _
y x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7•
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) y) plants, including
g,
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover
—
Woody Vine Stratum,(Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1.
2.
4,
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes ✓n No=
Remarks, (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 We
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth MillrixRedox Features
(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tvoe Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-14" 10YR 511 85 10YR 614 15 C Clayey
14-20" 10YR 714 100 Rocky
'Type: C=Concentration D=De letion RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydrlc Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (At)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric S01193:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
D Redox Dark Surface (176)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
El Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
n Redox Depressions (F8)
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes -0- No ❑
J
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjecUSite: Nash 97 Solar City/County: Middlesex / Nash Sampling Date: 8-20-14
Applicant/Owner: James Goldston 1 Louise Goldston State: NC Sampling Point: DP-2 Up
Investigator(s): Ted Melchers / Terracon Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LR Lat: 35.853043° Long:-78.2032780 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: (GeE) Georgeville loam 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic I hydrolo is conditions on the site typical
for
''tt"h—�is time of year? Yes F r No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil �, or Hydrology l^� significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" preseni? YesEZI No =
Are Vegetation Soil Q, or Hydrology L.�l naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 1—J No r Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes 0 No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes 1.� No =
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Sgcondary Indicators (minimum of two regui(ed)
Primary Indicators minimum of one is reui • check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (196)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (154) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di)
❑ Iron Deposits (1135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (132)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
[] FAC-Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes Q No ✓❑ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 0 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes Q No r 1 Depth
Wetland Hydrology n
(inches):
Present? Yes No
includes ca ilia fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
30 ft radius Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover s? Status
1. Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) 30 Y FACU
2. White oak (Quercus albs) 15 Y FACU
3. Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) 10 Y FAC
4.
6.
45
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
22.5% 20% of total cover:
8%
Saolin9 Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius i
1. Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera L.)
10
Y
FACU
2. Sweetgum (Liquidembar styraciflua L.)
5
Y
FAC
3, Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
5
Y
FAC
4. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
2
N
FAC
5.
6.
50% of total cover: 1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius t
1 Flowering dogwood (Comus florida L.)
3.
6.
50% of total cover: 2.5%
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1.
4.
5.
7.
9.
10.
11.
22 = Total Cover
_ 20% of total cover: 4.4%
5 Y FACU
5 = Total Cover
_ 20% of total cover: 1 %
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1.
4.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover —
(I nclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: DP-2 Up
worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant 8
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 37 5%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
_ Total % Cover of:
Multioly bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 93.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
It (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Present? Yes n No✓�
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2 Up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) _ Color (moist) % C619r1moist) % Tyoe� Loci Texture Remaft
0-6" 10YR 514 100 Clayey
6-20" 10YR 516 100 Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
D Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
® Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
j] Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (178)
JO Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbria Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
f3 Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? You ❑ No 21
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Nash 97 Solar City/county: Middlesex / Nash Sampling Date: 8-20-14
Applicant/Owner: James Goldston / Louise Goldston State: NC Sampling Point: DP-3 Wet
Investigator(s): Ted Melchers / Terracon Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LR Lat: 35.850621 ° Long:-78.208621 ° Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: (WOA) Worsham Loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes F r l No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes al No =
Are Vegetation Soil ❑, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area ❑
ydric Soil Present? Yes� ✓ Not:� within a Wetland? Yes = No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Lv No
HYDROLOGY
Watiand Hydrology Indicators:
Seopriciant Incifficatgrs (minimum of two d
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B8)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑✓ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
✓ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (816)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (1)3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
L] FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes Q
No Q Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes LEI
No Q Depth (inches): 10"
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): 6N
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes IK No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
30 ft radius
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover S2gcies? Status
1. Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipPfera L.)
10
Y
FACU
2. White oak (Quercus alba)
5
Y
FACU
3. Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
5
Y
FAC
4. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
5
Y
FAC
6.
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 12.5% 20% of total cover: 5%
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft red! us Y
,,American Holly (Ilex opaca) 10 Y FAC
2. Red Maple (Acer rubrum) 5 Y FAC
3.
50% of total cover: 7.5%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius 1
,.-Switch Cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
3.
4.
6.
50% of total cover: 2.5%
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1.
3.
7.
B.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1.
4.
Remarks: (Include
50% of total cover:
15 = Total Cover
_ 20% of total cover: 3%
5 Y FACW
5 = Total Cover
— 20% of total cover: 1 %
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover.—
numbers nere or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: UP-3 Wet
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant 7
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species 71.4%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A(B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: „ Multiply bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 It (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
It (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation �
Present? Yes L No=
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP-3 We
rrvmu uescnpaon: tuescrioe to the oepm needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth _ Matrix Redox
(Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist), % _ Tvoe L Texture _ Remarks
0-6" 10YR 5/1 95 10YR 714 5 C Sandy
6-20" 10YR 511 100 Sandv
'Type: C=Concentration D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric S01183:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
D Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muds (At 0) (LRR N)
D Redox Dark Surface (F6)
D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Q Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
D Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑✓ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes _ No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjecUSite: Nash 97 Solar city/county: Middlesex 1 Nash
ApplicantrOwner: James Goldston / Louise Goldston State: NC
Investigator(s): Ted Melchers 1 Terracon Section, Township, Range:
Sampling Date: 8-20-14
_ Sampling Point: DP-4 Up
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LR Lai: 35.850183° Long:-78.2085970 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: (WoA) Worsham Loam NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic 1 hPEI=.
nditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes J v I No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetationl ❑, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes F No
Are Vegetation or Hydrology L.J naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarkks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes LJ No V Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes L No
F✓�
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary In icato[g (minimum of two ' d
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that apply)_
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bi) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (132)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
,❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
El Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes Q No Q Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes Q No Q Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes Q No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yee II NoIZL
