20150983 Ver 1_401 Application_20150915

Kimley » >Horn
September 23, 2015
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ('�
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office U
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587 S E P 2 3 2015
Ms. Karen Higgins - WATER RESOURCES
99 DENR
NC Division of Water Resources 401 & BUFFER PERMITTING
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: SAW -2015- 01982: Nationwide Permit 39 Application — Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, Ryan Companies US, Inc., who is under option to purchase the Dogwood
Owner, LLC property, Kimley -Horn is submitting the attached application for authorization under
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39 for the above referenced project in Wake County. Ryan Companies US
is proposing to construct the Knightdale Charter School project within a currently undeveloped 12.9 -
acre property parcel in Knightdale, North Carolina. The development will consist of a two -story school
building, gymnasium, athletictrecreation fields, parking and roadway corridors, and a stormwater
treatment facility.
Impacts to jurisdictional features have been minimized to the greatest extent practical, however, due
to traffic loading and storage requirements for private schools in North Carolina lacking bus service, a
perimeter road has been designed to accommodate the required traffic storage requirements while
maintaining an overall small development footprint. The development has also been located as close
to Poole Road as possible to avoid the majority of the stream, wetland, and buffer system located
along the north side of the property. A small, historically - impacted and disturbed wetland within the
property will need to be filled to facilitate construction of the perimeter road around the school, along
with a short reach of intermittent stream channel. Wetland W2 is a low- quality jurisdictional wetland
that has been historically impacted by the placement of trash and other metal, glass, and wood
debris The soil profile throughout W2 contained large amounts of metal and glass, and the hillslope
above the wetland is covered in trash and loose debris. W2 appears to have been used a rural landfill
in the past, and the fill material has altered the soil and hydrology of the wetland supporting more
hydrology than would normally be sustained in this area of the property.
Drainage out of W2 enters a floodplain drain associated with stream S1, and the hydrology leaving
W2 appears to be supporting the intermittent flow Indicators observed in stream S2 A portion of W2
o' ` o

Kimley >>) Horn
Page 2
and S2 will be impacted by the perimeter road around the school, however the unavoidable impacts
proposed by the development will help to ensure that the trash and debris that has been historically
discarded in W2 will be secured beneath a roadside fill slope, protecting downstream water quality
and cleaning up this degraded area of the site.
A small portion of the protected riparian buffer associated with stream S1 will also be impacted by the
project due to the construction of a new stormwater outfall from the school's stormwater treatment
wetland area on the western side of the property. The stormwater treatment wetland has been
designed to attenuate flow and treat nutrients and suspended solids and will meet Knightdale's
stormwater requirements. The outfall from the stormwater facility will discharge through a dissipater
pad to ensure non - erosive velocities are maintained at the bottom of a slight topographic slope
outside of the wetland W1 boundary.
To assist in your review of this NWP application, the following information has been included:
• PCN Application Form
• Signed Agent Authorization Forms
• Vicinity Map
• USGS Topographic Map
• Jurisdictional Features Map
• USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Map
• Wake County Property Parcels Map
• Impacts Map
• Buffer Determination Letter
• Stream and Wetland Data Forms
• NCWAM Assessment of Wetland W2
• Plan Sheets
• NCDWR 401 Application Fee of $240
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this NWP application,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 919- 678 -4155 or Jason. Hartshorn @ Kim ley-Horn com.
Sincerely,
Jason Hartshorn
Environmental Analyst
Cc: Brian Devlin, Ryan Companies US, Inc
lk"k&44

Kimley >>> Horn
September 23, 2015
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
SEP 2 3 2015
DENR - WATER RESOURCES
401 & BUFFER PERMITTING
20150,
3
0
RE: SAW -2015- 01982: Nationwide Permit 39 Application — Knightdale Charter
Knightdale, Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, Ryan Companies US, Inc., who is under option to purchase the Dogwood
Owner, LLC property, Kimley -Horn is submitting the attached application for authorization under
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39 for the above referenced project in Wake County. Ryan Companies US
is proposing to construct the Knightdale Charter School project within a currently undeveloped 12.9 -
acre property parcel in Knightdale, North Carolina. The development will consist of a two -story school
building, gymnasium, athletic/recreation fields, parking and roadway corridors, and a stormwater
treatment facility.
Impacts to jurisdictional features have been minimized to the greatest extent practical, however, due
to traffic loading and storage requirements for private schools in North Carolina lacking bus service, a
perimeter road has been designed to accommodate the required traffic storage requirements while
maintaining an overall small development footprint. The development has also been located as close
to Poole Road as possible to avoid the majority of the stream, wetland, and buffer system located
along the north side of the property. A small, historically- impacted and disturbed wetland within the
property will need to be filled to facilitate construction of the perimeter road around the school, along
with a short reach of intermittent stream channel. Wetland W2 is a low- quality jurisdictional wetland
that has been historically impacted by the placement of trash and other metal, glass, and wood
debris. The soil profile throughout W2 contained large amounts of metal and glass, and the hillslope
above the wetland is covered in trash and loose debris. W2 appears to have been used a rural landfill
in the past, and the fill material has altered the soil and hydrology of the wetland supporting more
hydrology than would normally be sustained in this area of the property.
Drainage out of W2 enters a floodplain drain associated with stream S1, and the hydrology leaving
W2 appears to be supporting the intermittent flow indicators observed in stream S2. A portion of W2

Kimley > >> Horn
Page 2
and S2 will be impacted by the perimeter road around the school, however the unavoidable impacts
proposed by the development will help to ensure that the trash and debris that has been historically
discarded in W2 will be secured beneath a roadside fill slope, protecting downstream water quality
and cleaning up this degraded area of the site.
A small portion of the protected riparian buffer associated with stream S1 will also be impacted by the
project due to the construction of a new stormwater outfall from the school's stormwater treatment
wetland area on the western side of the property. The stormwater treatment wetland has been
designed to attenuate flow and treat nutrients and suspended solids and will meet Knightdale's
stormwater requirements. The outfall from the stormwater facility will discharge through a dissipater
pad to ensure non - erosive velocities are maintained at the bottom of a slight topographic slope
outside of the wetland W1 boundary.
To assist in your review of this NWP application, the following information has been included:
• PCN Application Form
• Signed Agent Authorization Forms
• Vicinity Map
• USGS Topographic Map
• Jurisdictional Features Map
• USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Map
• Wake County Property Parcels Map
• Impacts Map
• Buffer Determination Letter
• Stream and Wetland Data Forms
• NCWAM Assessment of Wetland W2
• Plan Sheets
• NCDWR 401 Application Fee of $240
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this NWP application,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 919 - 678 -4155 or Jason Hartshorn @Kimley - Horn.com.
Sincerely,
Jason Hartshorn
Environmental Analyst
Cc: Brian Devlin, Ryan Companies US, Inc.

OF W ATFR
p Office Use Only-
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
�r Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing Ij
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps. ®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
i
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401
For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
® Yes ❑ No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
❑ Yes ® No
below.
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project: Knightdale Charter School
2b.
County. Wake
2c
Nearest municipality / town: Knightdale
2d.
Subdivision name: n/a
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state n/a
project no.
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed: I Ryan Companies US, Inc. (will be aquiring the
property from Dogwood Owner, LLC)
3b.
Deed Book and Page No. n/a
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
Brian Devlin
a
applicable):
3d.
Street address: 1 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2450
3e.
City, state, zip. I Tampa, FL 33602
3f.
Telephone no.: 813 - 204 -5006
3g.
Fax no.: 813 - 204 -5053
3h.
Email address: brian.devlin @ryancompanies.com
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
® Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Jason Hartshorn
5b.
Business name
Kimley -Horn
(if applicable):
5c.
Street address:
3001 Weston Parkway
5d.
City, state, zip:
Cary, NC 27513
5e.
Telephone no.:
919 - 678 -4155
5f.
Fax no.:
919 - 677 -2050
5g.
Email address:
Jason.Hartshorn @Kimley - Horn.com
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
1 c. Property size:
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. River basin:
11743609066
Latitude: 35.754954
(DD.DDDDDD)
12.9 acres
Neuse River
C;NSW
Neuse
Longitude: - - 78.504677
(- DD.DDDDDD)
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 land use in the vicinity of the project is primarily single family residential development interspersed with forested,
undeveloped tracts. The project site is lightly forested, currently undeveloped property, but was cleared and graded at
some point in the past and used for construction access during construction of an adjacent residential development.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property.
1.1 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property.
858 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed project will construct a 2 -story charter school, gymnasium, outdoor recreation areas, and associated
parking in this underserved area of Wake County. The proposed charter school facility will provide educational
opportunities to more than 1,100 students from in and around eastern Wake County.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project will construct a 2 -story charter school building, gymnasium, outdoor recreaton areas, parking lots
and associated roadway facilities, and stormwater treatment measures within a mostly vacant 12.9 -acre property parcel in
Knightdale. Site access will be off of Poole Road along the southern end of the property parcel. Typical site preparation
and construction equipment will be utilized, including bulldozers, excavators, graders, cranes dump trucks, concrete
trucks, and pavers.
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?
Comments: A wetland delineation was conducted and ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
verified by the USACE (Action ID SAW- 2015 - 01982), and
documentation is pending. Protected riparian buffers were
reviewed and confirmed by the NCDWR (NBRRO# 15 -360)
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? Preliminary ❑Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company: Kimley -Horn
Name (if known): Jason Hartshorn Other:
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
USACE verified the delineaton on September 23, 2015 and documentation is pending. NCDWR verified the buffer
applicability within the Site on August 31, 2015, and documentation is attached.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes ❑ No
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
n/a
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? I ❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain
n/a
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply).
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
® Unknown
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

2. Wetland Impacts
UT to Neuse ❑ PER
® Corps 4 57
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question
for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b.
2c. 2d.
2e.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number— Type of impact
Type of wetland Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
Temporary (T)
S4 ❑ P ❑ T I
❑ PER
W1 ® P ❑ T
Fill
Riparian ® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
I
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2f
Area of impact
(acres)
0.19
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.19
2h. Comments: Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will result from the construction of the proposed project. A
portion of wetland W2 will be filled to accommodate site development. The wetland is a low- quality, historically disturbed
wetland and appears to have been used as a rural trash /debris dump location. Metal and glass is densely packed throughout
the wetland, and augering into the soil produces large quantities of metal and glass debris Filling this historically disturbed
wetland area will prevent trash and debris from exiting the property and degrading water quality in downstream receiving
waters.
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. 3b 3c 3d 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non -404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ® P ❑ T Fill
UT to Neuse ❑ PER
® Corps 4 57
River (Stream S2) ® INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T I
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
57
3i. Comments Unavoidable impacts to the intermittent stream S2 will result from the proposed project. The upper end of
stream S2 will be filled (57 LF) to facilitate fill slope construction associated with the perimeter road corridor.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
— Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4£ Total open water impacts
4g. Comments. No open water impacts will result from the proposed construction.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose of
number pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments- No ponds or lakes will be constructed.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres)- n/a
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres)- n/a
5k. Method of construction. n/a
® No If yes, permit ID no. n/a
(acres)
Excavated Flooded
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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.
® Neuse
F-1 Tar-Pamlico
El Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
6b. 6c 6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number— Reason for
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) impact
Stream name mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
or Temporary
required?
(T)
Stormwater
B1 ®P ❑ T outfall from
UT to Neuse River ❑ Yes
0
191
BMP
(Stream S1) ® No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
0
191
61. Comments, Unavoidable impacts to Zone 2 of the protected riparian buffer associated with Stream S1 (UT to Neuse River)
will result from the construction of a new stormwater outfall from a stormwater management wetland feature that will provide
nutrient treatment and flow attenuation. The outlet of the stormwater management feature discharge into a dissipater pad in
Zone 2 that will ensure non - erosive velocities are maintained through the buffer. The dissipater pad will be placed specifically
to avoid wetland impacts, while meeting the lowest elevation possible through the buffer to maintain the non - erosive velocities
at the outlet.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practical by designing the development to be located as close to the
Poole Road frontage as possible, avoiding the northern end of the property where the jurisdictional stream and wetland
system associated with stream S1 is located. All protected riparian buffers have been avoided. Due to vehicle stacking and
storage requirements associated with private charter schools in North Carolina, the perimeter road has been designed to meet
applicable requirements while being designed such that the roads is located as close to the development as possible, circling
the perimeter of the development only. While this alignment results in a minimal stream and wetland impact, it avoids the
larger stream and riparian buffer along stream S1, and the large wetlands W1 and W3. Stormwater treatment facilities have
been located in uplands to further avoid impacts to jurisdictional features.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts to streams, wetlands, and protected riparian buffers within the corridor will be minimized to the extent practical
throughout the construction process by avoiding these features with equipment, materials, and access corridors. Silt fencing
will be installed around the limits of disturbance to help ensure that all construction equipment will remain within the project
area throughout the construction process Stormwater controls and erosion control features will be utilized to avoid impacts to
downstream waters and to help minimze runoff from the Site.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes. mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: n/a
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type n/a I Quantity n/a
3c. Comments: No mitigation is proposed for the wetland impact as wetland W2 is severely impacted by historic dumping and
fill, as the wetland is located at the foot of a mild topographic break and appears to have been used a rural landfill The
wetland substrate is packed with metal debris, glass, household trash, and other scraps, and the fill material is largely
contributing to the support of the wetland itself by altering hydrology and soils. The slopes above the wetland are packed with
more debris, resulting in trash and debris that are constantly relocating into the wetland from the slope. The wetland was
assessed using the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) and scored a quality rating of "low ".
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-
n/a linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
I n/a square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
I n/a acres
4f.
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested.
I n/a acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
I n/a acres
4h.
Comments: n/a
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
n/a
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 ❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
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.
6c.
Zone Reason for impact
Zone 1
Zone 2
6d.
Total impact Multiplier
(square feet)
3 (2 for Catawba)
15
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
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).
n/a
6h. Comments: No mitigation is required for buffer impacts resulting from a new stormwater outfalls through riparian buffers
provided that stormwater management facilities are installed to control nitrogen and attenuate flow before the conveyance
discharges through the buffer. The stormwater management wetland area will control and treat the stormwater exiting the
site, and the outfall will discharge into a dissipater pad in Zone 2 that will ensure non - erosive velocities are maintained
through the buffer. The dissipater pad will be placed specifically to avoid wetland impacts, while meeting the lowest
elevation possible through the buffer to maintain the non - erosive velocities at the outlet
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 ® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
® Yes ❑ No
Comments: n/a
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 48%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: n/a
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Stormwater from the site will be collected and treated in the proposed stormwater wetland located at the northwestern
corner of the property. The stormwater wetland will treat the site's stormwater and remove 85% TSS, and will meet pre -
development peak storm discharge rates. Treated stormwater will discharge through a dissipater pad to ensure non -
erosive velocities at the bottom of a slight slope outside of wetland W1.
® Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Knightdale
® Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply): ❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes
® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ 0 R
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other.
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes
❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
® Yes
❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes
❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the ❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal /state) land?
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 ❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
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 ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments: n/a
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, ❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application? ❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): n/a
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
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
n/a
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
Sewage generated by the proposed charter school will enter the existing City of Raleigh sanitary sewer system at an
existing manhole at the western edge of the property. The receiving sanitary sewer is handled by the Poplar Creek pump
station, and City of Raleigh has reviewed the connection and proposed additional flow, and has no concerns.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted [:1 Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database records indicate no known occurrences of any federally listed threatened
or endangered species within the project area or within 1.0 mile of the project area (records updated July 2015). Suitable
habitat is not present for dwarf wedgemussel or red - cockaded woodpecker, suitable roosting habitat is present for
northern long -eared bat, however NC NHP indicates that there are no known maternity roosts within the project or within
1.0 mile of the project area.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? I ❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC State Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS Service
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? ❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: n/a
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA DFIRM 3720174300J and 3720174200J
(Effective 05/02/2006)
Jason Hartshorn
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
9/23/2015
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Project Name /Description: K, nightdale Charter Site
Date:
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: Dave Shaeffer
Field Office: Raleigh Resulatory Field Office
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
Dogwood Owner, LLC hereby designates and authorizes Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. to act in
my /our behalf as my /our agent solely for the purpose of processing Jurisdictional Determinations,
Section 404 permits /Section 401 Water Quality Certifications applications, and Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer Determinations, and to furnish upon request supplemental information in support of
applications, etc. from this day forward until successful completion of the permitting process or
revocation by the owner.
In addition, I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property /properties identified
herein, do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Authorized this the 12th day of Aug 2t I.
Dogwood Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
By: Andrew Bloom
Print Property Owner's Name Property Owner's Signature
Title. Authorized Signatory
Cc: Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650

Letter of Authorization
Ryan Companies US, Inc. authorizes Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., to act as
our agent to prepare and coordinate the application to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality for 404/401 permits and
jurisdictional determinations associated with the Knightdale Charter Site project
located in Wake County, North Carolina. Authorization will terminate on either
final agency action or upon written notification.
Signature
Printed Name
Ay_!�, - I -D
Title
<i<--)9)�l�
Date

FIGURES

Wake County s
rd Rd
Kentucky "
Virginia
Tennessee Al-Y a
I North4
Carolina
South
Carolina
Georgia
0 40 80
mmmE= Miles
Kimley > >> Horn
f r.
Atlantic Ocean
�0 2,000 4,000 1
Feet
ORANGE
GRANVILLE
FRANKLIN
DURHAM
Project Location
NASH
CHATHAM/ WAKE
JOHNSTON
LEE
6 1ARNETT
1Miles
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015

I
Amok
S1 Origin
(offsite)
�TT
S, l IN
Legend
Streams
Wetlands
Project Study Area
Feet
0 100 200 300 400
AL
Figure 2: Jurisdictional Features Map
Kirnley))) Horn Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015

•
i�
1 i
fi
js
%
4 ^
1 r. 0
< :> +a i - 4 1Y
Y•k
4bp *
r
ONO • a
a
IL r
JO.,
. 46 l 1I
qP
Legend � ,�
Feet
Project Study Area °` 0 500 1,000
Kimsey >> )Horn
Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map
(Raleigh East, 1987)
Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015

'00
Iftb X,
-�M
WmC2
Legend
Project Study Area
Kimley> ))Horn
A P
Iff
w
•
L I�
VaBJ'
Feet
0 300 600
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map
(Wake County, 1970)
Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015
Hydric Soil Table
N Soil Survey
Current
Soil Unit Name
Hydric
Map Symbol
SSURGO Unit
ApC2
ApC2
Appling sandy loam (6-101/o slopes, moderately eroded)
No
Cn
CnA
Colfax sandy loam (0-3% slopes)
Incl.
DuB
DuB
Durham loamy sand (2 -6% slopes)
No
Me
ApC2
Previously mapped as Mantachie soils (0-4% slopes) now ApC2
No
VaB2
VaB2
Vance sandy loam (2 -6% slopes, moderately eroded)
No
WmB2
WmB2
Wedowee sandy loam (2 -6% slopes, moderately eroded)
No
Wy
WyA
Worsham sandy loam (0-3% slopes)
Incl.
'00
Iftb X,
-�M
WmC2
Legend
Project Study Area
Kimley> ))Horn
A P
Iff
w
•
L I�
VaBJ'
Feet
0 300 600
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map
(Wake County, 1970)
Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015

'�, �►.
Parcel PIN #: 1743609066
_
sa•c
tpppppl¢pppp 0 4
"fit ` s r+L
`Ilk c
'�-. ) .p .toy.
Legend
Affected Parcels R ice'
Wake County Parcels (July 2015)
rq Project Study Area 0 250 500
Figure 5: Wake County Property Parcels Map
Kimle O Horn Knightdale Charter School
Y Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015
�
4
'�, �►.
Parcel PIN #: 1743609066
_
sa•c
tpppppl¢pppp 0 4
"fit ` s r+L
`Ilk c
'�-. ) .p .toy.
Legend
Affected Parcels R ice'
Wake County Parcels (July 2015)
rq Project Study Area 0 250 500
Figure 5: Wake County Property Parcels Map
Kimle O Horn Knightdale Charter School
Y Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015

A
Mi
A�lip-
PIT :c
�..
s
i � a
L 101 t M.
X
3 f
t
a c _
f
Legend
t
-- .0%-^- Streams
_ lw%r— Proposed Stream Impacts �, µ
Wetlands �. �. 4 3.r
Proposed Wetland Impacts
Neuse River Basin 50' Buffer f 1N x ^� _
L ACA
Proposed Buffer Impacts ti =^ KN/G DFMYAT
HT�ACE
rProject Study Area -RYA N con>rpgN,�s, Lr.0
= _ _ GRADING
Feet & DRAB
0 150 300 450 600 -
7w 31,
Figure 6: Impacts Map
Kimley o Horn Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County
September 2015

NCDWR BUFFER DETERMINATION
LETTER

a
CD ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Dogwood Owner LLC
Andrew Bloom
250 Park Ave S FL 3
New York, NY 10003 -1402
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
August 31, 2015
Isolated or EIP Call
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
Subject: Buffer Determination
NBRRO #15 -360
Wake County
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B.0233)
F-1 E) Tar - Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259) Ephemeral /Intermittent /Perennial Determination
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 213.0267)
Project Name: Knightdale Charter School
Location/Directions: Property is located near Poole Rd. and Stony Falls Way Intersection
Wake County, NC
Subject Stream: Neuse River
Determination Date: August 27, 2015
Feature /Flag Not Subject E /UP*
Subject To
To Buffers
Buffers
Staff: James Graham
Start@ Stop@ Soil USGS
Survey Topo
A X I I X X
B X Not present I` X X
*E /I /P - EphemeraL/intermittent /Perennial
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject' have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. 'there may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
NorthCarolina
N17turallV
North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1628 Phone [phone]
Internet: www ncwatercuality ora Location: 3800 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer- 50 %,Recycled /10% Post Consumer Paper

Knightdale Charter School
Wake County
August 31, 2015
Page 2 of 2
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and /or to the Division of Water Resources
(D WR).
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and /or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Karen Higgins, DWR WeBSCaPe Unit, 1650 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner /future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated
above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be
directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)- 807 -6300, and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919) -554 -4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact James Graham at (919) 791 -4256
Respectful }y.
Danny Smith, Supervisor
Water Quality Section
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: RRO /SWP File Copy
Jason Hartshorn
Kimley Horn
3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, NC 27513

Legend vi 16
Feet
Project Study Area 0 300 600
Figure 4; NRCS Soil Survey Map
(Wake County, 1970)
Kimley >)) I u orn Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015

r .a
'� • 00 �� +�'/ �� N
j f
w. ` ' ` i
J
f
Legend i.
Project Study Area
Kimley >))Horn
a
j
Feet
0 500 1,000
Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map
(Raleigh East, 1987)
Knightdale Charter School
Knightdale, Wake County
August 2015

STREAM AND WETLAND
DATA FORMS

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/3/2015 Project/Site:
Knlghtdale Charter
Latitude-
35.755794
School - S1
Evaluator: J. Hartshorn /R Sullivan County:
Wake
Longitude:
- 78.505209
Total Points: 27.5 Stream Determination
(circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent EphemeraCntermiftentPerennial
e g Quad Name
Raleigh East
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 16.5
,Absent_:
Weak ;Moderate Stroin
Score
�1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
12. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-
Ipool sequence
0
1
2
3
2p
+4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2.
15. Active /relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
_2
16. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2 ,.
17. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
_1
18. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0�.:
19. Grade control
0
0_5
1
1.5
0:5_
110. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1 _
11. Second or greater order channel
_N_o_ =_ 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 5.5
112. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
113. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
114. Leaf litter
1_5
1
0.5
0
115. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1''
116. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
_
0_
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3 ,
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.5
118. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
119. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
120. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
1
2
3
0
121. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
122. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
_0'`°_
123. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0._
124. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 _
125. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0, _
126. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
= 0.75; OBL =
1.5;
Other = 0
1:5,
I *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes: Stream S1 is a beaver impacted intermittent channel surrounded by
flat floodplain system. Several beaver dams were observed along S1 along with
numerous signs of beaver activity (chewed trees). Much of the channel was dry
aside from several small pools of water and saturated soil. The stream appears
to become impounded after large rain events due to beaver dams and small
culverts at Stony Falls Lane. Numerous animal tracks were observed in and
around the stream.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Ryan Companies US, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name: 1• Hartshorn/ R. Sullivan (Kimley -Horn)
3. Date of evaluation: 08/03/2015
5. Name of stream: Stream S1
7. Approximate drainage area: 150 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 900 linear feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex 34 872312): 35.755794
4. Time of evaluation: 2:00 pm
6. River basin: Neuse
8. Stream order: First Order
10. County: Wake
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Longitude (ex -77 556611): - 78.505209
Method location determined (circle): aPSaopo Sheet✓ Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS[3)ther GIS❑Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streatn(s) location):
The stream is located along the northern boundary of the project study area
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Hot and Sunny with no rain in the previous week
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Hot and dry with clear skies and temps in the mid to high 90s Fahrenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OSection 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Rv Nutrient Sensitive Waters R Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area: 1.4 acres
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 40 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 30 % Agricultural
30 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 4 -51 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1 -2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ElFlat (0 to 2 %) 17IGentle (2 to 4 %) Dmoderate (4 to 10 %) DSteep (> 10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends DFrequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 60 Comments:
Stream S1 is a beaver impacted intermittent channel surrounded by flat floodDlain system. Several beaver dams were observed
alonci S1 alona with numerous signs of beaver activitv (chewed trees). Much of the channel was dry aside from several small
pools of water and saturated soils. The stream aooears to become impounded after laroe rain events due to beaver dams and
small culverts at Stonv Falls Lane. Numerous animal tracks were observed in and around the stream.
Evaluator's Signature �`'° �`°```x" Date 08/03/2015
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

Stream S1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Entrenchment / floodplai°n access
7 ' dee 1... 0 °5 0, =4 0 — °2°0
( p y_entrenched u, frequent,flooding — max points)_
e:8 Presence of adjacent wetlands Q _ 6.
(no_wetlands_ °_0; large adjacent wetlands = max-points)_
9 I Channel sinuosity I 0-5' — 5
(extensive channdization = 0; natural meander = max _points)
Sediment-,input, Q
_(extensivedepositibn _�
Olittle or_no sediment_ =_max points)_ - 0 — 5
e 11 Size &`diversity of channel bed'substrate NA*
(fine, hoinoenous = 0; large, diverse sizes ° max points)____
Evidence of channel incision or widening
N 12 (deeply incised'- 0; stable bed & banks_- max points) I ` °° )0
—5
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5'
I, (severe erosion = _;_no erosion, stable banks _= max points)`
0­4 ° ° 0—,2
0 _4 . ° I 70.—..4
0 -4 0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
. 14 0
ECOREGION POINT-RANGE
#•.
CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0 ° -'S
'
0 -4
0 =5° ° °
_____(no_ flow or. saturation = 0 ;_strong flow -max points)_____
_.
•
Evidence of,-past human alteration
,'
�• '
`_
(extensive alteration = 0;_ no_alteration- max points)______
°
3
' .Riparian zone'°
0 �6
0 =4
° ,0 -5 e °
no buffer = 0 co6tiguous, wide buffer =. max points)
4
e Evidence °of nutrient or 'chemical
0 _ 5 ` °°
, e 0 = °4 .. 0-4
_(extensive_discharges -A°; no_discharges_ =max points)_ -__
04 5
a ° Groundwater discharge
F °
0: 3:
P
o, 0, =4
°
0 -4
d
° °(ho discharge = 0;,springs, seeps, wetlands, etc:'= °max points)
Pre §erice of adjacent iloodpliin a
°
t
..
(iio'floodpliairi;O;,extensive floodplain,. =_ max ,points)
Entrenchment / floodplai°n access
7 ' dee 1... 0 °5 0, =4 0 — °2°0
( p y_entrenched u, frequent,flooding — max points)_
e:8 Presence of adjacent wetlands Q _ 6.
(no_wetlands_ °_0; large adjacent wetlands = max-points)_
9 I Channel sinuosity I 0-5' — 5
(extensive channdization = 0; natural meander = max _points)
Sediment-,input, Q
_(extensivedepositibn _�
Olittle or_no sediment_ =_max points)_ - 0 — 5
e 11 Size &`diversity of channel bed'substrate NA*
(fine, hoinoenous = 0; large, diverse sizes ° max points)____
Evidence of channel incision or widening
N 12 (deeply incised'- 0; stable bed & banks_- max points) I ` °° )0
—5
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5'
I, (severe erosion = _;_no erosion, stable banks _= max points)`
0­4 ° ° 0—,2
0 _4 . ° I 70.—..4
0 -4 0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
(no °visible roots =-O; dense roots throughout= max points) _ I _
°- Impact by'agciculture, livestock, or.timber production e
(substantial' impact =0; no evidence —:max points) _ ° ° °_ ° ° � ° 0" 5 ( 0 — 4
Presence of riffle -pool /ripple- p'
16 I (no °riffles /ripples or pools = °0; well- developed = max points) 0 — °3 °° ° 0 — °5
17 I ° Habitat complexity ° I' 0 - 6 " ` I ° 0 — 6
(litile or no habitat .= d frequent, varied habitats = max points)
P1 Canopy coverage over streambed
18, ° 80_5 °:a 0 -5
°°° ° _(no shading vegetation = 0;_conti_n_uous_ canopy _ °_max points) ��'° ^ °`
d 19 Substrate embeddedness .° NA* 0 = 4
(deeply embedded ° °_0;_loose °s'truc"ture = max)_
20 Presence -of stream invertebiates'(see 4
[..
page 4) a e°
(no evidence = °0;, common,•numerous °types = max points)
�0 .= °
• °21 Presence °of amphibians -- 0 — 4-'
(no_ evidence = 0; common, numerous types _= max points)
O 2� Presence of fish -0-4
(no evidence = 0;_common,•numerous types _ =max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 6— 6e °
(no evideiice,= 0; abundant ev_ideuce == max points)_
` Total Points Possible ° I e 100 •°
a TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)'
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
0 -6
0 -6°°
°Q_5
0 -40
0 — °5
0 =4 I '0 -4
0 -4 0 -4
0 =5 I 0 -5°
100 100°
two
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
0
4
2
4
60
. 14 0
0, Root depth and density on banks B
BO —
— 3 •° 0-4
20 Presence -of stream invertebiates'(see 4
[..
page 4) a e°
(no evidence = °0;, common,•numerous °types = max points)
�0 .= °
• °21 Presence °of amphibians -- 0 — 4-'
(no_ evidence = 0; common, numerous types _= max points)
O 2� Presence of fish -0-4
(no evidence = 0;_common,•numerous types _ =max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 6— 6e °
(no evideiice,= 0; abundant ev_ideuce == max points)_
` Total Points Possible ° I e 100 •°
a TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)'
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
0 -6
0 -6°°
°Q_5
0 -40
0 — °5
0 =4 I '0 -4
0 -4 0 -4
0 =5 I 0 -5°
100 100°
two
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
0
4
2
4
60
2
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
0 -6
0 -6°°
°Q_5
0 -40
0 — °5
0 =4 I '0 -4
0 -4 0 -4
0 =5 I 0 -5°
100 100°
two
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
0
4
2
4
60

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 8/3/2015 Project/Site: Knightdale Charter Latitude, 35.755486
School - S2
Evaluator: J Hartshorn /R. Sullivan County: Wake Longitude. - 78.50545
Total Points: 22 Stream Deter on (circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemer Intermitten erennlal e.g. Quad Name Raleigh East
if? 19 or perennial if? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 7.5
b "
%',,Asent°
_ _ o -Weak°
"
_,;Moderate ',Stronga_
Scone,
11a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2 t
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
0
1
2
3
1� „�
pool sequence
14. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
15. Active /relic floodplaln
0
1
2
3
_1
16. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
:01
17. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
o., .,
18. Headcuts "
0
1
2
3
19. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
110. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
40:5
111. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0.,:. .
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5
112. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
Oeus
113. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
1,A
114. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
115. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1_5
° °_1.5
�16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
_ 0.5a°
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3. _
C. Biology Subtotal = 7
118. Fibrous roots In streambed
3
2
1
0
'2J'�­`
119. Rooted upland plants In streambed
3
2
1
0
120. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0. _
121. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
„'.;' °0
122. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
_-
123. Crayfish
0
0_5
1
1.5
0 '.51
124. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
125. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
126. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5;
Other = 0
1.5
I °perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes: Stream S2 is an intermittent channel with a defined bed and bank,
but no baseflow at the time of observation. The soils within the channel were
hydric and saturated. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus) was growing in the
channel. Numerous animal tracks were also observed in and around the
channel.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
f„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET f ,
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Ryan Companies US, Inc. 2. Evaluator's name:1 Hartshorn/ R. Sullivan (Kimley -Horn)
3. Date of evaluation: 08/03/2015
4. Time of evaluation: 2:30 pm
5. Name of stream: Stream S2
6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 9 acres
8. Stream order: First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 linear feet
10. County: Wake
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Latitude (ex 34 872312): 35.755486
Longitude (ex —77 556611): - 78.50545
Method location determined (circle): ✓ hPSO✓ 1'opo Sheet✓ Ortho
(Aerial) Photo /GISather GIS❑Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The stream is located in the northern portion
of the property and flows into stream S1
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: Hot and sunny with
no rain in the previous week
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Hot and dry with
clear skies and temps in the mid to high 90s Fahrenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
Section 10 OTidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters 00utstanding Resource Waters
.Lv t Nutrient Sensitive Waters IIWater Supply Watershed ([ -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential
_% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
20 % Forested
60 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 4'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1 -T
24. Channel slope down center of stream: DFlat (0 to 2 %) QGentle (2 to 4 %) F1 Moderate (4 to 10 %) osteep (> 10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends ElFrequent meander Overy sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 45 Comments:
Stream S2 is an intermittent channel with a defined bed and bank, but no baseflow at the time of observation. The soils within
the channel were hvdric and saturated. Lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus) was orowina in the channel. Numerous animal tracks
were also observed in and around the channel.
Evaluator's Signature Rc�'''' `f`sL' """'' Date 08/03/2015
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

Stream S2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
�
dwater.discharge 0 -3
`'.(no discharge— 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. —'max points)
°Presence of adjacent floodplain '
0 =4
.(no° °floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = =_max points)__
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0 — 5 °
A ": (deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8 __ jiY6 wetlands_- 0 ;_large_adjacent- wetlands =_max points)_
0 -4
0 -4,f +600 q2
01 4 _,0 -2' °.
0 -
9 Chadfiel sinuosity 0 = 5 . 0. 4 a,
(extensive dW nnelization ° 0. natural_ meander°= max points)°
el0o. %° Sediment'input 0-5 0—,
4 °
_,(extensi_v_e deposition =�0; little br no sediment -maY points)
11 Size & diversity of channel'Ud substrate°, NA e 0-4
' *
---_(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes_= max_points) _
oEvidence of °channel.incision or widening
� I ° 12 I (deeply incised_ " = 0; stable lied &banks max points) 0 — 5 0 —;4
°I a
13
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
(severe erosion_= 0; erosion,,itable banks' = max.poinis)'.'
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
'
Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream '
° ° .0-3
15 Impact by agricultur"e;'livestock, or timber production
(
° 1
_�(no
flow_or saturation__ - 0; strong flow = -max points)
0 -5`
0 -4
0 -5..
J`
2
16
Evidence of past -human alteration
f' '
0""
(no riffles /ripples or °pools = 0; well - developed = max points)
_,(extensive
alteration-,f�-0;.no alteration = max�pomts)_ ____ _
__
_
3 I °..
B° `Riparian°zone: o e ° a
°
buffer
0— 6 e-
0-4
a ° Canopy coverage over stream bed
I I
°0 — 5
I°
` (no buffer= 0; contiguous, wide` = max' points)°
_(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopymaac points)_
4.
e Evidence ofnutrien "t'or °cheinical;discharges
" °0 -5
f
0 -4 -:•a
0. =�4,
_(extensive discharge`s_ °.0;_rio discharges =max points)
,
�
dwater.discharge 0 -3
`'.(no discharge— 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. —'max points)
°Presence of adjacent floodplain '
0 =4
.(no° °floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = =_max points)__
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0 — 5 °
A ": (deeply entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max points)
Presence of adjacent wetlands
8 __ jiY6 wetlands_- 0 ;_large_adjacent- wetlands =_max points)_
0 -4
0 -4,f +600 q2
01 4 _,0 -2' °.
0 -
9 Chadfiel sinuosity 0 = 5 . 0. 4 a,
(extensive dW nnelization ° 0. natural_ meander°= max points)°
el0o. %° Sediment'input 0-5 0—,
4 °
_,(extensi_v_e deposition =�0; little br no sediment -maY points)
11 Size & diversity of channel'Ud substrate°, NA e 0-4
' *
---_(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes_= max_points) _
oEvidence of °channel.incision or widening
� I ° 12 I (deeply incised_ " = 0; stable lied &banks max points) 0 — 5 0 —;4
°I a
13
.° Presence of mayor bank -failures �"`
no I'
0'— 5
(severe erosion_= 0; erosion,,itable banks' = max.poinis)'.'
Root depth and density on banks
---(n o visible roots -'0; dense °roots throughout = max points)
° ° .0-3
15 Impact by agricultur"e;'livestock, or timber production
(
0 — 5 °
(substantial impact-0; no evidence = max points)
.
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes ° °
0-3
(no riffles /ripples or °pools = 0; well - developed = max points)
°_
17
-
= ° ° Habitat complexity
�.
0 6 °
(little or no_babitat_= 0; frequent, varied habitats ° max_points)
•M°
18
a ° Canopy coverage over stream bed
I I
°0 — 5
I°
-
_(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopymaac points)_
0 =5
0 -4
0 -2
0=3
0 -4
0—, 5
0 —5
0 -5
0 -5
0 -4 -'. 0, -5
0 -5 0 ° -6
0 e 6 " e-0-6°
0 -5 I e0• -5
19 Substrate.embeducuness NA q' 4
*
_(deeply embedded = 0; loose _structure= max)
20 Presence,of stream-invertebrates (see page 4) N 0 — 4 0—,5.
(no evidence `0 common, numerous types = max points) I I ° °
° Presence,of amphibians _
21 ' 0 -4. e 0. 4�
O °(no evidence 0 ; - common; numerous types = maz;points)
° x27 a . Presence of fish ' 0 — 4
** .. I - _(no evidence = 0; common; numerous,types = max points)
23 ° e Evidencetof wildlife use (. 0-6'
�
(no evidence = 0; abdndant_evidence_= max points)_°
' Total Points Possible 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)'
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. m
2
0 —e4
0 — °5S
100e °
0 -;4 °
0 -5
0 -4 s°
0-A.
0 -5
100° ( °
SCORE
0
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
4
3
2
1
2
3
2
0
1
0
3
45

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site. Knightdale Charter School City /County. Knightdale /Wake Sampling Date 8/3/2015
Applicant/Owner Ryan Companies US, Inc. State NC Sampling Point W1 /W2 -UP
Investigator(s)- J. Hartshorn /R. Sullivan (Kimley -Horn) Section, Township, Range- St. Mathews
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none) None Slope ( %) 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.755598 Long: - 78.505345 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name Worsham sandy loam NWI classification. None
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes r . i No= (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology, E significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation F1 Soil or Hydrology, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
✓ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Presents Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No F/
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
The upland data point is N 56' east and 1.5' higher in elevation than the wetland data point (W1 -WET)
and 30' west and 1.5' higher in elevation than wetland data point (W2 -WET). This upland area is still in
the floodplain just topographically higher and better drained than the wetland area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired, check all that aooly)
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (135)
_
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Field Observations:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
= Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
— Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Water Present? Yes— No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes _ No ✓ Depth (inches) >24"
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches)- N24" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes F-1 No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W1 /W2 -UP
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30' ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum 70% Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC. 7 (A)
2. Ulmus americana 20% Y FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata. 9 (B)
4.
5
6
7.
8.
SaDIIna /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30'
1 Juniperus virginiana
2. Ligustrum sinense
3 Celtis laevigata
4.
5.
6
7
8
9
10
Herb Stratum (Plot size- 15'
1 Microstegium vimineum
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
11.
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1. Vitis rotundifolia
2 Toxicodendron radicans
3 Lonicera iaponica
4.
5.
6
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No ❑
15% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
According to the dominance test, greater than 50% of the dominant vegetation at the upland data point are FAC or
wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0
Percent of Dominant Species 77.8%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC- (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of MUItiDIV by
90% =Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
5% Y FACU
FAC species x 3 =
5% Y FACU
FACU species x 4 =
5% Y FACW
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3- Prevalence Index is :53.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
15% = Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
70% Y FAC
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree— Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
70% =Total Cover
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
5% Y FAC
height
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No ❑
15% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
According to the dominance test, greater than 50% of the dominant vegetation at the upland data point are FAC or
wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: W1 /W2 -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
(inches)
Color (moist)
% Color (moist) % Type' Locz
Texture Remarks
0 -8"
10YR 4/4
100%
Loam
8 -14"
10YR 5/4
100%
Sandy clay
14 -16"
10YR 4/3
100%
Sand
16 -24"
10YR 5/1
80% 10YR 4/6 20% C M
Sandy clay loam
'Type. C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location PL =Pore Lmmq, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Praine Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
®Sandy
Redox (S5)
L1 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
n
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
No indicators of wetland hydrology was observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Knightdale Charter School City /County: Knightdale /Wake Sampling Date. 8/3/2015
Applicant/Owner. Ryan Companies US, Inc. State NC Sampling Point W1 -WET
Investigator(s): J. Hartshorn /R. Sullivan (Kimley -Horn) Section, Township, Range St. Mathews
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ). Bottomland floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none)- Concave Slope ( %): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P Lat 35.755564 Long, - 78.505529 Datum NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name. Worsham sandy loam NWI classification None
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No= (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes = No
Are Vegetation R Soil R or HydrologY,E naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
✓ No Is the Sampled Area FV/1 Hydric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Wetland W1 is a bottomland floodplain wetland associated with stream S1. Beaver activity was observed
throughout the wetland to include several beaver dams on stream S1. The wetlands likely become impounded
after large rainfalls. According to NOAA /NWS, no rain was reported for the area for 1.0 week prior to the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauiredl
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
— Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
=
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—
Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_
Moss Trim Lines (616)
✓ Water Marks (131)
_
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
— Sediment Deposits (132)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_
21
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
✓
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
✓
Surface Water Present? Yes _�
No
Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes ✓
No
No
Depth (inches) 24" n No n
Deoth (inches) 1811 Wetland Hvdroloav Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
The wetland receives hydrology from groundwater, precipitation, and overland flow. Several beaver
dams were observed on stream S1 and they likely contribute to the site flooding during and after
large precipitation events.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Y FAC
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover
Species? Status
1 Acer rubrum
70%
Y FAC
2, Celtis laevigata
20%
Y FACW
3
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC.
(A/B)
4.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
Total % Cover of. Multiply by
5
OBL species x 1 =
6.
height.
FAC species x 3 =
7.
FACU species x 4 =
8
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
Column Totals (A)
Sapllno /Shrub Stratum (Plot size
1. Liriodendron tulipifera
2. Liguidambar styraciflua
3 Ligustrum sinense
4. Pvrus callervana
5
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size 15'
1. Microstegium vimineum
2 Athyrium asplenoides
3 Saururus cernuus
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9
10
11
12
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size
1 Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3
4.
5.
6
90% = Total Cover
30' )
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
5% Y FACU
5% Y NI
20% = Total Cover
Sampling Point: W1 -WET
Y FAC
Dominance Test worksheet:
5%
Number of Dominant Species
6
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
8
Species Across All Strata
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species 75p % p
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC.
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
Total % Cover of. Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
height.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
Column Totals (A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is < -3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
70%
Y FAC
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
5%
N FAC
5%
N OBL
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
m) tall
Herb —All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall.
80%
= Total Cover
30' )
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
5%
Y FAC
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No ❑
50/0 = Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet )
Saururus cernuus (lizard's tail), an obligate wetland plant, was observed in the wetland, whereas it was not present
within the upland areas.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Sampling Point Wl-WET
Profile Description:
(Describe
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm
the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Locz
Texture Remarks
0 -18"
10YR 6/2
80%
5YR 4/6 C PL
Clay loam
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓
5YR 5/8 C M
(MLRA 136, 147)
18 -24"
10YR 5/2
100%
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sand
24 -30"
10YR 4/1
90%
10YR 3/6 C M
Clay
30 -36"
10YR 4/1
100%
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy clay
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lininq, M =Matnx
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
❑
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
®Sandy
Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric
Soil Present? Yes
n
No ❑
Remarks:
The water table was observed at 24" and the soil was saturated at 18 ".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Knightdale Charter School City /County Knightdale /Wake sampling Date, 8/3/2015
Applicant/Owner Ryan Companies US, Inc. State. NC Sampling Point. W2 -WET
Investigator(s)- 1. Hartshorn /R. Sullivan (Kimley -Horn) Section, Township, Range St. Mathews
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): Depressional seep Local relief (concave, convex, none). Concave Slope ( %) 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA). LRR P Lat. 35.755515 Long - 78.505181 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No= (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation R Soil R or HydrologY,E naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yesl 7 J� No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ ✓ No
Remarks:
Wetland W2 is a depressional seep at the toe of the hillslope adjacent to the floodplains for stream S1. A
large trash pile consisting of broken bottles, metal household appliances, and other trash was observed in
this wetland. According to NOAA /NWS, no rain was reported for the area for 1.0 week prior to the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired: check all that aooly)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
® Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches) 24°
Saturation Present? Yes. ✓ No Depth (inches). 18" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available.
Remarks
The wetland receives hydrology from groundwater seeping from adjacent uplands, precipitation,
and overland flow. Wetland W2 concentrates at stream S2.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (614)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
✓
Water Marks (131)
_
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
✓
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
® Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
✓ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches) 24°
Saturation Present? Yes. ✓ No Depth (inches). 18" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available.
Remarks
The wetland receives hydrology from groundwater seeping from adjacent uplands, precipitation,
and overland flow. Wetland W2 concentrates at stream S2.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: W2 -WET
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum
50%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC- 7 (A)
2. Celtis laevigata
20%
Y
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
9
3
Species Across All Strata (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species 8%
77
5
.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC' (A/B)
6
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8
Total % Cover of. Multiply bv-
70%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Saolma /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1 Liriodendron tulipifera
5%
Y
FAC
FAC species x 3 =
2 Liquidambar styraciflua
5%
Y
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
3 Ligustrum sinense
5%
Y
FACU
UPL species x 5 =
4_ Pvrus callervana
5%
Y
NI
Column Totals- (A) (B)
5
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
8
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9
—
3 - Prevalence Index is < -3 0'
10
—
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20p % o
=Total Cover
—
Herb Stratum (Plot size. 15' )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 Microstegium vimineum
70%
Y
FAC
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2. Athyrium asplenoides
5%
N
FAC
3 Saururus cernuus
5%
N
OBL
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
5.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
6.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
7
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
8.
g
Sapling /Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
10
m) tall
11.
Herb – All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
12
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
80%
=Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size. 30'
)
Woody vine –All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
1•Vitis rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
height
2 Toxicodendron radicans
5%
Y
FAC
3
4
5
6•
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes � No ❑
10%
=Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2 0

SOIL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Sampling Point W2-WET
Profile Description:
(Describe
to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Black Histic (A3)
Redox Features
(MLRA 147, 148)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type' Loe
Texture Remarks
0 -18"
10YR 6/2
80%
5YR 4/6 C PL
Clay loam
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
5YR 5/8 C M
18 -24"
10YR 5/2
100%
Sand
24 -30"
10YR 4/1
90%
10YR 3/6 C M
Clay
30 -36"
10YR 4/1
100%
Sandy clay
'Type- C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lininq, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (At 6)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, - Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) [:1 Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Remarks
The soil had a depleted matrix. The water table was observed at 24" and the soil was saturated at
18".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Knightdale Charter School City /County Knightdale /Wake Sampling Date: 8/3/2015
Applicant/Owner: Ryan Companies US, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: W3 -UP
Investigator(s): J. Hartshorn /R. Sullivan (Kimlev -Horn) Section, Township, Range St. Mathews
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope ( %) 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P Lat. 35.755918 Long- - 78.504439 Datum. NAD 83
Soil Mao Unit Name. Worsham sandy loam
NWI classification None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No= (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation, Soil Ror or Hydrology disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation R Soil Hydrology. naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Presents Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area n
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? YesJ� NoWl
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No
Remarks:
The upland data point is N 50' west and 1' higher in elevation than the wetland data point (W3 -WET). The
upland data point is located on an abandoned dirt road. Stream S1 is piped under the dirt road via a 12"
HDPE culvert.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required. check all that aooly)
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
—
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
— Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_
Iron Deposits (65)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
✓
Surface Water Present? Yes
No
Depth (inches) -
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
No ✓
No ✓
Depth (inches) >8"
Depth (inches) >8" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No 10
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W3 -UP
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
Column Totals- (A) (B)
1 Acer rubrum
40%
Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC-
7
2 Liquidambar stvraciflua
40%
Y FAC
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is < -3 0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5% = Total Cover
Total Number of Dominant
7
3
80% Y FAC
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Species Across All Strata.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
4
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
Percent of Dominant Species
100%
5
Sapling /Shrub— Woody plants, excluding vines, less
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
5% Y FAC
8
5% Y FAC
Total % Cover of:
MUItIDIV by
SaDlino /Shrub Stratum (Plot size 30'
1 Liquidambar stvraciflua
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
8
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size- 15'
1 Microstegium vimineum
2
3.
4
5.
6
7.
8
9.
10
11
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size- 30'
1 Vitis rotundifolia
2.Toxicodendron radicans
3 Lonicera iaponica
4.
5.
6.
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
80% = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
5% Y FAC
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals- (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is < -3 0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5% = Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
80% Y FAC
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling /Shrub— Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3 28 ft tall
80% =Total Cover
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
5% Y FAC
height
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes I V1 No
1j-/o = I otal cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
According to the dominance test, greater than 50% of the dominant vegetation at the upland data point are FAC or
wetter.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point W3 -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist)_ % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 -8" 10YR 4/4 1000/0 Loam
'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location• PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (177)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
Depth (inches). Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks
No indicators of wetland hydrology was observed at the upland data point. The soil was compacted
and difficult to auger below 8 ".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site Knightdale Charter School City /County: Knightdale /Wake Sampling Date 8/3/2015
Applicant/Owner: Ryan Companies US, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point W3 -WET
Investigator(s) 1. Hartshorn /R. Sullivan (Kimley-Horn) Section, Township, Range St. Mathews
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): Bottomland floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %)• 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR P Lat. 35.755943 Lang: - 78.504181 Datum NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name.
NWI classification: None
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No= (if no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soor Hydrology, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No
Are Vegetation RSOF]or HydrologY,E naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
✓
No
No
No
Is the Sampled Area -/
within a Wetland? Yes ♦ No
✓
✓
Remarks -
Wetland W3 is a bottomland floodplain wetland associated with stream S1. According to
NOAA /NWS, no rain was reported for the area for 1.0 week prior to the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check all that aooly)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (610)
_ Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_
✓ Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_
Sediment Deposits (132)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
✓
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135) i
:17:1
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
✓
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No ✓
Depth
_�
Water Table Present? Yes ✓
Saturation Present? Yes
No
No
(inches):
Depth (inches) 24"
Deoth (inches). 22" Wetland Hvdroloav Present? Yes I � I No I I
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks.
The wetland receives hydrology from groundwater, precipitation, and overland flow.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Y
FAC
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size 30' )
% Cover Species?
Status
1. Acer rubrum
50% Y
FAC
2. Liquidambar stvraciflua
20% Y
FAC
3 Celtis laevigata
20% Y
FACW
4
Total % Cover of- Multiolv bv:
5
FACW species x 2 =
6.
FAC species x 3 =
7
UPL species x 5 =
8
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
SaDlina /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. Liriodendron tulipifera
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
3 Ligustrum sinense
4 Pvrus calleryana
5.
6
7.
8.
9
10
Herb Stratum (Plot size- 15' )
1 Microstegium vimineum
2 Arundinaria gigantea
3 Saururus cernuus
4 Athvrium asplenoides
5.
6.
7
8
9.
10
11
12.
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1 Vitis rotundifolia
2.Toxicodendron radicans
3
4
5
6.
90% = Total Cover
5%
Y
FAC
5%
Y
FAC
5%
Y
FACU
5%
Y
NI
20% = Total Cover
40%
Y
FAC
30%
Y
FACW
5%
N
OBL
5%
N
FAC
80% = Total Cover
5% Y FAC
5% Y FAC
10% = Total Cover
Remarks- (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: W3 -WET
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
9
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
11
Species Across All Strata
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species 81 8%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of- Multiolv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in (7 6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height
Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3 28 ft (1
m) tall
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? YesF(1 No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

SOIL Sampling Point. W3 -WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
0 -3"
10YR 3/2
1000/0
3 -12
10YR 4/2
85% 10YR 4/6
12 -18"
10YR 5/2
90% 10YR 4/6
18 -24"
10YR 5/2
1000/0
Loam
15% C M Sandy loam
10 C M Sandy loam
Sandy clay loam
'Type- C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains 2Location PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al) Dark Surface (S7) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox (At 6)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) ✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
7 Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
E Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbnc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) E] Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type -
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
Remarks.
The soil had a depleted matrix.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Knightdale Charter School - W2 Date 8/3/2015
Wetland Type Seep �! Assessor Name /Organization J Hartshorn - Kimley -Horn
Level III Ecoregionl Piedmon Nearest Named Water Body Neuse River
River Basin NeusE ;J USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
('.E Yes (±} No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (deci- degrees) 35 755476, -78 505032
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? (','� Yes (, No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
F--' Anadromous fish
F Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
r Publicly owned property
F N C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
F, 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
i Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) (_i Lunar (_; Wind (, Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? (` Yes (+',, No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes (*_, No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? (" Yes (?. 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
(j A (_- A Not severely altered
rt,, B r'- 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 (7) A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered
(" B ('1 B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
{: C (t—s 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 (—j A {",- A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
(`. B (7, B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
(71 C (:} C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
(: D (7 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 vnthin the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. (7, A Sandy sod
t::• 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
C. E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. (•', A Sod ribbon < 1 inch
(' B Soil ribbon ? 1 inch
4c. (7 A No peat or muck presence
(7 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
67, A (:) A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
(7. B (-) B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
(° C (-2 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 vothin 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
r A r A r A ? 10% impervious surfaces
B r B C B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C F C f C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
r D r D r D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
i— E r E r E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F t! F F F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G r G ? 20% coverage of clear -cut land
r H r H r 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?
(: Yes (7 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
C,- B From 30 to < 50 feet
(7) C From 15 to < 30 feet
t�• D From 5 to < 15 feet
(:) E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary vndth If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width
(:. <_ 15 -feet wide (7; > 15 -feet wide (7' Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
(?. Yes t7; No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(:, Sheltered — adjacent open water voth 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
(*:1 A (": A >_ 100 feet
(` B (- B From 80 to < 100 feet
( C (Z C From 50 to < 80 feet
(" D (`. D From 40 to < 50 feet
( E (, E From 30 to < 40 feet
F (, F From 15 to < 30 feet
%. G r, G From 5 to < 15 feet
(. H (, 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 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 Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
f B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland
(, 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 {', A i ` A ? 500 acres
B (" B { ` B From 100 to < 500 acres
C (" C (' C From 50 to < 100 acres
{` D (7, D ( D From 25 to < 50 acres
(" E (, E (` E From 10 to < 25 acres
(") F (`,. F ( F From 5 to < 10 acres
( G -C,, G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H (:;, H (" H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
(:)I ("}I ('l From 0.1to <05acre
(71 J fj J (- J From 0 01 to < 0 1 acre
('i K ("} K (' K < 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
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
(' A ( A ? 500 acres
(' B (" B From 100 to < 500 acres
( C (7, C From 50 to < 100 acres
(' D (" D From 10 to < 50 acres
(" E (" E < 10 acres
(: F ("` 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
( , 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 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)
(7j 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.
t, 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
(7 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)
(i 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.
(7' C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics)

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
17a Is vegetation present?
C, 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
{:,, A z 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
or e . A (:. A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m (- B (' B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U (" C C Canopy sparse or absent
o A A Dense mid- story/sapling layer
(" B (+• B Moderate density mid- story/sapling layer
{: C (": C Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
(} A C" A Dense shrub layer
r (7) B
{:, B
Moderate density shrub layer
u) (: C
t" C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
{ } A
(: A
Dense herb layer
v ('' B
(' B
Moderate density herb layer
_ (:'1 C
("' C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
(7) A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability)
(:.B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric
{_: 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.
(:;: 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.
C 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.
(7,, A ("' B C (:_. D
Ilk
Ylig rry'
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
(:., A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area
(,, B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
(" 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
W2 is severely impacted from historic dumping /fill placed along or dumped over the topographic slope above the wetland Similar elevation
forested areas along the stream system exhibit typical bottomland forest/floodplain traits, however S2 appears to rarely see overbank flow from
the stream system due to debris and fill material and is only sustained by groundwater seepage from the hillslope.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Knightdale Charter School - W2 Date 8/3/2015
Wetland Type Seep Assessor Name /Organization J. Hartshorn - Kimley -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
Function Sub - function
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Particulate Change
Soluble Change
Physical Change
Pollution Change
Habitat
Physical Structure
Landscape Patch Structure
Vegetation Composition
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Hydrology
Condition
Water Quality
Condition
Condition /Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
Habitat
Conditon
Overall Wetland Rating LOW
Metrics
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition /Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
Condition
Condition /Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
Condition
Condition /Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
Condition
Condition /Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
Condition
Condition /Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
Condition
Condition
Condition
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Rating
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
Rating
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW