20070173 Ver 2 - FINAL_IP_Submittal_with_Approved_JD_Request - 12/23/2015

Kimley»>Horn
December 22, 2015
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Ms. Jennifer Burdette
NC Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: SAW -2015-02127: Individual Section 404/401 Permit Application
Novo Nordisk Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Shaeffer and Ms. Burdette:
On behalf of our client, Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Novo Nordisk),
Kimley-Horn is submitting the attached Individual Section 404/401 Permit Application for the
proposed development of an insulin production facility known as the Bright Sky Project in
Johnston County, North Carolina. The Bright Sky Project area (Site) is approximately 296
acres in size and is situated roughly 0.5 mile east of the intersection of Business Hwy 70
and Powhatan Road in Clayton. The proposed facility is located adjacent to (east) Novo
Nordisk's current fill/finish facility (purchased in 1993), which is also located on Powhatan
Road.
The proposed project would construct an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs)
production facility necessary to expand the company's ability to provide capacity for current
and future diabetes fighting products. Expanding API production in the U.S. will supplement
Novo Nordisk's current API footprint in Denmark where production capacity is limited and
current supply is unable to meet the growing global demand.
Novo Nordisk and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are joint
applicants for this permit submittal. Novo Nordisk will be responsible for the design,
construction, and mitigation requirements for the pharmaceutical facility. NCDOT will be
responsible for the design, construction, and mitigation requirements for the access road
from Gordon Road required for the facility (Gordon Road Access). Because the Gordon
Road Access is being constructed to support the pharmaceutical facility and does not have
independent utility, this joint permit application evaluates various alternatives and impacts

Kimley»>Horn
Page 2
for both the facility and the road in order to assess the cumulative impacts for the entire
development project.
The proposed API production facility would be approximately 900,000 square feet in size
and would employ an estimated 700 people when it begins operations scheduled for 2020.
The project would be constructed in two phases as shown on the attached Figure 6, with
construction of the Phase 1 scheduled to begin in late March 2016. The subsequent phase
(Phase 2) is anticipated to initiate construction within the next 2-5 years, with the schedule
being driven by Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval and market demand.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands have been avoided and minimized to the extent practical.
However, the preferred Site alternative will result in 2.285 acres of permanent impact to
forested headwater wetlands and 2.18 acres of permanent impacts to isolated basin
wetlands. Unavoidable impacts associated with the development of the Site include the
placement of fill material into wetlands for the construction of product processing, recovery,
purification and storage buildings, office/gowning and laboratory buildings, and a firewater
tank. Fill will also be required for construction of internal roads through the site and for the
connection to the Gordon Road Access and associated gatehouse.
The Gordon Road Access will allow construction vehicles/equipment and trucks to safely
navigate into the Site via US 70 to Gordon Road, minimizing traffic and congestion along
Powhatan Road during peak construction. Construction of the Gordon Road Access will
result in 3.036 acres of permanent impacts to forested headwater wetlands, 188 linear feet
of permanent impacts to a jurisdictional stream, and 19,326 square feet of permanent
impact to protected riparian buffers associated with an unnamed tributary (UT) to Reedy
Branch.
The cumulative project impacts for the Site and Gordon Road Access will be 5.32 acres
jurisdictional wetland, 2.18 acres isolated basin wetland, 188 linear feet of stream, and
19,326 square feet of protected riparian buffer.
To assist in your review of this application, the following information has been included:
• Application for Department of the Army Permit
• Bright Sky Project Individual Permit Support Document
• Figures
• Site Plan Sheets
• Off -Site Alternatives Documentation
• On -Site Alternatives Documentation
• Gordon Road Access Alternatives
• Traffic Impact Analysis
• Site Photographs
• Regulatory Agency Coordination

Kimley»>Horn
Page 3
• Permit Drawings
• Adjacent Property Owner Information
• NCSAM/NCWAM Data Sheets
• Mitigation Documentation
• Approved Jurisdictional Determination Request
• NCDWR 401 Application Fee of $570
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this Individual
Section 404 Permit Application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-677-2073 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Beth Reed, PWS
cc: Gary Lohr, Novo Nordisk
Timothy Little, NCDOT
David Bendzin, Fluor

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Form Approved -
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB No. 0710-0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Expires: 30 -SEPTEMBER -2015
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Gary Middle - Last - Lohr
First - Beth Middle - Last - Reed
Company - Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Company - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
E-mail [e-mail]
E-mail [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 3612 Powhatan Road
Address- PO Box 33068
City - Clayton State - NC Zip - 27527 Country -USA
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip -27636 Country -USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
n/a 919-457-7167 n/a
n/a 919-677-2073 n/a
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Beth Reed to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
Gary Lohr 2015-12-16
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Novo Nordisk - Bright Sky Project
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Reedy Branch
Address Approximately 3612 Powhatan Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35.616392 Longitude: -W 78.402377
City - Clayton State- NC Zip- 27527
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID (see attached parcel table) Municipality unincorporated area of Johnston County
Section - n/a Township - n/a Range - n/a
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Raleigh, take I-40 East towards US -70 East. Take Exit 309 for US -70 East. Stay on US -70 for approximately 8.5 miles, and then take
Exit 326 for US -70 Business. Turn left onto US -70 Business West, and continue for on US -70 Business West for approximately 2 miles.
Turn right onto Powhatan Road, and continue for 0.75 miles. The Site will be on the right after crossing over the railroad tracks.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The project will consist of the construction of an approximately 900,000 square foot Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) production
facility. The facility will employee approximately 700 people when it begins operations scheduled for 2020. The construction -related
facilities will consist of the following: warehouses for raw material, finished product, and consumable/cold storage; fermentation buildings
for raw product growth; recovery buildings for separation of yeast and byproducts from API; purification buildings for product refinement;
waste water tank, fire water tank, and cooling towers; office space, gowning, and laboratory building; central utility building housing
boilers for clean steam, processed air and water; electrical substation; gate houses at facility entrances; waste water pre-treatment facility;
parking facilities; and stormwater management basins. In addition to access off of Powhatan Road, a southern access is proposed off of
Gordon Road which will include a bridge over the Norfolk Southern railroad.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Novo Nordisk's purpose is to construct an API production facility in North Carolina. The project is necessary to expand the company's
ability to produce ingredients for current and future diabetes fighting products. Expanding API production in the U.S. will supplement
Novo Nordisk's current API footprint in Denmark where production capacity is limited and current supply is unable to meet the growing
global demand.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Development of the proposed project would require the placement of fill material into wetlands for the construction of product processing,
recovery, purification and storage buildings, office/gowning and laboratory buildings, and a fire water tank. Fill would also be required for
the construction of internal access roads through the site that connect to an access to Powhatan Road and a proposed southern access road
to Gordon Road. The Gordon Road access and associated gate house will result in the discharge of fill material into a jurisdictional stream
and jurisdictional wetland south of the Norfolk -Southern Railroad.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Structural Fill: 86,251 cubic yards
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres See Tables 4 and 5 in the attached Individual Permit Application and Supporting Documentation
or
Linear Feet See Tables 4 and 5 in the attached Individual Permit Application and Supporting Documentation
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
In order for the manufacturing facility to be operationally efficient, the structural components need to be in close proximity for product
production sequencing as well as truck deliveries and pickup. As a result, the on-site alternatives must be designed to accommodate the
physical layout of the facility in a manner that will make it operationally efficient and functional. Impacts to wetlands are avoided by
designing the site layout to be as far west on the site as feasible to minimize impacts to wetlands. Further, the preferred alternative for the
Gordon Road access will be located in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts to jurisdictional streams/wetlands on Site.
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes FX—]No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
n/a
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
a. Address- See the attached Adjacent Property Owners Map and associated table in Appendix H of the supporting document
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
(See Permit Doc)
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am actina as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
Gary Lohr 2015-12-16# 12/16/2015
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 Page 3 of 3

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Form Approved -
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB No. 0710-0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Expires: 30 -SEPTEMBER -2015
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Timothy Middle - Last - Little
First - Beth Middle - Last - Reed
Company - North Carolina Department of Transportation (Div 4)
Company - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
E-mail [e-mail]
E-mail [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 509 Ward Boulevard; PO Box 3165
Address- PO Box 33068
City - Wilson State - NC Zip - 27895 Country -USA
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip -27636 Country -USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
n/a 252-237-6164 252-234-6174
n/a 919-677-2073 n/a
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Beth Reed to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
Timothy Little2015-12-16
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Novo Nordisk - Bright Sky Project
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Reedy Branch
Address Approximately 3612 Powhatan Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35.616392 Longitude: -W 78.402377
City - Clayton State- NC Zip- 27527
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID (see attached parcel table) Municipality unincorporated area of Johnston County
Section - n/a Township - n/a Range - n/a
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Raleigh, take I-40 East towards US -70 East. Take Exit 309 for US -70 East. Stay on US -70 for approximately 8.5 miles, and then take
Exit 326 for US -70 Business. Turn left onto US -70 Business West, and continue for on US -70 Business West for approximately 2 miles.
Turn right onto Powhatan Road, and continue for 0.75 miles. The Site will be on the right after crossing over the railroad tracks.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The project will consist of the construction of an approximately 900,000 square foot Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) production
facility. The facility will employee approximately 700 people when it begins operations scheduled for 2020. The construction -related
facilities will consist of the following: warehouses for raw material, finished product, and consumable/cold storage; fermentation buildings
for raw product growth; recovery buildings for separation of yeast and byproducts from API; purification buildings for product refinement;
waste water tank, fire water tank, and cooling towers; office space, gowning, and laboratory building; central utility building housing
boilers for clean steam, processed air and water; electrical substation; gate houses at facility entrances; waste water pre-treatment facility;
parking facilities; and stormwater management basins. In addition to access off of Powhatan Road, a southern access is proposed off of
Gordon Road which will include a bridge over the Norfolk Southern railroad.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Novo Nordisk's purpose is to construct an API production facility in North Carolina. The project is necessary to expand the company's
ability to produce ingredients for current and future diabetes fighting products. Expanding API production in the U.S. will supplement
Novo Nordisk's current API footprint in Denmark where production capacity is limited and current supply is unable to meet the growing
global demand.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Development of the proposed project would require the placement of fill material into wetlands for the construction of product processing,
recovery, purification and storage buildings, office/gowning and laboratory buildings, and a fire water tank. Fill would also be required for
the construction of internal access roads through the site that connect to an access to Powhatan Road and a proposed southern access road
to Gordon Road. The Gordon Road access and associated gate house will result in the discharge of fill material into a jurisdictional stream
and jurisdictional wetland south of the Norfolk -Southern Railroad.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Structural Fill: 86,251 cubic yards
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres See Tables 4 and 5 in the attached Individual Permit Application and Supporting Documentation
or
Linear Feet See Tables 4 and 5 in the attached Individual Permit Application and Supporting Documentation
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
In order for the manufacturing facility to be operationally efficient, the structural components need to be in close proximity for product
production sequencing as well as truck deliveries and pickup. As a result, the on-site alternatives must be designed to accommodate the
physical layout of the facility in a manner that will make it operationally efficient and functional. Impacts to wetlands are avoided by
designing the site layout to be as far west on the site as feasible to minimize impacts to wetlands. Further, the preferred alternative for the
Gordon Road access will be located in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts to jurisdictional streams/wetlands on Site.
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes FX—]No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
n/a
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
a. Address- See the attached Adjacent Property Owners Map and associated table in Appendix H of the supporting document
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
(See Permit Doc)
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
Timothy Little 2015-12-16 �' "� 2015-12-16
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, DEC 2014 Page 3 of 3

INDI VID UAL PERMIT APPLICA TION AND
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc
3612 Powhatan Road
Clayton, North Carolina, 27527-9217
IM
novo nordlsl
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Kimley»>Horn
December 2015
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2015
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
509 Ward Boulevard
Wilson, NC 27895-1670

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Executive Summary
This document is intended to provide supplementary information in support of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' (USACE) preparation of the Public Notice, Environmental Assessment, Finding of No
Significant Impact, Statement of Findings, and Review and Compliance Determination according to
the 404(b)(1) guidelines for the proposed insulin production facility in Clayton, Johnston County,
North Carolina.
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Novo Nordisk) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) are joint Applicants for this permit submittal. Novo Nordisk will be
responsible for the design, construction, and mitigation requirements for the pharmaceutical facility.
NCDOT will be responsible for the design, construction, and mitigation requirements for the access
road off Gordon Road required for the facility. Because the Gordon Road Access is being
constructed to support the pharmaceutical facility and does not have independent utility, this joint
permit application evaluates various alternatives and impacts for both the facility and the road in
order to assess the cumulative impacts for the entire development.
Co -Applicant: Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Gary Lohr, Director, Production Support
3612 Powhatan Road
Clayton, NC 27527-9217
Co -Applicant: NC Department of Transportation — Division 4
Timothy M. Little, P.E., Division Engineer
509 Ward Boulevard
Wilson, NC 27895-1670
Agent: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Beth Reed, Permit Project Manager
3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, NC 27513
Date of Application: December 22, 2015
Location: Novo Nordisk is proposing the development of an insulin production facility (Bright Sky
Project) on an approximately 296 -acre site situated approximately 0.5 mile east of the intersection of
Business Hwy 70 and Powhatan Road in Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina. The proposed
facility is located adjacent (east) to Novo Nordisk's current fill/finish facility (purchased in 1993)
also located off of Powhatan Road.

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Applicant's Stated Purpose: Novo Nordisk's purpose is to construct an Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients (APIs) production facility in North Carolina. The project is necessary to expand the
company's ability to provide capacity for current and future diabetes fighting products. Expanding
API production in the U.S. will supplement Novo Nordisk's current API footprint in Denmark where
production capacity is limited and current supply is unable to meet the growing global demand.
Project Description: The project will consist of the construction of an approximately 900,000
square foot API production facility. The facility will employ approximately 700 people when it
begins operations scheduled for 2020. In addition to access off of Powhatan Road, a new
construction/truck access is proposed off of Gordon Road which will include a bridge over the North
Carolina Railroad Company/Norfolk Southern (NC/Norfolk Southern) railroad. The construction -
related facilities will consist of the following:
• Warehouses for raw material, finished product, and consumable/cold storage;
• Fermentation buildings for raw product growth;
• Recovery buildings for separation of yeast and byproducts from API;
• Purification buildings for product refinement;
• Waste water tank, fire water tank, and cooling towers;
• Office space, gowning, and laboratory building;
• Central utility building housing boilers for clean steam, processed air and water;
• Electric substation;
• Gate houses at facility entrances;
• Waste water pre-treatment facility;
• Parking facilities; and
• Stormwater management basins.
The project will be constructed in two phases as shown on Figure 6, with construction of the initial
phase scheduled for late March 2016 and the subsequent phase anticipated within the next 2-5 years
with schedule being driven by Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and market demand.
Existing Site Conditions: The proposed project Site located within the Town of Clayton's ETJ and
is currently zoned as Industrial 1 (I-1) by Johnston County. The NC/Norfolk Southern railroad
bisects the southern portion of the property with the proposed pharmaceutical facility development
occurring north of the railroad and the Gordon Road Access and construction parking and staging
occurring south of the railroad.
The Site is composed of primarily agricultural land interspersed with stands of mixed hardwood
forests. Based upon the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Methodology (NCWAM) classification
system, the majority of the wetland areas are headwater wetland systems (76.1 -acres). Two basin
ii

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
wetland areas were also identified (2.45 acres) (Figure 5). The Site is located in the Neuse River
Basin (USGS 8 -digit HUC: 03020201). A single stream, an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Reedy
Branch, was identified south of the Norfolk Southern railroad. The UT to Reedy Branch flows south
through the Site for 1,224 linear feet (Figure 5) before exiting the Site via a culvert underneath
Gordon Road.
North Carolina Wetlands Assessment Method (NCWAM): The two wetland types observed
within the Site were headwater forest (wetlands WA, WB, WD, WE, WF, and WJ) and basin
wetlands (wetlands WG and WH) (Figure 5). The headwater forest wetlands within the Site have a
"High" overall wetland rating due to their large size, connectivity, and hydrologic function. As
shown on Figure 5, wetland WF was determined to be an isolated headwater forest wetland, which
are not currently regulated as jurisdictional features by the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR). The basin wetlands have a "Low" overall wetland rating due to their small size, lack of
connectivity, and historic disturbance. The USACE and the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) determined that wetlands WG and WH were isolated wetlands, and non -jurisdictional
under the Clean Water Act. NCDWR further determined that wetlands WG and WH were basin
wetlands. NC Session Law 2015-286 requires that only basin wetlands or bogs exceeding 1/3 rd of an
acre in projects located west of I-95 are subject to regulation by NCDWR as isolated wetlands;
therefore wetland WH is not regulated by either the USACE or the NCDWR. Due to its size,
wetland WG is subject to regulation by NCDWR as an isolated wetland.
North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM): Based on NCSAM, the stream is a high
quality size 2 coastal stream with perennial flow. Land use in the vicinity of the Site consists of
agricultural farmlands, low to medium density residential housing, industrial facilities, and patches
of undeveloped forested lands.
CAMA Regulated Areas: The project is not located within a NCDCM regulated county.
Protected Species: As of December 27, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists four federally
endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) known to occur in Johnston
County, including red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
Bald eagle is also known to occur in Johnston County and is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGPA). A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database records (updated October 2015) indicates no known occurrences of any of the
aforementioned species are present within a one -mile radius of the Site.
As part of the initial agency scoping process for this project, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) and the USFWS were contacted regarding potential impacts to protected species as a
result of the proposed project. NCWRC expressed concern (Appendix F - Scoping Letter Comments
dated November 19, 2015) that while the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is not
listed by the USFWS as known to occur in Johnston County, the forested community within the Site
could potentially support northern long-eared bat populations. Since the USFWS did not specifically
comment on northern long-eared bat (Scoping Letter Comments dated November 13, 2015), and
iii

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
since no known roost trees or occurrences of northern long-eared bat are recorded for Johnston
County or within one mile of the project area, it is unlikely that the proposed will have any effect on
northern long-eared bat.
Habitat evaluations were conducted within the forested portions of the property for red -cockaded
woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat in September and November 2015. The dense canopy and
understory found within these forested headwater wetland communities and the large number of
hardwoods precludes these areas from providing suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the red -
cockaded woodpecker. In addition, the NCNHP database (updated October 2015) has no records,
historical or current, of red -cockaded woodpecker individuals or cavity trees within one mile of the
proposed project. Based upon this information, it has been determined that the proposed project will
have "no effect" on the red -cockaded woodpecker.
The single perennial stream feature identified within the Site is a small, low velocity coastal plain
stream system that has been historically straightened to flow along the perimeter of an agricultural
field. A large portion of the headwater wetland system that supports the stream has been historically
managed for silviculture, and the system was clear-cut most recently in 2014. The stream flows
south towards Gordon Road, where it crosses beneath the road via a 24" concrete culvert. It is
unlikely that the stream would support dwarf wedgemussel or Tar River spinymussel based on the
hydrologic conditions and riparian disturbances observed within the Site.
Additionally, a review of NCNHP records, updated October 2015, indicates no known current dwarf
wedgemussel occurrences within approximately 6.0 river miles of the study area. The nearest known
current population is in Swift Creek. The stream is an Unnamed Tributary to Reedy Branch, and
Reedy Branch is impounded to create a manmade pond between the Site and Swift Creek. NCNHP
records, updated October 2015, indicate the no known current Tar River spinymussel occurrences
within 95 river miles. Due to the lack of known occurrences in or near the project boundary and the
hydrologic conditions and riparian disturbances found within the stream system in the Site, it has
been determined that the proposed project will have "no effect" on the dwarf wedgemussel or Tar
River spinymussel.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac was identified on the project Site along the forested
community edges adjacent to the agricultural fields. Kimley-Horn biologists conducted field surveys
of the suitable habitat on September 30, 2015. No individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed. In
addition, the NCNHP database has no records, historical or current, of Michaux's sumac within one
mile of the proposed project. The property parcels located south of the railroad tract along the access
road corridor from Gordon Road were not included as part of the project study area at the time of the
survey and were added to the study area following the USFWS survey window, however it is
unlikely that these areas support Michaux's sumac populations based on the findings of the
pedestrian surveys on the balance of the property. Based upon this information, it has been
determined that the proposed project will have "no effect" on Michaux's sumac.
1v

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Cultural Resources: No historical or archaeological resources currently listed in the National
Register of Historic Places or Eligible for the National Register will be impacted by the project. The
NC State Historic Properties Office (SHPO) responded during the scoping process (Appendix F —
Scoping Letter Comments dated November 24, 2015) that SHPO is not aware of any historic
resources that would be affected by the project.
Proposed Impacts: Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be avoided and minimized to the extent
practical. However, the preferred Site alternative will result in 5.32 acres of permanent impact to
forested headwater wetlands and 2.18 acres of permanent impacts to isolated basin wetlands.
Development of the Site requires the placement of fill material into wetlands for the construction of
product processing, recovery, purification and storage buildings, office/gowning and laboratory
buildings, and a fire water tank. Fill will also be required for construction of internal access roads
through the site connecting access onto Powhatan Road. Impacts are also required for the
development of a construction access road and associated gate house and staging area during Site
construction.
The Gordon Road Access will allow construction vehicles and equipment to safely navigate into the
Site via US 70 to Gordon Road, avoiding potential traffic and congestion along Powhatan Road
during construction. Construction of the Gordon Road Access will result in 3.036 acres of permanent
impacts to forested headwater wetlands and 188 linear feet of permanent impacts to the jurisdictional
stream. The cumulative project impacts for the Site and Road will be 5.32 acres jurisdictional
wetland, 2.18 acres isolated basin wetland, 188 linear feet of stream, and 19,326 square feet of
riparian buffer.
Mitigation: Novo Nordisk will be responsible for mitigation associated with the construction of the
Site and NCDOT will be responsible for mitigation associated with the Gordon Road Access
construction. Novo Nordisk proposes to mitigate for permanent impacts to wetlands by purchasing
riparian wetland mitigation credits from multiple RES mitigation banks located within the Neuse
River Basin (HUC 03020201). Credits will be secured based upon the credit release schedule for the
banks included in Appendix J. If the proposed credit release schedule changes and the required
credits are not available at the time of project construction, Novo Nordisk will secure mitigation for
the proposed impacts by payment into the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) In -Lieu
Fee (ILF) program. Documentation of acceptance by the ILF program from NCDMS is also included
in Appendix J. Since the quality and function of the forested headwater wetlands is high, a
mitigation ratio of 2:1 will be applied to offset unavoidable impacts. Because the quality and
function of the isolated basin wetlands is low, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 will be applied to offset
unavoidable impacts to these features. Therefore, the total wetland mitigation proposed for the Site is
4.57 acres of riparian wetland credits and 2.18 acres of non -riparian wetland credit.
NCDOT proposes to mitigate for permanent wetland and stream impacts via the NCDMS ILF
program. A mitigation ratio of 2:1 will be applied for impacts associated with the Gordon Road
Access to forested headwater wetlands and the perennial stream impacts resulting in 6.07 acres of
wetland mitigation credit, 376 LF of stream mitigation credit, and 50,221 square feet of riparian
buffer mitigation credit.
u

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
The total proposed mitigation for the project site and road totals 10.64 acres of wetland mitigation
credit, 2.18 acres of non -riparian wetland mitigation credit, 188 LF of stream mitigation credit, and
50,221 square feet of riparian buffer mitigation credit.
Other Required Authorizations: Other required authorizations will be obtained prior to
construction of the proposed work. These authorizations include:
• Individual 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR),
• Stormwater Permit and Sediment and Erosion Control Permit (includes a NPDES General
Stormwater Permit) from the Johnston County Public Utility Department,
• Site Plan Approval from the Town of Clayton, and
• Driveway and Encroachment Permits from the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT).
vi

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Contents
.0 The Applicant/Project Overview, Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description ....
1.1 The Applicant/ Project Overview................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Location...........................................................................................................2
1.3 Existing Site Conditions...............................................................................................2
1.3.1 Land Use..........................................................................................................
2
1.3.2 Topography......................................................................................................
3
1.3.3 Jurisdictional Features......................................................................................
3
1.3.4 North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM).................................
7
1.3.5 North Carolina Stream Assessment Method(NCSAM).....................................
9
1.3.6 Soils...............................................................................................................
10
1.3.7 Vegetation......................................................................................................
10
1.3.8 CAMA Regulated Areas............................................................................................
12
1.3.9 Protected Species and Habitat.........................................................................
12
1.3. 10 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites.............................................................
13
1.3.11 Regulated Floodplain.......................................................................................
14
1.3.12 Zoning.............................................................................................................
14
2.0 Project Description...................................................................................................................
15
2.1 Land Ownership.........................................................................................................
15
2.2 Construction Sequence..................................................................................................
15
2.3 Proposed Impacts..........................................................................................................
17
2.4 Stormwater Quality Controls.........................................................................................
18
3.0 The Public Need.......................................................................................................................
19
4.0 Project Purpose and Need...................................................................................................
20
5.0 Scope of Analysis: ..............................................................................................................
21
6.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending .............
22
6.1 State Water Quality (401) Certification ......................................................................
22
6.2 Stormwater Permit.....................................................................................................
22
6.3 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit.................................................................
22
6.4 Site Plan Approval.....................................................................................................
22
7.0 Project Alternatives/Alternatives Considered......................................................................
23
7.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites) ...................................
23
7.1.1 No -Action Alternative....................................................................................
24
7.1.2 Off -Site Alternatives.......................................................................................
25
7.1.3 Preferred (Practical) Alternative.....................................................................
27
7.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.).............................................................
28
7.2.1 On -Site Alternatives..........................................................................................
29
7.2.2 On -Site Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts ..................................................
38
7.3 Conclusion of Alternatives Analysis...........................................................................
38
8.0 Mitigation.................................................................................................................................
40
9.1 Factual determinations...............................................................................................
42
9.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity......................................................
42
9.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity.......................................................................
43
9.1.4 Contaminant availability.................................................................................
43
9.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects...............................................................................
43
vii

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
9.1.6 Proposed disposal site.....................................................................................
44
9.1.7 Cumulative effects..........................................................................................
44
9.1.8 Secondary effects...........................................................................................
45
10.0 Public Interest Review........................................................................................................
47
10.1 Public Interest Factors................................................................................................
47
10.1.1 Conservation..................................................................................................
47
10.1.2 Economics......................................................................................................
47
10.1.3 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................
47
10.1.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p)).........................................
48
10.1.5 Wetlands(33CFR320.4(b)).............................................................................48
10.1.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e))............................................
49
10.1.7 Fish and wildlife values(33CFR320.4(c)).......................................................
49
10.1.8 Flood hazards.................................................................................................
50
10.1.9 Floodplain values(33CFR320.4(1)).................................................................
51
10.1.10 Land use.....................................................................................................
51
10.1.11 Navigation(33CFR320.4(o)).......................................................................
51
10.1.12 Shore erosion and accretion.........................................................................
51
10.1.13 Recreation...................................................................................................51
10.1.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m))..................................................................
52
10.1.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d))...........................................................
52
10.1.16 Energy needs(33CFR320.4(n))...................................................................
52
10.1.17 Safety..........................................................................................................52
10.1.18 Food and fiber production...........................................................................
52
10.1.19 Mineral needs..............................................................................................
52
10.1.20 Considerations of property ownership.........................................................
53
11.0 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................
54
viii

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph (2014)
Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4: NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5: Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 6: Overall Site Plan
Appendices
Appendix A: Off -Site Project Alternatives
Appendix B: On -Site Project Alternatives
Appendix C: Gordon Road Alternatives
Appendix D: Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix E: Site Photographs
Appendix F: Agency Coordination
Appendix G: Permit Drawings
Appendix H: Adjacent Property Owners and Addresses
Appendix I: NCWAM/NCSAM Data Forms
Appendix J: Mitigation
ix

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
1.0 The Applicant/Project Overview, Location, Existing Site
Conditions, Project Description
1.1 The Applicant/ Project Overview
This document is intended to provide supplementary information in support of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) preparation of the Public Notice, Environmental
Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, Statement of Findings, and Review and
Compliance Determination according to the 404(b)(1) guidelines for the proposed insulin
production facility in Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina.
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Novo Nordisk) and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are joint Applicants for this permit submittal.
Novo Nordisk will be responsible for the design, construction, and mitigation
requirements for the pharmaceutical facility. NCDOT will be responsible for the design,
construction, and mitigation requirements for the access road off Gordon Road required
for the facility. Because the Gordon Road Access is being constructed to support the
pharmaceutical facility and does not have independent utility, this joint permit application
evaluates various alternatives and impacts for both the facility and the road in order to
assess the cumulative impacts for the entire development.
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Novo Nordisk) is a Danish multinational
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Bagsvxrd, Denmark. The company employs
approximately 39,700 people in 75 countries and markets its products in more than 180
counties. Novo Nordisk is a global healthcare company with more than 90 years of
innovation and leadership in diabetes care medications and devices. Novo Nordisk is also
involved with hemostasis management, growth hormone therapy and hormone
replacement therapy. The company makes several drugs under various names, including
Levemir, NovoLog, Novolin R, NovoSeven, NovoEight, and Victoza.
As an environmentally conscious company, Novo Nordisk's corporate philosophy is that
a healthy economy, environment, and society is fundamental to long-term business
success. This business philosophy is reflected in the company's "Triple Bottom Line"
(TBL) principle that requires the company to consider the financial, environmental, and
social impacts of their business decisions. The TBL principle is included as part of the
company's Articles of Association (bylaws).
In addition, Novo Nordisk has been an active subscriber to the UN Global Compact since
2002. UN Global Compact principles focus on global human rights, labor rights,
environmental issues, and anti -corruption. Novo Nordisk was a co-founder and member
of Global Compact LEAD from its inception in 2011. LEAD is a platform for a selected
group of approximately 50 UN Global Compact companies that drive leadership for
sustainability performance.

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
The company opened its existing insulin manufacturing facility in Clayton, North
Carolina in 1996. This existing facility is located adjacent (west) of the proposed new
facility off of Powhatan Road. Since it's opening, the Novo Nordisk, Clayton facility has
received numerous awards including the Galup Great Workplaces Award (2011), Ovation
Award for Best Human Resource Practices (CAI), North Carolina Parenting Magazine
Top 50 Family Friendly Workplaces (2011 — 3rd year), Fortune 100 Best Places to Work
(2011- 3rd year), and the JDFR Silver Award.
1.2 Project Location
Novo Nordisk is proposing the development of an insulin production facility located on
the approximately 296 -acre Site situated 0.5 mile east of the intersection of Business
Hwy 70 and Powhatan Road in Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina. Figure 1
(Vicinity Map) shows the project area location. The 296 -acre Site comprises five
property parcels, three of which are currently owned by Novo Nordisk and have been
under Novo Nordisk ownership since 1993. Collectively referred to as the Wiggins -
Young Tract, the two properties located south of the railroad will be transferred to Novo
Nordisk from Johnston County as part of the project incentives package.
The southwestern property parcel is the Young Tract. Approximately 33 acres of the
Young Tract, shown in yellow hatching on Figure 2, were not evaluated by Kimley-Horn
staff. Novo Nordisk and NCDOT do not propose any activities or impacts this area, and it
is located outside the proposed limits of disturbance.
1.3 Existing Site Conditions
The approximately 296 -acre proposed Site project study area is primarily composed of
primarily agricultural land interspersed with stands of mixed hardwood forests. Figure 2
shows a 2014 aerial photograph of the project Site. Based upon the North Carolina
Wetland Assessment Methodology (NCWAM) classification system, the majority of the
wetland areas are headwater wetland systems (76.1 -acres). Two basin wetland areas were
also identified (2.45 acres). The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin (USGS 8 -digit
HUC: 03020201). A single stream, an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Reedy Branch, was
identified south of the NC/Norfolk Southern railroad. The UT to Reedy Branch flows
through the Site for 1,224 linear feet before exiting the Site via a culvert underneath
Gordon Road. Based on the North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NCSAM),
the stream is a high quality size 2 coastal stream with perennial flow. The only structure
located within the Site is an abandoned farm house located near Gordon Road in the
southernmost portion of the Site. Photographs of the Site are included in Appendix E.
1.3.1 Land Use
Land uses within the Site include agricultural fields (most recently utilized for
corn production), fallow fields, and undeveloped mixed -hardwood forest tracts.
2

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Land use in the vicinity of the Site consists of agricultural development, low to
medium density residential housing, industrial facilities, and undeveloped forested
land.
1.3.2 Topography
The Site is located in the coastal plain physiographic region of North Carolina.
Topography in the project vicinity is comprised of low rolling hills with gentle
slopes down to wide, level floodplains along streams. Elevations in the Site range
from 280 to 310 feet above mean sea level (MSL) (Figure 3 — USGS
Topographic Map).
1.3.3 Jurisdictional Features
Figure 5 shows the delineated jurisdictional areas evaluated by Kimley-Horn staff
on September 9-11 and November 11, 2015, and reviewed by US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) representative David Shaeffer and North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NCDWR) representative Jennifer Burdette on October 28
and December 4, 2015. The jurisdictional delineation was conducted utilizing the
USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0).
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Approved JD) request for the
delineation is included as part of this permit application. Based upon the North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Methodology classification system, the majority of
the forested areas (76.1 -acres) are headwater wetlands, with two hardwood -
dominated basin wetlands (2.45 acres). Based on the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Methodology (NCSAM), the stream is a high quality size 2 coastal
stream with perennial flow. USACE wetland determination data forms, stream
quality assessment worksheets, and NCDWR Stream Identification Forms were
completed for each of the features identified within the Site as appropriate and are
included as part of the Approved JD request.
The project Site is located in the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-04-02, and U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201; therefore intermittent or
perennial stream features may be subject to the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
(15A NCAC 02B .0233). Four stream features are mapped within the Site
according to the most -recent Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
Soil Survey for Johnston County (Figure 4). During the field investigations,
Kimley-Horn determined that a single stream was present on-site. Field
evaluation of the stream assessment area was conducted on November 11.
NCDWR confirmed that only SA is subject to jurisdiction under the Neuse River
Basin Buffer Rules within the Site during the field reviews conducted on October
28, 2015 and December 4, 2015. The NCDWR Buffer Determination letter for the
Site is included in Appendix F.