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP-4 Up
30 ft radius
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
5oecies9
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera L.)
30
--Status
Y FACU
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. Red Maple (Ater rubrum)
5
N FAC
3. Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra)
5
N FACU
Total Number of Dominant
5
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5
Percent of Dominant Species 40%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB)
6.
40
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
c
50% of total cover: 2016
20% of total cover $ c �°
Total % Cover of: Multiply
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius
OBL species x 1 =
1. Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera L.)
5
Y FACU
FACW species x 2 =
2. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.)
5
Y FAC
FAC species x 3 =
3. White oak (Quercus alba)
5
Y FACU
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: - _ (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4. American Holly (Ilex opaca) 5 Y FAC
5
6•
20
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 10%
20% of total cover; 4%
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 It radius t
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
,.Flowering dogwood (Corpus florida L.)
5
Y FACU
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2.
3.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
6'
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5 = Total Cover
Deffnitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 2.5% 20% of total cover: 1
30 ft radius
Herb Stratum (Plat size: )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. _
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2' —
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
7.
B.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1.
4.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Shrub- Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Present? Yes n No✓�
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4 Up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist} % Color (moistL_ % Type' Lac Texture Remarks
0-6" 10YR 5/1 100 Loamy
6-20" 10YR 7/3 100 Loamy
'Type: C=Concentration D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
E]Histosol (Al)
D Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ 2 cm Muds (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
D Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
L] Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Z) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Solis (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
n Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If observed) -
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes _a No ❑�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjectlSne: Nash 97 Solar City/County: Middlesex/ Nash Sampling Date: 8-20-14
Applicant/Owner: James GOldston I Louise GOldston State: NC Sampling Point: DP-5 Wet
Investigator(s): Ted Melchers 1 Terracon Section, Township, Range:
Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LR Let: 35.854479- Long:-78.208520-
Soil Map Unit Name: (GeE) Georgeville loam 10 to 25 percent slopes
- Slope (%):
Datum: NAD 83
NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic ! h drolo rc conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil �, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No
Are Vegetation Soil Q, or Hydrology LJ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes '� No � Is the sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I rrTr No within a Wetland? Yes EZI No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that a
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Water Marks (Bi)
❑ Presence of Reduced iron (C4)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CO)
❑✓ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Surface Water Present? Yes Q No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0 No Q Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes Q No Depth (inches):
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
[] Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di)
1❑ Geomorphic Position (132)
iJ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0 FAC-Neutral Test (135)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) % Cover _Species? Status
1. Tuliptree (Lidodendron tulipifera L.) 15 Y FACU
2. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) 10 Y FAC
4.
6.
25
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 12.5% 20% of total cover:
5%
Sapliin Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
15
Y
FAC
2. Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
5
N
FAC
3. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.)
5
N
FAC
4. American Beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.)
5
N
FACU
5.
6.
°U = Total Cover
50% of total cover. 15% 20% of total cover: 6%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius
1 Switch Cane (Arundinaria gigantea) 5 Y FACW
3.
Sampling Point: DP-5 Wet
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 7%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of,
Multiply bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW speries
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6' be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5 = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 2.5% 20% of total cover. 1 % Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plat size: 30 ft radius ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4 than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
It (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Modv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1,
2. _
3.
4. _
5. ~
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover. 20% of total cover. Present? Yes ✓II Non
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL. Sampling Point: DP-5 We
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth
Jdatrix
l3edox Features
(inches)
Color(moist)
%
Color moist % Ty e( l Loc — Texture Remarks
0-6"
10YR 5/1
95
10YR 6/3 5 C Clayey
6-16"
10YR 7/2
100
Clayey
16 20"
10YR 7/2
60
10YR 7/4 40 C Clayey
'T e: C=Concentra#ion, D=De letion RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
D Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (178)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N.
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes Y_ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/site: Nash 97 Solar City/County: —Middlesex/ Nash
Applicantrownec James Goldston 1 Louise Goldston State: NC
Investigator(s): Ted Melchers 1 Terracon
Section, Township, Range:
Sampling Date: 8-20-14
- Sampling Point: DP-6 Up
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LR Let: 35.854060° Long:-78.208553° Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map unit Name: (GeE) Georgevi Ile loam 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic 1 h drolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes F r No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil �, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes [KI No ❑
Are Vegetation Soil �, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hyddrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes � No^ is the Sampled Area � 0
Hyric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No o 4
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired: deck all that a
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3;
❑ Water Marks (Bi)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CO)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Surface Water Present? Yes Q No 0 Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes E:D No 0 Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe) _
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
[_—]Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dt)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (134)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No En
inspections), if available:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
30 It radius Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) _% Cover Species? Status
1. Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) 35 Y FACU
2. Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) 10 Y FAC
4.
5.
45 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 22.5% 20% of total cover: g%
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius
1 Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) 15 Y FACU
2. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) 10 Y FAC
3. Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra) 5 N FACU
6. _
3{,
50% of total cover: 15%
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1 Red Maple (Ater rubrum) 5
2 Southern red oak (Quercus falcate) 5
5,
50% of total cover: 5%
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius )
1.
3.
6.
7.
8.
1C
11
50% of total cover:
Wocdv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius
1•
= Total Cover
20% of total cover: 6%
Y FAC
Y FACU
10 = Total Cover
0
_ 20% of total cover: °
Total Cover
20% of total cover:
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: DP-6 Up
Dominance Testworksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant 6
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 50%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multip(y by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Q3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 It (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine —All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes n NofZ�L
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP-6 Up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) _Color (moist) Color (moist) % _ Type'_ J oc? Texture Remarks
0-10" 10YR 5/1 100 _ Loamy
10-20" 10YR 6/3 100 Loamy
Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: F
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
r] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A6)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 140)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yea ❑ No 21
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

USACE AID# �DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,a„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:Ted Melchers / Terracon 2. Evaluator's name: Ted Melchers
3. Date of evaluation: August 20, 2014 4. Time of evaluation: 1: 0 0 PM
5. Name of stream: Jurisdictional sRPW 1 6.Riverbasin: Neuse River Basin
7. Approximate drainage area:Turkey Creek g, Stream order: 1st order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 250 Linear Feet 10. County: Nash
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any)
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 5. 8 5 3 4 0 9 ° Longitude (ex.—77.556611): — °
Method location determined (circle): PS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) PhotolGIS Other G1S Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North off W NC 97 1.5 miles west of NC 231
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny 9 0 s
16. Site conditions at time of visit:_ Sunny 9 0 s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 ,Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
19. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
1001% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 5-10 Feet
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES (9
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
�% Cleared / Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1-2 _f.Q.Pt.___
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 40%) x Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends x Frequent meander Very sinuous .Braided channel
Insttructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):_ 51 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature �'''�'n�m. Date
This channel evaluation form is intend 1>�� ' b as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
c0stoPiedmont
'
" Monnt�in
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0• contiguous wide buffer = max points
0-6
0-4
0-5
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points
0— 5
0— 4
0— 4
3
5
Groundwater discharge
0_ 3
0— 4
0— 4
3
no discharge = 0; s n s seeps, wetlands etc, = max points)
Presence of floodplain
6
adjacent
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
`
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
1
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0_ 6
0— 4
0— 2
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
1
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
(extensive deposition-- 0, little or no sediment = max points
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
1
fine, homo enous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points
i�t
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max oints)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
.,
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
�
substantial impact - no evidence = max Dints
0-5
0 — 4
0 — 5
3
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0— 6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0 well-develo ed = max points)
2
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints)
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
4
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points
2
0
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max points
O
22
Presence offish
no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
N23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0 abundant evidence = max rots)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
51
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
i nese cnaractensncs are not assesses m coastal streams,

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,a„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -A
; `'
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Ted Melchers / Terracon 2. Evaluator's name: Ted Melchers
3. Date of evaluation: August 20, 2014
5. Name of stream- Jurisdictional sRPW 2
7. Approximate drainage area -Turkey Creek
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1 015 Linear Feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
4. Time of evaluation: 5 : 0 0 PM
6. River basin: Neuse River Basin
8. Stream order: 1st order
10. County: Nash
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.8723 i 2): 3 5. 8 5 4 4 7 9° Longitude (ex.-77.556611): _ 7 8 .2 0 8 5 2 0°
Method location determined (circle): 40 Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other __
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North off W NC 97 1.5 miles west of NC 231
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny 9 0 s
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters ,Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
10 0 % Forested �% Cleared / Logged �% Other
22. Bankfull width: 5-10 Feet _ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) x Moderate (4 to 10%} _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends x Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2); Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluators Signature _F �^ i•�• Date
This channel evaluation form is intend W-'fi b as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
#
CxaRacTEiusTics
SCORE
ai
Piedmont"
Mo`iinn
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max pomts)
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0; conti ous, wide buffer = max pomts
0-6
0-4
0-5
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-4
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no discharge = 0, springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max omts
3
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
1
(no flood lain = 0; extensive floodplain = max omts
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 —5
0-4
0-2
entrenched = 0 • frequent flooding = max oints
1
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0 — 6
0 — 4
0 — 2
(no wetlands = 0; lag a adjacent wetlands = max ints)
1
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
(extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
1
{fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(dMly incised = 0• stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
.,
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact —0• no evidence = maxpoints)0-5
0-4
0-5
3
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
(no riffles/ripples or ools = 0; well -developed = max oints)
0-5
0-6
2
1
' Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
r d
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 — 5
0 — S
0-5
9
{no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous cano = nIAX points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
1
deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
j
2l
Presence of amphibians
0— 4
0— 4
0— 4
1
Ono
evidence = 0- common, numerous es = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0— 4
0— 4
0— 4
0
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
48
TOTAL SCORE (also enter. on first page)
t nese cnaractensues are not assesses in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSKEET ;
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Ted Melchers Terracon 2. Evaluator's name: Ted Melchers
3. Date of evaluation: Aug s t 20, 2014 4. Time of evaluation: 2 : 0 0 PM
5. Name of stream: Jurisdictional RRPW 1
7. Approximate drainage area:Turkey Creek
9. Length of reach evaluated: 750 Linear Feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
6.River basin: Neuse River Basin
8.Streamorder: 1st order
10. County: Nash
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): —3-5 . S 5 0 6 21 ° Longitude (ex.-77.556611): - °
Method location determined (circle): 40 Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North off W NC 97 1.5 miles west of NC 231
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny 90 s
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny 90 s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES Na 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial `% Agricultural
10 00% Forested _% Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width:- 10 — 2 0 Fe e t 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3-4 feet _
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 20%) _Gentle (2 to 40%) Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends x Frequent meander ,Very sinuous ,Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):_ 59 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature_ Date
This channel evaluation form is Inteaddl"'WIN&Ibpi$ as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03_ To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
#
CHARACTERISTICS?
SCORE`-
$ICf�Ino-fit
ounia#n
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive :alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
5
3
Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
3
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0• springs, seeps, wetlands, etc_ = max points)
�-4
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
"
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
1
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
1
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
(extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
(extensive deposition-- 0• little or no sediment = max oints
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
ll
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
3
(fine homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
16
Presence of riffle-pooltripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well -developed = max rots)
3
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0 -5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canqu = max points)
4
19
Substrate embeddeduess
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0 common, numerous types = max points
1
21
Presence of amphibians
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
59
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
inese ctiaractenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name; Ted Melchers / Terracon 2. Evaluator's name: Ted Melchers
3. Date of evaluation: August 20, 2014 4. Time of evaluation: 3 : 0 0 PM
5. Name ofstream: Jurisdictional PRPW 2
7. Approximate drainage area: Turkey Creek
9. Length of reach evaluated: 275 Linear Feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
6.River basin: Neuse River Basin
8. Stream order: 1st order
10. County: Nash
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34s72312): 3 5. 8 5 0 0 2 ° Longitude (ex.-77.556611):= 7 8. 2 0 9 016 °
Method location determined (circle): PS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
North off W NC 97 1.5 miles west of NC 231
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions. —Sunny 90 s
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES E J If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES N®
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
10 0% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 15-20 Feet
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 9
--% Commercial `% Industrial `% Agricultural
_% Cleared I Logged % Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3-4 feet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) ,Gentle (2 to 4%) -? -Moderate (4 to 10%) --Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends x Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 , Comments:
Evaluator's Signature «��Date
This channel evaluation form is Intend 'b'9G WUM as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
#
FCOX h
-
CHARACTERISTICS
SCOREY
0�8t ii
Ple[lm0&
Win�alu"
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; stron flow = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
5
(extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; conti ous, wide buffer = max po)nts
0-6
0-4
0-5
5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
no discharge = 0• s s, sees wetlands, etc. = max points
6
Presence of adjacent fioodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-4
0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max points)0-5
1
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0. 1ar a adjacent wetlands = max pDints)
1
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
(extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
1 i
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
3
(fie, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max ints
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
We 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
13
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points
0-5
0-5
0 —5
3
Root depth and density on banks
14
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
substantial impact �• no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well -developed = maxpoints)
0-5
0-6
4
17
Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous qqgom = max points)
4
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
2
t
no evidence = 0; common,numerous types = maxpoints)
_0
21
Presence of amphibians
0— 4
0-4
0-4
2
Ono
evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0— 6
0— 5
0— 5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
59
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
1 nese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Notes on Characteristics Identified in Assessment Worksheet
1. Consider channel flow with respect to channel cross -sectional area (expected flow), drainage area, recent precipitation, potential
drought conditions, surrounding land use, possible water withdrawals, presence of impoundments upstream, vegetation growth in
channel bottom (as indicator of intermittent flow), etc.
2. Human -caused alterations may include relocation, channelization, excavation, riprap, gabions, culverts, levees, berms, spoil piles
adjacent to channel, etc.
3. The riparian zone is the area of vegetated land along each side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the
floodplain. Evaluation should consider width of riparian area with respect to floodplain width, vegetation density, maturity of
canopy and understory, species variety, presence of undesirable invasive species (exotics), breaks (utility corridors, roads, etc.),
presence of drainage tiles, logging activities, other disturbances which negatively affect function of the riparian zone.
4. Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges includes pipes, ditches, and direct draining from commercial and industrial sites,
agricultural fields, pastures, golf courses, swimming pools, roads, parking lots, etc. Sewage, chlorine, or other foul odors,
discolored water, suds, excessive algal growth may also provide evidence of discharge.
5. Groundwater discharge may be indicated by persistent pools and saturated soils during dry weather conditions, presence of
adjacent wetlands, seeps, and springs feeding channel, reduced soils in channel bottom.
6. Presence of floodplains may be determined by topography and the slope of the land adjacent to the stream, terracing, the extent of
development within the floodplain, FEMA designation if known, etc.
7. Indicators of floodplain access include sediment deposits, wrack lines, drainage patterns in floodplain, local stream gauge data,
testimony of local residents, entrenchment ratio, etc. Note that indicators may relic and not a result of regular flooding.
8. Wetland areas should be evaluated according to their location, size, quality, and adjacency relative to the stream channel, and
may be indicated by beaver activity, impounded or regularly saturated areas near the stream, previous delineations, National
Wetland Inventory maps, etc. (Wetlands must meet criteria outlined in 1987 delineation manual and are subject to USACE approval.)
9. Channel sinuosity should be evaluated with respect to the channel size and drainage area, valley slope, topography, etc.
10. To evaluate sediment deposition within the channel consider water turbidity, depth of sediment deposits forming at point bars and
in pools, evidence of eroding banks or other sediment sources within watershed (construction sites, ineffective erosion controls). In
rare cases, typically downstream of culverts or dams, a sediment deficit may exist and should be considered in scoring.
11. When looking at channel substrate, factor in parent material (presence of larger particles in soil horizons adjacent to the stream), average
size of substrate (bedrock, clay/silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, etc.), and diversity of particle size (riprap is excluded).
12. Indications of channel incision and deepening may include a v-shaped channel bottom, collapsing banks, evidence of recent
development and increased impervious surface area resulting in greater runoff in the watershed.
13. Evaluation should consider presence of major bank failures along the entire reach under evaluation, including uprooted trees on
banks, banks falling into channel, formation of islands in channel as they widen, exposed soil, active zones of erosion, etc.
14. Increased root depth and density result in greater bank stability. Consider the depth and density that roots penetrate the bank
relative to the amount of exposed soil on the bank and the normal water elevation.
15. Assessment of agriculture, livestock, and/or timber production impacts should address areas of stream bank destabilization,
evidence of livestock in or crossing stream, loss of riparian zone to pasture or agricultural fields, evidence of sediment or high
nutrient levels entering streams, drainage ditches entering streams, loss of riparian zone due to logging, etc.
16. Riffle -pool steps can be identified by a series of alternating pools and riffles. Abundance, frequency, and relative depth of riffles
and pools should be considered with respect to topography (steepness of terrain) and local geology (type of substrate).
Coastal plain streams should be evaluated for the presence of ripple -pool sequences. Ripples are bed forms found in sand bed
streams with little or no gravel that form under low shear stress conditions, whereas, dunes and antidunes form under moderate
and high shear stresses, respectively. Dunes are the most common bed forms found in sand bed streams.
17. Habitat complexity is an overall evaluation of the variety and extent of in -stream and riparian habitat. Types of habitat to look
for include rocks/cobble, sticks and leafpacks, snags and logs in the stream, root mats, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation,
pool and riffle complexes, wetland pockets adjacent to channel, etc.
18. Evaluation should consider the shading effect that riparian vegetation will provide to the stream during the growing season. Full
sun should be considered worst case, while good canopy coverage with some light penetration is best case.
19. Stream embeddedness refers to the extent that sediment that has filled in gaps and openings around the rocks and cobble in the
streambed. The overall size of the average particle in the streambed should be considered (smaller rocks will have smaller gaps).
20. Evaluation should be based on evidence of stream invertebrates gathered from multiple habitats. Scores should reflect
abundance, taxa richness, and sensitivity of stream invertebrate types. (see attached examples of common stream invertebrates on page
4).
21. Evaluation should include evidence of amphibians in stream channel. Tadpoles and frogs should receive minimum value, while
salamanders, newts, etc. may be assigned higher value.
22. Evaluation of fish should consider the frequency and, if possible, the variety of different fish taxa observed.
23. Evaluation of wildlife should include direct observation or evidence (tracks, shells, droppings, burrows or dens, hunting stands, evidence
of fishing, etc.) of any animals using the streambed or riparian zone, to include small and large mammals, rodents, birds, reptiles,
insects, etc.

Common Stream Invertebrates
Sensitive Taza — Pollution sensitive organisms that may be found in ood qualiLy water.
C;addistly
Mayfly
Water Penny
Stonefly
Gilled Snail
Dobsonfly
Somewhat Tolerant Taza — Somewhat bollution tolerant organisms that may he fmind in annri nr
Beetle Larva
i
Clam
C:raytish Damselfly Nymph
Sowbug
Scud
Cranefly
Dragon Fly Nymph
Tolerant Taxa — Pollution tolerant organisms that may be found in any qualitywater.
Blackfly Larva
Leech
Midge Fly Larva
Aquatic Worm Pouch & Pond Snail

Page 1 of 1
J
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
S 01'35'05" W
97.05'
L2
S 01' 17'40" W
57.42'
L3
S 7956'29" W
71.40'
L4
S 41458'50" W
64.1:9' .
L5
S 42'21 ' 10" W
57.32'
L6
S 43' 18'49" W
55.54'
L7
S 4345'19" W
53M'
L8
S 4422'32" W
55.60'
L9
33
S 44'44" W
54.15'
L1'0
S 45'O0'52" W
115.83'
L11
S 45'33'23" W
192.07'
L12
N 36'1426" W
30.62'
11.3
N 36'14'26" W
185 9:2'
L14
N 36'14'36" W
849.9`
L15
N 08'48'12" E
46.37'
L16
N 32'56'27" W
26.50'
L17
N 66 5722" E
63,91,
L18
N 39 22'25" E
70.95'
09
N 66 30'07" E
57 77'
L20
N 57`28'20" W
57.60'
L21
N 09'04'29" E
79 04'
L22
N 10'52 14" W
22 5.4
L23
N 41 12.32" E
76.02'
L24
N 7T07'34" E
58,445,
L25
S 78'36'14" E
35,26'
L26
S 50'47'36" E
51 42'
L27
N 78'31'03" E
76 9;6'
L28
S 63 0.3.22" E
48,21'
199
N 8357'40" E
56.09'
L30
N 25 43'23" E
32 20'
L31
N 13'08' 12" W
35 39'
L32
I N 53'00'30" W
24.75'
L33
N 28*09,031, W
27,38'
L34
N 39'40'06" E
36,61,
L35
S 68'57'32" E
66.59'
L3 SS
01'09'38" E
25 9'5'
L37
S 78 28.06" E
68.37
L38
N 53 18 26' .E
76 68'
L39
N 18'45'41 " GU
33,29'
L40
N 37'1.3'46" E
21.34'
L41
S 52'O2'47" E
42..41'
L42
S 70 57'44" E
64.56'
L43
N 36 21. 37" E .
107.57'
L44
N 5929 10" E
70.90'
L.45
N 49'25'52" E
38.61'
L46
S 84 38 30" E
39.03'
L47
N 46 01 34" E
17.13'
L448
N 1405'06" E
42,19'
L49
S 88'2.2'10" E
33.69'
L50
S 34 02' 12" 'E
43.1:3'
L51
S 69.39'24" E
41,30'
L52
N 78`1;6'57" E
42.65'
L53
N 3V34'02" E
92.04'
L54
I N 65'5W43" E
34.36'
L55
N 17'44'17" E
18.1°0'
L56
N 35 03 22" .W
48.40'
L57
N 56'0443" E
32,2.6'
L58
S 5457'49" E
98.46'
L59
N 67`47'17" E
38.93'
L60
N 27*15'18" E
21.45'
L61
N 40' 16 06" W
40.2.1 '
162
N 16'25'45" E
23.19'
L63
N 85'OVST E
36.93'
L64
S 62'59'11" E
80.02'
L6.5
N 64'39'V' E
57,14'
L66
N 73'15'28" E
38.88'
L07
N 5255'5.3" E
18.74'
L68
S 70'02'3:4" E
31.91'
L69
S 19"09'52" E
47.5.9'
L70
S 39'57'53" E
26.35'
L71
S 41'09'41" W
80,74'
L72
S 03'31'09" E
27.84'
L73
S 03'22'10" E
53.78'
L74
S 56.4759" W
15.0.6'
L75
S 25'44'37" E
49.89'
L7'6
S OS' 16'0.5" E
58.8. 8'
L77
S 33'54'48" 1N
16.To'
L78
S 31'24'26" E
102.58'
L79
S 29'33'42" E
90,26'
LBO
N 7 1"1 V 1.4" E
40.15'
L81
S 16'52'23" E
133.19'
L62
S 16'34'0.7" E
99.06'
L83
S 23 30' 13" E
125.15'
L84
S 07'59`56" W
8.06'
L8:5
S 70'42'32" W
6.0.87,
L86
S 44'57'00" W
222.20'
L87
N 41'01'44" E
47.14'
L8s
N 40737'00" E
56.70'
L89
N 4O'02'59" E
92 83'
L90
S 01'35.'05" W
48 20'
L91
S 01'35'05" W
48.85'
L9:2
S 62'59' 11 " E
59.74'
L93
S 62`5.9' 11 " E
20.28'
DONALD R. STRICKLAND
ROGER THOMAS STRICKLAND
DB 2159/598
,0T- L6,9 CREEK
O
v 5/8" PIPE ON
SOUTHERN BANK
OF CREEK
TRACT 3 C/L WET WEATHER
MRS. GRAHAM L. WAGNER HEIRS G PB 38/207 DRAIN IS P/L
PB 4/33 v� ORIGINAL=20.159 ACRES } ,�� (L71-L84)
tQ
>J
C/L TURKEY 4
CREEK IS P/L
(L15-L70)
5/8" PIPE ON
EASTERN BANK
OF CREEK
� #5
-- - N 88'57'19" W REBAR
_ C_
�� 309.07' (T)
10.88'-' ua:
MARGARET ANN POOLE PARROTT to
DB 2275/744 (TRACT 1)
PB 13/165 (TRACT 3) I n;
n
5/s"
_----._--.---- PINCHED
-' PIPE
CONTROL
' CORNER
1 (We) hereby certify that I (we are) the owner(s) of the
property shown and described hereon, which was conveyed
to me (us) by deed recorded in Deed Book 2680 Page 457,
Nash County Register of Deeds, and that sold property
qualifies as an exception to the provisions of the Nash
CnufAv Unified Delalooment Ordinance.
Plann
Stare of North Carolina
County of Nash
Review Officer of Nash County, certify that
the map or plat to which this certification
is affixed meets all statutory requirements,
for rec r :
...............-.
evfew Officer ------ _ - Date
J
0 lz�
a
u� N
4 r
� rn
.a�a
rS Certificate - tj: g t N.0
.ve.vor's
1 certify that this plat was drawn under my supervision from an actual
�
survey made under my supervision, deed description recorded in (see source
documents). that the boundaries not surveyed are indicated as drawn from
0
