20221496 Ver 3_More Info Received_20240220

720..
r4 �
"■
20 February 2024
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Rachel Capito
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
NC Division of Water Resources
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Stephanie Goss and Sue Homewood
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: BIN — AGP LLC +/- 302.16 Acres
Apex Gateway
106 NC Highway 751
Apex, North Carolina 27523
Individual Permit Application
SAW-2023-00049
11] LYJl btiy�IiEDIV. K
Dear Rachel, Stephanie, and Sue:
Atlas Environmental, Inc., on behalf of BIN —AGP LLC (Applicant; Attn: Jon Morris), is
submitting the following information in response to comments received on the Individual
Permit application and Public Notice (issued October 5, 2023) for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands and waters of the United States associated with the proposed Apex Gateway
industrial development. Comments and responses have been numbered and provided
below as they were presented.
EPA COMMENT 1: At this time, the EPA has no comments or concerns with the project
as presented.
EPA RESPONSE 1: Thank you for your time in reviewing the project application.
NCDWR COMMENT 1: The purpose of the project does not appear to rely on specifically
sized buildings and the applicant has not provided justification for the proposed building
sizes, the sizing of the parking areas, nor the roadway design, therefore it appears that
alternative building layouts could provide for additional avoidance and minimization.
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

.. - TLAS
NVIRONMENTAL
NCDWR RESPONSE 1: Firstly, we would like to note that the proposed project design
includes 10,620 linear feet (122,000 SF) of retaining walls, of which 2,848 linear feet
(46,030 SF) are directly adjacent to aquatic resources and used solely to reduce potential
impacts to those resources. Retaining walls are constructed at a cost of more than $35
per square foot, so the applicant has committed to spending more than $1.6 million dollars
in retaining walls alone for the sole purpose of avoiding and minimizing impacts to aquatic
resources.
More to the point of building size, we included information in the application package to
support the purpose and need of the proposed project, including industry updates on the
demand for modern industrial buildings with features and of sizes that satisfy those
demands. Specifically, several industry reports addressed the low vacancy rates for
industrial space in the greater Raleigh -Durham markets, and that speculative
developments are forecast to sustain the extremely competitive market. To that point,
speculative construction is not to suggest that the proposal is to construct a building and
hope for a tenant. Rather, speculative buildings are designed and built to accommodate
the industry demands for such space and features and for certain sectors of industries in a
particular market. The only speculation is to the final tenant. The proposed building sizes
and layout are designed to satisfy the industry demands in the area and to meet safety
standards, as well as to minimize impacts to important natural resources.
Furthermore, part of the speculative nature of the building design is the need to include
tenant dependent interiors upgrades once a lease has been executed. The buildings are
sized and designed for flexibility in finished interior features to accommodate any variation
of tenant required space. Also, please note the applicant has a proven record of leasing
buildings prior to the completion of construction-, more than 80% of their development
projects have dedicated tenants before construction of the building is completed. For this
project, the two buildings currently under construction near the Apex Coke project already
have negotiated leases, and several commercial and restaurant/food service companies
have entered negotiations for development of the commercial outparcels. The demand for
such buildings and their modern features is well noted in the Project Need section of the
permit application.
Lastly, the applicant intends to retain these buildings as part of their portfolio-, the buildings
are not constructed for the primary purpose of being sold. Therefore, the site is designed
to meet the applicant's purpose and need while fully and completely making every effort to
avoid or minimize impacts to important natural and cultural resources.
NCDWR COMMENT 2: The Division recommends that the USACE consider whether the
applicant's prior investments in the site have prematurely favored this site when
conducting an offsite alternatives analysis. For example, the applicant's offsite alternative
analysis gives the preferred site positive credit for the fact that utilities are available to the
site, however the application states that the applicant has invested in onsite infrastructure
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 2

.. - TLAS
NVIRONMENTAL
improvements prior to submittal of the application. This appears to create an
inconsistency when conducting the offsite alternatives analysis.
NCDWR RESPONSE 2: The proposed project underwent several variations over the last
18 months, including entering into agreements to purchase new parcels as opportunities
arose. However, the sites selected and reviewed for the alternatives analysis were
conducted independently of the efforts related to develop the proposed site. The
alternative sites were selected at the beginning of the initial project planning and evaluated
based on the ability of the sites to meet basic siting criteria for the stated purpose and
need. As additional parcels became available on the preferred project site, the applicant
included them in the proposed project design to provide a complete and comprehensive
site plan. This was deemed preferable to treating each subset of parcels as an
independent project for permitting purposes even when subsequent parcel development
would obviously benefit from previous site features (utilities, roadways, etc.).
The applicant must make efforts to concurrently pursue multiple sites for a proposed
project. The reason for this is that conditions may change at any time in the process such
that an alternative site becomes unavailable. For example, a pursued property could be
sold to another interested party or the seller could decide not to sell. Similarly, local
governments may offer inducements that make one site more attractive or they can deny
critical components necessary for that development. Even when a parcel is zoned for a
particular use, any proposed development, even if it falls under that zoning status, must
undergo local government approval prior to development. For this reason, the physical
evaluation of a site and negotiations for the development of that site are conducted
concurrently with the preparation of the alternatives analysis for the permit application.
Otherwise, the applicant may find the highest ranking alternative (or all alternatives) no
longer available or not developable for reasons beyond their control by the time they apply
for a permit.
To your point of whether the proposed project site was given premature favor, you only
need look to the other alternative that also ranked high enough to be considered in the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) analysis. Improvements
like those conducted on the proposed project site also have occurred on the LEDPA site
since its initial consideration in the alternatives analysis. Those improvements were
considered equally in its evaluation and in its comparison with the other alternatives.
Unfortunately, the development of real estate does not have the luxury of waiting on the
completion of the regulatory process before committing time, effort, and monies, toward
the proposed development.
Lastly, other developments have occurred in the vicinity to the proposed project in part
because of the interest in commercial and light industrial development in the proposed
project area. Infrastructure (and similar) improvements are usually the first and easiest
development task to complete because planning efforts for infrastructure have already
been considered and there is a separate and more expedient regulatory process for
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 3

.. - TLAS
NVIRONMENTAL
approval. Nevertheless, a complete and thorough alternatives analysis was conducted to
evaluate the proposed project site against other possible project sites. The proposed
project site was considered the highest ranking reasonable and practicable alternative site
and the least environmentally damaging alternative regardless of the effort, time, and
monies previously committed to infrastructure improvements.
NCDWR COMMENT 3: The applicant's offsite alternative analysis considers whether road
improvements may be likely but does not appear to include discussion of prior
improvements made on the site as a result of the previously approved Coke project. In
addition, zoning is considered a factor in the offsite analysis, however there is no
discussion as to whether the area has recently undergone rezoning as the area was
clearly previously a residential area. If rezoning has been conducted to establish this area,
then it could be assumed that all other sites identified in the offsite analysis would be
eligible for similar rezoning.
NCDWR RESPONSE 3: Please also reference comments above. Prior road
improvements to the Apex Coke project were fully considered in the proposed project as
part of the alternatives analysis. However, these road improvements were required for the
Apex Coke project and would exist without any future or additional development of the
proposed project site. Fortunately, the road improvements conducted thus far also benefit
the proposed project, but are not inclusive of all road improvements required.
Development of a portion of the proposed project site has already begun, and makes use
of some, but not all, of the same road improvements of the Apex Coke project. All existing,
planned, and future required road improvements were evaluated along with consideration
of other possible required road improvements. As noted above and in the permit
application, roadway improvements can be anticipated based on existing transportation
planning documents, existing roadway site conditions, and safety standards as it relates to
existing roadway features and design, as well as additional requirements imposed by local
municipalities or the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Again, roadway
improvements are but one factor considered in a complete and thorough analysis of
alternatives considered, and are done to provide the most complete assessment of
existing conditions and possible changes required to meet the purpose and need of the
proposed project.
The same general approach can be said for the consideration of Zoning or rezoning of a
particular site. Many of the parcels, especially in relation to the proposed project parcels
adjacent to the Apex Coke site, were recently rezoned for light industrial use. This
rezoning presumably would have occurred with or without the Apex Coke project or the
proposed project because of the Town of Apex's interest in developing this area for light
industrial development. To your point, you are correct that if rezoning was conducted to
establish the proposed project site, then it could be assumed that all other sites identified
in the offsite analysis would be eligible for similar rezoning. That, in part, is the justification
discussed above on why the pursuit of several sites and negotiations with governing
entities must occur concurrently with the alternatives analysis so that the likelihood of such
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

-A
- A ►
� � A
activities (i.e., rezoning) can be assessed. Also note that rezoning may be a current
reaction to longer term planning efforts. That is, local municipalities may identify areas
within their jurisdiction or considered for annexation into their jurisdiction as part of their
planning efforts. The municipalities may not amend or update the Zoning or identified
Land Use Classifications of those areas until a developer expresses interest in those sites.
If the interests of the municipality and the developer align, then actions (e.g., rezoning)
may take place in response to the mutual desire. Thus, rezoning may take place before
other processes, such as a permitting, are possible or complete.
NCDWR COMMENT 4: The Division recommends that the USACE consider whether the
"Opportunity Zone" or tax benefits provided by local governments should be considered in
the alternatives analysis.
NCDWR RESPONSE 4: The following information makes use of readily available USACE
guidance on preparing an alternatives analysis under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In its evaluation of permit applications to discharge dredged or fill material into "Waters of
the United States" (WOTUS), including wetlands, the USACE is required to analyze
alternatives to the proposed project that achieve its purpose. USACE conducts this
analysis pursuant to two main requirements — the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). USACE also considers alternatives as part
of its public interest review evaluation.
The Guidelines include two rebuttable presumptions for projects with discharges into
WOTUS which involve special aquatic sites that do not require access to or siting within
the special aquatic site(s) to achieve the basic project purpose. The first presumption
states that alternatives that do not affect special aquatic sites are presumed to be
available. The second presumption states that practicable alternatives located in non -
special aquatic sites have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. It is the
applicant's responsibility to clearly demonstrate to the USACE that both presumptions
have been rebutted to pass the alternatives portion of the Guidelines.
USACE evaluates alternatives that are practicable and reasonable. In accordance with the
Guidelines, a permit cannot be issued if a practicable alternative exists that would have
less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem (known as the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative [LEDPA]), provided that the LEDPA does not have other
significant adverse environmental consequences to other natural ecosystem components.
Reasonable alternatives are considered to satisfy NEPA. However, there are no
requirements with reasonable alternatives relative to USACE's permit decision like there is
in the Guidelines. Evaluations addressing the Guidelines and NEPA typically satisfy the
requirements of the public interest review.
It is important to note that while the terms practicable and reasonable are used and may
be synonymous at times, the factors to determine practicability for the Guidelines and
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

.. - TLAS
NVIRONMENTAL
reasonability for NEPA can and typically do differ. Practicable is defined as meaning the
alternative is available, and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, and/or logistics with regards to the overall project purpose(s).
Reasonable is based on consideration of the project purpose as well as technology,
economics, and common sense.
The Guidelines may require more substantive effort to demonstrate compliance compared
to NEPA, as well as involve limitations relative to how they can be applied to determine
practicability. This is further underscored by the rebuttable presumptions previously
discussed requiring it be clearly demonstrated that the alternatives are not practicable (and
not less damaging) compared to the proposed project.
In the present case, the applicant listed all alternatives that were initially considered (the
"universe" of options) that could meet the overall project purpose. [We note that the
Farrington Point Road site was substantially smaller than all other alternatives and could
have been eliminated based solely on site size, especially as the project design developed
into the proposed project of the application. We retained this alternative because it initially
met the siting criteria and was considered for analysis when the proposed project was in its
initial evaluation.] The alternatives were considered across several factors with relative
comparison to all other alternatives. These factors were considered fairly in the
alternatives screening process to determine those alternatives that are reasonable and to
eliminate clearly impracticable and unreasonable alternatives. Elimination is not binary,
but rather alternatives were evaluated against one another across all factors using a "stop
light" ranking method with a numerical value assigned to each color value (green = 3 point,
yellow = 2 points, red =1 point). The factors and criteria used and how the alternative
ranks were clearly elucidated and supported. A narrative description of each alternative
also was included. Those alternatives that ranked highest were considered reasonable
and practicable and were then evaluated, as stated above, under the Guidelines for the
LEDPA alternative.
The USACE recognizes that when preparing an alternative analysis, there are potential
opportunities to reduce effort and time as noted above relative to impacts to the aquatic
ecosystem. This can also occur with alternatives that are not available or obviously
impracticable. Such options can be identified and evaluated first and eliminated based on
limited screening efforts. For example, attempts to obtain alternate sites but were not
available or turned down for purchase, lease, or management can normally be eliminated
from further consideration with limited information. Sites that are obviously too small to
accommodate the project or that lie substantially outside the geographic boundaries
identified in the overall project purpose are not practicable, and therefore unreasonable,
and can be eliminated with little information.
All alternatives selected for the alternatives analysis and included in the matrix were
suspected to be practical and available at the time of selection and inclusion to reduce the
need for this limited initial screening approach. We find that this approach and the "stop
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 6

light" method of screening of alternatives satisfies this process objectively and completely
while also providing equal information on all alternatives. Furthermore, the "stop light"
method of screening alternatives ensures that the factors considered and criteria used are
not so restrictive that they eliminate practicable, which includes reasonable, alternatives.
Even though the ranking is relative, the lowest ranking alternatives can be dismissed for
LEDPA analysis because they have been evaluated based on a consideration of cost,
existing technology, and/or logistics (practicable), and technology, economics, and
common sense (reasonable) relative to all other alternatives. Thus, all alternatives that
rank highest in the alternative matrix (typically two or three alternatives) are considered
practicable and reasonable.
The Guidelines require that only the LEDPA can be authorized. In the LEDPA analysis,
impacts to the aquatic ecosystem for each remaining practicable alternate site and option
is identified. Because the Guidelines include the consideration as to whether the LEPDA
results in "other significant adverse environmental consequences" to other natural
ecosystem components or environmentally sensitive areas, those other environmental
factors and the potential effects to them are evaluated as well. Therefore, we evaluate the
highest ranking reasonable and practicable alternatives identified in the matrix in another
matrix analysis that contains only environmental parameters (e.g., wetlands; Threatened &
Endangered species; floodplains; cultural and historical sites) to illustrate the proposed
LEDPA.
Emphasis is placed on impacts to the aquatic environment through acreage and functional
loss of wetlands or other WOTUS that would be affected or eliminated by each LEDPA
alternative to the greatest extent possible. However, quantifying or approximating
(numerically as linear feet and/or acres) the aquatic features of a site is only a part of the
equation for conducting an alternatives analysis and assessing which alternative meets the
definition of LEDPA. Unfortunately, the applicant does not necessarily have physical
access to the properties that are considered in the alternatives analysis. Similarly, they do
not necessarily have access to data or descriptive information to exact the linear feet or
acreage of aquatic features or to assess the functional loss of said wetlands. Furthermore,
it would be cost prohibitive for the applicant to conduct environmental due diligence on all
sites considered in the alternatives analysis or LEDPA analysis. However, site plans and
resource maps, including a preliminary mock-up of development and associated potential
impacts to important resources, can provide valuable information to conduct a more
complete comparative analysis.
The LEDPA analysis is concluded with a description of the alternative proposed to be the
LEDPA, reiterating the rationale for this determination. It is noted that if the remaining
alternatives have similar impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as the preferred project, the
applicant and USACE can conclude the preferred project proposal is the LEDPA. As
stated above, this process satisfies the requirement of the public interest review. We
believe the LEDPA alternatives analysis for the proposed project was thorough and
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 7

complete and fully complies with the USACE's required analysis pursuant to the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines and NEPA.
Regarding your specific comments on the inclusion of "Opportunity Zone" or tax benefits
provided by local governments in the alternatives analysis, both factors are relevant for
comparing sites based on its general location (in the case of Opportunity Zones) or County
(in the case of Tax Incentives) of the proposed project. [Note: The Tax Incentive factor
(i.e., Tier designation) is established by the North Carolina Department of Commerce and
incorporated into various state programs to encourage economic activity in less
prosperous areas of the State. It is not established by local governments, nor is it an
incentive given directly to the applicant.] Both factors are considered in a broader array of
factors relevant to the project purpose and siting criteria requirements. These factors are
no different than the application of Site Acreage or Zoning factors in their relevancy to the
consideration of costs, technology, logistics, economics, and common sense in the
alternatives analysis. As previously stated, all factors were considered fairly in the
alternatives screening process to determine those alternatives that are practicable and
reasonable and to eliminate clearly less practicable and less reasonable alternatives.
To show the importance or weight (or lack thereof) of any one individual factor in the
alternatives analysis or in the decision analysis for site selection, we have removed the
factors related to the concerns raised by NCDWR. In Table R4 below, we have removed
the factors related to 1) the availability of utilities or other infrastructure within the site, 2)
current zoning, 3) the presence or absence of a designated Opportunity Zone, and 4) the
availability of State or local tax incentives. As you can see, the rankings remain relatively
the same as their status with these factors included, and the two highest ranking
alternatives are the same as that considered in the LEPDA of the permit application.
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

j
7
�
3
U)
./
�
@
k
@
>
7
�
�
70
@
70
0
WE
\Em
=
.
.2 u g
E
2
$
)
CU
k>
k
2�
$
�22
$2
=
q«
A��
k
�2
¥
�
2
w
$
J
Cl)
�k
E_¥
C'
U
7?
k
�'
U
L;
% U
L�2
ƒL
7°
m
E
%2
=
2
o
O
0
C)
o
70F
«
o
a)
D0Z
Co2%CN
=
\
©
° G D%£
n
`
% 2
=
o
2
0/,
f
r
¥
n
w 2
LU
2
0
0
0 Cl) o
U
CN
CID
2
a)
�oZ
o
E
¥
a)u
0 oLO
k$
0-
k
0
z
0
0 j[
0£0A
2
>
)
2
O
2
0
0/
U�
co
<2
a
?��
&
EAU
m
�§2AEA
\ � —
�
k
/�
E o
c @ /
$
L
�
o
C
C) C)
�
R
k
z
co
ƒ
■
m
2
CO
E
M
e
0
CD
CD
/
�
fCN
7
&
m
_
E
= o
E_
m
@
<om
co
�
LU
§
2�
q
\
LO
f
±
O
E c
@
n
cn
£
o
o\
2
2
q ®
@
■
2
2
E
\
7: ?_
0
_ I
4§
2
E
2
LL
o
«m
om2
t
°>m002
%
E
_
7 = o
— o
= �.
— E
= 0
— a
«
« o
_ �
@
_ >
■ —
■ °
0
-i
3�kU�C)�oC)<f)
23w�

i`
VIRONMENTAL
NCDWR COMMENT 5: The applicant has proposed Permittee Responsible Mitigation
consisting of stream and wetland preservation within the site. The Division has significant
questions and concerns regarding the proposed mitigation plan and will need to conduct a
site review and a detailed evaluation of the proposed preservation site. The Division
recommends that the USACE carefully evaluate whether the proposed preservation site
meets the criteria of the Federal Mitigation Guidelines.
NCDWR RESPONSE 5: The degree of development density near a proposed project
should not be the defining factor to include or exclude a proposed preserved area.
However, one would presume that higher -density development would warrant a greater
need for the preservation of aquatic features on site, especially if that preservation would
bolster and link other natural habitats (e.g., tree save areas, Resource Conservation
Areas) within or adjacent to the project site, and increase the potential for providing greater
filtration and protection to aquatic resources downstream and offsite.
The proposal to provide onsite preservation for a 25% reduction of the required mitigation
is consistent with the guidance from the US Army Corps of Engineers (See attached
Wilmington District Process for Preservation of Mitigation Property (November 2003).
Wherein, the guidance states "The Wilmington District Regulatory Branch (District),
consistent with Corps of Engineers guidance, often accepts or requires the preservation of
property, primarily wetlands or other waters, as compensatory mitigation to offset impacts
to waters or wetlands authorized by permits issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Property preserved may be either existing, high quality wetlands or other
waters, or property on which work is performed to restore, enhance, or create waters or
wetlands. In addition, property preserved may be high ground, preserved in order to
enhance or protect adjacent wetlands or other waters (e.g., stream buffers)."
The guidance continues with the "[p]reservation of property is a component of a complete
mitigation plan" and "[t]here are several preservation mechanisms applicants may propose
to use to preserve mitigation property, including, in general order of preference,
conservation easements, restrictive covenants, and conservation declaration of
restrictions."
As stated in the permit application, the applicant is asking only for a 25% reduction of the
mitigation credit. The requested reduction of 25% credit (i.e., 165.5 stream credits and
0.064 wetland credits) is more than compensated on -site with a nearly 24.1 ratio in the
preservation of 3906 linear feet of stream and nearly 50.1 ratio in the preservation of 3.174
acres of wetlands, plus the associated upland buffers around these aquatic resources.
Furthermore, the total proposed on -site preservation of streams (3906 linear feet) amounts
to nearly 12 times the total length of stream (331 linear feet) proposed for impact, and the
total proposed on -site preservation of wetlands (3.174 acres) amounts to more than 12
times the total area of wetlands (0.257 acres) proposed for impact.
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 10

In addition to the purchase of mitigation credits for the proposed impacts to aquatic
resources, the applicant has also offered to provide vegetated upland buffers around
unimpacted aquatic resources. Buffer enhancement includes natural or planted buffers.
The upland buffer areas include the entirety of the riparian corridors and upland areas
(totaling approximately 13.90 acres), plus adjacent tree save areas (totaling approximately
16.40 acres). The total upland areas are approximately 30.30 acres in size.
Regardless of the quality of the aquatic features proposed for preservation, the combined
proposed off -site mitigation paid via an in lieu fee program (496.5 stream credits and 0.193
wetland credits) and the preservation of on -site aquatic features (3906 linear feet of stream
and 3.174 acres of wetlands) and upland buffers (30.30 acres) amount to a benefit to
existing on -site aquatic resources that far exceed the 25% reduction of required mitigation
credit (i.e., 165.5 stream credits and 0.064 wetland credits).
NCDWR COMMENT 6: The Division is unable to complete a review of the project for
compliance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506 at this time. The Division has requested additional
technical information from the applicant and requests that the USACE also consider the
attached letter during the review of the application.
NCDWR RESPONSE 6: See responses below to the requested information.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 1: If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requests a response to
any comments received as a result of the Public Notice, please provide the Division with a
copy of your response to the USACE. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 1: We will copy NCDWR on any response to comments
received in response to the Public Notice for the proposed subject project.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 2: The Division is unable to complete a review of the
application until features identified as non- jurisdictional / isolated has been confirmed by
the USACE. Please submit a copy of the Approved Jurisdictional Determination when
available.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 2: We will submit a copy of the Approved Jurisdictional
Determination as soon as the USACE has provided one for the subject project.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 3: Please provide a DWR stream identification form for all
intermittent channels. If any intermittent channel becomes perennial at any point within the
project limits, please clearly indicate that location on plan sheets and provide a separate
DWR stream identification form for the perennial section. Upon receipt of this information
the Division may choose to conduct a site visit to confirm the proposed stream
classifications.
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 11

NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 3: Please see attached stream identification forms for all
intermittent stream channels as requested. We have provided an identification form for
each intermittent stream (i.e., CH 100, CH 2O0, CH 300, CH 400, CH 600, CH 700, and
CH 800); the forms are included with this response for your convenience. Please note that
CH 300 was deemed non -jurisdictional /unregulated by USACE. Also, please note that
perennial stream channel CH 500 and intermittent stream channels CH 600, CH 700, and
CH 800 are not impacted by the proposed project.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 4: Please be aware that isolated streams will require
authorization under 15A NCAC 02H .1300.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 4: We are happy to submit stream identification forms for all
intermittent stream channels (see comment above), as well as the Approved Jurisdictional
Determination when provided by the USACE, for your review. Currently, only stream
channel CH 300 is considered non -jurisdictional / unregulated by the USACE based on the
lack of a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters in accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and USACE's September 8, 2023 conforming
rule to the recent Supreme Court ruling on "waters of the United States".
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 5: It appears that further avoidance and minimization is
feasible for the proposed project. Specifically, the application indicates that the buildings
proposed are speculative in nature. The Division acknowledges the discussion provided in
the application regarding the need for speculative development. The application states
that industrial buildings are proposed which include sizes ranging from 27,000 to 375,000
square feet. While the Division commends the applicant for the efforts made so far to
avoid and minimize to the maximum extent practical, the building size range provided
would indicate that various building sizes and configurations are feasible and therefore that
additional avoidance and minimization could still be possible. Please provide additional
information to support the current proposal of building sizes and configurations. If the
information provided to support the proposed configuration is dependent on financial
aspects of the project, please provide more specific information than the current statement
that the proposed facilities are "extremely valuable and having more of each is beneficial."
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 5: Please see our response to NCDWR COMMENT 1. It also
is important to understand that general building design and sizes are required to meet
industry demands, as well as building size is most cost effective when built in incremental
build sizes. For example, building length and width is most cost effective when built in 50-
foot increments rather than other sizes. The reduction of 50-foot of building could amount
to thousands or tens of thousands fewer square feet in the building making it less cost
effective, unable to meet industry demands or standards, and possibly jeopardizing the
purpose and need of the proposed project. In addition to building size there are other
associated features of the building, such as ingress and egress routes, parking areas,
loading areas, turnaround areas, number of dock doors, and safety requirements to
navigate these areas, which are required based on the building size. That is, the reduction
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 12

of 50-foot of building also may affect the position of, and required ratio for, parking areas,
loading areas, and dock doors.
Site design also is an important feature to minimize impacts and combine associated
building features for safe use of the overall site. Ingress and egress roads are aligned and
positioned to allow vehicles to navigate the property safely, even providing multiple ingress
and egress points for access by emergency vehicles. Tractor trailer traffic also has a
separate ingress and egress to reduce the potential for passenger traffic to intermingle.
Similarly, pedestrian traffic is not allow in truck courts because of safety concerns such as
the limited line of sight in tractor trailer rigs. Therefore, building size and placement is
typically conducted to take advantage of the existing landscape (limiting earth movement),
sharing developed site features (ingress and egress points and roadway alignments) when
possible, reducing the potential for hazardous interactions and increasing safety of
operations of the site, and minimizing impacts to important natural and cultural resources.
Once again, we included information in our permit application package to support the
purpose and need of the proposed project, including industry updates on the demand for
modern industrial buildings with features that satisfy those demands. The proposed
building sizes and layout are designed to satisfy the industry demands in the area and to
meet safety standards while also minimizing impact to important resources. As part of the
design process, variations in site design, including costs, technology, and logistics, are
given full consideration to determine the "best" overall site design. This is exemplified
when you consider both the alternative and "highest and best use" site plans included with
the permit application package. If the applicant were simply and solely interested in
developing the proposed site with the largest buildings, then the "highest and best use" site
plan would have been submitted as the preferred project plan. However, the proposed site
plan was submitted because all factors (industry demands, costs, existing technologies,
logistics, safety, common sense, and minimization and avoidance of important natural and
cultural resources) were given full consideration in the site design.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 6: A significant portion of proposed impacts include impacts to
streams and wetlands for stormwater control measures (SCMs). While the Division
understands the need for adequate stormwater management, and that typically SCMs are
installed at the low point in the landscape, it appears that further avoidance and
minimization could be accomplished by utilizing various stormwater control measures that
take up less area, dividing stormwater management into smaller drainage areas with
smaller SCMs that could be located in smaller upland areas, or a combination of both.
Please provide additional information to support the current proposal of SCMs locations
and sizes.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 6: As stated above, the proposed site plan was submitted
because all factors (industry demands, costs, existing technologies, logistics, safety,
common sense, and minimization and avoidance of important natural and cultural
resources) were given full consideration in the site design. Specifically, this includes
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 13

building placement, ingress and egress and roadway alignments, and parking areas
positioned to allow safe navigation of the site and the sharing of features to reduce impacts
to natural resources. SCMs, although not previously or explicitly stated, are an important
part of the site design. As you note, SCMs are typically placed at natural low points in the
landscape and sized to provide adequate stormwater management for the areas they
serve. All these factors were taken into consideration in the site design. The only
component of SCM design that we can see that is not clearly represented on the proposed
site plan is the discharge of the SCMs to maintain flow toward the upper reaches of stream
channels CH 100 and CH 400 and wetland area WL 1400. A new SCM will be placed
above the upper reach of CH 100 and CH 400 and wetland WL 1400 that will feed flow
downstream to these reaches. These areas and the outfalls from all SCMs are clearly
marked on the updated proposed site plan impact maps (see attached).
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 7: Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(b) "a 401 Water Quality
Certification may only be issued upon determining that the proposed activity will comply
with state water quality standards which includes designated uses, numeric criteria,
narrative criteria and the state's antidegradation policy, as defined in rules of 15A NCAC
02B .0200... In assessing whether the proposed activity will comply with water quality
standards, the Division shall evaluate if the proposed activity: (2) would cause or contribute
to a violation of water quality standards; (3) would result in secondary or cumulative
impacts that cause or contribute to, or will cause or contribute to, a violation of water
quality standards;" Based on the current proposed plan the Division believes there is
potential for indirect impacts to:
a. the upper portion of CH100, CH400 and the upper portion of WL1400 as all
surface flow to this channel appears to be routed to two SCMs which would
discharge within the middle portion of WL1400 and into WL1300.
b. CH800 and WL2900 as all surface flow to this channel appears to be routed
to two SCMs which would discharge within the middle portion of CH800.
Please either, include indirect impacts to these features within the impact table and provide
mitigation as appropriate, provide hydrologic calculations to document that surface flow will
continue to support the existing function of the unimpacted features, or provide a
monitoring plan that will document existing conditions and post construction conditions of
these features.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 7: See previous response to comments regarding SCMs. We
have provided an updated proposed site plan to include the discharge of the SCMs to
maintain the flow to these areas. As noted above, a new SCM will be placed above the
upper reach of CH 100 and CH 400 and wetland WL 1400 that will feed flow downstream
to these reaches. Regarding the flow associated with stream channel CH 800 and wetland
area WL 2900, these areas receive flow at the upper reach of WL 2900 that is piped from
the SCM that is at the bottom end of the triangular lot across New Hill Road. This SCM is
feed from the development lots above the SCM and the roadways. The pipe, shown as a
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 14