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
The Site is approximately located at the topographic high point in the vicinity,
meaning hydrology from the Site contributes to three different streams. The Site
drains east towards Little Poplar Creek, south towards Reedy Branch, and north
towards Cooper Branch. Little Poplar Creek, Reedy Branch, and Cooper branch
are all classified by NCDWR as "C, NSW" waters. Class C waters are protected
for secondary recreational uses, and NSW is a supplemental classification for
Nutrient Sensitive Waters meaning additional nutrient management is needed.
Little Poplar Creek is also designated as a Water Supply IV (WS -IV) stream by
NCDWR, and the majority of the Site is located in a Water Supply (WS -IV)
Watershed. There are no Outstanding Water resources or High Quality Waters
within ten miles of the Site.
The following paragraphs describe the wetlands that were delineated within the
Site and are displayed on the attached Figure 5: Jurisdictional Features Map.
Wetland WA is a 15.1 -acre forested headwater wetland located in the southeast
portion of the Site, north of the NC/Norfolk-Southern railroad tracks. Wetland
WA drains southeast off of the Site towards Little Poplar Creek which eventually
discharges into the Neuse River. The wetland was dry at the time of observation.
However, it appears that many of the depressional areas found within the wetland
are inundated after large storm events. Hummocks around trees and root wads
indicate water ponds to a depth of 3"-6" through the interior of the wetland. The
dominant trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location included ti -ti
(Cyrilla racemiflora), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana). The
dominant herbaceous plants observed included slender woodoats (Chasmanthium
laxum) and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Wetland WB is a 25.2 -acre forested headwater wetland located north of wetland
WA, in the northeastern portion of the Site. Wetland WB and WA are
hydrologically connected via a culvert associated with a farm road that bisects the
two wetland areas. Wetland WB drains east off of the Site towards Little Poplar
Creek. The wetland was mostly dry at the time of observation except for the
interior portions of the wetland close to the eastern Site boundary. The soil was
saturated in low-lying depressional areas and evidence (e.g. water marks, moss
trim lines) was observed indicating ponding to depths of 1'-2'. Numerous
buttressed trees were observed within the wetland, with a dense concentration of
buttressed trees in the depressional areas near the eastern boundary of the Site.
The dominant trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location included
swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), tulip -poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple,
and sweet pepperbush. The dominant herbaceous plants observed included netted
chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), false -nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) and giant
cane.
Wetland WD is a 31.6 -acre forested headwater wetland located in the southern
portion of the Site south of the railroad tracks. Wetland WD drains south off of
11

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
the Site towards Reedy Branch. The wetland was dry at the time of observation;
but hydric soil indicators, water stained leaves, and hummocks around trees and
root wads indicate water ponds to a depth of 3-6" throughout the interior of the
wetland. The sparse understory indicates that the inundation is long term, likely
lasting through the dormant season. Stream SA begins in the southern portion of
WD, continuing south towards Gordon Road. The dominant trees/shrubs observed
at the wetland data form location were loblolly pine, swamp tupelo, red maple,
sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), and sweet
pepperbush. The dominant herbaceous plants observed included cinnamon fern
and giant cane.
Wetland WE is a 2.74 -acre forested headwater wetland located in the central
portion of the Site just north of the railroad tracks. Wetland WE drains south off
of the Site towards Reedy Branch which eventually discharges into the Neuse
River. WE appears to have historically been contiguous with wetland WD, but the
railroad tracks now separate the two wetlands. A large culvert underneath the
railroad connects the two wetlands hydrologically. However, water appears to
pond deeper in wetland WE than in wetland WD. Similar to the other wetlands,
WE was dry at the time of observation. However, it appears that much of the
depressional areas within the wetland are inundated for much of the year.
Hummocks, heavily buttressed trees, and moss trim lines around trees and root
wads indicate water ponds to a depth of 2' through the wetland. The dominant
trees/shrubs observed in wetland WE were swamp tupelo, loblolly pine,
sweetgum, and red maple. Much of the wetland was devoid of herbaceous
vegetation due to the long periods and depth of inundation. Ferns and grasses (e.g.
netted chain fern, giant cane) were observed along the wetland margins.
Wetland WF is a 0.48 -acre forested headwater wetland located in the northeast
portion of the Site, north of wetland WB and south of Powhatan Road. Wetland
WF has been isolated from the rest of the wetlands on the Site, and does not
connect to any offsite waters. WF was confirmed to be isolated by the USACE
and NCDWR, and due to the size and the NCWAM classification of WF as a
headwater wetland, WF is not subject to regulation as an isolated wetland by
NCDWR. The dominant trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location
were red maple, tulip -poplar, sweetgum, and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
The dominant herbaceous plants observed included Japanese stilt -grass
(Microstegium vimineum) and false -nettle.
Wetland WG is a 2.18 -acre hardwood -dominated basin wetland located in the
western most portion of the Site on the north side of the railroad tracks. Wetland
WG has been historically isolated from any connection to offsite waters. WG is a
pocket of Rains soil within a larger upland soil complex, and may not ever have
had a natural connection to offsite waters. The basin wetland is surrounded by
agricultural fields that are currently fallow. The wetland was dry at the time of
observation, but appears to be depressional in nature and water likely ponds
within WG during the colder months and following large storm events.
Hummocks around trees and root wads indicate water ponds to a depth of 3-6"
E

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
through the interior of the wetland. WG was confirmed as isolated by the USACE
and NCDWR during the October 28, 2015 field review; due to the size (greater
than 1/3rd of an acre) and the NCWAM classification as a basin wetland, WG is
subject to regulation as an isolated wetland by NCDWR. The dominant
trees/shrubs observed at the wetland data form location were red maple, water oak
(Quercus nigra), sweetgum, swamp tupelo, sweet pepperbush, and sweetleaf. The
dominant herbaceous plants observed included slender woodoats and Virginian
chain fern (Woodwardia virginica).
Wetland WH is a 0.27 -acre hardwood -dominated basin wetland located in the
southeast portion of the Site, south of and adjacent to the railroad tracks. Wetland
WH generally slopes north towards the railroad tracks, but water becomes
impounded at a spoil pile berm that was likely created during the excavation of
the existing ditch next to the railroad tracks. Water from this wetland system is
further trapped by increasing slopes within the bed of the railroad ditches and no
connection to offsite waters was found. WH was confirmed to be an isolated basin
wetland by the USACE and NCDWR during the October 28, 2015 field review.
The wetland was dry at the time of observation; but soil cracking was observed
throughout the wetland indicating infrequent or short duration inundation.
Minimal buttressing and few to absent hummocks and root wads indicate WH is
likely inundated following large storm events only. While WH is a basin wetland,
due to its size (less than 1/3 rd of an acre), WH is not subject to regulation as an
isolated wetland by NCDWR. The dominant trees/shrubs observed at the wetland
data form location were loblolly pine, red maple, black highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium fuscatum), sweet bay, and sweetleaf. The dominant herbaceous plants
observed included giant cane and netted chain fern.
Wetland WJ is a 1.38 -acre forested headwater wetland located along the
southernmost portion of the Site near Gordon Road and stream SA. Wetland WJ
drains south off of the Site via stream SA towards Reedy Branch. Hydric soil
indicators, water stained leaves, and hummocks around trees and root wads
indicate water regularly reaches depths of 3-6" throughout the interior of the
wetland, likely in association with flooding in stream SA. The sparse understory
indicates that the inundation is long term, likely lasting through the dormant
season. Stream SA flows along the western boundary of WJ before turning and
flowing through the interior of the wetland. The dominant trees/shrubs observed
at the wetland data form location were sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
swamp tupelo, red maple, sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), red chokeberry
(Aronia arbutifolia), and sweet pepperbush. The dominant herbaceous plants
observed included cinnamon fern and giant cane.
2

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
1.3.4 North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM)
In order to evaluate the level of function for the wetland systems within the Site,
the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) (Version 4.1) was
utilized. This assessment methodology evaluates the following three major
wetland functions and associated sub -functions: 1) hydrology (surface storage and
retention and sub -surface storage and retention), 2) water quality (pathogen
change, particulate change, soluble change, physical change, and pollution
change), and 3) habitat (physical structure, landscape patch structure, and
vegetation composition).
Functional ratings are applied to each wetland assessment area in comparison to
reference conditions of one of the sixteen North Carolina general wetland types.
Field evaluations of representative wetland assessment areas within each of the
eight delineated wetlands were conducted on September 15 and November 11,
2015. Data collected during this site evaluation, as well as the extensive data
collected during the wetland delineation efforts September 9-11 and November
11, 2015, was utilized as part of the NCWAM evaluation.
The following table summarizes the results of the NCWAM analysis for the eight
wetland areas evaluated in the Site. NCWAM data forms and a map showing the
location of the representative wetland assessment areas is included in Appendix I.
7

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Table 1. Summary of NCWAM Results
Wetland
Community
NCWAM
Man-made
Function Rating
Overall
ID
Type
Reference
Alteration/
Summary
Wetland
Wetland
Disturbance
Rating
Type
Mixed
Hydrology - High
WA
Hardwood
Headwater
No
Water Qual.-High
High
Forest
Forest
Habitat - High
Mixed
Hydrology - High
WB
Hardwood
Headwater
No
Water Qual.-High
High
Forest
Forest
Habitat - High
Mixed
Hydrology - High
WD
Hardwood
Headwater
No
Water Qual.-High
High
Forest
Forest
Habitat - High
Mixed
Hydrology - High
WE
Hardwood
Headwater
No
Water Qual.-High
High
Forest
Forest
Habitat - High
Mixed
Hydrology - High
WE
Hardwood
Headwater
No
Water Qual.-High
High
Forest
Forest
Habitat - Medium
Mixed
Hydrology - High
WG
Hardwood
Basin
yes
Water Qual.-High
High
Forest
Wetland
Habitat - Medium
Mixed
Hydrology- Low
WH
Hardwood
Basin
yes
Water Qual.-Low
Low
Forest
Wetland
Habitat - Low
Mixed
Hydrology - High
WJ
Hardwood
Headwater
No
Water Qual.-High
High
Forest
Forest
Habitat - High

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
In summary, the two wetland types observed within the Site were headwater
forest (wetlands WA, WB, WD, WE, WF, and WJ) and basin wetlands (WG and
WH). The headwater forest wetlands within the Site have a "High" overall
wetland rating due to their large size, connectivity, and hydrologic function. Basin
wetland WG has a "High" rating due to the overall size an minimal disturbance to
the wetland interior, while basin wetland WH has a "Low" overall wetland rating
due to its small size, lack of connectivity, and historic disturbance. It exists
primarily because of a man-made berm that impounds overland flow.
1.3.5 North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM)
In order to evaluate the level of function for the stream feature within the Site, the
North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCWAM) (Version 2) was utilized.
This assessment methodology evaluates the following three major stream
functions and associated sub -functions: 1) hydrology (baseflow, floodflow,
floodplain access and function, and channel stability), 2) water quality (baseflow,
pollutant filtration and thermoregulation, stressors, and aquatic life), and 3)
habitat (in -stream and stream -side habitat, and channel substrate and stability).
Functional ratings are applied to the stream assessment area in comparison to
reference conditions identified for each of the North Carolina stream categories.
In summary, the stream observed within the Site was found to be a high quality,
size two coastal stream with perennial flow. Field evaluation of the stream
assessment area was conducted on November 11, 2015. The stream is an unnamed
tributary to Reedy Branch, and is located south of the NC/Norfolk Southern
railroad. The stream flows south towards Gordon Road for 1,224 linear feet
within the Site. Hydrology, water quality, and habitat functional classes all rated
as "High", resulting in an overall assessment score of "High" for the stream. The
NCSAM data form documenting the stream assessment is included in Appendix
I.
E

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
1.3.6 Soils
Based on information obtained in the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey for
Johnston County, the soils within the project Site are composed of ten soil series.
Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of each soil series in the project area.
Soils within the project Site are well drained (Appling-Marlboro, Marlboro,
Marlboro -Cecil, Norfolk, and Varina soil series), moderately well drained
(Goldsboro soil series), or poorly drained mineral (Rains and Toisnot soil series)
soils.
Table 2. Soils within the project Site
Soil Series Name
Map
Symbol
Drainage
Class
Percentage
of Site
Hydric
Status
Appling-Marlboro complex (1-6% slopes)
AmB
Well drained
1.3%
Non -Hydric
Goldsboro sandy loam (0-2% slopes)
GoA
Moderately well drained
2.3%
Hydric*
Marlboro sandy loam (2-8% slopes)
MaB
Well drained
2.0%
Non -Hydric
Marlboro -Cecil complex (2-8% slopes)
McB
Well drained
0.0%
Non -Hydric
Norfolk loamy sand (0-2% slopes)
NoA
Well drained
20.0%
Hydric*
Norfolk loamy sand (2-6% slopes)
NoB
Well drained
7.1%
Hydric*
Rains sandy loam (0-2% slopes)
Ra
Poorly drained
45.9%
Hydric
Toisnot loam (0-2% slopes)
Tn
Poorly drained
5.4%
Hydric
Varina loamy sand (0-2% slopes)
VrA
Well drained
15.4%
Non -Hydric
Varina loamy sand (2-6% slopes)
VrB
Well drained
0.7%
Non -Hydric
*- soils which are primarily non -hydric, but which may contain hydric inclusions
The soils underlying the forested wetland systems on the Site are Rains sandy
loam and Toisnot loam. The adjacent agricultural fields are underlain primarily by
Norfolk and Varina sandy loam soils with smaller pockets of Appling-Marlboro
complex soils, Marlboro sandy loam, and Goldsboro sandy loam.
1.3.7 Vegetation
The 296 -acre Site is a mix of agricultural landscape (approximately 56% of the
Site) consisting of corn and fallow fields and large areas of undeveloped forested
lands. The forested tracts consist of headwater wetland and basin wetland systems
and comprise approximately 44% of Site. Approximately 9.9% of the Site was not
delineated as part of this project, consisting of 29.3 acres in the southwestern
corner of the Site. This forested area is a portion of the Young Tract, and the area
not delineated will not be impacted by the proposed project.
10

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Brief descriptions of the forested communities, as well as common species
observed in each community type, are provided below.
Headwater Forest
Within the headwater forest community, the canopy was dominated by swamp
tupelo (Nyssa biflora), tulip -poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Common understory species observed
included ti -ti (Cyrilla racemiflora), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), and black highbush blueberry (Vaccinium fuscatum).
Common species observed in the herbaceous layer typically included slender
woodoats (Chasmanthium laxum), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), netted
chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), false -nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), cinnamon
fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum), and Japanese stilt -grass (Microstegium
vimineum).
Hydrology of the headwater forests are primarily driven by groundwater seepage
and diffuse surface flows. Although many of these wetland areas were dry at the
time of observation, it appears that much of the depressional areas within the
wetland are inundated throughout the dormant season and after significant storm
events. As discussed in Section 1.3.4, NCWAM rates these areas as having high
hydrologic, water quality, and habitat function.
Basin Wetland
The dominant trees/shrubs observed in the basin wetlands on the Site included red
maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), swamp tupelo (Nyssa b flora), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
and sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria). The dominant herbaceous plants observed
included slender woodoats (Chasmanthium laxum) and Virginian chain fern
(Woodwardia virginica).
The two basin wetlands are surrounded by agricultural fields or other manmade
disturbances, and they have no connection to offsite waters. The basin wetlands
on the Site are typically seasonally saturated or intermittently to seasonally
inundated by a high water table. The wetlands were dry at the time of observation,
but both wetlands are likely inundated during the colder months and following
large storm events. The primary source of hydrology for these systems is a high
water table resulting from precipitation.
11

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
1.3.8 CAMA Regulated Areas
The project Site is located in Johnston County and is therefore not subject to
regulation by the NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) under the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
1.3.9 Protected Species and Habitat
As of December 27, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists four federally
endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) known to
occur in Johnston County, including red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Bald eagle is
also known to occur in Johnston County and is protected by the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGPA). A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database records (updated October 2015) indicates no known
occurrences of any of the aforementioned species are present within a one -mile
radius of the Site.
As part of the initial agency scoping process for this project, the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the USFWS were contacted regarding
potential impacts to protected species as a result of the proposed project
(Appendix F). NCWRC expressed concern (Scoping Letter Comments dated
November 19, 2015) that while the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) is not listed by the USFWS as known to occur in Johnston
County, the forested community within the Site could potentially support northern
long-eared bat populations. Since the USFWS did not specifically comment on
northern long-eared bat (Scoping Letter Comments dated November 13, 2015),
and since no known roost trees or occurrences of northern long-eared bat are
recorded for Johnston County or within one mile of the project area, it is unlikely
that the proposed will have any effect on northern long-eared bat.
Habitat evaluations were conducted within the forested portions of the property
for red -cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat in September and
November 2015. The dense canopy and understory found within these forested
headwater wetland communities and the large number of hardwoods precludes
these areas from providing suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the red -
cockaded woodpecker. In addition, the NCNHP database (updated October 2015)
has no records, historical or current, of red -cockaded woodpecker individuals or
cavity trees within one mile of the proposed project. Based upon this information,
it has been determined that the proposed project will have "no effect" on the red -
cockaded woodpecker.
The single perennial stream feature identified within the Site is a small, low
velocity coastal plain stream system that has been historically modified and
12

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
straightened to flow along the perimeter of an agricultural field. A large portion of
the headwater wetland system that supports the stream has been historically
managed for silviculture, and the system was clear-cut most recently in 2014. The
stream flows south towards Gordon Road, where it crosses beneath the road via a
24" concrete culvert. It is unlikely that the stream would support dwarf
wedgemussel or Tar River spinymussel based on the hydrologic conditions and
riparian disturbance observed within the Site.
Additionally, a review of NCNHP records, updated October 2015, indicates no
known current dwarf wedgemussel occurrences within approximately 6.0 river
miles of the study area. The nearest known current population is in Swift Creek.
The stream is an Unnamed Tributary to Reedy Branch, and Reedy Branch is
impounded to create a manmade pond between the Site and Swift Creek. NCNHP
records, updated October 2015, indicate the no known current Tar River
spinymussel occurrences within 95 river miles. Due to the lack of known
occurrences in or near the project boundary and the hydrologic conditions and
riparian disturbance found within the stream system in the Site, it has been
determined that the proposed project will have "no effect" on the dwarf
wedgemussel or Tar River spinymussel.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac was identified on the project Site along the
forested edges adjacent to the agricultural fields. Kimley-Horn biologists
conducted field surveys of the suitable habitat on September 30, 2015. No
individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed. In addition, the NCNHP database
has no records, historical or current, of Michaux's sumac within one mile of the
proposed project. The property parcels located south of the railroad tract along the
access road corridor from Gordon Road were not included as part of the project
study area at the time of the survey and were added to the study area following the
USFWS survey window. It is unlikely that these areas support Michaux's sumac
populations based on the findings of the pedestrian surveys on the balance of the
property. Based upon this information, it has been determined that the proposed
project will have "no effect" on Michaux's sumac.
Copies of the correspondence from the NCWRC and the USFWS are included in
Appendix F.
1.3.10 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWeb GIS Service was
reviewed on September 29, 2015 to determine if any historic resources occurred
in the vicinity of the study area. There were no historically significant sites or
structures within the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Correspondence from SHPO concurring with the no -effect determination is
included in Appendix F.
13

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
1.3.11 Regulated Floodplain
A search of the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System
(accessed December 3, 2015) indicated that the project site is not located within a
100 -year floodplain as designated by FEMA (FEMA Flood maps 37200167800J —
Panel No. 1678 and 3720167700J — Panel No. 1677 (effective December 2, 2005)
1.3.12 Zoning
The southern portion of the Site, the Wiggins -Young Tract, lies within the Town
of Clayton ETJ and was recently rezoned from residential estate (R -E) to
Industrial 1 (I-1). The three property parcels currently owned by Novo Nordisk
are zoned as Industrial 1 (I-1) by Johnston County. No zoning changes or
special/conditional use requests from Johnston County or the Town of Clayton
will be required for the proposed project.
14

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
2.0 Project Description
The project will consist of the construction of an approximately 900,000 square foot API
production facility. The facility will employee approximately 700 people when it begins
operations scheduled for 2020. In addition to access from Powhatan Road, a new
construction/truck access is proposed from Gordon Road, which will include a bridge over the
NC/Norfolk Southern railroad. The construction -related facilities will consist of the following:
• Warehouses for raw material, finished product, and consumable/cold storage;
• Fermentation buildings for raw product growth;
• Recovery buildings for separation of yeast and byproducts from API;
• Purification buildings for product refinement;
• Waste water tank, fire water tank, and cooling towers;
• Office space, gowning, and laboratory building;
• Central utility building housing boilers for clean steam, processed air and water;
• Electric substation;
• Gate houses at facility entrances;
• Waste water pre-treatment facility;
• Parking facilities; and
• Stormwater management basins.
The project will be constructed in two phases as shown on Figure 6, with construction of the
initial phase scheduled for March 2016 and the subsequent phase anticipated within the next 2-5
years with schedule being driven by market demand.
2.1 Land Ownership
The proposed Site location (north of the railroad) has been under Novo Nordisk
ownership since 1993 since the construction of their existing facility. The property to the
south of the railroad will be transferred to Novo Nordisk from Johnston County in early
2016 as part of the County's project incentives package.
The names and addresses of each adjacent property owner are included in Appendix H.
2.2 Construction Sequence
Phase 1 construction of the Novo Nordisk expansion "Bright Sky" project is planned to
commence in March 2016. The following is an executive summary level explanation of
the Phase 1 construction sequence expected for this project.
15

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Starting in March, 2016 Fluor and it's grading subcontractor plan to mobilize to the site
location for starting erosion control, site establishment, and clearing and grubbing
activities. This will require entry roads into the property, power and water feeds for
construction, and a trailer permit. Work will commence on non -wetland designated areas.
Following wetland disturbance permit approval, this work will expand to the entire site
layout. Clearing and grubbing will be followed by mass excavation, underground utility
installation, and permitting / preparations for full construction logistics setup. In the July
- September 2016 time frame, a significant number of office trailers, medical trailers, and
temporary warehousing and canteen buildings will need to be permitted and erected to
support the mobilization of construction personnel to the site. Concurrently, deep
foundation installation will begin. Before 2016 year end, steel erection and underground
building plumbing will have commenced on three of the six permanent buildings on site.
The total number of on-site personnel will remain below 400 for 2016.
2017 will see an increase in site personnel as structural construction activities commence
on the three remaining buildings, and progress to architectural, mechanical, electrical,
and piping (MEP) activities on the three buildings started in the previous year. Earthwork
activities will begin to slow, but site utility work, logistics support, and erosion control
maintenance will continue throughout the year. A tie-in to permanent sanitary sewer
piping should be planned during this year, with the local utilities starting to receive
sanitary waste from the site. Power consumption will increase during this year as well.
Total on site numbers will steadily rise approaching 1500 personnel by year end.
2018 will continue process work and more fine architectural fit -out. Three of the
buildings will be presented to the AHJ for permit to occupy. Construct activities will
peak during this year, with craft labor and management on site peaking around 3000
personnel. Early in the year, power and other permanent utilities will be brought on line
to support building completion and AHJ inspections. Mid year, site final improvements
will be in full swing to complete access requirements supporting the buildings.
2019 will represent a significant downturn in quantity of personnel on site as construction
nears total completion. All remaining buildings will be presented to the AHJ for
occupancy permits. Site logistics and erosion control maintenance measures will be
maintained during demobilization consistent with standards expected through
mobilization and project life cycle. Temporary services will be terminated and the facility
will be ready to function.
The scheduled construction for Phase 2 will be dependent on the market demand and
final FDA approvals but is anticipated to be initiated between 2018 and 2020.
A concrete batch plant will be onsite during construction for an estimated 9 months to 1.5
years. The construction of the proposed Facility will require approximately 80,000 cubic
yards of concrete and an onsite batch plant is the most cost effective means of supplying
concrete to the facility as opposed to trucking the material in from an off-site source.
16

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
2.3 Proposed Impacts
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be avoided and minimized to the extent practical.
However, permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas will be unavoidable. These
unavoidable permanent impacts within the Site and the Gordon Road Access will be
necessary for construction of the project, including total permanent impacts of 5.32 acres
to headwater forest wetlands, 2.18 acres of impact to basin wetlands, and 188 linear feet
of perennial stream. Each permanent impact area is depicted in the attached Permit
Drawings (Appendix G) and summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Wetland and Stream Impact Summary
Impact
Feature
Feature
Type of
Permanent
Mitigation
Site
ID
Type
Impact
Impact
Ratio
5
WA*
Headwater
Fill
0.11
2:1
Forest
6
WA**
Headwater
Fill
0.50
2:1
Forest
7
WA**
Headwater
Fill
0.02
2:1
Forest
3
WB*
Headwater
Fill
1.00
2:1
Forest
3
WB*
Headwater
Fill
0.10
2:1
Forest
8
WD**
Headwater
Fill
2.41
2:1
Forest
9
WD**
Headwater
Fill
0.012
2:1
Forest
2
WE*
Headwater
Fill
1.10
2:1
Forest
1
WG*
Basin
Fill
2.18
1:1
Wetland
10
WJ**
Headwater
Fill
0.09
2:1
Forest
9
SA**
Perennial
Culvert
188
2:1
Stream
* Construction impacts associated with the API production facility construction
** Construction impacts associated with the Gordon Road Access
17

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Mitigation ratios were determined by the USACE during field verification meeting on October
28 and December 4, 2015
Development of the Site requires the placement of fill material into wetlands for the construction
of product processing, recovery, purification and storage buildings, office/gowning and
laboratory buildings, and a fire water tank. Fill would also be required for construction of
internal access roads through the site connecting access onto Powhatan Road. Impacts are also
required for the development of a construction access road and associated gate house and staging
area for trucks allowing construction vehicles and trucks access to the site via Gordon Road.
On-site utility corridors (water, sewer, electricity) will be located within the limits of disturbance
as shown on Figure 6. No additional wetland impacts will occur as a result of utility
encroachments.
2.4 Stormwater Quality Controls
The proposed Novo Nordisk project is an industrial development with
approximately 71.5 acres of impervious development under final site
conditions. This would result in a total impervious area of 24.2%.
Itemized stormwater management design considerations for the project
include:
o The existing site is divided into 5 existing drainage areas
discharging from the site. Each basin contributes to a wetland
feature located on or off the site. The site primarily consists of
agricultural farmland in the non -wetland areas, and heavily
forested cover within the limits of the wetlands.
o The proposed project will consist of 8 buildings along with
associated utility corridor and facilities, new process wastewater
pre-treatment, pavement parking as well as a ring road around the
facility. The roadways will be 24' wide and with curb and gutter
construction. All stormwater will be collected within a stormwater
system and will be conveyed to four stormwater basins. The final
site conditions will have five distinct drainage areas, with post -
construction runoff being reduced to below pre -construction
conditions. All velocities (ditch, swale and outlet) during
construction and post construction will be non-erosive. Rip rap
aprons will be utilized at outlets to promote diffuse flow and
ensure non-erosive velocities. All stormwater basins are designed
to hold the 100 -year storm, post -construction. Post -construction
water quality will be achieved with the stormwater management
facilities shown on the plans. The site configuration produces only
7.51 lbs./year of nitrogen, which is below the threshold of 10
lbs./year, consequently the site is not required to provide for any
nitrogen removal.
18

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
o The project will be constructed in multiple phases. The first phase
of the project will be the construction of the Fermentation,
Recovery, Purification, Office and Gowning, Central Utility, and
Warehouse buildings. During construction temporary diversion
ditches will be utilized to divert stormwater to one of the
stormwater basins, or one of the three sediment traps on the site.
The entire limit of disturbance will be enclosed with silt fence in
addition to other soil erosion and sedimentation BMPs that will be
implemented. Phase Two of construction will occur in the future
when additions to the Fermentation, Recovery, Purification, and
Office Buildings will be constructed. The site will be stabilized
and completed at this point prior to construction beginning on
Phase 2.
o In addition to the construction of the permanent facility two
temporary sites will be constructed totaling approximately 50 -acres
that will be graded and stabilized to provide for equipment
laydown/storage, vehicle parking, construction offices and a
concrete batch plant. These areas will be graded to drain to
temporary sediment traps; silt fence will be installed around the
perimeter. The temporary site stabilization will include gravel
surfacing for the parking, trailer facilities, and laydown areas.
Upon completion of construction all temporary facilities will be
removed, including gravel surfacing, and the areas will be restored
to their original conditions.
3.0 The Public Need
Diabetes is the common term for several metabolic disorders in which the body no longer
produces insulin or uses the insulin it produces ineffectively. It is a common condition
characterized by abnormally high blood sugar levels. According to the International Diabetes
Federation, over 387 million people throughout the world have diabetes. It is estimated that by
2035, this number will have risen to 592 million people. The Work Health Organization
published the following information regarding the global diabetes epidemic:
• In 2014, the global prevalence of diabetes was estimated to be 9% among adults aged 18+
years.
• In 2012, an estimated 1.5 million deaths were directly caused by diabetes.
• More than 80% of diabetes deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries.
• Diabetes will be the 7th leading cause of death in 2030.
The key to the problem is insulin - as insulin's role in the body is to help glucose get into the
body cells where it is used to make energy. Diabetes is characterized by a partial or complete
19

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
lack of insulin production by the body. The most common forms of diabetes are type 1 diabetes
and type 2 diabetes. In both types of diabetes, people have little or no ability to move sugar out
of the blood stream and into the cells, where it is used as the body's primary fuel.
Type 2 diabetes accounts for 85-95 % of all diabetes, a number that may be even higher in low -
and middle-income countries.
As a global healthcare company with more than 90 years of innovation and leadership in diabetes
care medications and devices, this proposed project will expand the company's ability to produce
ingredients for current and future diabetes fighting products. Expanding the company's Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) production in the U.S. will supplement Novo Nordisk's current
API footprint in Denmark where production capacity is limited and current supply is unable to
meet the growing global demand. The expansions will help Novo Nordisk meet the increasing
worldwide demand for its diabetes medicines.
Novo Nordisk's existing fill/finish facility, located adjacent to the proposed expansion Site, is
the company's only U.S. facility that produces insulin and only the second insulin manufacturing
facility in North Carolina. The FDA approved facility operates 24/7 with 740 full-time
employees.
In addition to helping supply the growing global demand for insulin, the proposed project also
provides an economic benefit to the citizens of North Carolina and particularly Johnston County.
Novo Nordisk will invest $1.85 billion dollars constructing the new facility and plans on hiring
700 new employees over the next five years with an average annual salary of almost $70,000 in
manufacturing and engineering. It is anticipated that more than 2,000 workers will be employed
during the construction phase of the project.
The proposed expansion project, in combination with Novo Nordisk's existing manufacturing
facility, will help solidify the Town and Clayton and Johnston County as a leader in the bio -
manufacturing industry.
4.0 Project Purpose and Need
Novo Nordisk's purpose is to construct an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) production
facility in North Carolina. The project is necessary to expand the company's ability to grow
capacity for current and future diabetes fighting products. Expanding API production in the U.S.
will supplement Novo Nordisk's current API footprint in Denmark where production capacity is
limited and current supply is unable to meet the growing global demand for diabetes medicines.
20

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
5.0 Scope of Analysis:
The proposed work will benefit diabetes patients globally, as well as the State of North Carolina,
Johnston County, and the Town of Clayton by providing jobs and expanding the tax base through
clean industry. The primary financial beneficiary of the proposed project would be the Applicant,
Novo Nordisk, a privately owned corporation. The project will be primarily funded by Novo
Nordisk supplemented with State, County, and local incentives and grants in excess of $125
million. In addition to the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit, the only other federal
involvement in the proposed project is USFWS coordination. There are no practicable
alternatives to the proposed plan that would further avoid or minimize impacts to waters of the
U.S., and the project would not meet the Applicant's purpose and need but for the proposed
impacts. Additionally, the proposed project Site is bisected by jurisdictional wetlands and
impacts to these areas are essential to for the development of the project as whole.
21

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
6.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained
or Required and Pending
Novo Nordisk will obtain all permits and approvals required by federal, state, and local laws and
regulations prior to the construction and operation of the Facility.
6.1 State Water Quality (401) Certification
The NCDWR 401 certification application is submitted concurrent to this 404 permit
application. DWR will also review the proposed plans for compliance with Neuse River
Riparian Buffer rule diffuse stormwater flow requirements.
6.2 Stormwater Permit
A Stormwater Permit application and accompanying Stormwater Management Plan will
be submitted to the Johnston County Public Utility Department.
6.3 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit
As part of the 401 General Certification requirements, a Sediment and Erosion Control
Plan/Land Disturbance Permit will be required from the Johnston County Public Utility
Department, which includes a NPDES General Stormwater Permit.
6.4 Site Plan Approval
Site Plan Approval will be required by the Town of Clayton, which includes approval by
the Town's Planning Board. As part of the Site Plan review process, the Town will
required an NCDOT approved Traffic Impact Study for the proposed project to account
for construction traffic as well as operational traffic for the build out of the project. As
part of the Site Plan approval process, the Town of Clayton will hold a public meeting to
discuss the project.
6.5 Driveway Permit
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will require a Driveway
Permit for any new roads that connect to an existing NCDOT right of way (ROW). An
Encroachment Permit from NCDOT will be required if roadway improvements are
required for the project within existing NCDOT ROW.
22

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
7.0 Project Alternatives/Alternatives Considered
The purpose of the proposed development is the construction of an Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients (APIs) production facility in North Carolina. As part of the development process,
numerous on-site and off-site alternatives for both the Site and the Gordon Road Access were
evaluated. Based on the factors considered below, the Applicant (Novo Nordisk) has
demonstrated there are no off-site alternatives that would allow Novo Nordisk to avoid impacts
to waters of the U.S., and the least damaging practical alternative has been selected. The
Applicants (Novo Nordisk and NCDOT) have also demonstrated that alternative on-site plans
and roadway alternatives were considered, along with the environmental consequences of each
plan, and that the proposed Site and Gordon Road Access alternatives represent the minimum
amount of impact to aquatic resources while still meeting the project purpose.
In order to accommodate the construction traffic associated with the Phase 1 and 2 construction,
an access road off of Gordon Road would be required that will include a bridge crossing of the
NC/Norfolk Southern railroad.
7.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other
sites)
As a global healthcare company and industry leader in diabetes medications and devices,
the proposed project will expand the company's ability to provide capacity for current
and future diabetes fighting products. Expanding the company's Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients (API) production in the U.S. will supplement Novo Nordisk's current API
footprint in Denmark where production capacity is limited and current supply is unable to
meet the growing global demand. Construction of the proposed facility in the U.S. was
determined based upon strategic market evaluations with the U.S. being the company's
largest market with the greatest market growth potential. Other considerations included
the company's proven performance in delivery and quality compliance in the U.S., as
well as the economic advantages of having a larger part of Novo Nordisk manufacturing
being located in their primary market. In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is a
heavily regulatory industry and the company has a thorough understanding of the U.S.
regulatory environment. Because of the U. S.'s strictly regulated environment and
transparent governance, approval of diabetes manufacturing medications in the U.S.
provides an advantage in ensuring regulatory approvals in other global markets. The U.S.
also provides a highly educated available work force well suited for the biotechnology
manufacturing sector.
Within the U.S., Novo Nordisk targeted Massachusetts and North Carolina as potential
states to locate their proposed facility as both states are premier leaders in pharmaceutical
research and development. Novo Nordisk reached out the each state's Economic
Development Councils inquiring about the State's "shovel ready" sites that met the
following criteria:
23

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Site Requirements:
• Total Land Requirement: Approximately 80 buildable acres
• Road Access: Site must have immediate access to handle substantial truck and
vehicle traffic
• Topography: Preference given to "shovel ready" sites
• Zoning: Light industry/other applicable zoning for biotech manufacturing
• Environmental & Archeological Reports: Preliminary environmental and
archeological reports required for sites or at a minimal identification of potential
areas of concern
Utility Requirements:
• Electric: 5,000 kw with redundant feeds of power; operational 24 hours/7
days/week
• Natural Gas: natural gas desired/optional
• Water: requirement of approximately 438,000 gallons per day
• Waste Water: requirement of approximately 395,000 gallons treatment capacity
Following the evaluation of various sites by each State, three "finalists" sites that best
matched Novo Nordisk's development criteria were presented to Novo Nordisk for
consideration. Potential development alternatives, including the preferred (proposed)
alternative, are discussed below. The discussion includes an analysis of how well each
site meets designated selection criteria presented above. An evaluation of potential
environmental impacts is also presented for each alternative (other than the preferred
alternative) based upon the information that was provided for each site by the State. For
proprietary purposes, the name and specific location of the evaluated sites is not included
in this report but available for USACE review upon request.
7.1.1 No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative means that the Applicant's proposed Project would
not be implemented, and the resulting environmental effects from taking no action
would serve as a baseline from which to compare the effects of permitting the
proposed Project or an alternative to proceed.
Novo Nordisk has considered the no action (i.e. no permit required) alternative
which would not result in temporary or permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters
and wetlands. While this would be the least damaging alternative, it is not
practicable, and does not support the project purpose and need. Therefore, a no -
action alternative is not a viable option for the Applicant.
24

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
With regard to upland -only alternatives on other sites, the large land requirements
for the design and layout of a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility along with
the temporary and permanent roadway network required to supports construction
and operational traffic, would likely conflict with environmental constraints. The
piedmont and coastal plain physiographic regions of North Carolina are primarily
underlain with large areas of hydric soils, interspersed with low -moderate energy
streams, modified natural stream channels with expansive natural and altered non -
riparian and riparian wetland systems. As a result of these geographic locations, it
is unlikely that most sites, including the alternatives identified during the site
selection process, would support a large manufacturing development without any
impacts to jurisdictional areas.
On the proposed (Preferred) site, the no -action (no permit) alternative would
require the extensive use of retaining walls to limit the extent of fill and the
construction of bridges to access several portions of the site. This alternative
would also require significantly reducing the size of the production warehouses
and/or breaking the manufacturing operations into several separate buildings and
spreading them across the site. While it may be technically possible to construct
the development without direct impacts to the jurisdictional areas, to do so would
compromise the API manufacturing configuration and operational efficiency and
render the facility too inefficient to be a viable operation and long-term financial
investment, and fail to meet the stated purpose of the project.
7.1.2 Off -Site Alternatives
The alternative site search led by the Massachusetts and North Carolina Economic
Development Councils, initiated in 2015, identified one finalist site in
Massachusetts and two finalist sites North Carolina located in Wake and Johnston
counties that based upon preliminary evaluation had the potential of fulfilling the
essential site and utility requirements for a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.
Preliminary due diligence for each of the sites was conducted by Novo Nordisk.
In addition to the sites presented by the State's, Novo Nordisk also conducted an
evaluation of their existing 208 -acre Site adjacent to their existing manufacturing
facility in Clayton, North Carolina. Novo Nordisk evaluated all potential sites in
the region to determine which site has the most strategic opportunities for
development of their new facility, including environmental constraints. For
proprietary purposes, the name and specific location of the evaluated sites are not
included here, but rather are referred to by the locations and site names shown in
Appendix A. The three "finalist" alternative sites are discussed below:
Massachusetts Site:
• Alternative 1 — South Coast Life Science & Technology Park at Fall River
— This site is an approximately 95 -acre parcel is located in Fall River
adjacent to the Taunton River and the North Watuppa Pond. Access to the
site is off of Highway 24 via Innovation Way, which bisects the Site.
25