information in --- ;that the ratio of precision Is 1:15,000'; and that this
plat meets the requirements of The Standards of Practice for Land
0
Surveying 1n North Carolina (21 NCAC 56.1600). 1 further certify that the
z
State Plane Coordinates and bearing basis was determined from on actual
GNSS survey made under my supervision and the following information was
used to perform the survey.
Class of Survey. A
,�►ti�rsci�f��ir��
Positional accuracy. 0.05'
♦��% ,�� CQ
Type of GNSS field procedure: NC RTN
2013
�.� rfv •,..••• .•,�/ '�,
r:
Date of survey: April 29,
lam•.," it
?.•'ESS
�•Q�tGF
Dotum/Epoch: NAD 83(2011)
y y�
Published/fixed control: CORS
SEAL
Geoid Model: GEOID 12A
.:
Units: U.S. Survey Feet
This 5th day of August, 2013.
• L-3991
: ;�AL 4 ,
SURDStep
---- --
P
t5urveyor
'•��r` � M
ProfessionalhenM.
and L -3391
%�,,,
retcr��ss
1, Stephen M. Puckett, certify to the following.-
D. That this plat is of a Survey of another category, such as a Legend
recombination of existing parcels, a court -ordered survey or other
exception to the deflnftion of .subdivision. (unless otherwise noted)
5/8" Pipe Found STD
#5 Rebar Set 0 <�
1- --------- -__-- No!) Found 0
Stephen M. Puckett L-3991 Nail Set
Puckett Surveyors, 1°LL.0
Professional Land Surveyors
FIRM LICENSE N0. (P-1168)
1555 N.C. 56 Suite 2
Creedmoor, N.C. 27522
File:13043 P. 919.528.8900
Calculated Point
oncrete Monument
■
Control Monument
ight of Way
R/W
Centerline
CIL
Property Line
P/L
Overhead Utilities
ONU
Total Distance
(T)
Boundary Line
Right of Way Line
Adjoining Boundary
Line
Nail at Bose
(NAB)
1
,1
N 88'02'41 " W
' /r-82.12'
CORNER
THE 2012 DAVID AND DOTTIE STRICKLAND
FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST
DB 2601/37
GEORGE W. LAMBERT �1
LUCILLE S. LAMBERT 1
DB 1506/928 i4
L63 ,1
R]
a -4.43 ACRES
NEW =15.73 ACRES �� L
TURt<EY N -° z
T. rG
vUJ
00
/ (4.43 ACRES)
UJ
CL
a:
.
d.
S 88'59'22" E 1073.46'
TRACT 1
P8 38/207
PIN 273600468353
49.74 ACRES
�1 )
• ,56��1
,1$g5
S� 0 �2 1.25"
PIPE VypMNGK
SO! SJO
Qe if'?, 1)
?g 4/?`
via2
IU0
0
0
rI
1.25
PIPE
------ ---- --
---
PROPERTY LINE
HEREBY ABANDONED
NEW PROPERTY LINE
TRACT 2
24.92 ACRES
0.02 AC.(R/W)
24.90 AC.(NET)
TRACT 4
PB 38/207
PIN 273600651688
2.271 ACRES
0,426 AC.(R/W)
1,845 AC.(NET)
General Notes
1) Area by Coordinate Method
2) No Published Horizontal Control
Monument found within 2000'
3) All buildings, surface, subsurface improvements and
utilities are not necessarily depicted hereon.
4) New Monumentation is #5 rebor unless noted
otherwise.
5) All distances are horizontal ground distances
in U.S. survey feet.
6) This survey performed without benefit of
title examination and is made subject to any
document which may affect subject property.
7) Surface and subsurface utilities depicted hereon are
based on visible evidence only. Utility companies should
be contacted for information regarding any utilities.
8) Flood zone plotted by graphical method only per
FIRM map#3720272600K dated November 3, 2004.
9) Tax Parcel identifier: PiN 2736:00563491
PIN 273600570454
10) Zone: (A-1)
11) Setbacks: Front.50', Rear.30', Side:15', Side Street:25'
IVAN NEIL LIVERMAN
CATHERINE W. LIVERMAN
DB 1419/358
P8 17/161 (TRACT 1)
S 88'57'00" E 926,59'
(23.44 ACRES)
TRACT 5
27.87 ACRES
0.25 AC.(R/W)
27.62 AC.(NET) c�
V)
0 63
N iO >k232 /
`.O
C 1
Vy
REBAR -56
3 4
PIPE
,
�
u'
�, 2311 ` O� 1� r'� ,o
�al
^`.
o�'�F
o
` Owner
James D Goldston Jr
Location Map (nts)
(C Copyright, Puckett Surveyors, PLLC
unauthorized reproduction prohibited by law.
FLAT Q
IRON U 5
cc
64
z Z ua
ODU
ruw-
>UJ0�
....� a I��II�I�IIII�II�If€l��II�����I�II��IEI���Il�illll������II�IIII�IIII���III��
Doc ID: 006551220001 Type: CRP
:Recorded: 08/14/2013 at 10:12:46 AM
'Fee Amt: $21.00 Paae 1 of 1
.Nash Countv North Carolina
Anne ,7. Melvin Realster of Deeds
BK38 Pr,242
N.C. STATE PLANE
COORDINATES
L90 NAD 83(2011)
L1(T) N:766110.96'
�� • // E:2236704.80'
L91 (1" PIPE)
RE BAR
AXLE
�+j l (NAB)
AREA SOUTHEAST
l w J A OF THE CENTERLINE
OF NC HWY 97
r r 6,490 SF
N ca !I ry 0.149 ACRES
�0
I
I
Exempt Subdivision and
Recombination Peat for:
J.D. Goldston, Jr.
August 6, 2013
Township of Ferrells, County of Nash, State of N.C.
200 0 100 200 400
Louise F. Goldston Source of Title
q3\# 13100 Old Creedmoor Rd. DB 268i1/457
�%N I . .
q:1 Raleigh, NC 27613 PB 38/2.07 Graphic Seale (1"=200')
Book: 38 Page: 242 Seq: 1

