20220313 Ver 1_More Information Received_20220407

Strickland, Bev
From: Dan McCauley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 8:54 AM
To: Phillips, George L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Cohn, Colleen M; Matt Ingalls
Subject: [External] RE: Gold Leaf Crossing / Fuquay-Varina / Wake County / SAW-2021-00367 /
NWP 39 / Request for Additional Information
Attachments: Updated Gold Leaf Crossing NWP#39 (4-7-22).pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Lyle,
Please see the updated PCN documents attached associated with a NWP #39 application for the proposed Gold Leaf
Crossing commercial development. We believe these documents appropriately address the comments you submitted to
us via email on March 25, 2022. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out.
Thank you.
Dan
opk-
Dan McCauley, PWS
Project Environmental Scientist
Hart & Hickman, PC
3921 Sunset Ridge Road, Ste. 301 • Raleigh, NC 27607
Direct: 919-723-2510 • Mobile: [phone]
www.harthickman.com 62
From: Phillips, George L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:22 PM
To: Dan McCauley <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Gold Leaf Crossing / Fuquay-Varina / Wake County / SAW-2021-00367 / NWP 39 / Request for Additional
Information
Mr. McCauley,
I have reviewed the above referenced project and need the following comments/questions addressed to evaluate the
proposed activities.
1) As you may or may not be aware, on 8/30/2021 the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued an order
vacating and remanding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. As such, proceeding with the delineation for permitting and processing a
Jurisdictional Determination (JD) would now have to be done according to the pre-2015 waters of the U.S.
(WOTUS) regulatory regime (i.e. the 1986 WOTUS regulation, as informed by the 2003 SWANCC and 2008
Rapanos Guidance documents). As such I offer the following comments for you and the applicant to consider.
1

a. Three options moving forward: 1) a revised AJD, 2) a revised combined AJD/PJD or 3) a revised PJD. In
order to move forward with an AJD, Rapanos forms would be required to document the entire site.
Moving forward with a combined AJD/PJD would consists of rapanos forms for features which are
potentially non jurisdictional and a preliminary determination for all other features. Moving forward
under a PJD would mean all features with an ordinary high water mark or meet the three criterial would
be jurisdictional. In order to expedite the process a combined AJD/PJD for the areas specific to the
project is the quickest option and still allows the Corps to determine features to be non -jurisdictional for
permitting. Please discuss with the applicant and let me know how you would like to proceed.
b. Wetland WAC was previously field -determined to be non -adjacent wetland based on the NWPR in an
email dated 06/09/2021. Based on the QL2 Lidar (attached) I am unable to confirm if WAC is
jurisdictional under the pre-2015 WOTUS regulatory regime. Rapanos forms would be required to
document the preceding. If you would like to schedule a site visit to review this area please let me know.
In order for WAC to be isolated it would need to be "not adjacent to (i.e. bordering or neighboring) an
RPW, and does not have a "significant nexus" with a TNW."
c. Based on my site visit on 04/01/2021, QL2 LiDAR data, Pond A and Pond B previously field -determined
to be constructed or excavated in uplands or a non -jurisdictional water based on the NWPR, appear to
be non -jurisdictional under the pre-2015 WOTUS regulatory regime. The reason for this is that Pond A
and Pond B appear to be constructed entirely in uplands. There are no features with ordinary high water
marks or hydric soils above which drain into Pond A and Pond B. For explanation of WAC (see above).
2) Based on the application the project proposes to discharge fill material at Wetland Area "B" (WAB). There is
discussion about the quality of WAB but there is no justification for the proposed impacts. The need building is
not disputed; however, you have not demonstrated avoidance and minimization to the maximum extent
practicable as required by NWP General Conditions 23(a) and (b). For example, given the scale of the site, the
amount of proposed buildings and parking it appears that impacts at Impact Area B could be avoided or
minimized while still achieving the project purpose. Please provide justification for the importance of this
building and explain how avoiding or minimizing is not practicable.
3) Based on the location of the detention pond, location of the level spreader and the retaining walls it appears as
though the upper portion of Wetland Area A could be indirectly affected hydrologically. Please provide
additional information to support the continued function of Wetland Area A up gradient of the Detention Pond.
4) Based on the location of the SWM, location of the level spreader and the retaining walls it appears as though
the upper portion of Wetland Area B could be indirectly affected hydrologically. Please provide additional
information to support the continued function of Wetland Area B up gradient of the SWM.
5) NOTE: As stated in NWP 39, the discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non -tidal waters of
the United States. If NWP thresholds are exceeded you may apply for the proposed project via the Standard
Permit process. Or, as an alternative, you may further avoid or minimize impacts proposed to show that
cumulative impacts fit within the NWP impact thresholds. This may or may not be a factor once the above
comments/questions are addressed.
Please submit the above information within 30 days of receipt of this Notification or we may consider your application
withdrawn and close the file. Please call or email ([e-mail]) me if you have any questions.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Given the complexity of the comments above, it may be
beneficial to schedule a time to discuss.
Lyle Phillips
Regulatory Specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
2

3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 25.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/ . Thank you for taking the time to visit this
site and complete the survey.
3

hart '%. hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Via Email
April 7, 2022
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District — Raleigh Regulatory Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Attention: Mr. Lyle Phillips and Ms. Colleen Cohn
Re: Updated Pre -Construction Notification
Corps ID: SAW-2021-00367
DWR ID: 20220313 Ver 1
Gold Leaf Crossing
Proposed Commercial Development
North Main Street
Fuquay-Varina, Wake County, North Carolina
H&H Job No. CPT-007
Dear Lyle and Colleen:
On behalf of CORE Properties, LLC, please find the enclosed updated and supplemental
documents associated with an updated Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) application for the
above -referenced Gold Leaf Crossing commercial development (SAW-2021-00367 / DWR #
20220313). The documents have been updated to address comments received from you via
email on March 25, 2022. The following documents have been updated and/or supplemented:
• PCN Form
• Site Plan prepared by Burton Engineering
• Avoidance and Minimization Document
• Mitigation Acceptance Letter
2923 South Tryon Street, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.586.0007 main
3921 Sunset Ridge Rd , Suite 301
Raleigh, NC 27607
919.847.4241 main
www.harthickman.com