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Innovation Way divides the 95 -acre property into two separate parcels
(one 54 acres and the other 41 acres). Due to the pharmaceutical
manufacturing facility size and configuration requirements, constructing
the facility on two separate parcels, divided by a road, would render the
facility too inefficient to be viable. The site requires a minimal of 80
contiguous buildable acres to be operationally feasible and justify the
long-term financial investment. In addition, approximately 50% of the 54
acre parcel contained jurisdictional wetland areas that would be disturbed
by the development (Appendix A).
North Carolina Sites:
• Alternative 2 — Garner -Greenfield Park South, Wake County. This site
was determined to not be a practical alternative for numerous financial and
environmental reasons. A high tension power line traverses the
south/central portion of the site which would require significant expense
for Novo Nordisk to relocate the line. In addition, numerous intermittent
and perennial stream features subject to the Neuse River riparian buffer
rules traverse the site (see site features map in Appendix A). The grading
and filling of the Zone 1 and 2 streams buffers that would be required to
construct the manufacturing facility on this site is prohibited under the
buffer rules and would likely require an Individual Section 404/401 permit
for the associated stream impacts. This site also had the highest land cost
of any of the NC sites presented by the Economic Development Council
(Appendix A).
• Alternative 3- North Tech Business Park/Gordon Site, Johnston County.
This site was determined not to be a practical alternative due to the
significant amount and location of wetlands on the site, including a
perennial stream feature subject to the Neuse River riparian buffer rules
(see Stream/Wetland Determination report in Appendix A). Due to the
location of the wetlands throughout the entire property, development of a
pharmaceutical manufacturing facility would result in substantial wetland
and buffer impacts requiring an Individual Section 404/401 permit.
Although the wetlands/stream restrict the development of the property for
the manufacturing facility, the upland areas of this Site would provide
benefit to the Preferred Alternative site by providing construction parking
and staging areas for both Phase I and Phase II construction. Following the
off-site alternatives evaluation process and selection of the Preferred
Alternative by Novo Nordisk, Johnston County acquired this alternative
site property, and as part of the County's incentives package, will be
transferring the ownership of this site to Novo Nordisk. This property
transaction should be finalized in early 2016. This site has been
incorporated into the overall site plan for the Preferred Alternative and the
upland areas of the site will be utilized for construction parking and
staging to support the development of the manufacturing site and help
alleviate construction traffic on Powhatan Road (Appendix A).
26

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
7.1.3 Preferred (Practical) Alternative
The Preferred Alternative is the proposed Novo Nordisk alternative. The initial
208 -acre site, located adjacent to Novo Nordisk's existing pharmaceutical
manufacturing facility, has been under Novo Nordisk ownership since 1993. This
site is more than sufficient to meet the minimal size requirements of the
manufacturing facility. This original site, combined with the developable area of
the North Tech Business Park/Gordon Site transferred to Novo Nordisk from
Johnston County, makes the combined Preferred Alternative site approximately
296 acres in size.
The majority project site is managed for agriculture with the balance of the site
forested headwater and hardwood flat wetlands. The proposed project is
compatible with the current land uses including the existing Novo Nordisk
manufacturing facility located across Powhatan Road, as well as several
additional pharmaceutical facilities located in close proximity of the site. The
proposed site is zoned Industrial 1 (I-1) by Johnston County and no rezoning of
the property will be required.
Jurisdictional and non -jurisdictional wetlands as well as a stream are located
within the project area. Although impacts to some of these areas are unavoidable,
the location of the majority of the jurisdictional wetlands along the eastern
boundary of the site, allowed for siting the project elements and facilities in areas
where impacts could be minimized or avoided entirely. Impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable.
Jurisdictional impacts are all a result of the construction of the manufacturing
facility assemblage, the Gordon Road Access (required to accommodate peak
construction traffic), as well as minor road crossing of a jurisdictional stream for
construction access and staging.
The Preferred Alternative has an ideal location for the sharing of support staff and
materials associated with the existing Novo Nordisk manufacturing facility. The
Preferred Alternative also has an ideal location with respect to road access. The
site has frontage along Powhatan Road, which connects to Highway 70 Business
approximately 3,500 feet from the proposed plant entrance. An additional
proposed access from Gordon Road would provide additional connection to
Highway 70 Business south of the Site, from Highway 70 Business the project
Site is approximately 10.5 miles from Interstate 40. The Preferred Alternative is a
relatively flat site, with elevations ranging from 280 to 310 feet MSL, minimizing
the required earthwork and thus providing a more "shovel ready" site.
Another significant consideration in the selection of this site as the Preferred
Alternative is its proximity to the Johnston County Workforce Development
Center. This center is a 30,000 square foot state-of-the-art education and technical
skills training center with a focus on life sciences programming, business training,
and workforce development in biotechnology and other sciences. The center
27

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
provides training in a number of biotechnology fields that will assist in the
training and development of the roughly 700 employees workforce required to
support the proposed manufacturing facility including:
• Associate in Applied Science in Bioprocess Technology
• Associate in Science in Biology & Biology Education
• Associate in Applied Science in Pharmacy Technology
Novo Nordisk has a longstanding partnership with the Workforce Development
Center and currently has a representative that serves on the Center's Board of
Directors. Access and utilization of this unique training facility is a tremendous
benefit for the recruitment and training of existing and future skilled Novo
Nordisk staff. The educational opportunities provided by the Development
Center, coupled with the housing, transportation, and cultural and entertainment
venues offered by the Town of Clayton will assist Novo Nordisk in their
recruiting efforts for the roughly 700 employees that will be hired for the new
manufacturing facility when it begins operations scheduled for 2020.
In addition to the incentives offered by the NC Department of Commerce for
locating the manufacturing facility within the State, Johnston County also offered
an additional $2.2 million incentive for purchasing and transferring the
approximately 98 -acre Gordon Site (located adjacent to the preferred alternative)
to Novo Nordisk while the Town of Clayton also agreed to provide water and
sewer service to the site. The secured incentives, along with Novo Nordisk's
excellent working relationship/history with Johnston County and the Town of
Clayton via their existing manufacturing facility, helped solidify their selection of
the Preferred Alternative site.
The Preferred Alternative (including the Site and Gordon Road Access) will result
in 5.32 acres of permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, 2.18 acres of
permanent impacts to non jurisdictional isolated basin wetlands, 188 linear feet of
jurisdictional perennial stream channel, and 11,570 square feet of impact to Zone
1 of the riparian buffer and 7,756 square feet to Zone 2 buffer. No temporary
impacts to jurisdictional features are proposed.
7.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.)
The Applicant has made an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams
on the project site while still allowing the development to remain operationally functional
and efficient as well as financially feasible. As previously mentioned in Section 2.0 -
Project Description, the proposed manufacturing facility has several components but the
basic project involves approximately 900,000 square feet of API production facilities,
warehouses for raw materials, finished products, and consumables, and office and
laboratory buildings. In order for the manufacturing facility to be operationally efficient,
these structural components need to be in close proximity for product production
sequencing as well as truck deliveries and pickup. As a result, the on-site alternatives

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
must be designed to accommodate the physical layout of the facility that will make it
operationally efficient and functional. In an effort to avoid impacts to wetlands, the site
layout has been designed to be as far west on the site as feasible to limit impacts to
wetlands primarily to the edges of the systems while leaving the majority of the wetland
areas undisturbed and not fragmented. The project will be constructed in two phases with
construction of the initial phase scheduled for March 2016 and the subsequent phase
anticipated within the next 2-5 years with schedule being driven by market demand and
final FDA approval. In order to maximize the project design and minimize overall project
impacts, both phases of the project have been included in this permit authorization
requests so that the project impacts can be evaluated cumulatively.
In addition, a new construction/truck access is proposed off of Gordon Road which will
include a bridge over the NC/Norfolk Southern railroad. This access road will convey
peak construction traffic as well as operational traffic to alleviate traffic congestion on
Powhatan Road as well as providing a secondary access for emergency vehicles. Various
Gordon Road Access alternatives were considered to provide connection from Gordon
Road to the bridge while minimizing impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams and
riparian buffers, as well as minimizing direct and indirect impacts to New Bethel Church.
The construction parking and staging area has been situated entirely on uplands. All of
the referenced project components are shown on Figure 6.
7.2.1 On -Site Alternatives
The development of the site plan layout was an iterative process based upon
numerous variables, but also including purposeful avoidance and minimization of
impacts to jurisdictional areas to the maximum extent possible.
Initial site planning was conducted with consideration to preliminary discussions with
the regulatory and resource agencies to identify critical areas and design constraints.
Therefore, the initial site layout incorporated design criteria intended to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts from the beginning of the design process. The
design criteria included the following:
• Approximately 900,000 square feet of API production
• Parking to allow for full-time employees, augmentation staffing, and visitors
(approximately 1,000)
• Site access off of Powhatan Road to align with existing Novo Nordisk
manufacturing facility driveway (per NCDOT)
• Inclusion of both Phase I and Phase II design
• Peak construction traffic access off of Gordon Road; note: an additional
access other than just Powhatan Road is also required for emergency response
vehicles
• Utilizing roadway rights -of -ways for utility corridors
• Stormwater management basins located in upland areas
• Allowances for construction personnel vehicle parking, staging areas and a
temporary concrete batch plant.
29

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
The following table and discussion compares the jurisdictional impacts of the site
alternatives considered in the site design process. The site plan for each alternative,
including the Preferred Alternative, is shown in Appendix B. A separate evaluation
of the various Gordon Road Access alternatives considered is also included. These
alternative evaluations are discussed separately since all of the access road
alternatives tie into the bridge crossing of the railroad and do not influence the site
alternative impacts. Any impacts associated with the Gordon Road Access north of
the railroad and referred to in the Site Plan alternatives discussion
30

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Table 4. On -Site Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1: This alternative layout maximizes the square footage API production
to 1,103,810 square feet and maximizes parking by allowing one contiguous parking
pad on the southern portion of the facility. The construction cost of the Gordon Road
Access is minimized by reducing the length of the road into the Site. The access road
has a "T" intersection leading into the Phase I production facilities as well as the
wastewater treatment facility. The guardhouse is located at this roadway intersection
within an adjacent wetland area. Jurisdictional impacts associated with Alternative 1
include 5.95 acres of jurisdictional wetland and 2.18 acres of isolated, non -
jurisdictional wetland. An additional 0.47 acres of wetland impact will result from the
Gordon Road Access corridor north of the railroad on this alternative. This alternative
is practical from a manufacturing logistics standpoint; however, further wetland
avoidance measures were employed for the Preferred Alternative reducing the
jurisdictional wetland impacts by 3.0 acres.
31
USACE
NCDWR
Gordon Road
Neuse River
Jurisdictional
Jurisdictional
Jurisdictional
Access Wetland
Riparian
Alternative
Wetlands
Isolated
Stream
Impacts North
Buffer Impact
Impact
Wetlands
Impact 00
of Railroad
(sq. feet)
(acres)
Impact (acres)
Preferred
Zone 1- none
2.95
2.18
None
Alternative
Zone 2- none
Zone 1- none
Alternative 1
5.95
2.18
0.47
None
Zone 2- none
Zone 1- none
Alternative 2
4.16
2.18
0.37
None
Zone 2- none
Zone 1- none
Alternative 3
4.16
2.18
5.07
None
Zone 2- none
Zone 1- none
Alternative 4
0.72
2.18
0.37
None
Zone 2- none
Zone 1- none
Alternative 5
1.20
0.28
0.37
None
Zone 2- none
Zone 1- none
Alternative 6
0.72
0
0.37
None
Zone 2- none
Alternative 1: This alternative layout maximizes the square footage API production
to 1,103,810 square feet and maximizes parking by allowing one contiguous parking
pad on the southern portion of the facility. The construction cost of the Gordon Road
Access is minimized by reducing the length of the road into the Site. The access road
has a "T" intersection leading into the Phase I production facilities as well as the
wastewater treatment facility. The guardhouse is located at this roadway intersection
within an adjacent wetland area. Jurisdictional impacts associated with Alternative 1
include 5.95 acres of jurisdictional wetland and 2.18 acres of isolated, non -
jurisdictional wetland. An additional 0.47 acres of wetland impact will result from the
Gordon Road Access corridor north of the railroad on this alternative. This alternative
is practical from a manufacturing logistics standpoint; however, further wetland
avoidance measures were employed for the Preferred Alternative reducing the
jurisdictional wetland impacts by 3.0 acres.
31

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Alternative 2: This alternative minimizes wetland impacts by reducing the square
footage API production to 1,076,690 square feet (primary reduction in the Phase 2
Warehouse building) allowing the Sample Storage warehouse to shift outside of the
wetland footprint. This alternative also minimizes wetland impacts by breaking the
parking lot on the southern portion of the facility into two separate parking pads on
either side of the wetland area. This alternative extends the Gordon Road Access
further into site allowing the Guard House to be shifted outside of the wetland, and
uses a headwall along the east side of the road to minimize wetland impacts to WA.
By extending the road further into the site, it also allows the road into the wastewater
treatment facility to utilize an existing farm road crossing further minimizing wetland
impacts. In addition, this alternative optimizes traffic flow into the site by allowing
traffic entering the site from the Gordon Road Access to go straight at the guardhouse
and not have to make a left then right hand turn to access the facility. However,
allowing this optimized traffic flow increases the wetland impacts associated with the
roadway. Jurisdictional impacts associated with Alternative 2 include 4.16 acres of
jurisdictional wetland and 2.18 acres of isolated, non -jurisdictional wetland. An
additional 0.37 acres of wetland impact will result from the Gordon Road Access
corridor north of the railroad on this alternative. This alternative is practical from a
manufacturing logistics standpoint; however, further wetland avoidance measures
were employed for the Preferred Alternative reducing the jurisdictional wetland
impacts by 1.87 acres.
Alternative 3: This alternative is the same as Alternative 2 within the manufacturing
facility itself, but reduces the costs associated with the Gordon Road Access by
utilizing earthen fill slopes along the road corridor north of the railroad crossing
instead of the headwalls used in Alternative 2. Square footage of API production
remains at 1,076,670 square feet and still allows the Sample Storage warehouse to
shift outside of the wetland footprint. This alternative again minimizes wetland
impacts by breaking the parking lot on the southern portion of the facility into two
separate parking pads on either side of the wetland area. Jurisdictional impacts
associated with Alternative 3 include 4.16 acres of jurisdictional wetland and 2.18
acres of isolated, non jurisdictional wetland. An additional 5.07 acres of wetland
impact will result from the Gordon Road Access corridor north of the railroad on this
alternative. This alternative is practical from a manufacturing logistics standpoint;
however, further wetland avoidance measures were employed for the Preferred
Alternative reducing the jurisdictional wetland impacts by 1.87 acres.
Alternative 4: This alternative layout reduces the square footage API production
space to 797,285 square feet, reducing the Phase 2 warehouse and all the Phase 2
production facilities. This reduction results in minimizing wetland impacts by shifting
the site layout to the north and west. The interior site road along the south side of the
site curves to minimize the wetland encroachment while also minimizing wetland
impacts by breaking the parking lot on the southern portion of the facility into two
separate parking pads on either side of the wetland area. This alternative extends the
Gordon Road Access further into site allowing the Guard House to be shifted outside
of the wetland and further minimizes wetland encroachments by utilizing retaining
walls along the road. By extending the road further into the site, it also allows the
32

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
road into the wastewater treatment facility to utilize an existing farm road crossing
further minimizing wetland impacts. The access road is again in a "T" intersection
requiring turns into the Phase I facility. Jurisdictional impacts associated with
Alternative 4 include 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetland and 2.18 acres of isolated,
non -jurisdictional wetland. An additional 0.37 acres of wetland impact will result
from the Gordon Road Access corridor north of the railroad on this alternative.
Although Alternative 4 has 1.57 acres less wetland impact than the Preferred
Alternative, the compression of the site renders Phase 2 production facilities too small
to be operationally efficient and economically viable. In addition, the site
compression compromising internal road network routing making truck/people traffic
flow inefficient. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not a practical alternative and does not
meet the purpose and need of the project.
Alternative 5: This alternative layout also minimizes the square footage API
production footprint to 979,266 square feet, primarily from reducing the Phase 2
production facilities to the southwest of the site. The wetland impacts are minimized
by breaking the parking lot on the southern portion of the facility into two separate
parking pads on either side of the wetland area. This alternative extends the Gordon
Road Access further into site allowing the Guard House to be shifted outside of the
wetland and further minimizes wetland encroachments by utilizing retaining walls
along the road. By extending the road further into the site, it also allows the road into
the wastewater treatment facility to utilize an existing farm road crossing further
minimizing wetland impacts. Impacts to the isolated, non -jurisdictional wetland area
on the western portion of the site are significantly reduced by the square footage
reduction in the Phase 2 production areas. Jurisdictional impacts associated with
Alternative 5 include 1.20 acres of jurisdictional wetland and 0.28 acre of isolated,
non -jurisdictional wetland. An additional 0.37 acres of wetland impact will result
from the Gordon Road Access corridor north of the railroad. Although this
Alternative has 1.09 acres less jurisdictional wetland impact and 1.9 acre less
isolated, non -jurisdictional impact than the Preferred Alternative, the compression of
the site renders Phase 2 production facilities too small to be operationally efficient
and economically viable. In addition, the site compression compromising internal
road network routing making truck/people traffic flow inefficient. Therefore,
Alternative 5 is not a practical alternative and does not meet the purpose and need of
the project.
Alternative 6: This alternative layout minimizes the square footage of API production
to 809,560 square feet by eliminating all the Phase 2 production facilities and the
Phase 2 office /gowning/and laboratory facility from the southwest portion of the site
plan. This elimination avoids all impacts to the non -jurisdictional, isolated wetland in
this area. Wetland impacts are further minimized by compressing and shifting the
balance of the site layout to the north and west. The interior site road along the south
side of the site curves to minimize the wetland encroachment while minimizing
wetland impacts by breaking the parking lot on the southern portion of the facility
into two separate parking pads on either side of the wetland area. This alternative
extends the Gordon Road Access further into site allowing the Guard House to be
shifted outside of the wetland and further minimizes wetland encroachments by
33

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
utilizing retaining walls along the access road. By extending the road further into the
site, it also allows the road into the wastewater treatment facility to utilize an existing
farm road crossing further minimizing wetland impacts. Jurisdictional impacts
associated with Alternative 6 include 0.72 acre of jurisdictional wetland, and 0.37
acres of wetland impact resulting from the Gordon Road Access corridor north of the
railroad. This Alternative has the least amount of wetland impact (1.57 acres less
jurisdictional wetland impact and 2.18 acre less isolated, non jurisdictional wetland
impact) compared to the Preferred Alternative. However, the elimination of the Phase
2 production facilities and office/gowning/laboratory facility renders Phase 2
production facilities too small to be operationally efficient and economically viable.
This Alternative does not allow for any required Phase 2 production office or
laboratory space. The compression of the site to the north does not allow adequate
parking required for the Phase 2 production. In addition, the site compression
compromises the internal road network routing making truck/people traffic flow
inefficient. Therefore, Alternative 6 is not a practical alternative and does not meet
the purpose and need of the project.
34

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Table 5 compares the jurisdictional impacts of the Gordon Road Access alternatives considered
in the roadway design process. The functional roadway plans for each alternative, including the
Preferred Alternative, are shown in Appendix C. All Gordon Road Access alternatives utilize the
alignment shown on the Preferred Alternative Site Plan north of the railroad, which totals 0.52
acre of wetland impact. This impact is included in acreage calculations shown in Table 5.
The following alternatives were developed for the Gordon Road Access south of the railroad and
analyzed as a result of a Traffic Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates to evaluate the
proposed impacts of both operational/employee traffic as well as construction traffic on
Powhatan Road. The results of the traffic study showed that Powhatan Road could accommodate
the proposed additional employee traffic with turn lane improvements at the US 70/Powhatan
intersection; however, Powhatan Road could not accommodate both operational and construction
traffic (Phase 1 and Phase 2). A summary of the traffic study is included in Appendix D.
Table 5. Gordon Road Access Alternatives Considered
Alternative
USACE
NCDWR
Jurisdictional
Neuse River
Jurisdictional
Jurisdictional
Stream
Riparian
Wetlands
Isolated
Impact (LF)
Buffer Impact
Impact
Wetlands
(sq. feet)
(acres)
Impact (acres)
Alternative 1
0
0
0
Zone 1- none
Widen
Zone 2- none
Powhatan Rd.
Alternative 3
3.77
0
192
Zone 1- 12,789
Zone 2- 10,343
Alternative
3.20
0
40
Zone 1- 3,450
3A
Zone 2- 3,385
Alternative 3B
3.04
0
188
Zone 1- 11,570
Preferred Alt
Zone 2- 7,756
Alternative 4
4.10
0
0
Zone 1- none
Zone 2- none
Alternative 5
3.25
0
0
Zone 1- none
Mod
Zone 2- none
Note: Roadway impacts were based upon construction slope stakes plus 25 -feet
35

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Alternative 1 -Widen Powhatan Road: In order to accommodate the proposed traffic increase,
consideration was given to the widening of Powhatan Road from an existing 2 -lane facility to a
4 -lane facility from the existing/proposed Novo Nordisk driveway entrances onto Powhatan
Road down to the Highway 70 intersection. Widening of the road would also require an at -grade
widening of the existing NCRR/Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing on Powhatan Road. NCRR
indicated to NCDOT that they would not allow an improved at -grade rail crossing and would
only allow a bridged rail crossing for any road improvements. Because of the required elevation
of a bridged rail crossing (approximately 30 -feet), the bridge would extend past the proposed and
existing Novo Nordisk plant entrance making it not practical. NCDOT requires that the proposed
plant entrance align with the existing driveway entrance onto Powhatan Road. In addition, the
widening of Powhatan Road from Best Wood Drive to US 70 would impact numerous residences
and business with frontage along Powhatan Road. Even without the logistical constraints of the
railroad crossing and residential/business impacts, if Powhatan Road were widened to a 4 -lane
facility, the volume of the proposed operational and construction traffic would result in
significant traffic congestion at the Powhatan Road/US 70 intersection. Therefore, the widening
of Powhatan Road is not considered a practical alternative.
Alternative 3 Access: This conceptual alternative was developed by NCDOT in the early project
development. This alternative would re -align Gordon Road providing direct access into the Novo
Nordisk facility requiring the public to make a right/left turn to continue on Gordon Road. After
more detailed evaluation of the alternative, it was determined that this type of traffic pattern
could be confusing to local drivers and the construction access road could be mistaken as the
primary road requiring drivers to travel all the way into the Novo Nordisk facility to be
redirected at the guard house. NCDOT's final determination was a "T" intersection off Gordon
Road would be more efficient from a traffic routing standpoint and would be less confusing for
local travelers. In addition, other practical alternatives were evaluated that had less jurisdictional
impacts.
Alternative 3A Access: This alternative allowed for the "T" intersection at Gordon Road and
minimized wetland impacts (a 0.57 -acre reduction compared to Alternative 3). However, after
further review of this alternative including discussions with the Town of Clayton, concerns were
raised that vehicular and truck traffic on this road would create noise and headlight intrusion into
the neighborhood since deliveries would be occurring during late night hours. This alternative
was preferable over Alternatives 4 and 5 in that the intersection onto Gordon Road was not in
alignment with the entrances into the neighborhood; however, this alternative was not considered
practical because of the potential neighborhood disturbance.
Alternative 3B Access (Preferred Alternative): This alternative was developed to minimize
noise and lighting intrusion in the neighborhood and to allow for a "T" intersection at Gordon
Road. This alternative would also allow for access into both upland fields proposed for
construction personnel vehicle parking and construction staging and eliminate the need for a
temporary construction access road between the fields. This alternative was determined to be the
Preferred Alternative due to its distance/proximity from the existing neighborhood and more
efficient traffic flow with the "T" intersection. In addition, this alternative also has the least
amount of impact to jurisdictional features by its alignment through an upland area between two
jurisdictional wetlands.
36

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Alternative 4 Access: This conceptual alternative was developed by NCDOT in the early project
development. This alternative would minimize new driveway access onto Gordon Road by
aligning with the existing neighborhood driveway. While this alternative was practical from a
traffic flow pattern, it was determined not to be a practical alternative due to traffic, noise, and
lighting intrusion associated with the neighborhood. In addition, this alternative had the greatest
amount of impacts to jurisdictional features (1.07 acres more wetland impact than the Preferred
Alternative).
Alternative 5Mod Access: This alternative was evaluated to determine if it would minimize
jurisdictional impacts by utilizing the existing farm road that is also used as a driveway for New
Bethel Church and cemetery. Novo Nordisk does not have ownership of the property to the east
of the farm road, therefore the road would have to be re -aligned immediately to the west of the
existing farm road. The alternative was also aligned to avoid direct impacts and minimize
indirect impacts to the church and cemetery. Because of the length and height of the required
bridge crossing of the railroad, it was determined that this alternative would have indirect visual
impacts to the church as well as noise concerns. In addition, this alternative had 0.21 acres more
wetland impact than the Preferred Alternative; therefore this alternative was determined not to be
practical.
Table 6. Total Project Impacts (Preferred On -Site Alt and Gordon Road Alt)
37
USACE
NCDWR
Jurisdictional
Jurisdictional
Jurisdictional
Neuse River
Alternative
Wetlands
Isolated
Stream
Riparian
Impact
Wetlands
Impact (lf)
Buffer Impact
(acres)
Impact (acres)
(sq. feet)
Overall
Zone 1- 11,570
Preferred
5.32
2.18
188
Alternative
Zone 2- 7,756
37

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
7.2.2 On -Site Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts
In addition to modifying the general layout of the site, the Applicant has also
implemented the following measures to minimize unavoidable impacts.
The initial site layout was designed to have the primary footprint of the Phase
1 and Phase 2 facilities and parking contained to the western most portion of
the site in order to avoid fragmentation of the large continuous wetland
systems located immediately east of the proposed facility. The intent was to
avoid the jurisdictional wetlands to the greatest extent practical and if impacts
were required, limited them to the periphery of the wetlands.
The site was designed to reduce impacts to wetlands as much as possible. The
construction of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 facilities and Gordon Road Access
would result in the unavoidable loss of 5.32 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
(2.285 acres for the facility and 3.036 acres for the road access), 2.18 acres of
isolated basin wetlands (facility), 188 LF of jurisdictional stream (Gordon
Road Access), and 19,326 square feet of riparian buffer (Gordon Road
Access). A total of 73.7 acres of the on-site wetlands have been avoided.
The initial site proposal included a contiguous parking pad along the southern
portion of the facility between the office area and the railroad right-of-way. In
an attempt to minimize wetland impacts, the parking lot was divided into two
separate pads on each side of the wetland. This minimization measure resulted
in reduced parking spaces but still met the Town of Clayton's parking space
requirements while minimizing wetland impacts.
• The entrance road into the facility from the Gordon Road Access bridge was
extended to allow the guard house to be relocated outside of the wetland area.
• Retaining walls are proposed along the access road into the facility to reduce
the fill slopes of the road and minimize the associated wetland impacts.
• Fill slopes for the Gordon Road Access south of the railroad crossing would
be minimized by utilizing 1:1 slopes.
• The access road to the proposed Waste Water Treatment facility was aligned
to utilize an existing farm road located between two wetland areas minimizing
wetland impacts.
• The Gordon Road Access was aligned to cross the western wetland area in an
upland break located between two wetland systems; the alignment will cross
the stream/buffer system as close to perpendicular as practicable.
7.3 Conclusion of Alternatives Analysis
The Applicants have provided information regarding the site selection process, and have
reviewed several sites in the project search area. This analysis demonstrates that there are

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
no off-site alternatives that would meet the project purpose and need and result in
reduced impacts to waters of the U.S. The Applicants have also addressed on-site
alternatives for the facility and for the Gordon Road Access, including a discussion of the
limitations to the site design process, such as grading, topography, traffic flow, etc.. The
evaluation has also addressed alternative site configurations and efforts make by the
Applicants to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands, and to attempt to locate
unavoidable impacts in areas that support the least aquatic functions. After reviewing the
alternatives and the efforts made to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic
environment, the proposed plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative.
39

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
8.0 Mitigation
Jurisdictional Wetlands
The project will result in 2.285 acres of permanent impact to jurisdictional forested
headwater wetlands, and 2.18 acres of permanent impact to isolated basin wetland
regulated by NCDWR. Permanent impacts will be associated with access roads to the
Site, the interior transportation network of the Site, and building foundations and aprons.
Kimley-Horn staff conducted a field evaluation of the wetlands identified within the Site
using NCWAM to evaluate wetland functions and recommend appropriate mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to wetlands. The method utilizes a qualitative assessment of
departure from reference condition for the evaluated wetland complex. In summary, the
two wetland types observed within the Site were headwater forest wetlands (WA, WB,
WD, WE, WF, and WJ) and basin wetlands (WG and WH). The headwater forest
wetlands within the Site have a "High" overall wetland rating due to their large size,
connectivity, and hydrologic function. Basin wetland WG has a "High" rating due to the
overall size an minimal disturbance to the wetland interior, while basin wetland WH has
a "Low" overall wetland rating due to its small size, lack of connectivity, and historic
disturbance (WH exists primarily because of a man-made berm that impounds overland
flow).
Jurisdictional Streams and Riparian Buffers
The project will result in permanent impact to the single perennial stream identified
within the study area (SA). Stream SA is approximately shown on the NRCS Soil Survey
for Johnston County, and during the December 4, 2015 field review, NCDWR confirmed
that SA is subject to Neuse River Basin riparian buffer rules.
Permanent stream and riparian buffer zone impacts will result from the construction of
the roadway crossing and fill slopes over SA for the proposed Gordon Road Access into
the Site. The proposed alignment will cross SA as close to perpendicular as practical to
minimize stream and buffer impacts, however the crossing will result in 188 linear feet of
stream impact and 19,326 square feet of riparian buffer impact (11,570 square feet in
Zone 1, and 7,756 square feet in Zone 2).
Kimley-Horn staff conducted a field evaluation of SA within the Site using NCSAM to
apply functional ratings to the stream assessment area in comparison to reference
conditions identified for each of the North Carolina stream categories. SA was found to
be a high quality, size two coastal stream with perennial flow. Field evaluation of the
stream assessment area was conducted on November 11, 2015. The stream is an unnamed
tributary to Reedy Branch, and flows south towards Gordon Road for 1,224 linear feet
within the Site, before entering a culvert beneath Gordon Road and continuing offsite.
Hydrology, water quality, and habitat functional classes all rated as "High", resulting in
an overall assessment score of "High" for the stream.
M

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
Since the quality and function of the forested headwater wetlands and the perennial
stream system on the Site are high, a mitigation ratio of 2:1 will be applied to offset
unavoidable impacts. Because the quality and function of the isolated basin wetlands is
low, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 will be applied to offset unavoidable impacts to these
features. Since the isolated wetlands do not connect to any offsite waters, non -riparian
wetland credits will be utilized for mitigation of impacts to the isolated wetlands.
NCDWR-required ratios of 3:1 for unavoidable impacts to Zone 1 and 1.5:1 for impacts
to Zone 2 of the protected riparian buffer of SA will be utilized. The total mitigation
proposed for the project is 376 stream mitigation credits, 50,221 square feet of riparian
buffer credits, 10.64 acres of riparian wetland mitigation credits, and 2.18 acres of non -
riparian wetland mitigation credits.
Novo Nordisk, working under an agreement with NCDOT, will be responsible for
mitigation associated with impacts resulting from construction of the Novo Nordisk
facility only. NCDOT will be responsible for the mitigation associated with impacts
limited to the Gordon Road Access only. NCDOT will secure mitigation through active
NCDOT-specific mitigation banks or by payment into the NCDMS ILF program, based
on available credits at the time NCDOT initiates construction on the access road. It is
anticipated that NCDOT will secure mitigation for 376 linear feet of stream mitigation
credits, 50,221 square feet of riparian buffer credits, and 6.07 acres of riparian wetland
mitigation credits,
Novo Nordisk proposes to mitigate for permanent impacts to jurisdictional and isolated
wetlands associated with the construction of the Novo Nordisk facility by purchasing
4.57 acres of riparian wetland mitigation credits and 2.18 acres of non -riparian wetland
mitigation credits from Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) banks that are
active in the Neuse River Basin (HUC 03020201). Due to the credit need for this project,
and the expected timeline for permit review, RES has provided documentation that based
on anticipated credit release schedules on the active banks in the watershed, they expect
to be able to provide the required mitigation credits. If the proposed credit release
schedule changes and the required credits are not available at the time of project
construction, Novo Nordisk will secure mitigation for the proposed impacts by payment
into the NCDMS ILF program. NCDMS has accepted Novo Nordisk's request for in -lieu
fee payment for up to 10 acres of wetland mitigation credits.
41

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
9.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines:
9.1 Factual determinations
9.1.1 Physical substrate
The Site is composed of primarily agricultural land interspersed with stands of
mixed hardwood forests. The majority of the forested areas of the Site are
jurisdictional or isolated wetland features that have been largely undisturbed by
past activities on the property. Approximately 188 linear feet of perennial stream
channel would be placed into a culvert for the construction of the access road into
the Site from Gordon Road. In this area, the existing substrate within the channel
would be replaced by the culvert bottom. The culvert would be placed below the
streambed if possible to allow upstream sediment to form a more natural channel
bed over time. The culvert will be sized appropriately to convey the 100 -year
storm without any adverse effects to upstream properties and ensuring the passage
of aquatic life. Fillslopes associated with the roadway corridor at the culvert inlet
and outlet would be revegetated and stabilized with riprap along the base of the
fill to prevent erosion.
Additionally, 5.32 acres of wetland would be filled to construct the Site and the
Gordon Road Access, primarily for the construction of roadway corridors and
building footprints and aprons. In these areas, unsuitable substrates would be
excavated prior to the placement of clean fill capable of providing suitable
compaction for the building foundations and road beds. In all areas where fill
would be placed, the existing elevation would be increased. Sedimentation and
erosion control measures would be utilized will limit the displacement of
sediment downstream.
9.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
The proposed project should have no appreciable effect on current, circulation, or
drainage patterns. The drainage pattern of the stream on the Site has been
historically altered through channelization/straightening associated with
agricultural activities, and the reach of stream that would be culverted is already
effectively straight. Construction of the access roadway across the stream would
use a culvert system sized appropriately to convey normal baseflow and
stormflows without impeding or impounding flow through the stream. The
roadway crossing through wetland WD would utilize multiple equalizer pipes to
ensure hydrologic connectivity between the wetland areas divided by the crossing
and protecting natural water circulation and fluctuations in the wetland system.
Impacts to the wetlands within the Site north of the railroad crossing will be
limited to the margins and outer edges of the wetlands and would to allow natural
circulation and fluctuation within the majority of the wetland system on the Site
to continue unimpeded.
42

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
The Site is situated within the approximate topographic high point within the
vicinity, and is the headwaters of three different watersheds. The Site drains east
towards Little Poplar Creek, south towards Reedy Branch, and north towards
Cooper Branch, so potential off-site flooding upstream of the filled areas should
not be a concern. The wetland impact is not substantial given the size of the
wetland systems present within the Site. The loss of floodwater retention capacity
of the wetlands would be offset by the installation of stormwater detention basins,
such that that the project would not result in a measurable decrease in overall
floodwater retention. In general, the discharge of stormwater from the site would
be regulated to prevent large spikes in volume following most rainfall events.
Large storms in excess of the 100 -year storm event may exceed the storage
capacity of the basins and result in increased flows downstream of the site. Water
chemistry may also be changed somewhat from existing levels. Additionally, the
increase in impermeable surfaces may result in increased temperatures in
stormwater runoff.
9.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity
The existing agricultural fields have led to the transport of excessive sediment
into the wetland areas and the stream channel on the Site. The project -specific
sedimentation and erosion control measures that will be utilized during
construction will minimize downstream sedimentation. The majority of turbidity
increases would likely result from the clearing and construction of upland areas.
Sediment loss would be minimized by the implementation of sediment and
erosion control measures. Once construction of the site is complete, the soils
would be stabilized, revegetated, and stormwater runoff would be directed to
detention and treatment basins. Accordingly, the effects of turbidity resulting
from the proposed undertaking are expected to be temporary and minor.
9.1.4 Contaminant availability
Historically, the site has supported agricultural uses, which included the
application of numerous herbicides and pesticides. Following construction of the
project, the use of these contaminants would be discontinued. Proposed uses for
the site would result in the potential discharge of some pollutants, including road
treatment for winter weather, oil products from automobile engines, and some
fertilizers for landscaping. In general, the level of potential contaminant
introduction to the aquatic systems is low. Contaminants would leave the site in
the initial runoff for up to a 100 -year storm event, where they would wash to the
stormwater detention basins. Additionally, only suitable earthen material
originating on-site, which should be free of toxic pollutants or contaminants,
would be used for construction of the permitted fills.
9.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects
The direct effects due to the placement of fill associated with the project would be
a total loss to the impacted aquatic ecosystem and its functions in the footprint of
the fill placement. The isolated basin wetland located within the Site would be
43

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
filled and would no longer be able to provide nutrient filtration, sediment
removal, or stormwater storage. Any aquatic habitat present within the wetland
area would be lost. The secondary short-term effects expected downstream would
primarily be limited to temporary discharges of sediment during construction.
Even with proper construction and maintenance, sediment control measures do
not eliminate all turbidity in receiving waters, though these effects should be
limited to the duration of site construction and maintenance of required sediment
and erosion control measures.
9.1.6 Proposed disposal site
No disposal sites are required by the proposed plans.
9.1.7 Cumulative effects
For the purposes of assessing cumulative effects that the proposed action may
have to the aquatic environment, it is reasonable to evaluate the effects within the
project boundaries and downstream of the project as it could affect the watershed.
The direct impact of the proposed construction includes the loss of 188 linear feet
of perennial stream channel, 19,326 square feet of riparian buffer, 5.32 acres of
jurisdictional wetland, and 2.18 acres of isolated non -riparian wetlands. The
impacts to these resources would result in a complete loss of function, including
water quality functions (nutrient sequestration, sediment filtration, etc.), habitat
for aquatic and terrestrial species, and hydrology (flood water attenuation,
groundwater recharge, etc.).
The Site is located in an area that is relatively rural, with a mix of industrial
development, low-density residential areas, and agricultural land uses. The Site is
located in the headwaters of the three drainage ways: Cooper Branch, Little
Poplar Creek, and Reedy Branch. Current stresses on these three systems come
from high sediment loads and nutrient inputs that come from agricultural land use
(resulting from the constant tilling of soils, and the addition of pesticides and
fertilizers), as well as development for commercial industrial and residential uses.
The potential cumulative effects on the aquatic environment generated by the
project would be both temporary and permanent. The temporary effects would
primarily be limited to the increased sediment load that result from site
disturbance. High sediment loads can cause changes to the channels capacity,
potential destabilization of the stream banks, and loss of aquatic habitat. The
potential for sediment discharges would last for the duration of site construction,
though the effects of the sediment may be long lasting. This effect can be
moderated by the proper installation and maintenance of erosion control
measures.
Stormwater discharge from the proposed project would not affect downstream
properties or the natural environment. All stormwater falling on the Site will be
collected within the stormwater system and conveyed to one of four stormwater
basins on the Site, all of which are designed to hold the 100 -year storm event
post -construction, The final Site conditions will result in post -construction runoff

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
rates below that of pre -construction conditions. All velocities (ditch, swale and
outlet) during construction and post -construction will be non-erosive. Rip rap
dissipater pads will be utilized at outlets to promote diffuse flow and ensure non-
erosive velocities.
The long-term cumulative effects would include the incremental loss of aquatic
function provided by the stream and wetlands on the site, including in -stream and
riparian habitat, sediment and nutrient filtration, stormwater retention, baseflow
maintenance, groundwater recharge, sediment transport, etc. The long-term
effects would also include increases in stormwater flowing off the site. Increased
stormwater can have a substantial effect on a stream system's stability and
functional integrity for miles downstream of a discharge. This effect can also
manifest itself over many years, and is often caused by numerous small changes
within a watershed. The proposed development plan includes the construction of
four stormwater detention basins, designed to capture up to the 100 -year storm
event within the contributing basin. These measures can substantially reduce the
effect of stormwater on downstream tributaries. As the watershed is still largely
rural, the cumulative effect of the proposed project and other similar projects is
still minimal. Proper implementation of sediment and erosion control measures
and stormwater management practices, as proposed by the current plans, is the
best way to minimize the cumulative impact of this type of development.
Overall, the anticipated effects of the proposed project would be minimal relative
to similar types of projects in the region, and taken alone, do not present a
significant or imminent threat to the stability and integrity of the aquatic
ecosystem within the watershed. The type of wetland and stream system that
would be impacted is not a particularly unique or high quality resource. By
implementing proposed best management practices, such as the retention of
stormwater and the implementation of sediment and erosion control measures, the
effects of the project could be somewhat reduced. The loss of stream and wetland
function would also be replaced by the proposed mitigation.
9.1.8 Secondary effects
The proposed project is designed to serve an existing and expanding need for
diabetes medication in the United States and the rest of the world. The project is
expected to provide an economic boost to the local community and state of North
Carolina, primarily as a result of tax revenues and job creation. Based on the type
and number of jobs created, the economic benefit is expected to go toward
meeting current job demand as well as contributing to a moderate regional
population growth.
Construction of the proposed project will require the extension of utilities as the
current Site has been historically used for agriculture and is not serviced by
utilities, however, the Site is surrounded by existing residential and industrial
development, so these utilities are present within a short distance of Site. The
Town of Clayton has committed to extending water and sewer services into the
Site, and Duke Energy will bring electrical service to the Site. When considering
these factors, it is evident that the proposed undertaking is best defined as the
45

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
secondary impact associated with the prior construction of industrial development
and infrastructure in this area of Johnston County, rather than the impetus for
future development. It is likely that adjacent land parcels that are currently farmed
or wooded may become available for development as a result of increased land
values, and because of the increased demand for commercial support sites and
services that traditionally follows the development of a large industrial facility. It
is also possible that additional impacts to the aquatic environment may be
requested for future developments in the area, most likely as a result of the
extension of utilities (i.e., water and sewer services). These effects may not be
realized in the near future, but because the proposed Site has several high ground
parcels currently used for agriculture nearby, in the longer term additional impacts
to streams and wetlands may result from future development.
If this project were not constructed, the reduction in rate of regional development
would only be short-term. The project is located within an industrial corridor
along US 70 Business and adjacent to existing industrial facilities, making it
prime real estate for further commercial or industrial development. The demand
for new commercial space is increasing in the vicinity of the project site in
response to encroaching suburban sprawl from Wake County into Johnston
County and the Clayton area to the northwest. The proposed project site is located
close to the US 70 Bypass, providing quick access to I-40, and the I-95 corridor is
located less than 10 miles to the southeast, so continued industrial and
commercial development is focused in this area of Johnston County. The Town of
Clayton has also zoned these areas specifically to encourage commercial to light
industrial development. If the current undertaking were abandoned, future
development proposals would soon follow.
Based on the factors discussed above, the cumulative effect of the proposed
undertaking does not pose a significant threat the integrity of the aquatic
environment. Additionally, the secondary impacts resulting from the proposed
plans are primarily limited to increased development pressure on neighboring,
undeveloped tracts of land. Based on this estimate, the overall secondary effects
on aquatic resources associated with this project are not more than minimal.
M

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
10.0 Public Interest Review
10.1 Public Interest Factors
10.1.1 Conservation
The proposed development does not include the permanent conservation of any
stream or wetland areas on site. Stream corridors within the project area are
subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .023 3), which requires
a 50 foot riparian protection zone around intermittent or perennial streams that are
approximately shown on either the most recent version of the soil survey map
prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture or the most recent version of the 1:24,000 scale (7.5
minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the USGS. The mitigation
payment to the NCDMS would also be used to restore and preserve stream
corridors and wetland areas elsewhere in the Neuse River Basin.
10.1.2 Economics
The proposed project will expand Novo Nordisk's ability to produce ingredients
for current and future diabetes fighting products. Expanding the company's
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) production in the U.S. will supplement
Novo Nordisk's current API footprint in Denmark where production capacity is
limited and current supply is unable to meet the growing global demand. The
expansions will help Novo Nordisk meet the increasing worldwide demand for its
diabetes medicines.
Novo Nordisk's existing fill/finish facility, located adjacent to the proposed
expansion Site, is the company's only U.S. facility that produces insulin and only
the second insulin manufacturing facility in North Carolina. The FDA approved
facility operates 24/7 with 740 full-time employees.
In addition to helping supply the growing global demand for insulin, the proposed
project also provides an economic benefit to the citizens of North Carolina and
particularly Johnston County. Novo Nordisk will invest $1.85 billion dollars
constructing the new facility and plans on hiring 700 new employees over the
next five years with an average annual salary of almost $70,000 in manufacturing
and engineering. It is anticipated that more than 2,000 workers will be employed
during the construction phase of the project.
The proposed expansion project, in combination with Novo Nordisk's existing
manufacturing facility, will help solidify the Town and Clayton and Johnston
County as a leader in the bio -manufacturing industry.
10.1.3 Aesthetics
The project will be located within the Town of Clayton ETJ and site plan approval
will be contingent upon proper landscaping and lighting plans being included as
part of the overall site layout. Additionally, Novo Nordisk places a strong
47

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
emphasis on campus -style design of their facilities, and the proposed Site layout
would include walking paths, landscaping, natural areas, recreational amenities,
and community -friendly design elements. Overall, the Site will not appear to be
an industrial manufacturing facility from the public roads around the property,
similar to the overall design aesthetic of the existing Novo Nordisk facility
northwest of the Site. As a result, industrial development by Novo Nordisk on this
Site would not cause disharmony in the aesthetics of the community or planned
future growth of the region.
10.1.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p))
The overall impact to the environment as a result of the construction would be
minimal. Temporary increases in sediment, construction noise, traffic levels, etc.,
would be expected during construction of the project. Long-term impacts to
wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife would primarily result from the loss of
existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat and by changes to the watershed, though
these effects would be somewhat offset by functions provided by stormwater
facilities and by the mitigation offered by the Applicant. The proposed plan also
avoids impacts to the majority of the stream, riparian areas, and wetlands located
on the site. Stormwater generated by the increases in impervious surfaces would
be retained on-site, preventing potential negative impacts to persons living or
owning land with the floodplain downstream of the project. Additionally, the
surrounding region is not occupied any particular minority or ethnic group, so the
proposed activity should not lead to environmental justice concerns.
10.1.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b))
There are a total of 76.1 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the Site. Three
isolated wetlands were identified within the property, totaling 2.45 acres of
isolated basin wetlands (regulated by NCDWR), and 0.48 acres of isolated
headwater forest (not regulated by NCDWR).
The project would result in the loss of 5.32 acres of headwater forest wetland and
2.18 acres of isolated basin wetland that currently provide nutrient filtration,
sediment removal, and aquatic habitat. The Applicant would mitigate for
unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional and isolated wetlands associated with the
Novo Nordisk facility by purchasing third party mitigation bank credits from
RES. RES anticipates having the available credits to meet the mitigation need for
this project, however should the credit releases not meet the mitigation need for
the Site, mitigation will be secured by payment into the NCDMS ILF program.
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands associated with the Gordon Road
Access will be mitigated by NCDOT through the use of active NCDOT-specific
mitigation banks or by payment into the NCDMS ILF program.
Some of the lost wetlands functions, such as the nutrient and sediment filtering
capabilities, would also be replaced by construction of the on-site treatment
facilities.

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
10.1.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e))
There are no known or suspected historic or cultural resources located within the
permit area. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted and
they verified that no registered properties or properties listed as being eligible for
inclusion therein are located within the project area. See Appendix F for
correspondence from the SHPO.
10.1.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c))
The project would not be expected to result in more than minimal permanent
adverse effects to fish or wildlife values. During construction, it is likely that
some aquatic and terrestrial animals would be displaced, along with their habitat.
The type of habitat on the site includes headwater forest wetlands, forested upland
areas, in -stream and riparian habitat, and agricultural fields. The proposed plans
have only minimal impacts to the riparian systems, and as a result also avoid
impacts to forested areas on the site in favor of high ground and cleared fields.
As of December 27, 2012, the USFWS lists four federally endangered species
protected under the ESA known to occur in Johnston County, including red -
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii). Bald eagle is also known to occur in Johnston County and is
protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA). A review of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database records (updated
October 2015) indicates no known occurrences of any of the aforementioned
species are present within a one -mile radius of the Site
As part of the initial agency scoping process for this project, the NCWRC and the
USFWS were contacted regarding potential impacts to protected species as a
result of the proposed project. NCWRC expressed concern (Scoping Letter
Comments dated November 19, 2015) that while the northern long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) is not listed by the USFWS as known to occur in
Johnston County, the forested community within the Site could potentially
support northern long-eared bat populations. Since the USFWS did not
specifically comment on northern long-eared bat (Scoping Letter Comments dated
November 13, 2015), and since no known roost trees or occurrences of northern
long-eared bat are recorded for Johnston County or within one mile of the project
area, it is unlikely that the proposed will have any effect on northern long-eared
bat.
Habitat evaluations were conducted within the forested portions of the property
for red -cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat in September and
November 2015. The dense canopy and understory found within these forested
headwater wetland communities and the large number of hardwoods precludes
these areas from providing suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the red -
cockaded woodpecker. In addition, the NCNHP database (updated October 2015)
has no records, historical or current, of red -cockaded woodpecker individuals or
cavity trees within one mile of the proposed project. Based upon this information,
19

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
it has been determined that the proposed project will have "no effect" on the red -
cockaded woodpecker.
The single perennial stream feature identified within the Site is a small, low
velocity coastal plain stream system that has been historically straightened to flow
along the perimeter of an agricultural field. A large portion of the headwater
wetland system that supports the stream has been historically managed for
silviculture, and the system was clear-cut most recently in 2014. The stream flows
south towards Gordon Road, where it crosses beneath the road via a 24" concrete
culvert. It is unlikely that the stream would support dwarf wedgemussel or Tar
River spinymussel based on the hydrologic conditions and riparian disturbance
observed within the Site.
Additionally, a review of NCNHP records, updated October 2015, indicates no
known current dwarf wedgemussel occurrences within approximately 6.0 river
miles of the study area. The nearest known current population is in Swift Creek.
The stream is an Unnamed Tributary to Reedy Branch, and Reedy Branch is
impounded to create a manmade pond between the Site and Swift Creek. NCNHP
records, updated October 2015, indicate the no known current Tar River
spinymussel occurrences within 95 river miles. Due to the lack of known
occurrences in or near the project boundary and the hydrologic conditions and
riparian disturbance found within the stream system in the Site, it has been
determined that the proposed project will have "no effect" on the dwarf
wedgemussel or Tar River spinymussel.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac was identified on the project Site along the
forested edges adjacent to the agricultural fields. Kimley-Horn biologists
conducted field surveys of the suitable habitat on September 30, 2015. No
individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed. In addition, the NCNHP database
has no records, historical or current, of Michaux's sumac within one mile of the
proposed project. The property parcels located south of the railroad tract along the
access road corridor from Gordon Road were not included as part of the project
study area at the time of the survey and were added to the study area following the
USFWS survey window. However, it is unlikely that these areas support
Michaux's sumac populations based on the findings of the pedestrian surveys on
the balance of the property. Based upon this information, it has been determined
that the proposed project will have "no effect" on Michaux's sumac.
See Appendix F for correspondence from the NCWRC and the USFWS.
10.1.8 Flood hazards
The proposed project site is located in areas determined to be outside the 0.2%
annual chance flood hazard area (Zone X) according to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels 3720167700J (effective 12/2/2005) and
3720167800J (effective 12/2/2005). The project would not be expected to have an
impact on the overall hazard of flooding downstream of the project site. The
proposed development would result in increases to impervious surface within the
watershed, but this increase would be offset by the retention of stormwater
50

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
originating on-site in the four proposed stormwater detention basins. Additionally,
the project is located at the upper end of the watershed and outside of any flood
hazard zones mapped on the FIRM panels, so there is minimal risk of causing
flooding upstream of the proposed project site.
10.1.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(I))
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, consideration has been given to the effect of
the proposed project toward reducing the risk of flood loss, minimizing the impact
of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restoring and preserving the
natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. The proposed Site is located
outside of the 0.2% annual chance flood hazard area (Zone X) according to the
FEMA FIRM panels for the project area.
The project would result in the conversion of a substantial portion of the site to
impervious surface. Stormwater generated by the project would be directed to
four detention basins, to be constructed in compliance with state guidelines for
stormwater management. Stormwater discharge will approximately maintain
natural drainage to each watershed within the Site, limiting impact to downstream
systems. Accordingly, the project should not result in measurable impacts to the
functions or value of these areas.
10.1.10 Land use
The proposed API production facility would result in the conversion of mostly
agricultural land and some forested areas to industrial development. While this
would be a major shift in land use, the project would remain consistent with local
zoning requirements and Town of Clayton long range planning goals. The project
would be located immediately adjacent to the existing Novo Nordisk
manufacturing facility, within a larger area of industrial facilities along the US 70
Business corridor.
10.1.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(o))
The project is located on non -navigable waterways. Accordingly, consideration of
the project's effect on navigation is not applicable.
10.1.12 Shore erosion and accretion
No ponds, lakes, or other such features are located on the proposed project site.
Therefore, shore erosion and/or accretion would not occur as a result of the
project.
10.1.13 Recreation
The proposed site currently has limited use for recreation, and the proposed
facility would have limited access to the public due safety and security concerns
related to the nature of the facility. The proposed project would not be intended to
provide recreational activities to the surrounding community. The proposed
facility will be designed in a manner that provides employees/authorized
personnel with a pleasant atmosphere in which to work, including walking paths,
51

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
and natural areas. Overall, the proposed project is not anticipated to affect
regional recreational opportunities.
10.1.14Water supply (33CFR320.4(m))
The Site would be serviced by Town of Clayton Utilities and would draw from
local water supply sources. The facility would present a large demand, but the
Town of Clayton Utilities has the capacity to support this facility. Water service is
currently present in the adjacent properties, so no additional impact from
construction of these utilities is anticipated to connect the proposed Site. Due to
the relatively small size of the project, there should be no appreciable effect to
ground water recharge within the region.
10.1.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d))
No major impacts to water quality are expected. Temporary increases in turbidity
during construction, loss of nutrient removal capacity of the filled wetlands, and
some discharge of pollutants and nutrients in the runoff could result. It is
anticipated that the proposed construction of stormwater/wastewater treatment
facilities on site should offset long-term impacts by removing sediments,
nutrients, and other pollutants from treated stormwater/wastewater, and by
attenuating peak flows downstream. The NCDWR will review the proposed plans
and as part of the Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification prior to
construction of the project. The stormwater plan for the facility will also be
reviewed and approved by Johnston County prior to Site Plan approval.
10.1.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n))
The proposed project would add additional requirements to the local electrical
grid. The additional demand would peak during the summer, when air conditioner
use is greatest. An electrical substation would be constructed as part of the
proposed Site to help alleviate demand through the existing infrastructure in the
area.
10.1.17 Safety
The project has been designed in accordance with local traffic safety regulations,
and should not result in result in additional safety concerns. During construction
of the project, all applicable safety standards would be observed.
10.1.18 Food and fiber production
The project site was historically used for the production of agricultural goods, and
existing fields would be converted into a non-agricultural use. Relative to the
amount of agricultural land in the region, the effect of this conversion would be
negligible.
10.1.19 Mineral needs
The project has not historically been used for the production of mineral products,
so consideration of mineral needs is not applicable.
52

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
10.1.20 Considerations of property ownership
Adjacent landowners may be affected as a result of the proximity of their property
to the project. It is possible that adjacent landowners may experience increased
commercial interest in their property, leading to higher value and resulting tax
rate. However, the use of the land would be consistent with the designated zoning,
and the owner's right to reasonable, private use of their land.
53

Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
11.0 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Increase in Population in the Area
The proposed project would employ approximately 700 employees at full build out.
While that majority of employees will be hired from in and around Clayton and Johnston
County, it is anticipated that a portion of the employees will travel to or relocate to the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. The influx of employees associated with
this project will likely drive additional residential, recreational, institutional, and/or
commercial development in this area to support the growing population base.
Traffic Increase
The proposed project would result in a permanent increase to traffic loads on Powhatan
Road and Gordon Road, as well as a temporary increase in construction traffic during the
construction phase of the project. Roadway improvements are proposed to offset
increased traffic in this area, including:
• Operational improvements to the US 70 Business and Powhatan Road
intersection, including the addition of turn lanes and increased traffic storage
• Construction of additional turn lane and other operational improvements on
Powhatan Road at the main access across from the existing Novo Nordisk facility
• Construction of the Gordon Road Access to alleviate traffic congestion on
Powhatan Road, specifically construction related truck traffic
• Operational improvements to the US 70 and Gordon Road intersection, including
the addition of turn lanes and increased traffic storage
54

FIGURES

Brad`
U
Legend
ffg Area Not Delineated
Project Study Area
Clayton
Johnston County
Kentucky
Virginia �
Tennessee Al--
North...
Carolina
South
Carolina
Georgia
0 40 80
mmmu= Miles
v
Atlantic Ocean
I
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
T- NASH
WAKE
WILSON
Project Location
JOHNSTON
HARNETT
WAYNE
CUMBERLAND ? SAMPSON
OG
DUPLIN
mmm= Miles
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Kimle )>> Horn Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

attp
"0
7;
,3J.A* lei
jet
Wv
A
ItA,
P IIWI 11.$.
Note: This area is part of the Novo 0
Nordisk property; however, no
development/impacts to this area are
proposed and jurisdictional features
"ach.e 144 associated with this area have not
been delineated.
Legend
f A4
Area Not Delineated
Feet
Project Study Area 0 350 700 1,050 1,400
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph (2014)
KimleyOHorn ClBright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

1 ��•�� -'
N till
X.
Powhatans - A
Ch
O
Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; however, no —�
development/impacts to this area are
' proposed and jurisdictional features
associated with this area have not
been delineated.
V Now Bathe
Ce -.
JAI
i
+ r
Legend ' ,, �•. I y' ,
45
Area Not Delineated
..4 Feet
Project Study Area , r� 0 300 600 900 1,200
Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map
(Powhatan 19811
Kimley)))Horn Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

r '
L _
I
-P =
F
�Pt "Wall
Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; however, no
development/impacts to this area are VL
'`�$�
proposed and jurisdictional features=i
associated with this area have not
been delineated.
rT�w
Hydric Soils Table j v
Map Symbol Map Symbol Name Hydric
AmB Appling-Marlboro complex (1-6% slopes) No
GoA Goldsboro sandy loam (0-2% slopes) Incl. ,
MaB Marlboro sandy loam (2-8% slopes) No
McB Marlboro -Cecil complex (2-8% slopes) No i Legend
NoA Norfolk loamy sand (0-2% slopes) Inc.
Area Not Delineated
NoB Norfolk loamy sand (2-6% slopes) Incl.
°
Ra Rains sandy loam (0-2% slopes) Yes _ Project Study Area
Tn Toisnot loam (0-2% slopes) Yes -
VrA Varina loamy sand (0-2% slopes) No Feet
800 1,200 1,600
VrB Varina loamy sand (2-6% slopes) No 0 400
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map
(Johnston County, 1994)
K11'1' ley �)) Horn Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

r
' +� '� a� WF
WB YA
7k
WEV,
I w I
N'4W
WH
k�
Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; however, no
Legend development/impacts to this area are
proposed and jurisdictional features
Stream associated with this area have notyfi
7�'­-
USACE Jurisdictional Wetland been delineated. 777
,W
NCDWR Jurisdictional Isolated Wetland
Z
Unregulated Isolated Wetland - 4
Area Not Delineated
yr Feet
Project Study Area
0 350 700 1,050 1,400
77-7 0"
Figure 5: Jurisdictional Features Map
Kimley>oHorn ClBright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

81
7
6
5
4
3
E
2
K J H G F E D
C B A
NOTES:
1. REFER TO DRAWING CL -XX -DAPI -US -3-15-00-001 FOR
2
20 9 g O GENERAL NOTES, LIST OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Pa m
s
8
225'7215^
C 17DEC15 AFZICIT ISSUED FOR PERMIT
LEGEND:
EXISTING PROPOSED
\
WETLANDS
A 18NOV15 AFLCIT ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL
TREES
Rev.: Rev. date: Design nit: Revisions:
LOW BRUSH
FENCE ...... —..
\
O EE12EE Eoaiapp[ioa Profess onal CorporatiOn 100 Fluor Daniel Drive, Gmenville. SC 29607 L cense No. C-0742
BUILDING
ROAD
0
7
PROPERTY LINE — --
�mmnordisl(
Novo Nordisk AS
Powha� Road
Cixyw, Nadh Caroline
USA
LIMITS OF — —
DISTURBANCE
CIVIL
SITE MASTER PLAN - NORTH
EP EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
Drawee : CIT
PP POWER POLE
Scale: GRAPHIC
ROW RIGHT OF WAY
CL -XX -DAPI -US -3-15-00-004
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT AREA IACRES IFILL VOL (CU YD)
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED (SITE) 12.31 1 37,096
NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED 1 2.18 1 10,558
6
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 93.5
USAGE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
12,584
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF)
PHASEAREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE
PHASE 1 495,470 495,470
PHASE 2 581,220 581,220
REFER TO CL -XX -DAPI -US -3-15-00-005 FOR CONTINUATION
K J H G F E D
5
4
3
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 100' 200' 400' 600' 800' 1000'
2
D 22DEC15 AFZICIT ISSUED FOR PERMIT
C 17DEC15 AFZICIT ISSUED FOR PERMIT
B 23NOV15 AFLCIT ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL
A 18NOV15 AFLCIT ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Rev.: Rev. date: Design nit: Revisions:
O EE12EE Eoaiapp[ioa Profess onal CorporatiOn 100 Fluor Daniel Drive, Gmenville. SC 29607 L cense No. C-0742
Dewing Ding Document
checked: approved: claseigcation
�mmnordisl(
Novo Nordisk AS
Powha� Road
Cixyw, Nadh Caroline
USA
Novo Nordisk
Diabetes API -US
Creation date: 29OCT15
CIVIL
SITE MASTER PLAN - NORTH
Revision date:
Drawee : CIT
Design By: AFZ
Scale: GRAPHIC
Page
CL -XX -DAPI -US -3-15-00-004
C

APPENDIX A
OFF-SITE
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Fall River, Massachusetts
Alternative 1

SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River
www.SouthCoastLifeSciencePark.org
N I Hunneman
Fall River Office Of Economic Development
Cathy Minnerly
Executive Vice President
NAI Hunneman
617.457.3334
[e-mail]
F.Michael DiGiano
Executive Vice President
NAI Hunneman
617.457.3410
[e-mail]
March z6, ZoiS
Kenneth Fiola, Jr. Esq.
Executive Vice President
Fall River Office of Economic Development
5o8.324.2620
[e-mail]

Located 50 miles south of
Boston and 15 miles east of
Providence, RI
loth Largest City in the
Commonwealth
Population of 89,000
Former leader of US textile
industry
Current Leading Industry:
Healthcare
NA
lHunneman
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.
10
SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River

Strategic Location on -Massachusetts' South Coast
IVAlHunneman
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.
SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River

PROVIDENCE
SouthCoast Life Science &
W- il-1. Technology Park at Fall Riverm
95 Upland Acres
1+MSF
IVB 1(Hanneman
Comer find BmWi, Ocora ne,-IefJ 1.o ilk, A,ard
ti
I'll,
� INNOVATION WAY

TF-1—shows 2 contiguous sites one at 54 acres
and one at 41 acres
NAlHunneman
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.
SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River

SouthCoast Life Science &
_
Technology Park at Fall River
95 acres, pad ready, sub -dividable to support i+ million SF
Site is MEPA approved for 3 million SF; in most cases only local building permit
required to start construction
National Grid/NStar dual feed capability for electric power -15MW at site
City can supply water and wastewater discharge.
City municipal water -14.59 MGD
Wastewater - 39MGD
Liberty Gas and/or National Grid can meet gas requirements with redundancy
Over 4,000 residents in region employed in pharmaceutical manufacturing
17 colleges and universities in region graduate 3,34o annually in biology and
STEM
Consortium of schools ready to develop biomanufacturing training programs
Region has range of affordable housing in urban and exurban communities
N-AlHunneman
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.

LAND & PERMITTING SUMMARY
ZONING
Biomanufacturing is allowed by right in the Industrial Park Zoning a and Research Overlay District regulations
SITE DEVELOPMENT
None other than height & lot coverages
LIMITATIONS
TIME REQUIRED
FOR RE -ZONING
None required for bio manufacturing
TIME REQUIRED
FOR ZONING VARIANCES
No variances are required
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Not required. Plan approval complete as part of land acquisition process with FRRA
LAND DISTRIBUTING/GRADING
Issued by City Building Inspector within two weeks of application
UTILITY EXTENSION PERMITS
All utilities are stubbed to the site from Innovation Way. No extension permits required
BUILDING PERMITS
30 days from submission of full building plans, predicated upon a pre -permit submission with city department heads to review any design
and construction issues
ENVIRONMENTAL
All state, federal and local environmental permits have been secured for three million square feet of development If project has emergency
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
generator, then Air Emission Permit from DEP required, also municipal fuel storage permit
PHASE 1 OR MEPA
Site has a MEPA certificate for 3 million SF of development Site formerly state forest land and never developed. No existing Phase 1
CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT
Completed as part of the MEPA analysis. FRRA owner has complied with all MEPA
Y (owner) P provisions and recommendations of Mass Historic Commission.
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Limited to roadway areas and available upon request
DIESEL FUEL STORAGE
Application must be made to fire Chief Fall River Fire Department and requires a public hearing_
FRRA (owner( will provide a letter of support and meet with officials to secure a license to store
TWO ACCESS POINTS TO THE SITE
Primary access to SR 24 via newly constructed interchange Exit Bb Innovation. Additional access SR 24 south bound Exit 8 via Airport Road
(2.5 miles from site( and SR 24 northbound also Exit 8A to Airport Rd or 8B Innovation Way
FEES FOR
PERMITTING, SITE IMPACT,
Specific permitting dollar amounts determined when plans submitted. Guide
� P generally $0.22/SF.
DEVELOPMENT
For 500.000 SF facility estimated permit cost $110,D00. Also I&I fee of $5/gal up to $25,000 maximum
NO OFFSITE
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING
All infrastructure in place to accommodate development program
ROADS,UTOLITIES
Hunneman Technology
Life Science 8
Technologlog y Park at Fall River
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.

UTILITIES FOR
Redundant Dual Feed
33A00 MW/year
438A00 gallons/day
ireatrnent capacity
480.000 cf/year
NAlHunneman
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.
PERATION
NGRID and NSfAR both serve the Park and can engineer dual feeds
NSfAR & NGRID has coniinned to FROED that there Is ample capacity to provide 33,000 MW/year
Fall Hives° Water Department has confirmed 43&= gallons per day is avallobte.
Fall River Sewer Depariment has eon*med abl ty to occepf Wows of 39SA00 gpd
Liberty Gas has conkmed to FROED that the unity con supply these amounts. Une is 8". Pressure wig be 50
T-Wti1 Z, ,-'r I F (-' "'�),
SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River

SouthCoast Ph-armaceuticais
Within a 30 Mile radius
of the site, 4,055
residents are employed
in NAICS 3254•
IYAlHunneman
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.
NAICS Industry Code 3254:
Phannacendical and Me(icinne Mamnfacturing
Fmployees may reside inside or outside the region, as opposed to NAICS data, which measures the number of jobs within the region.
Data sourced from 2013 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS)
See map for geography details. Towns included in the PUMS definition are highlight in yellow.
Public Policy Center
Wass Danrrouth
— a Q :..,".
SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River
bulpilloyedin
NAICS 3254 ToW Aiea hpdaidon
Massachusetts PUM Asea
2,751 1,444,276
RI PUM Area
1,304 1,051,511
Total
1 4,055 2,495,787
Fmployees may reside inside or outside the region, as opposed to NAICS data, which measures the number of jobs within the region.
Data sourced from 2013 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS)
See map for geography details. Towns included in the PUMS definition are highlight in yellow.
Public Policy Center
Wass Danrrouth
— a Q :..,".
SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River

P1
SouthCoasat Pharmaceutical Cru ster
Company Name Primary County Total Employees _
1 1 Amgen Inc. Kent County 1000+
2 ;LUDLOW CORPORATION _Bristol County _ 300
3 (Denison Pharmaceuticals, LLC _Providence County_ 168
4 IPharmasol Corporation Bristol County 150
5 (Rhodes Technologies Inc. Kent County134
6 jASSOCIATES OF CAPE COD, INC. Barnstable County 122
7 1 Onset Dermatologics, LLC Providence County 100
8 ILYNE LABORATORIES. INC. Plymouth County 90
9 ITedor Pharma Inc Providence County 41
10 1Kala Health Barnstable County 40
11 IArmstrongPharmaecuticals Norfolk County_ 35
12 Calkfex Therapeutics _Bristol County 35 _
131Elixion Providence County _ 35
14 lAxis-Shield Poc As Bristol County 32
15 IMass Biologics Bristol County 25
16 1Aeris Therapeutics, LLC Norfolk County 19
17 1Biomedical Technologies, Inc Norfolk County 15
18 1 Epivax, Inc. Providence County 15
19 (Scot-Tussin Pharmacal Co. Inc Providence County 15
20 1 Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P Kent County 13
21 IVetrose,Inc Barnstable County 13
22 IPharnahealth Speciatty/Longterm Care, Inc. Bristol County_ 12 _
23 1Bioline USA Inc. Bristol County 10
24 ICollegium Pharmaceuticals Norfolk County 10
25 IModular Thermal Technologies, Inc. Washington County 10
26 IXemplar Pharmaceuticals Bristol County 10 _
27 1 Dermatology Associates Inc Kent County 6
28 1 Lockett Medical Corporation Providence County ! 6
29 ITivorsan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. _Providence County 5
30 (Colloidal Science Solutions Inc _Kent County 3
ble
31 Joy Nugranad-Narzilli Washington County 3
3edford ��
32 IMnemosyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc Providence County 3
33 1Sea Star Animal Health Washington County _ _ 3
34 jAmeri-Pooch, LLC _Providence County _ 2
351Banfietd _Norfolk County 2
36 1Multicell Technologies, Inc. Providence County 2 _
371Projo Providence County 2
38 1 Boston 3t Biotechnologies, Inc Bristol County 1_
39 (Canada Drug Service Bnstol County 1
40 ICytosoly, Inc. _Newport County 1
41 1 Neuromedicine Inc Bristol County 1
42 (Agape Dermatology Providence County
43 IALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC Providence County
44 1Ava Anderson, LLC Providence County
45 1Calista Therapeutics, Inc. Providence County
46 1 Exemplar Pharmaceuticals LLC Bristol County
47 IJ+j Professional. Inc Bristol County
48 I Rhode Immunex Island Corporation Kent County
N.AlHunneman 49 (Sea -Band x Corporation
Inc Newport County S SouthCoast Life Science
50 Zeptometrix Corporation Norfolk County � Technology Park at Fall River
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World. Total pharmaceutical preparations (NAIC 3254) employees 2490+
In 30 -mile radius of Fall River

Regional Neighbors
Amgen (former Immunex,
former AHP) : West Grenwich
Rhode Island, -i,000 employees
5ooK+ sq ft
Celldex: Fall River MA
-5o employees, 15K sq.ft
Pharmasol: Easton MA
-15o employees, -16oK sq ft
AhlGEN
'I OCelldex
therapeutics
P H A R M A S 0 L
NAAMunneman Technology
Life Science
Technology Park at Fall River
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.

' HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION PROGRAM OF STUDY AA BAGS MA/MS/PHD
n
Bioengineering/Biomedical
University of Massachusetts UartmouF engineering; NA 260 77
Biology/Biochemistry; STEM
Biology; Biomedical
C Bi own University engineering; Biostatistics; NA 575 354
* Biotechnology; STEM
Biidgewate: State Univeisit, Biology; Biochemistry; STEM NA 169 14
Massachusetts Maiihme. Academy STEM; Engineering NA 130 19
University of Rhode Island Biology; Biological services; NA 515 169
Biomedical engineering; STEM
Roger Williams University Biology; Biotechnology NA 120 6
STONEHILL COLLEGE
MASSASOIT CC Johnson 8 Wales University STEM 38 100 NA
a
Bryant University Biotechnology NA 44 NA
BRYANT UNIVWHEATON COLLEGE BRIDGEWATER STATE South Providence College Biology; Biochemistry; STEM NA 98 NA
ERSITY
Life Science & Technology Park Wheaton College Biology; Biotechnology; NA 56 NA
PROVIDENCE COLLEGE Biochemistry; STEM
BROWN UNIVERSITY Rhode Island College Biology; Biotechnology; NA 61 8
JOHNSON & WALES Biochemistry; STEM
CC OF RHODE ISLAND Stonehill College. Biology; Biochemistry; STEM NA 116 NA
RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE
MASS MARITIME Salve Regina University Biology and Biomedical NA 36 NA
BRISTOL CC science; STEM
►/1![ CAPE COD CC Bristol Community College Biology; Biomedical engineering; 103 NA NA
ROGER WILLIAMS Biotechnology; STEM
UMASS DARTMOUTH Massasoit Community College Biotechnology; STEM 162 NA NA
k
Cape Cod Community College Biotechnology; STEM 20 NA NA
STEM 90 NA NA
TOTAL ANNUAL GRADUATES
UNIVERSITY OF RI
SALVE REGINA SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River
*
—dA- w a,q
a

Housing
Springfield MA
Pittsfield MA
Providence RI
Worcester MA
Fall River MA
Charlotte NC
Richmond VA
Raleigh NC
Charleston, SC
Chapel Hill, NC
Boston MA
San Diego CA
Princeton NJ
San Francisco CA
Median Home Sales Price
r 1
$- $200,000 $400,000
ly
AlHunneman
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.
$600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000
SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River

Public Transportation
Buses run to the Industrial and
SouthCoast Park:
Monday through Friday from
6:oo AM (first bus) to 8:25 PM
(last bus)
Saturday Bus Service from 7:00
AM (first bus) to 5:25 PM (last
bus)
No Bus service on Sunday
Mass DOT commenced work
on tracks & bridges to restore
commuter rail to Fall River &
New Bedford (TBC 2020)
NAIHunneman
Committed to Boston, Connected to the World.
Train Route
Legend
OExmbng station
O Rebuild Existing Statb
9 New station
Freetown
Fan River Depot
Battleship Cove
tuth Station
ick Bay
,ggles
crest Hills
ndville
rote 128
niton function
inton center
orth Easton
Istat tillage
tynham Place
unton
unton Depot
King's Highway
Whale's Tooth
SouthCoast Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River

�L%,;CAL ATTRACTIONS
Beautiful beaches, cozy waterfront eateries, eclectic art galleries, &owe -inspiring state parks of Bristol County
r•eyrr�. -•^` s
�� C', __ �'i-���°11111
-A t
sf.
>. :
iin•i;,_ _.. l ii';�
c:;. �MlC) E.
Battleshio Cove Naval & Maritime Museum. • ,
Buttonwood Park Zoo,,',.
Children's Museum of Greater Fall River
National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette •.r:+, r,rr.
New Bedford Art Museum '. . .,
Osprey Sea Kayak & Paddle Boarding :'.- r,. 7
New Bedford Whaling Museum. r
Newport Mansions ;;- .•.; - :-r
Newport Art Museum .
r National Museum of American Illustration '.
International Tennis Hall orFame
Museum of Natural History &Planetarium
Culinary Arts Museum ,
Fall River Harvest Festival
Caldehas Restaurant
Taphouse Grille
The Cove Restaurant
Easton Tea Room
Empire Grille at the Venus de Milo
UnWINEd Bistro
Fiesta Mexican Restaurant
Westport Rivers Vineyard
Angelo's Italian Restaurant
Capital Grille
Al Forno
Hoiseneck Beach State Reservation r
Freetown -Fall River State Forest
Borderland State Park . -.
Fort Phoenix State Reservation
Massasoit State Reservation
Fall River Henlage Stale Reservation
Emerald Square Mall,
Brahmin Outlets.
Providence Place Mall
Garden City Center
,j Un�`:'
Pawtucket Red Sox
Providence Bruins
The Great Feast of the Holy Ghost of New England
The Feast of Santo Christo
Folk Festival
Jazz Festival
Summer Sound Series
Taste of Southcoast
Wine Festival
Working Waterfront Festival
Oktobertest
i`dt_iti`t't'Uil � t�Vf iJ (`
Newport Jazz Festival
Annual Daffodil Festival
Newport Kite Festival
Black Ships Festival
Newport Mansions Wine & Food Festival
Cluny Country Farr
Newport Winter Festival
Annual Harvest Festival
WaterFue
Rhode Island Seatood Festival
Providence Boat Show
Rhode Island International Film Festival
SoutnCoasl Life Science &
Technology Park at Fall River

Alternative 2
Garner -Greenfield Park South

�u Feature A, a Perennial Stream r
�y ` '.
Subject to Neuse River Buffer (NRB} �' o J Lu
- - 1 {_ • •.. andAssociafe+d� Wetlands
.�Ay �'�y'� ''" � 1L�r. -ar.. , M '�,-.. •�_ r'fyyjr� �•'y_"'�7wC - �:c +,f.'�'..�.f�i �>ye - Fyy�1 yyr` sTE - ��y:_y i P•�n. alasrP.s.. F4[OS 1-'$;r
Feature Ran [ntermiltenStream tiy FF
subject toNBRaIFlag H7 F+ss
ndAssocJalad Wetlan
4�W
t- E
�. 1 S')v. Feature B, a Perennial Stream - i
. - P!:ctc.. 2,'Z. 22, �' •,y;. s t �IiM y . 4 r .�� Subject to NRB -� O
t i'SS•• - u t •i. t Q � andAssocia9ed Wetlands 6
I?M[Gs 2" 4 24 1� 1 { ` Pn
�1,'�.�0 �, _ SS ` Fye 4 ie_^s p-'� `•,'�E•,U-�w�` i
y _ _ ,}'4- ', _ Feature D,. an Intermittent Stream
4% w E
y�' i X51 6 ��; �. Subject t4 NRB at Flag D7 �
' 1} k 1 Phato$ 9 s t 6
~ 15 ++� .� 1�'� • a ,fir, .' y and Associated Wetlands
Cfi:.a` �' ti��♦ •y _ �,� =„`tit '�� fS.vH:�r�,iyt-.,�.�1 �,�'• , t 5 .0.'a-..`. `•rt 0�
T a e 5{ y
Feature G. a Perennial Streamf ► f y ' t t It
s
u
Subject to NEI ,.1w A• -� •' ` ` - y "` s• } 5 ry.,y l
and Associated Wetlands �, '' ✓}., .i E' ' r fi ; roA.y�ySt+i m
- t '«;�f � r_� a .���" �� ,F�'"• .'� t:5 -�y � -r7.,` 7�;w.„_.� �` �
- •�` . '� ►` �l r�cRhR[Rs t" &.14 A
W tee}
Feature S, an Intermittent Str am O
a ` Feature S. a Perennial Stream �L E ' + + Mt+f .* y Subject t4 NBR of F[ag F1 < a o
Subject to NBR : 'y { _ ye 1 andAssocialed Wellands r F a U 4
and Associated Wetlands �E� t, t F r W 6
NA" rr rt�4s� e_ —
ye d ,P r.14+�t1 �•� 15 � k^ � .�i",�a 1 � 'ice• .i ��� ��
�Y31 {+iy�i•`i. grZt ai`5 �yy,�!- =; �•" ra --�.'
,} a rFFS • y �'� a
tial
r� �+ '* it 1/ � lPh .1& E"io�R • Pn3 c.17.-- 1 L I _ .i. L] <J.
..
• ` ` yj-+ ,.q_i, —,+r-• Feature F. an Intermittent Stream T _
'`�-...,,�•� _,,,,,;�� ,_.••• - Subject to NBR et Flag
O Photograph Localions;, I �;.Eu - G7'1"�P^*F+F! and Associated Wetlands i �� 400
-- Approximate Welland Boundary
WIN
ApproxomaleStream Boundary ; -DIME
GICQaPh AYE SriFERBixWEOFRW=TME S3 GGNEiAPCCMdERAL6ftTHRINACERYNEft
TpECE GkR=a1Ra'. ECRUN V d
UsOPEATY$ESHAPEnkE. PLEASE RRiE TMIS IlAP d. FOR piFORUATIONAL.0 -R$E :Y Ir SHO.ME-TFORDESCM LEOF_-GAANYOTHEH
U E: TwERE ARENa aUxP.hyT(E+d9auilT�naCURd::Y S3fiyE.ENC.ASSUNE RRE+Pbea'v104'rE'€©R ARY 6EC.[OW NA9E Ox AMT:CTWNE
Review Area T TMN RYTHE USER RnSEG ORRN TH4S INFORLUT ON

Alternative 3
North Tech Business Park

FF7�i
LES
PILOT ENVIRONMENTAL INC
May 31, 2015
Mr. Aric Geda
Modulus, PLLC
Post Office Box 935
Oak Ridge, North Carolina 27310
Reference: Stream/Wetland Determination
The Gordon Site
Gordon Road
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina
PEI Project No. 1512
Dear Mr. Geda:
Pilot Environmental, Inc. (PEI) is pleased to submit this report of the wetland determination for
the approximate 98.3 acre site known as The Gordon Site located north of Gordon Road in
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina.
Background
Wetlands are defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions." In order for an area to be classified as wetland, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and wetland hydrology indicators must be present.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredge and fill materials into waters
of the United States (lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, etc.), including wetlands. Waters of the United
States include the territorial seas, navigable coastal and inland lakes, rivers and streams,
intermittent streams, and wetlands. The EPA and the USACE jointly administer the Section 444
program. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants each state the authority to approve,
condition, or deny any Federal permits that could result in a discharge to State waters.
Jurisdictional features include wetlands, open waters, ponds, lakes and perennial/intermittent
streams. Jurisdictional features are regulated by the USACE and North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Resources (NCDENR-DWR). Permits are
required prior to impacting any jurisdictional feature. The type of permit required is specific to
lk
PO Box 128, Kernersville, NC 27285
www.oilotertivirc,.com

Wetiand Determination
PF! Project No. 1512
May 31, 2015
the type, location and amount of impacts. Stormwater management plans and/or mitigation for
proposed impacts could be a requirement of the permit approval process.
The findings and conclusions found in this report are our opinions based on field conditions
encountered at the time of the site visit. Changes including, but not limited to, regulations,
weather, timber/vegetation removal and usage/development of the site or nearby properties
can alter the findings and opinions presented in this report. We recommend that this report only
be used for preliminary planning purposes.
Scope of Services
PEI was contracted to perform a wetland determination for the approximate 98.3 acre tract
located on Gordon Road in Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina. The site includes parcel
identification number 167700-67-6564 and the portion of parcel identification number 167700-47-
9545 located north of Gordon Road as identified by the Johnston County Geographical Information
Systems (GIS). The scope of services included a determination of jurisdictional features (streams,
wetlands and other surface waters) located on the site. The site boundaries were not surveyed at
the time of our field determination.
Literature Review
We reviewed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Johnston County, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
• The USGS Topographic Map (Drawing 1) does not depict streams, ponds or wetlands on the site.
The map depicts the headwaters to Reedy Branch south of the site (across Gordon Road) and
several drainage swales that extend from Reedy Branch onto the site that could contain surface
waters or wetlands.
The USDA Web Soil Survey of Johnston County (Drawing 2) identifies the following soils on the
site: Bibb sandy loam (Bb), Rains sandy loam (Ra), Toisnot loam (Tn), Varina loamy sand (VrA and
VrB), Goldsboro sandy loam (GoA), Norfolk loamy sand (NoA and NoB), Appling-Marlboro (AmB),
and Marlboro sandy loam (MaB). The Tn, Ra, GoA, Bb, NoA and NoB mapping units are identified
on the Johnston County Hydric Soils List.
The USDA Published Soil Survey of Johnston County (Drawing 2A) identifies two streams on the
site. The streams are depicted on the western and central portions of the site.
PEI reviewed the USFWS NWI Map (Drawing 3) for the site. The NWI map identifies two forested
wetland systems on the western portion of the site.
2

Wetland Determination
PEI Project No. 1512
May 31, 2015
• PEI reviewed the FEMA FIRM (Drawing 4) for the site. The FIRM identifies the site as located in
an area that is designated as Zone X, an area outside the 100 year flood plain.
Field Determination
PEI personnel conducted the field determination on May 20, 2015. The site contains fields,
wooded land and recently timbered land. Ponds are not located on the site.
A stream is located on the central portion of the site. The stream has evidence of an ordinary
high water mark, a defined bed and banks and contained flowing water at the time of our
reconnaissance. The stream appears to have been altered/ditched in the past. Unnatural berms
were observed adjacent to the stream in some areas. Amphibians were observed in the streams.
Wetlands are located throughout the wooded portions of the site. The wetlands are separated
from surrounding uplands by topographic, vegetation, hydrology and/or soil breaks. Standing
water and/or water stained ground surfaces were observed throughout the wetland areas. Soils
outside of the wetlands are bright and appear to be well drained.
Drawing 5 shows the approximate locations of the evaluation area, streams and wetlands.
Drawing 5 should only be used for preliminary planning purposes. We recommend that the site
be delineated and verified by the USACE and the NCDENR-DWR to determine the exact extent
and locations of the jurisdictional areas.
Watershed Classification
According to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of
Water Resources (NCDENR-DWR), the site is located in the Neuse River Basin in an area that has
been designated as Class C; nutrient sensitive waters (NSW).
Summary
PEI was contracted to determine if streams and/or wetlands are located on the site. A delineation
and agency verifications were beyond the scope of services. Based on the results of the
determination, we recommend that the site be delineated and verified. Following a delineation
and agency verification, the flags should be surveyed to determine the exact extent and locations
of jurisdictional features and vegetative buffers (if applicable). Permits are required to impact
the streams and wetlands on the site. Mitigation may also be required.
E1

Wetland Determination
PF! Project No. 1512
May 31, 2015
Closing
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you. Please contact us at (336) 310-
4527 if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
David S. Brame, PWS
Project Manager
,4jJ 7 /*ft; -
Michael T. Brame, PWS
Principal
Attachments: Drawing 1- USGS Topographic Map
Drawing 2 - USDA Web Soil Map
Drawing 2A- USDA Published Soil Map
Drawing 3 - NWI Map
Drawing 4 - FEMA FIRM
Drawing 5 - Stream/Wetland Location Map
4

y r eB ,
G o
09
1 o wW� 8 4 SII II 1- �
S a t ' � _ I' 5
r I N CA,
r J I fr rJ S
1 s V {{+� 1lr�y'� 1 '• • a V
oA
NoB
TT
'•4 1
B. b
w._ f
LEGEND
Site Boundary
DNV IRp ��
Web Soil Map
I1s�
USDA Web Soil Survey The Gordon Site
rr
of Johnston County Gordon Road
Clayton, North Carolina
Not to Scale PEI No. 1512
'SNS
t
5

Far
N
O *I
it;11
Drawing 3
USFWS NWI
Wetlands Mapper
Not to Scale
•y.
LEGEND
N
Site Boundary
NWI Designations
Freshwater Emergent
_
Freshwater Foresledf5hrub
_
Eswarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Rlvanne
_
other
•y.
NWI Map
N
The Gordon Site
Gordon Road
Clayton, North Carolina
PEI No. 1512
•y.

7'
LEGEND-
OTHER AREAS
IONEx Mea,4,1-11 Oe while rRe OltiL amee N...+a nRJyrkd.
ZONE O Arras n %A h IIFd havards art ur�be4enaim, on I.vuHc•.
® Site Boundary
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
-� SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAS) SUBIECT TO
OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (O AS)
INUNDATION BY THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD EVENT
MRSareas and OPMam oenaey bracedMIen orad)acent to SM41 Floud NamrdNom.
me I% annual de— pond ( IMV of a flood), also knmvn as to hese A7 nd, is the flood that
has a 196 chanty M tivfnp equaled W CaCC ded A anY 91— year. The SPI -1 F"A Haaald
- s%Minwl Nana fk Odoevn —141n
Area 5Inc arta whim to nodi" by NE 1%dnll f Dance now N(ws of Slime] Flow
¢%M. Dan W'ed•+u%e Men06aa hrerdary
Paaard ndede Ions A. AEr AH, AO, AR, A99. Y, and W. The Maw Flood Elavaiaai s the
�_ � .� r nkod-e b."dary
w.tlersnrfa� ee .n of the 1°h annual odw..e (load.
s,,. �a�_ —_ �a0 Wr Gary
ZONE No base Flood 0evabm delfamned.
..................... C@IS,rJOPAW,d
ZONE AE 9a5'e Rood Ell dlhonh detelmle6.
ZOM! AH Fldod ad dfyflt5 of i M 3 lent (usually arms of oandng); Ease Flood Bevmibns
Eal+'sda+Y drc.daq Somal F1wd H—W Me. apse aro ox-4arS
�- ---- - - ' dlaavq Spall Pkmd IfaenN keas w drrema
dE[eM.
_ Flrwtbns, nmd erntM.«Ifaod seNrdss.
ZONE AO Flood depths of l 1a 3 feet (usually sheet Raw on slaplrtg terrain); areraga
�_ 6dd �„ ase swag �� sx a� wme; �awaan.a Leet°
delAln de(L-t0k°d. Fo ai Nis of aiiumal lin fbpdnW, vefdo" also
det—,ned.
(EL987) Bose ll d Oeraimn ♦akic wF- u.Jonn m,O. m+e: esrw;mn �++
ZONE AR Special Flood 1Wrard Ar kvnRvl7 pn;eert d frond Ne 1% armual IN.Ce
2n•
• RNcarrxW idir Nythamanrar SFNrYI Wmmd 093
flood try a good conhd systan pet. eras wblequadliy OWftihed. 2D AR
irtder that the(— fflood "'bA sy5lan Is being """'d topmvide
I cmw'enw� we
protection from the LY,. annral chants a greater flood,
ZONE A99 feeds [0 bd PioMed lforn 1% anneal (hao[ good IW a re Wa1 hood
'C1a}_ ___—_—_�'S 7ra0xt4 Au.e
lJ
prover on sy%- under ornslo-h n: oo nese Flood Ekaafldns detenni d.
GGOpnphe edxd.ndtl; .Gr-- In uY Ik.0 AmpYan Li r.:n� rY
ZONE VE Coastal hood acme wit vWmty haassrd (wave aelle.); Base Flood Ele1ii[Ions
19&71!{4081)
ectfrmiflea.
4215-- aM0une-U11—FT2h5sd5e Ne—ON X..l6Me 17
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
1477 ego FEET sado:rml 9r'd'aa°,es:. Lung o Wm t+ano cwrghate sy—
(FlPSZCNE 310(X SOte?lw lean, 87 feet)
The flaadway h be dragged of 2 Me— ples dnV iclp rt flnndlAun areae that r1G.st he kept
Ndnh FA n C eda% 5,1— amYA mak (rW nlac nfe—&—
Iree of Blbd krndnt So that to 1% arnuil thame good on be mored vathad suMbinlaal
BMb510K k Me 11 a07S.STd1�)
halt—' m need heights.
Nmarai Geodteh So." b-0 -o tfor more int—t.'n
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
BM55104 H4a-.i1AT^d.4al.0ori
NGs-58 GI an 10-1 Cama tyres oe Ca¢rxio�GYah4shed
ZONE x Aaeas A 0.2% annual chance flovL areas of 1% .,.at chance need u O
-
RMSfi1 O e•CFRp aercA t les bra mwa mlanaltas sex
,..Me depdn at less than I. foo( a with dea!We alees less than t sgwie
u4(7N ..As .M j
ntc� and meas erntes d by Levee€ hag 1% —nal Lha—flood.
• hH.5 Bhp Ree
Drawing 4
FEMA FIRM Panel Number
3720167700-1
Dated December 2, 2005
Not to Scale
V _ _
FEMA FIRM
N
The Gordon Site
Gordon Road
Clayton, North Carolina
PEI No. 1512
I
0

APPENDIX B
ON-SITE
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

10
9
M L K
V \
0
0
0
121
111
M
L
] H G F E D C B A
x'A 5
LEGEND:
z5 15° z EXISTING PROPOSED
7
i
600 1
1 1
I 1
.I 1
I I
7
II
II I
5.95 40,597
GUARD
OJ
0.47 11,374
1 HOUSE
2.18 10,558
I
1
93.5
ET
6
PLANT
CENTRAL
UTILITY
II ENTRANCE
1011'
'" :'•:
\; .' :•':";'.";
550 — —
: :;
I I
I
I
aI I
STORM
BUILDING
WATER
5
MANAGEI
PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE
MENT
BASIN
III
No.2
yl� I
I
,IQ
u
Ib
4
50001
.':-'-"''::.": -':"'-'.";"::
I t
w
3
SII
�II
a
L'I
111
I
0
121
111
M
L
] H G F E D C B A
x'A 5
LEGEND:
z5 15° z EXISTING PROPOSED
- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE — LOD —
•• .''-.'-.'- .''.'•.''-.'''.'' PERMANENT PLANT AREA ONLY
PHASE PHASE WAREHOUSE
ROW RIGHT OF WAY
2 2
PRODUCTION WAREHOUSE —
TORMWATER
MANAGEMENT \U'
BASIN No.3
it
CL
E 1'
Q
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
�__ WETLAND IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON
IMPACT AREA
CRES FILL VOL (CU YD)
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED (SITE)
5.95 40,597
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
(ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR)
0.47 11,374
NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED
2.18 10,558
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
93.5
ET
WETLANDS AREA
CENTRAL
UTILITY
L D
'" :'•:
\; .' :•':";'.";
'-: '-.'-
;.:',.....;
: :;
._- BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF)
IMPACTED
WETLANDS AREA
I
MIN
I
BUILDING
PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE
TREE LINE
fLl
a._
-.';.':"':'.':;.�/;•
.':-'-"''::.": -':"'-'.";"::
•
PHASE 1 495,470 495,470
I
I
LOW BRUSH
PHASE 581,220 608,340
NG
1 UBS
I
�
`
\
I
OFFICE
/ GOWNING / QC
FENCE
®
WATER
TREATMENT
�'
BUILDING
❑
•�__ ...�-
k
•- --, •...•-
-., •-.". - .. -.
- ••.'-
"' " •'
—_—_
—_
.
-
ROAD
PROPERTY LINE
--IE',-
- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE — LOD —
•• .''-.'-.'- .''.'•.''-.'''.'' PERMANENT PLANT AREA ONLY
PHASE PHASE WAREHOUSE
ROW RIGHT OF WAY
2 2
PRODUCTION WAREHOUSE —
TORMWATER
MANAGEMENT \U'
BASIN No.3
it
CL
E 1'
Q
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
�__ WETLAND IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON
IMPACT AREA
CRES FILL VOL (CU YD)
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED (SITE)
5.95 40,597
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
(ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR)
0.47 11,374
NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED
2.18 10,558
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
93.5
— ----- ---t--------------------- \
I
0E
ASE2 RECOVERY"t FIRESTORMWATERFlCOLLECTION OVERY e @ ®Q FER E TFTIIO •• AN�K J ' .'. / \
uuu - u © _ / MANAGEMENT
PIPE RACK -.�
BASIN No.4
n
v mN;—
ano
- 1
--- -- ------------- - --
- - ---- -----
PHASE
---
P AS 2
s PHASE ® _ ❑ ❑ 1 \ \-
RECOVERY — o
HA E PURIFICATION w PHZSE 2 uE�r
P ODI CT RECOVERY
F1 ❑ \
ING/QC
PAI <IN$
�❑,___-- o o
Np NORTH CAROLINA RAILROgD
K
:. :,`:❑:�.':..:,-.'
f
�__ WETLAND IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON
ROAD ACCESS
WITHIN THE HATCHED AREA _
VO
LOD
CONSTRUCTED, AND IMPACTS
MITIGATED BY IN CDOT�
ET
CENTRAL
UTILITY
0
I
ON
I
BUILDING
•
I
I
�
1 UBS
I
`
\
I
OFFICE
/ GOWNING / QC
®
WATER
TREATMENT
PAI <IN$
�❑,___-- o o
Np NORTH CAROLINA RAILROgD
K
:. :,`:❑:�.':..:,-.'
f
�__ WETLAND IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON
ROAD ACCESS
WITHIN THE HATCHED AREA _
WILL BE DESIGNED ,
CONSTRUCTED, AND IMPACTS
MITIGATED BY IN CDOT�
0
H
G
F
O
O
w
' — D tONOV15 AFLCIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
C ]90CTt5 AFLOIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
B 200CTi5 K&CIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
i20CTt5 AFLCIT SSUED FOR INFOR TION
Ray.: Rev. tle[e: Design IniL: Revi
�-- _ 0 EFDEE Engineenng Professional Corporation Too F... D.—I Drly cree°wle, SC 29e07 Ucerl:e No. cDTa�
_ _ _ Drawing Drawing
eche : approved
Novo Nordisk
Diabetes API -US
easio�eaia.: 12Ocn CIVIL
IT
MASTER SITE PLAN
Aa ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE 1
srsle�a �too
Pe e
CL -XX -DAPI -US -3 -10 -00 -04 -ALT 1
E D C
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2

mm
9
%❑ I
6000 r
� I
II I
7 1j1
I�
i GUARD
6 1
51
41
PLANT
tNTRANCE
I I
I
z
IL
LU
ZN
I �zLu 0
li
z
¢mi
I I
I �
I
C) I
Lo
I I
I I
I I
I I
L K J H G F E D C B A
2� gz
G� LEGEND:
EXISTING PROPOSED
ovWETLANDS AREA �
IMPACT
LANE
WS AREA
a
i%'i"/
3
y
-
/::::: :: ::';':.❑;':'"BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF) TREE LINE
:'-:'.; •:,'-: '-: '•:'
_ - PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE \
PHASE 1 495,470 495,47LOW BRUSH
0
I
I
. -
4500
_
2
PHASE 2 581,220 1 581,220FENCE— — — — — — —
PARK
NG
PARKING
BUILDING
VO
�
1
D
S
TORMWATER
M
PLANT
tNTRANCE
I I
I
z
IL
LU
ZN
I �zLu 0
li
z
¢mi
I I
I �
I
C) I
Lo
I I
I I
I I
I I
L K J H G F E D C B A
2� gz
G� LEGEND:
EXISTING PROPOSED
ovWETLANDS AREA �
IMPACT
LANE
WS AREA
a
i%'i"/
LOD
i �o
-
/::::: :: ::';':.❑;':'"BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF) TREE LINE
:'-:'.; •:,'-: '-: '•:'
_ - PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE \
PHASE 1 495,470 495,47LOW BRUSH
0
AREHOUSE
. -
_
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
PHASE 2 581,220 1 581,220FENCE— — — — — — —
PARK
NG
PARKING
BUILDING
VO
L
ROAD
— — - ---PROPERTY LINE --- --
�'\ _.''❑ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE LOD
PERMANENT PLANT AREA ONLY
ROW RIGHT OF WAY
i
i
1 10
191
1 8
PHASE 2 PRODUCTION
(
PHASE 2
AREHOUSE
. -
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
WAREHOUSE
❑';.' ..'
: -'•• .';.-: ,' - .-;-
IMPACT AREA ACRES FILL VOL (CU YD)
TORMWATER
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED (SITE) 4.16 59,709
..:.
MANAGEMENT
:
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
o: :
:'::- BASIN No.3
ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR 0.37 8 822
( > '
7
NCDWR]URISDICiIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED 2.18 10,558
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 90.7
- - - ----- -------- —
----------
EEE � ,
®o® 1SR ,
Nei DL Ecrl � 0 ® RECOVERY , n� m ww m STORMWATER
OR FE0. ENTATION iO TANH 0. • w MANAGEMENTs_ — -----PIPE RACK BASIN N0.4 \1 6
I
I -
- - - - - - - ----- ` \
Q5°EGT NST ®.
PHASE
G 2 a5T o= --- -
REST � - �
HA E 2 PHASE 2 RECOVE Y sues I1�� —"— o
P DU IONI PURIFICATION DeSTp CENT L s8o Op
RECOVERY UTILI ❑ 5
I � i BUIL ING �� � GUARD
HOUSE
MEN ❑
Io
A ON I LECT 1 a
WASTE i \
�OFF/G
:WATERNG/ C \ ® j TREATMENT
OFFICE/GO NING/QCFADAY t �' :,::• ------
TRUCK:::.;
------------------------1------------ -------- -- - ------------------ ---
- _ y D M'0 MEN i WETLAND IMPACTS
_ ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON
PARKING
PARKING D BASIN No.l
ROAD ACCESS
WITHIN THE HATCHED AREA
/ O RO%dD: •':. WILL BE DESIGNED , \ 3
:.' _' ''.: '' :: (NbOT): -:: o• ::: ; CONSTRUCTED, AND IMPACTS
MITIGATED BY NCDOT
- NORTH CAROLINA ; .. .. . • .. :. . •1 ` = ^ ' PRELIMINARY
_ ROW _ IW
LROID
----------------- (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
IRI�GE :: :..::
-NGDOT o so' zoa' soo oo'
— ow � --- _ - - _ �, l
SCALE: I"=100'
O 17DEC15 —IT ISSUED FOR PERMIT ` -- __ FOR INFOR ���'- C 30NOV15 ISSUEO
_ APZ/CIT NATION
10NOV15 —IT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
�` /. ; ; .• •' • . ; .•, ; . -'; . ; --A 2NOV15 AFzicIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
DI ­
\ • : :: • .'; -': ' - R0 EFDEE Engineenng Professional Corporation 100 Fwor Daaiei Dn re, Greenville, sC 29507 u"aaae No. C-0
Draw -N
mvetl: clasaRlca4an
Novo Nordisk
N �;\ ; o . ;'• : ':: ; - : � .: • .: � .: o S Diabetes API -US
\\ •rD •'� r0 r an.:�°a�a emaaan nam: 12OCT15 CIVIL
LU
�❑ : 'rrW W .— W Revielon tlele:
Dr.— cIT FINAL SITEWORK
Dea1�n ev_ ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE #2
sale: - PLAN
Pe
CL -XX -DAP I-US-3-10-00-04-ALT2
K ] H G F E D C

101
6 1
51
41
L K ] H G F E D C B A
y;%•,�
°i LEGEND:
EXISTING PROPOSED 10
WETLANDS AREA
WETLANDS AREA
- -
3-
IMPACT AREA
:::.�'"
" BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF) TREE LINE
• " . • .. " . , • . " " . , • . ' PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE LOW BRUSH
- PHASE 1 495,470 495,470
g
�
E
5.07 122,694
I
-i
D
4�N
"; "�
4500
g
2
.:..;:; ":: •:"'",'; "."
�/ ": _ PHASE 581,220 581,200 FENCE — — — — — — —
b
�
PARK
NG
1
3
//_:"•
S
:.' •:: �%""'''"'•'•"'
5
M
L K ] H G F E D C B A
y;%•,�
°i LEGEND:
EXISTING PROPOSED 10
WETLANDS AREA
WETLANDS AREA
- -
IMPACT AREA
:::.�'"
" BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF) TREE LINE
• " . • .. " . , • . " " . , • . ' PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE LOW BRUSH
- PHASE 1 495,470 495,470
g
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
(ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR)
5.07 122,694
NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED
D
4�N
"; "�
//!,-' U
I `
.:..;:; ":: •:"'",'; "."
�/ ": _ PHASE 581,220 581,200 FENCE — — — — — — —
PARK
NG
PARKING
BUILDING
//_:"•
:.' •:: �%""'''"'•'•"'
• "•' "•••'' "•'•'''• ROAD
PHASE 2
PHASE 2
WAREHOUSE
_ _ —_ .-.� PROPERTY LINE
--- '\ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE — LOD
PERMANENT PLANT AREA ONLY
8
j :': '': :: •:; ::; :: :: :; :: ':: :: ':: ':: ':: :: ':" ROW RIGHT OF WAY
\ I
WAREHOUSE 1
TORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
BASIN No.3
I
I
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT AREA
JACRES IFILL VOL (CU YD)
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED (SITE)
14.16 1 59,709
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
(ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR)
5.07 122,694
NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED
I2.18 10,558
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
1 90.7
17
GUARD
HOUSE pa — _ �•
-- -- - - --- - - - --- - - —— J— — - -— — --
®D 4 44 MASE 2 ® LQ �L\
1 444
nwxcimLCErnoryREc0VERv, •n nn ®Tq Rre. ® STORMWATER
•uu �®® � 4400 a �uu" '� � ,�� MANAGEMENT �
PIPE RACK I I TRcx BASIN No.4 \ 6
PLANT — — — — 1- ---— — — —-UNLonoIN---------
° - -�ry onmNc '- — i
ENTRANCE /
I
j -
---- i A
----\777 77777'
-------'---- -
pSUBs SUBSTp F �; P ASE 2
z i HAS �. I I I
w o BST 1 `-
� I uBSF j ------- \
(D HA E 2 j PURIFICATION PHASE 2 RECOVERY
p 2 p a D 1 0
¢ N P DU ION' SUBSrp CENT L E. — ❑ p 5
z o l RECOVERY 1 UTILI E. J
z 1 j j GUARD
� Z II I \ BUIL ING �0 I 1 HOUSE
w RMELE
¢ m TA ON UBS \
I � WASTE
_ I I
1
O WATER
P 2
TREATMENT
OFF GOWNING -
IC /Q OFFICE / GO NING / QC -- ------ -
--- i
0 0 D D D fl O d f; ��:'�'y �, _
p .-.. .-..•' ANAGEMEN
D � � D
- :" PARKING
-- PARKING - '
BASIN No.1
ACCESS m
3
o
- —
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
- LOP€S 0 50 mo' 200' 300' 400
I
'- - - BRIDGE S --E 1"=100'
WETLAND IMPACTS �;,:,T :. .'�� D 11DEC15 AFLCIT ISSUED FOR PERMIT
�`'•''"'•''•'' ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON AFvcIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
ROAD ACCESS — _ B 10-5 AFLCIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
A 2N0 AFVCIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
WITHIN THE HATCHED AREA Re .: Rev. as e: Das1.1 RBWem
\ • : ; - - o EFDEE Engineering Professional CorporationWILL BE DESIGNED 1BB Plaor Daalel Dn�e, creea�IlM, sc zsso� uca�ae No. c-BYaz
CONSTRUCTED AND I + °v;��, ue;I��;��
IMPACTS I � �n�xea:
MITIGATED BY NCDOT ------------ Novo Nordisk
N N o 00fppfp1d DaiabetesAPI-US
;\Ro. as a : 4DDT,5 clwL
R..... dale:
a Drawn6: clr FINAL SITEWORK
Daaea Bv: AFz ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE #3
scala = PLAN
Pe
CL -XX -DAP I-US-3-10-00-04-ALT3
L K I H G F E D C

101
9 1
81
III ,
7 1111
GUARD
HOUSE
6 1
5 1
4 1
PLANT
ENTRANCE
I
1
I F I
z
I w I
E
I W I
L9
� ZN I
o
I
I
I ¢m
I �
Lu In
I � I
p
I I
I I
I I
L K
O V \
PHASE 2
PRODUCTION
PARKING
PHASE WAREHOUSE
WARE
HOUSE
H G F E D C B A
o\ 30
P�
C
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF)
PHASEAREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE
PHASE 1
495,470
495,470
PHASE 2
581,220
301,815
IT.
- --- I TORMWATER
j 40 MANAGEMENT
I J
:. BASIN No.3
j
000 oQ
o©©
ppp o
PHASE 2
U TION PURIFICATION
t Dj
I
I
------ --- ------
--------------
-------------
3 --
____________3
_ -
4500
2
1
M
L
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT AREA
ACRES FILL VOL (CU YD)
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED (SITE)
0.72 4,646
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
(ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR)
0.37 8,822
NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED
2.18 10,558
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
84.3
OFFICE / GOWNING / QC
Cj3
NT L ® �
LM � 0
ILDI G �0
H G F
�m
I9
I8
17
16
15
1 4
13
—1 2
_ AFLCIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
R.,: RevO. tlMe: Design I II ReNsiens:
_ - o EFDEE Engineenng Professional Corporation— Fl.or Demel Uri— --I, SC 29607 Use°:e No. ­
Novo Nordisk
1°bW Diabetes API -US
,20OT,5 CIVIL
Ravaeisa aaM:
IT FINAL SITEWORK
AFS ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE # 4
s�ieae: I�rao. PLAN
Pe e
CL-XX-DAPI-US-3-10-00-04-ALT4
E D C

101
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF)
PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE
K J
495,470
495,470
H G
F E D C
483,796
B
5,808
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
(ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR)
0.37
8,822
NCDWRJURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED
0.28
4,065
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
85.5
LOD
LARD
a
PP
jHOUSE
— — — — 1---- ------------------
--- ------I--------------
� �
LEGEND:
/,ji
j
:.'•�
j
EXISTING
PROPOSED
\\
PHASE2
RECOVERY
j , 0.
i .
, •
WW
C TANK
aop
WETLANDS AREA
i
STORMWATER
6
—
x
©e®
©8©h
pERMENTATION
uuuu=
PERAeK
IMPACTED
,
TArK
\
—
MANAGEMENT
BASIN No.4
WETLANDS AREA
_
PP
PLANT
-- — -- 1—
— — -- — — -- _ _ _ _ - _ -
K
�NtOADI----- _ _ _ _ --
-ENTRANCE
TREE LINE
-
�• i /
LOW BRUSH
ENTRANCE
;: ,; -.; •.;; ,:: ,
\
j
FENCE
_____.__
I
A
KI PAING
BUILDING
\
5500
—
ROAD
r
— — 4Op
:: :: :: :: : ; :: :.
PROPERTY LINE --- -
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
PERMANENT PLANT AREA ONLY
— LOD -
—
--_
---
W
- --
1
j SUBSTU
I
ROW
RIGHT OF WAY
G!
ASE 2
❑ ❑
1
PHASE 2 PRODUCTIO
Iol
!
d
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF)
PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE
PHASE 1
495,470
495,470
PHASE 2
581,220
483,796
PHASE AREHOUSE \•::-:•:"•; '::-::::'::':::::;:;•::-
WAREHOUSE
I I ,` �' •: - '-• TORMWATER -.�-'.'•.;.;•.:.•. .- ., '..
pf :: MANAGEMENT ;;:•
j � i �)•.;:.: �__ "�• BASIN No.3 _
A
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT AREA
ACRES
ILL VOL (CU YD)
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED (SITE)
1.20
5,808
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
(ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR)
0.37
8,822
NCDWRJURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED
0.28
4,065
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
85.5
1 101
1 9'
1 8
1 7
LOD
LARD
PP
jHOUSE
— — — — 1---- ------------------
--- ------I--------------
\
j
j
HI G/COWERON
®�
0®�
®4
PHASE2
RECOVERY
®
UHa (j3 EV
.n nn!• °
°
WW
C TANK
aop
RE
} WATER
STORMWATER
6
—
x
©e®
©8©h
pERMENTATION
uuuu=
PERAeK
,
TArK
\
—
MANAGEMENT
BASIN No.4
6
_
PLANT
-- — -- 1—
— — -- — — -- _ _ _ _ - _ -
K
�NtOADI----- _ _ _ _ --
-ENTRANCE
-
ENTRANCE
;: ,; -.; •.;; ,:: ,
\
j
\
5500
----
r
—
qpl
W
OSUBST
j SUBSTU
PHASE
®m
G!
ASE 2
❑ ❑
1
Iol
!
d
2
w
1�i
PURIFICATION
PHASE2
RECOVERY
O
CENTRAL
®
�
�L _ _
.—` LOD--�
j
D
El
j
5
o
RECOVERY
v
UTILITY
��
�0
GUARD
—
BUILDING
j
o
�1
1
w
PHAS PHASE
RMEN
UBS
HOUSE
o
al
a ¢�
PRODUCTION PRO DU
ON i
A ON
O \
I
ASTE
WATER
1
m
Q
--------- -- --
P E 2
OFF /GOWNING/
C
r-
V
i
I
I
w
TREATMENT
1
m
OFFICE / GO NING / QC
--------- — \
4
P
50 O
i
I I
I
I I
\`---------------------------------- ----------
'�-
---------r I
'--- -h-
/ . - _
i
TRUCK::
a
— ---
PARKING
TORMWATE
o�
_ ---
v
ANAGEMEN
�--�
4BASIN
�ARKI�G D
No. 1
❑
,
0 D D D
•
_
03
NORT "�ARo
PRELIMINARY
N
Ro
W
RAILROAD
;Y' PROP SED.. •:
Q
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
_
P POAMESS::
CCE56pAD :: ; : ; : ;
0 50' Too' zoo' 300 ,
ROAQ : ,
SCALL: 1"=100'
4s00
2
P
WETLAND IMPACTS
_
2
ASSOCIATED WITH GORDONAMCIT
ISSUED FOR P—IT
\
Q\.
ROAD ACCESS
B 3gNOV+S AFLCIT ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
\
WITHIN THE HATCHED AREA
I
-
A
ND ,B AFVGIT SUED FOR IN—ON
Rev.: Ray. Este: Design Toil.: Revisiana'.
WILL BE DESIGNED ,
oEFDEE Engineering Professional Corporabon— F.r Darnel Ddve, Gre Alle, SC 2—Uo .No. D-2
CONSTRUCTED, AND IMPACTS
-----
awing Drawing Doaamam
MITIGATED BY NCDOT
aPcaae: NasgnB�
N
\\ g
��
S
o
o
O0 0b
'v
Novo Nordisk
Diabetes API -US
w
\ .-t'Fw
• . -
W `�
n°a�: R
�as1lae tlea:
CIVIL
-
."°E"Oetlina
aT
FINAL SITEWORK
xa1e^B
ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE #5
Pa
-
a ne.:
PLAN
CL -XX -DAP I-US-3-10-00-04-ALT5
M
L K
J
H G
F
E
D
C

M L K J H G F E D C B A
os 3o
P\ a
LEGEND:
Io /- %; %� LOD m�eais° l0
%� EXISTING PROPOSED
�ll /
' WETLANDS AREA r'.—�•.:-'-'I
IMPACTED
WETLANDS AREA
/
TREE LINE
6500 LOW BRUSH
9 ZZ-
—
- �'.i 9
\ P RKING PARKING FENCE --- ---
/�
BUILDING
I_——L_—_------_--_.�
ROAD
i
PROPERTY LINE —
—TC
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE — L°D —
B a �• PERMANENT PLANT AREA ONLY S
PHASE 2 WAREHOUSE :. • . . - .. -Y • . -: • . . , . " - . - - . - - .
ROW RIGHT OF WAY
/ / WARE
PHASE 2 HOUSE o
PRODUCTION
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS (SF)
PHASE AREA REQ'D AREA AVAILABLE
PHASE 1
495,470
495,470
PHASE 2
581,220
314090
I
I I
TORMWATER O
it =' MANAGEMENT _
ZOO BASIN No3
7 )' - ---
SITE IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT AREA
ACRES FILL VOL (CU YD)
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED (SITE)
0.72
4,646
USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACTED
(ACCESS ROAD NORTH OF RR)
0.37
8,822
NCDWR JURISDICTIONAL ISOLATED WETLAND IMPACTED
0
0
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
84.5
7
------------------------- -------------- --- - -----
RECOVERY FIRE 1 \
GUAM-h°D FILLING/COLLECRON @ ©© O RECOVERY LJ V> W U> FE0. E A ON ° Wp KR
LCV S'xUU�vUr 444 @4@O rUI*II*II* .TrT re ❑ ooT Ir.,••.
Cc HOUSE ---- — — — --- ----- — — — — P,PE
Z J RU<K RACK
L
STORMWATER
j'.
PLANT
MANAGEMENT
BASIN No.4 s
Ios°6�T ; =Da=ro •
a
- a P
HA
I �
ENTRANCE o
55'ID s Q 00�•- :•:• -•:
.., D
s°as
j PHASE 2 RECOVER li -----------
X
F PURIFICATION °65T) PHASE 2v
z RECOVERY \_
w FERME �� I ❑
77
5 j ¢ N % TATION rCEN L ��3 _ ° 5
j ¢ z li - NG 0 GUARD f o
Li �0 UBS
HOUSE +
I \
FFI E/ O N i WASTE A
j
I I I I i WATER i
�C O ` TREATMENTull
\
4
\ / 4
50 TRUCK::
af..
IT
PARKING v Q L
_- ARKI G ANAGEMEN i
BASIN No.l
O
— J
NOR7-HCAR - PRELIMINARY
j OLIIVA RAI
L ° (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
— O-�ACCESS: ; - : :: : ' - :: 0 50' 100• 300' 400•
ROAD:
4500 SCALE: 1" 100'
2 — 2
—__ WETLAND IMPACTS
\ ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON c ITDEC15 AFZ OR IMEDFORPERMIT
\ �\ ROAD ACCESS I 8 50NOV16 AFLCIT 16 ED FOR INFORMATION
WITHIN THE HATCHED AREA _ A zNO's Azcl. sauEDFORINFORMA ON
\ - Ray.: Rev. tlea: Design lnit: Revisions:
WILL BE DESIGNED, oEFDEEEngineenngProfessionalCorporation1MF... D.—IDflecreenwle,sC29607Uce No.coTa�
\ CONSTRUCTED, AND IMPACTS
MITIGATED BY NCDOT Nordisk ed
I \ � • ----_ �s Novo Nordisk
Diabetes API -US
tl tl N
w ^n e 1OT,6 CIVIL
w Remcion ante:
IT FINAL SITEWORK
AFS ON-SITE ALTERNATIVE #6
PLAN
Pe e
CL-XX-DAPI-US-3-10-00-04-ALT6
M L K J H G F E D C

APPENDIX C
GORDON ROAD
ALTERNATIVES

APPENDIX D
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Kimley-Horn and Associates has prepared a Traffic Study for NCDOT to determine if Powhatan
Road in Johnston County can accommodate the projected traffic volumes that are anticipated
by the construction of a major pharmaceutical plant. The plant is proposed to be constructed
directly across from the existing Novo Nordisk plant. The employee and construction traffic
projections have been developed by the project team and have been summarized on the
attached Figure 1. The projected traffic from the plant was assigned to the roadway network
with 90 percent to/from the west via US 70 and the remaining 10 percent to/from the east via
Powhatan Road and Glen Laurel Road.
Based upon the analysis, Powhatan Road will experience an unacceptable level -of -service (LOS)
with the existing roadway laneage shortly after project construction begins. To address this
unacceptable LOS, turn lanes at the intersection of Powhatan Road and US 70 are
recommended (see Figure 2 — Recommended Roadway Laneage). With the addition of the
improvements at the US 70 and Powhatan Road intersection, traffic conditions will improve to
an acceptable LOS. However, shortly after August 2017 with construction traffic increasing, the
LOS at this intersection will fall again to an unacceptable LOS. Additional widening at this
intersection was investigated, however additional improvements such as triple lefts were
deemed unacceptable due to the additional lanes on US 70 that would be required, the
widening of Powhatan that will impact existing business and the at -grade crossing of the
railroad tracts.
Therefore, an additional access was investigated to provide relief to Powhatan Road. Gordon
Road is an existing road directly to the south that provides additional access to US 70. The
Gordon Road and US 70 intersection is currently unsignalized but does have a median opening
providing full movement access. Traffic from the plant was assigned to Gordon Road and with
similar improvements as recommended at Powhatan Road; acceptable LOS was achieved at
Gordon Road and Powhatan Road.
Additional time periods were analyzed over the anticipated Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction
timeframe (over 5 years); however, no other time period yielded an unacceptable LOS. Table 1
summarizes the anticipated LOS at key timeframes at the Powhatan and Gordon Road
intersections with US 70.

-73 ZZ -V4
- —, z z -r
I � Tz-N
I
7-s
TZ -V
T Z -f
TZ -r
INN
i
LZ -V
-.
INN
TZ -j
�s TZ -r
DZ -(l
�- OZ -N
I I
-��-
OZ -0
OZ -v
07-1
OZ -f
OZ -VV
oz -v
i OZ -w
DZ -j
I DZ -f
6T-4
6T -N
6T -a
6T -S
6T -V
6T -f
6T -f
6T -W
6T -V
61-W
6T -j
6T -r
I '
ST -9
ST -N
RT -O
8T -S
ST -V
ST -r
8T -f
8T -VV
li
8T -V
ST VV
81-1
I I
ST -f
£T -D
LT -N
LT -0
rn LT -S
LT -V
Li -r
Mr
LTIN
LT -V
LT -vv
LT -J
LT -f
9"1
9T -N
9T -a
9T-5
--j 9T -V
9T -f
9T -f
9T-ud
9T -V
!
!;T -LN
i 9T -j
r® 9T -f
c
L9
m
m
r
a -
,a
3
a
r
w
■
W
D
0
LL
U)
'
V
r�
V
W
i
y
LL
D
2 V
LL
LL
/W
I..L
U
0�/
ry
a_

NOT TO SCALE
W
�n
``' 150'
na -,
,� Do a50 RES'TRIPES RUC. POWHATAN
STEEL DRWY.*, RD.
�tT�
Q Ot— 250' (EXTEND)
0
I 0 4— iso' GORDON
i a
o��fiT�' RD.
G
r•r-Y
LEGEND
+-- EXISTING LANE
EXISTING STOP SIGN
RECOMMENDED LANE — PHASE 1A
O RECOMMENDED STOP SIGN — PHASE 1A
I RECOMMENDED SfGNAL MODILICATIONS — PHASE 1A
C== RECOMMENDED LANE — PHASE 13
® RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL — PHASE 1 B
XXL STORAGE LENGTH
FIGURE
Kimle >))Horn PROJECT BRIGHT SKY RECOMMENDEDy CLAYTON, NC ROADWAY LANEAGE 2
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF S€RME, M INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE MIO CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER
RELIANCE ON TIAS DOCUMFNT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION W KIMLEY'-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL RE WITHOUT LIARLL7IV TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

KrmleyoHorn
Project Bright Sky — Clayton, NC
Table 1
Level -of -Service Summary
Condition
US 70 Bus. at
US 70 Bus. at
Powhatan Road
Gordon Road
Existing (2015) Traffic
AM C (27.4)
AM — Short Delays
PM -- C (34.1)
PM — Short Delays
Phase IA (2017) Traffic wl No Improvements
AM — D (52.9)
AM — Moderate Delays
PM — F (323.1)
PM — Short Delays
Phase 1 A (2017) Traffic iv/Lnprovements
AM C (20.6)
AM — Moderate Delays
PM — C (29.7)
PM Short Delays
Phase 1B (2018) Traffic — W Phase IA
AM -- F (110.1)
AM— Long Delays
Improvements & No Gordon Road Access
PM — F (95.1)
PM —Moderate Delays
Phase l B (2018) Traffic — }v/ Phase IA
AM — C (20.9)
AM — C (21.7)
Improvements & Gordon Road Access
PM — C (35.0)
PM — C (25.3)
Phase 2 (202 1) Traffic — rv1 Phase IA & IB
AM — C (21.4)
AM — C (23.1)
Improvements
PM — D (36.0)
PM — C (26.6)
,vote.- r:s Liumt rnernoaorogy noes not report an overall levet of service for unsiglnahi ed intersections, the
operation of the minor streef approach is reported above.

APPENDIX E
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1 — View of wetland vegetation near wetland data point (WA -WET) and approximately 20'
inside wetland boundary.
Photo 2 — Soil profile at wetland WA data point location (WA -WET). Note: Soil meets USACE
hydric soil criteria.
Bright Sky Project Page 1 of 10 Kimley ,o Horn
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina

Photo 3 View of the interior of the wetland WB near the Site's eastern boundary.
Photo 4 — Soil profile at wetland WB data point location (WB -WET). Note: Soil meets USACE hydric
soil criteria.
Bright Sky Project Page 2 of 10 1 imley ,! orn
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina

I
Photo 5 — View of a depressional area within wetland WD. Note the water stained leaves that indicate
ponding water.
1
to
u�f�
N.
�N
�I 'r :�A
} f k
Photo 6 — Soil profile at wetland WD data point location (WD -WET). Note: Soil meets USACE hydric
soil criteria.
Bright Sky Project Page 3 of 10 Klf1' ley ,o Horn
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina

Photo 7 View of numerous buttressed trees within the interior of wetland WE.
Photo 8 — View of the culvert under the Norfolk Southern railroad that connects wetland WD to wetland
WE.
Bright Sky Project Page 4 of 10 lLimley ,o Horn
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina

4, r,
F
AV
s

�•a k�` SIF '
'.+T+ T � L ' -i' ti -� � .� � �I: • �4 `� w -. i'� �4�a"� �. � I� �' i, X91 �ig
1-4
Y� y
� AT

Photo 13 — View of wetland vegetation near wetland data point (WH -WET) and approximately 15'
inside wetland boundary.
Photo 14 — Soil profile at wetland WH data point location (WH -WET). Note: Soil meets USACE hydric
soil criteria.
Bright Sky Project Page 7 of 10 Klmley o ftn
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina

41Ip ! r
o�
a
t
'Y t

Photo 17 View of stream S 1.
Photo 17 — Second view of stream S 1.
Bright Sky Project Page 9 of 10 K9mley ,o Horit
Clayton, Johnston County, North Carolina

APPENDIX F
AGENCY COORDINATION

Nurti C arulir a Def airtrriier l of TSAurail aincl C rltr rail Hesoc Maes
Slate Historic Pl es (rvalion Office
Rama na N . Barta s, Pdministn to r
Cra e rn or Pa t N cCra ry
slecratar71;llusan 11lut1v
N oN em ber 14, 2015
Hath Rued
Kim la y Ha rn
3001 Wesionlllarkway
C arM, NC 27513
Offive oJArchiNws ai d Histliry
Del ay sacr•itary Kevin Cl arry
Ra: ClonsIruet Novo Nondisll Pharmaceutical Manulactur'ng Flan ilily, Aa whatan P o� d, Cllay on,
Johr1 s 1 on Clour ty, HR 5-1944
Dean Ms. Peed:
7l hank you far you: latiei concerning the above projecl.
We have a on ducl ed a j eview of the pi o j ecll and all a a wwia of no hist of is rd s ours e s which would ba a fl eded
by tJ a projecl. Thareiora, we 11ave no comment on -Ihe project as pro posied.
71 ha above a a =.. eni sane made pul Isuani 1 o 81d a lion 106 of thll Na tional Hilt onia Pnesiervation Aci and tY e
Aduisorll C ounail on Hislonia Pneaarvation's Regullal ions for Clamlpliance wiih 9laclianl :106 codifrad at 16
CAR Bart 500.
`11hank you fa a you: a a a pe i ationl and conlsidej al ion. if ya u h ave 91ua sil ions concerning the above a a mm end,
coniael Renee Gledhill-Halday, anlminonmientaI review cooidinlalor, at 919-807-6579 or
enviranmlenilal.ravif vrri;nader.&o11. In all fulura aommuricaiion concerning this pnojecl, plaase aite the
above neferenlced ti acl inlg number.
Sinla a ra ly,
t
J
f
Ramona M. Hari os
Ucitfiin: l[9Mast 7nnesStreet, RzleiglAC216CI M ilinlMilress: 1817 Nail 9erviciCanter,MdgllNal:17d99-4(117 11'elept,ine/llam:('119)841-657,1/8C7-(1559

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
November 19, 2015
Ms. Beth Reed
Kimley-Horn
3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, NC 27513
Subject: Request for Environmental Information for Bright Sky Project (Powhatan Road), Johnston
County, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Reed,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
information. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
On behalf of Novo Nordisk, Kimley-Horn is requesting environmental information regarding the following
property in Johnston County: a 200 -acre site situated approximately one-half mile east of the intersection of
Business Highway 70 and Powhatan Road in Clayton. The project area likely drains to unnamed tributaries
of the Neuse River as well as Little Poplar Creek in the Neuse River basin.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently listed the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The northern long-eared bat may be
present or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, consultation with the USFWS may be required. For
more information, please see hiip://www.fvvs.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/pleb/Interim4dRule
KeyNLEB.html or contact the USFWS at [phone] to ensure that potential issues related to this
species are addressed.
Aerial maps and images indicate tributaries to the Neuse River flow north and west of the project site;
Little Poplar Creek flows east of the project site. There are no national refuges or state-owned, wildlife -
designated lands within the project vicinity, nor are there migratory or feeding grounds for anadromous
fish or endangered/threatened species onsite. However, there are records for anadromous fish, as well as
the following aquatic species, downstream of the project site in the Neuse River: the state -threatened,
eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) and creeper (Strophitus
undulatus); the state -special concern, North Carolina spiny crayfish (Orconectes carolinensis); and the
Carolina slabshell (Elliptio congaraea), a species on the Natural Heritage Program's Watch List. As
such, the NCWRC recommends maintaining a minimum 100 -foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer
along perennial streams, and a minimum 50 -foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Wide
riparian buffers are helpful in maintaining stream bank stability. In addition, these buffers provide a
travel corridor for wildlife species.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
November 19, 2015
Scoping — Bright Sky Project
The NCWRC hesitates to concur with the filling of wetlands due to the wildlife habitat value and
beneficial functions they provide for flood control and water quality protection. Changes in land use and
increases in impervious surfaces may exacerbate channel degradation and sediment impacts to stream
ecosystems due to increased stormwater runoff and elevated flooding. In addition, pollutants (e.g.,
sediment, heavy metals, pesticides and fertilizers) washed from roads and developed landscapes can
adversely affect and extirpate species downstream. The NCWRC offers the following recommendations
to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. Minimize impacts to wetland areas as much as possible; consider placing any remaining wetlands
onsite in a permanent conservation easement to prohibit filling, draining, flooding and excavation
activities in the future.
2. Stormwater control structures should be designed to achieve no net change in the hydrology of the
watershed. In addition, trees and shrubs should be planted around any stormwater detention pond(s)
to provide habitat benefits that offset those functions lost by development.
Avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of the construction corridor. Use landscaping that
consists of non-invasive, native species and Low Impact Development (LID) technology. Using
native species instead of ornamentals will reduce the need for water, fertilizers and pesticides. LID
techniques include permeable pavement and bioretention areas that collect stormwater from parking
areas. Additional alternatives include narrower roads, swales versus curbs/gutters and permeable
surfaces such as turf stone, brick and cobblestone.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction.
The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave netting that is
made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt
fencing and similar materials that have been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided
as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can
have detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation
of eggs and clogging of gills.
The NCWRC encourages the planner/developer to consider additional measures to protect aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife species in developing landscapes. The NCWRC's Guidance Memorandum to Address
and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and
Water Quality (August 2002; http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/2002_
GuidanceMemorandumforSecondaryandCumulativeImpacts.pdf) details measures to minimize secondary
and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources; in addition, the NCWRC's Green
Growth Toolbox (h1t2://216.27.39.101/greengrowth/) provides information on nature -friendly planning.
If I can provide further assistance, please call [phone] or email gabriela.garrisonkncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

Z40 aiF]UniteIC S1 atas €I c1itI ent ol the Inteficir
y+�t4 r'i
ISI. FISH FIND WIL DILIFE SEIR'Will
- 'je ]�a1ei1 h BS Fia ld Clflla ii
Dost Office Bon 31 Y 6
baleigl , Narth CEtiolina. -161(1-'72(l
Novermbar 11, 2015
Beth Read
Kimle)1-Ho:un
3001 Wosilon Parkway
Car3l, NC 27J I I
Re: Novo Nordisk Flim pased PharrnaaauliaaI Nanrafacluring Facility —Johnston Clounly, NO
Dean Ms. Rc a d:
This lei I er isi 1 a informi you 1 hall a lisi of a 11 lledei ally-piiol ecil ed er dangema d ar d tin eat ena d species
with knowri occurrev.aas in North Clarolina is now available or the U.S. Aish and Wildlille
8larvice's (Sarvice, web page at hiilpa/[www.lw!ii.gov/h aleigh, 'Ilheuafoie, if you have piojacls Thai
oaciir wilhini the Raleigh Field OffioC.si araa of re9iponsit Mily Isiee attached counly Esi I, yo -u no
langei need°1o.conl ict lha'Raleigh Fialcl Ci fiaefaitalist of.fri.darally-profeci ed speaiss
Cim web page con! ainsi a a a mpleta an i I $i equ er 1 ly 'updai a d lisi t' of � 11 a ncl an g era d and t hneal ened
species pnotlecled by the provisions allihe Hndang and Species Aa I a f 1973, as amended ill
L .S.O. 1131 eV seq.; l21a1), and a list of federal species all concerril tbal atie known to ocaun in
aach conn I in Nor li Clara lina.
$ a a tion 7 of the Act nequira si tl a I all Jeda nal agena is si , la n V heir da si - na to d non -fa da ral
neprnesa ntative; , in a a nsulta tion wish the Smi ca, inslune Ilial any action fa da rally authorize d,
Iun ded, or a a rried out by such agencies isi r.i of likely 1 o j a opardiza the ca ntiri ued exist en ca a I any
iledenally-listed endanganed ori lhieatanad speciesi. A 1 iological assiessmant on evalualion mall ba
llnepaned I o fulfill that ra quinerr enl and in de i a rna ining whei ha r addit iona i a oii : ul i a"iai ni with tH e
Setivia e is necc s sany. In acl dii ion 10 the lleda pally-prolecled spa a is s list, inform a 1 ion on it he
specieii' life histories and habiialsi and inilormation on complating a biologiaa assiasismenl on
a va ua tion and can be found an ami web page at h1 tp:Illwww.fws. govr Ira la ig h. Pleas( c li eck V he
wa 1 site a I er: fa n updal ed inforir. al ion a n change 31.
Me tErm "fcdauzl spaais s a f cancann" nafens to ti we spaais s mihich the Sc rvico bi lievas might be in nc cd of
aonrentrated con so: atian actions. Fliidenal speaies of( cnaetin mcoiva no legal protartion and their design otian de es
a atnaccssanil,I..irnpI,Ithatthi sllc,aicswill evantimlly;lellraposidfor lAtinaasa.iaclenally.aadungaradantheatened
spacios Homelicn,ivrenocommnndthatallpiaatia?btomaa-uris1ctaken toavoid (iii minimizeachienseimpacts to
ihdenal sgeaies ole cnocnn.

If yc un project cond ainis suital la ha bit at ilor any ail tli e fe dera lly-listed species known to be
piesa nl wid fl in the a c unty wh eiie your pilo j ecl occtu s, tl: e pi opo s ed act ion has the poten l is l tc
advansaly ailfecl those speaiosi. As sucli, wenecommandthat siuiiveyi ba aonducitadto datermina
the spaaias' pnesierce on absenica viithin the pia jaat aria. Me use oil North Carolir aNatt;:ual
Hetnil age progiiam da 1 a should no t ba siubstitul a d slob acs ual fig Id surveys.
If you deleiimine Ilial ilhe proposed actions may affect (i.e., likely to advei sely affoat or not likely
to adversely aff eci t, a fa de:ua lly-pna to e ted specie si, you 811ould notifi l this offici a with yours
deteiinuinalion, the rasulIsi of yotun sunieys, survey rrieihodola giasi, and ani arialysiz of the effaats
of the as lion on lis-led spa a is s, including o a nsi&iia 1 ion of dines t, indiro o t, and a umulat ive effe c I s,
before aanducling any aclivitiesi that might affaal tho species. if you dalanmiine that tho pnoposad
aclioni will have no effact (he., no beneficial or a6varse, direst oii Adined effaat) on fedenallil
listed species, tho n Ila u are n of jie quined to cord act our i a ffia e fc ii col: curren co (W esi si an
Envinonmend al lmpaa l St al em end is prepared.. H to wa ve r, yon should m a int ain a o a miplet e second
of the assemarrierit, inialudinig stapsi laadirig to yowi determinialior of eifecl, the qualified pensonniel
coniducling the asisiesisnierrl, habitat aanditionis, silo qhc tognaphs, and any othar nelaied ariolos.
Wi Ih iiegand 1 c the al ova -iiefa ra nia o d proj eo t, wa oilfe r the folk wing :ue rrua rksi. Chun comtr eri is ane
si ibrnitt ed puiusivanl t a, a n d in ac tort I a no e wit h, piiovisionis of 1 ha Endange:x d `Ips c ie s Ao t.
Basiad anthe infanrialian piiovided and other informations available, it agpaarsi 11 a1 the piioposed
aclion iii not likely 1a aclvarmoly afkct any 11ede7ially-Bailed 4ndangened oii thilealened speciesi, thein
Ioinially demignatad aiiitical habitat, or species aunuarrlly proposed fon listing unclar the Aat at
the sue silesi. Wa 1 oliavo that the iiequinenuortsi of section 7Qa;11) of the Aat have t oori satisfied far
clout proj eat. Pleat 4 nerriemben Thal c t ligations un den s4otion 7 consult all ion miusrl 1 a
neoan31idared if: (l: new information revealsi impa( is a this idenlifted actions that may aff eat
listed species on ciuitical habitat in a manner not piievionsly corisidened; Q2: it is aclion is
siubsequendy modifkd in a miannar that was not aonsiclarad in this :xviow; aii, I1' a naw species
is list l o (I all cnitia a 1 hat it at del ermine d ti at may ba a lfeci ed by t 110 id o ntified acl ioru.
He wa va n, Me e Service is c or c emQ d about the potential irnpa cl s tr e propomo c I ac-lion migh 1 have
on aqual is sipa a is H. Aquatic ro siou: is es are highly sulk o ptible lo sq dirried ation. `llhenefore, wa
iiecomn eri d that all pna el icable meamunesi be 1 akeri lo avoid adva neo impacts to aquatic species,
including implemientin g diiieciiorial boring tr. eilhods and ArinjYt rt sedimc nt and pros ion a onrtnol
mieasura si. An o rosiio n and m dime nta tioni ca nl sol plan ill o uld be Sul m itl o d i s and approved by
the North Clarolinia Division of Band Resa ureas, Lancl Quality Soclion pnian to conistnuction.
Hrosia n and m e dimienl ation coal rc l9 sl: oulc I bo inisit ally d and maintained bel ween the cc nstnuci ion
silo and any nearby dowrii-gnadieni sutiface waiens. Iii addition, wemconimancl miahitainiing
nalwial, vagotatad 1 uflfors ori all stroams and cheeks ache end to the pnajoat siita.
11ho 1` grill Carolina "K ildlifo Rema unci s Com ni is sioni has da va loped a Guidance M ernorandurn la
copy can be found on ouii website a1 (1i tp:,[1www.fws.gov1raleigh: to addtiess and niitigale
iia a ori darts and ciur ula l Ns irrpao tsi to aqua Iia and t a niesitnial wildlifa ra sour(o s and wat eii quality.
We tnecorinion6 that you cortidan dhis docurrenl in tha dove lopmend of youii proje(tsi and in
complaling an initiation paokago fa ii consuliaiiori (if niecesisiary).
2

Vole bops you find oun wf b pag( useful m d informative and 111a1 fallowing the pnocf ss de.ic:uibad
a bovc will deduce iI N e iI ima rf quiiied, ar d elimina tf then( f d, Joi g E na ra 1 a a niic spondenca Jon
sipecie9i' limn. ]If il(u hava any quf sitions oii aonunenis, plf asie conlacl John Flllit oil iihis officf a l
(1919; STI -4520 axt. 26.
Sina evc 1) 1,
b
Pete Benjamin
Fiald Supejivisoii
3

Lishl all Countiem in the Seri iaa'si Ralaigh field Office Area all Remponsibilit3
Alamlana e
E eaufa rt
E erti(
ME den
Hrunsiwiall
Clamdan
Clarta net
CIE swell
C hEIhE m
Clha wan
Cla lumlbus
Chavanl
Clumibenland
Clurniituc k
Dane
Duplin
Diu ham
Hdl a coni N
Bra nlilin
Gatesi
Gnarl villa
Greene
Gu'lforid
Halifax
parr e-11
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnaiton
Joneli
aa
llla na in
Mar, irl
Monilgorniary
Moose
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Ilamlico
Pari quol and
Pandas
4
lea rqu im cans
Hansian
Hit 1
Randolph
Richmia nd
Robeson
Rockiiq ham
$ampsla n
$aatland
' lyrr(11
Vance
'Wal e
IvNlamenl
Ulla shire g I a n
VVlEyva
Wlllsla 11

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
December 9, 2015.
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Gary Lohr
3612 Powhatan Road
Clayton, NC 27527
PAT MCCRORY
coreawor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secrefaly
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Direciw
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
NBRRO#15-524
Johnston County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call Isolated or EIP Call
Neuse (15A NCAC 26 .0233)
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259 ❑Ephemeral/lntermittentjPerennial Determination
® Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 2B .0257)
Project Name: Novo Nordisk Bright Sky Proiect
Location/Directions; The property is located between Powhatan and Gordon Roads
across the street from 3612 Powhatan Road.
Subject Stream(s): Poplar Creek UT to Poplar Creek & UT to Reedy Branch
Determination Date(s): 10/28/2015 & 12/4/2015 Staff: Jennifer Burdette
Feature/
Flag
E/I/Pi
Not
Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
Survey
USGS
Topo
A
X
x
B
x
x
C (SA)
P
X
Flag SA -1
Throughout
X
Headwater
NA
X2
Forest Wetland
WF
Basin Isolated
NA
X3
NA
NA
NA
NA
Wetland WG
Basin Isolated
NA
X3
Wetland WH
IEIIIP = Ephemera!/Intermittent/Perennial,- ` Not subject to 2.5A NCAC, u2r4, [Juu; &--)uo1ecr ro .c.)1+ rvLHL
02H.1300
State oiNorth Carolina � Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Novo Nordisk Bright Sky Project
Johnston County
December 9, 2015
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Johnston
County, North Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000
scale. Each feature that is checked "Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is
not present on the property. Features that are checked "Subject" have been located on the
property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be other streams
located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of
Water Resources (DWR).
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or
affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may
request a determination by the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of
date of this letter or from the date the affected party (including downstream and/or adjacent
owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to
the Director in writing % Karen Higgins, DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1617 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal
within sixty (60) days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local,
State, and f=ederal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the
subject property (stated above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the
proposed activity. Any inquiries should be directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central
Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at
(919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Jennifer Burdette
at [phone].
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Superviso
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
cc: RRO DWR File
Beth Reed, Kimley-Horn, 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Ida Wiggins, 1282 Maple Ave., Peekskill, NY 10566-4853
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch File (07-0173 v2)

powbak,
Ch
ZVI
. � v • t
Note: This area is part of the Novo`
Nordisk property; hower, no
development/impacts to this area are
proposed and jurisdictional features '
associated with this area have not
been delineated.
i
411 01
F
Legend
Area Not Delineated t Feet
.,
Project Study Area � � 0 300 000 900 1,200
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
�I ����� (Powhata1981)
Bright SkyProject
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; hower, no
development/impacts tc this area are
proposed and jurisdictional features
associated with this area have not
been delineated.
.A _
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015
�A ♦ AQP®AA�f4
f!7Alba
i
Hydric Soils Table
Map Symbol
Map Symbol Name
-
Hydric
Y
_ r
AmB
_
Appling-Marlboro complex (1-61% slopes)
No
-
GoA
Goldsboro sandy loam (0-2% slopes)
Incl.
MaB
Marlboro sandy loam'(2-8%slopes)
No
}
McB
Marlboro -Cecil complex (2-8% slopes)
No
Legend
NoA
Norfolk loamy sand (0-2% slopes)
Incl.
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand (2-6% slopes)
Incl.
Area Not Delineated
Ra
Rains sandy loam (0-2% slopes)
Yes
Project Study Area
Tn IToisnot
loam (0-2% slopes)
Yes
VrA I
Varina loamy sand (0-2% slopes)
No
Feet
VrB Ivarina
loamy sand (2-6% slopes)
No
0 400 800 1,200 1,600
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map
I' I
")► Horn
(Johnston County, 1994)
I �I 1115
Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

lookk-
44
t a WFd 4A
MG
gr.i -
�.�, wd. -
IX
•r wit � o, �_--� �� �, / -
A.
.i+ 4
d a •��
�Wi
Note: This area is part of the Novo '
Nordisk property; power, no
develop mentlimpacts to this area are
Legend proposed and jurisdictional features
associated with this area have not
Stream been delineated. t'
USACE Jurisdictional WetlandV,4
NCDWR Jurisdictional Isolated Wetland
6,27/2 Unregulated Isolated Wetland
I Area Not Delineated
_ Feet '
J Project Study Area =. f 0 350 704 1,050 1,404
Figure 3: Jurisdictional Features Map
Kiml'ey*Hor Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

APPENDIX G
PERMIT DRAWINGS

IS
Ov
'A.
PEA E25
PRODUCTION
FIGURE 2
...�...�
�. ' -- ■anntl�l ■ �
I I I I I I I J 1 1 1 1
J I 11
1
g
4
a.� t
\
s
PLOT DATE: P:\CAD\210\DWG\Flg—\WETLAND FIGURES 1-514 P-5 (2).d,g 12-21-15 3:31 P Pnn- By: 1,16264
v
0
URE.
.—>
i
■ ;L9
low'
\ Y
0
0 250' 500' 1000' 1500' 2000'
0
O EFDEE Engineering Professional Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Drive, Greenville, SC 29607 License No. C-0742
Novo Nordisk
novonordisli Diabetes API -US
Creation date: 28OCT15
COUNTY: JOHNSTON Novo NordiskA/S Revision date: 17DEC15 CIVIL
WATERWAY: Powhatallorth Carolina n Road
Clayton, Drawn By: CIT OVERALL SITE PLAN
RIVER BASIN: NEUSE RIVER USA Design By: AFz WETLAND IMPACT
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: scale: GRAPHIC USACE # SAW -2015-02127
Pae no.:
FIGURE 1 OF 5
Q
FIGURE
AS
g
I
RECOVERY
�•
Q
2 2
�FR'. DU`1 /rR DUCT
PURIFI
CATION
PHASE I
2
°
°
ON
RECOVERY
3:R
---
MIN
N
a
ION.
■
`
11
-
E 2 OFFICE
-
PHASE 2 OF ICE/GOWNIN
I I I I I I I J 1 1 1 1
J I 11
1
g
4
a.� t
\
s
PLOT DATE: P:\CAD\210\DWG\Flg—\WETLAND FIGURES 1-514 P-5 (2).d,g 12-21-15 3:31 P Pnn- By: 1,16264
v
0
URE.
.—>
i
■ ;L9
low'
\ Y
0
0 250' 500' 1000' 1500' 2000'
0
O EFDEE Engineering Professional Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Drive, Greenville, SC 29607 License No. C-0742
Novo Nordisk
novonordisli Diabetes API -US
Creation date: 28OCT15
COUNTY: JOHNSTON Novo NordiskA/S Revision date: 17DEC15 CIVIL
WATERWAY: Powhatallorth Carolina n Road
Clayton, Drawn By: CIT OVERALL SITE PLAN
RIVER BASIN: NEUSE RIVER USA Design By: AFz WETLAND IMPACT
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: scale: GRAPHIC USACE # SAW -2015-02127
Pae no.:
FIGURE 1 OF 5

FIGURE 2
0 50' 100' 200' 300' 400' 500'
PLANT
ENTRANCE
COUNTY: JOHNSTON
WATERWAY:
RIVER BASIN: NEUSE RIVER
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE:
IMPACT AREA #1
WETLAND FILL = 2.18 AC
VOLUME FILL = 10,558 CU YD
y y y
Y y y y y y
y
y r
a a yr r r y a
a y
y y y y a y a r y a y
a y r r r a y r a y y
a y �' y y• a• y
r y r r
a y a y a y a a y y a rr
ay ay y y r ay a y ay y r as a ry
a r y r y y
a y
r
y y
rY y r y y a y y a y y r
y ya + a y y y yyT yy yy 7 a r y r y y - - - - - - - - - -
y y y y y a a y r r I r y r ya yr y I
y is r
y I ry ra yy rry ra yr aay ray rry ra ya ryy ra yy rl y ry ra a ar ryy � I
yy y yr y ya a yr a ar r y Iaa r y ay r y y� r I
yy i� y a r r r I
yya ya yal ra ya ar ry ayyyry ar aya as yr aya ay yr ay yya � y ara ar ya ya yr Ira yry I
a� r y PHASE 2
y yyyh.y rr,rayr PHASE r r y r r baa r yryy r y PRODUCT
y y I y y • yPRODU(-fTr r y a rr r y r y Ma r y
I O N
Ty y r ya ya r y yIO '+a yy r +a a y ry I r ya ry rr yy yy y I yy yy r I
r y r r y r r y r y r y r y a• I r
a
I ryr y yr yr ya rya ya ya I r y ya y ra yy aI ra I
Iy r y yy yy a• yya r� yr yr ra ar y y I
y
I a y Y y yrly a rr I I
L,
PHASE 2
OFFICE/GOWNING/QC
O EFDEE Engineering Professional Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Drive, Greenville, SC 29607 License No. C-0742
Novo Nordisk
novonordisli
Diabetes API -US
Creation date: 28OCT15
CIVIL
Novo Nordisk A/S
Powhatan Road
Revision date: 17DEC15
IMPACT 1
Drawn B : CIT
Clayton, North Carolina
USA
Desi n B : AFZ
DETAIL
Scale: GRAPHIC
USACE # SAW -2015-02127
Paae no.:

FIGURE 3
0 50' 100' 200' 300' 400' 500'
_ceee-----�
PHASE 2 RECOVERY
OFFICE / GOWNING / QC
RECOVERY
IMPACT AREA #2
WETLAND FILL =
1.10 AC
VOLUME FILL =
7098 CU YD
PHASE
I 2 I
a
\7
FERMEN
TATI O N
" y
a
y
r
"
K
"
RKI Gr` " "" y ""
y
O
PARKING
y
ar
�
/PA
+""•
+
+
"
r
nal Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Drive, Greenville, SC 29607 License No. c-0742
Novo Nordisk
novonordisli
Diabetes API -US
COUNTY: JOHNSTON
NovoNoreiskws
" r
CIVIL
WATERWAY:
Powhatan RoadClay
Drawn By: CIT
IMPACT 2
" r
USA[on,NorthCarolina
B
Desi AFZ
DETAIL
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE:
scale:n
GRAPHic Paoe no.:
USACE # SAW -2015-02127
+
r
+
+
y
\7
FERMEN
TATI O N
" y
y
r
"
"
RKI Gr` " "" y ""
PARKING
JEgme�
/PA
+""•
nal Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Drive, Greenville, SC 29607 License No. c-0742
Novo Nordisk
novonordisli
Diabetes API -US
COUNTY: JOHNSTON
NovoNoreiskws
Creation date: 17D
Revision date: 17DEC15 EC15
CIVIL
WATERWAY:
Powhatan RoadClay
Drawn By: CIT
IMPACT 2
RIVER BASIN: NEUSE RIVER
USA[on,NorthCarolina
B
Desi AFZ
DETAIL
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE:
scale:n
GRAPHic Paoe no.:
USACE # SAW -2015-02127

FIGURE 4
0 50' 100' 200' 300' 400' 500'
IMPACT AREA #3
WETLAND FILL = 1.00 AC
VOLUME FILL = 17,746
- UTILITY
- COORIDOR
m
COUNTY: JOHNSTON
WATERWAY:
RIVER BASIN: NEUSE RIVER
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE:
y y y r y
y + r y
r
r y + y r r y r y y r y y r y y y y y y y++
r r y r r y a
+ y r r y r r r y + y+ r y y r y r y r y y y +
r y + y y + y y + y r y y r y y y y y y
r + + + r
y y r y + r r r + y +
yr r y + y yr IMPACT AREA #4r •ryy • r
y r r WETLAND FILL = 0.10 AC
r r
yy "r VOLUME FILL = 807 CU YD , • + y+
+
+
PHASE
y
++
r+•
JO
r
44
EEO -
CENTRAL SD -
UTI LITY �p
BUILDING EMBp
EEp �
\1 F-7
IMPACT AREA #5
WETLAND FILL = 0.11 AC
VOLUME FILL = 887 CU YD
LECTRICAL GUARD
HOUSE
SUBSTATIONI
r r +y r "+
r r
+
r "
+ +
+ + " r
y
r r
+ + y
r
+
rr • +r
r, "r
r r r +
r r
r
r +
r+
++
+
+
+ r
y
r y
y y y+
y+
y
r
r
y r y r y
r
+ y
y
+r r r
y
y +
+ r+
y
r y
ry
r
r y + y y y r
ry
y+
+y
y
y y y
ry y
y y r r y
yy
r
r r
+y
y+ y y
yy
y r
r
y y++ y y y y
y
y y y
y r y+ y r
y y
y y y+
y y
r
+
r
+
+ y
r
+ y
r
y y y r y
y + r y
r
r y + y r r y r y y r y y r y y y y y y y++
r r y r r y a
+ y r r y r r r y + y+ r y y r y r y r y y y +
r y + y y + y y + y r y y r y y y y y y
r + + + r
y y r y + r r r + y +
yr r y + y yr IMPACT AREA #4r •ryy • r
y r r WETLAND FILL = 0.10 AC
r r
yy "r VOLUME FILL = 807 CU YD , • + y+
+
+
PHASE
y
++
r+•
JO
r
44
EEO -
CENTRAL SD -
UTI LITY �p
BUILDING EMBp
EEp �
\1 F-7
IMPACT AREA #5
WETLAND FILL = 0.11 AC
VOLUME FILL = 887 CU YD
LECTRICAL GUARD
HOUSE
SUBSTATIONI

FIGURE 5
0 50' 100' 200' 300' 400' 500'
ELECT.
CENTRAL SUBST r
UTILITY ry ya "a
BUILDING yi ar yy y�
r
r r r
a y r a y r
IMPACT AREA #6 y r y r a y r
WETLAND FILL = 0.50 AC y , as yay" ar yy"' rr yy ar
VOLUME FILL = 12,100
r y r a r a
CU YD
a y
a y r r y r y y a s
y y r" r a rr a y a
a y r
y ayy ya ar r r r r yyry y r r r " r
a a r y y y y
y r a a y r r y y r y y y r y a
STORMWATER rr yrr yr yry " " r yr
y r r
MANAGEMENT r y y r a yry yry r y" r r r r y r y y r y y r
BASIN No.1
y r r a r y r y r r r y r a r
a a y y y y
y • a y r a a s r r r y a" a r a r a
yr r y r r y y r r a a r
IMPACT AREA #7
WETLAND FILL AC y r r WETLAND IMPACTS
VOLUME FILL = 4844 4 CU YD y r y y
ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON
r
a r
r r
"yrr y rayr ROAD ACCESS
a r y
ar yrryya "rJ;r WITHIN THE HATCHED AREA
a r
yry"y r yy WILL BE DESIGNED ,
r
y r r
a
y ryyyrrr CONSTRUCTED, AND IMPACTS y
ryryyr� MITIGATED BY NCDOT
a
ryy
PROPOSED ACCESS +yy y rr yr " ry yy " r"yy
"ROAD yy "y yy ry
r r r a
r y y r r y r r y y yr
COUNTY: JOHNSTON
WATERWAY:
RIVER BASIN: NEUSE RIVER
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE:

APPENDIX H
ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS AND ADDRESSES

+., k
r r
AA
:r
A
"NOVO NORDISK i
?' PHARM IND
r
�wr
4
F
Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; however, no
development/impacts to this area are
proposed and jurisdictional features
associated with this area have not
been delineated.'.
r NOVO'
• i NORDISK
PHARM IND
YOUNG FAMILY
WIGGINS!
169S]
NORD
RM INI
INS ���®f�A�����������������AAMM
O
s. n Legend
4� IK Affected Parcels
Feet a ` ` Area Not Delineated
0 350 700 1,050 1,400 So ' �� Project Study Area
i A
Affected Property Parcels Map
Kimle>o Hornright Sky Project
i\ Y tl ClClayton, Johnston County
December 2015

APPENDIXH
PROPERTY PARCEL TABLE
MAP 1 ,
05E9901OG
167804-41-9237
NOVO NORDISK PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES INC
3612 POWHATAN RD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
2
05105013
167804-51-8252
POWHATAN FREE WILL BAPTIST
00000-0000
3
05105012
167804-61-0681
GRIFOLS THERAPEUTICS INC
PO BOX 110526
DURHAM
NC
27709-5526
4
05105004
167804-62-3275
KAN D HOLDING LLC
444 E MAIN ST
CLAYTON
NC
27520-2529
5
05105004C
167804-61-5488
SCOTT, TERESA SMITH
3366 POWHATTAN RD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
6
05105004A
167804-61-7520
SMITH, LARRY
SMITH, LINDA
3352 POWHATAN RD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
7
05105005
167804-61-9916
HILL, ROGER WILLIAM AND
HILL, GINGER SMITH
3276 POWHATAN ROAD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
8
0510SOOSA
167804-71-1317
HILL, ROGER WILLIAM
3276 POWHATAN RD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
9
05105006R
167804-71-2399
SMOOT, WARREN DOUGLAS
SMOOT, SHARON BOND
3248 POWHATAN RD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
10
05105006Q
167804-71-4452
POOLE, EARL WAYNE
POOLE, NANCY E
3226 POWHATAN ROAD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
11
05105010
167804-71-6196
POWHATAN PROPERTIES LLC
305 DEERFIELD DRIVE
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
12
05E99006M
167804-81-3106
ELLIS, JAMES TERRY
ELLIS, SANDRA STEPHENSON
2007 RIDGE COURT
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
13
05105006K
167804-81-4402
ISSA, YAZAN HASSAN
23 GLEN LAUREL RD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
14
05E99007H
167804-91-5923
GORDON, CHARLES B
POWHATAN RD LIMITED PARTNRSHP
PO BOX 327
CLAYTON
NC
27528-0327
15
OSE99007S
167804-91-0564
POWHATAN ROAD LIMITED PRTNRSHP
PO BOX 327
CLAYTON
NC
27528-0000
16
05JO6001B
167804-90-0621
WOODALL, EUGENE D
WOODALL, BETTY SUE
484 PACKING PLANT RD
SMITHFIELD
NC
27577-0000
17
05105024A
167700-86-5850
SPENCE, MATTHEW E
1685 GORDON ROAD
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
18
05105023
167700-77-7532 I
MITCHELL, BETTY L
2367 GORDON RD
I CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
19
05105022C
167700-77-4939
NEW BEFHELCHURCH
00000-0000
20
OSE99003L
167700-76-4994
WOODALL, BETTY
2175 GRABTOWN ROAD
SMITHFIELD
NC
27577-0000
21
05E99010L
167700-76-5792
JONES,JOSEPHB
JONES, DOROTHY
PO BOX 871
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
22
05105022S
167700-76-3757
ADKINS, CHARLES E
WALTERS, TARA KRISTIN
148 EDDLESTONE CT
CLAYTON
NC
27520-7519
23
05105022R
167700-76-0890
SCHWICHOW,SCOT
SCHWICHOW, DIANE M
147 EDDLESTONE CT
CLAYTON
NC
27520-7520
24
05105022
167700-66-8841
LANGDON, BENNY HAROLD
LANGDON, DEBORAH P
19 SLATEFORD DR
CLAYTON
NC
27520-7507
25
05105023Q
167700-66-5871
WILEY, DAVID
WILEY, LISA
245LATEFORD DRIVE
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
26
OSIO5023L
167700-66-3895
KOEHLER, DAVID
KOEHLER, VALERIE L
102 GRANTON COURT
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
27
05105023K
167700-56-9884
SANTILLAN, CLAUDIA GONZALEZ
SAUCEDO, JOSE GUADALUPE ROCHA
103 GRANTON COURT
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
28
05105021
167700-56-1770
MITCHELL, BETTY L
2367 GORDON RD
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
29
05105021A
167700-47-9545
YOUNG FAMILY IRREVOCTRUST
KELLING, JENNYYTRUSTEE
3739 NATIONAL DR STE 227
RALEIGH
NC
27612-4063
30
OSIOS020H
167700-37-7058
CIHOS, THEODORE JAMES
CIHOS, BETTY
2017 FOX DEN
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
31
05105020W
167700-37-9213
CIHOS, THEODORE JAMES
CIHOS, BETTY
2017 FOX DEN
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
32
05105020L
167700-37-7594
WALTHOM GROUP A NC PARTNERSHIP
4421/2 EASTMAIN STREET
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
33
051050205
167700-37-7870
WINSTEAD BUILDING I A NC PTSHP
P O DRAWER 1960
SMITHFIELD
NC
27577-1960
34
051050200
167700-38-8091
HOUSE, RAYMOND M JR
HOUSE, ANGELA C
2020 CASEY RD
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
35
05105019H
167700-48-1211
WALTHOM GROU P A NC PARTN ERSH IP
4421/2 EASTMAIN STREET
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
36
051OS02OR
167700-48-1514
WALTHOM GROUP
4421/2 E MAIN STREET
CLAYTON
NC
27520-0000
37
05105019K
167700-48-5249
NORTH TECH 120 LLC
120 N TECH DR STE 102
CLAYTON
NC
27520-5084
38
05105019L
167700-48-9258
NEUSE RIVER LEASING INCA
S C LIMITED LIABILITY CO
2160 SATELLITE BLVD STE 450
DULUTH
GA
30097-0000
39
05105019M
167700-58-2364
NEUSE RIVER LEASING INCA
S C LIMITED LIABILITY CO
2160 SATELLITE BLVD STE 450
DULUTH
GA
30097-0000
40
051050190
167700-58-6227
NEUSE RIVER LEASING INC A
5 C LIMITED LIABILITY CO
2160 SATELLITE BLVD STE 450
DULUTH
GA
30097-0000
41
05105008K
167700-68-0854
JOHNSTON COUNTY INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PO BOX 1179
SMITHFIELD
NC
27577-0000
42
05105019Q
167700-59-6259
LAMM MEDIA GROUP LLC
PO BOX 90
SMITHFIELD
NC
27577-0000
4305105014A
167700-59-3446
SON, YOUNG MUN
SON, HAE SOOK
3733 POWHATAN RD
CLAYTON
NC
27520-9132
44
05E99010H
167800-40-6294
NOVO NORDISK PHARM IND
3612 POWHATAN RD
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000
45
n/a
n/a
EDINBURGH COMMUNITY HOA, INC.
ALLEN, BRUCE (PRESIDENT)
106 S LOMBARD ST
STE 109
CLAYTON
NC
27527-0000

APPENDIX I
NCSAM AND NCWAM
DATA FORMS

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
Stream Site Name Bright Sky Project - SA Date of Evaluation 11/11/2015
Stream Category lag Assessor Name/Organization J. Hartshorn/Kimley-Horn
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
NO
NO
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
Overall
HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Bright Sky Project - Wetland WA Date 9/15/2015
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization R. Sullivan/Kimley-Horn
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Conditon
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Bright Sky Project - WB Date 9/15/2015
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization R. Sullivan/Kimley-Horn
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Conditon
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Bright Sky Project - WC Date 9/15/2015
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization R. Sullivan/Kimley-Horn
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Conditon
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Bright Sky Project - WD and WE Date 9/15/2015
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization R. Sullivan/Kimley-Ho
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Conditon
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Bright Sky Project - WF Date 9/15/2015
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization R. Sullivan/Kimley-Ho
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Conditon
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Bright Sky Project - WG Date 9/15/2015
Wetland Type Basin Wetland Assessor Name/Organization R. Sullivan/Kimley-Ho
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Conditon
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Bright Sky Project - WH Date 9/15/2015
Wetland Type Basin Wetland Assessor Name/Organization R. Sullivan/Kimley-Ho
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
LOW
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Conditon
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Bright Sky Project - WJ Date
12/3/2015
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
R. Sullivan/Kimley-Horn
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Ratina Summar
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

APPENDIX J
MITIGATION

fires
Date: October 28, 2015
To: Jason Hartshorn
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
From: Chad Evenhouse
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Subject: Request for Mitigation Offsets in Neuse 03020201 Watershed
Dear Mr. Hartshorn:
Thank you for your recent inquiry into the availability of riparian wetland mitigaiton
credits to provide offsets for the following project:
Project name: Bright Sky Project
Applicant: Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Project location: Town of Clayton, Johnston County, NC
USGS HUC: Neuse River Basin 03020201
Projected mitigation required: 10 acres riparian wetland
Attached is a Statement of Availability as of today, October 28, 2015 which says we
do not currently have the credit available for sale. Please note that RES does have
active bank sites in the 03020201 basin and we anticipate the release of future credits
that may be available to serve your need prior to permit issuance or initiation of
construction. We anticipate a credit release late in 2015 and again in April/May 2016.
Therefore, depending on your project schedule, we may be able to provide a portion or
all of your mitigation needs for your project.
A recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for a Section 404 Individual
Permit application stated the following regarding mitigation:
Additionally, the applicant would purchase the appropriate number and type
of stream and wetland credits from the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services and/or a private mitigation bank necessary to compensate for all
impacts resulting in a loss of waters of the United States at a ratio of 2:1.

ihttp://www.saw.usace.army.miI/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/pubIicnotices/2015/SAW-
2006-32842-PN.pdf]
Please note that providing multiple mitigation opitons, and reserving the right to seek cost effective
mitigation, is sufficient in evaluation of a permit application as long as the mitigation is secured
prior to issuance of the permit. As this project moves forward, please reconsider RES for your
mitigation needs. The current cost for riparian wetland mitigation credits is $66,000 per WMU,
which will be valid until June 1, 2016 for the Bright Sky Project.
Thank you for considering RES in evaluating your mitigation solutions options. Please feel free to
call my should you have any questions or need additional information, and I will continue to
monitor the progress on this project.
Sincerely,
Chad Evenhouse
NC Account Manager
ra

Environmental
Quality
October 27, 2015
Gary Lohr
Novo Nordisk
3612 Powhatan Road
Clayton, NC 27527
Project: Bright Sky Project
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
Expiration of Acceptance: April 27, 2016
County: Johnston
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table
below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program will be
approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will be approved. You must also comply with all other
state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including
G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a
copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy of the permit(s) an
invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the
authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and
policies listed at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts that may require compensatory
mitigation are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to DMS for this impact
is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
River
Basin
CU Location
(8 -digit HUC)
Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.)
Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool Warm Ri arian
Non-Ri arian
Coastal Marsh
Impact Neuse
03020201
0
0 0 5.0
1 0
0 0
0
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be
performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
James. B tanfill
cc: David Shaeffer, USACE-Raleigh Asset Ma agement Supervisor
Jason Hartshorn, agent
--� - Nothing Compares'.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919-707-8600

APPROVED
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
REQUEST

Jurisdictional Determination Request
M
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (7D) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
to the appropriate Corps Field Office (or project manager, if known) via mail, electronic mail, or
facsimile. A current list of county assignments by Field Office and project manager can be
found on-line at: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram.aspx , by
telephoning: 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below:
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
Version: December 2013 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E and F.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part G.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that all JD
requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed with the
determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be
signed by the current property owner to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for JD
requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be
conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD may not
be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or
your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you
should also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural
RPcrmirr-Pc Cnncam7atinn CPm71!`P nrinr to ctartincr Az7n1-lr
Version: December 2013 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: iee i
City, State:
County: > 2- -±2
Directions: I» »
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 'iee 6616666eere6i&6 e666eee1i 66Y66 e6i6e66eii eo
•iee 6666i6kdi 666 'iee e666eeeeei
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name:
10))-, I »»1i4dD.3 •)40±®z
Mailing Address:
i66 'i E»-,±= fl©�§al's®§®Y 166'ii
Telephone Number:
�iq 6&6661661
Electronic Mail Address 1:
%))-0>)))1/44j- ")>§6,±&A'
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: O±'± 6±®'p D,L®' 61/#((�Y26 XZ'/4ct-0>-6 X21,6 ii bajjL(§ bt@
Mailing Address:
`1'6§_±2Z6l' lee ie
Telephone Number: & 666661-i6o
Electronic Mail Address 3: ',"±a 2±a±2 ±®1/4•-W'
❑ Proof of Ownership Attached (e.g. a copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record data)
1 If available
z Must attach completed Agent Authorization Form
3 If available
Version: December 2013 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION'
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein,
do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations
and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
Property Owner (please print)
Property Owner Signature
E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION TYPE
Select One:
Date
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does include a delineation.
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
This request does NOT include a delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps investigate the property/project area for the presence or
absence of WOUS5 and provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. This
request does NOT include a request for a verified delineation.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps delineate the boundaries of all WoUS on a property/project
area and provide an approved JD (this may or may not include a survey plat).
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps evaluate and approve a delineation of WoUS (conducted
by others) on a property/project area and provide an approved JD (may or may not
include a survey plat).
4 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
5 Waters of the United States
Version: December 2013 Page 4

12
❑✓
❑✓
W-1
G.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area (attached). This Map must clearly depict the boundaries
of the area of evaluation.
Size of Property or Project Area 19e
acres
I verify that the property (or project) boundaries have recently been surveyed and marked
by a licensed land surveyor OR are otherwise clearly marked or distinguishable.
JD REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS OR AGENCIES
(1) Preliminary JD Requests:
F-1Completed and signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form6.
❑ Project Coordinates:
Latitude
Maps (no larger than l lxl7) with Project Boundary Overlay:
Longitude
❑ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
Aerial Photography of the project area
❑ USGS Topographic Map
❑ Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
6 See Appendix A of this Form. From Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08-02, dated June 26, 2008
Version: December 2013 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑ Wetland Data Sheets
Tributaries:
❑ USACE Assessment Forms
❑ Upland Data Sheets ❑ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
■ All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
■ Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
■ Locations of photo stations
■ Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
(2) Approved JDs including Verification of a Delineation:
z Project Coordinates: ieoei"ei �i Latitude oee�iie e Longitude
Maps (no larger than llxl7) with Project Boundary Overlay:
❑✓ Large and small scale maps that depict, at minimum: streets, intersections, towns
❑✓ Aerial Photography of the project area
❑✓ USGS Topographic Map
z Soil Survey Map
❑ Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan,
previous delineation maps)
1987 Manual Regional Supplements and Data forms can be found at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/reg supp.aspx
Wetland and Stream Assessment Methodologies can be found at:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=76f3c58b-dab8-4960-ba43-45b7faf06f4c&groupld=38364 and,
httD://www.saw.usace.armv.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/Dublicnotices/2013/NCSAM Draft User Manual 130318.Ddf
8 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 6

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Delineation Information (when applicable):
Wetlands:
❑✓ Wetland Data Sheets9
Tributaries:
❑✓ USACE Assessment Forms
❑✓ Upland Data Sheets ❑✓ Other Assessment Forms
(when appropriate)
❑ Landscape Photos, if taken
❑✓ Field Sketch overlain on legible Map that includes:
• All aquatic resources (for sites with multiple resources, label and identify)
• Locations of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment reaches
• Locations of photo stations
• Approximate acreage/linear footage of aquatic resources
Supporting Jurisdictional Information (for Approved JDs only)
❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form(s) (also known as "Rapanos
Form(s)")
❑ Map(s) depicting the potential (or lack of potential) hydrologic connection(s),
adjacency, etc. to navigable waters.
9 Delineation information must include, at minimum, one wetland data sheet for each wetland/community type.
Version: December 2013 Page 7

Jurisdictional Determination Request
I. REQUESTS FOR CORPS APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLAT
Prior to final production of a Plat, the Wilmington District recommends that the Land
Surveyor electronically submit a draft of a Survey Plat to the Corps project manager for
review.
Due to storage limitations of our administrative records, the Corps requires that all hard-
copy submittals include at least one original Plat (to scale) that is no larger than 11"x17"
(the use of match lines for larger tracts acceptable). Additional copies of a plat, including
those larger than 11"x17", may also be submitted for Corps signature as needed. The
Corps also accepts electronic submittals of plats, such as those transmitted as a Portable
Document Format (PDF) file. Upon verification, the Corps can electronically sign these
n1nfe and rpfnrn therm -.ria p -mail fn flip rpnnpefnr
(1) PLATS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
❑ Must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional land surveyor
❑ Must be to scale (all maps must include both a graphic scale and a verbal scale)
❑ Must be legible
❑ Must include a North Arrow, Scale(s), Title, Property Information
❑ Must include a legible WoUS Delineation Table of distances and bearings/metes
and bounds/GPS coordinates of all surveyed delineation points
❑ Must clearly depict surveyed property or project boundaries
❑ Must clearly identify the known surveyed point(s) used as reference (e.g. property
corner, USGS monument)
❑ When wetlands are depicted:
• Must include acreage (or square footage) of wetland polygons
• Must identify each wetland polygon using an alphanumeric system
Version: December 2013 Page 8

Jurisdictional Determination Request
❑ When tributaries are depicted:
• Must include either a surveyed, approximate centerline of tributary with
approximate width of tributary OR surveyed Ordinary High Water Marks
(OHWM) of tributary
• Must identify each tributary using an alphanumeric system
• Must include linear footage of tributaries and calculated area (using approximate
widths or surveyed OHWM)
• Must include name of tributary (based on the most recent USGS topographic
map) or, when no USGS name exists, identify as "unnamed tributary"
❑ all depicted WoUS (wetland polygons and tributary lines) must intersect or tie -to
surveyed project/property boundaries
❑ Must include the location of wetland data points and/or tributary assessment
reaches
❑ Must include, label accordingly, and depict acreage of all waters not currently
subject to the requirements of the CWA (e.g. "isolated wetlands", "non -
jurisdictional waters"). NOTE: An approved 7D must be conducted in order to
make an official Corps determination that a particular waterbody or wetland is not
jurisdictional.
❑ Must include and survey all existing conveyances (pipes, culverts, etc.) that
transport WrAT Tc
Version: December 2013 Page 9

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

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

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM Wetlands WA & WB
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Foran Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Johnston County City: Clayton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.616428 N; Long. 78.402576 W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Poplar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Poplar Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There = "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 29,570 linear feet; 5-10 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 40.71 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): I ,1.
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

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

Wetlands WA & WB
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
SA: Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
SB:
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
® Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.1 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ® Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

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

Wetlands WA & WB
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IIID:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IIID:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: A review of available imagery indicates strong flow within much of the tributary year round. Further,
much of Little Poplar Creek is mapped as perennial on both the USGS Topographic Map (Powhatan Quad) and the NRCS Soil
Survey for Johnston County.
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 29,570 linear feet; 5-10 width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs'that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
'See Footnote # 3.

Wetlands WA & WB
®Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands WA and WB are both part of a larger wetland system that drains toward and
eventually abut Little Poplar Creek east of the project study area. Little Poplar Creek is a perennial tributary according to
relevant available imagery. Further, much of Little Poplar Creek is mapped as perennial on both the USGS Topographic
Map (Powhatan Quad) and the NRCS Soil Survey for Johnston County.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 40.71 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Wetlands WA & WB
® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Powhatan Quad (1:24,000)
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Johnston County (1994)
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap Latest Orthoimagery Map Service
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM Stream SA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands WD, WE, & WJ
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Foran Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Johnston County City: Clayton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.616428 N; Long. 78.402576 W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Reedy Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Swift Creek
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There = "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 36,900 linear feet; 3-10 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 35.74 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): N/A.
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

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

Stream SA
Wetlands WD, WE, & WJ
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
SA: Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
SB:
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
® Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.1 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ® Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

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

C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
Stream SA
Wetlands WD, WE, & WJ
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IIID:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: A review of available imagery indicates strong flow within much of the tributary year round. Further,
much of Reedy Branch is mapped as perennial on both the USGS Topographic Map (Powhatan Quad) and the NRCS Soil
Survey for Johnston County. Further, stream SA, an unnamed tributary to Reedy Branch, with its origin within the project
study area scored out as a perennial reach on November 11, 2015.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 36,900 linear feet; 3-10 width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
'See Footnote # 3.

Stream SA
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Wetlands WD, WE, & WJ
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands WD, WE, and WJ are part of a larger wetland system that drains toward and
directly abuts the perennial stream SA, an unnamed tributary to Reedy Branch, that was delineated inside the project
study area. Reedy Branch is obviously a perennial tributary according to current aerial imagery. Further, much of Reedy
Branch is mapped as perennial on both the USGS Topographic Map (Powhatan Quad) and the NRCS Soil Survey for
Johnston County.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Stream SA
Wetlands WD, WE, & WJ
® If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
'Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
udgment (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit RUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Powhatan Quad (1:24,000)
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Johnston County (1994)
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap Latest Orthoimagery Map Service
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM Wetland WF
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Foran Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Johnston County City: Clayton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.616428 N; Long. 78.402576 W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Poplar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: N/A
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Waters/wetlands are isolated. Wetland WF is a 0.48 acre depressional "headwater forest' wetland according to
NCWAM. WF is a depressional feature that is surrounded on all sides by uplands. WF is in a slight topographic crenulation
that eventually drains to Little Poplar Creek. However, no hydrologic connection was observed between the two features.
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

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

Wetland WF
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
SA: Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
SB:
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
® Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.1 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ® Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

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

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

Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetland WF
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
® from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Wetland WF
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Wetland WF is a
fully enclosed depressional wetland with no outlet. The wetland is surrounded on all sides by gradual topography and upland
agricultural fields.
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
El Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Powhatan Quad (1:24,000)
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Johnston County (1994)
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap Latest Orthoimagery Map Service
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM Wetland WG
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Foran Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Johnston County City: Clayton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.616428 N; Long. 78.402576 W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Poplar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: N/A
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Waters/wetlands are isolated. Wetland WG is a 2.18 acre depressional "basin wetland" according to NCWAM. WG
is a depressional feature that is surrounded on all sides by uplands.
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and thattypically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

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

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
SA: Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
SB:
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
® Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Wetland WG
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.1 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ® Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

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

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

Wetland WG
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
® from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Wetland WG
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Wetland WG is a
fully enclosed depressional wetland with no outlet. The wetland is surrounded on all sides by gradual topography and upland
agricultural fields.
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
El Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Powhatan Quad (1:24,000)
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Johnston County (1994)
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap Latest Orthoimagery Map Service
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM Wetland WH
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Foran Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Johnston County City: Clayton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.616428 N; Long. 78.402576 W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Poplar Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: N/A
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION IL• SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Waters/wetlands are isolated. Wetland WH is a 0.27 acre depressional "basin wetland" according to NCWAM. WH
is a depressional feature that is surrounded on all sides by uplands. A berm, created by the ditch excavation for the adjacent
railroad tracks, cause water to impound in wetland WH after precipitation events.
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and thattypically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

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

Wetland WH
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
SA: Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
SB:
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
® Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ shelving
❑
the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
scour
❑ sediment deposition
❑
multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ water staining
❑
abrupt change in plant community
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.1 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: ® Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

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

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

Wetland WH
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
® from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
'"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Wetland WH
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Wetland WH is
an isolated wetland created due to a "spoil" berm that impounds water after precipitation events. The wetland is surrounded to the
south, east, and west by topography and to the north by a manmade berm. WH is surrounded by uplands.
® Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
El Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Powhatan Quad (1:24,000)
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Johnston County (1994)
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap Latest Orthoimagery Map Service
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site photographs
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (NNPII)
Address: 3612 Powhatan Rd, Clayton, NC 27527
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/Description: Bright Sky Project
Date: 23 Sep 2015
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: Mr. David Shaeffer
Field Office: Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. hereby designates and authorizes Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. to act in my/our behalf as my/our agent solely forministerial purposes in processing
Jurisdictional Determinations, Section 404 permits/Section 401 Water Quality Certifications
applications, and Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Determinations, and to furnish, upon request, only
supplemental technical information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward until successful
completion of the permitting process or revocation by the owner. This authorization does not authorize
Kimley-Horn to enter into substantive negotiations or discussions concerning mitigation activities
necessary to obtain such Jurisdictional Determinations, Section 404 permits/Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications applications, and Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Determinations. Accordingly,
Kimley-Horn's authority to act on behalf of Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., is hereby
expressly limited to responding to technical or ministerial inquires only.
In addition, 1, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified
herein, do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Authorized this the 23rd day of September, 2015.
Print Property Owner's Name
Cc: Karen Higgins
Property Owner's Signature

NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650

11/16/2015 10:46 9147356330
Date � W A/1 I ' G) /
Mr, David Shaeffer
U.S. Array Corps sof Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
PAGE 01
Ida S. Wiggins is the owner of the parcel of property located adjacent to Gordons Road whicb
consists of approximately 45.73 acres and is identified by tax FIN 05105022 A.
By the execration of this letter, the below named owner of this parcel of property gives
permissions and a license to representatives of the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers, North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Nova Nordisk Pharmaceutical industries,
Inc., and Kimley-Horn to enter upon this property as necessary to evaluate and delineate
wetlands, and to undertake other activities necessary for that process. This permission and
license to enter this property shall continue in effect until ,April 15, 2016,
4064-1 21 A�da&L-&L-2
Ida-- igagins
NF'MLI-.601364.1
OCT -07-2015 00:Oe From:9147366330 ID:WISE RECYCLING Page:001 R=96%

Mr, David
UR A rrly Ccxrl- of 10 gir c an�
Raleigh Replatary l -field Office
3331 1-1o66mg o InVe DO q Wo 105
Waka Forast, I\rdh Catictiva ', 75t1
Tha cvmcn if &I ceoahj 5C tire tract cf %acaut Wnd Awhad or A north shlu of Gurdor Romf
at is i r ters cut W v with h NN 1s( Rr E d W Johnstion Cc I all, 11C, QW, iceatiled by lax FT
(lf 105031 A) ,ire, �Tcwr leek iv.
EN themonocr
a lia(ir s(Ito represcril'alives of dic LIS, Arwy Coq)s cf Eugheam IN orth Carcifira D(ipqrlwOrit of
finvianniertzi(Qcl,,ilil ,hovc)Noi-diili 11-artrialconfic"d hlaluwio""'.Iw"trd vilylley-Horl, ('crclin
mthrmd to wiRepresorlutives)1w cularupon tApgoty yrsj,jcc,,.,ssarytc cwduaic -,ird ddiriiaic
wedwrdq and to imdartvio otlior acti-ifics vacessawy f1w 101 pracess, TO yawkpicn wid
licalirc 1c, cater tlii,- proparly c(rititilia its. effect aitil Lle(reviber 11 AM or cksQ
vWevar ecries hist, lel FresertAvus AM rpy Nr arty da"aBOS UE th, 11"OF-le'V1 ett'sect
W RFN are I eire g wadc anc shall [rderrudy Sdkw aE a HN any M106 or Mr necaskred by
eywviso cif` ic Hyl r cf eWr) grwoed herein.
Cw'l G. yolill'p,
owl (el h1%
7"fie )' oullp, Parlily Irra-vacat iG
Trwr[, 13y: Jeiw�,� Y. Killing, Tritstee
fl r i'a r Gurlci,,
w Ir, I Jr.

Novurnbeir 19, 2015
Mr. Dm id 8i~ aciffer
U.S. Army Corps al' Hngir.iecirs
Raleigh Regulator) F''icId Cfficci
3331 Haji tagci 1I1radc Drive, Suite 1CISI
WakciForcisit,Nor r Caurolinei"i587
Rei cwriers cuf that curtain SCI acre lnact cdl'vacant lane loaalec on the norlh side of Gorcan Road
al ills intarsealicir with Wisei Road in Johnston Clounly, NC. (also icenlifieid by lax PIN
CI51( `I0211 A' aria sill cim r t eilow.
By the cimerntiar of this Ictler, ite telaw mimcid owners of this 1racit of laric giva permissicr End
a licensei tei rcfpieserilalivcis of the U.S. Arrryi Carfls of Engirieemi, Narlh Carolina Dciflair ment of
Hmironrrienlal Qualiily, Novo Ncndisk pharmaceutical Ir.dustrieis, Inc., and Kim ey-Horri (hcircin
iiafcrrcc tui as Reipresenlativcs) to einllar Lfon this fncperly wi neciessarN to evalLa'leu and calinea1ei
wetlands, and lei uncerilaka olher activities riccessiary kir 11,a1 preieeiss. Thais parrrissieiri and
license to eritem this pimpcirty sheill cionllinuci in eiffecit urlil Daceirriter 15, 2251 or closirigl
whielewim conies firstl. Rcproscnlalivcis shall flay for ary damages ici tha Prciferty caused whila
sucih icisls arc bcingl Trace anc shall irdcimn fyl 5eillan �igjainsl any claims or lassies ceeasicmicd 1jy 1ha
cxewcisiei of tli ei ri l- t of entr}I gear c heirciin.
Carl CI. Y aL ng
Clencva Ke.1I irig
Vv. I . CIL I Ie N
The Y cm r g Uamily In evocal:lei Wcorlhy C Lrlcy, Jii.
TrLis1 Py: Jurny Y. WeillirgI, Truslau

11/11/12015
Mr, David S]-iaciffar
U.S. Army C cirp of Engiriciers
Ralaigl-i Regulateir- Ficild C ff cio
333:1 HeritEiElei Iradei Drit c, Scutal 1 f
Wake Ilareisit, Nciirlh CarolLina T/5817
T)(i owricrs of liat certain 50 aerci tract of Naicar_it land local on the rcl sicei cifCal Roac
al its irntarseetictr, with Alisa Road in Jahr star C cl 1y C . (Jailso iidantifiec ky tax PIN
051 CIA21 A) are s1 a -w r bellow.
Ely thea e�euautian eiflth:s lett€r, tlla telaw namec owners of thisi tract cif lane glNu ple.rrroI'll s_iari and
a licursci to rcplreseu-latlives of thea U.S. Army Ccrps ciflEngirours, Narth Clarolim Dapartlrleril of
Ellnviro:wriental Qmility, Nova Ncircisk Pl-armaeciutical Industr:ias, 111ra,, cine IKimlay-11cirri (1herain
referi-ac to a,a Pupre,crtativai' to eirtcr upon fl -is propcwty as naeassary to evaluate and ccliriciala
wetlares, and is unccrtakei (idl-er aativiticis ricicassary ticr ital proccies. 11tis permission aind
li umici to entara thi, property shall ciarlinuci in eff of in -til El(o amber 15, 201_`1 or alcisiag
whiateivar carnes first. Reprasentativcsi shall play for nny damaalcis to tto Property aausuc "Milai
suet- tests mie lcirg maid( ane shall incernrify 9ciller aigainsl pry claitxis ar lciasies aaca,iioneic by thea
cixa:roise of the .i•.ipltt of eti lry graruted hereiri.
Carl G, ciung
Gal- ova KI allinn
e Yw. d-aK 1y I17 eNi c�icia)llci
Tlrcisl EN: Jann 'yl, 'Keallie- , Trustce
� Y �
W. P. Gt,rlcl
F rian Curley
`Wlarthy Curley, Jr.

Brad`
U
Legend
ffg Area Not Delineated
Project Study Area
Clayton
Johnston County
Kentucky
Virginia �
Tennessee Al--
North...
Carolina
South
Carolina
Georgia
0 40 80
mmmu= Miles
v
Atlantic Ocean
I
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
T- NASH
WAKE
WILSON
Project Location
JOHNSTON
HARNETT
WAYNE
CUMBERLAND ? SAMPSON
OG
DUPLIN
mmm= Miles
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Kimle )>> Horn Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

r
WF
ks
WB YA
7k
WEV,
I w I
N'4W
WH
Arev , wf
Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; however, no
Legend development/impacts to this area are
proposed and jurisdictional features
Stream
associated with this area have not
USACE Jurisdictional Wetland been delineated.
NCDWR Jurisdictional Isolated Wetland
Unregulated Isolated Wetland
Area Not Delineated
yr Feet
6
.4A
Project Study Area 0 350 700 1,050 1,400 'ii *�- �0
Figure 2: Jurisdictional Features Map
Kimley>oHorn Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

1 ��•�� -'
N till
X.
Powhatans - A
Ch
O
Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; however, no —�
development/impacts to this area are
' proposed and jurisdictional features
associated with this area have not
been delineated.
V Now Bathe
Ce -.
JAI
i
+ r
Legend ' ,, �•. I y' ,
45
Area Not Delineated
..4 Feet
Project Study Area , r� 0 300 600 900 1,200
Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map
(Powhatan 19811
Kimley)))Horn Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

r '
L _
I
-P =
F
�Pt "Wall
Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; however, no
development/impacts to this area are VL
'`�$�
proposed and jurisdictional features=i
associated with this area have not
been delineated.
rT�w
Hydric Soils Table j v
Map Symbol Map Symbol Name Hydric
AmB Appling-Marlboro complex (1-6% slopes) No
GoA Goldsboro sandy loam (0-2% slopes) Incl. ,
MaB Marlboro sandy loam (2-8% slopes) No
McB Marlboro -Cecil complex (2-8% slopes) No i Legend
NoA Norfolk loamy sand (0-2% slopes) Inc.
Area Not Delineated
NoB Norfolk loamy sand (2-6% slopes) Incl.
°
Ra Rains sandy loam (0-2% slopes) Yes _ Project Study Area
Tn Toisnot loam (0-2% slopes) Yes -
VrA Varina loamy sand (0-2% slopes) No Feet
800 1,200 1,600
VrB Varina loamy sand (2-6% slopes) No 0 400
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map
(Johnston County, 1994)
K11'1' ley �)) Horn Bright Sky Project
Clayton, Johnston County
December 2015

+., k
r r
AA
:r
A
"NOVO NORDISK i
?' PHARM IND
r
�wr
4
F
Note: This area is part of the Novo
Nordisk property; however, no
development/impacts to this area are
proposed and jurisdictional features
associated with this area have not
been delineated.'.
r NOVO'
• i NORDISK
PHARM IND
YOUNG FAMILY
WIGGINS!
169S]
NORD
RM INI
INS ���®f�A�����������������AAMM
O
s. n Legend
4� IK Affected Parcels
Feet a ` ` Area Not Delineated
0 350 700 1,050 1,400 So ' �� Project Study Area
i R
Figure 5: Affected Parcels Map
Kimle>o Hornright Sky Project
i\ Y tl ClClayton, Johnston County
December 2015

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 11/11/2015
Project/Site: Bright Sky Project
Stream SA
Latitude: 35.610417
Evaluator: R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn
County: Johnston
Longitude: -78.407705
Total Points: 30
Stream Determination (cir
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitten erennial
e.g. Quad Name: Powhatan
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
0
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. rl e -poo , -step-pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 10
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16.
Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17.
Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1.5
Yes = 3
26. Wetland plants in streambed
3
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 2
1
0
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0 1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 1
2
3
1
22. Fish
0 0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0 0.5
1
1.5
1
24. Amphibians
0 0.5
1
1.5
1
25. Algae
0 0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SA is a low scoring coastal plain perennial stream. The featul
appears to have been historically channelized in places along the agricultural
field/forest edge. There was very strong baseflow within the channel during the
visit due to recent rainfall in the days prior to the site visit. Crafish burrows were
observed around the stream channel.

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
MSTREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _,,A
Provide thefollowing information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Novo Nordisk 2. Evaluator's name: R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn
3. Date of evaluation: 11/ 11/2015
5. Name of stream: Stream SA
7. Approximate drainage area: 126 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 1200 linear feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
35.610417
4. Time of evaluation: 2:30 pm
6. River basin: Neuse
8. Stream order: First Order
lo. county: Johnston
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Longitude (ex. —77.556611): -78.407705
Method location determined (circle):✓.JPS ✓❑Topo Sheet❑✓ Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS[:]Dther GIS❑Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Stream SA was evaluated from its origin north of Gordon Road to the culvert inlet at Gordon Road
14. Proposed channel work (if any): None
15. Recent weather conditions: The area received ,1.48" of rain within two days prior to the site visit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny and warm
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: FISection 10 F1 Tidal Waters FlEssential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters FI Nutrient Sensitive Waters Dwater Supply Watershed, (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential 10 % Commercial 10 % Industrial 50 % Agricultural
30 % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): V-2'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: OFlat (0 to 2%) CGentle (2 to 4%) DModerate (4 to 10%) nSteep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 00ccasional bends Frequent meander Overy sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 57 Comments:
Stream SA is a low scoring coastal plain perennial stream. The feature appears to have been historically channelized in places
along the agricultural field/forest edge. There was very strong baseflow within the channel during the site visit due to recent
rainfall in the days prior to the site visit. Crafish burrows were observed around the stream channel.
Evaluator's Signature RG,� JuWLu-am, Date 11/11/2015
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

Stream SA
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
o -s
0-4
o -s
5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
3
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
a7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
4
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
5
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
NA
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
4
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
3
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-poollripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
1
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
2
�
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
a1
1s
Canopy coverage over streambed
o -s
o -s
o -s
3
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
NA
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
>
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 — 4
0-4
2
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
�
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
57
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project citylcounty: Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WA -UP
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, 3. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local reiiet (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): <2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat. 35.612839 Long: -78.402777 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R 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 F71 No
✓ is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No F71
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
WA -UP is approximately 40' southwest from and V-2' higher in elevation than the wetland data
point.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C5)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >24"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >2411 Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes a No 7
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.8

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -UP
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
8
1.
Acer rubrum
30%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Pinus taeda
25%
Y
FAC
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
15%
Y
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 11 (B)
4.
Cyrilla racemiflora
10%
N
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species °
72'7 �0
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
80%
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
40% 20% of total cover:
16%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Clethra alnifolia
20%
Y
FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Quercus falcata
10%
Y
FACUUPL
species x 5 =
3.
liquidambarstyraciflua
10%
Y
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Symplocos tinctoria
10%
Y
FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Magnolia virginiana
5%
N
FACW
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
55%
=Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
27.5% 20% of total cover:
11 °/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Chasmanthium laxum
10%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Microstegium vimineum
10%
Y
FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
20%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Lonicera japonica
5%
Y
FACU
2.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
10% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5% 20% of total cover:
2%
Present? Yes v/ No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-8" 2.5Y 3/2 1000/0 Loam 20% UCS
8-12" 2.5Y 4/3 100% Sandy loam 20% UCS
12-24" 2.5Y 6/3 90% 2.5Y 6/6 10% C M
Loam
20% UCS
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 1-1 No 571
No hydric soil indicators observed at the upland data point. No saturation or water table observed
within 24" of the soil profile. Profile had uncoated sand throughout.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project citylcountya Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WA -WET
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, I Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Headwater forest Local reiiet (concave, convex. none): Concave Slope (%): <2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P
Lat, 35.612887
Long: -78.402643
Soil Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation F-1
Soil F—:]or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum: NAD 83
Yes No=
Are Vegetation Sou( 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 ✓ _ Na
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — ✓ No 71.
within a wetland? Ves No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No---
Remarks-
Wetland
oRemarks:Wetland WA is a large headwater forest wetland system that is draining offsite to the southeast.
The wetland was dry at the time of observation; however, it appears that much of the
depressional areas within the wetland are inundated during the colder months.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (133)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Iron Deposits (135) "Other (Explain in Remarks)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >30"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >30"
Remarks:
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (Ds) (LRR T, U)
Welland Hyarclogy Present? Yes W No
F_1
Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
WA -WET is located approximately 25' inside of the wetland boundary. Micro -topography
consistent with periodic inundation and historic disturbance due to forestry operations is present
throughout the wetland. Hummocks around trees and root wads indicate water ponds to a depth
of 3-6" through the interior of the wetland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
9
1.
Cyrilla racemiflora
40%
Y
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Pinus taeda
25%
Y
FAC
Acer rubrum
25%
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
9
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10%
N
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species p
100%
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
100%
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
50% 20% of total cover:
20%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Clethra alnifolia
15%
Y
FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Magnolia virginiana
10%
Y
FACW
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
5%
N
FACU
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Acer rubrum
5%
N
FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
35%
=Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
17.5% 20% of total cover:
7%
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Chasmanthium laxum
10%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Arundinaria gigantea
10%
Y
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
20%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Toxicodendron radicans
5%
Y
FAC
2.
Vitis rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
V/
5.
10% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5% 20% of total cover:
2%
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
% Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-12"
2.5Y 4/1
95%
2.5Y 4/4
5% C M
Loam
12-22"
2.5Y 5/1
95%
2.5Y 6/6
5% C M
Loam
22-30"
2.5Y 4/1
60%
2.5Y 6/2
40% D M
Sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes . No
No saturation or water table observed within the upper 30" of the soil profile. The sand content
increased with depth.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProiecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityicounty: Johnston County Sampling Gate: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State: NC Sampling Point: WB -UP
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat, 35.619348 Long: -78.403682 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
✓ is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No F71
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks -
W13 -UP is approximately 50' west from and V-2' higher in elevation than the wetland data point.
The data point was taken at the cleared edge of an agricultural field.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C5)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >30"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >30" Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes a No 7
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WB -UP
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
The data point was taken at an agricultural field edge and vegetation was comprised of mostly
common field weeds.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
3
1.
Diospyros virginiana
5%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
5
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species o
60/o
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
o
S/o
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
2.5% 20% of total cover:
1%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Rosa multiflora
5%
Y
FACU
FACU species x 4 =
2
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
5%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
2.5% 20% of total cover:
11%
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Persicaria pensylvanica
30%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Senna ohtusifolia
30%
Y
FACU
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Microstegium vimineum
20%
Y
FAC
Ipomoea hedereacea
5%
N
FACU
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5.
Ipomoea coccinea
5%
N
FAC
height.
6.
Arundinarea gigantea
5%
N
FACW
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
95%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
47.5% 20% of total cover:
190/6
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Vitis rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
v/
5.
50/b = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.50/0 20% of total cover:
1%
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
The data point was taken at an agricultural field edge and vegetation was comprised of mostly
common field weeds.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: W13 -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
% Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-12"
2.5Y 3/2
1000/0
Sandy loam
12-24"
2.5Y 3/2
90% 2.5Y 5/6 10% C M
Sandy loam
24-30"
2.5Y 6/1
90% 2.5Y 5/6 10% C M
Sandy clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 1-1 No 571
No hydric soil indicators observed at the upland data point. No saturation or water table observed
within 30" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityjcountya Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WB -WET
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Headwater forest Local relief (concave, convex. none): Concave Slope (%): 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat; 35.619378 Long: -78.403516 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R 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 ✓ _ Na
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — 4, No 71.
within a wetland? Yes No F-1
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland WB is a large headwater forested wetland system that drains east off of the site. The
central depressional areas of the wetland appear to impound water during the months of plant
dormancy. Buttressed trees and variable micro -topography was observed in the wetland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >30"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >30" wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes W NoF_1
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
The wetland appears to impound water during the colder months. Water appears to impound to
2"-6" over much of the wetland after storm events. In the most central eastern portions of the
wetland, water appears to impound to depths of approximately 2'.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WB -WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
7
1.
Nyssa biflora
40%
Y
OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
40%
Y
FACU
Acer rubrum
10%
N
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
8
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Quercus nigra
5%
N
FAC
5.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0
5 /o
N
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
87.5%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A1B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
100%
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
50% 20% of total cover:
20%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Nyssa biflora
20%
Y
OBL
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Clethra alnifolia
15%
Y
FACW
UPL species x 5 =
3.
ligustrum sinense
10%
Y
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
45%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
22.5% 20% of total cover:
90/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Arundinaria gigantea
35%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Woodwardia areolata
10%
Y
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Boehmeria cylindrica
5%
N
FACW
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
50%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
25% 20% of total cover:
10%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Campsis radicans
5%
Y
FAC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
v/
5.
5% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.5% 20% of total cover:
1%
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WB -WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
Histosol (Al)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist)
%
Type
Loc
Texture Remarks
0-4"
2.5Y 3/1
1000/0
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loam
4-15"
2.5Y 4/1
90%
2.5Y 5/6
10%
C
PL
Clay loam
15-18"
2.5Y 3/2
95%
2.5Y 4/4
5%
C
M
Sandy loam
18-24"
2.5Y 5/1
100%
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy clay loam
24-30"
2.5Y 5/1
60%
2.5Y 7/1
30%
D
M
Clay
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
2.5Y 5/6
10%
C
M
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
✓
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
✓
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
g El
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
No water table or saturation was observed within upper 30" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityicounty: Johnston County Sampling nate: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State: NC Sampling Point: WC -UP
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.612300 Long: -78.408172 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Toisnot loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou{ R or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
✓ is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No F71
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
WC -UP is approximately 33' northwest from and V higher in elevation than the wetland data
point.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C5)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (BG)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >24"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >2411 Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes a No 7
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.8

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WC -UP
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
7
1.
Acer rubrum
35%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
35%
Y
FACU
3.
Magnolia virginiana
15%
Y
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 11 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species 0
63.6%
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
85%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
42.5% 20% of total cover:
17%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Clethra alnifolia
20%
Y
FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Quercus falcata
10%
Y
FACU
UPL species x 5 =
3.
liquidambarstyraciflua
10%
Y
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Symplocos tinctoria
10%
Y
FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Magnolia virginiana
5%
N
FACW
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
55%
=Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
27.5% 20% of total cover:
1 10/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Mitchella repens
10%
Y
FACU
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Microstegium vimineum
10%
Y
FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
20%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Lonicera japonica
5%
Y
FACU
2.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
FV/
5.
10% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5% 20% of total cover:
2%
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WC -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
Redox Features
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-8"
2.5Y 2.5/1
70%
2.5Y 3/3 30% C M
Loam 30% UCS
8-12"
2.5Y 6/2
70%
2.5Y 4/1 30% C M
Sandy loam Striped matrix
12-24"
2.5Y 7/2
100%
Sand
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 1-1 No 571
No hydric soil indicators observed at the upland data point. No saturation or water table observed
within 24" of the soil profile. Profile had uncoated sand throughout.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project citylcounty: Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WC -WET
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, 3. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): <2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat. 35.612262 Long: -78.408070 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification; None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R 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 ✓ _ Na
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — 4, No 71.
within a Wetland? Ves No F-1
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland WC is a flat headwater wetland that appears to be seasonally/intermittently inundated.
The wetland data point (WC -WET) is located approximately 20' inside of the wetland boundary.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (Al)
High )Dater Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
✓ Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >20" Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes W NoF_1
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
The wetland was dry at the time of observation but appears to be saturated for short durations
throughout wetter months or following rain events. No saturation or water table observed within
the upper 24" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.8

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W&WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
8
1.
Magnolia virginiana
40%
Y
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
30%
Y
FACU
3.
Acer rubrum
30%
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
80%
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
100%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
50% 20% of total cover:
20%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Nyssa biflora
15%
Y
ORI
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
15%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
10%
Y
FACU
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Clethra alnifolia
10%
Y
FACW
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
50%
=Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
25% 20% of total cover:
100/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Arundinaria gigantea
25%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
10%
Y
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
35%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
17.5% 20% of total cover:
7%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
v/
5.
5% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.5% 20% of total cover:
1%
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WC -WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc
0-3" 2.5Y 2.5/1 85% 2.5Y 2.5/1 15% D M
3-8" 2.5Y 2.5/1 90% 2.5Y 2.5/1 10% D M
8-20" 2.5Y 2.5 7/1 100%
'Tvpe: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced M
MS=Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
✓ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Texture Remarks
Loam
Sandy loam
Sand
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes g No El
No saturation or water table observed within upper 20" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityicounty: Johnston County sampling nate: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State: NC Sampling Point: WD/WE-UP
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.612800 Long: -78.407809 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou{ R or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
✓ is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No F71
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks-
WD/WE-UP is approximately 50' southwest from and V higher in elevation than the wetland data
point.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C5)
Thin Muck 5urtace (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (BG)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >24"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >2411 Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes a No 7
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WD/WE-UP
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
7
1.
Acer rubrum
40%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
20%
Y
FACU
3.
Liquidambar styraciflua
20%
Y
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
4.
Pinus taeda
10%
N
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
87'5%
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
90%
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
45% 20% of total cover:
18%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Symplocos tinctoria
20%
Y
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Vaccinium_fuscatum
10%
Y
FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
40%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% 20% of total cover:
80/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Arundinaria gigantea
20%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
20%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
10%
Y
FAC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
10% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5% 20% of total cover:
2%
Present? Yes v/ No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WD/WE-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-5"
2.5Y 2.5/1
1000/0
Sandy loam 20-30% UCS
5-20"
2.5Y 3/2
100%
Sand
20-24"
2.5Y 3/3
100%
Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 1-1 No 571
No hydric soil indicators observed at the upland data point. No saturation or water table observed
within 24" of the soil profile. Profile had uncoated sand throughout.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityicounty: Johnston County sampling nate: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State: NC Sampling Point: WD/WE-WET
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan J. Hartshorn Kimle -Horn Section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Headwater forest Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): <10/0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P
Lat, 35.612852
Lang: -78.40764
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation F-1
Soil F—:]or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum: NAD 83
Yes No=
Are Vegetation Sou{ 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 ✓ _ Na
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — ✓ No 71.
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks-
WD/WE-WET is a large forested headwater wetland system that is split by the railroad tracks but
is connected by a large culvert. The wetland's interior is likely seasonally inundated. Many
buttressed trees were observed throughout the wetland's interior.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Iron Deposits (135) "Other (Explain in Remarks)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >20"
Remarks:
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (DS) (LRR T, U)
Wetland Hydrelogy Present? Yes W No
F_1
Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Wetland data point (WD/WE-WET) is along a wet fringe near the wetland boundary. The slope
gradually decreases and flattens out into the wetland's interior, with the interior being saturated.
No saturation or water table was observed within the upper 20" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.8

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WD/WE-WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Buttressed trees were observed in the interior of the wetland, but the wetland data form location
had more marginal conditions.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
8
1.
Acer rubrum
75%
Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Pinus taeda
25%
Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant
8
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
100%
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
100%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
50% 20% of total cover: 20%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Symplocos tinctoria
15%
Y FAC
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Nyssa sylvatica
10%
Y FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Clethra alnifolia
10%
Y FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Aronia arbutifolia
5%
N FACW
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
40%
=Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% 20% of total cover: 80/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Arundinaria gigantea
20%
Y FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
10%
Y FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
30%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
15% 20% of total cover: 6%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
FV/
5
5% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.50/0 20% of total cover: 10/o
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Buttressed trees were observed in the interior of the wetland, but the wetland data form location
had more marginal conditions.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WD/WE-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(inches)
Color (moist)
% Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-4"
2.5Y 2.5/1
1000/0
Loam
4-7"
2.5Y 4/1
70% 2.5Y 5/1 30% D M
Sand
7-20"
2.5Y 3/2
100%
Sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
✓
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes g No El
No saturation or water table observed within the upper 20" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityjcountya Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WF -UP
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.612300 Long: -78.408172 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map unit Name: Norfolk loamy sand NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou{ R 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 F71 No
✓ is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No F71
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks -
WF -UP is approximately 60' east from and 2' higher in elevation than the wetland data point.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck 5urtace (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (BG)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >24"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >2411 Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes a No 7
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WF -UP
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
7
1.
Celtis laevigata
45%
Y
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
35%
Y
FAC
3.
Acer rubrum
20%
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
10
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species o
70 �0
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
100%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
50% 20% of total cover:
20%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Callicarpa americana
20%
Y
FACU
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Ligustrum sinense
15%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Nandina domestica
5%
N
NI
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
40%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Liriope sp.
10%
Y
NI
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Phytolacca americana
10%
Y
FACU
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
20%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Vitis rotundifolia
10%
Y
FAC
2.
Smilax rotundifolia
10%
Y
FAC
3.
Toxicodendron radicans
10%
Y
FAC
4
Lonicera japonica
5%
N
FACU
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
35% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
17.5% 20% of total cover:
7%
Present? Yes v/ No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WF -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
% Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-8"
2.5Y 3/2
1000/0
Loam
8-16"
2.5Y 3/1
100%
Sandy loam
16-24"
2.5Y 4/1
70% 2.5Y 4/1 30% D M
Clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 1-1 No 571
No hydric soil indicators observed at the upland data point. No saturation or water table observed
within 24" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityicounty: Johnston County sampling nate: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State: NC Sampling Point: WF -WET
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Headwater forest Local relief (concave, convex. none): Concave Slope (%): 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat; 35.619945 Long: -78.399716 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R 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 ✓ _ Na
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — 4, No 71.
within a wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
jq
Remarks:
Wetland WF is a forested headwater wetland that drains to the south. The interior of the wetland
is very hummocky and appears to impound water during the colder months and after significant
precipitation events. The wetland is surrounded by agricultural fields.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6)
Thin Muck Surtace (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >24"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >2411 wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes W NoF_1
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
Wetland WF is a concave wetland with lots of micro -topography. Water stained leaves were
observed in the depressional areas. No water table or saturation observed within the upper 24" of
the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WF -WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
8
1.
Acer rubrum
50%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
25%
Y
FACU
3.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10%
N
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
4.
Quercus alba
10%
N
FACU
5.
Magnolia virginiana
p
5%
N
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
88.89%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A1B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
100%
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
50% 20% of total cover:
20%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Ligustrum sinense
15%
Y
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Dio.spyros virginiana
5%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Vaccinium_fuscatum
5%
Y
FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
35%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
17.5% 20% of total cover:
70/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Microstegium vimineum
20%
Y
FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Boehmeria cylindrica
10%
Y
FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Celtis laevigata
5%
N
FACW
Woodwardia areolata
5%
N
OBL
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
40%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% 20% of total cover:
80/o
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Toxicodendron radicans
10%
Y
FAC
2.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
15% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
7.5% 20% of total cover:
3%
Present? Yes v/ No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WF -WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc
0-14" 2.5Y 3/1 80% 2.5Y 6/1 20% D M
14-24" 2.5Y 5/1 100%
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
✓ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Texture Remarks
Sandy loam
Sand
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes g No El
No water table or saturation observed within the upper 24" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityjcountya Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk state. NC Sampling Point: WG -UP
Investigator{sy R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat agricultural field Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.618293 Long: -78.407426 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification; None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R 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 F71 No
✓ is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No F71
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
WG -UP is approximately 40' north from and 1' higher in elevation than the wetland data point.
The data point was taken at the cleared edge of an agricultural field.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >30"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >30" Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes a No 7
(includes capillary frintte)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WG -UP
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
The data point was taken at an agricultural field edge.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
8
1.
Pinus taeda
20%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
8
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species o
100/o
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AJB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
20%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
15%
Y
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Quercus nigra
10%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Diospyros virginiana
5%
N
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
30%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
15% 20% of total cover:
60/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Chasmanthium laxum
45%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Scirpus cyperinus
10%
Y
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Rhynchospora sp.
10%
Y
FACW
Juncus coreacea
10%
N
FACW
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
75%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
37.5% 20% of total cover:
15%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
2.
Toxicodendron radicans
5%
Y
FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5
10% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5% 20% of total cover:
2%
Present? Yes v/ No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
The data point was taken at an agricultural field edge.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WG -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-24" 2.5Y 3/1 1000/0 Sandy loam 30% UCS
24-36" 2.5Y 5/1 95% 2.5Y 6/8 5% C M Sandy clay Faint concentration
diffuse boundaries
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 1-1 No 571
No hydric soil indicators observed at the upland data point. No saturation or water table observed
within 36" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityjcountya Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WG -WET
Investigator{sy R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depressional wetland Local relief (concave, convex. none): Concave Slope (%): 1-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat. 35.618182 Long: -78.407421 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R or HydrolagyR naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic vegetation Present? Yes— ✓ No
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — ✓ No 71.
within a Wetland? Ves No F-1
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland WG is a forested depressional wetland that drains east off the site. Water stained leaves
and abundant micro -topography observed in the wetland. The wetland is completely surrounded
by agricultural fields.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >28"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >28" Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes W NoF_1
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
It appears that 1-4" of water ponds in the wetland during the colder months or after large
precipitation events. No water table or saturation observed within the upper 28" of the soi
profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WG -WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
9
1.
Acer rubrum
30%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Quercus nigra
25%
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Liquidambar styraciflua
25%
Y
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
4.
Nyssa biflora
10%
N
OBL
Percent of Dominant Species
100%
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
90%
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
45% 20% of total cover:
18%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Clethra alnifolia
10%
Y
FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Symplocos tinctoria
5%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Vaccinium_fuscatum
5%
Y
FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Magnolia virginiana
5%
Y
FACW
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
25%
=Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
12.5% 20% of total cover:
SO/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Chasmanthium laxum
15%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
15%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
7.5% 20% of total cover:
3%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
v/
5.
5% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.5% 20% of total cover:
10/o
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WG -WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(inches)
Color (moist)
% Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-3"
2.5Y 3/3
1000/0
Loam
3-20"
2.5Y 2.5/1
100%
Loam
20-28"
2.5Y 5/1
95% 2.5Y 4/3 5% C M
Clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes g No El
No water table or saturation observed within the upper 28" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityjcountya Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WH -UP
Investigators): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). Slight hillslope Local reiiel (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%); 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.610015 Long: -78.39944 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou{ R 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 F71 No
✓ is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No F71
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
WH -UP is approximately 50' south from and V higher in elevation than the wetland data point.
Water drains throughout the upland to wetland WH.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >20" Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes a No 7
(includes capillary frintte)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at the upland data point.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WH -UP
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
9
1.
Acer rubrum
60%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Pinus taeda
30%
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
9
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species o
100/o
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AJB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
90%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
45% 20% of total cover:
18%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Clethra alnifolia
15%
Y
FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Quercus nigra
10%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Vaccinium_fuscatum
10%
Y
FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Magnolia virginiana
5%
N
FACW
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
40%
=Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% 20% of total cover:
8%
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Arundinaria gigantea
15%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
15%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
7.5% 20% of total cover:
3%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Vitis rotundifolia
10%
Y
FAC
2.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
3.
Toxicodendron radicans
5%
Y
FAC
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
20% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
Present? Yes v/ No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WH -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc
0-6" 2.5Y 2.5/1 1000/0
6-20" 2.5Y 3/2 1000/0
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Texture Remarks
Sandy loam 30% UCS
Sand
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 1-1 No 571
No hydric soil indicators observed at the upland data point. No saturation or water table observed
within 20" of the soil profile. Profile had uncoated sand throughout.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project cityjcounty: Johnston County sampling Date: 9/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WH -WET
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): <2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.610164 Long: -78.399447 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Rains sandy loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou{ R 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 ✓ _ Na
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — 4, No W1.
within a Wetland? Ves No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Wetland WH is in a hardwood forested flat that is primarily influenced by stormwater and high
groundwater. WH -WET is approximately 20' inside the wetland boundary near WH -8.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
✓ Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (BG)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >24"
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >24" Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes W NoD
(includes capillary frintte)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
Wetland WH is a small wetland adjacent to a railroad corridor. A berm (spoil pile) was built during
ditch excavation along the railroad tracks. This berm traps water inside WH. Surface soil cracking
was found throughout WH and evidence indicates that water ponds/drains through WH
frequently.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WH -WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
7
1.
Pinus taeda
40%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Acer rubrum
20%
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
7
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species 0
100/o
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AJB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
60%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
30% 20% of total cover:
12%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Vaccinium fuscatum
30%
Y
FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Acer rubrum
10%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Magnolia virginiana
5%
N
FACW
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Symplocos tinctoria
5%
N
FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
50%
=Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
25% 20% of total cover:
100/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Arundinaria gigantea
30%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Woodwardia areolata
5%
N
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
35%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
17.5% 20% of total cover:
6%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Toxicodendron radicans
10%
Y
FAC
2.
Smilax rotundifolia
5%
Y
FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
15% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
7.5% 20% of total cover:
3%
Present? Yes v/ No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WH -WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc
0-10" 2.5Y 5/1 98% 2.5Y 5/5 2% C M
10-24" 2.5Y 4/1 90% 2.5Y 8/1 10% D M
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Texture Remarks
Loam
Loam
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes . No
Depletions increase with depth up to 60/40%. No saturation or water table observed within the
upper 24" of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project citylcountya Johnston County sampling Date: _11111/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WJ-UP
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, I Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex. none): None Slope (%): 2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat. 35.609049 Long: -78.408446 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Toisnot loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks,)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R 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 F71 No
✓ is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No F71
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
The upland data point (M -UP) is N1.5' higher in elevation than and —60' west of the wetland
data point.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C5)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 18°
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 18° Wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes a No 7
(includes capillary frintte)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators were observed at the upland data form location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.8

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WJ-UP
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
8
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
20%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
20%
Y
FACU
Quercus nigra
20%
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
12
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
66.67%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AJB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
60%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
30% 20% of total cover:
12%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Ligustrum sinense
30%
Y
FAC
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Quercus nigra
15%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
liquidambarstyraciflua
5%
N
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
50%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
25% 20% of total cover:
1()0/n
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Arundinaria gigantea
5%
Y
FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Solidago sp.
5%
Y
NI
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Zea mays
5%
Y
NI
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
15%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
7.5% 20% of total cover:
3%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
10%
Y
FAC
2.
Campsis radicans
5%
Y
FAC
3.
Toxicodendron radicans
5%
Y
FAC
4
Lonicera japonica
5%
Y
FACU
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
FV/
5.
25% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
12.50/0 20% of total cover:
5%
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: wJ-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-6" 2.5Y 3/1 1000/0 Sandy loam
6-18" 2.5Y 3/2 100% Sand
18-24"
2.5Y 4/3
100%
24-26"
2.5Y 4/1
100%
26-30"
2.5Y 2.5/1
100%
Sand
Clay
Sandy clay
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes F] No
No hydric soil indicators were observed at this location. Both the water table and soil saturation
was observed at 18" in the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Pro)ecVSite: Bright Sky Project citylcountya Johnston County sampling gate: 11/11/2015
Applicant/Owner: Novo Nordisk State. NC Sampling Point: WJ-WET
Investigator(s): R. Sullivan, J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn) section, Township, Range: Clayton
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Headwater forest wetland Local relief (concave, convex. none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat; 35.608986 Lang: -78.408235 Datum: NAD 83
Sail Map Unit Name: Toisnot loam NWI classification: None
Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ©No= (It no, explain in Remarks)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes � No=
Are Vegetation Sou( R 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 ✓ _ Na
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — 4, No 71.
within a wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nc
Remarks:
Wetland WJ is a headwater forest wetland adjacent to stream SA. WJ is depressional in nature
and was pooling water to depths of 1"-4.5" in the low-lying areas of the wetland. The area
received approximately 1.5" of rain within two days prior to the site visit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Surface Water (Al)
High )Dater Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (132)
✓ Drift Deposits (133)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Hydrogen Sulfide odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Cather (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Sail Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Drainage Patterns (1316)
Moss Trim Lines (1315)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface water Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Surface
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Surface wetland Hyarclogy Present? Yes W1 No
F_1
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
Wetland WJ receives hydrology from precipitation, groundwater, and flooding of stream SA after
significant precipitation events. The wetland had ponding water to depths of N4.5" in the most
depressional areas. The water table and saturation was observed at the ground surface.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region –Version 2.8

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WJ-WET
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
8
1.
Acer rubrum
30%
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Quercus nigra
20%
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Quercus michauxii
20%
Y
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species o
100/o
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AJB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
70%
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
35% 20% of total cover:
14%
FACW species x 2 =
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Magnolia virginiana
10%
Y
FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Ligustrum sinense
10%
Y
FAC
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
20%
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Woodwardia areolata
15%
Y
QBE
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Microstegium vimineum
5%
Y
FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
20%
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
10% 20% of total cover:
4%
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
40%
Y
FAC
2.
Lonicera japonica
5%
N
FACU
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
5.
45% =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
22.5% 20% of total cover:
9%
Present? Yes v/ No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WJ-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) %
0-12" 2.5Y 4/1 90%
12-24" 2.5Y 5/1 100%
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
2.5Y 4/4 10% C PL Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Sandy clay loam
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes • No El
A depleted matrix was observed in the soil profile. Soil saturation and the water table was
observed at the surface.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0