PENDIX C
Regulatory Determinations

Melchers, Ted
From: Smith, Cherri L <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Melchers, Ted; Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
The earliest I can probably be there is 9 am so if you guys are still there great, if not, my cell phone is 919-972-1689.
Cherri
-----Original Message -----
From: Melchers, Ted [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 12:00 PM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc: Smith, Cherri L
Subject: RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
We can meet at Nash 97 first at 8 AM. Let me know if that works. We can push the time back if we need to.
Thanks,
Ted
J. Ted Melchers IV
Environmental Scientist
Terracon
1450 5th Street West, North Charleston, SC 29405 D [phone] 1 P [phone] 1 F [phone] 1 M (843)
[e-mail] I www.terracon.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Brown, Craig J SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 11:33 AM
To: Melchers, Ted
Cc: Smith, Cherri L
Subject: RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Start with the closest one to Raleigh - though it doesn't make much difference to me. Just let me know where you want
to meet.
Craig
1

-----Original Message -----
From: Melchers, Ted [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 11:26 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW; Smith, Cherri L
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
on
I am confirming our site visits on Friday, December 5th. Which site would you like to start with and what time? I can
meet as early as 7:30 - 8:00 AM.
Thanks,
Ted
J. Ted Melchers IV
Environmental Scientist
Terracon
1450 5th Street West, North Charleston, SC 29405 D [phone] 1 P [phone] 1 F [phone] 1 M (843)
[e-mail] I www.terracon.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Brown, Craig J SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:52 AM
To: Smith, Cherri L; Melchers, Ted
Subject: RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Friday works for me, too. Craig
-----Original Message -----
From: Smith, Cherri L [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:22 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW; Melchers, Ted
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Friday, December 5 works for me.
Cherri
-----Original Message -----
From: Brown, Craig J SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:44 AM