Mr. Lyle Phillips
Ms. Colleen Cohn
April 7, 2022
Page 2
• NC WAM Documents
• Updated Preliminary Wetland Delineation Map
• Rapanos Form
The developer is proposing to construct a commercial development on the Site. Based on
comments provided by you via email, and due to the recent change to the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule (NWPR), the applicant has elected to proceed with a revised combined
Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
(PJD). H&H understands that the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) agrees that Pond "A"
and Pond "B", which were previously determined to be non jurisdictional features, remain non -
jurisdictional under the pre-2015 WOTUS regulatory regime. Additionally, H&H understand the
Corps is unable to confirm that Wetland Area "C', which was previously determined to be non -
jurisdictional, remains non jurisdictional under the pre-2015 WOTUS regulatory regime.
Therefore, H&H considers Pond "A" and Pond "B" to be non jurisdictional and Wetland Area
"C" to be jurisdictional. An updated Preliminary Wetland Delineation Map and a Rapanos form
are attached to the letter reflecting these changes.
During a site visit with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Water Resources (DWR) on June 17, 2021, Wetland Area "C" was determined to be
isolated and jurisdictional by the DWR. H&H understands that both the Corps and DWR have
taken jurisdiction over Wetland Area "C". This is reflected on the updated PCN form attached.
Based on comments provided by you vis email, H&H understands the Corps has concerns with
indirect hydrologic impacts to the upgradient portions of Wetland Area "A" and Wetland Area
"B" due to the location of retaining walls, level spreaders, and stormwater ponds. During the
delineation performed in June of 2020, H&H did not locate significant surface water influences
to these wetlands, which could be impaired by added impervious area or retaining walls. H&H
believes Wetland Area "A" and Wetland Area `B" function based off an interaction with the
groundwater table, which will not be significantly impacted by the proposed development. In
hart hickman
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project -
Fuquay-Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/Cover Letter (3).doc
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Mr. Lyle Phillips
Ms. Colleen Cohn
April 7, 2022
Page 3
addition, the upgradient portion of Wetland Area "A" was a former pond, which was excavated
to the groundwater table. Due to these findings, H&H does not believe the proposed
development will indirectly impact the hydrology within the upgradient portions of Wetland
Area "A" and Wetland Area `B".
Based on comments provided by you via email, H&H understands the Corps has concerns
regarding the justification for impacts to Wetland Area `B". Impacts to Wetland Area `B"
include fill and the creation of a level building pad to facilitate the construction of a commercial
building and parking areas. The upgradient portion of Wetland Area `B" is centrally located on
the Site, which makes this area extremely valuable to the developer and costly to avoid without
causing impacts to other on -Site wetland areas. In order for the development to be economical
for the applicant, a certain building density is required. In addition, a minimum number of
parking spaces is required to support the building density. Based on these requirements, the
location of the proposed impact along a major road frontage, and need for this building to make
the development economical for the applicant, H&H feels that impacts to the upgradient portion
of Wetland Area `B" are justified.
However, the applicant understands the importance of avoiding and minimizing impacts to
Wetland Area `B" in addition to the other on -Site wetland areas. Therefore, the applicant has
proposed the following activities to further avoid and minimize impacts. Proposed parking areas
and the proposed size of the commercial building impacting Wetland Area `B" have been
reduced. The proposed retaining wall downgradient of Wetland Area `B" has been shifted, and
the grading plan has been updated to reduce impacts to Wetland Area `B". In addition, the main
roadway proposed through the central portion of the Site has been adjusted, which has resulted in
a reduction of impacts to Wetland Area "A". Lastly, the applicant proposes the construction of a
wetland area adjacent to Wetland Area "B". Information regarding the constructed wetland is
discussed further below.
The applicant has proposed the construction of a wetland area adjacent to the east of Wetland
Area "B". The purpose of the constructed wetland is to enhance wetland functionality and
hart hickman
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project -
Fuquay-Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/Cover Letter (3).doc
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Mr. Lyle Phillips
Ms. Colleen Cohn
April 7, 2022
Page 4
compensate for 0.14 acre of proposed impacts to Wetland Area `B". This wetland area is not
being constructed for mitigation purposes. Heavy machinery will be used to grade
approximately 0.147 acre of upland area to match the current grade of Wetland Area `B". A
native wetland seed mix will be distributed throughout the constructed wetland following
grading activities. During the construction of the wetland, good erosion and sediment control
practices will be followed. Extensive silt fencing will be implemented along the current wetland
boundary during grading activities, and accumulated sediments will be removed prior to
deconstruction of the silt fencing.
Based on the updates to the site plan discussed above, proposed permanent impacts to Wetland
Area "A" have been reduced by 0.005 acre and proposed permanent impacts to Wetland Area
"B" have been reduced by 0.009 acre. Please see the table below for further clarification:
Proposed Permanent Wetland Impact
Original Site Plan Submitted on 2/25/22
Final Site Plan
Wetland Area "A"
Corps: 0.303 acre
DWR: 0 acre
Corps: 0.298 acre
DWR: 0 acre
Wetland Area "B"
Corps: 0.149 acre
DWR: 0 acre
Corps: 0.140 acre
DWR: 0 acre
Wetland Area "C"
Corps: 0 acre
DWR: 0.056 acre
Corps: 0.056 acre
DWR: 0.056 acre
Total Wetland
Impact
Corps: 0.452 acre
DWR: 0.056 acre
Corps: 0.494 acre
DWR: 0.056 acre
The developer is proposing to permanently impact 0.494 acre of on -Site wetlands. Due to the
NWP #39 and Corps' Wilmington District mitigation thresholds of 0.1 acre for wetland impacts,
mitigation is proposed via the Falling Creek umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument. Based on
the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM), the wetland quality of Wetland
Area "A" is medium, Wetland Area `B" is low, and Wetland Area "C" is low. Based on the
hart hickman
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project -
Fuquay-Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/Cover Letter (3).doc
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Mr. Lyle Phillips
Ms. Colleen Cohn
April 7, 2022
Page 5
overall results of the NC WAM, the proposed mitigation ratio for impacts to Wetland Area "A"
is 1.5:1 and the proposed mitigation ratio for impacts to Wetland Area "B" and Wetland Area
"C" is 1:1. Additional information regarding the impacts proposed above is provided in the
attached Avoidance and Minimization document.
H&H is seeking a Nationwide Permit #39 verification for this development.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Dan
McCauley at 704-998-1864.
Very truly yours,
Hart & Hickman, PC
dopp
Matt Ingalls
Sr. Project Manager
Attachments
cc: Mr. Rich Barta, CORE Properties (via email)
Mr. Carlton Burton, Burton Engineering (via email)
Dan McCauley, PWS
Project Environmental Scientist
hart hickman
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project -
Fuquay-Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/Cover Letter (3).doc
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Appendix A
PCN Form
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑ Section 10 Permit
X Section 404 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes X No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from
the DWQ (check
— Regular
— Express
all that apply):
Jurisdictional General Permit
Buffer Authorization
X 401 Water Quality Certification
X Non-404
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification
❑ Riparian
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes X No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
X Yes ❑ No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes X No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes X No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Gold Leaf Crossing
2b. County:
Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Fuquay-Varina
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
ADCOCK FAMILY INTERESTS, LLC / CORE PROPERTIES / SOUTHERN WAKE IDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
017296/01771 017296/01775 017296/01766 017296/01779 017296/01762 017296/01783 017442/01493 017788/00688
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Mr. Jeff Adcock / Mr. Rich Barta / N/A
3d. Street address:
114 E SPRING ST / 831 E MOREHEAD ST STE 445 / 27 ANNETTE DR STE 107
3e. City, state, zip:
FUQUAY VARINA, NC 27526 / CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 / BENSON, NC 27504
3f. Telephone no.:
N/A
3g. Fax no.:
N/A
3h. Email address:
[e-mail] / [e-mail] / N/A
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent X Other, specify: Proposed Land Developer
4b. Name:
Rich Barta
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
CORE Properties
4d. Street address:
831 E MOREHEAD ST STE 445
4e. City, state, zip:
CHARLOTTE NC 28202
4f. Telephone no.:
N/A
4g. Fax no.:
N/A
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Dan McCauley
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Hart and Hickman, PC
5c. Street address:
3921 Sunset Ridge Road, Suite 301
5d. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27607
5e. Telephone no.:
[phone]
5f. Fax no.:
[phone]
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
0677440133, 0677428326, 0677338829, 0677334673, 0677334211, 0677335111,
0677325674, and 0677316404
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.59936 Longitude: -78.750163
1 c. Property size:
111.68 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Terrible Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C;NSW (Terrible Creek Classification)
2c. River basin:
Neuse
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The Site consists of all or portions of eight parcels of land located at North Main Street in Fuquay-Varina, Wake County, North Carolina. The Site
consists primarily of agricultural fields, vacant home sites, and undeveloped wooded land. Residential use and undeveloped land to the north and
east; light industrial use is to the south; and commercial use is to the west.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 7.737
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 0
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project proposes to develop a commercial development to serve the Town of Fuquay-Varina and surrounding areas.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The planned development area will be graded with heavy equipment to prepare a level building pad. Stormwater BMPs are included.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: Original PJD and AJD verification by Corps on 6/9/21.
Updated JD documents attached to this submittal.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
X Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Dan McCauley
Agency/Consultant Company: Hart & Hickman, PC
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
The Corps conducted a site visit on 4/01/2021, and a PJD and AJD verification email was issued by Lyle Phillips on 6/9/21 (SAW-2021-00367).
The DWR conducted a Neuse River buffer determination on 6/17/2021, and a Buffer Determination Letter was issued by Scott Vinson on 6/21/21.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Yes X No Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes X No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections
were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
X Wetlands
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.298
W2 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.14
W3 P
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps &-DWR
0.056
W4 T
Fill
Headwater Wetland
Yes
Corps
0.059
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
-
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.553
2h. Comments:
The permanent wetland impacts involve grading and fill required to develop a level building pad and road crossings. Temporary wetland impacts
involve grading and construction access required to develop a road crossing.
Impact W3 which represent impacts to Wetland Area "C" is regulated by the Corps and DWR. Permanent wetland impacts total 0.494 acre.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 -
Choose one
S2 -
Choose one
S3 -
Choose one
-
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Not Applicable
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 -
Choose one
Choose
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
0
4g. Comments: Not Applicable
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
Not Applicable
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1 -
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Not Applicable
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Appendix C
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Appendix C
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
No
X Yes ❑
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ X Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
fee program
Mitigation
X Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu
❑ Permittee Responsible
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: Falling Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Riparian wetland
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity: 0.643
Quantity:
Quantity:
3C. Comments -The applicant proposes a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio for permanent impacts to Wetland Area "A", which total 0.298 acre, a 1:1 mitigation ratio for
permanent impacts to Wetland Area "B", which total 0.140 acre, and a 1:1 mitigation ratio for permanent impacts to Wetland Area "C", which
total 0.056. Please note the mitigation availability letter lists 0.83 credits, which exceeds what the applicant is proposing.
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
0 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Not applicable.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes X No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
Not applicable.
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
X Yes ❑ No
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
X Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
70
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
X Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
The Project will adhere to an overall stormwater management plan. The various phases will provide stormwater quantity for both runoff and volumes.
Additionally water quality treatment will be provided to treat 85% TSS removal rate. All of the measures will be reviewed by the Stormwater Manager
for Fuquay-Varina and will also comply with the NC Water Quality Manual.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Town of Fuqua-Varina
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
X Phase II
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes X No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
❑Coastal counties
❑ HQW
❑ORW
X Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes X No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
X Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
X Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land?
❑ Yes X No
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
❑ Yes ❑ No
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments:
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
❑ Yes X No
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
Yes X No
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed site plan will develop the majority of the parcel and additional development is not anticipated. Additional phases and/or impacts to
Waters of the U.S. are not planned or proposed.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater will enter Town of Fuquay-Varina sanitary sewer infrastructure and will be piped to an off -site Town of Fuquay-Varina wastewater
treatment plant.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat?
❑ Yes
X No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts?
❑ No
X Yes
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
DEQ Natural Heritage Program and Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) on-line databases and on -Site reconnaissance (See information
in Appendix D).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes
X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
❑ Yes
X No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The National Registry of Historic Places and NC State Historic Preservation Office databases and on -site reconnaissance (See
information in Appendix D).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes
X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Reviewed FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ID #3720067700J
Dan McCauley
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
04-05-2022
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Appendix B
Site Plan prepared by Burton Engineering
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