i,
VIRONMENTAL
faint (light brown) line, follows the roadway entering the site and then turns below the
building to its outfall at the top of the WL 2900 on the proposed site plan impact maps.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 8: The plan sheets provided appear to show grading limits to
the very edge of some jurisdictional features and in some locations grading limits appear to
be left off the details in areas adjacent to jurisdictional features. For example, please see
Impact Detail 2 & 3. The Division is unable to conduct an adequate review of the project
based on the information provided. Please provide clear engineering drawings that show
ALL limits of disturbance within the site, particularly immediately adjacent to any
jurisdictional features.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 8: Areas in which grading limits appear to be left off the
details may be existing ground level where no grading is required and no impacts will
occur. Alternatively, those areas could represent associated building features such as
roadways, loading bays, and parking areas. To differentiate grading layers and impact
areas, we have added the limit of disturbance line to the site plans. Please note that
feature lines (i.e., limit of disturbance) on the site plans may be shown at a size and scale
that makes the proximity of features appear closer than they would occur on site. Please
see the attached revised site plan impact maps for the proposed project. Also, as noted
above, other features have been added (i.e., SCM near US Highway 64) or emphasized
(i.e., SCM outfall pipes) to address previous comments or concerns.
NCDWR RFAI COMMENT 9: The application proposes on -site preservation to satisfy a
portion of the mitigation requirements. The Division has significant reservations about the
proposal to provide preservation of onsite features when these features will be surrounded
by future high- density development. The Division requires that a site visit be conducted
with Division staff and the Interagency Review Team to evaluate the proposed
preservation site in order to ensure consistency between all mitigation proposals and
mitigation providers.
NCDWR RFAI RESPONSE 9: Please see response to NCDWR COMMENT 5. We
contend the proposal to provide onsite preservation for a 25% reduction of the required
mitigation is consistent with the USACE policy and procedures. Furthermore, the
requested reduction of 25% credit (i.e., 165.5 stream credits and 0.064 wetland credits) is
more than compensated on -site with a nearly 24.1 ratio in the preservation of 3906 linear
feet of stream and nearly 50.1 ratio in the preservation of 3.174 acres of wetlands, plus the
associated upland buffers around these aquatic resources. Similarly, the combined
proposed off -site mitigation paid via an in lieu fee program or approved mitigation bank
(496.5 stream credits and 0.193 wetland credits) and the preservation of on -site aquatic
features (3906 linear feet of stream and 3.174 acres of wetlands) and upland buffers
(30.30 acres) amount to a benefit to existing on -site aquatic resources that far exceed the
25% reduction of required mitigation credit (i.e., 165.5 stream credits and 0.064 wetland
credits).
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 15

- -
AQ
VIRONMENTAL
Thank you for allowing us to respond to additional comments from NCDWR on the
proposed project. Please contact me if you need any additional information.
Best regards,
�4+ a- l ww-,
Jennifer L Robertson, President
[e-mail]
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 1 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 16

November 25, 2003
Wilmington District Process for Preservation of Mitigation Property
The Wilmington District Regulatory Branch (District), consistent with Corps of
Engineers guidance, often accepts or requires the preservation of property, primarily
wetlands or other waters, as compensatory mitigation to offset impacts to waters or
wetlands authorized by permits issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Property preserved may be either existing, high quality wetlands or other waters, or
property on which work is performed to restore, enhance, or create waters or wetlands.
In addition, property preserved may be high ground, preserved in order to enhance or
protect adjacent wetlands or other waters (e.g., stream buffers). The purpose of this
document is to outline what the District generally considers necessary to adequately
preserve property offered as compensatory mitigation. It does not address issues of when
preservation is necessary, or what types, quality, or quantity of compensatory mitigation
is adequate to offset authorized impacts.
As an initial matter, unless the proposed mitigation is a mitigation bank or use of
an in -lieu fee program (e.g., the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP)
or the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)), the permittee must have a sufficient
interest in the mitigation property to implement the mitigation plan, including
preservation of property. Fee ownership is preferred.
The District generally considers preservation of property for compensatory
mitigation purposes to consist of maintaining the property in its natural condition, or, if
restoration, creation, or enhancement work has been performed on the property, in its
mitigated condition. The District generally expects that (other than District- approved
construction to enhance, restore, or create waters or wetlands) prohibited activities on the
property will include all construction, grading, filling, excavating, ditching, draining, as
well as the removal, cutting, mowing, burning or harming of vegetation. Some activities
on the property will generally be allowed, such as hiking, fishing, and hunting. Model
preservation documents at Attachments A-C provide a more detailed explanation of what
the District considers to be adequate preservation.
Preservation of property is a component of a complete mitigation plan.
Preparation of acceptable mitigation plans is the responsibility of the applicant.
Mitigation plans should include an adequate description of the property to be preserved
and a description of the activities that will be limited and allowed on the property. The
plan should also identify the type of preservation mechanism proposed to be used;
identify the owner of the mitigation property; and identify the proposed recipient of the
preservation interest, if applicable. Although it is not required that the proposed
document implementing the preservation of the property be submitted with the mitigation
plan, permits will generally not be issued until the proposed document has been approved
by the Corps.

Permits will generally require that the approved preservation mechanism be
properly executed and recorded within 30 days of permit issuance. The District may
exercise flexibility here where it appears there is no immediate threat to the property; the
terms of the preservation mechanism have been agreed to by all necessary parties; and
legitimate reasons for a limited extension of time exist.
There are several preservation mechanisms applicants may propose to use to
preserve mitigation property, including, in general order of preference, conservation
easements, restrictive covenants, and conservation declaration of restrictions. Fee
conveyance to an acceptable conservation organization may also be acceptable.
Subjecting property to any of the preservation mechanisms outlined impacts the property
owner's rights, and the preservation document should be drafted by an attorney
representing the property owner, using the appropriate model document. Other
preservation mechanisms may be proposed by applicants, working with their attorney.
Preservation property must be adequately described in the preservation document.
This can be achieved by means of a metes and bounds description taken from a recent
survey of the property, or a recorded survey identifying the property. Where practicable,
the survey should show the location of any easements or rights of way on the property, as
well as the location of any features or facilities the grantor desires to reserve rights to use,
maintain, repair, or replace.
Other than an appropriate fee conveyance, the District considers conservation
easements to be the most effective form of property preservation, and will require them
for all mitigation sites of any appreciable size, for those of particular value regardless of
size for which a willing acceptable holder can be found, and for all mitigation banks. A
model conservation easement is provided as Attachment A. Conservation easements
proposed by applicants must comply with the model, unless the District approves
modifications. To request a modification from the model, the applicant must submit the
model with the modifications requested highlighted, and reasons for the requested
changes explained in writing. Any request for modification should be sent to both the
District's project manager for the proposed activity, and the District's Office of Counsel,
P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402.
Conservation easements require an approved holder. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to locate an acceptable and willing holder; the District will not be the holder of
such an easement. Approved holders must be qualified pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
121-35, and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the District will require
that the holder be either a recognized conservation organization, or a governmental entity
that intends to enforce the conditions of the conservation easement. The District will not
approve any holder unless it has some degree of confidence that the holder will monitor
the preservation site, and enforce the terms of the easement. The District may consider
such factors as the experience of the holder in managing preservation property; the
purpose of the proposed holder, as reflected in its corporate charter or other
organizational documents; the relationship of the proposed grantor, or permit applicant,
to the proposed holder; and the plans of the holder in managing the property.
2

Property to be subject to a conservation easement should be free and clear of any
prior liens or encumbrances that could adversely impact its value as mitigation property,
including, but not limited to, timber or mineral rights vested in a third party; access,
utility, or other easements that could allow a physical alteration of the property, and
deeds of trust. Any deeds of trust on the property should be subordinated to the
conservation easement. A preliminary title opinion will be required prior to issuance of
the permit, and the permit will be conditioned to require a final title opinion upon
recording of the conservation easement. This requirement may be satisfied if the grantee
of the easement has a mechanism in place to assure it obtains good title to the
conservation easement.
The District recognizes that there will be smaller mitigation sites for which it may
be impractical to require a conservation easement; primarily where no acceptable holder
is willing to accept the easement. That may be the case for single project mitigation
required to compensate for impacts authorized by nationwide or regional permits. In the
absence of other suitable third party holders, however, NCWRP will often agree to hold
conservation easements for small sites. Where the District requires a conservation
easement for NWP's and NCWRP agrees to be the holder, NCWRP's model
conservation easement is acceptable to the Corps.
Where the District finds that a conservation easement is not practicable, it may
accept another form of preservation; either a restrictive covenant associated with a
subdivision of property, or a conservation declaration. Before accepting a preservation
mechanism other than a conservation easement, the applicant may be required to provide
a written description of what efforts it has made to locate an acceptable holder for a
conservation easement.
Language for restrictive covenants for subdivisions, as well as a conservation
declaration for property that will not be subdivided, can be found at Attachments B & C,
respectively. Again, the District must approve any modification of this language;
modification should be requested by showing proposed changes on the District's model
language, with a written explanation of the reason for the requested modification.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Model Conservation Easement; Attachment A ............ Page 5
Restrictive Covenant Guidance; Attachment B .............Page 13
Model Declaration of Restrictions; Attachment C .............Page 15
fl

ATTACHMENT A; MODEL CONSERVATION EASEMENT
January 18, 2001
Rev'd October 16, 2002
Rev'd August, 2003
Model Conservation Easement for use in preserving mitigation property. Language in
italics is instructional, and should be deleted when site -specific Conservation Easement
is prepared.
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made this
day of , 200_ by and between
("Grantor") and
(Grantee).
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine
or neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and
being in County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is [either a public body of this state, an agency of the United
States, or a nonprofit corporation or trust whose purpose is the conservation of property],
and is qualified to be the Grantee of a conservation easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 121-35;
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following natural
communities: [describe by wetland and/or stream type, as well as any associated buffers
or upland communities]. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain
wetland and/or riparian resources and other natural values of the Property, and prevent
the use or development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would
conflict with the maintenance of the Property in its natural condition.
[For use when the mitigation is offered for impacts ofa single individual or
general permit use] WHEREAS, the preservation of the Property is a condition of
Department of the Army permit Action ID issued by the Wilmington
District Corps of Engineers, required to mitigate for unavoidable stream and/or wetland
impacts authorized by that permit. Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
5

(Corps, to include any successor agencies), and that these rights are in addition to, and do
not limit, the rights of enforcement under said permit.
[Alternate paragraph for use when the conservation easement supports a
mitigation bank] WHEREAS, the preservation of the Property is required by a Mitigation
Banking Instrument for the [Name of Bank], Department of the Army Action ID [Action
ID number for the mitigation bank]. The Mitigation Bank is intended to be used to
compensate for unavoidable stream and/or wetland impacts authorized by permits issued
by the Department of the Army. Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(Corps, to include any successor agencies), and that these rights are in addition to, and do
not limit, the rights of the parties to the Mitigation Banking Instrument.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors
and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and
character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Property described on Exhibit A,
together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This conservation Easement is an
easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and
licensees.
ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purpose of this
Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Property shall be preserved in its natural
condition and restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Property.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses
are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Property or any introduction of non-native
plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display,
0

antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or
permanent structure or facility on or above the Property.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any right of passage for such purposes are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Property are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting
or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the property; nor enlargement or modification to existing roads, trails or walkways.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Property, except the
posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property,
signs giving directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Property
and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the property.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or other
materials on the Property is prohibited.
L Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any manner
on the Property, except to restore natural topography or drainage patterns.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration
of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition, diverting or causing
or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into, within or out of the
easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters,
springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or
extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited. [The Corps
will generally allow the use of vehicles on existing roads provided those roads are
7

identified by reference to a recorded map showing their location, configuration, and
size.]
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or
may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Property
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is
prohibited.
ARTICLE III
GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the property for all purposes not
inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to
quiet enjoyment of the Property, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish,
and hike on the Property, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Property,
in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.
[For use when mitigation work (approved or required restoration, creation, or
enhancement)is to be done on the property]Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions,
Grantor reserves for Grantor, its successors and assigns, the right to construct wetland
and stream mitigation on the Property, in accordance with the [describe mitigation plan
by title, date and permit action id if a single mitigation site; if a mitigation bank, include
the language "detailed mitigation plan approved in accordance with the Mitigation
Banking Instrument for the
ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
Mitigation Bank.]
The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the
Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting said property to determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes
of this Conservation Easement. The Grantee shall also have the right to enter and go
upon the Property for purposes of making scientific or educational observations and
studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do not include public
access rights.
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee is allowed to prevent
any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this
Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may
be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation

Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify
the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of
such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains
uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by
appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice,
to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the breach
of the term of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or otherwise
materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement. The
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances damage to the Grantee
would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate. The rights and remedies of
the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights
and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement. The
costs of a breach, correction or restoration, including the Grantee's expenses, court costs,
and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be
responsible for the breach. The Corps shall have the same right to enforce the terms and
conditions of this easement as the Grantee.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or
provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a
subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle
Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the Property
resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire,
flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or
from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to
prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Property resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warraniy. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property which
have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor further
warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and
arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title
to the Property against the claims of all persons.
0

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any interest in
all or a portion of the Property. The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such
transfer at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee
agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee
and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof and shall not be amended,
modified or terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the Grantee
hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation
Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified holder under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee
further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such that
the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. This instrument sets forth the entire
agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all
prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation
Easement. If any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property
free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to comply with
federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of the
Reserved Rights.
F. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Property for the conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement
may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
G. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Property is taken in the exercise
of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this
Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time
of such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.
H. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of this Property is sold,
exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an extinguishment or the exercise of
eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation
10

Easement. The parties stipulate that the fair market value of this Conservation Easement
shall be determined by multiplying the fair market value of the Property unencumbered
by this Conservation Easement (minus any increase in value after the date of this grant
attributable to improvements) by the ratio of the value of this easement at the time of this
grant to the value of the Property (without deduction for the value of this Conservation
Easement) at the time of this grant. The values at the time of this grant shall be the values
used, or which would have been used, to calculate a deduction for federal income tax
purposes, pursuant to Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (whether eligible or
ineligible for such a deduction). Grantee shall use its share of the proceeds in a manner
consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
L Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter specified
by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]
To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]
To the Corps:
[Name, address and fax number]
J. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest
shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate
proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.
K. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in a
writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any
applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this grant.
L. [For use if there is a document describing the current condition of the
property. The language provided is applicable if there is a mitigation plan that
accurately describes the current condition and uses of the property. If there is not such a
plan, another document we agree is accurate and can be identified and is in our files can
be referenced.]Present Condition of the Property. The wetlands, scenic, resource,
environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Property, and its current use and
state of improvement, are described in Section , Appendix B of the Mitigation Plan,
11

dated , prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and
Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee
have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes
in the use of the Property will be consistent with the terms of this Conservation
Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the use of other evidence to
establish the present condition of the Property if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for
the aforesaid purposes.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form)
12

ATTACHMENT B- RESTRICTIVE COVENANT GUIDANCE
August, 2003
Often, developers of residential or commercial subdivisions subject the property on
which the subdivision is built to restrictive covenants, that include provisions such as
setbacks, types of homes/buildings that can be built, etc. If the District has determined
that restrictive covenants are acceptable as a means of preserving mitigation property, the
following language can be added to those restrictive covenants:
"The areas shown on the recorded plat (identify the plat by title, date, and
recording data) as conservation areas shall be maintained in perpetuity in their
natural or mitigated condition. No person or entity shall perform any of the
following activities on such conservation area:
a. fill, grade, excavate or perform any other land disturbing activities
b. cut, mow, burn, remove, or harm any vegetation
c. construct or place any roads, trails, walkways, buildings, mobile
homes, signs, utility poles or towers, or any other permanent or temporary
structures
d. drain or otherwise disrupt or alter the hydrology or drainage ways of
the conservation area
e. dump or store soil, trash, or other waste
f. graze or water animals, or use for any agricultural or horticultural
purpose
This covenant is intended to ensure continued compliance with the mitigation
condition of a Clean Water Act authorization issued by the United States of
America, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Action ID
, and therefore may be enforced by the United States of America. This covenant
is to run with the land, and shall be binding on the Owner, and all parties claiming
under it."
Usually, restrictive covenants have a provision that the property owners (either all of
them or some percentage of them) can amend or modify the restrictive covenants. If that
is the case, that provision needs to provide that our required paragraph (usually identified
by paragraph number) cannot be amended without the express written consent of the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
The permit condition should state that the permittee will record restrictive covenants,
acceptable to the Corps of Engineers, for the purpose of maintaining the mitigation areas
in their natural state in perpetuity, prior to the sale or conveyance of any lots or other
property within the subdivision. It is important that the restrictions be recorded prior to
the sale of any property within the subdivision (or phase, if it is being developed by
phase). If they are not, then any property sold prior to the recording of the restrictive
covenant are not subject to those covenants. Suggest the following:
13

"Permittee shall execute and cause to be recorded in the County
Register of Deeds restrictive covenants acceptable to the Corps of Engineers for
the purpose of maintaining the conservation areas, as shown on the recorded
plat* (identify by title, date, and recording data), in their natural state in
perpetuity, prior to the sale or conveyance of any lots or other property within the
subdivision. The permittee shall enforce the terms of the restrictive covenants
and, prior to conveyance of the property, shall take no action on the property
described in the covenants inconsistent with the terms thereof. The permittee
shall provide a copy of the recorded restrictive covenants to the Corps of
Engineers within 15 days of recording."
* It is possible and acceptable that the plat may not be recorded at the time of the
issuance of the permit. If that is the case, delete the word "recorded" and be sure you
have a copy of a plat showing the conservation areas in the file, and identify it in the
permit condition by title and date. The plat, however, must be recorded at the time the
restrictive covenants are recorded, and prior to the sale of any lots in the subdivision.
14

ATTACHMENT C -- MODEL DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
August, 2003
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY
CONSERVATION DECLARATION
This DECLARATION of CONSERVATION COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, and
RESTRICTIONS (" ") is made on this day of ,
200, by [NAME AND ADDRESS OF DECLARANT] "Declarant").
RECITALS & CONSERVATION PURPOSES
A. Declarant is the sole owner in fee simple of the certain Conservation
Property (Property) being approximately acres, more particularly described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein [reference to a
recorded map showing a survey of the preserved area may be required]; and
B. The purpose of this Conservation Declaration is to maintain wetland and/or
riparian resources and other natural values of the Property, and prevent the use or
development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with
the maintenance of the Property in its natural condition. The preservation of the Property
in its natural condition is a condition of Department of the Army permit Action ID
issued by the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), required
to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States authorized by that
permit, and this Conservation Declaration may therefore be enforced by the United States
of America.
NOW, THEREFORE the Declarant hereby unconditionally and irrevocably declares that
the Property shall be held and subject to the following restrictions, covenants and
conditions as set out herein, to run with the subject real property and be binding on all
parties that have or shall have any right, title, or interest in said property.
ARTICLE I. PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Declaration is prohibited. The Property shall be maintained in its natural,
scenic, and open condition and restricted from any development or use that would impair
15

or interfere with the conservation purposes of this Conservation Declaration set forth
above.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are
expressly prohibited or restricted.
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Property or any introduction of non-native
plants and/or animal species is prohibited.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building,
mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display,
antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or
permanent structure or facility on or above the Property.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or
commercial activities, including any right of passage for such purposes are prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Property are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting
or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways
on the property.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Property, except the
posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property,
signs giving directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Property
and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the property.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or other
materials on the Property is prohibited.
1. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any manner
on the Property, except to restore natural topography or drainage patterns.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration
of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition, diverting or causing
16

or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into, within or out of the
easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters,
springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or
extinguished by this Conservation Declaration shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited.
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or
may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Property
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is
prohibited.
ARTICLE IL ENFORCEMENT & REMEDIES
A. This Declaration is intended to ensure continued compliance with the
mitigation condition of authorizations issued by the United States of America, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, and therefore may be enforced by the United
States of America. This covenant is to run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under the Declarant.
B. Corps, its employees and agents and its successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Property at reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the Property to determine whether the Declarant, Declarant's representatives,
or assigns are complying with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation
Declaration.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Declaration shall be construed to
entitle Corps to bring any action against Declarant for any injury or change in the
Conservation Property caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Declarant's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement,
or from any prudent action taken in good faith by the Declarant under emergency
conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to Property or
harm to the Property resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE III. PUBLIC ACCESS
A. This Conservation Declaration does not convey to the public the right to
enter the Property for any purpose whatsoever.
17

ARTICLE IV. DOCUMENTATION AND TITLE
A. Conservation Property Condition. The Declarant represents and
acknowledges that the Property is currently undeveloped land, with no improvements
other than any existing utility lines, Declarations and rights of way.
B. Title. The Declarant covenants and represents that the Declarant is the
sole owner and is seized of the Property in fee simple and has good right to make the
herein Declaration; that there is legal access to the Property, that the Property is free and
clear of any and all encumbrances, except Declarations of record.
ARTICLE V. NHSCELLANEOUS
A. Conservation Purpose.
(1) Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees that this
Conservation Property shall be held exclusively for conservation purposes.
B. Entire Agreement. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the Conservation Declaration and supersedes all prior discussions,
negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Declaration. If
any provision is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Conservation
Declaration, and the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than
those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
C. Recording. Declarant shall record this instrument and any amendment
hereto in timely fashion in the official records of County, North Carolina,
and may re-record it at any time as may be required to preserve its rights.
D. Environmental Condition of Conservation Property. The Declarant
warrants and represents that to the best of its knowledge after appropriate inquiry and
investigation: (a) the Property described herein is and at all times hereafter will continue
to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local environmental laws and
regulations, and (b) as of the date hereof there are no hazardous materials, substances,
wastes, or environmentally regulated substances (including, without limitation, any
materials containing asbestos) located on, in or under the Property or used in connection
therewith, and that there is no environmental condition existing on the Property that may
prohibit or impede use of the Property for the purposes set forth in the Recitals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and
year first above written.
[Signature of Declarant in proper form]

NC DWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: June 28, 2023
Project/Site:Apex Gateway
CH 100
Latitude: 35.74692003
Evaluator: A Baggarley J Sinclair
county: Chatham
Longitude:-78.95749100
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other New Hill Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 26.5
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral IntepAittent Perennial
-1I""
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 14.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 7 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C_ Rinlnnv (SuhtntA = 1 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
0.5
1
O
1
0
1
1
1
3
2
2
O
O
0
0.5
0.5
0
O

NC DWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: June 28 202 3
Apex Gateway
Project/Site: zoo
Latitude: 35.74407464
Evaluator: A Baggarley J Sinclair
county: Chatham
Longitude:-78.95555943
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other New Hill Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 23
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral Intepnittent Perennial
-1I""
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12•5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 6_E; )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C_ Rinlnnv (SuhtntA = a 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
0.5
1
O
1
0
1
0.5
1
3
1
2
O
O
0
0.5
0.5
0
O

NC DWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: June 28 202 3
Apex Gateway
Project/Site: 300
Latitude: 35.74372499
Evaluator: A Baggarley J Sinclair
county: Chatham
Longitude:-78.95389256
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other New Hill Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 21.25
Ephemeral IntepAittent Perennial
-1I""
e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10•5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 6_E; )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C_ Rinlnnv (SuhtntA = a.7q 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
1
1
2
1
1
1
0.5
1
O
1
0
1
0.5
1
3
1
2
O
O
0
0.5
0
0.75

NC DWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: June 28 202 3
Apex Gateway
Project/Site: 400
Latitude: 35.74156843
Evaluator: A Baggarley J Sinclair
county: Chatham
Longitude:-78.95627434
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other New Hill Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 22
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral Intepnittent Perennial
-1I""
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 11.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 7 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C_ Rinlnnv (SuhtntA = z.s 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
2
1
2
1
1
1
0.5
1
O
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
2
O
O
0
0
0.5
0
O

NC DWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: June 28 202 3
Apex Gateway
Project/Site: 60o
Latitude: 35 74595 666
Evaluator: A Baggarley J Sinclair
county: Chatham
Longitude:-78.94641490
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other New Hill Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 22.5
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral IntepAittent Perennial
-1I""
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12•5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 6_E; )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C_ Rinlnnv (SuhtntA = z.s 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
2
2
2
1
1
1
0.5
1
O
1
0
0.5
1
1
3
1
2
O
O
0
0
0.5
0
O

NC DWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: June 28 202 3
Apex Gateway
ProjectlSite:CH 700
Latitude: 35 74897543
Evaluator: A Baggarley J Sinclair
county: Chatham
Longitude:-78.95064897
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other New Hill Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 23.5
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral Intepnittent Perennial
-1I""
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 13 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 7 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C_ Rinlnnv (SuhtntA = z.s 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
O
0.5
1
0.5
3

NC DWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: June 28, 2023
Project/Site:Apex Gateway
CH 800
Latitude: 35.73513664
Evaluator: A Baggarley J Sinclair
county: Chatham
Longitude:-78.95225508
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other New Hill Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 23.5
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral IntepAittent Perennial
-1I""
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 13.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 7 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C_ Rinlnnv (SuhtntA = z 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
2
3
2
1
1
1
0.5
1
O
0.5
1
0.5
3
1
1
O
O
0
0.5
0.5
0
O

Detail 8: Page 9
GRAPHIC SCALE
(a xeee 1
o
Date: March 08, 2023
11
o
a
Updated: Nov. 22, 2023
o
�
For: BIN—AGPLLC
C
Attn: Jon Morris
Ach Map provided for illustrative purposes and
liminary planning only. Not intended to be relied upon
exact location, dimension, or orientation. All findings
I assessments are subject to verification from the
ny Corps of Engineers, NC Division of Water
sources, and/or other appropriate local authorities.
not reproduce map set except in its entirety.
Apex Gateway
106 NC Highway 751 -li Ll1J
Apex, NC 27523 10DNnni ivrAL
338 S. Sharon Amity Rd, #411
Coordinates: 35.747992,—78.947729 Charlotte NC, 28211

I29Z 'ON a;}oIJogO 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SIJJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�vlrv�wrvo 2Z9LZ ON 'xadd 31ld9V—NIS :aoj
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90l
►� v 2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp o_
AJM94Dq xadb �ZOZ 'ZZ Anw :a4oaOf

I29Z 'ON a;}oIJogo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SIJJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�v1N�wrvo 2Z9LZ ON `xadd 011dOV—NIS :aoj
� / LSL ADmgbiH ON 90l
►� v 2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp o
Ao/v\94D9 x a d b Lo
�ZOZ 'ZZ Anw :a4oa 1E

122Z 'ON a;}oIJogo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�vlrv�wN 2Z9LZ ON `xadd 3IIdOV—N18 :AOJ
� / LSL ADmgbiH ON 90L
►� v 2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp oco
AJM94D`J xadb �zoz 'zz Anw :a4oaOfl
` O U
a
00 N
/ O O
� U i
Q O
� O
F �
U
a
N
W O
O
U i
O
� W
J
a
O
0
0
�LL
J
U W
m W
O
O
M
2
U
U U
O N
O O
N LL U i
M J
Q O
9O
Q — —
� i J
O
O
N
2
U
U
a
0
�O
�0
U i
Q O
O
— M
s
U
U �$
0. _a
U

122Z 'ON a;}oIJogo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SIJJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�vlrv�wN 2Z9LZ ON `xadd 31ldOV—N18 :AOJ
� / LSL ADmgbiH ON 90L
►� v 2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp o
AJM94Dq xadb �ZOZ 'ZZ Anw :a4oaOf

I29Z 'ON a;}oIJogo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�vlrv�wrvo 2Z9LZ ON `xadd 31ldOV-N18 :AOJ
� / LSL ADmgbiH ON 90l
►� v 2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp o
A J M 2 tJ x a d b �zoz 'zz Anw :a4oa OfFF
II
i
O U 0
tii Q �o
CL
J
W 0 O 0
\ r I CL
Lo O O
I\ I �O �O J
CL
C ON E O
I I a J
LU
I �6�
Ic
I
I I I
1 I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I a
I �e
U
I I �
I
I
I

122Z 'ON a;}oIJogo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�vlrv�wN 2Z9LZ ON `xadd 31ldOV—N18 :aoj
� / LSL ADmgbiH ON 90L
►� vUW
2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp o_
AJM94D9 xadb �zoz 'zz Anw :a4oaOf
a
in 0
�O
o
U �
Q O
E 00
— N
U
a
N (1)
O
O
U 0
O U OO _
Q Q E Lo
N
00
O 0 M
O �
U ? N
(6 O O
O_ O >_
N C
J O
� a
U \
/ Qo
i
coo
U
R

122Z 'ON a;}oIJogo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�vlrv�wN 2Z9LZ ON `xadd 0lldOV—NIS :aoj
� / LSL ADmgbiH ON 90L
►� vUW
2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp o_
AoM94D9 xadb �zoz 'zz Anw :a4oaOf
Q
\ U U
\\ L0 O
o 00 o
\ � � Q O Q O
/ J J
/ 00
I
V
/ I
/ U
a
/ o
Eo
tLL:
Q J
W �
V
(O lf')
(n i
U O
CI O
Q M
E_
—a
W
Lo
a Q
rn co o
p O
U i U i
CL
(6 o iL CL o
Em Eo 1
U
5

I29Z 'ON a;}oIJogo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�vlrv�wrvo 2Z9LZ ON `xadd 31ld9V—NIS :aoj
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90l
►� v 2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp o
A J M 2 x a d b �zoz 'zz Anw :a4oa Of
� I
I
II
I I
I
--- I I
a Io
0
U �
N O
Q
E lLo
- M
I
I
i
I
I a
I a
I o0
I o
Q O v pp$
I � U
I
I B
I

I29Z 'ON a;}oIJogo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!wy uoJogS 'S 922
�v1N�wrvo 2Z9LZ ON `xadd 31ldOV—N18 :aoj
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90l
►� v 2ZOZ 'ZZ jagwanoN :pa}opdp o
A J M 2 x a d b �zoz 'zz Anw :a4oa Of
� I
� I �
o
� o 0
i t o 0 0
U
0. ��