To: Melchers, Ted
Cc: Smith, Cherri L
Subject: RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Tuesday, Thursday or Friday. With Tuesday being the preferred day (since you are busy on Thursday). Craig
-----Original Message -----
From: Melchers, Ted [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:26 AM
To: Brown, Craig J SAW
Cc: Smith, Cherri L
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Cherri and Craig,
Will December 5th work for y'all or any other date in the first week of December?
Thanks,
Ted
J. Ted Melchers IV
Environmental Scientist
Terracon
1450 5th Street West, North Charleston, SC 29405 D [phone] 1 P [phone] 1 F [phone] 1 M (843)
[e-mail] I www.terracon.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Brown, Craig J SAW[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:15 AM
To: Melchers, Ted
Cc: Smith, Cherri L
Subject: RE: Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Ted,
Sorry, I can't meet on the 3rd.
3

It looks like the wetlands are pretty straight forward (except for Spring Hope Solar Site 3, which might have an isolated
wetland, and that would require an approved JD unless you are OK with calling it jurisdictional).
We might be able to do all four sites in one day.
Craig
-----Original Message -----
From: Melchers, Ted [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 7:49 AM
To: [e-mail]; Brown, Craig J SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Nash 97 and Spring Hope 1,2,3
Cherri and Craig,
Can we visit these sites on December 3, 2014? 1 am meeting with Eric Alsmeyer and Autumn Romanski on December 4,
2014.
Thanks,
Ted
J. Ted Melchers IV
Environmental Scientist
Terracon
1450 5th Street West, North Charleston, SC 29405
D [phone] 1 P [phone] 1 F [phone] 1 M [phone]
[e-mail] I www.terracon.com <http://www.terracon.com/>

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2014-02230 County: Nash U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-MIDDLESEX
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: James & Louise Goldston
Address: 13100 Old Creedmoor Rd.
Raleigh, NC, 27613
Telephone Number: 919-847-5178
Size (acres) 75
Nearest Waterway Turkey Creels
USGS HUC 3020203
Nearest Town Samaria
River Basin Contentnea. North Carolina.
Coordinates Latitude:35.852793
Longitude:-78.206197
Location description: Project is located just north of West North Carolina 97, and approximately 1.5 miles west of the
town of Samaria, Nash County, North Carolina. Property PIN: 273600563491.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area
. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification.
There are waters of the U.S, including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years fi-om the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the waters of the U.S, including wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the
size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any
delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S, including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
Page 1 of 2

published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Craig Brown at 919-554-4884 x35 or
Craig.J.Brown a,usace.army.mil.
C. Basis for Determination: There are streams within the proiect area that may be relatively permanent
waterways (RPW) exhibiting ordinary high water marks & bed and bank features and wetlands that may exhibit
wetland criteria as defined in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate Regional Supplement
The streams and wetlands on the property flow to Turkey Creels which flows to Contentnea Creels which flows to
the Neuse River, a Traditional Navigable Waterway.
D. Remarks: Site visit for verification of delineation on December 5 2014.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by N/A (Preliminary M.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.
Corps Regulatory Official: Craig B
Date: April 23, 2015 Expiration Date: N/A (Preliminary JD)
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http:/ire ulatory.tisacesur-ve, .com/.

Applicant: James & Louise Goldston File Number: SAW-2014-02230 Date: April 23, 2015
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission) A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
® PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
® ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
® APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section Il of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
® ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
® APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Craig Brown
CESAD-PDO
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Craig Brown, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

4
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
July 15, 2015
James Goldston Jr.
13100 Old Creedmoor Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27613
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
N BRRO# 14-414
Nash County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 213 .0259)
❑ Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 213 .0267)
Project Name:
Location/Directions
Nash 97 Solar
Subject property is located along West NC Highway 97 in Middlesex and
is currently undeveloped.
Subject Stream: Tributaries to Turkey Creek
Determination Date: December 5, 2014 Staff: Cherri Smith
Stream
E/l/P*
Not Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
USGS
Survey
To o
I
X
DWQ Flag
X
2
X
DWQ Flag
X
3
X—
X
throughout
ro e
4
X—
X
throughout
property
*EIIIP = Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Nash County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
Nose Carolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterguality.org Location: 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Nash 97 Solar
Nash County
July 15, 2015
Page 2 of 2
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Resources
(DWR).
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing. If sending via US Postal Service: c/o Karen Higgins; DWR — 401
& Buffer Permitting Unit; 1617 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via delivery service (UPS,
FedEx, etc.): Karen Higgins; DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit; 512 N. Salisbury Street; Raleigh, NC 27604.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated
above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Cherri Smith at [phone].
Sincerel
Danny Smith
Supervisor, Water Quality Regional Operations Center
cc: RRO DWR File Copy
Ted Melchers; Terracon Consultants, Inc.; 1450 Fifth St. West; North Charleston, SC 29405

m
co o
�CIeJ LL YA, m �
QJ %
Q w
a
U
- r
0
m
.� LL m
f m m o
m 3 0, n
ul
m Z cc
d Q Z
0
m
O �
C? u-
LD � • o
Lm
f. co
LL
15
f f rc a
a a
j z m m
o •�. m v d
v co
r -
Ce z o C1.: m :' "O
e LLCL co
O
O NI
m _
a z R Lt (nI o LL
OD o c _ O L'
C7 . N
n
Ln
O) N
OC
04
= N

O
I o U
�• . • a
x •• ' m
V]
• I 0
• { 0
ON
Q� ti ... _ • of 4
_. . r
(0
C
Q
ca
O
U
L
C
U
L
tl
Z
01
O
O_
H
�
m
O
a�
U
Z
X
t
�
Z
N
N
d
a
r
L
�
U
C
U
s
f/!
Z
C
U
O
N
u=
m
gs
� N
W <
O
o m a
N -
IT
a
-
�
a
a
m
o
m
u
m
a
o
a
a
rN
I
002
C5
Cl)
\
_ `!• r'
Q
o
d