1.83 AC.
UPGRADE
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
SECTION 404 WETLAND AREA C
PROP. PERMANENT IMPACT
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
±0.056-AC (2450.202-SF)
(SEE SHEET 5 OF 5 FOR ENLARGEMENT
O.P. A-4
1.00 AC.
O.P. A-3
1.00 AC.
WALLACE ADCOCK BLVD
1.95 AC.
1.82 AC.
O.P. B-4 O.P. B-3
1.34 AC. 0.91 AC.
EX. RAILROAD TRACKS
0.91 AC.
1.16 AC.
PROP. OUTLET
(PIPED TO PROP.
LEVEL SPREADER)
OFFICE TRACT
4.69 AC.
PROP. DETENTION POND
PROP. OUTLET
PROP. LEVEL SPREADER
PROP. PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
±0.140-AC (6116.467-SF)
(SEE SHEET 4 OF 5 FOR ENLARGEMENT)
PROP. CONSTRUCTED WETLAND AREA
±0.147-AC (6387.781-SF)
PROP. OUTLET
PROP. LEVEL SPREADER
C MIXED USE TRACT
10.08 AC.
1.53 AC.
ROAD TRACT
2.17 AC.
PROPOSED
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
PROP. OUTLET
PROP. LEVEL SPREADER
PROP. TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
±0.059-AC (2555.410-SF)
(SEE SHEET 2 OF 5 FOR ENLARGEMENT)
PROP. PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
±0.298-AC (12962.248-SF)
(SEE SHEET 2 OF 5 FOR ENLARGEMENT)
48" RCP CULVERT
(SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 3 OF 5)
\PROP. RETAINING WALL (TYP)
1.68 AC.
O.P. D-2
\ 2.32 AC.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. INSTALL SILTFENCE AND UPLAND SURFACE FLOW
DIVERSION AS SHOWN.
2. INSTALL CHECK DAM AT DOWNSTREAM EDGE OF IMPACT
AREA, DISTURBING ONLY AS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT
DAM. PLACE FILTER FABRIC UNDER DAM AREA,
OVERLAPPING EDGES A MINIMUM OF 12". ONCE FILTER
FABRIC IS INSTALLED, PLACE RIPRAP BY HAND UNTIL
FILTER FABRIC AREA IS COVERED TO A DEPTH OF AT
LEAST 6".
3. ONCE SEDIMENT CONTROLS ARE INSTALLED
CONTRACTOR MAY OPEN CUT PER PLAN.
4. RESTORE WETLAND TO PRE -DISTURBED GRADES, REMOVE
ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT.
5. ONCE WETLAND IS RESTORED TO PRE -DISTURBED GRADE,
STABILIZE WETLAND PER NCDEQ STD. 6.72 (NCDEQ
PRACTICE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL).
PROP. PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT - NEW CONST.
± 0.494-AC (21528.916-SF)
PROP. TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT - NEW CONST.
± 0.059-AC (2555.410-SF)
BURTON
NCINEERIN
1
5950 FAIRVIEW RD STE 100
CHARLOTTE NC 28210
(T) 704.553.8881
burtonengneering.com
GOLD LEAF CROSSING
FUQ UAY-VARI N A
WETLAND EXHIBIT - OVERALL 3TE
0 150 300
(INFL±I )
1 inch = 300 ft.
DATE
03/31/22
BNOT TO BE DUC® OR COR® NIS
WHOLEOR IN PART IT ISNOT TO BEUS.
ON " OTHER
U�10 BE
FROECT NUMBER
020.900.000
SHEET 1 O F 5
P\DWG\020.900.000FUQUAYVARINA\WETLANDSEXHIBITS2022-03-24FV-GOLD LEAFCROSSNG-WETLANDSEXHIBIT.DWG OVERALL STE 4/1/20224:08:57PMHP02.CTB KMOLUF

RETAINING WALL
SECTION 404
WETLAND AREA A
5.175-AC
/
PROP. T
FOR
± 0.'9
Y WETLA P
STRUCTION
(1296 2 S)/
98' OF 48" 10 RCP CULVERT
(SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 3 OF 5)
POW G\020.900.000FUQUAYVARINA\WETLANDSEXHIBITS2022-03-24FV-GOLDLEAF CROSEING-WETLANDSEXHIBIT.DWG AREA A 4/1/20224:09:00FMHP02.CTB KMOLUF
BURTON
ENGINEERIN
1
5950 FAIRVIEW RD STE 100
CHARLOTTE NC 28210
(T) 704.553.8881
burtonengneer ing.com
0 30 60
DATE
( IN Fit )
1 inch = 60 ft.
03/31/22
BNOTTO EE RERODDUC®°R COR® NISWHO.OR IN PART IT ISNOT TO BEUS,D
FRO,ECT NUMBS
020.900.000
SHEET2OF5
- TEMPORARY DOWNSTREAM CHECK DAM
OUTLET PROTECTION
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. INSTALLSLTFB\CEAND UPLAND SJRFACEFLOW DIVBISON
ASS-IOWN.
2. INSTALL CHECK DAM AT DOWNSTREAM EDGE OFIMPACT
AREA, DISTURBING ONLY ASNECEES4RYTO CONSTRUCT
DAM. RACE FILTER FABRIC UNDER DAM AREA, OVERLAPPING
EDGESA MINIMUM OF 12". ONCE FILTER FABRIC IS IN STALLED,
PLACE RIFRAP BY HAND UNTIL FILTER FABRIC AREA IS
COVERED TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 6".
3. ONCE SEDIMENT CONTROLSARE INSTALLED CONTRACTOR
MAY OPEN CUT PBS RAN.
4. RCS`TORE WETLAND TO ME -DISTURBED GRADES REMOVE
ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT.
5. ONCEWETLAND ISRE`3TORED TO ME -DISTURBED GRADE,
STABILIZE W ETLAN D FER NCDEQ STD. 6.72 (NCDEQ
PRACTICE STANDARDSAND SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL).
PROP. PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT - NEW CONST.
± 0.298-AC (12962.248-SF)
PROP. TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT - NEW CONST.
± 0.059-AC (2555.410-SF)

PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
________=_______
---_----CM_-----_
---7l=-w,----r^M------
(1w■ %. j .4.4'• -A 380
EXISTING SUBGRADE \\ //\\//\\/\/ \�/�/�//�///
/\ /, i\ i\ i\ i\ i, i\ i\ /\ /\ /i
398
390
NEW CLASS B RIPRAP APRON
15" THICK TYP.
CULVERT SECTION
N TS
12" EMBEDMENT
(USE NATIVE
MATERIAL)
374
LIMIT OF TEMPORARY
WETLAND DISTURBANCE
FLOW
60' PAVED ROADWAY
RETAINING WALL
(TYP.)
OUTLET PROTECTION
98' OF 48" 0 RCP CULVERT
(EMBED 1' BELOW EXISTING GRADE)
1 L 1 i
CULVERT PLAN
1"=40'
RETAINING WALL
(TYP.) PROPOSED GRADE
i
TEMPORARY DOWNSTREAM
CHECK DAM
W
0
Z
98' PERMANENT
WETLAND IMPACT
398
w
8" PVC
98' OF 48" CL IV RCP p@1.16%
SANITARY rI
0
o_
2
w
u-
0
J
FLOW LINE OF CULVERT
(1' EMBEDMENT)
L
CULVERT PROFILE
1"=4'
390
380
374
ID
BURTON
ENGINEERIN
1 1
5950 FAIRVIEW RD STE 100
CHARLOTTE NC 28210
(T) 704.553.8881
burtonengneer ing.com
GOLD LEAF CROSSING
FUQUAY-VARINA
J_
Q
0
DATE
03/31/2022
6 oOTTO ORE RERODUIT CED ORI COR® I5
RETUR® UPON REQU�To BE
FRO.ECT NUMBS
020.900.000
SHEET 3 O F 5
1"=40'
P\DWG\020.900.000 FUQUAYVARINA\WETLANDSEXHIBIT&2022-03-24 FV-GOLD LEAFCROS9NG-WETLANDSEXHIBIT.DWG CULVERT DETAILS 4/1/2022 4:09:03 FM HF02.CTB KMOLUF

RETAINING WALL
PROP. CONSTRUCTED
WETLAND AREA
±0.147-AC (6387.781-SF) \
\ \
rAirdENSEardEflARMIK
��7ommor rammom
�'-: 39i PIVOMMIGI
PROP. PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
±0.140-AC (6116.467-SF)
394
398
400
SECTION 404
WETLAND AREA B
2.506-AC
RETAINING WALL
P\DWG\020.900.000 FUQUAYVARINA\WETLANDSEXHIBITS2022-03-24 FV-GOLD LEAF CROSSNG-WETLANDSEXHIBIT.DWG AREA B 4/1/2022 4:09:05 FM HP02.CTB KMOLUF
BURTON
ENGINEERIN
1 1
5950 FAIRVIEW RD STE 100
CHARLOTTE NC 28210
(T) 704.553.8881
burtonengneer ing.com
0
0
tL
w
J
0
J
0
0
DATE
30
( IN Fit )
1 inch = 60 ft.
03/31/22
60
NNOTTORE OUC®OR CORE,NIS
WHOLE OR IN PART. IT ISNOT TO REUSED
ON ANY OTHER Rd)ET AND ISTO PE
IETURI®URJN RR]UE T
PRO.ECT NUMBER
020.900.000
SHEET4OF5
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. INSTALL SLTFENCEAND UPLAND SJRFACEFLOW DIVERSON
ASS -IOW N.
2. INSTALL CHECK DAM AT DOWNSTREAM EDGE OF IMPACT
AREA, DISTURBING ONLY AS N ECESS4RY TO CONSTRUCT
DAM. FLACE FILTER FABRIC UNDER DAM AREA, OVERLAPPING
EDGESA MINIMUM OF 12". ONCE FILTER FABRIC IS IN STALLED,
PLACE RIFRAP BY HAND UNTIL FILTER FABRIC AREA IS
COVERED TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 6".
3. ONCE SEDIMENT CONTROLSARE INSTALLED CONTRACTOR
MAY OFEN CUT PER RAN.
4. RESTORE WETLAN D TO ME -DISTURBED GRADES REMOVE
ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT.
5. ONCEWETLAND IS RESTORED TO ME -DISTURBED GRADE,
STABILIZE W ETLAN D PER NCDEQ STD. 6.72 (NCDEQ
PRACTICE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL).
PROP. PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT FOR NEW CONST.
± 0.140-AC (6116.467-SF)

TRUCK ENTRANCE
111 I(394
- \
IIII
I I II 396 \ 398 /
400
It ! \
—
/ /
/ \ 1
/ /I
/ �/
(� 1
I
L
SECTION 404 WETLAND AREA C
PROP. PERMANENT IMPACT
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
±0.056-AC (2450.202-SF)
\ \
( < / �`,
ROW G\020.900.000 FU Q UAY VARI N A\W ETLAN DS EX H I BIT&2022-03-24 FV-GOLD LEAF C RO S3 N G-W ETLAN DS EX H I BIT. D W G
AREA C
\
4/1/2022 4:09:07 PM HF02.CTB KMOLUF
\
/
/
PROP. PERMANENT NON-404 ISOLATED
WETLAND IMPACT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
± 0.056-AC (2450.202-SF)
ID
BURTON
ENGINEERIN
1 1
5950 FAIRVIEW RD STE 100
CHARLOTTE NC 28210
(T) 704.553.8881
burtonengneer ing.com
GOLD LEAF CROSSING
DATE
FUQUAY-VARINA
30
03/31/22
60
6 O.OR IN PART IT ISNOT TO BEUS,D
oOTTO EE RERODDUCED OR COR® IS
RETN ANY UPoJ®UPOFRON U�10
BE
FRO.ECT NUMBER
020.900.000
SHEET 5 0 F 5

Appendix C
Avoidance and Minimization
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Appendix C
Avoidance and Minimization
Proposed Gold Leaf Crossing
North Main Street
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina
H&H Job No. CPT-007
Avoidance & Minimization
The proposed development is located east of North Main Street and north of NC Highway 42 in
Fuquay-Varina, Wake County, North Carolina. The Site consists of eight parcels (Wake County
Parcel Numbers 0677440133, 0677428326, 0677338829, 0677334673, 0677334211, 0677335111,
0677325674, and 0677316404) that comprise approximately 111.68 acres.
H&H reviewed State and Federal Threatened and Endangered Species databases for the Site and
conducted a screening survey of the Site and surrounding area in June of 2021 for Federal
Threatened and Endangered Species, and none were identified. H&H also reviewed the National
Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) for Sites located in Wake County, North Carolina; the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO) GIS viewer; and the Site and surrounding
area via visual reconnaissance for the potential presence of historic, cultural, and/or archeological
sites. No recorded sites were noted on or adjacent to the Site, and no significant structures were
observed on -Site. H&H requested comment on the Site from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and NC SHPO in March 2021.
Agency responses were included in the original submittal dated February 25, 2022 and indicated
no comments on the proposed project.
In regard to Site alternatives, the prospective developer has considered and evaluated other
potential properties in the area for development of the proposed commercial development.
However, properties or property assemblages of this size are difficult to find and purchase along
the frontage of major roadways. The proposed buildings and associated infrastructure have been
designed to primarily occupy upland areas to avoid on -Site Waters of the US to the maximum
extent practicable.
1
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project - Fuquay-
Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/C - Avoid and Minimize.docx
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

To minimize Site impacts, the proposed Site plan was designed to avoid Waters of the US to the
maximum extent practicable. The Site buildings, parking areas, roadways, and stormwater
management areas have been designed to primarily occupy upland areas. Furthermore, permanent
impacts are proposed to only 6% of on -Site wetlands. Of the 6% of impacted wetlands,
approximately 2% will be replaced on -Site by the construction of a wetland area discussed below.
A previously designed concept site plan (LP-8) prepared by Wright Architects dated December
18, 2019 indicates that the developer originally proposed a significantly larger area of disturbance,
which included additional parking areas, additional buildings, and larger buildings. Furthermore,
infrastructure has been shifted and retaining walls have been proposed to further avoid impacts to
Waters of the U.S. The concept site plan was included in the original submittal dated February
25, 2022
The road crossing of the railway and Wetland Area "A" (WAA) was designed to limit disturbance
by crossing a narrow section of the wetland. The general location of the crossing is required by
the NC Division of Transportation (NCDOT), the Town of Fuquay-Varina Fire Department, and
the Norfolk Southern Railway. Based on comments received via email by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) on March 25, 2022, the main roadway proposed through the central portion of
the Site was further adjusted to minimize impacts. A 48" culvert is proposed under the road
crossing to maintain wetland hydrology. The culvert will be embedded to a depth of 12" with
native soils to allow aquatic life movement. In addition, retaining walls are proposed upgradient
and downgradient of the crossing to further minimize impacts. Following construction, the
proposed temporary impacts to WAA will be restored to pre -disturbed grade and stabilized per the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Practice Standards and
Specifications Manual.
Impacts to Wetland Area "B" (WAB) are proposed in the lowest quality portion of the wetland,
which formed as a result of draining a farm pond. A pond dam formerly existed in the
downgradient portion of the proposed impact area. Prior to breaching the dam, there was no
surface water connection between the former pond and the wetland. However, hydrology
remained strong throughout the entirety of the wetland. Therefore, H&H has concluded that there
2
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project - Fuquay-
Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/C - Avoid and Minimize.docx
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

is minimal risk of degrading hydrology in the remainder of WAB following the proposed impacts.
In addition, a retaining wall is proposed in the downgradient portion of the impact area to further
reduce impacts.
The upgradient portion of Wetland Area `B" is centrally located on the Site, which makes this area
extremely valuable to the developer and costly to avoid without causing impacts to other on -Site
wetland areas. In order for the development to be economical for the applicant, a certain building
density is required. In addition, a minimum number of parking spaces is required to support the
building density. Based on these requirements, the location of the proposed impact along a major
road frontage, and need for this building to make the development economical for the applicant,
H&H feels that impacts proposed to the upgradient portion of Wetland Area `B" are justified.
Wetland Area "C" (WAC) was determined to be jurisdictional by the Corps and North Carolina
Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR). Impacts to
WAC are proposed for the primary truck entrance. The truck entrance is required due to the round -
a -bout and other traffic calming features associated with the main street network that make it
extremely difficult and dangerous for trucks. Alternative truck entrance locations were evaluated.
However, based on the proposed site plan layout, which minimizes impacts to other on -Site
wetlands, the truck entrance is required in this location. In addition, the proposed impacts will not
result in cumulative impacts or violations to downstream waters.
The applicant understands the importance of avoiding and minimizing impacts to Wetland Area
"B" in addition to the other on -Site wetland areas. Therefore, the applicant has proposed the
following activities to further avoid and minimize impacts. Proposed parking areas and the
proposed size of the commercial building impacting Wetland Area `B" have been reduced. The
proposed retaining wall downgradient of Wetland Area `B" has been shifted, and the grading plan
has been updated to reduce overall impacts to Wetland Area `B". In addition, the main roadway
proposed through the central portion of the Site has been adjusted, which has resulted in a reduction
of impacts to Wetland Area "A". Lastly, the applicant proposes the construction of a wetland area
adjacent to Wetland Area `B". Information regarding the constructed wetland is discussed further
below.
3
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project - Fuquay-
Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/C - Avoid and Minimize.docx
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

The applicant has proposed the construction of a wetland area located adjacent to and east of
Wetland Area `B". The purpose of the constructed wetland is to enhance wetland functionality
and compensate for 0.14 acre of proposed impacts to Wetland Area `B". This wetland area is not
being constructed for mitigation purposes. Heavy machinery will be used to grade approximately
0.147 acre of upland area to match the current grade of Wetland Area `B". A native wetland seed
mix will be distributed throughout the constructed wetland following grading activities. During
the construction of the wetland, appropriate erosion and sediment control practices will be
followed. Silt fencing will be implemented along the current wetland boundary during grading
activities, and accumulated sediments will be removed and deposited in uplands areas away from
the wetlands prior to deconstruction of the silt fencing.
Three detention ponds are proposed for stormwater control. The detention ponds have been
designed to exclusively occupy upland areas. Level spreaders are proposed downgradient of the
detention outlet pipes to reduce high velocity stormwater runoff and water pollution before
ultimately discharging into the on -Site wetland systems.
During Site development, appropriate erosion and sediment control practices will be followed. Silt
fencing will be installed along the construction Site perimeter and along wetland boundaries. In
addition, a temporary check dam will be implemented downgradient of the proposed culvert to
further reduce potential erosion and other indirect impacts to the wetland from construction
activities.
Mitigation
Mitigation is typically required by the USACE Nationwide Permit 39 for impacts greater than 0.1-
acre of wetlands and 0.02 acre of stream. Due to the proposed impacts to 0.494 acre of on -Site
wetlands, compensatory mitigation is proposed in the form of purchasing wetland mitigation
credits from the Falling Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument. The mitigation
acceptance letter is attached.
4
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project - Fuquay-
Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/C - Avoid and Minimize.docx
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (WAM) forms have been conducted for the on -Site
wetlands (WAA, WAB, and WAC). The WAM forms are attached. The overall WAM rating for
WAA is medium quality, and the overall rating for WAB and WAC is low quality. Because WAA
is medium quality, a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 is proposed. Because WAB and WAC are low
quality, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is proposed. At a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio for WAA and a 1:1
mitigation ratio for WAB and WAC, 0.643 acre of mitigation is proposed for impacts to wetlands
via private mitigation bank.
5
https://harthick.sharepoint.com/sites/MasterFiles-1/Shared Documents/AAA-Master Projects/CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT/CPT-007 Adcock Project - Fuquay-
Varina, NC/Task 002 Wetlands Delineation/Permitting/Update/C - Avoid and Minimize.docx
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Appendix D
Mitigation Acceptance Letter
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

WILDLANDS
HOLDINGS
Wetland Mitigation Statement of Availability
February 22, 2022
CORE Properties
831 E. Morehead St., Ste. 445
Charlotte, NC 28202
Attn: Mr. Rich Barta
RE: Availability of Riparian Wetland Credits for the "Gold Leaf Crossing" project
Bank Name: Falling Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
Bank Site: McClenny Acres II Mitigation Site
Bank Sponsor: Wildlands Holdings III, LLC
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-02527
Riparian Wetland Credits Needed: 0.83 acres
Riparian Wetland Credits Available: 5.89 acres
Neuse 03020201 River Basin
Mr. Barta,
Wildlands Holdings III, LLC has the above -mentioned riparian wetland credits from the Falling Creek
Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument: McClenny Acres II Mitigation Site to satisfy the mitigation
requirements related to the above -mentioned project. The project is located within the service area
(HUC 03020201) of the Bank.
Credits may be reserved for a period of 6 months upon the receipt of a non-refundable deposit of 10%
of the purchase price. Should credits not be reserved, they will be sold on a first come, first serve basis.
Credit prices will be guaranteed for a period of 6 months from the date of this letter and are then
subject to change.
An invoice for this transaction will be sent upon your request and we will reserve the credits and price
for a period of 30 days from invoice. This letter is a Statement of Availability as of the date provided — it
is not a reservation of credits nor a guarantee of price. Credits will be sold on a first come, first serve
basis.
Final transfer of credits will occur upon completion of the Mitigation Responsibility Transfer Form within
the completed 404 permit.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your mitigation requirements. Please contact me at
[phone] x124 or [e-mail] if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Wildlands Holdings III, LLC • Wildlands Engineering, Inc • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
HOLDINGS
Sincerely,
Ashley N. Yarsinske
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Marketing & Credit Sales
[e-mail]
0: [phone] ext. 124
M: [phone]
Cc: Mr. Dan McCauley, Project Environmental Scientist I Hart & Hickman, PC
Wildlands Holdings III, LLC • Wildlands Engineering, Inc • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203

Appendix E
NC WAM Forms
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Wetland Area "A" Date 6/2021
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
Headwater Forest
• Assessor Name/Organization Dan McCauley - H&H
Piedmont
• Nearest Named Water Body Terrible Creek
River Basing Neuse
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
rr Yes rrs No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.599360/-78.750163
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? rr- Yes rC No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
▪ Anadromous fish
▪ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
▪ NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
▪ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
▪ Publicly owned property
▪ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
▪ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
▪ Designated NCNHP reference community
▪ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
( Blackwater
(i Brownwater
▪ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) - Lunar I+ Wind IC - Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? - Yes 14 No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C Yes
C Yes t: No
(- No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
r( A C A Not severely altered
B r(ii B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USAGE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A Ii - A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B r(, B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C r+ C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ( A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
( B C B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D (+ D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ( A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
a' B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
i� C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. 'r A Sandy soil
its B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)

C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. (i A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. (a A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
(i A (i A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
(' B C B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
▪ A A A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B F B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C I C [ C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
▪ D D V D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
▪ E F E F E >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
▪ F P F I F >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G I G I G >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
EH EH EH Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
C Yes a No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
C A >_ 50 feet
C B From 30 to < 50 feet
CC From 15 to < 30 feet
C D From 5 to < 15 feet
r E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
r- 15-feet wide f> 15-feet wide f Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C Yes r No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
r Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
(' Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
C A C A >_ 100 feet
B C B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C C From 50 to < 80 feet
• D (i D From 40 to < 50 feet
C E C E From 30 to < 40 feet
C F C F From 15 to < 30 feet
CG CG From 5 to < 15 feet
C H C H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(-' A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
a A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)

C A
C B
C C
C D
f E
C F
G
C H
f I
('J
f K
C A
C B
C C
C D
f E
C F
G
C H
C I
C J
C K
C A
C B
C C
C D
C E
C F
G
C H
f I
('J
C K
>_ 500 acres
From 100 to < 500 acres
From 50 to < 100 acres
From 25 to < 50 acres
From 10 to < 25 acres
From 5 to < 10 acres
From 1 to < 5 acres
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
( A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
f B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
C A C A >_ 500 acres
C B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C fi C From50to<100acres
C D C D From 10 to < 50 acres
fi E f E <10acres
( F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
( Yes ( No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
C A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
fi B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
(' C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
( C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
(i Yes (` No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
{i A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
C B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
C A C A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B {i B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C C C Canopy sparse or absent
Shrub Mid -Story Canopy
(iA
C B
( C
(iA
C B
C C
C A
B
(' C
(iA
( B
(' C
CO
C B
C C
C A
▪ B
(' C
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density shrub layer
Shrub layer sparse or absent
Dense herb layer
Moderate density herb layer
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
C A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH,
B NotA
or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
C A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter
at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are

present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
rf: C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
f - A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
i� B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
-A t" B i C
(T (
i D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
(f - A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
c- B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
rf: C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
c- D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Area "A"
Headwater Forest
Date 6/2021
Assessor Name/Organization Dan McCauley - H&H
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Rating Summary
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Function Sub -function
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Metrics
Condition
Condition
Rating
LOW
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Particulate Change
Soluble Change
Physical Change
Pollution Change
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
YES
NA
NA
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Landscape Patch Structure
Vegetation Composition
Condition
Condition
Condition
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Hydrology
Water Quality
Habitat
Metrics/Notes
Condition
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Conditon
Rating
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating
MEDIUM

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Wetland Area "B" Date 6/2021
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
Headwater Forest
• Assessor Name/Organization Dan McCauley - H&H
Piedmont
• Nearest Named Water Body Terrible Creek
River Basing Neuse
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
rr Yes rrs No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.599360/-78.750163
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? rt - Yes rC No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
▪ Anadromous fish
▪ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
▪ NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
▪ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
▪ Publicly owned property
▪ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
▪ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
▪ Designated NCNHP reference community
▪ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
( Blackwater
(i Brownwater
▪ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) - Lunar I+ Wind Ii` - Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? - Yes 14 No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C Yes
C Yes t: No
(- No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
C A C A Not severely altered
B r(ii B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USAGE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A r A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B r+ B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ( A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
( B C B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D (+ D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ( A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
a' B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
i� C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. 'r A Sandy soil
its B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)

C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. (i A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. (a A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
(i A (i A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
(' B C B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B F B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C I C [ C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
▪ D D V D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
▪ E F E F E >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
▪ F P F I F >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G I G I G >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
EH EH EH Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
C Yes a No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
C A >_ 50 feet
C B From 30 to < 50 feet
CC From 15 to < 30 feet
C D From 5 to < 15 feet
r E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
r- 15-feet wide f> 15-feet wide f Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C Yes r No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
r Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
(' Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
C A C A >_ 100 feet
C B C B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C C C From 50 to < 80 feet
C D C D From40to<50feet
i E (i E From 30 to < 40 feet
F C F From 15 to < 30 feet
CG CG From 5 to < 15 feet
C H C H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(-' A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
C A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)

C A
C B
C C
C D
f E
C F
C G
C H
{iI
C J
C K
C A
C B
C C
C D
f E
C F
C G
C H
{iI
C J
C K
C A
C B
C C
C D
C E
C F
C G
C H
{iI
C J
C K
>_ 500 acres
From 100 to < 500 acres
From 50 to < 100 acres
From 25 to < 50 acres
From 10 to < 25 acres
From 5 to < 10 acres
From 1 to < 5 acres
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
( A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
f B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
C A C A >_ 500 acres
C B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C fi C From50to<100acres
C D C D From 10 to < 50 acres
fi E f E <10acres
( F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
( Yes ( No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
C A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
fi B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
(' C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
( C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
(i Yes (` No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
{i A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
C B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
C A C A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B {i B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C C C Canopy sparse or absent
Shrub Mid -Story Canopy
C A
C B
a C
('A
C B
C
C A
B
(' C
C A
f B
(i C
C A
C B
C
C A
B
(' C
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density shrub layer
Shrub layer sparse or absent
Dense herb layer
Moderate density herb layer
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
C A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH,
(i B NotA
or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
C A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter
at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are

present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
ICS C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
f - A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
i� B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
-A t" B i C
(T (
i D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
(f - A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
is B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
c- D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Area "B"
Headwater Forest
Date 6/2021
Assessor Name/Organization Dan McCauley - H&H
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Rating Summary
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Function Sub -function
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Metrics
Condition
Condition
Rating
LOW
LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Particulate Change
Soluble Change
Physical Change
Pollution Change
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
HIGH
HIGH
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
YES
NA
NA
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Landscape Patch Structure
Vegetation Composition
Condition
Condition
Condition
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Hydrology
Water Quality
Habitat
Metrics/Notes
Condition
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Conditon
Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
YES
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Wetland Area "C" Date 6/2021
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
Headwater Forest
• Assessor Name/Organization Dan McCauley - H&H
Piedmont
• Nearest Named Water Body Terrible Creek
River Basing Neuse
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
rr Yes rrs No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.601840, -78.750854
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? rt - Yes rC No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
▪ Anadromous fish
▪ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
▪ NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
▪ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
▪ Publicly owned property
▪ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
▪ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
▪ Designated NCNHP reference community
▪ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
( Blackwater
(i Brownwater
▪ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) - Lunar I+ Wind IC - Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? - Yes 14 No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C Yes
C Yes t: No
(- No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
r( A C A Not severely altered
B r(ii B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USAGE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A r A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B r+ B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ( A C A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
( B C B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D (+ D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ( A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
a' B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
i� C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. 'r A Sandy soil
its B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)

C C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. (i A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. (a A No peat or muck presence
C B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
(i A (i A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
(' B C B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
F B F B F B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C I C [ C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
▪ D D V D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
▪ E F E F E >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
▪ F P F I F >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G I G I G >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
EH EH EH Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
C Yes a No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
C A >_ 50 feet
C B From 30 to < 50 feet
CC From 15 to < 30 feet
C D From 5 to < 15 feet
r E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
r- 15-feet wide f> 15-feet wide f Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
C Yes r No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
r Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
(' Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
C A C A >_ 100 feet
C B C B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C C C From 50 to < 80 feet
C D C D From40to<50feet
__ E (' E From 30 to < 40 feet
F (i F From 15 to < 30 feet
CG CG From 5 to < 15 feet
C H C H < 5 feet
9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(-' A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
a A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
C B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)

C A
C B
C C
C D
f E
C F
C G
C H
f I
{iJ
f K
C A
C B
C C
C D
f E
C F
C G
C H
C I
{iJ
C K
C A
C B
C C
C D
C E
C F
C G
C H
C I
(iJ
C K
>_ 500 acres
From 100 to < 500 acres
From 50 to < 100 acres
From 25 to < 50 acres
From 10 to < 25 acres
From 5 to < 10 acres
From 1 to < 5 acres
From 0.5 to < 1 acre
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
( A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
f B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
C A C A >_ 500 acres
C B C B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C fi C From50to<100acres
C D C D From 10 to < 50 acres
fi E f E <10acres
( F C F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
( Yes ( No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
C A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
fi B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
(' C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
C A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
C A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
( C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
(i Yes (` No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
{i A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
C B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
C A C A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
C B C B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C fi C Canopy sparse or absent
Shrub Mid -Story Canopy
C A
C B
a C
('A
C B
C
C A
B
(' C
C A
f B
(i C
C A
C B
C
C A
B
(' C
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density shrub layer
Shrub layer sparse or absent
Dense herb layer
Moderate density herb layer
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
C A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH,
(i B NotA
or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
C A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter
at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are

present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
ICS C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
f - A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
i� B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
-A t" B i C
(T (
i D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
(f - A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
is B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
c- D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Area "C"
Headwater Forest
Date 6/2021
Assessor Name/Organization Dan McCauley - H&H
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Rating Summary
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Function Sub -function
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Metrics
Condition
Condition
Rating
LOW
LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Particulate Change
Soluble Change
Physical Change
Pollution Change
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
YES
NA
NA
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Landscape Patch Structure
Vegetation Composition
Condition
Condition
Condition
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Hydrology
Water Quality
Habitat
Metrics/Notes
Condition
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Conditon
Rating
LOW
LOW
LOW
YES
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating
LOW

Appendix F
Updated Preliminary Wetland Delineation Map
hart hickman
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

S:\AAA-Master Projects\CORE Properties, Inc. - CPT\CPT-005 White Oak Ridge
TAP
f
NON -JURISDICTIONAL POND CONSTRUCTED IN UPLANDS (POND'S")
DP-1
POTENTIAL WETLAND WATERS OF THE U.S. (WAC)
NON -JURISDICTIONAL POND CONSTRUCTED IN UPLANDS (POND "A")
POTENTIAL WETLAND WATERS OF THE U.S. (WAB)
POTENTIAL WETLAND WATERS OF THE U.S. (WAA)
LEGEND
/N/ SITE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AREA
DATA POINT
® H&H IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
NON -JURISDICTIONAL POND
POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AREAS
WETLAND AREA ID
APPROXIMATE AREA (ACRES)
WETLAND AREA "A" (WAA)
5.175
WETLAND AREA "B" (WAB)
2.506
WETLAND AREA "C" (WAC)
0.056
WETLAND TOTAL
7.737
EXCLUDED WATERS
FEATURE ID
APPROXIMATE AREA/LENGTH
NON -JD POND (POND "A")
0.10 ACRE
NON -JD POND (POND "B")
0.38 ACRE
1. DELINEATION COMPLETED BY H&H ON 6/25/20
2. SIZE AND LOCATION OF SITE FEATURES ARE
APPROXIMATE AND WERE OBTAINED USING A
TRIMBLE GPS UNIT
TITLE
PROJECT
APPROXIMATE
0 600 1,200
SCALE IN FEET
PRELIMINARY WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
ADCOCK PROPERTY
N. MAIN STREET
FUQUAY-VARINA, NORTH CAROLINA
2923 South Tryon Street, Ste. 100
hart '` hickman Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
704-586-0007 (p) 704-586-0373 (f)
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS License # C-1269 / #C-245 Geology
DATE: 4/1/22
JOB NO. CPT-007
REVISION NO. 0
FIGURE NO. 2

Appendix G
Rapanos Form
Id
hart hickman
iw
SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington, to be determined
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: NC County/parish/borough: Wake City: Fuquay-Varina
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.598845° I, Long. -78.749807° M.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody• Unnamed Tributary to Terrible Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Neuse
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
❑ Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Pick List
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Two isolated ponds within the review area. These features are believed to be non -jurisdictional. See
supporting documentation attached.
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

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

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

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

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

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

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
▪ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Ill Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:Two ponds
observed on -site did not contain a significant jurisdictional nexus to downstream Waters of the U.S.
in Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
D Lakes/ponds: acres.
D Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
D Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
® Lakes/ponds: 0.48 acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 2003 Fuquay-Varina.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey / Hard Copy Soil Survey .
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: NWI Mapper .
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps: NC Floodplain Mapper .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): June 25th Site Photos.
or ® Other (Name & Date): .
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): .
❑❑❑❑ ®❑®❑®®®
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: