20220144 Ver 1_More Info Received

From: Williams, Kim
To: Bowers, Todd; Tom Vincent; Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Snider, Holley
Cc: Robert Balland; Asa Harris; Karla Kassebaum
Subject: [External] Re: FW: SAW-2019-02340 Public Notice.
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:38:01 AM
Attachments: imaae001.onq
C-2.2 SITE PLAN W TOPO.pdf
Hwy 17 & Calabash Rd NC WAM Assessment.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Hi Todd & Gary
We completed the WAM assessment for the Carolina Shores Shopping Center tract (attached).
Based on our analysis, the functional rating summary was medium for hydrology functions,
low for water quality and water quality functional opportunity, and medium for habitat
functions. The wetland assessed received an overall rating of medium.
Also attached is a grading plan for the site showing how the stormwater pond will outlet into
the remaining wetlands in order to maintain hydrology.
Let me know if you have any other questions or need additional info.
Thanks!
Kim
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 9:35 AM Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]> wrote:
Thank you Kim,
I appreciate the quick action on this and I am looking forward to the forthcoming analysis.
Cheers,
Todd Bowers
From: Williams, Kim <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 4:48 PM
To: Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>
Cc: Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Gary [e-mail]>;
Tom Vincent<[e-mail]>; Robert Balland <rballand@paramounte-
eng.com>
Subject: Re: FW: SAW-2019-02340 Public Notice.
Hi Todd

Sony for my delayed response. We will perform a WAM assessment of the wetland area on
this site. I am also working with the engineer to provide a more detailed response about
stormwater outfalls into the remaining wetlands.
Thanks!
Kim
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:18 PM Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]> wrote:
Kim,
Thank you very much for the detailed response to my comments for Public Notice
SAW-2019-02340, for the construction of a commercial/retail center at the
intersection of Hwy 17 and Calabash Road in the Town of Carolina Shores, North
Carolina. In order for me to complete my review under the auspices of the CWA
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, I need to understand why the only alternative the
applicant is considering includes impacts to Waters of the United States. The
justification for on -site alternatives, if my understanding is correct, hinges on the
destruction of wetlands v. the economic viability that that particular outparcel
brings to the project. According to the information provided, a project that does
not include the outparcel (#5) in question, would not be viable and therefore not
able to be built. Without going into further detail, I think this justification has merit
and meets the project purpose. I appreciate the information you provided outlining
the need for that particular outparcel to be developed.
Assuming that all avoidance of WotUS is achieved the conversation logically turns
to compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable impacts. In order to determine the
amount of mitigation required to replace the function of the wetlands on -site, the
applicant should provide a functional analysis to determine not only the area
(provided by the Jurisdictional Determination dated December 10, 2019) but the
functional value of the wetlands being lost as well as those adjacent to the project
impacts. I remain unconvinced that the remaining wetlands on -site will not be
impacted by adjacent fill, site runoff, litter and trash, and severe changes in
hydrology. As I am dubious that the remaining 0.72 acres of wetlands will not be
functionally degraded by activity on the remainder of the site, which appears to be
over 80% impervious surface and occupied by year round activity. Without
evidence to the contrary, I am obligated to recommend that the entire amount of
wetlands within the project boundaries, 1.4 acres, be compensated for at an

appropriate amount based on function. Function should be determined by
performing an NC WAM analysis. Once function is determined, then the
appropriate amount of compensation can be purchased by the applicant from the
Stone Farm Mitigation Bank.
At a minimum, I recommend that you move forward with an NCWAM form for the
entire 1.4 acres (if homogenous in plant community and soil type). I also request
an explanation or illustration on how the remainder of the wetlands not slated for
direct fill impacts will not be effected by changes in site hydrology in order to fully
demonstrate that avoidance of wetland impacts has been achieved. The site plan
provided, albeit very detailed, does not show stormwater runoff routes and the
retention pond discharge to the wetlands remaining after site construction is
completed.
I appreciate your continued cooperation with this matter and your rapid responses
to my comments and recommendations. My goal is make sure everyone has
done their due diligence while not causing any delays in the permitting process.
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404.562.9225**
[e-mail]
**Note: I am currently teleworking and away from the office. Please contact me via email or at
919.523.2637.

"Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto
you."
— Wendell Berry
From: Williams, Kim <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 4:57 PM
To: Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>
Cc: Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>;
Tom Vincent<[e-mail]>; Robert Balland
<rb alland@paramounte-eng. com>
Subject: Re: FW: SAW-2019-02340 Public Notice.
Hi Todd
Gary forwarded me your comments regarding the Carolina Shores Shopping Center and
asked me to respond. Please see below for a response to each comment.
Attached is the site plan and JD.
We have not prepared a WAM form for the wetlands to be impacted. The wetlands
support a canopy of red maple, tulip poplar, and loblolly pine with a sparse shrub layer
composed of fetterbush, and Chinese privet. They are adjacent to a ditch (UT of
Persimmon Swamp), which may affect the hydrology. See attached photos taken in
December of 2021. The site at that time was fairly dry. Let me know if you want us to
prepare a WAM form for the wetlands and we can run out there and do that.
On -Site Alternatives
In addition to the preferred site plan, the applicant evaluated whether impacts could be
reduced to 0.5 acre of jurisdictional areas so that it could potentially be authorized under a

Nationwide Permit. Because there are jurisdictional ditches that run through the site,
which could not be avoided, the only way to stay under 0.5 acre of impact would be to
avoid the wetlands in the northeastern part of the site. This would eliminate one outparcel.
Every outparcel in this development is critical to the economic feasibility of this project.
Grocery -anchor tenants for these types of retail developments only pay a substandard
rent/square foot because they bring the highest volume of people into the shopping center.
They are essentially a subsidized lost leader meant to be offset by the rental income from
the retail shops and the outparcels. Because of the expanded demand for online shopping
versus storefront type tenants, the rental income generated from retail shops has
increasingly become a smaller percentage of these overall types of development.
Therefore, developers rely more and more on outparcels to help underwrite the economics
of a project this size.
The applicant only controls four outparcels within the development (OP #1, 3, 4 and 5 as
shown on the site plan). Both the existing CVS and OP #2 are under separate ownerships.
However, all of the Parcels associated w/ this project will be under one unified
Development with shared Access, Utilities and common, interconnected Stormwater
Facilities.
The total cost of this project is approximately $23M, which includes land purchase,
building hard costs, engineering/architectural design/permitting/soft costs and extensive
site development costs (both onsite and offsite). Given the square footage of retail shops
and the four Outparcels controlled by the applicant (OP #1, 3, 4 and 5), this project just
underwrites at a marginal 6% return on cost. That is the absolute minimum that is viable
for Developers and Lenders to construct these types of Developments. Otherwise, there is
just too much risk involved in trying to make these projects a success.
Protections for Remaining Wetlands
The stormwater pond located in the northwestern portion of the site will outlet into the
remaining wetlands so that hydrology will not be affected.
Just let me know if you have any other questions or need additional info.
Thanks!
Kim
Kim Williams Section Manager
Davey Resource Group, Inc.

Direct: 910-452-0001 x 1908 I Ce11: 910.471.5035 I Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15 I Wilmington, NC 28403
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 7:15 AM Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
Kim,
Good morning,
Looks like the Public Notice was posted June 6, 2022
I was on vacation all last week, I didn't even know it was posted.
Todd (EPA) has already reviewed the project has made comments on it.
Please see his comments below:
The 30 day review end date is July 6, 2022
https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Public-Notices/
Please contact me if you need any assistance with his project or with EPA's request
Respectfully,
Gary
From: Bowers, Todd <

>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 3:48 PM
To: Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] FW: SAW-2019-02340 Public
Notice.
Importance: High
Gary,
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch has
reviewed the subject Individual Permit Public Notice under DA Action ID SAW-
2019-02340 dated June 6, 2022. It is our understanding that the applicant,
Halverson Development Corp/Thomas Vincent, is seeking Department of the
Army authorization to impact and fill 0.68 acres of 404 wetlands and 0.164
acres of Jurisdictional Open Water ditches for the construction of a
commercial/retail center at the intersection of Hwy 17 and Calabash Road in
the Town of Carolina Shores, Brunswick
County, North Carolina.
Specifically per the Public Notice:
The applicant's purpose for the project is to develop a shopping center with a
grocery store that is centrally located within the Carolina Shores/Calabash area
to serve surrounding full-time residents and visitors to the area that is
specifically located off Highway 17. According to the applicant, market research
indicates that residents and visitors to the area have the population to support
this type of project.
The proposed project is to develop a commercial/retail center at the intersection
of Hwy 17 and Calabash Road in Carolina Shores, NC that will contain
approximately 68,240 square feet of commercial/retail space including a
grocery store and retail shops. Additionally, five (5) outparcels are planned.
Total proposed impacts are to 0.684 acres of 404 wetlands and 0.164 acres
of jurisdictional open water ditches. The shopping center will serve
surrounding full-time residents and visitors to the area that is specifically
located off Highway 17.

Alternative analysis was performed and reviewed for this project. The applicant
evaluated several off -site and on -site alternatives and determined that the
preferred project is the least environmentally damaging yet practicable
alternative. The applicant will purchase wetland mitigation credits from the
Stone Farm Mitigation Bank, which is located within the same HUC as this
project. There is no proposed mitigation for the impacts to the Jurisdictional
Open Water Ditch. According to the applicant, minimization efforts include
reducing the impact footprint to 0.68 acre of the total 1.4 acres of 404 wetlands
existing on the property. This would leave 0.72 acres of wetlands intact and
un-disturbed.
At this time, EPA Region 4 requests additional information pertaining to
the project as presented in the Public Notice. Figure 4 in the Public Notice is
not legible for analysis purposes. Please have the applicant forward a site plan
including impacts to aquatic resources, an approved jurisdictional
determination, wetland quality assessment forms (NCWAM) if available, to
determine if compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts is sufficient, and
any on -site alternatives or configurations that were considered. At first glance it
appears that additional impact avoidance can be achieved and the applicant's
project purpose could be maintained by removing one of the outparcels for
development. I would also like some information on how the applicant plans to
protect the remaining wetland on -site when the hydrology for this wetland may
be significantly altered by the development even with a maintained connection
to Persimmon Swamp.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on DA Action ID SAW-2019-
02340 associated with the construction of a commercial/retail center at the
intersection of Hwy 17 and Calabash Road in the Town of Carolina Shores,
Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
Todd Allen Bowers

US EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404.562.9225**
Bowers.toddna,epa.gov
**Note: I am currently teleworking and away from the office. Please contact me via email or at
919.523.2637.
"Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto
you."
— Wendell Berry
From: CESAW-PublicNoticeList <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 1:20 PM
Subject: US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Public Notice
Importance: High
As you requested, you are hereby notified that Wilmington District, United States Army
Corps of Engineers has issued a Public Notice. The text of this document can be found
on the Public Notices portion of the Regulatory Division Home Page. Each Public
Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for viewing, printing or
download at https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Public-Notices/
As with anything you download from the internet, be sure to check for viruses prior to

opening. The current notice involves:
The current notice involves: SAW-2019-02340
Issue Date: June 6, 2022
Expiration Date: 5:00 p.m., July 6, 2022
Point of Contact: Gary Beecher
Email: [e-mail]
Project Description:
Seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact and fill 0.68 acres of 404
wetlands and 0.164 acres of Jurisdictional Open Water ditches for the construction of a
commercial/retail center at the intersection of Hwy 17 and Calabash Road in the Town
of Carolina Shores, Brunswick County, North Carolina.

SITE INFORMATION
DEVELOPER INFORMATION:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
TAX PARCEL IDENTIFICATION #:
RECORDED DEED BOOK:
CURRENT ZONING:
EXISTING USE:
PROPOSED USE:
TOTAL SITE AREA:
FLOOD INFORMATION:
IMPERVIOUS INFORMATION
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
BUILDINGS
FUTURE
TOTAL
PROPOSED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS =
HALVORSEN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
851 S. FEDERAL HWY., SUITE 201
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
CAROLINA SHORES SHOPPING CENTER
9800 OCEAN HWY. W
CAROLINA SHORES, NC 28467
2400001405
BK 4382, PG 0018
HC - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
VACANT
COMMERCIAL RETAIL
21.37+/- ACRES OR 930,819 SF
THIS PARCEL IS NOT LOCATED IN A
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA AS
DETERMINED BY FEMA FLOOD
PANEL 3720102500K, DATED
AUGUST 28, 2018
317,759 SF (7.29 AC)
18,335 SF (0.42 AC)
68,240 SF (1.57 AC)
170,000 SF (3.98 AC)
274,334 SF (13.18 AC)
274,334 / 920,505 SF = 29.8%
FM
//7
=0
t
rEX. TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
X PRIVAIE2UMP
STATION FOR CVS
CB-105
Rim=48.25
Out=34.19
OUT -PARCEL #1
1.18 ACRES
BANK / RESTAURANT /
RETAIL / GAS
NTE 5,000 SF / AC
BLDG HT NTE 25'
CB-111
Rim=46.18
im=46.. 8 In=34.74
t=35. 4 Out=34.74
18" @0.50%
ARCEL #2
LIVE OAK NC, LLC
TRACT 2
PID: 2400001406
D.B. 2012, PG. 73
M.C. 127, PG. 60
FFE = 48.5
Out=33.
I
4C43'^45-
B-1 .9
im=4.71
Ea4.9
59
Z
44 -
.9
32.9 Ou
Outer
In=32.62(CB-104)
`<2,62(DI-106)
Out=31.62
DI-10
im=45.0
B-107
CB
Rim-
Out=33.
RETAIL
7,000 SF
FFE = 46.50
CB-2
Rim=44.
Out-..48
B-217
im=44.0
B-220) n=36 " CB
-2«) n=ib..9
40
40 041- 39_ " anJq�8 d2^ 40- --= 37 0_ - 41 1 _---A-��-38 37
A3 42 - -43 - 44 3_ 3T�.i 42may q� -
CB-10 344- - �4 43- - 42 -
Rim=44.30 = 43' - 43 - 42
In=30.54 3
42
Out=30.54 .�� J�� 43
i
\40
42
OCEAN FOREST
SUBDIVISION
M.C. M, PG. 108
42
-41 42 40
CB-102
Rim=43.90
In=31.02
Ou =31.02
40 - 39 _- ' 42
=
39
��42
36" @0.30
1�.^ \ 4S
\ \ - 44 4 PROPOSED
TRUCK WELL -.
•
�4�5\43
GROCERY
4Q 47,240 SF
46,791 SF LEASE AREA
45.10 PROTOTYPE 43 \-4
FIT = 47.00
Mil
)lI i 1
1
['l91F7 q* g ��ES:iD�17.-3 •Nr.mmE.mL.m L.mmL.■1 Illf�iiF®11111la1MillinG'nil!WM
h �i5BmmufiE�4�Hf4
ICKI ZEE
!T21
=43.7
OU RCEL #3
1.00 ACRES
BANK / RESTAURANT /
RETAIL / GAS
NTE 5,000 SF / AC
BLDG HT NTE 25'
- 43 -
- 43
2 DESIGNATED GROCERY
PICKUP SPACES
1-2
im=44
ut .21
42
43 - 43 - 42
-44 -
0��
- 38= 37
'39 =
1-202
4414.66
t=4.48
.75 211)
i 1-213)
U.S. HIGHWAY 17
(PUBLIC R.O.W. VARIES)
18" @0.50%
SS
1SS
RETAIL
14,000 SF
FFE = 47.00
" @0.34%
OUT -PARCEL #4
1.24 ACRES
BANK / RESTAURANT /
RETAIL / GAS
NTE 5,000 SF / AC
BLDG HT NTE 25'
DI-2
Rim=4
Out- 5.43
.8(DI-209)
CB-
Rim-
4.6
=35.4
ut=34.9
C:-2
Rim=
Out
=44:38
.37(CB-206) •
Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
1a 42
PROPOSED
STORMWATER WET
DETENTION BASIN
EL #5
ACRES
/ RESTAURANT /
RETAIL / GAS
NTE 5,000 SF / AC
BLDG HT NTE 25'
/ /
I
38frn
-
co
rn
z
n
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60 120
cu
J
lid
I
240
SCALE: 1 "=60'
REVISIONS:
CLIENT INFORMATION:
HALVORSEN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
851 S. FEDERAL HWY., STE. 201
BOCA RATON, FL. 33432
ENGINEERING, INC.
122 Cinema Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[phone] (0) [phone] (F)
NC License #: C-2846
CALABASH COMMONS
CALABASH ROAD
CAROLINA SHORES, NC 28467
PROJECT STATUS
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT:
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT:
FINAL DESIGN:
RELEASED FOR CONST:
DRAWING INFORMATION
DATE: 06/21/22
SCALE: 1 "=60'
DESIGNED: RPB
DRAWN: RPB
CHECKED: RPB
SEAL
C
2•2
PEI JOB#: 21530.PE

Carolina Shores Shopping Center
Hwy 17 and Calabash Road
Brunswick County, NC
Action ID# SAW-2019-02340
DRGNCW21.585
Davey Resource Group conducted an on -site wetland functional assessment at the Carolina Shores
Shopping Center tract (Figure 1) on July 18, 2022. The assessment was conducted using the NC
Wetlands Assessment Method (NC WAM). On site conditions were deemed normal as were
precipitation conditions shown using the US Army Corp Engineer Antecedent Precipitation tool data
(Figure 2).
The wetlands examined were classified as a hardwood flat. The assessed area forms the upper end of a
wetland system which flowed eastward across Hwy 17 to the Persimmon Swamp canal then northward
through the Shingletree Swamp Canal and then into the Cawcaw Swamp Canal. The wetlands are
bounded to the north by active agricultural fields, to the east by Hwy 17, to the south by cleared land in
its first year of non-agricultural production and to the west by forested uplands. The tract is bounded to
the north by a jurisdictional ditch feature (RPW) and traversed by a second RPW (Figure 1). In my best
professional judgement, the ditches are the main stressors to wetland function along with the presence
of Hwy 17 which impedes flow to downstream waters. The vegetation community, however, is
relatively intact as shown in Photos 1-4 (attached).
The data collected is shown in the attached NC WAM Wetland Assessment Form (four pages) with the
corresponding results shown on the attached NC WAM Wetland Ratings Sheet (final page). The
functional rating summary was medium for hydrology functions, low for water quality and water quality
functional opportunity, and medium for habitat functions. The wetland assessed received an overall
wetland rating of medium. Per this rating, the wetland should be perceived as average in functional
performance relative to similar wetlands in this landform.

' i.-� ,� '•i'• •
mow" 1
4,7 - _ -_ * _ .7.-;e:";•:. i -. i-• i; -,--. •.' - 4,-., • ---.--,-- : 'Ail-4'•-pii-iii-;:-, ,,
or
! � .;,:x: - .-!. - r-ti..:�' '(.,�. z
.,'* - _ ' F r am.. 3j,y
40s� • �+: � lL 3v My � z
\a I A • i CIA # a
A1Hi'
IF, ---- ;,' -. 4 '.', • 4 -2.r,! ' ': '.'.__•-r- ,,,f,......,,r: #.....
.., „... ..,. .. ,... _
044440
of
„, 4` ----s.q1z. -=--.- '-' '-'-- '-""--: - 1 '
OP imuimiusiu ---
.
1 _ „.r'S.•_ .�." \♦� g• ._
1 ♦♦
Forest'y � \
v 4
_) .\♦ r fl
fp. ,
kbr -A
=_ . ,.
s�;.. 5 �.y 1e68 if
-.-,.' .47:- -i t 4 .
4 - - '..- • ", - _
._-C:..,7;•:, ,a:' .. •bay- r.,, r'
/: ....
i � I /
@� i' •
.A_Zat.:-iaw`r_ _ --g._ - ti*." - -"-:• :.. 0 a.I ` _ k
Legend •
;. `. .
;7,1
7'7.-; i.1 Overall Project Area `� s :`% -<",•
F `. ..._::: Approximate jurisdictional wetlands (assessment area) f j'• 's $ '
- US Waters (RPW) A. ;1,�-+�' , . - s
K .0 .`.
-._i Uplands �' ?, a
x
Non-Jurisdictional Stormwater Pond `J.+r ••.;:z �'� ='
Photo locations _' ..
i . to HERE,fCOn'>u( OpenStreetMap eeetrib tors
N
L:\WETLANDS\2021\DRGNCW21.585\NC WAM Assessment\maps\figure 1.mxd A 0 120 240 480
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute. Feet
Map Source: 2016 NC One Map
9810 & 9698 Ocean Highway ILA/1G
Brunswick County, NC Figure 1. Assessment area
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY .company showing photo locations.
Map Date: July 2019 3805 Wrightsville Avenue
LM G 19.123 Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
Rainfall (Inches)
9
n
r
I\ J
- P-
[I
h
uf
r-
FL
2022-105-18
r
n_
2022-07-17
I
- Daily Total
- 30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
Dec
2021
Jan
2022
Feb
2022
Mar
2022
Coordinates
33.909899, -78.584897
Observation Date
2022-07-17
Elevation (ft)
39.26
Drought Index (PDSI)
Severe drought (2022-06)
WebWIMP H2O Balance
Wet Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1.0
Written by Jason Deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Apr
2022
May
2022
Jun
2022
Jul
2022
Aug
2022
Sep
2022
Oct
2022
Nov
2022
30 Days Ending
30th %ile (in)
70th %ile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2022-07-17
3.446457
6.115748
9.901575
Wet
3
3
9
2022-06-17
3.105118
6.233858
4.011811
Normal
2
2
4
2022-05-18
2.380709
4.216142
2.362205
Dry
1
1
1
Result
Normal Conditions - 14
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days (Normal)
Days (Antecedent)
LONGWOOD
34.0106, -78.5464
40.026
7.299
0.766
3.29
11166
88
CALABASH 1.2 NNW
33.9132, -78.5879
41.995
0.286
2.735
0.129
17
0
CALABASH 1.9 NNE
33.9247, -78.5696
43.963
1.347
4.703
0.613
62
2
SUNSET BEACH 1.7 WNW
33.8841, -78.5377
16.076
3.241
23.184
1.534
7
0
N MYRTLE BCH AP
33.8117, -78.7239
32.152
10.471
7.108
4.786
80
0
MYRTLE BEACH
33.7544, -78.8219
39.042
17.334
0.218
7.804
21
0

Photo 1. Looking north
'4 `afls _5 Y. ] ri as�'� � I, l � f ,r ,,.'r. "'. aa��-..^'' ( 'v'n.f+'_ 4•x
•
ii
rO,
e .. � 4. ! 7 rR'•' :'` .4,�Iei ..0 I
S., 'iII t f k [ vi .r. hs Jf_ q.
711.1
..v ,:1• a�I. � • • t..r. `_y 1:=.:..-Fa_ f -may,..
:11r]Y. 14. �' .. a •'� • I ■� 1 d•L C F•] •r 1
}} :S .� 1F i lli � rar I _ • b
k)11,
4#41
IP .m e.--.''''''''1.
S �1 i f��yy,,,aa f .1 j I -, f■ ...5e =y •Mr' !s- -�.
•
41*
.r...
.. _ ;:.L€ •v.A '°' .r a � ,,.f=• ., ,1.
. , • .,•,::•t•.,-_,,_:.-4c,•••,•,,,,•:. ..
.. •.....„:„...,.7„. ••., •. ...„ .
•
.. :_ .. . .. .•
..
7.• . •. .....,„n...zt]..... ..:...,..„. ...„...:,..
.. .....
". .
". .
•
•
.. ....„. .--,•••...•:•,4,::.4••,:.•.:...,... .. ._..A...ii:.,4.:•,....„-,-..".......::.,,,. ... .--_t•-„,,,,.,-1.T.,:
. - .. :::::"... • ."_:.. ._•.:. . • .... " . .. • ...:.,.. .,........:.7.4•474w.43,.,r4r.. ....„1,::7,...,.........,:::_4,-,..,,:-..T... ....,....."7.,-,,..r.,...4,
_ .
_ .. • • : ...." . ._.•c:.i....::.•,.....-:•,...--.. .....,...:...,....;,-: .....: ..-::. „:-, " .• ,.1:,..:...:.‘f7.•:•:,_.-.,..:i... ,:,•:••,=....,.„::-..„.7...:•,.-s,:•-,;..:•,,,,-•:":,,:-:.:;:i.,,„:".,F.-.:---,..--...:....--. ........„-?-:,--v-.;.i!.:„.r.:4:.:.•:_:?,,...*...:
..• ..k.;,.....• .,. -• . •••• ,:, ,•••:• _11. • „*.::...i:.•-••••-,• . •„•_••,•:•_,.!....„„i:4,,i1-/. ..•;„:„.:,..;•.7,r7:,.... ...,,,,i4,1„,_•„:;...W. ....,,,............,...../...-....-,,..‘,..:,,,,T.:....:•'z 4,-,::;., 110,41‘',.-.....4.,;-,li-i°
� u ;Aa�•!
;ALr '14 I L f 1fiI rF• y ti' s

Photo 2. Looking east
1„. '►' ,;' _ '' • - �• r �.' -' am. " ' .
Ir
.'{,15 s
S 4 4.4 t-:# .o + .m f�a
- + a, a r .., Lam ' y,
•
. _. Kr„,' 4•.:--fig,•.,-.":.-_.: ,., .• -- ,•••:-.;•::, ',••If 0r-;,.-.••a 1-,-g•.1. i..l.'."-._.._l....fr.„..''.''_'•,1*,,--.4-.-2-0•..A....
.,°/r-cf,---,•4 ANr AxaC-.-...i. •,r,,-.-,4-,Iri•..;•,•0d-e,,
bra m A I.t'4 ° ,t 1 I.
Y
•' %= •-- '74/r+ `a.r.f.�! R., � .. , zx afa 4„ .$.. k jai. -
-.
. -_ ➢'` .ter i. r y4'I- ��r },' ,. '' � [ ,. �¢ '. . .. .,1y

Phutn3. Looking south

Phutn4. Looking north

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Hwy 79 & Calabash Road, Sample 1 Date 7/18/22
Wetland Type Hardwood Flat
Level III Ecoregion
Southeastern Plains
River Basin Lumber
Assessor Name/Organization Paul Farley DRG
Nearest Named Water Body
▪ USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040207
Ci Yes C' No Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 33.9099899, -78584897
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? C' Yes C: 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)
E 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
Brownwater
• Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) r Lunar ( Wind C Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? C' Yes C. 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?
''Yes GNo
C' Yes C: 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 coA Not severely altered
C B C' B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
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 USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
( A r A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
C: B C: B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
r C 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. C A i A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
C B C B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C' C ( C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
f: D C: D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ( A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
• B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
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
C' B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
( C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
(' D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
(' E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. r A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
C B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
• B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A Ci A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
C B (' B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
( C f 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 E A f— A >_ 10% impervious surfaces
B B P B < 10% impervious surfaces
C f— C f— C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
D f— D f— D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
E E f— E E E >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
f— F f— F F F >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
f— G f— G f— G >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
f— H f— H f— H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
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?
r- f: 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.
(A > 50 feet
f B From 30 to < 50 feet
(C From 15to<30feet
C D From 5 to < 15 feet
f 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.
C' <_ 15-feet wide C > 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?
(-Yes ( No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
✓ Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
r 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
(A (A >_ 100 feet
CB C'B From80to<100feet
CC rC From50to<80feet
( D (' D From 40 to < 50 feet
C E C E From 30 to < 40 feet
C' F C F From 15 to < 30 feet
(G ( G From 5 to < 15 feet
C H r H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
c" A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
C: B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
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).
:i A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
r 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)
A r A " A >_ 500 acres
C B C' B r B From 100 to < 500 acres
C r' C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D t- D C D From 25 to < 50 acres
C� E i E C- E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F C' F From 5 to < 10 acres
C: G G c: G From 1 to < 5 acres
C'H iH i'H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
C'I C'1 C'1 From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
C' J (' J C' J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
r K C' K C K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
C' A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
C 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
f A
r B
C
D
r E
✓ F
C A
B
C C
• D
C' E
C: F
>_ 500 acres
From 100 to < 500 acres
From 50 to < 100 acres
From 10 to < 50 acres
< 10 acres
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
( Yes C' 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
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C' 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)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
C' B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
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).
C, B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
(i Yes r 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.
C A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
r 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
t: A i 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 r C Canopy sparse or absent
A r A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B i B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C c" C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
Shrub Mid -Story Canopy
C A
r" B
r: C
Ca
rB
rC
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
r A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
( B Not A
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.
r 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.
r A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
rA rB rC
rD
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.
r A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
r B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
r C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
r 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
Hwy 79 & Calabash Road, Sample 1
Hardwood Flat
Date
7/18/22
Assessor Name/Organization Paul Farley DRG
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
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Habitat
Pathogen Change
Particulate Change
Soluble Change
Physical Change
Pollution Change
Physical Structure
Landscape Patch Structure
Vegetation Composition
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)
Condition
Condition
Condition
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Hydrology
Water Quality
Habitat
Metrics/Notes
Condition
Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Conditon
Rating
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NO
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM