20240548 Ver 1_2024.04.11_ePCN Attachments Package_FINAL (reduced)_20240411

5410 Trinity Road P 919.866.4951
T I M M a N S� GROUP, Suite 102 IF919.859.5663
�J .7� GROUP Raleigh, NC 27607 wuwvtimmons.com
April 11, 2024
Rachel Capito
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Zachary Thomas
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Electronic Pre -Construction Notification Attachments
Savannah Ridge
Moncure, Chatham County, North Carolina
Project No.: 43779.002
Dear Ms. Capito and Mr. Thomas,
On behalf of Garden Street Communities Southeast, LLC, we are providing additional
attachments and information to aid in the review of the electronic Pre -Construction Notification of
the Savannah Ridge project, an approximately 150.58-acre site located off of Moncure School
Road in Moncure, North Carolina, within Chatham County (the Site).
Please review the below attachments and contact Kate Hefner at [phone] or
kate.hefnera-timmons.com if additional information is required.
Sincerely,
Timmons Group
Kate Hefner, WPIT, ISA-CA
Environmental Scientist II
Lauren Norris -Heflin, PWS
Environmental Project Manager
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY

Enclosures
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A Figure 1 —Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 3 —Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map
Appendix B Agent Authorization Form
Approved Jurisdictional Determination
Buffer Determination
Appendix C Environmental Impacts Set
Appendix D IPaC Official Species Report
NCNHP Database Report
USFWS Consultation Request
USFWS Concurrence
Appendix E SHPO Map and List
SH PO Project Review Request
OSA Concurrence Letter

Appendix

Path: Y:\805\43779.002 - Savannah Ridge\GIS\43778.002-JD-VIC.mxd
r
r-
M
NOR
Site Limits
Moncure
•` ■
_■
*# ,
�am N#00
Yx;
a
_ p
.IF.
vx
9
Site limits are approximate.
Topographic imagery from USGS.
0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000
Feet
SAVANNAH RIDGE TIMMONS GROUP �■��
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. '
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER:43778.002 U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S):MERRYOAKS
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 151.5 ACRES DATE(S):2022
LATITUDE: 35.632781 WATERSHED(S):HA W & DEEP (CAFE FEAR RIVER BASIN)
LONGITUDE:-79.082756 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S):03030002 & 03030003
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in partand shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.

Path: Y:\805\43779.002 - Savannah Ridge\GIS\43778.002-JD-NRCS.mxd
77 N
J,
fD l o �,
t "w
I�. fig
�e
sip r
401
«. u
" a
M r
Y a
♦ F
w
Site Limits
u: s t
o
1MdC
197
go
i AN,
r6
x
Nil J G
Nil 1,14
rI
a
it Eft,.
Site limits are approximate.
Soils data from NRCS County Soil Survey
0 700 1,400 2,100 2,800
Feet, „
SAVANNAH RIDGE TIMMONS GROUP 0'
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2: NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. �
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER: 43778.002 SOURCE NRCS COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 151.5ACRES SOIL SURVEY DATE: CHATHAM COUNTY, 1973
LATITUDE: 35.632781 WATERSHED(S): HAW & DEEP (CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN)
LONGITUDE:-79.082756 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S): 03030002 & 03030003
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.

4
" gr-
vi�a
r.
kN
0
I
I

•Z: ianl,1►q [•

PIo ��oa �oo� �o�����.��a -� -.•- dU]UtlU 5 w o w w i
....
iil� ryy
�r
eez
ms a
mN

61:1.1MM O [•

•I:OWN 0 [•

my­
TMN
+ _ a
10
OPT
mo
IS
I, - '
all,
Am. _ I'4j'•�s::'_ - tl r5ii'nl4in'ri yi'iy��'.{{ ice,
lot

•I: lankN 0 [•

Appendix B

The Department of the Army
US Arrr•y Corps of Erigireers
VVIrinington District
PC Box 1890
Wilmington NC 23402-1890
To W-iom It May Concern:
TIMMONS GROUP
�l ^. ,'I'-, ,._.� _ " ,'4".. ' .Ilflr
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
All Blanks to be Filled in by Aiaalicant
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
401 & Stiffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699-1650
1. the undersigned, current applicant designate, authorize representatives of ur�% p to
aYt on my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon r�a_E.st
supplemental information in support of applications, etc., from this day forward,
This the �_ day of J . 20.
(number) (Month) (Year)
This notification strparsedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Project Namite Savannah
Applicant Name (Print):
Applicant Signature:
munities Southeast, U-
Applicant Mailing Address: —1d > 7--'
Applicant Fax
Telephone �a'C 4 — Ct No.
Applicant Email
Address: �..
F
Ln
a
w

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2020-01047 County: Chatham U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Merry Oaks
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Timmons Group
Lauren Norris -Heflin
Address: 5410 Trinity Road, suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone Number: 919-866-4943
E-mail: Lauren.Norris-Heflin(-)timmons.com
Size (acres) 150 Nearest Town Moncure
Nearest Waterway Deep River River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC 03030003 Coordinates Latitude: 35.6321
Longitude:-79.0830
Location description: The project site is approximately 150 acres located adjacent to Jordan Dam Road, near the town of
Moncure, Chatham County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
® There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
© The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 1/17/2020. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once

SAW-2020-01047
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact James Lastinger at 919-554-4884 ext 32 or
James.C.Lastinger(&usace.armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the approved jurisdictional determination
form (interim) NWPR dated 08/31/2020.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 10/30/2020.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
GIBBY.JEAN.B.1229783633 Dig itallysigned byGIBBY.JEAN.B.1229783633
Corps Regulatory Official: Date: 2020.09.0113:46:21 -04'00'
Date of JD: 08/31/2020 Expiration Date of JD: 08/30/2025

SAW-2020-01047
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.artny.mlVcm_apex/Vp=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Property Owner: TC&I Timber Comuany LLC
Address: 1200 North 23rd Street, suite 102
Wilmington, NC 28412
Telephone Number: 910-815-4320
E-mail: mthuman(&cambellglobal.com

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Timmons Grou , Lauren Norris -Heflin File Number: SAW-2020-01047 Date: 08/31/2020
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPennits.asi)
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: James Lastinger
CESAD-PDO
Raleigh Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportum to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: James Lastinger, , 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
REGULATORY PROGRAM
' " APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM (INTERIM)
NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION RULE
I. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
Completion Date of Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD): 08/31/2020
ORM Number: SAW-2020-01047
Associated JDs: N/A
Review Area Location': State/Territory: City: Moncure County/Parish/Borough: Chatham
Center Coordinates of Review Area: Latitude 35.6321 Longitude-79.0830
II. FINDINGS
A. Summary: Check all that apply. At least one box from the following list MUST be selected. Complete the
corresponding sections/tables and summarize data sources.
The review area is comprised entirely of dry land (i.e., there are no waters or water features, including
wetlands, of any kind in the entire review area). Rationale: N/A or describe rationale.
❑ There are "navigable waters of the United States" within Rivers and Harbors Act jurisdiction within the
review area (complete table in Section 11.13).
There are "waters of the United States" within Clean Water Act jurisdiction within the review area
(complete appropriate tables in Section II.C).
There are waters or water features excluded from Clean Water Act jurisdiction within the review area
(complete table in Section II.D).
B. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Section 10 (§ 10)2
§ 10 Name § 10 Size § 10 Criteria Rationale for § 10 Determination
dJr a.
C. Clean Water Act Section 404
Territorial Seas and Traditional Navi able Waters a 1 waters :3
a 1 Name
a 1 Size
a 1 Criteria
Rationale fora 1 Determination
Tributaries a 2 waters):
(a)(2) Name
(a)(2) Size
(a)(2) Criteria
Rationale fora 2 Determination
A (int)
linear
(a)(2) Intermittent
NIA
feet
tributary
contributes
surface water
flow directly or
indirectly to an
(a)(1) water in a
typical year.
' Map(s)/figure(s) are attached to the AJD provided to the requestor.
If the navigable water is not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide or included on the District's list of Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 navigable waters list, do
NOT use this document to make the determination. The District must continue to follow the procedure outlined in 33 CFR part 329.14 to make a Rivers and Harbors
Act Section 10 navigability determination.
3 A stand-alone TNW determination is completed independently of a request for an AJD. A stand-alone TNW determination is conducted for a specific segment of river
or stream or other type of waterbody, such as a lake, where upstream or downstream limits or lake borders are established. A stand-alone TNW determination should be
completed following applicable guidance and should NOT be documented on the AJD Form.
Page 2 of 2 Form Version 10 June 2020 updated

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
REGULATORY PROGRAM
M
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM (INTERIM)
NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION RULE
Tributaries a 2 waters):
(a)(2) Name
(a)(2) Size
(a)(2) Criteria
Rationale fora 2 Determination
A (goer)
21870
linear
(a)(2) Perennial
N/A.
feet
tributary
contributes
surface water
flow directly or
indirectly to an
(a)(1) water in a
typical year.
Lakes and ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters ((a)(3) waters):
(a)(3) Name
(a)(3) Size
(a)(3) Criteria
Rationale for (a)(3) Determination
M
136
sq ft
(a)(3) Lake/pond
N/A.
or impoundment
of a jurisdictional
water inundated
by flooding from
an (a)(1)-(a)(3)
water in a typical
year.
Adjacent wetlands ((a)(4) waters):
(a)(4) Name
(a)(4) Size
(a)(4) Criteria
Rationale fora 4 Determination
L
0.014
acre(s)
(a)(4) Wetland
Wetland L come in direct contact with an a(2) water
abuts an (a)(1)-
(Stream A)
(a)(3) water.
N
0.3
acre(s)
(a)(4) Wetland
Wetland N comes in direct contact with an a(2) water
abuts an (a)(1)-
(stream A)
(a)(3) water.
D. Excluded Waters or Features
Excluded waters ((b)(1) — (b)(12)):4
Exclusion Name
Exclusion Size
Exclusions
Rationale for Exclusion Determination
A (eph)
365
linear
(b)(3) Ephemeral
DWR stream flow methodology indicates
feet
feature, including
ephemeral flow. Indicators of intermittent or
an ephemeral
perennial flow was not observed during the July
stream, swale,
27, 2020 site visit.
gully, rill, or pool.
' Some excluded waters, such as (b)(2) and (b)(4), may not be specifically identified on the AJD form unless a requestor specifically asks a Corps district to do so.
Corps districts may, in case -by -case instances, choose to identify some or all of these waters within the review area.
` Because of the broad nature of the (b)(1) exclusion and in an effort to collect data on specific types of waters that would be covered by the (b)(1) exclusion, four sub-
categories of (b)(1) exclusions were administratively created for the purposes of the AJD Form. These four sub -categories are not new exclusions, but are simply
administrative distinctions and remain (b)(1) exclusions as defined by the NWPR.
Page 2 of 2 Form Version 10 June 2020 updated

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
[f, III REGULATORY PROGRAM
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM (INTERIM)
NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION RULE
Excluded waters b)(1) - b 12 :4
Exclusion Name
Exclusion Size
Exclusions
Rationale for Exclusion Determination
linear
(b)(3) Ephemeral
DWR stream flow methodology indicates
feet
feature, including
ephemeral flow. Indicators of intermittent or
an ephemeral
perennial flow was not observed during the July
stream, swale,
27, 2020 site visit.
gully, rill, or pool.
308
linear
(b)(3) Ephemeral
DWR stream flow methodology indicates
feet
feature, including
ephemeral flow. Indicators of intermittent or
an ephemeral
perennial flow was not observed during the July
stream, swale,
27, 2020 site visit.
gully, rill, or pool.
0.001
acre(s)
(b)(1) Non-
Wetland D is not abutting/adjacent to an (a)(1),
adjacent wetland.
(a)(2), or (a)(3) water. Wetland W2 is not
inundated by flooding from an (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) water.
E
0.01
acre(s)
(b)(1) Non-
Wetland E is not abutting/adjacent to an (a)(1),
adjacent wetland.
(a)(2), or (a)(3) water. Wetland W2 is not
inundated by flooding from an (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) water.
F
0.02
acre(s)
(b)(1) Non-
Wetland F is not abutting/adjacent to an (a)(1),
adjacent wetland.
(a)(2), or (a)(3) water. Wetland W2 is not
inundated by flooding from an (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) water.
0.15
acre(s)
(b)(1) Non-
Wetland G is not abutting/adjacent to an (a)(1),
adjacent wetland.
(a)(2), or (a)(3) water. Wetland W2 is not
inundated by flooding from an (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) water.
H
0.001
acre(s)
(b)(1) Non-
Wetland H is not abutting/adjacent to an (a)(1),
adjacent wetland.
(a)(2), or (a)(3) water. Wetland W2 is not
inundated by flooding from an (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) water.
1
0.05
acre(s)
(b)(1) Non-
Wetland I is not abutting/adjacent to an (a)(1),
adjacent wetland.
(a)(2), or (a)(3) water. Wetland W2 is not
inundated by flooding from an (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) water.
J
0.13
acre(s)
(b)(1) Non-
Wetland J is not abutting/adjacent to an (a)(1),
adjacent wetland.
(a)(2), or (a)(3) water. Wetland W2 is not
inundated by flooding from an (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) water.
K
0.5
acre(s)
(b)(1) Non-
Wetland K is not abutting/adjacent to an (a)(1),
adjacent wetland.
(a)(2), or (a)(3) water. Wetland W2 is not
inundated by flooding from an (a)(1), (a)(2), or
(a)(3) water.
Page 2 of 2 Form Version 10 June 2020 updated

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
REGULATORY PROGRAM
IM.il
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM (INTERIM)
NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION RULE
III. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
A. Select/enter all resources that were used to aid in this determination and attach data/maps to this
document and/or references/citations in the administrative record, as appropriate.
Information submitted by, or on behalf of, the applicant/consultant: JD request packet
This information sufficient for purposes of this AJD.
Rationale:
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Title(s) and/or date(s).
Photographs: Aerial and Other: 2017 aerial and site photos
Corps site visit(s) conducted on: July 27, 2020
Previous Jurisdictional Determinations (AJDs or PJDs): ORM Number(s) and date(s).
Antecedent Precipitation Tool: provide detailed discussion in Section I11.B.
USDA NRCS Soil Survey: Chatham County, 2006
USFWS NWI maps: USFWS NWI
USGS topographic maps: 2016 Merry Oaks Quad
Other data sources used to aid in this determination:
Data Source select
Name and/or date and other relevant information
USGS 8, 10, 12 aogit HUC
maps
030300030608 ana 030300020705
USDA Sources
N/A.
NOAA Sources
N/A.
USACE Sources
N/A.
State/Local/Tribal Sources
N/A.
Other Sources
N/A.
B. Typical year assessment(s): APT indicates dry season, and wetter than normal conditions during the
%V 4-° 1 P Z) :aI LC: Vi:aI L.
C. Additional comments to support AJD: N/A
Page 2 of 2 Form Version 10 June 2020 updated

4
" gr-
vi�a
r.
kN
0
I
I

1-1 VZp-'.-.—q,a9VjootEo9" "9XV" oo99 ool T 'I
=.d ..pl—a toot
—M— SIHI....

61:1.1MM O [•
aL
r -14
----- _ - _ 4 y
. + ',-�'-'�Lj�
= _r
-61-
14
``ry+rrr .11r `�Yr
L
,1111r '1-`-_-my'I _ I,'r!I`!,'.' ♦'`,„`l` '! 1 /'I1111 ``1,1
10
`' �! , may`, \ 11\�\ - - Ix-', •!`'-♦
- __-_-_ -" _- _ _ •'�; A +n�r/r -=- '--' 'i`!'. _ '-" _ _ ',``'fir 'r:!''"' - •l l��

•I:OWN 0 [•

my­
TMN
+ _ a
10
OPT
mo
IS
I, - '
all,
Am. _ I'4j'•�s::'_ - tl r5ii'nl4in'ri yi'iy��'.{{ ice,
lot

•I: lankN 0 [•

WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
CHATHAM COUNTY P.O. Box 548
NORTH CAROLINA Pittsboro, NC 27312
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] • E-mail: drew.blakegchathamnc.org • Website: www.chathamnc.org
August 25, 2020
Ms. Lauren Norris -Heflin
Timmons Group
5410 Trinity Road, Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27607
Project Name: Savannah Ridge (Parcel 11229)
Location: 1052 Moncure School Road, Chatham County
Subject Features: Three (3.) ephemeral segments. two (2.) intermittent
segments. one (1) perennial segment, eleven (11) wetlands
Date of 114 28, 2020
Determination:
Explanation:
The site visit was completed on July 28, 2020 by Drew Blake with the Chatham County Watershed Protection
Department and Morgan Gilbert & Lauren Norris -Heflin of Timmons Group on a property identified as
Chatham County Parcel# 11229 that is located outside of the Jordan Lake watershed. Timmons Group
submitted a request for Chatham County to complete a formal review to determine if the features would be
subject to riparian buffers according to Section 304 of the Chatham County Watershed Protection Ordinance.
All points of origin, stream type transitions, and wetland boundaries were reviewed in the field.
Required Riparian Buffers:
The required riparian buffers described below are based on the surface water features identified on the
included Figure 6 and its associated table, completed by Timmons Group. The ephemeral streams will require
a 30-ft buffer from the top of bank landward. The intermittent streams will require a 50-ft buffer from the
top of bank landward on both sides of the feature. The perennial streams will require a 100-ft buffer from
the top of bank landward on both sides of the feature.
The wetland boundaries flagged in the field by Timmons Group have been reviewed and confirmed by the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A 50-ft buffer will be required beginning at the flagged boundary
and proceeding landward of any flagged wetlands determined jurisdictional by the USACE. Eight (8) of the
eleven (11) wetlands identified on the property were deemed non -jurisdictional by the USACE. Per Section
304 (A) of the Chatham County Watershed Protection Ordinance, non -jurisdictional wetlands will require a
50-ft buffer from the flagged boundary.
Impacts to Riparian Buffers:
Impacts to the riparian buffers may require a Riparian Buffer Authorization depending on the size and scope
of the impacts. Please refer to Section 304 (J) of the Chatham County Watershed Protection Ordinance to
determine if your impacts will require a Riparian Buffer Authorization. If you determine that a Riparian
Buffer Authorization is required please contact Drew Blake to receive the required application and submittal
instructions.

CHATHAM COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 548
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] • E-mail: drew.blakegchathamnc.org • Website: www.chathamnc.org
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 Chatham County, on parcels outside of the Jordan Lake
watershed, may submit a request for appeal in writing to the Watershed Review Board. A request for a
determination by the Watershed Review Board shall be made in accordance with Section 304 of the Chatham
County Watershed Protection Ordinance. Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made
by Chatham County, on parcels inside the Jordan Lake watershed, shall submit a request for appeal in writing
to NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27669-1650 attention of
the Director of the NC Division of Water Quality.
Should this project result in any direct impacts to surface water features (i.e., crossing and/or filling streams
or wetlands) additional reviews may be necessary. Additionally, a Section 404/401 Permit may be required.
Any inquiries regarding Section 404/401 permitting should be directed to the Division of Water Resources
(Central Office) at (919)-807-6364 and the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at
(919)-554-4884.
Respectfully,
I��w 6&v�
Drew Blake
Senior Watershed Specialist, CESSWI
Enclosures: Exhibit 1: Surface Water Features Approximate Locations — Completed by Chatham County
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map —completed by Timmons Group
Figure 2: Hydrologic Unit Code Map — Completed by Timmons Group
Figure 3: Environmental Inventory Map — Completed by Timmons Group
Figure 4: Parcel Map — Completed by Timmons Group
Figure 5: NRCS Soil Survey — Completed by Timmons Group
Figure 6: Wetlands & Waters of the US Delineation Map — completed by Timmons Group
Timmons Group Stream ID Forms
Timmons Group Wetland Determination Forms
Major Subdivision Riparian Buffer Application
Authorized Agent Form
Authorization to Enter Property Form
cc: Rachael Thorn, Director, Chatham County Watershed Protection Department
Kimberly Tyson, Planner II/Subdivision Administrator, Chatham County Planning Department
Angela Birchett, Planner II/Zoning Administrator, Chatham County Planning Department
Jason Sullivan, Director, Chatham County Planning Department

(�
—
&
\
\
co
j
\
— /
/
/
/
} ) \
0
\
\
co
co
—
co
k
ƒ 0 } (
k w
) }
)
k
■ ■ 9
co
|
|
'
%
%
.. ... . .\ �. .
/2
_—
® �
�}
\ o
` 2
/ f[
[a
¥.
�
0
\
E
\ )
/>m
7w0
O77
\7
%33
°
/\
W\
2\\
Z
\\
/f f
co co
//
mOO
\

Path: Y:\805\99999 -TCI 154Acres\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\99999-VIC.mxd
I]
F)
r�
'r ;
I
Site Limits
. M
h
00
If
60
�° wl ■
/ 1
ty� 1F
11
A
t a-1#
i F
%
k A �
I
r
Site limits are approximate.
•
Topographic imagery from USGS.
_ ■ ■
0 440 880 1,320
1,760
Feet �
'a
TCI 154 MONCURE
T i M M O N S GROUP
• •'''*
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FOUR
f
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
VISION ACHIEVEO THROUGH OURS.
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER: 99999
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S): MERRYOAKS
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 150.0 ACRES
DATE(S): 2016
LATITUDE: 35o3755.905"N
WATERSHED(S): DEEP & HAW (CAFE FEAR RIVER BASIN)
LONGITUDE: 79o4'59.244W
2
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S): 0 30003 4 030,3242
ited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.

1ou Nq'anisnj—'fanaas q.asodnd Fuecol pasnag1., hags pueyed ui. Io ajpq. 11 pally,da� aq I., Few pued a`J SN' LLJo Fuadord anisnPxa ay1 aia pu wn�opupa\e yoga pua sueld=ga
R
mw
nw
m LL
"
dVW MOO IlNn OIJO-lOMaAH Z 3Nnoid
=o
aC,
°
-
w
VNI-10NVO HINON 'A1Nnoo WVH1tlHO
o0
31tl0
a0
u0
i
3unONOW VgL I01
NOLLdIElOS30 NOISIA3N
leluawuo�!nu3 I RBolauyoal I am1�n-0swlul
I IePuaP!sat! I luawtlolana0 al5�
OYIONOIIOLNIGiRiIWJINpN1YlOA
Rr�r
ooltoo
911CI VAV PI 64004
O
N
O
-
O
o
3
_
v
O s'.ri
O
N
a'.
G
hyn
M
N
SI
E
n' T
o -
r M
O y
M
ea
F
C
P= onH-66666\sligi4x3 paie4S uowwoo\SI`J\swoV bS l I01- 66666\908\'A41%

Pxw Vl13-66666\sllgl4x3 peje4S uowwoo\SI`J\sw3Vjgl I01-66666\908\:A:4led

Path: Y:\805\43779 - Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\49779-Parcel.mxd
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.

Path: Y:\805\43779 - MonCUre--Pyyittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\43779-NRCS.mxd
* IVII�
" M
nw „>
M g D Cb S
PeB
I ��B
m
- M dL
UdC
U!E
0 MQ0 I
r
INA d O
Cfir wt
V%r
C1 A
w
Site Limits 9 E CCE
14
d i — , k+
MdC Mhh
?v1 gD
dB.
MdC
MOB
r Mdo
1.01 2 MpD
Site limits are approximate.
Soils from NRCS web soil survey.
6 - ,
0 950 1900.2.65^ 3.800 1 r V M� 1 t .,.
Feet w !
MONCURE- PITTSBORO TCI 154 ACRES T i M M N S GROUP
•'
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA •
FIGURE 5: NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP YOUR VISION ACHIEVEO THROUGH OURS.
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER: 49779 U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S): MERRYOAKS
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 150 ACRES DATE(S): 2016
LATITUDE: 35038'0.041"N WATERSHED(S): DEEP & HAW (CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN)
LONGITUDE: 7905'4.667'W I HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S): 03030003 & 03030002
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.

711
2t
IYL; ,
k0m
01:1411LNLI[e
MaTan, 'IM�11
I

01: laMII 1►q [•

01: laM111►q [•
I

91:1.1MM O [•
1

• Z: la llkN 0 [ •
','�7! •.1 /ice I ,- _ — _ — /./1: �'� � � _— 1'1'' a _
fa
------------

•1:OWN 0 [•
I

•I: lallkN 0 [•
';�r �;' , _` „' •fir" _--_----:r_ - �, ^ � , _ _ ;�; --- _ m
` f lfr
_
I`
1 �
r +'
rI `
_
+
I � k
�1 ��r a \a •��- _ - -_" '_ _ • '_ +Ir ^�J_�® - `-,_ - - __-_-`_�'`'- �
_ _ -__- __-____ - ,._• � ,�1', �.�`--'•'I/' it/.+r='�-_` ice; // r/�r.
_-� _ _ __ _ - - __ __'��-,��^",.-ll \„�_`___'_ .ti/"-_i_�".r-_'+ter -_`♦.I
Aw
Ill - , ii• e_f _=--_�` ,_ 1- _- � = •l, -`_
` . ,�% `�1`;'.;ui � (%�/�rl .., .'�% •�`. -. _" _ -- :'� ` . _-. �'-_.,.=__ _. .. •'=�=ems;:'=_ _c_==

dVW NOI1tl3N1134 'S'fl 3H1 d052131tlM ONtl S(3Ntll13M 9321f1E)ld
L
mW
nW
ow
w
=�
po
nor
hJ CEO M �A11:M WUVHD
31tl0
.'
OVON OHOSSllld-3unONOW
NOUdINOS30 NOISIA N
leluaw—!nu3 1 RBolauyoal I aml--0swlulI
IePuaP!saaI luawtlo al5
�ICN�O1fILLQitig�NllINpM11lIOA
�� �
*��
d n o u g SNOWWlJLl
."odlana0
SLLCL ✓A �3N11tl03HtldtlH0 S�Ny 64004
E
^o^'
,+^j
}+
E
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
j
�
�
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Ln
�
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c
V/
Ll
m
O
m
O
m
O
C6
C6
•L
•L
•L
•L
•L
•L
•L
•L
O
•_
+j
�I
�I
j
W
W
W
�
^'
r^
r^
r^
�
W
W
W
+ j
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LL
YL
W
YL
I_L.I
YL
I_I..I
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
u
E
c�
Q
J
Z
O
Q
M
U
D
w
LL
(!7
2—
�
V
a
+
�
ca
ca
�
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
ca
vL-L
LL
LL
a w
� a
m �
Z
S
Q O
Q s
o a�
a
r� s
E Q w
w a m
wI
b
J (4 d N d �
>• fn O fl-
a � w LL O
o
o EEo_m
Ea=o
m
in m
EES
-
o
�waaa
o
a�i a`Ua
°'n I i fl■■
aoE�
�o

psi -- 39 4i-)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Gt
Project/Site:
Latitude: '7v- S, Lz yy67
Evaluator: S i Ar
County:
Longitude: -7 y.08a,22 y
Total Points:
Stream at intermittent
Stream Determination (cir net
Other�yks
perennial
if z 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
rperes
Ephemeral Interm itten Perennia
e.g. Quad Name:/
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = P4 -d5q5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3 .
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4- Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
CD
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
-
®
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes =
afdTICIdl uncnes are not rated, see discussions in manuai
B. H drop Subtotal = Q
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
63
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
r1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
C2
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 075; OBL = 1.5 ther =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /10
ProjecVSite: /�^me_
Latitude: 35, & 314,7
Evaluator:! CO'r/ ► �� AA, rl��
w
County:
Longitude:-71, (28 yd7-6
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent
Other
-if 2! 19 orperennial if>_ 30"
erennia
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = [ )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
�
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1 5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
aruuciai ditches are ndc raced, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = I
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
05
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
NP
0.5
1
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es
C. Biology (Subtotal = 9 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
®
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0,
1
1 5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 ther
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

P5A 3q U-I
nu Uwv stream wentitication JForm Version 4.11
Date: VIA
aO 0 Project/Site: /"W r��c�rL Latitude: 35, 6 3 OS9
Evaluator: County: Longitude: —7L(, aS?_2,3
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other
G/lI (�
if _ g
Stream 19 or perennial eam is at least lif >_ 30` intermittent I phemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorpholo (Subtotal = 7.S-6.S)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
0
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
� �
l
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
1
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
*0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a =
Yes = 3
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = !a; 1
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
L:. bioiogy (subtotal = '_ 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
60
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
n
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
ko
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
05
1
1.5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Cher =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

rSA - 3 9 G 1- 1
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: } Gj ,��
Project/Site: /� Or�cJ�rL
Latitude: 3 19, 6 30 3
Evaluator: i j _ �.+-
County: �.,`
Longitude: -07 q , 0 ztc
Other /`�l �i(Y t� tS
Total Points:
Stream is at intermittent t C C�.
Stream Determination (circle on
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30" f! J , J '�
if peren i
eme intermittent Perennial
e.g. QuadName:y
A. Geomorphology {Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
CD
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
/,��
C�
�^ 1
v
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
- 0.
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
artiticial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ }
12. Presence of Baseflow
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
05
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
0
0.5
1
1 5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.
r =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual_
Notes:
Sketch:

r5A- - -5c� I-/ I - I
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: V V,0
Project/Site: Avb�w.ft
Latitude: > '212wt�_
Evaluator: T r r
l
County: Gttcz-"._L
Longitude: .7
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Str rn Determination (circle one)
Otherlltcrf/��
if>_ 19 or perennial if> 30*
Ephemera ntermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = - }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
2
Strong
3
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0'
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
1
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
<0.
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
eg-0i2
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ___ l
12. Presence of Baseflow
®
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
CiT5
1
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1 1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o =
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 14 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1 5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0,75; OBL = 1.5 C6ther = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

PSA -3-1 j I - I
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I `Ct %
/'�j
Project/Site: �(,t
Latitude:
Evaluator: S _ /
County: +�
Longitude: -7-1, 09220 1
r �'I
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 1 2 f 11
Strea etermination (circle one)
Other At e f-"/ � 5
if z 19 or perennial if >_ 30* I �J 1 -j
Phemler hrtennittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = - )
Absent I Weak
�', Moderate
Strong
1 a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. in -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
Na =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 4 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1 5
1
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
05
05
1
1.5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =
C. Biology (Subtotal = a )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 ther =
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

PSA-- (3CIKI- I
NC DWJQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I (q /ZG
Project/Site: k0A_C A_rt
Latitude: 3571 24 246
Evaluator: 5 -r" A A,7%/J�
County:
Longitude: -Jej, 097,7 6 9
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination circle one
Intermittent Perennial
Other a
e.g. Quad Name*
if>_ 19 or perennial if >_30' 15.5
pheme
/
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri ple-pool sequence
0
1
(5
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
ep
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
01
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
®
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o =
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
<D
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =
C. Biology Subtotal = ,5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
®
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
4 they = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual,
Notes:
Sketch:

f?SA - 3&IA2-- I
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I 1 Q/w
Project/Site: ' "Cbre
Latitude: .
5.6 33 2,1
Evaluator: Cam,' .1
County: 6Aa_4 A_"t
Longitude:-7q, 0�;36.c.c
l ` /7
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Streilm Determination (circle one)
7hemer Perennial
Other 14efry WC-C
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30" '
ntermittent
e. Quad Name:
9
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 5 - Absent I Weak I Moderate Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
®
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8, Headcuts
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0.5
1
1 5
10. Natural valley
0
1
1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
=
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1.5
1
05
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1 5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
05
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = lovie
C. Biology Subtotal = aps — 3 . - '
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23 Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1/1 O
1�
Project/Site: ,"l0/tt. G
Latitude: 95, 63N36
1 �A (I
Evaluator: S •
County: Ct,�OL
Longitude:-79, 0ggq!
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent - I �e.g.
Stream Determination (circle one)
Iserr�era Intermittent Perennial
Other
Quad Mamer `S
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
p
e. 9
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Q•S~
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
<7123
5. Active/relict floodplain
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
N =
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
0
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1 5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
❑ =
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
Q1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24 Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25 Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other =76 .
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:

r,,S A - 3R.Ia- I
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: )
Project/Site: 140nz4t�re
Latitude: 35, (3q4 j
Evaluator:s1�j/"�. ��bt
County:
Longitude: -71,0Kg779
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ,��
Stream Deterrnii i circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
Other 114Gir/ Dal�S
e. Quad Name:
9
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30"
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ! ' 1 0) Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a =
Yes = 3
al UHUdl d11drle5 are ndt rated; see dISGUssions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 6.5)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
Q
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
U BiO100V (Subtotal = 9-% )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C>
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
Q
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
05
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
®
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Cthey =
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/14/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39A3-1
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): draw Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3-6
Subregion (LRR or MLRAv P. 136 Lat: 35.63644188 Long:-79.08213954 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 0 No ✓� Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Point taken in a draw east of Moncure School Road.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18 In
>18 In
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39A3-1
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size.
30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Plnus taeda
60
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Quercus rubra
25
YES
FACU
3. Acer rubrum
15
No
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
9
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33.3% (q/g)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
100 = Total Cover
50.0
20.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
0 0
1. Quercus rubra
15
YES
FACU
FACWspecies x 2 =
2. Quercus stellata
10
YES
UPL
FAC species 93 x 3 = 279
FACU species 63 x 4 = 252
3.
UPL species 10 x 5 = 50
4.
Column Totals: 166 (q) 581 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.50
25
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of
total cover:
5.0
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Quercus rubra
5
YES
FACU
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of
total cover:
1.0
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Lonicera japonica
10
YES
FACU
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Quercus rubra
8
YES
FACU
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. Smilax rotundifolia
8
YES
FAC
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
26 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 13.0
20% of total cover: 5.2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
10 YES FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
10
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
Present? Yes = No�
50% of total cover: 5•0
20% of total cover: 2.0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39A3-1
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) % Tvpe
Loc
Texture Remarks
0-3
10YR3/2
100
CL
3-8
10YR6/3
95
5YR5/3 5 C
M
SCL
8-12
10YR6/3
80
10YR6/6 20 C
M
CL gravelly
12-18
10YR6/3
60
10YR6/8 40 C
M
CL gravelly
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
.❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Zj Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63157424 Long:-79.08270407 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 01/09/2020
- Sampling Point: FDS-39131-1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Remarks:
Point taken in a depression with standing water up to 6 in. over 90% of the POW wetland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑✓ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 0-6
Water Table Present? Yes 0
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): 3
No ❑ Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Standing water 0-6 inches in about
90% of the wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39131-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/g)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0.0
0.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
8 16
N/A
FACW species x 2 =
1
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: $ (A) 16 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
0.0
0.0
IHydrophytic
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
LJ -
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 N/A
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
0 = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0
5 feet Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arundinaria gigantea 8 YES FACW (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
8 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 4.0 20% of total cover: 1 .6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Wetland area was primarily open water, with vegetation sparsely covering 8% of the area.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39131-1
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR3/2 100 L
6-18 10YR6/2 90 5YR4/6 10 CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
.❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Zj Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Stream terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P. 136 Lat: 35.63154981 Long:-79.08274463 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 01/09/2020
— Sampling Point: FDS-39131-2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Remarks:
Point taken in a stream terrace adjacent to observed open water.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): 0 In
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18 In
> 18 In
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39131-2
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. Acer rubrum
2. Quercus alba
3. Plnus taeda
4. Liriodendron tulipifera
5. Betula nigra
6.
Absolute
% Cover
25
20
15
12
8
80
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
YES FAC
YES FACU
No FAC
NO FACU
No FACW
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 83.3%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
40.0
16.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species 38 x 2 = 76
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
10
YES
FAC
59 177
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species 34 x 4 = 136
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 131 (A) 389 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.97
10
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
5•0 20% of
total cover:
2.0
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
5
YES
FAC
Q✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Acer rubrum
4
YES
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. Quercus alba
2
No
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
11 = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 5•5 20% of total cover: 2•2 Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arundinaria gigantea 30 YES FACW (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
30 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 15.0 20% of total cover: 6.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39131-2
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
0-8 10YR3/2 100 L
8-11 10YR4/2 100 CL
11-15 10YR4/2 80 5YR3/4 20 C
'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 Sc
0 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)
0 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)
Zj Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: 15
Depth (inches): clay
Remarks:
Restrictive clay layer at 15 in.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39132-1
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63212914 Long:-79.0830084 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil = or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Point taken in a floodplain.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 7
0
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39132-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0.0
0.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
0 0
N/A
YES
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
0.0
0.0
IHydrophytic
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
LJ -
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 N/A
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑✓_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
0 = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0
5 feet Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. N/A (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes M No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation is absent due to time of year (winter) and herbaceous wetland vegetation is likely present in warmer months.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39132-1
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
0-10 10YR3/2 98 10YR4/6 2 C M CL
10-12 10YR5/2 95 10YR4/6 5 C M SCL
'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 Sc
0 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)
0 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)
Zj Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: clay
Depth (inches): 12
Remarks:
Restrictive clay layer at 12 in.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39132-2
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63209598 Long:-79.0830169 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 �0 No ✓� Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Point taken in a floodplain.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
>18
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39132-2
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. Plnus taeda
2. Quercus alba
3. Platanus occidentalis
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
% Cover
40
10
8
58
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
YES FAC
YES FACU
No FACW
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
29•0
11.6
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
8 16
1. Acer rubrum
30
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
YES
FAC
FAC species 93 x 3 = 279
3. Quercus alba
10
No
FACU
FACU species 40 x 4 = 160
4. 1.11n1US rubra
3
No
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 141 (A) 455 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.23
63
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
31 .5 20% of
total cover:
12.6
IHydrophytic
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Ilex opaca
10
YES
FACU
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
10 = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 5.0 20% of total cover: 2.0
5 feet Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Lonicera japonica 10 YES FACU (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
10 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5.0 20% of total cover: 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes = No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39132-2
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
0-8 10YR4/3 100 CL
8-12 10YR3/2 95 5YR4/4 5 C M GCL
'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 Sc
0 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)
0 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)
Zj Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, ❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: rock/gravel
Depth (inches): 12
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainageway Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63039835 Long:-79.08271058 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 01/09/2020
- Sampling Point: FDS-39D1-1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Remarks:
Point taken in a drainageway depression.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 0
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39D1-1
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Plnus taeda
15
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
15 = Total Cover
7•5
3.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACWspecies 15 x 2 = 30
1. Acer rubrum
5
YES
FAC
70 210
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species 8 x 4 = 32
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 93 (A) 272 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2•92
5
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of
total cover:
1.0
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
YES
FAC
Q✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Acer rubrum
10
YES
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
30
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
15.0 20% of
total cover:
6.0
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arthraxon hispidus
20
YES
FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Carex caroliniana
15
YES
FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. Lonicera japonica
8
No
FACU
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
43 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 21.5 20% of total cover: 8.6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39D1-1
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-3
10YR3/2
100
L
3-12
10YR4/2
85
2.5YR3/6 15 C M CL gravelly texture
12-18
10YR6/2
65
7.5YR5/4 35 C M CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
.❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Zj Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/09/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39D1-2
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): sldeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63034255 Long:-79.08267203 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Point taken on a sideslope.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
>18
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39D1-2
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. Pinus taeda
2. Quercus alba
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
% Cover
65
15
80
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
YES FAC
YES FACU
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 57.1 % (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
40.0
16.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
0 0
1. Pinus taeda
8
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
FAC species 121 x 3 = 363
2.
FACU species 45 x 4 = 180
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 166 (q) 543 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.27
8
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
4.0 20% of
total cover:
1.6
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Acer rubrum
20
YES
FAC
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
YES
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. Ilex opaca
15
YES
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4. Pinus taeda
8
No
FAC
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
63 = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 31 .5 20% of total cover: 12.6
5 feet Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Ilex opaca 15 YES FACU (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39D1-2
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR3/2 100 L
4-12 10YR5/2 100 L
12-18 10YR6/3 75 10YR5/6 25 C M CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/09/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39E1-1
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): drainage way Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63040295 Long:-79.08340289 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Point taken in a drainage -way.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 5
0
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39E1-1
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size.
30 feet )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Plnus taeda
15
YES FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Acer rubrum
8
YES FAc
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/g)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
23 = Total Cover
11.5
4.6
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 20 x 1 = 20
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
5 10
1. Pinus taeda
15
YES FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
FAC species 43 x 3 = 129
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 68 (q) 159 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.34
15
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
7.5 20% of
total cover: 3.0
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Alnus serrulata
20
YES OBL
Q✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Acer rubrum
5
YES FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
25
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of
total cover: 5.0
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Juncus effusus
5
YES FACW
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 2•5 20% of total cover: 1 .0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39E1-1
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR3/2 100 L
3-14 10YR5/2 95 7.5YR4/6 5 C M CL
14-18 10YR6/2 95 10YR5/6 5 C M CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39E2-1
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): draw Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRAv P. 136 Lat: 35.63244774 Long:-79.0838059 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 0 No ✓� Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Point taken in a draw.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
>18
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39E2-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. Plnus taeda
2. Liriodendron tulipifera
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
% Cover
70
8
78
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
YES FAC
NO FACU
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/g)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
39.0
15.6
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
8 16
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
15
YES
FAC
FACW species x 2 =
2. Liriodendron tulipifera
8
YES
FACU
FAC species 105 x 3 = 315
3. Quercus rubra
5
YES
FACU
FACU species 43 x 4 = 172
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 156 (A) 503 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.22
28
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
14.0 20% of
total cover:
5.6
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
YES
FAC
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V
6.
20 = Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 10.0
20% of total cover: 4.0
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5 feet
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Rubus argutus
12 YES FACU
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Lonicera japonica
10 YES FACU
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.Osmunda cinnamomea
8 YES FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
30 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 15.0 20% of total cover: 6.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes = No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39E2-1
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-5
10YR4/3
100
CL
6-12
10YR5/3
95
10YR5/6 5 C M SL
12-18
10YR5/4
95
10YR5/6 5 C M SCL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/09/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39F1-2
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Draw Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 3
Subregion (LRR or MLRAv P. 136 Lat: 35.63157703 Long:-79.08559932 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, 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 �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Point taken in the same wetland system as FDS-39E1-1.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
>18
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39F1-2
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Pinus taeda
70
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/g)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
70 = Total Cover
35.0
14.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
8 16
1. Pinus taeda
15
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
FAC species 138 x 3 = 414
2.
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 151 (q) 450 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.98
15
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
7.5
20% of
total cover:
3.0
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Acer rubrum
13
YES
FAC
Q✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Morella cerifera
10
YES
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. Pinus taeda
10
YES
FAC
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
33
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
16.5
20% of
total cover:
6.6
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arthraxon hispidus
15
YES
FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Juncus effusus
8
YES
FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. Pinus taeda
5
NO
FAC
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4. Lonicera japonica
5
NO
FACU
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
33
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
16.5
20% of
total cover:
6.6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet
)
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39F1-2
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR4/2 99 10YR3/6 1 C M CL
8-18 10YR6/2 75 2.5YR4/8 25 C M L
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39G1-2
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): draw Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3
Subregion (LRR or MLRAv P. 136 Lat: 35.6313959 Long:-79.0814708 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Point taken in a draw.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
>18
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39G1-2
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Plnus taeda
80
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
80 = Total Cover
40.0
16.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
0 0
1. Pinus taeda
20
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
10
NO
FAC
FAC species 135 x 3 = 405
FACU species 20 x 4 = 80
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 155 (A) 485 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.13
30
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
15.0 20% of
total cover:
6.0
IHydrophytic
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
20
YES
FAC
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Ilex opaca
5
YES
FACU
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
25
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of
total cover:
5.0
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Lonicera japonica
15
YES
FACU
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
5
YES
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
20 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 10.0 20% of total cover: 4.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39G1-2
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
0-8 10YR4/3 90
5YR4/6 10 C M CL
8-15 10YR6/3 90
5YR5/6 10 C M CL
'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 Soils3:
0 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)
0 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)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: clay
Depth (inches): 15
Remarks:
Restrictive layer of clay at 15 in
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): drainage way Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63449726 Long:-79.08474534 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam , 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
— Sampling Point: FDS-39G2-1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Remarks:
Point taken in a drainageway.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 5
3
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39G2-1
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum
25
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2. Liriodendron tulipifera
20
YES
FACU
Liquidambar styraciflua
20
YES
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
7
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4. Pinus taeda
8
NO
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71 .4% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
73 = Total Cover
36.5
14.6
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACWspecies 5 x 2 = 10
1. Liriodendron tulipifera
35
YES
FACU
64 192
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species 55 x 4 = 220
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 124 (A) 422 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.40
35
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
17.5 20% of
total cover:
7.0
IHydrophytic
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
3
YES
FAC
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
3
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
1.5 20% of
total cover:
0.6
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Smilax rotundifolia
8
YES
FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Arundinaria gigantea
5
YES
FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
13 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 6.5 20% of total cover: 2.6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0•0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39G2-1
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 7.5YR4/2 85 7.5YR4/3 15 C M L
12-18 10YR5/2 95 5YR4/4 5 C M SL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39G2-fi
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): foodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63452339 Long:-79.0847924 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil = or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Point taken in a floodplain.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
II
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39G2-2
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum
30
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2. Liriodendron tulipifera
20
YES
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71 .4% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50 = Total Cover
25.0
10.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species 30 x 2 = 60
1. Liriodendron tulipifera
20
YES
FACU
46 1 38
2. Magnolia virginiana
15
YES
FACW
FAC species x 3 =
3. Pinus taeda
5
NO
FAC
FACU species 40 x 4 = 160
4. Acer rubrum
3
No
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 116 (q) 358 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.09
43
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
21.5 20% of
total cover:
8.6
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Magnolia virginiana
5
YES
FACW
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of
total cover:
1.0
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arundianria gigantea
10
YES
FACW
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Smilax rotundifolia
8
YES
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
18 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 9.0 20% of total cover: 3.6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39G2-2
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-4
10YR3/4
100
CL
4-11
10YR4/3
90
10YR4/4 C M 10 CL
11-18
10YR5/2
92
2.5YR4/6 C M 8 CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-391­12-1
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): draw Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRAv P. 136 Lat: 35.63408215 Long:-79.08466308 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil = or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Point taken in a draw.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 0
0
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-391­12-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
0 = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0.0
0.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
0 0
N/A
YES
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species 90 x 3 = 270
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 90 (A) 270 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
0.0
0.0
IHydrophytic
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
LJ -
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 N/A
Q✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
0 = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0
5 feet Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Microstegium vimineum 90 YES FAC (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
90 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 45.0 20% of total cover: 18.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-391­12-1
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) % Tvpe
Loc Texture Remarks
0-7
10YR4/2
92
10YR4/6 8 C
M SL
7-15
10YR6/2
85
10YR4/6 15 C
M S
15-18
10YR6/2
80
10YR5/6 20 C
M SCL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-391­12-2
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): sldeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 3-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63410991 Long:-79.08469553 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Point taken on a sideslope.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
>18
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-391­12-2
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Pinus taeda
80
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
80 = Total Cover
40.0
16.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
0 0
1. Pinus taeda
15
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
2. Quercus nigra
10
NO
FAC
FAC species 128 x 3 = 384
FACU species 13 x 4 = 52
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 141 (q) 436 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.09
25
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of
total cover:
5.0
IHydrophytic
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
10
YES
FAC
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Quercus nigra
8
YES
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. Juniperus virginiana
5
NO
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4. Pinus taeda
5
NO
FAC
5. Ilex opaca
3
NO
FACU
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
31
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
15.5 20% of
total cover:
6.2
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Lonicera japonica
5
YES
FACU
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 2.5 20% of total cover: 1 .0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-391­12-2
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-3
10YR4/2
100
L
3-14
10YR6/3
60
10YR4/3 40 C M L
14-18
10YR6/4
70
10YR5/8 30 C M SCL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): foodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.62966593 Long:-79.08217945 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 01/09/2020
— Sampling Point: FDS-3911-1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Remarks:
Point taken in a floodplain.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
>18
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-3911-1
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. P1nus taeda
50
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
35
YES
FAc
3. Acer rubrum
15
No
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
8
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
100 = Total Cover
50.0
20.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
5 10
1. Acer rubrum
20
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
2. Ilex opaca
10
YES
FACU
FAC species 150 x 3 = 450
3. Betula nigra
5
NO
FACW
FACU species 35 x 4 = 140
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 190 (A) 600 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.16
35
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
17.5 20% of
total cover:
7.0
IHydrophytic
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Ilex opaca
25
YES
FACU
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Quercus nigra
15
YES
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
40
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20.0 20% of
total cover:
8.0
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Carex carollnlana
10
YES
FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Smilax rotundifolia
5
YES
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
A
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-3911-1
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-10 10YR3/2 99 10YR5/4 1 C M CL
10-16 10YR4/2 60 10YR5/2 38 D M
10YR5/6 2 C M CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/09/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-391-1-1
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): draw Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRAv P. 136 Lat: 35.62932334 Long:-79.08135307 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, 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 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Point taken in a draw.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
>18
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-391_1-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. Pinus taeda
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
% Cover
80
80
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
YES FAC
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
40.0
16.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
0 0
1. Pinus taeda
10
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
2. Ilex opaca
10
YES
FACU
FAC species 151 x 3 = 453
3. Acer rubrum
5
YES
FAC
FACU species 38 x 4 = 152
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 189 (q) 605 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.20
25
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of
total cover:
5.0
IHydrophytic
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
15
YES
FAC
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Ilex opaca
10
YES
FACU
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. Acer rubrum
8
YES
FAC
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V
6.
33
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 16.5
20% of total cover:
6.6
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Rubus pensilvanicus
30
YES
FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Lonicera japonica
10
NO
FACU
Sapling -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. Ilex opaca
5
NO
FACU
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4. Pinus taeda
3
No
FAC
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Rosa multiflora
3
No
FACU
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
51
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 25.5
20% of total cover:
10.2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-391_1-1
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-11 10YR4/3 90 2.5YR5/4 10 C M L
11-18 10YR5/4 80 2.5YR4/6 20 C M L
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39M1-1
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): drainage way Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63066807 Long:-79.0819614 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 �0 No ✓� Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Point taken in a drainage way.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 0
0
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39M1-1
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
0
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
0.0
0.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
0 0
15 feet
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
)
0 0
N/A
FACW species x 2=
1
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 0 (A) 0 (B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
0.0
0.0
IHydrophytic
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
LJ -
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15 feet )
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 N/A
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 Morphological Adaptations'
2
- (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
0 = Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0
5 feet Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. N/A (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes = No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation was not observed during the site inspection and given the channel -like characteristics it does not appear vegetation would be present year-round
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39M1-1
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) %
Tvpe
Loc
Texture Remarks
0-7
10YR5/2
95
5YR4/6 5
C
M
SL
7-13
10YR5/2
90
5YR4/6 5
C
M
SL
10YR5/6 5
C
M
13-18
10YR6/2
80
5YR4/6 20
C
M
SCL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): drainage way Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63078824 Long:-79.0818971 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
— Sampling Point: FDS-39M1-2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Remarks:
Point taken in a drainage way that was previously a dirt road.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 4
0
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39M1-2
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
1. Pinus taeda
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
% Cover
65
65
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
YES FAC
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 62.5% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
32.5
13.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
8 16
1. Pinus taeda
20
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
2. Ilex opaca
8
YES
FACU
FAC species 173 x 3 = 519
3. Acer rubrum
8
YES
FAC
FACU species 61 x 4 = 244
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 242 (A) 779 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.22
36
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
18.0 20% of
total cover:
7.2
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
30
YES
FAC
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Ilex opaca
10
YES
FACU
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. Quercus rubra
8
No
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V
6.
48
= Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 24.0
20% of total cover:
9•6
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arthraxon hispidus
30
YES
FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Rubus argutus
20
YES
FACU
Sapling -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. Lonicera japonica
15
No
FACU
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4. Liquidambar styraciflua
15
NO
FAC
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Juncus effusus
8
No
FACW
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6. Pinus taeda
5
NO
FAC
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
93
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 46.5
20% of total cover:
18.6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )
1. N/A
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0
20% of total cover:
0.0
Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39M1-2
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
0-12 10YR6/3 75 5YR4/6 25 C M SL
12-18 10YR6/3 70 5YR4/6 30 C M SCL
'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 Soils3:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Soils are heavily compacted from old road.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC Sampling Point: FDS-39M2-2
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): drawl Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRAv P. 136 Lat: 35.63639916 Long:-79.08491741 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden gravelly sandy loam , 10 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ ✓ No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil = or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 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 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Point taken in a drawl.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
II
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches): >18
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39M2-2
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Pinus taeda
70
YES
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/g)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
70 = Total Cover
35.0
14.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
8 16
1. Pinus taeda
15
YES
FAC
FACWspecies x 2 =
FAC species 126 x 3 = 378
2.
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 139 (q) 414 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2•98
15
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
7.5
20% of
total cover:
3.0
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Pinus taeda
15
YES
FAC
Q✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2. Acer rubrum
8
YES
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. Magnolia virginiana
8
YES
FACW
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4. Ilex opaca
5
No
FACU
5. Quercus nigra
3
No
FAC
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
39
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
19.5
20% of
total cover:
7.8
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Pinus taeda
10
YES
FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Arthraxon hispidus
5
YES
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4.
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
15
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
7.5
20% of
total cover:
3.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet
)
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39M2-2
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-5 10YR5/3 100 L
5-18 10YR5/3 80 5YR4/4 20 C M CL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154 Acres City/County: Chatham
Applicant/Owner: TC&I Timber Company LLC State: NC
Investigator(s): S. Thebert, M. Gilbert Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 136 Lat: 35.63679873 Long:-79.08506318 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayoden fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil .=, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil 0, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 01/10/2020
- Sampling Point: FDS-39N21h
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Remarks:
Point taken in a depression.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ 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 (B16)
❑ 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)
❑ 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 (inches): n/a
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 5
0
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: FDS-39N2-1
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size. 30 feet )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Plnus taeda
5 YES FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/g)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
5 = Total Cover
2.5 1.0
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
15 feet
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
1 N/A
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 55 (q) 150 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.73
0 = Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
0.0 0.0
IHydrophytic
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
LJ -
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet )
✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 N/A
Q✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
0 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0
5 feet
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Microstegium vimineum
35 YES FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Juncus effusus
15 YES FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4.
5.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9.
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
50 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
25.0 20% of total cover: 10.0
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet
)
1. N/A
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
0
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 0.0 20% of total cover: 0.0 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: FDS-39N2-1
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) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR4/2 100 L
2-18 2.5Y5/2 85 7.5YR4/6 15 C M L
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

CHATHAM COUNTY
tiN0 Ni'e1 c'A 1101.I NA
Tract Information
Parcel #:0013229
Watershed Protection Department
Website: www.chathamnc.or
Date Received: 6/18/20 PL# 20200930
Riparian Buffer Review Application
Surface Water Identification Request for
Maior Subdivisions
Watershed District (and name of creek if known):
Property Owner:TG&VTm6emQoMpeny L L C
Location/Physical Address of Tract:
'%Out eastfi®t
1k, �.:' •': ! i (: ► 1i i ilv •
Driving Directions from Pittsboro: ToMpk 4bOftMena &r19)RdPA0TC0 Rdes07.6 miles),
fiWnl'►pt19fitoWo 84aWCd4r9170.ftr&al' DnrrrrRQ ?t T1 0�, �tPd1 � R id �lPl�®) 0 6 �t� i6chbol
Subdivision Name (if applicable):
M,
Owner's/Agent Contact Information (Agent: Consultant, Real Estate Agent, Surveyor, Other) Circle one
Name: LaLweWNeh*9KHef1in
Contact Phone Numbers: (h)
of Sv96694e . °i Svc % D' .
E-mail: ilswem.nenWVW4immons.corn
Mailing Address: 4 GnT" q &2itea, RWeVh, NC 27607
Do you wish to be contacted prior to Chatham County staff visiting the property? ® Yes ❑ No
How much notice is required prior to arrival onsite? pQft*Wp2-tea.6w s notice
How would you like to receive the completed review letter? (Please check one of the following)
❑ I would like to pick up the completed Riparian Buffer Review at the County Office
❑ I would like the completed Riparian Buffer Review mailed to me
® I would like the completed Riparian Buffer Review e-mailed to me
Please include the following items with this request
® Completed consultant findings report including the following:
® GIS generated or hand drawn sketch of surface water features found onsite (Buffer Plan Sheet)
No smaller than 1"=60' and paper size I I"x17" or larger
0 NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms, Version 4.11, Wetland Determination Data Form —

Watershed Protection Department
CHATHAM COUNTY p
"'"'" """"`" Website: www.chathamnc.org
�^ Riparian Buffer Review Application
Surface Water Identification Request
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region, digital photographs, notes, sketches, etc.
m NRCS map with property boundary depicted
® USGS map with property boundary depicted
m Statement of Credentials (Training Certificate for NCDWQ/NC State University Surface
Waters Classification course, 2 years of jurisdictional wetland delineation according to
the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement to the 1987 US Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual)
® Signed Right to Enter Property Form
® Signed Owner's Agent Designation Form
® Fee (make checks payable to Chatham County) $100 per feature confirmed onsite
Feature is defined as any surface water that is subject to Chatham County Riparian Buffers (streams,
wetlands, ponds)
Total Number of Features: �V
Total Paid: $2'180100
I have read and understand the regulations of the Watershed Protection Ordinance, Section 304, and I
agree to adhere to these associated policies and guidelines herein. p
r r (Cj l
Owner/Agent Signature: Date:
V/

J t
CHATHAM COUNTY
Yufttlf cARull!-A
CHATHAM COUNTY
AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. 0001IQ29 PARCEL ID (PIN) W7435-563$853.00PARCEL SIZE 160c�mres
STREET ADDRESS: 1052-MentbceFf4 xmfRc ? oncure, NC 27559
Please print:
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned owner(s) of the above described property, do hereby authorize
LaureiarNo€mi8-H of l in
(Contractor / Agent)
Z- _
ofT npnccn&FGroup
(Name of consulting firm if applicable)
k
Laading Iha Chw9a to
a H.W;h sr GMlha.a
to act on my/our behalf and take all actions, Uwe could have taken if present, necessary for the processing, issuance
and acceptance of reviews, inspections, or permits and any and all standard and special conditions attached to
these approvals. The activities authorized include the following (Check all that apply):
_Q Check here for all of the below options.
Building Permit
Zoning Compliance Permits
Q Floodplain Determination
_F__j Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Permit
F-1 Permits to install, repair, evaluate, or expand onsite wastewater system(s)
_Q Evaluation/inspection/permitting of a private drinking water well(s).
_F71 Riparian Buffer Review pursuant to §304 of the Chatham Co. Watershed Protection Ordinance.
_Other:
Property Owner's Address (if diff�rex}t than p operty abL -C
ove):
12�
Telephone: f'] • 320 E-mail: Id�Q
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of our
knowledge.
.� , CZ k L �
Owner ut riz d ignatu�_Jk,�t Authorized Signature
Date: rig ( � � r Date: 06/16/2020
Revised 10/2017

Watershed Protection Department
CHA.THAM COUNTY
NOR CH CAROLINA
Date: jtJ
P.O. Box 548
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Website: www.chathamne.org
Authorization to Enter Property Form
PARCEL No. (AKPAR) 001 229
I, (print name) (.� as owner of the property described above,
or as a representative of the owner(s) do hereby convey permiss� to Chatham County staff to enter the property at
their convenience to conduct a surface water identification (SWID) necessary to determine whether or not water features
on my property are subject to the riparian buffer regulations described in Section 304 of the Chatham County Watershed
Protection Ordinance. The SWID will be public record and on file at the Planning and Watershed Protection
Departments, and may be requested in the future for review by interested parties.
I understand that stream delineations for the property listed above will be made by County staff only once and that if
future subdivisions are proposed within this property boundary, it will require a surface water identification by a private
consultant at the property owner's expense.
"7 - Jlavv
� I % ON At L/7
(Print Owner's Name) (Signature of wn r)
(Date) r}�
ILaIuwnNdombEF-MMin •� - "
(Print Authorized Agent Name)
(Signature of Authorized Agent)
(Date)

Appendix C

mzb n3e x3=� x n.,
o.s.-mz-zsz awru tlNIlONtl7 H1NON ;11Nf107 WtlH1tlH7
w� -na�w oM 3�JdIN HbNNbnbS ..,.`.`..tie.
z �s��ti-a3tian� a r
4 0Ild`SDIHIOOSSH'8 ��M°�""""�"60' o a
3 N`d� �����ww�.... �3aan� � � ao� dvw lwdwi a =
� C�� 3=� IU , 6o......._ 3
133Hs a3no:) x
p-
s 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
a
O
u
U
Q -
U) �� �o
z � 7J LLON �Q o ��wwa�a
W zwomm w�
w zz Q zLL�JQop
Q o��
w �J m
wmz UaC/ a N~N
Z�—
y
D a w dowoo2 U
ug
0
Q o
O
ry
F,
mo
Q u � ���
z NU ,
mt
U,
o�zGw�
-17 Q o �0
w
cn
z
s

"'d a3awnN—N 3N o
osrmersz 3NONe VNIlONtl7 HiHON' LNnOD WtlHiVH7
INIIII unoaa..........rvoirvn8
" 3DGIIJ HVNNVAVS %r o
4 011d `SDIVIOOSSH'8 " CC
3 Nb� �ao3 dvw lwdwl g = g
.�a3��nnn�
:.. p - w
.ir�am Ntlld SNOIllO NOJ 9NI151X311tlN3A0
z
II III li � 3�
=o
�a
v
w
= o0
0
w pw
LL
w�
=p
_�s��ld Way T ro
z
F
00
_uusyssw cc�c3s�e G u��uu s .. e a H - -� i�✓� v ^�_
w x
OZ
�.
o
a
a..
-�
eny
s,
w
mw
p " ME
� :a
u
o
s
�o
_ww
m
_
a
i
p 3
e
a a

"'d a3aw N ­3N o
o�srmersz 3NONe VNIIONtl7 HiHON' LNnOD WtlHiVH7
IN1111 unoaa..........rvoirvn8
" 3DOW HVNNVAVS %r 1
4 011d `SDIHIOOSSV V " C3NV)lj
ao3 dvw lwdwi g = m
��3���0=
avw i3vawl llrra3no
p-w
u
p
o
0000
,
ee ,
e
ee � o _
ee ,
\
s�
0
a \
— o
OwU � a�
o
r,
q_ zj
�zd
g
dd
g
r } o
wno
m
gp�
m
< m ,d
\
m _
o
`l-
o
,
_ o ,
�-0 o
�m
3
o ,
- o
p-�
o ,
rw 2

CL
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
846 SF (0.019 AC.) ZONE 2
I
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
2,092 SF (0.048 AC.) ZONE 3
PERMANENT / .
6,680 SF (0.153 AC.)
ZONE 3 IMPACT
PERMANENT
2,806 SF (0.064 AC.)
ZONE 2 IMPACT
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT -
1,221 SF (0.028 AC.) ZONE 1
1 1
PERMANENT STREAM
CHANNEL IMPACT.
366 SF (0.009 AC.)
81LINEAR FEET
65LF - 84" RCP
CULVERT
PERMANENT
4,574 SF (0.105 AC.)
ZONE 1 IMPACT
STORM PIPE TOTALS
SIZE = 84 IN PERMANENT
LENGTH = 65 FT 832 SF (0.019 AC.)
AREA OF WATERSHED DRAINING TO PIPE ZONE 1 IMPACT - RIP RAP
= 145ACRES
HEIGHT AND LENGTH OF
WING WALL VARIES
EXISTING GROUND'
RIP -RAP UP SIDES OFF
CHANNEL TO TOP OF
BANK
PLUNGE POOL RIP -RAP PAD -
LEVEL WITH STREAM BED
(ENDWALL ONLY)
KANE
& ASSOCIATES, PLLC
ROAD SURFACE
IMPACT MAP HATCH LEGEND
CROSSING STREAM
IMPACTS
TEMP CONSTRUCTIO'J
STREAM III PACT
S.FIER WAIT
TEMP I..STR.ITI.N
FFER IMPACT
INUIPACTS
TENIP CONSTRUCTION
RI RAPSTREAll
RIP RAP IN PACTS
•
•
ZONE 2
TEMPORARY STREAM
�r
• ••
LINEAR FEET
J, rY
.v •
,
•
Z§ PERMANENTRAP
STREAM IMPACT - NO LOSS {
156 SF (0.004 AC.) `Cf
33 LINEAR FEET
PLUNGE POOL NCDOT ` / �20 \ 0
CLASS 2 RIPRAP - EMBEDDED
SCALE: 1 "=40'
84" PIPE
BOTTOM OF PIPE SET
12" BELOW LEVEL OF
NATURAL STREAM BED
LEVEL OF NATURAL
STREAM BED
STREAM CHANNEL
ROAD CROSSING
CULVERT CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)
107 UNION DRIVE, SUITE 202
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET TITLE:
PHONE: [phone]
FIRM NC LICENSE NUMBER: P-2529
I M PACT MAP
SAVANNAH RIDGE
IMPACT MAP
ROAD CROSSING IMPACT TOTALS
366 SF (0.009AC) PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
81 LF PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
48 SF (0.001 AC) TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
11 LF TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
156 SF (0.004 AC) IMPACT FOR RIPRAP DOWNSTREAM
33 LF IMPACT FOR RIPRAP DOWNSTREAM
6,680 SF (0.153 AC) ZONE 3
- BUFFER IMPACT
2,806 SF (0.064 AC) ZONE 2
- BUFFER IMPACT
4,574 SF (0.105 AC) ZONE 1
- BUFFER IMPACT
832 SF (0.019 AC) RIP RAP -
ZONE 1 BUFFER IMPACT
1,221 SF (0.028 AC) ZONE 1
- TEMP. CONSTRUCTION
846 SF (0.019 AC) ZONE 2 -
TEMP. CONSTRUCTION
2,092 SF (0.048 AC) ZONE 3
- TEMP. CONSTRUCTION
19,051 SF (0.437 AC) TOTAL
BUFFER IMPACT
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1 "=40'
DATE:
04/08/2024
SHEET NUMBER:
I M-2

230
225
220
215
210
205
10+00
KANE
& ASSOCIATES, PLLC
107 UNION DRIVE, SUITE 202
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET TITLE:
PHONE: [phone]
FIRM NC LICENSE NUMBER: P 2529
10+50
I M PACT MAP
SAVANNAH RIDGE
CULVERT PROFILE
11+00
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
11+50
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1 "=40'
I0L\1:11
04/08/2024
SHEET NUMBER:
IM-3

P4.1;l]
Q1.1
Q9]
Pam
pail]
Pxr1
Pxpil]
04161
210
14+00
00
a.
PROPOSED
GRADE
COVER
43'MIN.
8" DIP CL350
WATERLINE
(TYPICAL)
\
IXISTING GRADE
84" RCP
\ \
PROPOSED PIPE
BURIED 1'
i
' V7
KANE
& ASSOCIATES, PLLC
107 UNION DRIVE, SUITE 202
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET TITLE:
PHONE: [phone]
FIRM NC LICENSE NUMBER: P 2529
15+00 16+00
I M PACT MAP
SAVANNAH RIDGE
STREAM PROFILE
Wit
Pzl.1
I•ZAI
Pall
MI&I
Pxit
210
17+00
HORIZONTAL SCALE:
1 "=50'
DATE:
04/08/2024
SHEET NUMBER:
I M-4

9
Ell
I.N, �"N I'l�„
'
011d S3IVIOOSSV Is
3 Nd�
JSlItl13U
s3IIINII. 33�= 3a
a
��
tlNll OaC7 H1iIONAlNf10J WVHIVHJ
3EXIN HVNNVAVS
ao� ddw lwawi
dtlW lOtldWl
>�°
-
w
,n
—
z�
��y
k
_ k �
O
C7
3
oSl
EE
�nm"�c7z
•�

Appendix D

Y'ti9:r! h 44'Bk,LtYJft
United States Department of the Interior„"'
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office r
3916 Sunset Ridge Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0102300
Project Name: Savannah Ridge
03/15/2024 14:06:21 UTC
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological

Project code: 2023-0102300
03/15/2024 14:06:21 UTC
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
endan ered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit I What We Do I U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (fws.gov).
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws. ov/partner/council-conservation-
mi ratory-birds.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
2of7

Project code: 2023-0102300 03/15/2024 14:06:21 UTC
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
3916 Sunset Ridge Rd
Raleigh, NC 27607-3726
[phone]
3 of 7

Project code: 2023-0102300
03/15/2024 14:06:21 UTC
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0102300
Project Name: Savannah Ridge
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: The proposed project is for a residential development in Chatham County,
NC.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www. google.com/maps/(@35.633391450000005,-79.08309256682114,14z
Counties: Chatham County, North Carolina
4of7

Project code: 2023-0102300 03/15/2024 14:06:21 UTC
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
5 of 7

Project code: 2023-0102300 03/15/2024 14:06:21 UTC
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus Proposed
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Endangered
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
NAME STATUS
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
FISHES
NAME STATUS
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME STATUS
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3739
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
6 of 7

Project code: 2023-0102300
03/15/2024 14:06:21 UTC
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:
Timmons Group
Name:
Kate Hefner
Address:
5410 Trinity Road
Address Line 2:
Suite 102
City:
Raleigh
State:
NC
Zip:
27607
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
8284554636
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: Army Corps of Engineers
7 of 7

Roy Cooper, Governor
■■■10 INC DEPARTMENT OF
■■ ■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ONE
Kate Hefner
Timmons Group
5410 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Savannah Ridge -
Dear Kate Hefner:
March 15. 2024
2024 Update; 43779.002
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy DirectDr, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-25307
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact the NCNHP at natural.heritage�dncr.nc.gov.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF N.A,TUFZAI. ANC) Cui_TURAL RESOUPCES
W '1 1 , , I�h:f S hFF?FeT'. can! E' 744 rV'C" �>7rn.i 1�Fl MAlt �,F��,^I F (�PIT���. ��fti!_EIC�H, r�C �1r�'9
(t; Q7 C T,.; ., ]';_r, PAX ','ti ) r ' T '_',

CC3
u eM
M
M
M
M
O ro
0
M
0
0
0
(J
CC3
(') 1
(3
L7
L7
L7
L7
N
Q
>
>,
>,
>,
N
!'
+
N
+
+
N
N
N
+
CC3 N
N
CCC3
o
CCC3
U
o
o
0
ro
j + ti��
c
r0
CC3LF
N
CC3c
F Q�
r0
n
n
(n
W
(n
W
O
u
N
CC3
CC3
W �
�
N
C
—
E
W
E
E
E
E
E
E
O
J
N
>
N
OCC3
N
N
N
N
I
I
I
N
T
u
QM
J
N
N
N
N
N
+O
N
C �
N 0
E C
Q
r
W
W
T
W
Q
CD
()
M
M
M
Q n N
N U S
W O
O
O3 N N O
M
O O N
I��,.
O 1..,..
N
(No
CNO
CNO
M
O
r
O
O Q
>
O
a
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
MO
O
CC3 z i Z
Q
J N Q
M
O
N
-
NN
O
u N u
+
O
-0
O
N
O
O
Orj
O
O
N
O
N
O
O
N
O
cc, C, z
o
O
N
N
N
N
N
E
Q � a
o
— >
a
C3 �
ro
"
+
p
O
N
z
O
n
n
c
N
Ln
U
E
=
CC3
in
W
O
u)J
Ln
CC3
c
o
0
E
CC3
EQa5
i
Ec
O
O
E
O
N
O
CC3 rCC30
CC3
CC3
O
NPl
n
C)
C)
J n
Z
W
C)
C
E
CC3
CC3
E
N °'
N Qcn a)
°'
a)
E
+
U,
CC3O
Ln
O
O Q c
c
W
45
=
O
W
W
LL O O
O O
Co
o
a
E
U -0-0
U
CID
i
co
CC3E
D
O 0�+
0�+
OU
} T
T N
1
�
a a
ro
.Ln
0)
CC3
CC30
T E
T E
T E o+
Ln
>, >,
Ln
o
E.�
E
E
Q
o E
Ln
O
Ln
o
�-NIL
. �
N
—
O
O
_
_0
o
o
o
`7
(n
�J
--
>
>
z
EQOaQOaQOaQcnQcn
LL
LL
z
r,
Ln
M
O
�
O
CO
Ln
I-
M
m
0)
m
0)
CC)
m
N
N
r,
Ln
N
M
M
M
M
O
LLJ
M
M
M
M
M
N
M
N
O
W
O
O
O
O
>,
>,
>, >,
>,
O
> >
>
> N
N
N
N
N
+
N
E
0 Q
74-- 74--
EO 5
74--
EO
74-- 0
53
0
a)3
0
a)3
0
0)3 0)3
o
c
7
c
7
c c
7
c
7
E°
E
0
E cn
co cn
co cn
co cn co�
E
D
E
D
E � E
� E
o
CC3M
0
M
>_
>_
>_ >_
M
O
M
O
M
O ro O
ro O
W--
(3
Q Q
Q
Q LL
m LL
m LL
m LL m
LL
Z
u
Z
u
Z
u Z u
Z u
r
a)
a

CC3
ro
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
M (n
o e
M
n c
�7
C�
N
L7
L7
L7
O Co
co
a-'
U
� �
Q
co U)
W �
E
E
E
0
O7
O7
O7
O
III
} 0
C �
E CID
Co
co
co
m
U
U
z
N U
W 0
O
c-
0
O
O
QO
N
� � >
MO
M
O
O
O
O
Q J
n
n
O
CO
Ln
O
O
N
O
O
O
uoO
N
N
O
a
E
0 E
E
co
z
Q-
a
co
o
Ln
—
0
E
E
N
E
E o
0
U a
W
O
ro
ro
_
�
Q 0
E
c
(3
>
N
E
W
N !!
} E„„
ro O
_E
ro O
=E
O
E
a0�
0
�n>a
5
Z ';
N N
N N
m
m
r0 m
J
O III
X a
X a
N
E f
o�
`.,
} a
O�
OV>E`'EoE�E`u
a 0
0
E 0
0
O
E
Q N
0
n
N O
LL
O
� LL
._
c� a
a
} ._
a
0 ._
LL a
c
W
o
n
N —
W
N
N
N
N
M
N
CO
O
O 0
C
c o
u1�- 0 IZU
zU
ZUZUZUZU>
M
M
N
f0
c
f0 m N
0
- N
U
0
a 0
O CC)
U
>
U
>
W
N
N
C
W
E E
� 7 7
O�
I � �
U)
u
a
0
co
N
0
0
0
N
C
J
CD
M
N
C
D
U
>
Q LL
i.
N
0
0
0
CO
Ln
r,
QO
C
D
U
Ln
>
CC) N N
W CO 6 6
N N Cl)
> -0 -0 -�--
+' N O O .�
N�o>.
CD
O
n
c
CC)
N
CC)
o_
Q
Fo
v
0 - E E
}fi^ o o
O
CC) cc)
�i Cl Cl
v v
fp
°' U = > Lu Lu
a
0
N Ln M N
I
CC)
N
L
E
CC)
0
�
N
c
�
O
Q
Ln _
E
O
0LE
O }
W
c
D
E
uCT
Q
CC)-0
Nc
cn
E
N
E
O a-o
ro CC) 0 -0
U
+
M
00
E c > >
[— >
C
Ln
.�
Q Q
CC)
N
O
Q
E > o 0
mo
cc)0
Ln
C
LLCC)CC) o
0 0
f0
>
Z
7n'10I2:JU
N
Cl
a
r
M
N
a

\
\
\
\
z
_
/
_
/
.
\�
99
__
/ƒ
\)
\/
jo
\
�\
e
J2
2 e e e e e e e
/
E°
=
3/
.2
z
\ % %
/
/ \ \ ƒ ƒ E E
E
-co
\
2== e e 2 2
2
ƒ\
\ \ \ \ \
CO 2 2 0 0 e e
o
e
`
) a
CO e--- e e
\ % % / / s s
e
s
% y y CO co
CO
\ \
CO0 / / 2 2
\
-
\ \ \ \
4 z
e e== m m
2
-
.0
\ z a a 0 0§§
_
s e e .z .z co co
co\}
\ 3 z z .».» z z
z
z
\ yyy©©yy
y
\}
eeeddee
e
y \ZZZoozz
z
/3
\= 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0
e e e e e e e
e\
\4
o z z z z z z z
zco
\
\�
//
\
E { e»
sƒ
» \ \ \ \
\
`
<
0 E E ±
z ±
e 2 =0
3
E0
\ \ \ % %
%
\ E
2 > z
Ln
U \ \ \ \ \ /
^
\ / / > % ®
/
\
e g e e e.g CO
e
t g gee \ e
z
\ \
E _ = / E
s
0 \
.0 .0
/ e / ®®% % m $
/
\ y
0 E
° CO 3 CO �// 3
E
CO
\ 2 % % \ \ CO 0))
m
\ \
a s s a
e
a
g
\ \ \ / / 0 / % 3
\ \
%
»
-0
\ \ / /.3.3 ® §
2 /
// 01 a a o o\/ CO
z»
-
\%
CO e e e e 0±
0\
e e e
x x o z z z z o x 4
c 2
\/
s
�
/

C\j
C)
Q)
m
T)
VJ
co
LO
CINJ I
LU
z
,.. W
XIM
ir W
I

TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISfON ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
From: Kate Hefner, WPIT, ISA-CA
Environmental Scientist 11
Timmons Group
5410 Trinity Road, Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27607
Kate.Hefner(a�timmons.com
[phone]
5410 Trinity Road
Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27607
P 919.866.4951
F 919.859.5663
www.timmons.com
To: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eastern North Carolina Ecological Services Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
October 23, 2023
Re: Online Project Review Request, Savannah Ridge, Chatham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Benjamin,
We have reviewed the referenced project using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Eastern
North Carolina Ecological Services Field Office's online project review process and are
submitting our project review package in accordance with the instructions for your review. The
location of the project and the action area (also referred to as the Site) are identified on the
enclosed maps in Appendix C, showing the most recent USGS topographic map (Figure 1),
aerial imagery (Figure 2), and Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. map (Figure 3).
Previous consultation for this Site was completed in 2020 (lPaC Consultation Code 04EN200-
2020-SLI-1433, Event Code 04EN2000-2020-E-03271), with an initial review request sent on
July 9, 2020 and concurrence of opinion received from John Ellis of the USFWS via email on
August 5, 2020. Due to the time that has passed since initial consultation we are requesting re -
consultation of this project. Although species were re -assessed, opinions for red -cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), Harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and northern long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) remain consistent with our previous determinations. This new review
also includes assessment of proposed endangered tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), and
candidate species Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus).
Site Description
The Site is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province and encompasses approximately
151.5 acres in Moncure, North Carolina within Chatham County. The majority of the Site
consists of pine plantation used for silviculture with smaller areas of hardwood forests
throughout. Additionally, there are multiple earthen roads that run throughout the Site. The Site
is bound by Jordan Dam Road and forested areas to the north; by Moncure School Road, private

residences, forested areas, and Moncure School to the east; by forested areas and US-1 to the
south; and by forested areas, current construction, and Jordan Dam Road to the west.
The Site is located within the Rocky Branch -Deep River (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]
030300030608) and Shaddox Creek -Haw River (HUC 030300020705) subwatersheds of the
Cape Fear River Basin. The Site generally drains to the center of the project site to an unnamed
tributary to the Deep River and then southerly to the Deep River, which has a NC Division of
Water Resources (DWR) Stream Index Number of 17-(43.5) and a Stream Classification of WS-
IV.
Proposed Project
Our proposed action consists of a conventional subdivision that will help address the increasing
housing needs of central North Carolina while preserving Chatham County's rural character. The
total project area is approximately 151.5 acres that will include 78 single-family homes, mail
kiosks, and associated infrastructure. Development is anticipated to include the construction of
road crossings, utility connections, and grading. The proposed impacts to wetlands and streams
onsite are anticipated to be minimal and limited to one stream crossing necessary to install utility
connections, road crossings, and grading (where required).
The project is expected to be completed over several years. Construction is anticipated to take
place between late 2023 into 2024, potentially through 2024 and 2025.
This project review is being completed as part of client due diligence in the preliminary planning
and design phases of the proposed project. This project review will be used as needed as
supplement to anticipated U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consultation for use of a Nationwide
Permit due to impacts to jurisdictional waters if impacts to jurisdictional features are proposed.
Species Evaluation
The official USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ species report for the Site
requested on October 23, 2023, (Project Code: 2023-0102300) identified three federally listed
endangered species, including red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas), and harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) as potentially occurring within
the vicinity of the Site. No federally listed threatened species were identified as potentially
occurring within the vicinity of the Site. Additionally, one proposed endangered species, the
tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), and one candidate species, the monarch butterfly (Manaus
plexippus), were identified as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Site.
Critical habitat was not identified within the project area under the Eastern North Carolina
Ecological Services Field Office's jurisdiction.
Additionally, per the instructions of the Eastern North Carolina Ecological Services Field
Office's Project Review Steps, Timmons personnel assessed the potential for impacts to the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database report (NCNHDE-22565) was
requested on October 23, 2023. No federally protected species were identified as occurring
within the project area. Cape Fear shiner was noted within a 1-mile radius of the project area in
2021 and harperella was noted within a 1-mile radius of the project area in 1971. Further, no

critical habitat was identified within the Site or a 1-mile radius.
On October 3, 2023, Timmons Group conducted a suitable habitat assessment for federally listed
species, species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), candidate species,
and bald eagle within the Site.
Effects to Critical Habitat
There is no critical habitat located within the Site boundaries or a 1-mile radius.
Effects to Federally Endangered Species
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
In the Piedmont of North Carolina, red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) requires open pine
woodlands and savannahs with large mature pines for nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat.
Longleaf, loblolly, pond, slash, and shortleaf pine trees that are older (60 years or more) and
have a minimum 10-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) are preferred cavity trees. Nesting and
roosting pine trees are typically found in open stands with little or no hardwood mid -story and
few or no overstory hardwoods. RCWs will abandon otherwise suitable nesting/roosting areas
when the mid -story approaches cavity height; therefore, midstory height should generally be less
than 12 feet. Ideally there should be enough suitable cavity trees for the entire family group to
roost year-round. Territory size for clusters of RCW groups ranges from 75 to 500 acres in size.
Suitable foraging habitat generally consists of greater than 50% mature pines (30 years in age or
older and equal to or greater than [>] 8 inches dbh) in an open canopy, less densities of small
pines, little or no hardwood or pine mid -story, few or no overstory hardwoods, and abundant
native bunchgrasses and forb groundcovers. Foraging habitat should be within 0.5 miles of
nesting habitat. RCW eat a wide variety of insects, and their eggs and larvae, found in or on pine
trees. They prefer larger, older pines for foraging and find their prey by flaking away and
probing under pine bark but will use hardwoods. To a lesser extent, they also eat fruits for seeds
from species, including pines (Pinus spp.), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), magnolia (Magnolia
spp.), wax myrtle (Myrica spp.), wild cherry (Prunus serotina), wild grape (Vitus spp.),
blueberry (Vaccinum spp.) and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica).
Forested areas compose approximately 90% of the Site and include a majority of planted pine
forests with some mature hardwood forests throughout. The mature pine forest contains loblolly
pine trees that are 20-25 years old, with a low to moderately dense understory. The planted pine
areas make up approximately 140 acres in size. The mature hardwood forest is comprised of
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua) and tulip -poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) with a
moderately dense understory. Additionally, occurrences of RCW and cavity trees were not
observed within the project area or noted in the NCNHP database report. The Site is not located
within a consultation area and the closest known population of RCW is approximately 10 miles
to the east of the project area within eastern Chatham County according to the RCW
Consultation Area Map shown in Appendix A of the RCW SLOPES manual. Therefore, relying
on the SLOPES guidelines and guidance from the USFWS, location of the project outside of the
RCW SLOPES consultation area, stand age, and the low to moderately dense understory around
the mature pine trees on the Site, the proposed project will have no effect on the red -cockaded
woodpecker.

Cape Fear Shiner
The species is most often found in rocky pools and runs adjacent to riffles in wide, shallow
segments of rivers with gravel, cobble and/or boulder substrates with forested banks and
abundant water willow (Justicia), riverweed (Podostemum), stream mosses (Fontinalis), and
filamentous green algae, which it uses for cover. Streams with flatter gradients and sand/silt
dominated substrata are less suitable habitat for the Cape Fear shiner, but these areas may be
used to move between rocky sections of the stream. The Cape Fear shiner feeds mostly on
detritus, algae and plant material, and small invertebrates. Juveniles can be found inhabiting
slackwater, among large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. Spawning occurs
May through June, when water temperatures reach 66 degrees Fahrenheit. The ecology of the
species indicates that during times of high water, it may travel upstream in tributaries as far as
approximately 1,650 feet from the larger waterbody.
During the site inspection, the majority of the streams throughout the site were observed to be
dry. This is consistent with previous site inspections conducted since 2020. Therefore, streams
throughout the Site do not contain potentially suitable habitat for the Cape Fear shiner. The
NCNHP report did identify one documented species occurrence of Cape Fear shiner within a 1-
mile radius of the Site in 2021. However, the sections of the Deep River and Haw River near the
Site are dammed above and below the Site's location, preventing migration of known Cape Fear
shiner populations into streams adjacent and within the Site. No species observations were made
within any onsite streams during site investigations. Therefore, due to the lack of potentially
suitable habitat and dry streambeds, the proposed project will have no effect on the Cape Fear
shiner.
Harperella
The harperella occupies both riverine and ponded habitats. In the riverine habitat, it grows on
rocky, sandy, or gravelly shoals and margins of clear, swift flowing reaches of seasonally
flooded streams. It can also be in such fluvial habitats as crevices of exposed bedrock and, rarely,
along sheltered muddy stream banks. The species, which can tolerate a lot of shade, is typically
found in riverine microsites, such as the downstream side of large rocks or amidst thick clones of
water willow, that are sheltered from the erosive effects of swift water. In harperella's ponded
habitat, the species is found in the Coastal Plain along the edges of intermittent pineland ponds,
damp meadows, and soggy ground around springs. These areas tend to be seasonally flooded and
contain soils of a peat muck overlying sand or sandy silt. In riverine and pond environments, the
plant is restricted to a very narrow, intermediate range of mean water depths and moderate,
periodic flooding. It is entirely absent from both the shallowest or driest areas as well as deep
waters.
Streams within the Site were mostly composed of sandy and silty bed substrate with areas of
gravel, cobble, and bedrock. The streams onsite lacked margins of clear, swift flowing reaches of
seasonally flood streams. The streams contained very little suitable harperella habitat and had dry
streambeds during site investigations. The NCNHP report did identify one documented species
occurrence of harperella within a 1-mile radius of the Site in 1971. No species observations were
made within any onsite streams during site investigations. Therefore, due to the lack of
potentially suitable habitat, the proposed project will have no effect on the harperella.

Effects to federally threatened species
No federally threatened species were identified as occurring at or within a 1-mile radius of the
Site.
Effects to Proposed Federally Protected Species
Tricolored Bat
On September 14, 2022, the USFWS announced a proposal to list the tricolored bat as
endangered under the ESA. The USFWS has not provided an official effective listing date, but it
is anticipated to occur in the second half of 2023. Upon listing, the USFWS is expected to
provide an area of influence/distribution range for tricolored bat.
During the winter, tricolored bats are found in caves and mines, although in the southern United
States, where caves are sparse, tricolored bats are often found roosting in road -associated
culverts. During the spring, summer, and fall, tricolored bats are found in forested habitats where
they roost in trees, primarily among leaves, and within artificial roosts like barns, beneath porch
roofs, bridges, concrete bunkers, culverts, and rarely within caves. The removal of trees and/or
artificial roosts may affect tricolored bat if present.
In the North Carolina piedmont during all seasons of the year, tricolored bat may be found
hibernating or roosting in culverts; therefore, the removal or modifications to culverts may affect
tricolored bat if present. If culvert modifications or replacements are proposed, then surveys by a
qualified biologist may be recommend prior to modification, extension, or removal of culverts 4
feet or greater in diameter. The USFWS recommends that all tree removals be scheduled to be
conducted outside of the pup season (April 15 to July 31) or the winter months (December 1 to
February 28) as a minimization measure.
Mature planted pine forests are present throughout the majority of the Site with small portions of
mature hardwood forests along the streams. Approximately 70% of the surrounding 2-mile area
is forested, of which this site comprises 2.7%. The NCNHP database did not identify any known
occurrences within a 1-mile radius of the Site. Potential suitable roosting habitat is present in
forested areas; however, because there are no known records of the species within 1 mile of the
Site and the prevalence of potentially suitable habitat in the area regardless of the site it is our
opinion that the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
tricolored bat.
Effects to Proposed Candidate Species
Monarch Butterfly
The majority of the Site consists of mature planted pine forest with mature hardwood forest
along streams throughout the Site. Additionally, there are multiple earthen roads throughout the
Site. While evidence of flowering plant species were observed along the edges of the earthen
roads during onsite investigation, occurrences of the monarch butterfly were not noted during
Site investigation. Further, the monarch butterfly's habitat is ubiquitous throughout the state and
disturbance to areas with potentially suitable habitat is minimal. Therefore, it is the opinion of

Timmons Group that the proposed proj ect will have no effect on the monarch butterfly.
Effects to Federally Protected Species Not Identified through IPaC
Northern Long-eared Bat
While northern long-eared bat often roosts in dead or dying trees, live trees are also commonly
used. Suitable roosting habitat for northern long-eared bat includes any tree, although deciduous
trees are most frequently selected, with a dbh greater than 3 inches with cracks, crevices,
exfoliating bark, and/or cavities/hollows that is within 1,000 feet of forested/wooded habitat.
Small (less than 10 acres) fragmented forested areas and areas with less than a 45 percent canopy
cover are not likely to support northern long-eared bat.
During the suitable habitat survey on October 3, 2023, several snags with a dbh greater than 3
inches were observed located in the project area within 1,000 feet of forested/wooded habitat.
The majority of the Site consists of mature planted pine forest approximately 20- to 25-years old
with dbh ranging from approximately 8 to 18 inches and mature hardwood forest with dbh
ranging from approximately 5 to 15 inches along the streams throughout the Site. Mature
forested areas observed onsite contain several trees that could represent potentially suitable
summer roosting habitat for the northern long-eared bat. Commonly observed species in the
mature hardwood forest included sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua) and tulip -poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). The planted pine forests were composed of loblolly pine (Pious taeda).
Additionally, earthen roads were observed throughout the entire Site.
Timmons Group is not aware of known maternity roost trees or hibernacula in the vicinity of the
Site. According to the USFWS Eastern North Carolina Ecological Services website, Chatham
County is not a county with known roosting sites and is located more than 66 miles northwest
from the nearest 12-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Map (HUC) with a known winter roosting site.
Although potentially suitable summer roosting habitat is present, Chatham County is not located
within the USFWS current range for the northern -long eared bat. Therefore, it is the opinion of
Timmons that any development of the Site will have no effect on the species.
The Eastern North Carolina Ecological Services Field Office Project Review steps request that
reviewers assess their projects for the potential to impact bald eagle nests. A desktop-GIS
assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of the project
limits, was performed on October 10, 2023, using 2022 color aerials. Jordan Lake is
approximately 1,800 feet north of the project limits and is large enough and sufficiently open to
be considered a potential feeding source. However, since there was no foraging habitat within the
review area, a survey of the project study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits
was not conducted. Per the NCNHP database report, there are no occurrences of the bald eagle or
their nests at or within 1-mile of the Site. Further, no occurrences of nests or bald eagles were
observed during the Site inspection on October 3, 2023. Therefore, any disturbance of the Site is
unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles and no Eagle Act Permit is required.
The enclosed project review package provides the information about the species and critical
habitat considered in our review and includes a species conclusions table identifying the
determinations.
For additional information, please contact Kate Hefner at the email address listed above.

Sincerely,
Timmons Group
Kate Hefner, WPIT, ISA-CA
Environmental Scientist II
Lauren Norris -Heflin, PWS
Environmental Project Manager
Enclosures:
1) ENTIRE PROJECT REVIEW PACKAGE

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A — Self Certification
Self -Certification Letter
Project Review Checklist
Species Conclusion Table
USFWS 2020 Concurrence
APPENDIX B — Species Reports
Official IPaC Species Report
NCNHP Species Report
RCW SLOPES Determination Key
APPENDIX C — Figures
Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2 Environmental Inventory Map w/Aerial Imagery
Figure 3 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Map
APPENDIX D — Photolog

APPENDIX A

OF THE
y ,s United States Department of the
a
4erQag FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
k 3.N
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 1 0/23/2023
Self -Certification Letter
Proi ect Name Savannah Ridge
IPaC Project Code:
Dear Applicant:
2023-0102300 IPaC Record Locator #
1 i.1
1 ISH & µ ILDLIFE
IC
Interior
F
may �e�
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
❑,.no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
0 "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Version 5/22/2023

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the "no effect" or
,.not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the "may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov. If you have any
questions, you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact Leigh Mann of
this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures - project review package
Version 5/22/2023

SM_"T OF,/
P
o�p F sertv�ce
C 4�
a
Project Review
Checklist
Step
Item
Required
Date completed/ Notes
1 and
Official Species List from IPaC
10/23/2023
2
(will include map showing the
Yes
action area)
NCDENER-Heritage Prograin
10/23/2023
3
database results or correspon-
If Applicable
dence.
4
Habitat Assessments or Species
If Applicable
10/03/2023
Surveys
6
Bald Eagle Conclusion Table
Yes
10/23/2023
7
NLEB
Yes
10/23/2023
8
Species Conclusion Table
Yes
10/23/2023
Online project review request
10/23/2023
9
letter or Online project review
Yes
certification letter
10
Other documentation to support
If Applicable
Photodoc - 10/23/2023
your conclusions
Instructions
Submit project review packages electronically to Raleighcc fws.
gov. Please indicate in your email subject title if you are submit-
ting a "Review Request Letter" or a "Self -Certification Letter."
All project reviews will receive a return receipt to inform you
that your project has been successfully submitted to this office.
Please note that any single email, including attachments, must
be smaller than 25 MB. If a single email would be larger than
25 MB, please spread out multiple attachments among several
emails (use the same subject name and project reference in all
emails related to an individual project). If this is not practical,
please mail a hard copy or DVD containing the project review
package to our office:
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Maintain a complete copy of the project review package
in your files since it will become an integral part of your official
record of compliance.
Contact us
If you have questions or
comments concerning this
process, please contact
Leigh Mann at (919)
856-4520 extension 10 or
via email at
[e-mail]
http://Raleigh.fws.gov
Federal Relay Service
for the deaf and hard -of -hearing
1 800/877 8339
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov
1 800/344 WILD
January 2017

d
m
cc
H
y
O
.y
t�
O
L)
y
d
.O
d
CL
N
M
N
O
N
M
N
O
U 0
N Z U)>+
O
O (a LO
�p N i O
- mom—
U
z
LO
Q
N N
O E U)O
O M N
.N
U
,N
(a
53 Q N
O"
H
O
O
O
U U
Q `� �_ OU
LO
N
a)
O
ca
U s
H
O
U
O
O m
N N
p h i
LO N CDL�O.
O
O 0
�O i�
O N
N N p
Q—
0
O
i
O i O
N U ��
0 O
�_ N
O -a
Q O
m Q N
>.
N M Q�
N �O.
N M
.�
Q� O U
�
N N
i
E��)
N �
N
Q E N Q O
i
_�
N O
Q —a CO
•� O
� O
U N
O N
N
O O
O N
O O
OU
0 0 O
ON U
(a
N
E
O N
O
N N N
0 i=
Y s� ca
O
>'
�
U) �'
N O
"_
(a 0 N
0 t N
m~
>
Q
>+ ?�
W
w
O
(Q i
N C/) N O
U N
N (Q
(Q
N O
C
a_LO
CD-
'i
�_
Y
O O
�_
N Oo
N O
CN
0 ON
N C6
E��
�O
(a
m U) N
N
0
N
U ,(a
CU
N
N
N
0
O LO N~
�
N
CD-
Z
U O N
LL O Q
•Q m E
a m .N N
m� U
Q [if O - O
m
O
m
E
N
N
0
U
Q
N
(a
LU
ti
U
N
CO
Q
N
N
CO
O
O
W
Z
Z
N
N
N
Q N
16 N
CD
CD-
O
N
=
N
N
L
_N
U
Q
(a •U
O
O
U
Z
CO U)
N
E
N
U
Z
�
U
0—
.�
N
M
of
��—
O O
ca
U)
C-
�
Y C7
U
N
•U
0 a
N
� U

O U N
i
L
N N
N
U U
N
703--
N N N
p
N
N
•U
N
N N N
� ON of E
�_
O O
� O
i
N
Q
O
(a
-a
0 M~ U
Q�
N
O Q�
U
N �
>+ >
O U
NO
Q�
N
i .�
N
U
O
z
N N N
N
N N
O O N
N=
N
O�
O O
�
NOp
m
QO
CD- y
N
L
U)
-
Q
U 0 0 N O L- N
0 U
O
�O O
(a >
O N
�0—D O
p N
Q
N
Z
—_
CO>+
N
Q U N
N O (a
— O
'—
N
N N
N
O C/)
N
O
0 N N ()
N
O N
O N U
N
U)
ca N
'i
N �O
�O.
O
N
N
D O
N O +' Q
•� N j
U E�
N '�
=
N_
O N
O
N Q
O� i
O
N Q
O
U
N
'�
N
U
M-a N = O
O i .
0—
Q
O N
i
N m (a
~ -
N
p
O
� N
p
O
p
0 O N '� �
N m N�
ca -_-�
��
m N p N O
O
N
E
N N 0
0 N N��
_2
O i .0~ (Q 2
N ON
.L = N 2
N N
L ?�
i E N p
O
O N
E�
E 2
,2 T>
E N
N>
O
i N> N Z
O>0 3)
N N N�
N
E p
�— N m
N Z
N
N
N N
D O� CN C/) s Z
N = ca
ca �
N M
O N H N F
U
CO
U� H
N N N
N Z
N�
O
N H
U
U
N
N
O
O
Z
Z
N
N
N
N
Q
Q
O
O
Ca
(a
N
N
(a
(a
CO
CO
N
L
z
co
N Q3
CL
(a
co
N

O
C/) Z
N N
N
_�
O
N m
N�
N
'N (a
N�
_p
0 N >+
O
to
O
O + U +
0
N=
7
N— m
N
N
N
0
N
O OU N O
L
N
�_ Q �'-'
N
�_ (Q
Q�
O
>+ L
NO
(Q
•�
Y
Q -�. LO
+>' (a LO
Y U W N O
Q-a
c• N
O �O.
U
N
o
(a
+O
N OU
O O �O_ O
O M
N tN
ca
ca -
N
E •� ti
m N
N OQ N
Z
N N 0
N N
Q
N �--
U —
�--N N
CZ N
Q
N
U)�
N
to
• N
0 N
m
N
N
L
to p
M tB
L N
N=
Q
O (a
m
U
tZ N �
�
N 0
N
N O
Q � N �
� �
N
N�
N � N �
� � �
yam—_ ,�_
� L O U � N � U �
L
N
Q L m
E
�'
�
0
S
CZ N
N
O
N N U
O '� D
O O U m O N O
Q N
N N O N
t�
._ �
i
.N
i �cD-_
Q
- N= N
'- O
N � O CO Z
Q
N
�_ •ta
E
N E
(a
•V
N
•Q U
N O z U CO Y
N
N O O
Q
N N
OU
O
y O
M -�-•
N
O-a N N
O
Q O
O
O
to
N (D
N
O N
1 y
N co N 0� CV
N �
5
—
p
0)
0) c- =U
p
(a
yNU •�
N
—EE
,i
U �pm
Q>
Oj
= UZ�O
O
a)L LLLL
U NO
O
O
M
O �
O
E C/) tQ
N
o
`
OOU
•> co
N
O
U
N
N
(a
Q
O
N
O
U
U
N
d)
N �
Y_
U
N
N
Z
Z N
Z
N
N
N
Q O
Q O
Q N
(a O
(a O
(a O
O N
O N
O N
C/) tN
C/) tN
C/) tN
y
tB
Q
M
>,
N
CL
.O
'E
N
N
C/)
C/)O
c- �
i
�
L U)
O tB
O q_-
N �.
O
O _N
U
-t:f f ,
Cl
H
Z

N
CO
N E m
_
0
E—
_N
N� N
>
O 0
+' N N
E U-
N M CO
N
��
O
O L
N
U
,= U)
0)� m
N ZD=
O 0
OO (a
p
N
N N N
M
N N
N N (a
( O
(a N
N
O
O M M (a
p N
U
N
N
N
N N
N>
Ch '=3
+_'
>, L
� pp4
= N
O
a)m
E Z
N N U
N
— N
p p N
�.
(a — U
U p U
0
N
'U
0 ,-
> N U Z
p m O
O U N
U
= N
O
N(>a
—c
Q
O N
O=
EFE
L
N N
OpQm•O,
QUN_
+
NN
N
NCDL0
>
O
N
O
N
Q
N
m
a
UN
L
aO� O
>,—
�>.
Q
N
O
o)�
>+ p N U
O�
-a N �O
N N (a
O H m
m C-
O
W
N Q �
O
O CO
M '—
N N Y W
N 2 U
U
N
OU
2 CO OU
N
O CT)
L
a
N
L
E
Q_
U
Q
N
ca
W
O
Z
N
N
N_
� N
N
�O
N N
Y �
Z
N
N
cB
N Q3
CL
O O
� U
ca �m �
U
N
O
L
Q ui
CU
CV a)
N O Cu
iZ C)
O
Q �
E O
y� L
Z) Z)
O N
cu
c CU
O N
ZZ
ca ca
E �
O a)
0 E
E
> N
O
CB
M
N
O
N
M
N
O
U)
N
N
U
CO
(a
N
E
LO
W
N
0
m

Sydni Law
From: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 11:28 AM
To: Sydni Law
Cc: Mann, Leigh; Lauren Norris -Heflin
Subject: Re: DUE DATE: AUGUST 6, 2020 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Review Request - TO Moncure/Savannah Ridge
(Chatham County)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
This is excellent. Your self certification letter is good to go.
John
From: Sydni Law <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 4:15 PM
To: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>; Lauren Norris -Heflin <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: DUE DATE: AUGUST 6, 2020 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Review Request - TO Moncure/Savannah Ridge (Chatham
County)
Good afternoon John,
I have attached the updated Species Review package with the changes you suggested to the conclusions table. Let us
know if there are any other updates that need to be made.
If you have any further questions or comments, don't hesitate to reach back out to us!
Best,
Sydni Law
Environmental Technician
TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com
5410 Trinity Rd, Suite 102 1 Raleigh, NC 27607
Office: [phone] 1 Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Your Vision Achieved Through Ours
1

APPENDIX B

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0102300
Project Name: Savannah Ridge
Y'ti9:r! h 44'Bk,LtYJft
r
October 23, 2023
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If your project area
contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species on this species list, the proposed
action has the potential to adversely affect those species. If suitable habitat is present, surveys
should be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The
use of this species list and/or North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered

10/23/2023
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws. gov/sites/defaultlfiles/documents/endangered-species-consultation-
handbook.pdf
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/what-
we-do.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation-
migratory-birds.

10/23/2023
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
• Bald & Golden Eagles
• Migratory Birds
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

10/23/2023
4
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0102300
Project Name: Savannah Ridge
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: The proposed project is for a residential development in Chatham County,
NC.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/(a)35.6333756,-79.08308633493621,14z
rr
Counties: Chatham County, North Carolina

10/23/2023
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus Proposed
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Endangered
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
NAME STATUS
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
FISHES
NAME STATUS
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743

10/23/2023
11
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME STATUS
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3739
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS
AND FISH HATCHERIES
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.
BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acti and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or
golden eagles, or their habitats3, should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
2. The Migratory Birds Treat. Act of 1918.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
There are bald and/or golden eagles in your project area.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.

10/23/2023 7
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention Jul 31
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read the supplemental
information and specifically the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird
Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project
overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project area overlaps.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Non-BCCe
Vulnerable
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Managment https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library
collections/avoidinc-and-minimizinc-incidental-take-mip-ratorv-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf

10/23/2023
W
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/
media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
project-action
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treat. Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY
OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
BREEDING
NAME
SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Breeds Sep 1 to
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
Jul 31
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
Breeds Mar 15
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
to Aug 25
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406
Eastern Whip -poor -will Antrostomus voci ferns
Breeds May 1
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
to Aug 20
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10678
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
Breeds May 1
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
to Jul 31
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9513

10/23/2023
E
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA Jul 31
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9439
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 10
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 31
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9431
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read the supplemental
information and specifically the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird
Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project
overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project area overlaps.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 HE

10/23/2023 10
Non -BCC
Vulnerable
Chimney Swift , „ J J J J—' ' J' J "
BCC Rangewide ++++ +�++ +� �- �- $ $ + + + +
(CON)
Eastern Whippoor-
will ++++ +—++ ++++ +++, +A-+1 +++— ++++-.-+-.-+ ++++ +++— —+—+ ++++
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prairie Warbler ,"",'' ,,tilt 1
BCC Rangewide ++++ +.++ ++++ +++—+ +++* +++—+—+ ++++
(CON)
Prothonotary
Warbler ++++ +.++ ++++ -B-. + ++4--'4-4-4- —+—+ ++++ +++— —+—+ ++++
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed +111 1'1' ,"' ,," 1 ' 1 ' 11� III Jilt —1-1 1111
Woodpecker
+ -� + + ++
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide ++++ +.++ ++++ +++' i 1.,+4-- ++++-.-+-.--+ -+ ++* +++— —+—+ ++++
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/librq�r/
rator.
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/
media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
project-action

10/23/2023
11
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:
Timmons Group
Name:
Kate Hefner
Address:
5410 Trinity Road
Address Line 2:
Suite 102
City:
Raleigh
State:
NC
Zip:
27607
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
8284554636
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: Army Corps of Engineers

Roy Cooper, Governor
■■■10 INC DEPARTMENT OF
■■ ■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ONE
October 23. 2023
Kate Hefner
Timmons Group
5410 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Savannah Ridge - Updated T&E; 43779.002
Dear Kate Hefner:
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy DirectDr, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-23714
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact the NCNHP at natural.heritage�dncr.nc.gov.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF N.A,TUFZAI. ANC) Cui_TURAL RESOUPCES
W '1 1 , , I�h:f S hFF?FeT'. can! E' 744 rV'C" �>7rn.i 1�Fl MAlt �,F��,^I F (�PIT���. ��fti!_EIC�H, r�C �1r�'9
(t; Q7 C T,.; ., ]';_r, PAX ','ti ) r ' T '_',

2\
e
a
a
a
e
v
3
v
v
v
v
v
//
s
3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7 a
v
e
e
e
e
e
a=
e
3
a
a
e
v
30
3
3
3
0 e
3
e
3
3
3
3
3
v
v
v
v
v
CO
3®
3
3
3
3
3
3
\
>
>
\
g
>
s
t
3 /{
COe\
e\
a)6
\
\ e
(
e
g=
u
= u=
s
g=
s
a
/ /\
®
/ /
/
/ /
/ CO
CO
CO CO/
®
s
s
s
\
e
s
\
/
7
7
7
o
e
7
0
0
.
\
�
\ \
\
CO
/ /
CO
2
H
>
E
E
E
E
E
E
2
2
2
2
2
2
\
\
u
v
e
x
x
x
x
x
a
a
a
x
a
§
y
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
�
e
/
o
t
\/
E\\<
ƒ
o
0
2
0
4
3
e
3
3
3
FY
\C3-
�\
s D-o »
E \
/ \
_
c'
\
\
©
\
%
®
\
®
0-)
\ /
/
±
? ^ ° /
/
n \ /
0
\
\
\
\
\
7
\
®
ƒ
\
/
z
/ / / / 2
<
a e o
6
0
3
3
%
3
\
/ \.\ / /
u
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
4 CO
/
cc
�(
\�
_
m
g
4
\
\
0
\
2
CO/
Cl
J
}
u
§
\
/
_
\ 9
\
/
\
�
j
/
©
\
\
E?
5
E
>
%
3
\
E/
-0
/
$
c
\
\
\
\
\
\
E
o
0
\
g
y:
s
e
e
a s
Z
o
e
_
E
/
\
CO®
F-
S
\
® S
\
® S
\
k
G
/
2
®
>
>
> ± t
± t
3
?
E
,
}
e
©
—
5
g
LL
c 2
LL 0 0
0 0
\
\
.
m «
\
6
~
\
\
\
\
\
\
/
2
s/
/
e
e®
e
E
/
g
w
g
2 w
g
0 Y
w
LE
e
u
c.9
=.z
/
\
z
u-
u 0
e
/
s.g
e
e
z
O
n
s\
}
m
m
6/%
x
Y§
2§
2§ e w
®y
z e z
/
E»
,
:
E
E\
E
y
x
/
0
D
3
2\
s»
2 e>
s»
2 e>
s c
2 e>±
c y
a>\ a
/\/
/
/
/
\\\/y\/y\/y\//\//
\
0�
o
»
©
©
v
©
o
©
»
\\
\
\
\
3
0)\
\
\
\
\
\
\
o
v
e
e
e
e
e
a
a
e
a
v
\
\
u
g
0
0
>
>
> >
>
\
/§
/
/ z
\ \
\eeeeeE
\
CO
/ +
CO
+
CO
+
CO
+
\
\
E
\
\
E E
\ E
0
_/
_/ _/
J
E
2
E
2
E 2 E
2 E
/
x
/»/»%\%/%/%/%
/ \
o /
\
/ 2
3 2
3 2
3 2 3
2
/
/
/
/
/
/ / /
/ /

CC3
ro
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
M (n
o e
M
n c
�7
C�
N
L7
L7
L7
O Co
co
a-'
U
� �
Q
co U)
W �
E
E
E
0
O7
O7
O7
O
III
} 0
C �
E CID
Co
co
co
m
U
U
z
N U
W 0
O
c-
0
O
O
QO
N
� � >
MO
M
O
O
O
O
Q J
n
n
O
CO
Ln
O
O
N
O
O
O
uoO
N
N
O
a
E
0 E
E
co
z
Q-
a
co
o
Ln
—
0
E
E
N
E
E o
0
U a
W
O
ro
ro
_
�
Q 0
E
c
(3
>
N
E
W
N !!
} E„„
ro O
_E
ro O
=E
O
E
a0�
0
�n>a
5
Z ';
N N
N N
m
m
r0 m
J
O III
X a
X a
N
E f
o�
`.,
} a
O�
OV>E`'EoE�E`u
a 0
0
E 0
0
O
E
Q N
0
n
N O
LL
O
� LL
._
c� a
a
} ._
a
0 ._
LL a
c
W
o
n
N —
W
N
N
N
N
M
N
CO
O
O 0
C
c o
u1�- 0 IZU
zU
ZUZUZUZU>
M
M
N
f0
c
f0 m N
0
- N
U
0
a 0
O CC)
U
>
U
>
W
N
N
C
W
E E
� 7 7
O�
I � �
U)
u
a
0
co
N
0
0
0
N
C
J
CD
M
N
C
D
U
>
Q LL
i.
N
0
0
0
CO
Ln
r,
QO
C
D
U
Ln
>
CC) N N
W CO 6 6
N N Cl)
> -0 -0 -�--
+' N O O .�
N�o>.
CD
O
n
c
CC)
N
CC)
o_
Q
Fo r
v
0 - E E
}fi^ o o
O
CC) cc)
�i Cl Cl
v v
fp
°' U = > Lu Lu
a
0
N Ln M N
I
CC)
D
Ln
E
+
CC)
0
�
N
c
�
O
Q
Ln _
E
O
0LE
O }
W
c
D
E
uCT
Q
CC)-0
Nc
cn
E
N
E
O a-o
ro CC) 0 -0
U
+
M
00
E c > >
[— >
C
Ln
.�
Q Q
CC)
N
O
Q
E > o 0
mo
cc)0
Ln
C
LLCC)CC) o
0 0
f0
>
Z
7n'10I2:JU
N
Cl
a
r
M
N
a

\
2
}
E
/
z
_
_
/
\
\\
\\
2ƒ
})
\/
jo
\
�\
e
J2
2 e e e e e e e
/
E°
=
3/
.2
z
\ % %
/
/ \ \ ƒ ƒ E E
E
-co
\
2== e e 2 2
2
ƒ\
\ \ \ \ \
CO 2 2 0 0 e e
o
e
`
) a
CO e--- e e
\ % % / / s s
e
s
% y y CO co
CO
\ \
CO0 / /
\ \ \ \
4 z
e e== m m
2
-
.0
\ z a a 0 0§§
_
s e e .z .z co co
co\}
\ 3 z z .».» Z Z
Z
z
\ yyy©©yy
y
\}
eeeddee
e
y \ZZZooZZ
Z
/3
\= 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0
e e e e e e e
e\
\4
o z z z z z z z
Zco
\
\�
//
\
E { e»
sƒ
» \ \ \ \
\
`
<
0 E E ±
z ±
CO 2 =0
3
E0
\ \ \ % %
%
\ E
2 > Z6°s
U \ \ \ / \
^
0 \ / / > % ®
/
\
e g e e e.g O
e
t g gee \ e
z
\ \
E _ = / E
s
0 \
.0 .0
/ e / ®®% % m $
/
\ y
0 E
° Z 3 CO�// 3
E
x
\ $ 2 % % \ \ 2 \
) m
\ \
a s s a
e
a
g
\ \ \ / / 0 / % 3
\ \
%
»
-0
\ \ / /.3.3 ® §
2 /
// 01 a a o o\/ CO
z»
\%
CO CO e e e e 0±
0\
e e
x x o z z z z o x 4
c 2
\/
s
�
/

}/E
4g!]�
s
§
_
c
/

RCW SLOPES Manual — North Carolina
March 2022
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Appendix6 — Red -cockaded Woodpecker Effects Determination Key
ORM2 No.: Date 10/23/2023
USFWS Reference No. (if applicable):
1) Is the action area' located within the RCW consultation area (see Appendix A and project -specific
results from a project -specific IPaC or internal USACE GIS review)?
a) Yes...................................................................................................................................................... o to 2
b) No.................................................................................................................................................. No effectZ
2) Is the action area' located in the northeastern coastal plain (see Appendix A)?
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................................go to 3
b) No (the project is located in piedmont, sandhills, or southeastern coastal plain)..................go to 4
3) Is the action area' located in a forested area with pine trees present in northeast North Carolina (e.g.,
high pocosin, Atlantic white cedar, nonriverine swamp forests, pond pine woodland, coastal fringe
evergreen forest, wet successional pine/pine-hardwood forest, or pine plantation or uplands)? If yes,
are the pine trees greater than 30 years of age (if stand age is not readily determined, refer to Table
1 for a description of the minimum dbh of 30-year-old pines associated with each community type).
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, choose Yes below. If the answer to one or both
questions is no, then choose No below.
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................................go to 8
b) No...................................................................................................................................................No effect2
4) Is the action area' located within suitable RCW foraging or nesting habitat (pine or pine/hardwood
stands in which 50% or more of the dominant trees are pines and the dominant pine trees are 30
years of age or older or >_8-inches dbh')?
a) Yes.......................................................................................................................................................go to 5
b) No...................................................................................................................................................No effect2
5) Will any activity in the action area' remove trees equal to or greater than 8 inches dbh; or will any
activity occur within 200 feet of known RCW cavity trees? If unable to determine the location of a
cavity tree with confidence, contact the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
a) Yes (to one or both).........................................................................................................................go to 6
b) No.........................................................................................................................................................NLAA3
12

APPENDIX C

Path: Y:\805\43779.002 - Savannah Ridge\GIS\43778.002-JD-VIC.mxd
r
r-
M
NOR
Site Limits
Moncure
•` ■
_■
*# ,
�am N#00
Yx;
a
_ p
.IF.
vx
9
Site limits are approximate.
Topographic imagery from USGS.
0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000
Feet
SAVANNAH RIDGE TIMMONS GROUP �■��
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. '
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER:43778.002 U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S):MERRYOAKS
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 151.5 ACRES DATE(S):2022
LATITUDE: 35.632781 WATERSHED(S):HA W & DEEP (CAFE FEAR RIVER BASIN)
LONGITUDE:-79.082756 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S):03030002 & 03030003
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in partand shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.

pxw'W13-CIN:00'ULMS19\a6ply 4euueneS - Z00'6LLEb1908\:A :41ed

4
" gr-
vi�a
r.
kN
0
I
I

•Z: ianl,1►q [•

1-1 d o P, a toot�o�����.��a .• d f l 0 �i S NOW W
....
iil� ryy
�r
eez
ms a
mN

61:1.1MM O [•
aL
r -14
----- _ - _ 4 y
. + ',-�'-'�Lj�
= _r
-61-
14
``ry+rrr .11r `�Yr
L
,1111r '1-`-_-my'I _ I,'r!I`!,'.' ♦'`,„`l` '! 1 /'I1111 ``1,1
10
`' �! , may`, \ 11\�\ - - Ix-', •!`'-♦
- __-_-_ -" _- _ _ •'�; A +n�r/r -=- '--' 'i`!'. _ '-" _ _ ',``'fir 'r:!''"' - •l l��

•I:OWN 0 [•

my­
TMN
+ _ a
10
OPT
mo
IS
I, - '
all,
Am. _ I'4j'•�s::'_ - tl r5ii'nl4in'ri yi'iy��'.{{ ice,
lot

•I: lankN 0 [•

APPENDIX D

Savannah Ridge — T&E Species Survey & Habitat Assessment
Representative photo of stream features located
throughout the Site.
Representative photo of mature hardwood forests
located throughout the Site, adjacent to the stream
features.
Representative photo of mature planted pine
throughout the Site.
Representative photo of stream features located
throughout the Site.
Representative photo of mature hardwood forests
located throughout the Site, adjacent to the stream
features.
Representative photo of mature planted pine
throughout the Site.
%
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEYED THROUGH OURS.

Savannah Ridge — T&E Species Survey & Habitat Assessment
r
Representative photo of earthen roads throughout
the Site.
Representative photo of the project boundary along
Moncure School Road.
Representative photo of earthen roads throughout
the Site.
•
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEYED THROUf,H OURS.

Kate Hefner
From: Matthews, Kathryn (Kathy) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 12:43 PM
To: Kate Hefner
Cc: Mann, Leigh; Benjamin, Pete; Archambault, Jennifer M; Lauren Norris -Heflin
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Savannah Ridge - Species Review Request - Moncure, NC (USFWS
Project Code 2023-0102300)
Thanks. We look forward to consultingwith the Corps at the appropriate time. Have a good week,
We are temporarily lacking a physical office. Electronic and phone correspondence is preferred. For snail mail,
please use the P.O. Box listed below, rather than our former physical address. We will update our physical
courier address when we move into the new space (expected by June 2024). Thanks!
Kathy Matthews
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
NEW Phone! 984-308-0852
From: Kate Hefner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 11:30 AM
To: Matthews, Kathryn (Kathy) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>; Benjamin, Pete <[e-mail]>; Archambault, Jennifer M
<[e-mail]>; Lauren Norris -Heflin <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Savannah Ridge - Species Review Request - Moncure, NC (USFWS Project Code 2023-0102300)
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or
responding.
Hi Kathy,
Thank you so much for the response! We understand you all are very busy and short-staffed so thank you again for
sending a follow up to our request.
We've spoken with our client, and they can currently do the below Sediment and Erosion Control Measures. They will
probably be able to do more measures, but currently can't commit to more at this time.
• Inspect all vehicles for leaks immediately prior to entering the jurisdictional impact areas each day. Repair
any leaks and clean construction vehicles thoroughly to remove any residual dirt, mud, debris, grease, motor
oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, or other hazardous substances from construction vehicles.
• When not in use, materials and vehicles will be staged in upland areas outside of the 50-ft riparian buffer.

• Minimize the size and number of access corridors for construction vehicles in jurisdictional water and
riparian buffer impact areas.
• Outlets from silt fence and other construction erosion control devices will not discharge closer than 50 feet
to the top of bank.
• Inspections, repairs, cleaning, and/or servicing should be conducted either before the vehicle, equipment, or
machinery is transported into the field or at the work site.
• Fuel and maintain vehicles or equipment and store potentially toxic substances (fuels, paints, solvents,
lubricants, etc.) within a containment area in uplands.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information from us.
Thanks!
Kate Hefner, WPIT, ISA-CA (she/her)
Environmental Scientist 11
•
TIt-'i, ONS GROUP
iMGIHEERum 1 Od41r T'E CH 14 m 0GY
TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com
5410 Trinity Rd, Suite 102 1 Raleigh, NC 27607
Office:919.866.4953 1 Cell: 828.455.4636
Kate. [e-mail]
Your Vision Achieved Through Ours
To send me files greater than 20MB click here
From: Matthews, Kathryn (Kathy) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Kate Hefner <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mann, Leigh <[e-mail]>; Benjamin, Pete <[e-mail]>; Archambault, Jennifer M
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Savannah Ridge - Species Review Request - Moncure, NC (USFWS Project Code 2023-0102300)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Kate,
I apologize for the tardiness of our response. We are short-staffed at this time. I understand that this
review is for due diligence. For projects where a USACE CWA 404 permit application is expected, the
USACE will consult with us on the proposed issuance of the permit. You may opt to provide your
information to the USACE and let them complete the consultation. This would lessen ourworkload by
minimizing the number of times we review an individual project.
For this project, due to the presence of Cape Fear shiner records downstream in the Cape Fear River, we
would recommend a determination of "not likely to adversely affect" for that species. The Service and
NCWRC have recently reintroduced Cape Fear shiner in the Cape Fear River downstream. We
recommend stringent application of sediment and erosion controls, and the establishment of forested
buffers along all streams on the site.

Thanks, and happy holidays.
Please note that/ am teleworking Wednesday through Friday, every week. I have a new phone number- See
Below!
Kathy Matthews
NC Renewable Energy Coordinator &
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
NEW Phone! 984-308-0852
From: Kate Hefner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 7:06 PM
To: Raleigh, FW4 <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Savannah Ridge - Species Review Request - Moncure, NC
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or
responding.
Good afternoon!
Please find attached the threatened and endangered species review request package for the proposed project,
Savannah Ridge. The review area is approximately 151.5-acres located in Moncure, NC within Chatham County.
This package is being submitted at the request of the client for general due diligence purposes and a response is
required.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information for your review.
Thank you!
Kate Hefner, WPIT, ISA-CA (she/her)
Environmental Scientist 11
Tit-, ONS GROUP
falfilHEmor. I Ck#16RI I TECKNOLOGW
TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com
5410 Trinity Rd, Suite 102 1 Raleigh, NC 27607
Office:919.866.4953 1 Cell: 828.455.4636

Appendix E

L,V
A
la"500
= m`
I
0
�t
Cd
t6L C13
40
CL
C7 00 -U
r CM
=ti1�
I

s s s
z�
_ � E
z o n v'^ rmi3vmi 3v mz vmi E E vmi $ G°,.,' -O ovmi 3�
° 3� m�o z� > z vmi `m �> w.. E 3Im >z °: E 3� E w°..' v�'i vmiow °..'
o x
o 'z
E z zIc
U� z 2N 2N I O � 1 o � I 2N 2N
E E E E E E E E E
oa
O
0 z -
E \ \
zoc o r m—c u n
E
12wm
oc
Im
o ..
z •.
E
E
o 3 m LL x° ° 3 x° o a m x° u
A
0
0
0
G
o11 IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN

s s s
3 0 3 3 -" 3'
v o z 3, ._ �n .. v 3` N m _ ti z 3 (^,� N z 3 (^,� O p
3> w .. E 3 .� > w .. E .�+� > z E .�+� °: > 3 °..' E 32> w vi °: 2o z n �n x> z E .�+� °: x> z °: E .�+� °: x> �n b 'o z 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 wa 3 3wa
x x x x x x o z x x o z
E E E E E E E E E
E-E— m — E v
u x 6 0 o
a x n x 3 x° 3 x x m n x z x m
z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z°
z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z° z°
0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0

w� wM� w� r �+ 5410 Trinity Road p 919.866.4951
T I M■ ■ O 1 �1 J GROUP ©U P Suite 102 F 919.859. 5663
11 Raleigh, NC 27607 www.timmons.com
July 09, 2020
State Historic Preservation Office
Renee Gledhill -Earley
109 E. Jones St.
Raleigh NC 27601
Via email: [e-mail]
Re. Project Review Request for Savannah Ridge Residential Development Project Garner, Wake
County, NC
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
On behalf of our client, Esplanade Development, Timmons Group is requesting SHPO consultation for the
above referenced project. This project review is needed as supplement to an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) as part of a Chatham County Planning Department First Plat Review Submittal in
accordance with Chatham County Subdivision Ordinance section 6.2.13. The proposed residential
development will consist of single-family lots and associated amenities (i.e. roadway, stormwater, and
utility improvements). Extensive ground disturbance is expected to occur as a result of construction.
There are no historical resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP within or immediately adjacent
to the direct impacts APE.
We would therefore like to request your review and comments on the proposed development.
Please contact myself or Lauren Norris -Heflin at the below contact information if you have any questions
or comments.
Sincerely,
Timmons Group
1 A�
Jay K. Sander, M.A.
Senior Archaeologist
951-452-1833
Jay. [e-mail]
Lauren Norris eflin
Senior Environmental Scientist
919-866-4943
Lauren.norris-heflin(a timmons.com
Enclosure
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY

5410 Trinity Road P 919.866.4951
T I M M O N S GROUP Suite 102 F 919,859,5663
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Raleigh, NC 27607 www.timmons.com
CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND STUDY: SAVANNAH RIDGE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT, MONCURE, CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This cultural resource background study has been provided by Timmons Group on behalf
of Esplanade Development for the proposed Savannah Ridge Residential Development Project
(aka TCI Moncure-Pittsboro) located in Moncure, Chatham County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
The project area of potential effects (APE) encompasses approximately 152 acres. The irregularly
shaped APE is bound by Jordan Dam Road to the north and west, by Moncure Road to the east,
U.S. Route 1 (Claude E. Pope Memorial Highway) to the south, and forested/agricultural land to
the southwest. The project area primarily consists of a 10 to 15-year old loblolly pine plantation
interspersed with areas of dry-mesic oak -hickory hardwood forest and contains a powerline right
of way.
The proposed action consists of a Conservation Subdivision with 167 single-family homes,
an amenity area with a mail kiosk and offsite parking, and associated infrastructure. Development
is anticipated to include the construction of single-family homes with lots being served by public
water supplied by Chatham County, and wastewater being treated by individual/conventional and
cluster/community septic systems. Cluster septic drain fields will be located on the southwest side
of the Site. Additionally, three stormwater control measures will be implemented on -Site.
In accordance with Chatham County Subdivision Regulations, section 7.7 for Conservation
Subdivisions, 40% minimum of the project area will be retained as conservation space. A
maximum of 20% of the required conservation space will be designated as open space and a
minimum of 80% will be designated as natural space. At this time, no streams are anticipated to
be impacted by public road crossings and no wetland or stream impacts are anticipated to be
associated with the construction of the residential lots and associated amenities. One perpendicular
stream crossing for a utility access road to the southwestern septic fields is proposed. Additionally,
temporary disturbance from six perpendicular force main stream crossings is proposed, with one
of the force main crossings to be located beneath the proposed utility access road.

Historic Map Research
Aerial photographs and maps (NETR and Google Earth, accessed 7/7/2020) indicate that
the project area appears to have been either forested or used as a pine plantation since at least 1955.
Archaeological Resources
Timmons Group Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist, Jay Sander, M.A.,
received a review of the cultural resources database from the North Carolina Office of State
Archeology (OSA) on July 6, 2020. The proposed project APE extended one (1) mile from the
project's area of direct effects.
Three previous archaeological surveys have been conducted within a one -mile- radius of
the APE (Table 1). None of these surveys included any portions of the current APE. The review
of the cultural resources database also revealed that there are five previously recorded
archaeological sites within one mile of the current project area (Table 2), none of which are within
or adjacent to the APE. One of the aforementioned sites, 31CH690, is a historic lock and dam
transportation feature located on the Deep River which has been listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The remaining have not been evaluated for eligibility.
A letter from the property owner of a portion of the subject site, AKPAR 911371, was
provided stating she is a descendant of the Minter family, who were historically owners of the
property. The owner, Brenda Harrington, states that to her knowledge there are no graves on the
property presently nor were there at any time in the past. This letter is included as an attachment
to this report.
Table 1. Previous studies within a one -mile radius of the APE.
OSA Document No.
Author(s)
Includes APE?
317
Coe and McCormick
No
317
Coe and McCormick
No
4106
Robinson
No
2

Table 2. Archaeological resources located within a one -mile radius of the APE.
Site No.
Site Type
Status
31CH160
Multicomponent
Unevaluated
31 CH 161
Prehistoric
Unevaluated
31 CH 162
Prehistoric
Unevaluated
31CH690
Historic
Listed on the NRHP
31LE72
Historic
Unevaluated
Architectural Resources
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the United States federal government's
official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects deemed worthy of preservation for
their historical significance. Archaeological sites and historic architectural resources which are
listed or eligible for listing to the NRHP are notable for the purposes of this study. Sites or
structures that have been noted but not considered for their significance are listed as "surveyed
only" or "not evaluated."
Based on a review of the NCHPOWEB Online Mapper there are 20 previously recorded
historical sites within a 1-mile radius of the APE (Table 3 below and Figure 2 attached). None of
the sites are located within or adjacent to the current APE, with the closest site located
approximately 0.4-miles south and across US 1. The recorded resources include one site, CH0018,
which appears to correspond with the aforementioned archaeological resource listed on the NRHP,
consisting of a canal, powerhouse, and canal complex. The remaining resources are historic
residences that have been surveyed only or have been destroyed.
Table 3. Historical resources located within a one -mile radius of the APE.
Site No.
Name or Type
Description
Status
CH0018
Lockville Dam,
Canal, and Powerhouse
Listed on the NRHP
CHO134
Dr. Patrick D. Lassiter House
Residence
Surveyed only
CHO135
Solomon Worley House
Residence
Surveyed only
CHO136
Toomer House
Residence
Destroyed
CHO138
Nin Britt House
Residence
Surveyed only
CHO146
James A. Parham House
Residence
Surveyed only
CH0149
Peggy Thomas House
Residence
Surveyed only
CH0150
John H. Wissler House
Residence
Probably destroyed
3

Site No.
Name or Type
Description
Status
CH0151
Houses
Residences
Surveyed only
CH0152
Lasater -Whatley House
Residence
Surveyed only
CHO153
Ben Moore House
Residence
Probably destroyed
CH0154
Houses
Residences
Surveyed only
CHO155
John Bell House
Residence
Destroyed
CH0156
Bryant -Davenport House
Residence
Destroyed
CH0157
Charles Thomas House
Residence
Surveyed only
CH0707
Mozell Johnson Place
Residence
Destroyed
CH0720
Seaboard Railroad Bridge
Railroad structure
Destroyed
CH0734
Moncure Depot
Railroad structure
Destroyed
LE0657
Bridge Ruins
Transportation structure
Destroyed
LE0658
Lockville Bridge
Transportation structure
Surveyed only
Soils
The USGS Web Soil Survey (accessed 7/7/2020) depicts 3 soil series within the APE
(Table 4 below and Figure 3). Mayodan fine sandy loam (MdB and MdQ, and Mayodan gravelly
loam (MgD) are well drained soils with slopes of less than 15 percent.
Table 4. Soil Types Within Project APE
Soils Unit
Symbol
Soils Unit Name
Percent of APE
MdB
Mayodan fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
30%
MdC
Mayodan fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
40%
MgD
Mayodan gravelly sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
30%
Total: 100%
Conclusions
Aerial photographs and maps (NETR and Google Earth, accessed 7/7/2020) indicate that
the project area appears to have been either forested or used as a pine plantation since at least 1955.
Based on a review of the USGS Web Soil Survey (accessed 7/7/2020), all three of the soils
series depicted on -site are identified as well drained soils: Mayodan fine sandy loam (MdB and
MdQ, and Mayodan gravelly loam (MgD). These soil types have the potential to contain intact
archaeological deposits.
4

There are no historical resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP within or immediately
adjacent to the direct impacts APE. Given the distance from historic resources and historical
silvicultural use of the site, the project is not likely to have an adverse effect on historic resources.
This recommendation is subject to review by the North Carolina OSA and HPO. Once this
document is submitted by the project proponent any further actions required will be initiated by
the North Carolina OSA and HPO.
5

REFERENCES CITED
Coe, Joffre L. and Olin F. McCormick III
1969 A Further Appraisal of the Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir
Area, North Carolina. Office of State Archaeology. Research Laboratories of
Anthropology, UNC-CH. Manuscript number 318 on file at the Office of the State
Archaeologist, Raleigh.
Coe, Joffre L. and Olin F. McCormick III
1970 Archaeological Resources ofthe New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. Office
of State Archaeology. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, UNC-CH. Manuscript
number 317 on file at the Office of the State Archaeologist, Raleigh.
Robinson, Kenneth W.
1997 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Lockville Historic Complex, Site 31 CH690,
Chatham and Lee Counties, North Carolina. NCDOT Division of Highways, Planning and
Environmental Branch, Raleigh. Manuscript number 4106 on file at the Office of the State
Archaeologist, Raleigh.
0

Path: Y:\805\43779 - Moncure-Pittsboro Road TCI 154Acres\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\43779-VIC.mxd
m r
� �� �".� 5 � = �,..Jill
�,,°.h s .,;,rrt"-�•,,_ M . Via,
I lot"��'._...,_
* ram"
� P° Site Limits
40
Willi,
u
i
o
• _'tom,"„`;, ��"'"--.<x `-. r
° �'` ° •
I
1 �
t
a
ti + .._"
Site limits are approximate.
Topographic imagery from USGS. `."� • - ��
4
Y
0 µ`1,000 -2,000 3,000 4,000[
Feet ► �y
TCI154MONCURE TIMMONS GROUP��
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP ',`OUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER: 43779 U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S): MERRY OAKS
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 151.5 ACRES DATE(S): 2016
LATITUDE: 35°3755.905"N WATERSHED(S): DEEP & HAW (CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN)
LONGITUDE: 79°459.244"W HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S): 03030003 & 03030002
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.

Figure 2. HPOWEB Results
7/9/2020, 7:54:56 AM
1:53,028
Find resources within a buffer _Query result
Surveyed Area in NHRD
SL individual resources & centerpoints
0 0.5 1 2 mi
• ..: Local districts & boundaries
DOE districts & boundaries
• SL Individual Entry
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
Determined Eligible Boundary
• SL and DOE entry
Local individual resources &centerpoints
Local Landmark
Both DOE and Study List Boundary
• Study List Entry, Gone
Local Landmark, Gone
DOE individual resources & centerpoints
• SL and DOE, Gone
* Local HD Center Point
• Determined Eligible
* SLHD Center Point
Surveyed Only individual resources & centerpoints
• DOE, Gone
* SLDOEHD Center Point
Surveyed Only
• SL and DOE
NR districts & boundaries
a Surveyed in NRHD
• SL and DOE, Gone
National Register Boundary
• Surveyed Only, Gone
't DOEHD Center Point
' Surveyed in NRHD, Gone
* SLDOEHD Center Point
Copyright:©2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
+ Blockface- Multiple properties
SL districts & boundaries
Study List Boundary
Blockface in NRHD
Both SL and Determined Eligible Boundary
� Surveyed Area, No designation
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
Esri, HERE i Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed i

Pxw'VT3-6LLEb\sllgl4x3 P8ie4g uowwoO\SIS\santlbSl I01 Peoy oiogsPld—ouoyy - 6LLEb\908\:A :41ed

MINTER PROPERTY STATEMENT
This is statement in being prepared on behalf of the M.B. Minter property located in Chatharn County,
NC. Further describe as AKPAR #t 11371 containing 1.50 acres.
Brenda Harrington is the current property Owner and is the daughter of Clarence and Mottie Minter
whom where previous Owners of the subject property.
Brenda Harrington states that there are No graves on this property related to the Minter Family at any
time in the past or currently and has No knowledge of this property ever having graves located within its
boundary.
Brenda Harrington pate

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secreuiy Kevin Cherry
August 26, 2020
Jay K. Sander Jay.sander(c�r�,timmons.com
Timmons Group
Re: Savannah Ridge Residential Development (aka TCI Moncure-Pittsboro), Moncure Road, Moncure,
Chatham County, ER 20-1554
Mr. Sander:
Thank you for your email of July 26, 2020, concerning the above -referenced project. We have reviewed the
information provided and offer the following comments:
While no archaeological sites have been recorded within the project area, a potential historic cemetery
associated with the Minter family has been reported. Information provided by Chatham County Historical
Association indicate that unmarked graves may be present on or near parcel 11371. Cemeteries are
protected under North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) Chapter 14-148 and 149 and are afforded
consideration under NCGS Chapters 65 and 70.
We recommend that a reconnaissance level survey of the project area be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist. The purpose of this investigation is to identify and document any cemeteries or
archaeological remains that may be readily apparent in the project area and to identify areas that have a
high probability for containing archaeological sites that may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. If archaeological sites are found in the project area and/or if it is determined
that the potential for eligible sites exists, additional archaeological investigations may be recommended.
Cemetery avoidance plans may be recommended, if appropriate.
Please note that our office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation.
One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as a digital copy
(PDF) of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) through this office for review and comment as soon as they are available and in
advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities. OSA's Archaeological Standards and
Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation can be found
online at: https://files.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA_Guidelines_Dec20l7.pdf. Our expectations for
reconnaissance surveys are provided on pages 6 and 20-21.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review(2ncdcr. og_v. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(1� Akct-
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Office
cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin, Timmons Group, Lauren.norris-heflingtimmons.com