20221496 Ver 3_Apex Gateway NWP 39-18 Package COMPRESSED_20240716

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW-2023-00049 BEGIN DATE [Received Date]:
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Apex Gateway
2. Work Type: Private ❑ Institutional ❑ Government ❑ Commercial Z
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 63e]:
The purpose of this project is for the construction of an industrial development and associated
stormwater control measures, parking, roads, and additional infrastructure.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A41: Multiple owners (see property report)
Applicant: BIN—AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
5. Agent / Consultant [PCN Form A5 — or ❑RM Consultant I❑ Number]: Atlas Environmental, Jennifer Robertson
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]: DWR#20230922
7. Project Location - Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form 61b]:
106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC
Lat: 35.747992, Long:-78.947729
S. Project Location - Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]: 17894, 95750, 17904, 95749, 76475, 17886, 68507, 60490, 96511, 179
17918, 17912, 67322, 17915
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Chatham
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Apex
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: White Oak Creek, WS-IV;NSW, Index #: 16-41-6-(0.7)
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Haw, 03030002
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit # 39/18
❑ Regional General Permit #
❑ Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 & 404 ❑
F]Unauthorized Pre -Application Request
Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

i`
VIRONMENTAL
16 July 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 +/- 212.302 Acres
Apex Gateway
106 NC Highway 751
Apex, North Carolina 27523
Nationwide Permits 39 and 18
SAW-2023-00049
DWR-2022-1496 v3
Dear Rachel, Stephanie, and Sue:
Atlas Environmental, Inc., on behalf of the applicant, Jon Morris of BIN—AGP LLC, is
submitting the following request for verification of Nationwide Permits 39 and 18 for
unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States and State of North
Carolina related to the proposed development of the Apex Gateway industrial project.
Project Location
The proposed project site is located at 106 NC Highway 751, Apex, North Carolina, 27523.
The review area includes 12 full and two (2) partial parcels (Parcel ID Numbers 17886,
17894, 17903, 17904, 17912 (partial), 17915 (partial), 17918, 60490, 67322, 68507,
76475, 95749, 95750, and 96511), totaling approximately 212.302 acres in Chatham
County, North Carolina. The general project location is at the intersection of US Highway
64 and NC Highway 751, approximately seven (7.0) driving miles East of the city center of
the Town of Apex, North Carolina.
Project Applicant/Developer
BIN—AGP LLC is the project applicant and is partnering with Beacon Partners as the
development contractor for the construction of their facilities. Beacon Partners is a full -
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

i,
VIRONMENTAL
service commercial real estate firm focused on the development, acquisition, lease, and
management of quality industrial, office, and mixed -use properties, and have invested
more than $2.4 billion dollars in real estate projects throughout North and South Carolina.
Their portfolio currently includes more than 30.4 million square feet of developed or
acquired real estate, with approximately 14.5 million square feet currently leased, owned,
or managed.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a new and modern, high -quality, light
industrial and commercial center with industrial buildings and commercial/retail buildings of
varying sizes (approximately 6000 to 375,000 square feet each) and features (e.g.,
modern clear heights, number of dock doors, number of parking spaces) to meet current
and future demand for industrial space, accommodate a diverse and stable tenant
portfolio, and better serve the greater Raleigh and Durham markets. The proposed
facilities, developed in partnership with Beacon Partners, ideally would be near major
transportation corridors with easy ingress and egress of transportation corridors and the
project site. Proximity to major transportation corridors helps ensure greater capability of
the road system managing increased volume of traffic without major roadway
improvements or changes.
Project Marketing and Need
The need for a new and modern, high -quality, light industrial center is demonstrated by the
increase in consumer demand for goods and services, the obsolescence of existing
warehouse and distribution facilities (and features), extremely low vacancy rates, and high
absorption rates. The need for the proposed project is further demonstrated, in part, by
the increased demand for, and construction of, such facilities. There are numerous reports
and articles on the increasing need and demand for warehouse, distribution, and logistic
space. The takeaways of these articles and reports are:
• Gross output for the Transportation and Warehousing Industry is up 39% from Q1
2020 to Q4 2022. Truck transportation is up more than 36% and Warehousing and
Storage is up 51 %, over the same period (BEA, 2023).
• Demand for Logistics and Parcel Delivery space is greatest in the Southeast where
demand accounts for 27.8% of the total US demand. By comparison, the entire
West Coast of the US accounts for just 14.2% (JLL, 2022).
• Consumer Product space has increased 33% in the Southeast in 2022. By
comparison, the next greatest growth was in the West Region with 26% (JLL, 2022).
• Demand for warehousing space is outpacing new supply with absorption far
exceeding new supply (PREA, 2022).
• About 75% of industrial inventory was built prior to 2000, and lacks the key features
(i.e., parking ratios, truck courts, clear heights, and dock door counts) that current
tenants seek (PREA, 2022).
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 2

i`
VIRONMENTAL
• Existing US industrial inventory is functionally obsolete; new clear heights (>36 feet)
and parking and dock door ratios are dominating requirements for demand
(Cushman & Wakefield, 2021; PREA 2022).
• Raleigh -Durham is ranked the fourth fastest growing region in the US and one of
the nation's fastest growing commercial real estate investing and leasing markets
(American Growth Project, 2022; Crexi, 2023).
• Chatham County and Southwest Wake County combined account for only 14% of
the total inventory in the Raleigh -Durham market (Avison Young, 2023).
• The demand for industrial space and leasing activity remains high in the Raleigh -
Durham industrial market (Colliers, 2023).
• The Raleigh -Durham industrial market is below 4% vacancy during the first quarter
of 2023 (Avison Young, 2023).
• The substantial number of speculative developments currently under construction
are forecast to sustain the extremely competitive market and will continue to see
robust lease up with elevated tenant demand (Colliers, 2023).
The proposed project location in Chatham County, at the Wake -Chatham County line, near
the Town of Apex, the Raleigh -Durham International Airport, NC Highway 540/1-540, US
Highway 64, and NC Highway 751 providing convenient access to 1-40, was carefully
selected based on the project purpose and need and development opportunities. Beacon
Partners typically constructs buildings on a speculative basis, meaning there are no
tenants committed when the project begins. However, current demand for industrial
facilities in the Apex area is high, especially as large manufacturers continue to show
interest and move to the region. Two companies have negotiated leases for proposed
buildings; a battery company and a pharmaceuticals company have committed to leasing
two of the buildings proposed for construction on the project site. Several smaller
commercial and restaurant/food service companies also are in discussions to develop the
commercial outparcels on the project site. The development of the proposed project site is
expected to attract a broad range of industries and companies (including technology and
life sciences). The future tenants of Apex Gateway will assuredly include those who need,
and benefit from, a location close to a major metropolitan area within proximity of major
transportation corridors and an airport.
To further validate the purpose and need for the proposed project, local economic
authorities (Chatham County and Apex Economic Development Teams) support the
project suggesting a need, or at least desire, for such industrial, commercial, and life
science developments in this location. The proposed project land use also is consistent
with nearby properties and zoning, and the project site is strategically located within an
area consistent with the Chatham County Comprehensive Plan (2017). While the project
proposes conversion from forested land to developed land, the property is within a planned
area for warehouse and distribution facilities to provide closer access to the airport and
interstate transportation corridors. Furthermore, utilizing the property for industrial
warehouse and distribution and life science facilities provides benefits to land use given its
proximity to transportation corridors, rather than other types of development (e.g.,
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 3

residential development). Lastly, the owners of the property are entitled to the bundle of
rights, which includes the rights to control (i.e., use) and enjoyment of the property. In
addition to the proposed project being consistent with nearby properties and zoning
ordinances, the owner's use of the property is consistent with governing laws and rules
and is supported by local governing and granting agencies and organizations.
Property History
Aerial photographs can provide excellent documentation of property history and land use
over time. A reliable timeline of activity and development of the property can be
established when certain imagery/photographs are available. A review of available
historical aerial imagery indicates that the proposed project site has been predominantly
forested with some agricultural fields and a few residences since the early 1980s.
Project History
The project site is comprised of four, originally distinct and independently proposed,
development sites — NC Highway 751, Droege Aulicino, Apex Gateway (sometimes
identified as Project Real), and Berkut. The four proposed projects initially were evaluated
with separate jurisdictional determinations (JD) submitted to the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE).
The original NC Highway 751 JD was submitted as an Approved JD (AJD) on January 23,
2023, and consisted of five full and one partial parcels. The project was assigned Action
ID number SAW-2023-00049. One wetland area was labeled in the AJD with the incorrect
acreage; the correct acreage is provided in the identified wetlands below. The USACE has
not given final approval for the AJD.
The original Droege Aulicino JD was submitted as an AJD on November 18, 2022, and
consisted of five parcels. The project was assigned Action ID number SAW-2022-02485.
The property evaluated in the AJD is not entirely encompassed in the proposed project,
therefore not all streams identified in the AJD are included in the proposed project (see
project identified wetlands below). The USACE has not given final approval for the AJD.
The original Apex Gateway JD was submitted as an AJD on May 9, 2022, and consisted of
five parcels. The project was assigned Action ID number SAW-2022-01050. Atlas
Environmental later withdrew the AJD because the project boundaries changed. A revised
AJD was submitted on March 22, 2023, under the original Action ID number. All wetlands
and streams were verbally found to be jurisdictional by the USACE during the site visit
(February 14 and 21, 2023), but the USACE has not given final written approval for the
AJD. The revised Apex Gateway project site was then split into two project sites — Apex
Coke and Apex Gateway. Apex Coke was inadvertently assigned the same Action ID
(SAW-2022-01050) in the application for Nationwide Permits 18 and 39, but is an
unrelated project to the current proposed project. An AJD was submitted on the revised
Apex Gateway project site and finalized on May 25, 2024. The Apex Gateway project site
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

is being developed as Phase 1 of the Apex Gateway industrial development. No impacts
to jurisdictional aquatic resources are associated with Phase 1. As such, the information
presented below does not include aspects pertaining to Phase 1.
The original Berkut JD was submitted as an AJD on October 24, 2022, and consisted of
one parcel. The project was assigned Action ID number SAW-2022-02310. The USACE
has not given final approval for the AJD.
During a pre-IP meeting on June 2, 2023, the USACE suggested that the proposed
combined project, as submitted here, should use Action ID SAW-2023-00049.
Proposed Project
BIN—AGP LLC proposes development of approximately 212.302 acres at the intersection
of US Highway 64 and NC Highway 751 for a light industrial complex. The project is for
the construction of an industrial development consisting of three construction phases. This
is not a phased project, but rather a single and complete project identified according to
their construction phases. There are no anticipated future or additional impacts.
The construction phases for the proposed project are identified as 2A, 213, and 2C. As
noted above, an AJD for Phase 1, originally referred to as Apex Gateway (sometimes
Project Real), was finalized under Action ID SAW-2023-00049 on May 25, 2024. Phase
did not result in any impacts to jurisdictional aquatic features; no permit was required to
begin work on this portion of the project. Phase 2A is located North of Highway 64 and
East of NC Highway 751, and was originally referred to as Droege Aulicino. Phase 2B is
located North of Highway 64 and West of Highway 751, and was originally referred to as
NC Highway 751. Phase 2C is located South of Highway 64 and West of New Hill Road,
and was originally referred to as Berkut.
The area of development for permit request includes the construction of 15 industrial
buildings, 12 commercial/retail buildings and outparcels, ingress and egress roadways,
parking, stormwater control measures, and other associated infrastructure. The buildings
are of varying sizes ranging from approximately 6000 square feet for commercial/retail to
between 27,000 to 375,000 square feet for industrial. The industrial buildings also include
features (e.g., modern clear heights, number of dock doors, number of parking spaces) to
meet current and future demand for industrial space, accommodate a diverse and stable
tenant portfolio, and better serve the greater Raleigh and Durham markets. The size and
placement of the buildings were designed to avoid higher quality aquatic resources,
planned and dedicated roadways, tree save and buffer areas, and to maximize logistics,
including reduced time and costs associated with transport and shared parking for the
buildings to reduce the overall footprint of the site.
The proposed development is partially constrained by dedicated activities associated with
these and other nearby public projects. For example, the proposed Gateway Drive will be
constructed at two locations on both sides of NC Highway 751 to allow access to the
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

industrial park, and will be dedicated as public right-of-way to the Town of Apex. A
planned roadway through the Apex Coke property will connect to Gateway Drive on the
East side of NC Highway 751, and will be dedicated as public right-of-way to the Town of
Apex. An additional road, Brightleaf Lane, will be constructed to allow emergency vehicle
access from Gateway Drive to the facilities and parking lot areas of several buildings. A
substantial area (approximately 18.54 acres) fronting US Highway 64 on both sides of NC
Highway 751 has been set aside as NC Department of Transportation right-of-way for
planned expansion of the interchange at NC Highway 751 and US Highway 64. Additional
areas, including buffers on streams and wetlands along the Eastern property boundary,
through the middle of the Western portion of the property North of US Highway 64, and a
buffer area around the Northern and Western boundaries of the properties North of US
Highway 64 have been set aside as buffer areas for the Town of Apex. Buffer areas also
have been established around the property boundaries of the property South of US
Highway 64. Buffer widths vary across the project sight, but include 100 foot buffers on
perennial streams, 50 foot buffers on intermittent streams, an additional 30 foot upland
buffer on all stream features, 40 to 60 foot buffers around the property perimeter, and 50
foot buffers on road right-of-ways. In addition, substantial areas have been dedicated as
tree save and greenspace on the North side of US Highway 64 (approximately 10.15
acres) and on the South side of the US Highway 64 (approximately 6.25 acres). These
factors limit the uplands available for current and future development.
Project Site Evaluation
As stated above, current demand for industrial facilities in the Apex area is high, especially
as large manufacturers continue to show interest and move to the region. The proposed
project site is adjacent to US Highway 64 and NC Highway 751, which provides easy
access to 1-540, 1-40, and the Raleigh Durham International Airport, and has existing utility
infrastructure and service. The proposed project site also is in a Federal Opportunity Zone
(37037020600) encouraging developers and investors, such as BIN—AGP LLC, to
develop and invest in these areas to spur economic growth and job creation. Furthermore,
although Beacon Partners at times develops properties on a speculative basis, their
development cooperation with BIN—AGP LLC has resulted in two companies committing
to lease options at the proposed project site specifically because of the site location,
proposed building size, building placement, and other site amenities. Future development
of the site also is expected to attract a broad range of industries and companies. Any
future tenants of Apex Gateway will assuredly include those who need a location close to a
major metropolitan area within proximity of major transportation corridors and an airport.
Wetlands and Waters of the United States and Impacts
On November 11, 14, 17, and 23, 2021, Atlas Environmental conducted an initial
pedestrian survey of the proposed project site to identify streams and wetlands which may
be subject to Federal and State regulations. Additional site visits were conducted March,
22, April 13, May 10, July 14 and 15, 2022, February 14 and 21, and June 28 and 29,
2023. As noted above, the project site was originally evaluated as four individual sites with
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

separate JDs submitted for each — Apex Gateway (sometimes identified as Project Real)
as Phase 1; Droege Aulicino (Phase 2A), submitted on November 18, 2022; NC Highway
751 (Phase 2B), submitted on January 3, 2023; and Berkut (Phase 2C), submitted on
October 24, 2022. Additional site visits with USACE representatives (including Rachel
Capito, David Bailey, Richard Harmon, and Lyle Phillips) occurred on October 11, 2023,
and June 28, 2024, for Phase 2 sites. Following each site visit with USACE
representatives, we provided additional information, including requested updated aquatic
resource maps indicating changes in aquatic features based on their field assessments.
Based on continued conversations with the USACE, we have once again revised aquatic
resources sketch maps to identify jurisdictional wetlands (included herein). In these latest
maps, we have conceded to changes in aquatic resources as jurisdictional in Phase 2 of
the project site because BIN—AGP LLC is under construction timeframes and can no
longer wait for EPA and USACE review and issuance of an Approved Jurisdiction
Determinations. Specifically, we have revised EPH 100 as an intermittent stream now
under USACE jurisdiction as CH 100a on Phase 2B, conceded USACE jurisdiction of WL
2000 and WL 2100 on Phase 2A, and removed non -jurisdictional feature EPH 200 on
Phase 2A because these features and their associates are no longer called into question
for jurisdictional status.
The revised aquatic resources sketch maps identify approximately 3002 linear feet of
stream channel in six streams, 3.609 acres of wetlands in 19 wetland areas, and 2.561
acres of open water in one man-made pond on the project site. All wetlands and streams
are shown in Table 1.
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 7

(Q
a)
cu
U
O
O
Q
70
O
m
O
Q
O
Q
O
L
C
L
m
O
U
O
U
(Q
cr
cu
O
J
cu
N
i
O N
N U
Lo
LO
LO
0
r-
v
0
Lo
O
O
O
O
0
_
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
p
p
O
O
O
CD
CD
CD
CDO-+-
E N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O .M
U
`o
U
(6
LL
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LM
tf
U
O
`O
v
r"
v
o
LO
o
0
r-
CDQ
l
'IT
O
CD
O
CD
O
O
CD
O
O
O
CD
O
+
N
V
00
N
O
O
co
CD
N
CD
O
I--
O
O
;
O
l00
O
CO
l0
Q
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Lo
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CDO
CD
CD
CD
O
LL
J
U
N
f�
O
�
LO
00
00
Cl)
co
N
Q
E
a
m
o
�
w
v_
a
w
w
v_
w
w
D
Z
O
�
ii
a
Z
O
Z
O
=
ii
_
ii
w
ii
Z
O
=
ii
_
ii
_
ii
_
ii
=
ii
Z
O
U
Z
LL
o
Z
Z
Z
Z
)
LL
w
LL
v
°
w
w
w
w
w
w❑
w
w
w
w❑
w❑❑❑
w
w
w❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Q
Q
Q
Q
❑
Q
Q
c
Q
Q
Q
Q
c
Q
c
c
c
Q
Q
Q
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
U
U
cn
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
0
U
0
0
0
U
U
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
>>>>
z>>
Z>>>>
Z❑
Z
Z
Z>>>
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
o
N
c
0
c
0
m
0
m
o
m
o
m
0
m
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
o
N
A
E
E
E
E
_
E
E
a?
a?
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
5
2
c
c
2
c
a)
U'
m
m
m
m
m
m
U
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Q
Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
t
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LL
N
E
m
Z
O O
o
o
m
O
o
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
CD
0
CD
0
CD
0
CD
0
CD
0
CD
0
CD
0
CD
0
CD
0
O
0
CD
0
CD
0
O
0
CD
0
CD
0
CD
0
CDN
E i
O
O
O
O
N
cc:))
OV
O
00
O
N
M
l0
CO
I�
OD
O
CD
CD
NM
V
Lo
C
z O
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
N
N
N
cl)
c,)
M
M
M
M
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
>J
>
LL
❑
00
E
l0
0
N
O
N_
00
N
00
O
O
O
N
� N
N �
L
t1 o U
r 0
d � �
E O Q
O N c
L U 'N
W zO
CO ai -
Q o 0
J � y-
I► m ._
Q U >
a�
m
�m
m
Q
0
0
`m
s
U
uj
0
Cl)
Cl)

Proposed permanent impacts to USACE jurisdictional streams are limited to
intermittent streams CH 100, CH 2O0, and CH 400, and total 388 linear feet. Proposed
permanent stream impacts to NCDWR jurisdictional streams are limited to intermittent
stream CH 300, and total 388 linear feet. No perennial streams are being impacted.
Thus, mitigation for stream impacts is limited to USACE jurisdiction compensatory
mitigation at a factor of 1.5.1 for a total of 496.5 mitigation credits.
Proposed permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are limited to wetlands WL 1100,
WL 1200, WL 1300, WL 1400, WL 2000, and WL 2100 and total 0.289 acres. Thus, all
mitigation for wetland impacts is limited to USACE jurisdiction compensatory mitigation at
a factor of 1:1 for a total of 0.289 mitigation credits.
Table 2. List of proposed impacts under Nationwide Permit 39.
Required
Impact
Linear
Name
Type
Measure
Acres
Factor
Mitigation
Name
Feet
Credits
CH 100
S1
Intermittent
LF
97
0.014
1.5
145.5
CH 100
S2
Intermittent
LF
57
0.007
0
0
CH 400
S4
Intermittent
LF
123
0.005
1.5
184.5
WL 1100
W1
Wetland
AC
0.010
1
0.010
WL 1200
W2
Wetland
AC
0.016
1
0.016
WL 1400
W3
Wetland
AC
0.175
1
0.234
WL 2000
W6
Wetland
AC
0.021
1
0.021
WL 2100
W7
Wetland
AC
0.001
1
0.001
0.223 AC
330 stream
TOTAL
277 LF
Wetland
0.282 wetland
Only
Table 3. List of proposed impacts under Nationwide Permit 18.
Required
Impact
Linear
Name
Type
Measure
Acres
Factor
Mitigation
Name
Feet
Credits
CH 200
S3
Intermittent
LF
111
0.004
1.5
166.5
WL 1300
W5
Wetland
AC
0.007
1
0.007
WL 1400
W4
Wetland
AC
0.059
1
0.234
0.066 AC
166.5 stream
TOTAL
111 LF
Wetland
0.07 wetland
Only
Potential Effects on Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem
Substrate: No effects are expected beyond the proposed impact areas. Substrate will be
permanently affected at the impact areas. Downstream sediment will remain in -place.
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

Erosion control and stormwater practices will prevent upland material from impacting the
substrate.
Suspended particulates/turbidity: No effects are expected beyond the proposed impact
areas. Suspended particulates and turbidity are not expected to affect any streams on or
off property. Short-term, minor effects to total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity are
expected during construction. Proposed "off-line" stormwater detention facilities will
protect the remaining wetlands and streams on property and downstream of the project
site through detention and water quality treatment of storm flows before being discharged
into jurisdictional waters. The proposed stormwater management system has been
designed to provide water quality treatment of a 1-inch rainfall event and achieve greater
than 85% reduction in post -development TSS loadings to receiving waters. These controls
will prevent the discharge of sediment and other attached pollutants (excess nutrients, oil
and grease, etc.) to downstream waters.
Water: Minor permanent effects are expected. The flow path of surficial water will
continue to move from the property toward B. Everett Jordan Lake and White Oak Creek
North of US Highway 64 and B. Everett Jordan Lake and Beaver Creek South of US
Highway 64.
Current patterns and water circulation: Minor permanent effects are expected. The flow
path of stormwater will be slightly different due to the development. Interception and
infiltration will differ due to the impervious surfaces. Infiltration will still occur in the areas
of the stormwater treatment basins and along the diffuse flow outflow of the basins to the
non -impacted reaches.
Normal water fluctuations: Seasonal water fluctuations of precipitation will not be affected.
Ground water fluctuations may have minor/inconsequential permanent impacts due to the
surficial ground conditions resulting in altered hydrogeology from impervious surfaces and
grading of the building pads. Any actual effects would be quantitatively unmeasurable.
Salinity gradients: No effects to salinity are expected. The project is not located in a
coastal area where a salinity gradient and/or a saltwater intrusion wedge could be present.
Impacts relating to the application of salt for snow/ice control would be negligible as the
average annual snowfall for the project area is less than four inches per year.
Potential Effects on Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem
Threatened or endangered species: No adverse effect is expected. Additional information
on the presence of Federally listed species or potentially suitable habitat for species is
provided below in the Endangered and Threatened Species section.
Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic organisms in the food web: No adverse
effect is expected. The aquatic systems impacted by the proposed project are small first
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 10

order streams and abutting/adjacent and isolated wetlands that are small and have been
degraded. The largest natural aquatic systems within the project site will not be impacted.
Other wildlife: Minor permanent habitat loss due to the construction of the buildings is
expected. Effects are considered minor due to the degrading or impounding of the aquatic
systems on the property that are proposed for impact, which has created marginal quality
habitat for most aquatic species.
Potential Effects on Special Aquatic Sites
Sanctuaries and refuges: No effects are expected. The project site does not include
sanctuaries or refuges and is not upstream of these types of locations.
Wetland: Permanent impacts to streams and wetlands are described above in Table 4.
Mud flats: No effect is expected because no mud flats exist on the project site.
Vegetated shallows: No effect is expected because no vegetated shallows exist on the
project site.
Coral reefs: No effect is expected because no coral reefs exist on the project site.
Riffle and pool complexes: No effect is expected because no riffle and pool complexes
exist within any of the aquatic resources proposed for impact.
Endangered and Threatened Species
Atlas Environmental referenced the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool for the project review area on April 14, May 3, and
June 6, 2022. Atlas Environmental also referenced the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program website on April 11, May 3, June 6 and 16, 2022, for additional information on
Endangered and Threatened Species that may occur in the project area. The
corresponding reports indicated the potential presence of four Federally listed Endangered
or Threatened species within the project review area. Designated Critical Habitat for any
species was not listed within the project review area. Atlas Environmental also conducted
on -site assessments on November 11, 14, 17, and 23, 2021, March, 22, April 13, May 10,
and July 14 and 15, 2022, and February 14 and 21, 2023, but Federally listed Endangered
or Threatened species or their habitats were not observed during any site visit. Adverse
impacts to Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are not expected. The
Bald Eagle also was evaluated under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The final
determination for potential impacts to the Bald Eagle was No Permit Required. The
Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species Report of Findings were submitted to
the USFWS on June 1, 2022 (NC Highway 751), June 8, 2022 (Apex Gateway as Project
Real), July 29, 2022 (Berkut), and August 9, 2022 (Droege Aulicino). Concurrences from
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 11

the USFWS were provided on July 14, 2022 (Apex Gateway as Project Real), August 11,
2022 (NC Highway 751), and October 4, 2022 (Berkut); the Droege Aulicino site was self -
certified on June 8, 2022).
Table 4. Summary of effects determinations for Federally listed species.
Species
Listed
Habitat
Species
Effects
Status
Present
Observed
Determination
Red -cockaded
E
No
No
No Effect
Woodpecker
Atlantic Pigtoe
T
No
No
No Effect
ti
Monarch Butterfly
C
--
--
N/A
v
May Affect,
z
Harperella
E
No
No
Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Red -cockaded
E
No
No
No Effect
a c
Woodpecker
a) 0
o =
Atlantic Pigtoe
T
No
No
No Effect
o Q
Monarch Butterfly
C
--
--
N/A
Harperella
E
No
No
No Effect
Red -cockaded
E
No
No
No Effect
x
Woodpecker
Q (D
Atlantic Pigtoe
T
No
No
No Effect
Q
Monarch Butterfly
C
--
--
N/A
Harperella
E
No
No
No Effect
Red -cockaded
E
No
No
No Effect
Woodpecker
Y
Atlantic Pigtoe
T
No
No
No Effect
L
m
Monarch Butterfly
C
--
--
N/A
Harperella
E
No
No
No Effect
Michaux's Sumac
E
No
No
No Effect
Historic and Cultural Resources
A search of the National Register of Historic Places did not identify any cultural resources
located within the proposed project review area. However, Atlas Environmental conducted
a pedestrian survey for the presence of important cultural and historical resources on the
proposed project site. The transects that were visibly inspected during the pedestrian site
evaluation would not allow for identification of any potential subterranean artifacts. No
shovel tests were conducted to identify potential cultural or archaeological resources that
may be located within the proposed project area. Atlas Environmental received a written
response from the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, dated
July 12, 2022 (NC Highway 751), July 12, 2022 (Apex Gateway as Project Real), August 9,
2022 (Droege Aulicino), September 19 and December 2, 2022 (Berkut). Based on their
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 12

review of the project areas, there are no known archeological resources that are eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that will be affected by the proposed
project.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is required for the below listed permanent impacts to aquatic
resources in the form of in -lieu fee mitigation. Total permanent impacts to jurisdiction
aquatic resources for the project include 331 linear feet (0.023 acres) of intermittent stream
and 0.289 acres of wetlands.
For jurisdictional streams that rank either Medium or High using the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM), we propose a 2.1 mitigation ratio. For jurisdictional
streams that rank Low using the NC SAM, we propose a 1.5.1 mitigation ratio. For
jurisdictional wetlands that rank Medium or High using the North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NC WAM), we propose a 2.1 mitigation ratio. For jurisdictional
wetlands that rank Low using the NC WAM, we propose a 1:1 mitigation ratio. Based on
these ratios, permanent impacts to streams and wetlands would require 496.5 linear feet of
stream and 0.289 acres of wetland mitigation. A summary of the mitigation required for
impacts to aquatic resources is listed in Table 5.
Table 5. Summary of impacts reauirina mitiaation and credit calculation.
Required
Impact
Linear
Name
Type
Measure
Acres
Factor
Mitigation
Name
Feet
Credits
CH 100
S1
Intermittent
LF
97
0.014
1.5
145.5
CH 200
S3
Intermittent
LF
111
0.004
1.5
166.5
CH 400
S4
Intermittent
LF
123
0.005
1.5
184.5
WL 1100
W1
Wetland
AC
0.010
1
0.010
WL 1200
W2
Wetland
AC
0.016
1
0.016
WL 1300
W5
Wetland
AC
0.007
1
0.007
WL 1400
W3, W4
Wetland
AC
0.234
1
0.234
WL 2000
W6
Wetland
AC
0.021
1
0.021
WL 2100
W7
Wetland
AC
0.001
1
0.001
0.289 AC
496.5 stream
TOTAL
331 LF
Wetland
0.289 wetland
Only
With regard to mitigation and the phased construction schedule, the applicant proposes to
purchase mitigation credits for impacts associated with a particular phase before the
construction of each phase. For example, the applicant will purchase credits associated
with impacts on Phase 2A (0.022 acres wetland impacts = 0.022 compensatory mitigation
wetland credits) before construction of Phase 2A begins. The application will purchase
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 13

credits associated with impacts on Phase 2B (331 linear feet of stream impact and 0.267
acres of wetland impacts = 496.5 compensatory mitigation stream credits and 0.267
compensatory mitigation wetland credits) before construction of Phase 2B begins. No
impacts are anticipated for Phase 2C, so no compensatory mitigation credits are required.
In addition to mitigation, the applicant will include vegetated upland buffers around
unimpacted aquatic resources as additional avoidance and minimization measures.
Buffers on aquatic resources range from 50 feet to 100 feet. Buffer enhancement also
includes natural or planted buffers of 40 feet around the property boundary. Additional
vegetated buffers of varying widths will be established around remaining aquatic resources
as part of greenspace and tree save areas. Buffers in these areas range from 5 feet to
more than 250 feet depending on distance from limit of disturbance or property boundary
to the aquatic resources. Nevertheless, these buffer areas will include the entirety of the
riparian corridors and upland buffers (totaling approximately 13.90 acres) and tree save
areas (totaling approximately 16.40 acres) and total approximately 30.30 acres in size.
Buffer and wetland areas will be plainly marked before, during, and after any construction
activities to ensure that no encroachment occurs.
Stormwater Treatment
All stormwater treatment will meet or exceed the stormwater management requirements
for the Town of Apex's Unified Development Ordinance, Chatham County, and the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Stormwater management plans
will be prepared in accordance with a stormwater drainage masterplan to be prepared by a
professional engineering firm licensed by the State of North Carolina prior to the
development. The stormwater drainage masterplan will address the hydrological
characteristics of the entire site, as well as adjacent drainage patterns of relative
importance. The plan will address predevelopment conditions and post -development
stormwater management for flood control and sediment reduction. This plan will also
address stormwater quality to enhance water quality and protect the surrounding
freshwater waters and wetlands. Post -development peak run-off shall not exceed pre -
development peak run-off for the 24-hour, 1-year, 10-year, and 25-year storm events in
accordance with the Town of Apex's Unified Development Ordinance.
Stormwater control measures with the proposed project are designed to avoid or minimize
impacts to higher quality aquatic resources and avoid the buffer and tree save area. The
proposed stormwater control measures also are at natural low points for the project site
and in the best location to collect the most impervious area runoff so that it can detain and
treat stormwater as required. Alternative designs, such as Low Impact Development
practices, are not always practical for industrial developments because the amount of
impervious surface area is typically more concentrated than comparably sized impervious
surfaces for residential or commercial developments. Similarly, underground stormwater
control measures may not be suitable on sites with shallow bedrock. Nevertheless, the
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 14

stormwater control measure design within an industrial development can include
components to mimic the natural processes of retaining rainwater.
The proposed project will include grass and treed islands within the parking lots that will
retain rainwater and the natural buffer areas between and around the proposed
development will allow a natural soak into the ground. Additionally, the proposed project
will include a minimum of two (2) acres of wetlands to be constructed North of US 64 to
facilitate additional nutrient removal above the Town of Apex's Unified Development
Ordinance requirements. The proposed project also will include Green Stormwater
Infrastructure measures within the project limits above the Town of Apex's Unified
Development Ordinance requirements. At least two of the following Green Stormwater
Infrastructure measures shall be included prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy of
the third building: bio-retention areas totaling a minimum of 6000 SF; a minimum of 5000
SF of permeable pavement systems; and rainwater harvesting (cisterns) with a minimum
capacity of 2500 gallons. In addition, educational signage will be displayed where Green
Stormwater Infrastructure devices are located, and such locations shall be opened to the
public and community groups for educational purposes.
Additional Public Interest Factors
Construction operations of the proposed project are planned for six days a week, weather
permitting, and primarily will be conducted during normal business hours (e.g., 7.00 am to
6.00 pm). Operations of the proposed project site will vary depending on the tenants, but
generally are expected to be during normal hours for two -shift businesses (i.e., 6.00 am to
12.00 am). A minimum 40-foot vegetated buffer will be established around the property
perimeter and adjacent development, and a 50-foot buffer will be established along the
roadway right-of-ways. NCDOT has plans to improve the interchange of US Highway 64
and NC Highway 751; portions of the project site have been set aside for the
improvements. Turn lanes along NC Highway 751 to access the facility may be required
by NCDOT, but additional road improvements beyond those discussed above for the
proposed project site are not anticipated.
Enclosed are the necessary permit application documents and additional information.
Thank you for your attention to the enclosed request. Please contact me if you need any
additional information.
Best regards,
Jennifer L Robertson, President
[e-mail]
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411 Charlotte, North Carolina 28211; 704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
www.atlasenvi.com / Offices in Asheville and Charlotte 15

ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attn: Mr. Scott McLendon, Chief, Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
-and-
NC Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Program
Wetlands, Buffers, Streams — Compliance and Permitting Unit
Attn: Mr. Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
I, the current landowner, lessee, contract holder to purchase, right to purchase holder, or easement
holder of the property/properties identified below, hereby authorize Atlas Environmental Inc to act on my
behalf as my agent during the processing of permits to impact Wetlands and Waters of the US that are
regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. Federal and State agents are
authorized to be on said property when accompanied by Atlas Environmental Inc staff for the purpose of
conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the US subject to
Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 and Waters of the State including 404 Wetlands, Isolated Wetlands, and other non-404
Wetlands subject to a permitting program administered by the State of North Carolina. Atlas
Environmental Inc is authorized to provide supplemental information needed for delineation approval
and/or permit processing at the request of the Corps or NC DWR Water Quality Program.
Project Name:
Apex Gateway
Property Owner of Record:
BIN-AGP, LLC
Contact Name:
Jon Morris
Address:
500 East Morehead Street, Suite 200
Address:
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone/Fax Number:
704-926-1391
Email Address:
[e-mail]
Project Address:
106 NC Highway 751
Project Address:
Apex, NC 27523
Tax PIN:
95 98, 73702, 71694, 60523
c
Signature:
Date:
Marc; 20, 2023
ATLAS Environmental Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road, #411
Charlotte, North Carolina 28211
704-512-1206 (o) / 828-712-9205 (m)
[e-mail]
www.atiasenvi.com

1181HX3 inOAV-1 311S
CDDKVAQd' S83NI21Vd NOOV38
2f� -
INVId 311S
),VM31VE) X3dV
E
� ull I �og
Zi
90
0
Ral
o
co
04
co
Ivy

61181HX3 inOAV-1 311S
\CDDKVAQV' S83NIHVd NOOV38
Q-::w �-�-_ NVId1d30NO3 _ a - o m
),VM31VE) X3dV
77
.wa
1
- a a
' I
\ I
i
g
I Oe
El.
I
Mvi
I'
bg \
3 \
dux YaQ 1 1'i�•�
111 1 1
1
2 \ \
Goa \ \
1 \
Gz✓ � � �4� \ 1
\ M
\ \II
N
co

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
L%1
Legend
I Review Area
Streets
Parcels Drawn By: JT
2 Ft Contours Checked By: J
Wetland
A
=
❑NMENTAL
Page 1 of 3 Figure: 1 a
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2A
Location: 106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
JACO ae+cuax
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
3mAN$
'�.ws w
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: July 12, 2024

nN
1
ray

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
Potential Wetland
WL 2000: - 0.021 Ac.
Potential Wetland
WL 2100: - 0.001 Ac.
Legend
L Review Area
o Streets
O Parcels
Contours 2 Ft
Delineation
Wetland
0 25 50 75 100 Ft
VI RONMENTAL
Page 3 of 3 Detail 1 Figure: 1c
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2A
Location: 106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: July 12, 2024

MW A

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
r ^ r
Legend
IAJD Area 11
AJD Area 3
D Area 2
L Review Area U 64'E—
Streets 0 Hw`1 64 E
O Parcels -
Delineation
Intermittent
Wetland
Culvert 0 200 400 600 800 Ft
Earth Explorer (2022) _` �-
AS
,,_
11$40NMENTAL
Page 2 of 5 Figure: 1b
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2B
Location: 106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: July 12, 2024

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
Ill
Potential Wetlan9Ac
WL 1600: - 0.003
Potential Non Wetlan4Ac
CH 100: - 1428 Lt
6
Potential Non Wetland
CH 100a: - 69 LF, 0.001 All
Legend
L Review Area
o Streets
Parcels
2 Ft Contours
Delineation
Intermittent
Wetland
Culvert
Potential Wetland
WL 1100: 0.099 Ac
i
Potential Wetland
PZF-�-
IWL 1400: - 1.427
i
— Is
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 1000: - 0.088 Ad
R AJ D Area 1 I-
r '
Potential Wetland
WL 1200: - 0.388 AAccl
Potential Wetland
WL 1300: - 0.422 Ac
Potential Non Wetland
CH 2O0: - 111 LF, 0.004 Ad
0 100 200 300 400 Ft
VI RAQLocation:
ONMENTAL
Page 3 of 5 Detail 1 Figure:1 c
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2B
106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: July 12, 2024

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
AJ D Area 2
,`-
\I
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 1800: - 0.002 Ac
roar
CH 200
Continued Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
` WL 1700: - 0.283 Act
/ Non -Jurisdictional Channel
CH 300: 388 LF 0.010 Ac
Non -Jurisdictional
Legend Wetland
WL 1900: - 0.032 I
L Review Area
o Streets
Parcels -
2 Ft Contours
Delineation
Intermittent
Wetland
Culvert
y�
0 50 100 150 200 Ft
AQLocation:
J__*V1RONMENTAL
Page 4 of 5 Detail 2 Figure:1d
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2B
106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: July 12, 2024

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
IWL 1400 r
Continued
Potential Non Wetland
CH 400: - 214 LF, 0.009 Ac
Legend
L Review Area
Streets
Parcels
2 Ft Contours
Delineation
Intermittent
Wetland
Culvert
i
CH 100
Continued
IAJD Area 3F
ISee Detail 2L
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 1500: - 0.424 Ad
0 50 100 150 200 Ft
AQLocation:
(75V�RONMENTAL
Page 5 of 5 Detail 3 Figure: le
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2B
106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: July 12, 2024

❑NMENTAL
Page 1 of 5 Figure: 1 a
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2C
Location: 106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: June 20, 2024

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
Legend
L Review Area
Streets
O Parcels
Delineation
db& Intermittent
—91111111 Pond
.mM Wetland
Earth Explorer (2022)
0
11$40NMENTAL
Page 2 of 5 Figure: 1b
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2C
Location: 106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: June 20, 2024

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 3300: - 0.114 Ac.
Non -Jurisdictional
Impoundment
Pond 2: - 2.561 Ac.
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 3100: - 0.015 Ac.
Legend
O Review Area
o Streets
0 Parcels
Contours 2 Ft
Delineation
M Intermittent
10 Pond
i Wetland
rid
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 3200: - 0.010 Ac.
LO
a
t
U
0
r
0 50 100 150 200 Ft
AQLocation:
(75V�RONMENTAL
Page 3 of 5 Detail 1 Figure: 1 c
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2C
106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: June 20, 2024

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 3000: - 0.075 Ac.
Netland
1 0: - 0.045 Ac.
Intermittent RPW
CH 800: - 792 LF, 0.038 Ac.
Legend
I
O Review Area
o Streets
Parcels
Contours 2 Ft 7A
Delineation
M Intermittent
'S Pond 0 50 100 150 200 Ft
" Wetland
VI RONMENTAL
Page 4 of 5 Detail 2 Figure:1d
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2C
Location: 106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: June 20, 2024

Aquatic Resources Sketch Map
.HwY
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 3400: — 0.104 Ac.
Non -Jurisdictional
Wetland
WL 3500: — 0.056 Ac.
Legend
O Review Area
o Streets
0 Parcels
Contours 2 Ft
Delineation
i Intermittent
7 Pond
11 Wetland
:HwY
0 50 100 150 200 Ft
RLocation:
❑NMENTAL
Page 5 of 5 Detail 3 Figure: 1e
Project Name: Apex Gateway: Phase 2C
106 NC Highway 751 Apex, NC 27523
For: BIN —AGP, LLC Attn: Jon Morris
Coordinates: 35.747992°,-78.947729'
Date: June 20, 2024

IN
I iuivill, ��\
I f�F�NNFNNFII t� �w�
6:
2: Page 3
GRAPHIC SCALE
�(m veer J�
o
Date: March 08, 2023
F
o
a
Updated: July 12, 2024
For: BIN—AGP, LLC
to
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.
IDetail 5: Paae 61
Detail 1: Page 2
Detail 3: Page 4
Detail 4: Page 5
RAUTa
1 of 8

I29Z 'ON a;}olJoyo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!-V uoJo4S 'S 922
1V1NIMD 2Z9LZ ON `xadd Odd 'd9V—NIO :aod
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90l
tiZOZ `Zl (Inp :pa}opdp o
4 A o/v\94 Dq xad

I29Z 'ON a;}olJoyo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SIJJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!-V uoJo4S 'S 922
1V1NIMD 2Z9LZ ON `xadd Odd 'dOV—NIO :aod
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90l
tiZOZ `Zl (Inp :pa}opdp Lo
AJM94Dq xadb �ZOZ 'ZZ Anw :a4oa1E

122Z 'ON a;}olJoyo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJOOO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!-V uoJo4S 'S 922
1V1NIMD 2Z9LZ ON `xadd Odd 'd9V—NIO :AOd
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90L svitiZOZ `Zl (Inp :pa}opdp o0
4 A o/v\94 Dq xad
i o
U U
C
O
Z
U
7 E
C
O
Z
N
c
O
U U
Mn cl
co
L E _� a
U O
O m O
Z E E O
LL
J
CC)
N U) U) M
c U
(p O
U OM
M — _
m U
a "
0 z
-- o
mo
LC
U J
Q
E
O
O
N
2
� U
U
aN
zQ
LOr-
0
to
(6 2
Q E O
— O
M.
_
J
U
U �$
0. _n
U
M
N
W
O
V
N
a

122Z 'ON a;}olJoyo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SIJJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!-V uoJo4S 'S 922
1V1NIMD 2Z9LZ ON `xadd Odd 'dOV—NIO :aod
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90L
tiZOZ `Zl (Inp :pa}opdp Lo
AJM94Dq xadb �ZOZ 'ZZ Anw :a4oa1E

I29Z 'ON a;}olJoyo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJooO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!-V uoJo4S 'S 922
1V1NIMD 2Z9LZ ON `xadd Odd 'd9V—NIO :aod
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90l
tiZOZ `Zl (Inp :pa}opdp
4 A o/v\94 Dxad
v V
�zoz 'zz AnW :a4DQ OfFF
� II
i
i
N
U
� a 0
ll� 0
I m"o n0
�
9 0
IV N
T IT
I J
I� J
a
U
/ � 5
/ / y
q
a

122Z 'ON a;}olJoyo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJOOO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!-V uoJo4S 'S 922
1V1NIMD 2Z9LZ ON `xadd Odd 'd9V—N18 :AOd
L9L ADmgbiH ON 90l
tiZOZ `Zl (Inp :pa}opdp o_
AJ/V\94D`J xadb �zoz 'zz Anw :a4oaOf
c
0
N
7
Z
\ /
Hill
i \
i
i
i
N N N N
U U U
O O O
O Z Z Z
Z
R
8
N
co
O
r
N
a

122Z 'ON a;}olJoyo 6ZLLb6'8L— 'Z66LbL'92 :Sa}ou!pJOOO SUJow uop :u;}y
llt# 'PH A4!-V uoJo4S 'S 922
1V1NIMD 2Z9LZ ON `xadd Odd 'd9V—NIO :AOd
LSL ADmgbiH ON 90L
tiZOZ `Zl (Inp :pa}opdp o
AJM94D`J xadb �zoz 'zz Anw :a4oaOf
- I I
I
I
I
_ I
I
I I
I
U \
U \
U) Cl
N
E
C
O
Z
1
N
O
U U
U) Cl
N
7 E
C
O
Z
1
1
I
U
I U
I
I �
I
I O
W
N
a

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Apex Gateway 2. Date of evaluation: June 28, 2024
3. Applicant/owner name: BIN-AGP LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Atlas Staff
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Cape Fear on USGS 7.5-minute quad: White Oak Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.74555,-78.95659
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): CH 100 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 154
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
®B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation ❑I Sand bottom
®C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ®Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ®Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ®Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ® Sala manders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ®Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
®B ®B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ®D ®D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ®B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Apex Gateway Date of Assessment June 28, 2024
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization Atlas Staff
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Apex Gateway 2. Date of evaluation: June 28, 2024
3. Applicant/owner name: BIN-AGP LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Atlas Staff
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Cape Fear on USGS 7.5-minute quad: White Oak Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.74418,-78.95567
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): CH 200 lower 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 111
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
®C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation ❑I Sand bottom
®C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ®Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ®No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
®D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
®C ®C ®C ®C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
®B ®B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Apex Gateway Date of Assessment June 28, 2024
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Atlas Staff
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Apex Gateway 2. Date of evaluation: June 28, 2024
3. Applicant/owner name: BIN-AGP LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Atlas Staff
5. County: Chatham 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Cape Fear on USGS 7.5-minute quad: White Oak Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.74153,-78.95627
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): CH 400 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 123
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
®C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation ❑I Sand bottom
®C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ®Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ❑Yes ®No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ®No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
®B ®B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
®D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
®B ®B ®B ®B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
❑A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
®B ®B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version
2.1
Stream Site Name Apex Gateway Date of Assessment
June 28, 2024
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization
Atlas Staff
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Apex Gateway
Applicant/Owner Name
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
County
F-1 Yes N No
BIN-AGP, LLC
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Piedmont
Cape Fear
Chatham
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NCDWR Region
ude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
March 22, 2022 and April 13,
2022
WL 1100
Atlas Environmental
White Oak Creek
03030002 HAW
35.74586°.-78.95717'
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
® Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
®B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
®F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ®H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ®I ®I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
®D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
1E ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
®C ®C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
®A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
®A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Clearcutting has occurred within the impact area (W2) of WL 1100.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WL 1100
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Date of Assessment
Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Ratina Summa
March 22, 2022
and April 13,
2022
Atlas Environmental
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
Kin
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Apex Gateway
Applicant/Owner Name
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
County
F-1 Yes N No
BIN-AGP, LLC
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Piedmont
Cape Fear
Chatham
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NCDWR Region
ude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
March 22, 2022 and April 13,
2022
WL 1200
Atlas Environmental
White Oak Creek
03030002 HAW
35.74507°.-78.95626'
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
® Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
®A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ®I ®I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
®D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
1E ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ®B Moderate density herb layer
®C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
®A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
®A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Clearcutting has occurred above the impact area (W3) of WL 1200.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WL 1200
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Date of Assessment
Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Ratina Summa
March 22, 2022
and April 13,
2022
Atlas Environmental
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
Kin
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Apex Gateway
Applicant/Owner Name
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
County
F-1 Yes N No
BIN-AGP, LLC
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Piedmont
Cape Fear
Chatham
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NCDWR Region
ude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
March 22, 2022 and April 13,
2022
WL 1300
Atlas Environmental
White Oak Creek
03030002 HAW
35.74450°.-78.95628'
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
® Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
®E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
®E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ®H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ®I ®I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
®D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
1E ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
®C ®C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
®A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
®A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
®A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Clearcutting has occurred above and along the impact area (W4) of WL 1300.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WL 1300
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Date of Assessment
Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Ratina Summa
March 22, 2022
and April 13,
2022
Atlas Environmental
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
Kin
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Apex Gateway
Applicant/Owner Name
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
County
F-1 Yes N No
BIN-AGP, LLC
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Piedmont
Cape Fear
Chatham
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NCDWR Region
ude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
March 22, 2022 and April 13,
2022
WL 1400
Atlas Environmental
White Oak Creek
03030002 HAW
35.74331°.-78.95695'
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
® Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
®A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ®I ®I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
®D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ®B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
1E ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
®C ®C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
®A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
®A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
®A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Clearcutting has occurred above and along the impact area (W5) of WL 1400.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WL 1400
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Date of Assessment
Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub -function Ratina Summa
March 22, 2022
and April 13,
2022
Atlas Environmental
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
Kin
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Apex Gateway
Date of Evaluation
June 28 2024
Applicant/Owner Name
BIN-AGP, LLC
Wetland Site Name
WL 2000 AND WL 2100
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Atlas Environmental
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
White Oak Creek
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03030002 HAW
County
Chatham
NCDWR Region
Raleigh
F— Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
35.7476803.-78.9521657
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
®G ®G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
®H ®H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
®D
From 10 to < 50 acres
®E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
1E ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
U) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ®B Moderate density herb layer
®C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ®B ❑C ❑D
22
Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WL 2000 AND WL 2100 Date of Assessment June 28, 2024
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Atlas Environmental
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Veaetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

ON
W
WILDLANI7
E N Cy IN E E R 1 N C:
Stream and Wetland Credits Statement of Availability
July 15, 2024
BIN-AGP, LLC
Attn: Jon Morris
500 East Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
RE: Availability of Stream and Wetland Credits for the "Apex Gateway" project
Bank Names: Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank (WLH IV) & Cape Fear 02 Umbrella
Mitigation Bank (WLH VI)
Bank Sites: UT to Pine Hill (WLH IV), Bethel Branch (WLH IV), South Fork (WLH IV), Twin
Burros (WLH VI), and Flat Rock (WLH VI) Mitigation Sites
Bank Sponsors: Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC and Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC
USACE Action ID Numbers: UT to Pine Hill (SAW-2016-00219) / Bethel Branch (SAW-2016-02365) /
South Fork (SAW-2016-02364) / Twin Burros (SAW-2021-01308) / Flat Rock (SAW-2021-01309)
Permittee: BIN-AGP, LLC
Stream Credits Needed: 496.5 LF
Stream Credits Available: 640.90 LF (WLH IV)
Riparian Wetland Credits Needed: 0.289 acres
Riparian Wetland Credits Available: 0.254 acres (WLH VI)
Anticipated Wetland Credit Release: 5.489 acres anticipated July/August 2024 from Cape Fear 02
UMBI (WLH VI)
Cape Fear 03030002 River Basin
Dear Mr. Morris,
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC currently has sufficient stream credits from the Cane Creek Umbrella
Mitigation Bank: UT to Pine Hill Branch, Bethel Branch, and South Fork Mitigation Sites to satisfy the
stream mitigation requirements for the abovementioned project. Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC has
sufficient wetland credits from the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Twin Burros and Flat Rock
Mitigation Sites to partially satisfy the wetland mitigation requirements for the abovementioned
project. Wildlands anticipates that the Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank will have a credit release
in July/August 2024, and this release will allow Wildlands to satisfy all the requested wetland credits.
The Apex Gateway project is located within the Cape Fear River Basin and within the service area (HUC
03030002) approved for these banks.
This letter is a statement of credit availability as of the date written. It does not guarantee future credit
availability or credit pricing. Credits are sold on a first -come, first -served basis at the pricing identified
when an invoice is requested. Invoices reserve both the credits and the quoted price for 30 days.
Wildlands Holdings IV and VI, LLC • Wild lands Engineering, Inc • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203

Oft
WILDLANI7
L NCy IN E E R INC
A "final" transfer of the credits will be conducted upon receiving a copy of the US Army Corps of
Engineers Compensatory Mitigation Responsibility Transfer Form approving the Stream and wetland
mitigation purchase from the banks and upon receipt of your payment to Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC and
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your mitigation requirements. Please contact Camden
Brunick at [phone] x114 or [e-mail] if you have questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
Z�)CL"r,4w ?;,62�b1'li
Daniel Johnson, MBA, PE, PH
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mitigation Credit Sales
[e-mail]
M: [phone]
Cc: Mr. Jacob Sinclair, PG, PWS, Senior Environmental Specialist I Atlas Environmental Inc.
Wildlands Holdings IV and VI, LLC • Wild lands Engineering, Inc • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
August 9, 2022
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
Layla Tallent ltallent e,atlasenvi.com
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 South Sharon Amity Road 9411
Charlotte, NC 28211
Re: Construct Droege Aulicino industrial building, 472 NC Highway 751, Apex,
Chatham County, ER 22-1832
Dear Ms. Tallent:
Thank you for your email of July 20, 2022, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have reviewed
the submittal and offer the following comments.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review(a�ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
(� State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
July 12, 2022
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
Layla Tallent ltallent e,atlasenvi.com
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 South Sharon Amity Road 9411
Charlotte, NC 28211
Re: Construct two industrial buildings, 301 NC Highway 751, Apex, Chatham County, ER 22-1514
Dear Ms. Tallent:
Thank you for your email of May 23, 2022, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have reviewed
the submittal and offer the following comments.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
� �Ramona Bartos, Deputy
} State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
September 19, 2022
Layla Tallent
ATLAS Environmental
338 S. Sharon Amity Road, 9411
Charlotte, NC 28211
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
ltallent e,atlasenvi.com
Re: Construct Berkut industrial building, US Highway 64 East and New Hill Road, Apex, Chatham
County, ER 22-1929
Dear Ms. Tallent:
Thank you for your email of August 2, 2022, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submission and offer the following comments.
We are unable to accurately assess impacts to historic properties within the proposed Area of Potential
Effect, specifically the J.B. Mills House and Farm (CH0210). The complex and surrounding property
should be evaluated by a Secretary of the Interior qualified Architectural Historian and a report submitted
to us for review and comment.
We note that interior photographs are necessary for accurately evaluating eligibility under Criterion C. The
surveying consultant is expected to make a good faith effort to gain access to structure interiors or in cases
where safety/access is an issue they should make visual confirmation of materials and architectural details
through a door or window opening. If the consultant is having an issue gaining access, they may contact the
Environmental Review staff for assistance.
Review our Historic Structure Survey Report (HSSR) Standards for guidance on report requirements
(https: //www.ncdcr. gov/state-hi storic-preservati on-offi ce/environm ental-revi ew/hi storic-structure-survey-
report-standards). Missing deliverables will cause a delay in processing. Contact Katie Harville,
Environmental Review Specialist, [e-mail], with any questions you may have regarding
deliverables or the survey requirements.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

ER 22-1929, September 19, Page 2 of 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review(a�ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
��
,r Ramona Bartos, Deputy
(� State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

d srs�
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
December 2, 2022
David Price
TRC Environmental Corperation
705 Dogwood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
[e-mail]
Re: Construct Berkut industrial building, US Highway 64 East and New Hill Road, Apex, Chatham
County, ER 22-1929
Dear David Price:
Thank you for your letter of November 7, 2022, transmitting the Historic Structure Survey Report (HSSR),
"J.B. Mills House (CH210), Chatham County, North Carolina," prepared by TRC Environmental
Corporation. We have reviewed the HSSR and offer the following comments.
After reviewing the HSSR evaluating the J.B. Mills House (CH0210), we concur that the house is not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the reasons listed in the report. The house and
outbuildings have lost integrity due to neglect and vandalism, and while our staff have learned that the
upstairs of the house retains good interior architectural integrity, the house and outbuildings have lost too
much architectural integrity to convey any significance, regardless of the integrity of the second floor.
However, we would like to note the following observations:
• The writer included Chatham County history beginning in 1650. It is unnecessary to provide such a
detailed historic context from a point that early. A summary paragraph or two of the county's
history up to the point of the property's construction (ca. 1910) is sufficient. That should then be
followed by a county historical context focused around the time that all but the original ell was
constructed.
The writer also included a note at the beginning of the evaluation directing the reader to the survey
file for additional detail. In future HSSRs, information that the writer wants the reader to know
should be put in the report.
The writer provides a construction date of ca. 1910, but it would be more accurate to list the date as
"ca. 1800; ca. 1910" to account for the rear ell. The house is, essentially, an early 20th century house
and was rightly evaluated as such. It is unnecessary to address that early history deeply given that if
the house were to be considered eligible, it would be for its ca. 1910 history and characteristics, but
the rear ell is clearly discernable as an older house and the construction date should reflect that.
We do not recommend changes to the HSSR and accept this version as final. We have determined that there
will be no historic structures affected by the proposed project.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

ER 22-1929, December 02, Page 2 of 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review(2ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc Layla Tallent, ATLAS Environmental
Sarah Woodard, NC HPO
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

SENT OF r
QPP �.1 - yFi
O A_
7
i
�4gCN 3.`ss
United States Department of the Interior
Project Name
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date:
10 August 2022
Self -Certification Letter
Droege Aulicino (Chatham County)
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
❑"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
✓ proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
❑ "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
❑ "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
❑✓ "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

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

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
August 11, 2022
Jennifer Robertson
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road 9411
Charlotte, NC 28211
Re: NC Highway 751 —Chatham County
Dear Mrs. Robertson:
This letter is to inform you that the Service has established an on-line project planning and
consultation process which assists developers and consultants in determining whether a
federally -listed species or designated critical habitat may be affected by a proposed project. For
future projects, please visit the Raleigh Field Office's project planning website at
https://www.fws.gov/office/eastern-north-carolina/proiect-planning-and-consultation. If you are
only searching for a list of species that may be present in the project's Action Area, then you
may use the Service's Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC) website to
determine if any listed, proposed, or candidate species may be present in the Action Area and
generate a species list. The IPaC website may be viewed at https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/.
The IPaC web site contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and
threatened species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), a list of federal species of concern' that are known to
occur in each county in North Carolina, and other resources.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at https://fws.gov/office/eastern-north-carolina.
Please check the web site often for updated information or changes.
'The term "federal speciesof concern" refers to those specieswhich the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation
does not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or
threatened species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse
impacts to federal species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Ourcomments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has developed a Guidance
Memorandum (found at https://www.ncwildlife.org/Conserving/Learn-Resources/Ways-to-
Conserve) to address and mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife resources and water quality. We recommend that you consider this document and the
NCWRC's other conservation recommendations in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
[phone] ext. 26.
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

From: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 5:08 PM
To: David Rabon; Mann, Leigh
Subject: Fw: DUE DATE: AUGUST 25, 2022 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Berkut: T&E Report of
Findings and Review Request
Attachments: Berkut_T&E_Report_of_Findings_COMPRESSED.pdf
David,
The Service concurs with your determinations for this project as proposed.
John
From: Mann, Leigh <leigh [e-mail]> on behalf of Raleigh, FW4 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 1:07 PM
To: Ellis, John <iohn [e-mail]>
Subject: DUE DATE: AUGUST 25, 2022 Fw: [EXTERNAL] Berkut: T&E Report of Findings and Review
Request
From: David Rabon <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 2:20 PM
To: Raleigh, FW4 <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Berkut: T&E Report of Findings and Review Request
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening
attachments, or responding.
Please find attached the T&E report of findings and review request for the Berkut project
located in Chatham County.
Fish and Wildlife Service comments are being requested proactively as an Army Corps
of Engineers NWP 39 will be required for the project. A preliminary site plan has not
been developed. Ajurisdictional determination has been submitted to the Corps of
Engineers. The Aquatic Resource Sketch Map is included within the report along with
additional resources and photographs. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
David

David Rabon. Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Specialist
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411
Charlotte, NC 28211
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
www.atlasenvi.com
Offices in Asheville and Charlotte

ƒ
±
/
k
<
E
2
\
�
-
�
/
2
±
2
2
O
cl:

w
a
❑
❑
o
�❑LL
m
a
o
zy❑
3
waY
Q
_
w
=
f
°❑
Z m
z
w
m
n 0
3
LL
3
w
�o
x
3
u
a
u
�
o
z
as
Yw
;
❑�
z��
z
—
az
wO
❑a
u
��'z
v,
o
z ❑
>
0❑x
°` o
a
❑
�3
w o
?
Z
z
m
0S
may
o
o >
o-
m
o
a
o
ZF
z
_ a
fNw°
CZ
Z
Uw
P❑
oz❑
w
Eo
3o
o
;
a
'o-
'
❑
wa
/
j
I
O
o
„z
°
-
3
op
❑
❑
°
avY
w��
N❑
w
/
/
I
I
CN
z
v�
��°
aka
>
°?
I
i
I
O
N
Uwe
w-
� /
I
W
I
I
CL
Ocu
I Y
�Z i /
(0 z w
N
,
cou
U
/ �
N
Q
a
------
—
----------
------
z
X
to
N
~
O�
o I
II
O
g
Q
Q
L
ti
CC0
(B
N
Q
O
2)cu
ti
<
m
Q
Z
J
M
o
w
�
CO
in
C
❑
a
ww
(p
Q
N
02
LL
z
I
�u
w �
+�
O
Z
C
o
-�7—
m
O
w
O
U
0
O
-
O
a
LL
U
W=_3
"r°
z
Ev v3�
LU
�Es=
z
-
aE a
o
a N
E d
oa
Z M e

i`
VIRONMENTAL
16 July 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 +/- 212.302 Acres
Apex Gateway
106 NC Highway 751
Apex, North Carolina 27523
Individual Permit Application
SAW-2023-00049
DWR-2022-1496 v3
Dear Rachel, Stephanie, and Sue:
Atlas Environmental, Inc., on behalf of BIN—AGP LLC (Applicant; Attn: Jon Morris), is
submitting the following response to comments received from the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NCDWR) via email dated March 19, 2024. The NCDWR comments
requested additional information or clarification of our prior submitted comments (dated
February 20, 2024) 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.
Please note that we are now pursuing authorization of the proposed project under
Nationwide Permits 18 and 39, and no longer as an Individual Permit. To that end and
based on continued conversations with the USACE, we also have revised all aquatic
resources sketch maps to clarify jurisdictional wetlands on the project site, and we have
divided the maps into the original project sub -sites (i.e., Phase 2A — Droege Aulicino;
Phase 2B — Highway 751; and Phase 2C — Berkut). Specifically, we have revised EPH
100 as an intermittent stream now under USACE jurisdiction as CH 100a, conceded
USACE jurisdiction of WL 2000 and WL 2100, and removed non -jurisdictional feature EPH
200 because these features and their associates are no longer called into question 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

- -
AQ
VIRONMENTAL
jurisdictional status. The revised aquatic resources sketch maps for these areas are
included herein as attachments for your convenience.
NCDWR RFAI 2.0 COMMENT 3: Thank you for the DWR stream forms documenting
intermittent streams. Upon further review, I have questions about CH100. The IP
application resource table identifies CH100 as 1428 LF of intermittent stream, however the
resource maps show that CH100 transitions from intermittent to perennial as shown below.
As previously requested, can you please provide DWR stream forms for each section
independently, and if possible, provide photo documentation within this area of CH100. If
the maps are accurate, please update the resource table and impact tables previously
submitted with the application. If you believe the maps are incorrect then DWR would like
to conduct a site visit for CH100.
"a* Si mam ~ Wd W*a
'M'.d" C
Renew JWft$
o �Bf'LS
L— ] Q'Y Aw CO. I -ww
LlellnMkh
F--•
� Irdeml�seu
� PErert,Ygl
1m4F'. • M k V o,n
i ea - aa�r
adc Resowce Sketch Mep
Fyu- Gce 36. 1 •7� t56S7 07GIC Nr1 4 bLf�
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
7V

- -
rL
VIRONMENTAL
tab Fa -502 LF. 0019
Legend
d Review Ares
+— shlbas
C.I Chadiam CA. NrcOs
Wineation
� ]np_�7�114d11k
RIA�t
%�PMUI�WNTAL
uatfc Resource Sketch Ma
MO -030
1M)M MMM: W MYQh" 1Sl
tartlgn: ]Ol WC HIQMWVF 751 OPM HG 7r529
Fa: Baxm Pstws Atlrt; ML KmWH =tm
Caadratrs: W7i142- •78.9%17 L1gte M1aY L. 1 _.
F.
NCDWR RFAI 2.0 RESPONSE 3: Unfortunately, the screenshot of the maps you
provided in your comments appear to be from an earlier draft version of the project site
and are not the maps used for calculating impacts to aquatic resources in the IP. The
aquatic resource sketch maps of the IP application show CH 100 as an intermittent stream
in its entirety within the project site.
Also, as noted above, other aquatic resources have been adjusted based on continued
conversations with the USACE. The revised aquatic resources sketch maps are included
herein as attachments.
NCDWR RFAI 2.0 COMMENT 4: It was unclear from your response that you are
acknowledging that any confirmed non -jurisdictional intermittent or perennial streams
(isolated streams) will require authorization from DWR for proposed impacts.
NCDWR RFAI 2.0 RESPONSE 4: We acknowledge that isolated streams will require
authorization under 15A NCAC 02H .1300.
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

NCDWR RFAI 2.0 COMMENT 6: 1 understand the response to RAI#5 regarding layout of
buildings, parking, internal roads, etc., however the Division does not agree that SCMs
cannot be redesigned to provide additional avoidance and minimization based on the
response to RAI#5. Based on the response I'm not sure that the original comments was
clear, I apologize for that. The areas circled in blue in the snapshot below appear to be
impacts that are a result of SCMs. These are not insignificant. In order to document
avoidance and minimization specific to SCM design, you must show that alternative SCM
types, locations and designs were considered. For example, often wet detention basins
can be replaced with multiple bioretention cells or sand filter systems located on either side
of a jurisdictional feature, or within parking areas. Is there any opportunity to incorporate
Disconnected Impervious Surfaces to decrease the required footprint of the SCMs? The
NC Stormwater Design Manual provides for many different potential methods of
stormwater treatment. When a project proposes a significant amount of impacts resulting
from SCM design/location, as this project does, a thorough evaluation of alternative
Stormwater management plans must be provided to show avoidance and minimization to
the maximum extent possible. SCM location, type, and design are expected to have more
flexibility than building alignments/shapes, parking needs, road infrastructure, etc.
detail 1: Paye 2
------------;-----�--
i
j.
r
Detail 3: Pa e 4
.....
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

NCDWR RFAI 2.0 RESPONSE 6: Multiple factors (e.g., 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.
This included 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
addressed, 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. These factors also were taken into consideration in
the site design. In addition, the projected SCMs are based on design cut and fill
requirements and estimated residency or treatment of stormwater. These factors may
change in the design build plans and may allow for a reduction in impacts to other aquatic
features. For the permit process, we evaluated potential impacts to aquatic resources
based on the purpose and need of the proposed project and estimated extent of impact.
We also want to refer to information pertaining to stormwater treatment in our original IP
application package where it states "All stormwater treatment will meet or exceed the
stormwater management requirements for the Town of Apex's Unified Development
Ordinance, Chatham County, and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ). Stormwater management plans will be prepared in accordance with a
stormwater drainage masterplan to be prepared by a professional engineering firm
licensed by the State of North Carolina prior to the development. The stormwater drainage
masterplan will address the hydrological characteristics of the entire site, as well as
adjacent drainage patterns of relative importance. The plan will address predevelopment
conditions and post -development stormwater management for flood control and sediment
reduction. This plan will also address stormwater quality to enhance water quality and
protect the surrounding freshwater waters and wetlands. Post -development peak run-off
shall not exceed pre -development peak run-off for the 24-hour, 1-year, 10-year, and 25-
year storm events in accordance with the Town of Apex's Unified Development Ordinance.
"Stormwater control measures with the proposed project are designed to avoid or minimize
impacts to higher quality aquatic resources and avoid the buffer and tree save area. The
proposed stormwater control measures also are at natural low points for the project site
and in the best location to collect the most impervious area runoff so that it can detain and
treat stormwater as required. Alternative designs, such as Low Impact Development
practices, are not always practical for industrial developments because the amount of
impervious surface area is typically more concentrated than comparably sized impervious
surfaces for residential or commercial developments. Similarly, underground stormwater
control measures may not be suitable on sites with shallow bedrock. Nevertheless, the
stormwater control measure design within an industrial development can include
components to mimic the natural processes of retaining rainwater.
"The proposed project will include grass and treed islands within the parking lots that will
retain rainwater and the natural buffer areas between and around the proposed
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 5

development will allow a natural soak into the ground. Additionally, the proposed project
will include a minimum of two (2) acres of wetlands to be constructed North of US 64 to
facilitate additional nutrient removal above the Town of Apex's Unified Development
Ordinance requirements. The proposed project also will include Green Stormwater
Infrastructure measures within the project limits above the Town of Apex's Unified
Development Ordinance requirements. At least two of the following Green Stormwater
Infrastructure measures shall be included prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy of
the third building: bio-retention areas totaling a minimum of 6000 SF; a minimum of 5000
SF of permeable pavement systems; and rainwater harvesting (cisterns) with a minimum
capacity of 2500 gallons. In addition, educational signage will be displayed where Green
Stormwater Infrastructure devices are located, and such locations shall be opened to the
public and community groups for educational purposes."
With regard to your identified areas, now labeled A, B, and C in the map above, you noted
that the project proposes a sizable number of impacts resulting from SCM design/location.
As noted above, SCM location, type, and design were thoroughly evaluated to reduce
impacts to wetlands and streams. Specifically, we note that that of the areas that you
expressed concern about in your comments, wetland WL 1400 (Area A) has a total impact
area of 0.234 acres, of which approximately 0.059 acres is associated with SCM
construction, and wetland WL 1300 (Area B) has a total impact area of 0.007 acres
associated with SCM construction. Intermittent channel CH 200 also is associated with the
construction of a SCM, and has an impact area of 0.004 acres. The ephemeral channel
(previously identified as EPH 2O0, Area C) is a non -jurisdictional feature that has been
removed in the revised aquatic resources sketch maps attached.
The total impacts associated with these SCMs are 0.066 acres of wetland impact and
0.004 acres of intermittent channel impact. We suggest that this level of impact to aquatic
resources is a testament to the attention given to avoiding and minimizing impacts to the
greatest extent possible on an industrial site that includes 19 industrial buildings, 12
commercial/retail buildings and outparcels, ingress and egress roadways, parking, and
other infrastructure on a 302.16 acre property.
NCDWR RFAI 2.0 COMMENT 7: The response states that a new SCM will be placed
above the upper reach of CH 100 and CH400 and WL 1400 to ensure hydrology is fed to
these features. I see on the plan sheets where an SCM outlet drains to the top of CH 100
but I do not see any SCM feeding the remaining portion of CH400.
NCDWR RFAI 2.0 RESPONSE 7: In the updated proposed site plan a new SCM will be
placed above the upper reach of streams CH 100 and CH 400 and wetland WL 1400 that
will feed flow downstream to these reaches. The discharge of the SCM does not directly
flow into any of these features but rather above all the features (CH 100, CH 400, and WL
1400). The undisturbed upland buffer around the remaining streams and wetlands will
continue to provide flow from rain events and groundwater to these aquatic resources.
The discharge of the SCM will assist in maintaining flow to these aquatic reaches.
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

i`
VIRONMENTAL
NCDWR RFAI 2.0 COMMENT 9: It is DWR's understanding that the 2008 Final Rule on
Compensatory Mitigation supersedes the Memorandum referenced in your response, but
we recognize that this is within the USACE authority with regards to their mitigation
requirements. In order to ensure that DWR regulations are satisfied with regards to
mitigation, it would be extremely helpful to clearly document the DWR mitigation
requirements separate from the USACE requirements so that we may determine whether
the proposed preservation will be relevant to DWR. To that end, would you please itemize
all perennial stream impact amounts in linear feet and all wetland impacts in acreage. As
you know, DWR requires mitigation for perennial stream impacts equal to or greater than
300 linear feet and for wetland impacts equal to or greater than 0.10 acres. Please
provide a clear accounting of the proposed mitigation strategy for DWR requirement
mitigation amounts: what type and amounts of mitigation will be provided via in -lieu fee,
mitigation bank, and PRM Preservation. If DWR required mitigation amounts are proposed
to be provided in whole or partially by on site PRM, then further evaluation of this strategy
will be necessary by DWR.
NCDWR RFAI 2.0 RESPONSE 9: It is our understanding that the 2008 Final Rule on
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (Federal Register 73:19594-
19705) was not meant to replace the Wilmington District Process for Preservation of
Mitigation Property (November 2003), but rather the former was "to establish standards
and criteria for the use of all types of compensatory mitigation, including on -site and off -
site permittee-responsible mitigation, mitigation banks, and in -lieu fee mitigation to offset
unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States authorized through the issuance of
Department of the Army (DA) permits pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and/or sections 9 or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.
401, 403)." The Final Rule also implements "section 314(b) of the 2004 National Defense
Authorization Act (Pub. L. 108-136), which directs that the standards and criteria shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, maximize available credits and opportunities for
mitigation, provide for regional variations in wetland conditions, functions, and values, and
apply equivalent standards and criteria to each type of compensatory mitigation." In as
much, we included reference to the Wilmington District's guidelines in our previous
comments as a useful tool for consideration in the application of the preservation of
mitigation property. We also contend that the presence of the guidelines on the
Wilmington District's website suggests that the information remains relevant in the
application of preservation as compensatory mitigation
(https-//www.saw. usace.army.m i I/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/Mitigation/preservatio
n_process_11-03.pdf).
We also reference the 2001 National Research Council report, entitled Compensating for
wetland losses under the Clean Water Act (also referenced in the 2008 Final Rule), that
stated "wetland preservation is an important tool for maintaining wetland diversity in a
watershed, and achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act in that watershed.
Preservation is particularly valuable for protecting unique, rare, or difficult -to -replace
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

aquatic resources, such as bogs, fens, and streams, and may be the most appropriate
form of compensatory mitigation for those resources." In the 2008 Final Rule, the USACE
recognized "that wetland preservation does not, in the short term, result in new wetland
resources and thus contribute to the "no overall net loss" goal, but over longer time
periods preservation helps reduce wetland losses by removing the protected wetlands
from the pool of wetlands that may be subject to future development activities that require
DA permits." They continued with "[a]quatic resource preservation, when combined with
restoration or establishment activities, can provide important aquatic services in a
watershed." The 2008 Final Rule also stated that "[d]ecisions on whether to allow
preservation as part of a compensatory mitigation package will be made by the district
engineer, based, to the extent appropriate and practicable, on the watershed approach."
Some district offices have formalized their position on the subject in more recent guidelines
(e.g., Charleston District's Guidelines for Preparing a Compensatory Mitigation Plan, last
revised October 7, 2010). Specifically, the Charleston District states that "the preservation
of upland buffers and riparian zones that protect the remaining aquatic resources on the
project site as part of an overall compensatory mitigation plan should be encouraged to
avoid and minimize ongoing and potential future adverse impacts." They even go as far as
to incentivize the use of on -site preservation by stating that "permit applicants that protect
[the remaining wetlands] in perpetuity using site protection instruments may be eligible for
a 25% reduction in the total amount of compensatory mitigation required to offset a
proposed project."
We fully understand that the decision to allow for on -site preservation of the remaining
wetlands and the application of a 25% reduction in the total required compensatory
mitigation is at the discretion of the Wilmington District Engineer. However, based on the
changes in the identification of aquatic resources on site, we are no longer seeking a 25%
reduction in the amount of required mitigation credits, nor are we seeking the preservation
of the remaining aquatic resources and upland buffers. Nevertheless, we are happy to
itemize all perennial and intermittent stream impacts in linear feet and all wetland impacts
in acreage. Please reference the impacts and mitigation summary in the table below.
Green highlighted areas identify USACE jurisdictional aquatic resources and orange
highlighted areas identify NCDWR jurisdictional aquatic resources.
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
a
z
w
Z
fT
Z
LU
o
y U
LO
LO
LO
C C
vi
O
O
O
O
00O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
p
p
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)�
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
`o
U
(6
LL
00
O
U?
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U)
U
O
`O
Q
ID
V
O
O
coCfl
f�
O
N
O
M
_
�
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
+
V
OD
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
I�
O
O
O
l00
O
CO
l0
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
LL
J
U
m
f—
O
r-
i0
00
00
co
Cl)
N
fl_
E
0
m
rn
c
w
v_
a
w
w
U
w
w
Z
U
LL
Q
Z
U
Z
U
=
LL
_
LL
=
LL
Z
U
=
LL
_
LL
_
LL
_
LL
=
LL
Z
U
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
U
Z
o
Z
Z
Z
Z
LL
LL
w
LL
v
C
cn
CNn
U)
CO
�
E z
w
w
w
w
w
w
❑
w
w
w
w
❑
w
❑
❑
❑
w
w
w
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
v
Q
Q
Q
Q
❑
Q
Q
c
Q
Q
Q
Q
c
Q
c
c
c
Q
Q
Q
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
w
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
0
U
0
0
0
U
U
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
>>>>
z>>
z>>>>
z
D
z
z
z>>>
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
o
o
N
c
o
c
0
m
0
m
o
m
o
m
0
m
0
m
o
m
0
m
0
m
0
m
0
m
m
0
N
"
"
If
—_
—
"
fA
m
m
m
m
N
N
U1
fA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
~
N
Y
Y
N
Y
(6
>
>
>
>
N
>
(6
(6
(6
(6
(6
(6
(6
(6
(6
(6
C
-
C
C
C
C
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
o
U)
U)
m
m
m
m
m
m
U
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Q¢
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
t
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
d
N
E
m
Z
N (D
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CDN
i
O
O
O
O
N
O
C-)O
O
O
O
N
M
�O
CO
I�
O
O
O
O
CDC)
N
M
V
LO
�
z O
=
_
_
_
_
_
=
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
Cl)
J
M
J
co
J
co
J
Cl)
J
Cl)
J
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
d
Q'
l0
0
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
N N
N 0
L
V(DU
— C
m
ate+ N =
i 00 >
N CD
cu_ Q
c
� O �
O 'CL)
to
Q o
J o �
Q t >
U
m
0 11
0
0
Q
c
0
`m
t
U

Proposed permanent stream impacts to USACE jurisdictional streams are limited to
intermittent streams CH 100, CH 2O0, and CH 400, and total 388 linear feet. Proposed
permanent stream impacts to NCDWR jurisdictional streams are limited to intermittent
stream CH 300, and total 388 linear feet. No perennial streams are being impacted. Thus,
mitigation for stream impacts is limited to USACE jurisdiction compensatory mitigation at a
factor of 1.5.1 for a total of 496.5 mitigation credits. Updated NC SAM forms based on the
most recent site visit with the USACE are included herein as attachments.
Proposed wetland impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are limited to wetlands WL 1100, WL
1200, WL 1300, WL 1400, WL 2000, and WL 2100 and total 0.289 acres. Thus, all
mitigation for wetland impacts is limited to USACE jurisdiction compensatory mitigation at
a factor of 1.1 for a total of 0.289 mitigation credits. Updated NC WAM forms also are
included herein as attachments.
The following table identifies the jurisdictional impacts requiring mitigation.
Required
Impact
Linear
Name
Type
Measure
Acres
Factor
Mitigation
Name
Feet
Credits
CH 100
S1
Intermittent
LF
97
0.014
1.5
145.5
CH 200
S3
Intermittent
LF
111
0.004
1.5
166.5
CH 400
S4
Intermittent
LF
123
0.005
1.5
184.5
WL 1100
W1
Wetland
AC
0.010
1
0.010
WL 1200
W2
Wetland
AC
0.016
1
0.016
WL 1300
W5
Wetland
AC
0.007
1
0.007
WL 1400
W3, W4
Wetland
AC
0.234
1
0.234
WL 2000
W6
Wetland
AC
0.021
1
0.021
WL 2100
W7
Wetland
AC
0.001
1
0.001
0.289 AC
496.5 stream
TOTAL
331 LF
Wetland
0.289 wetland
Only
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,
jeOW4, dl&4z VAO-,
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 10