19910212 All Versions_Complete File_20010809

Date Time
WHILE OU WE OUT
M
of
Phone S& & U
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
R TURNED YOUR CALL
11,
? I
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

1
1
1
1
1
1

WETLAND DELINEATION
PERMIT APPLICATION
THE MATHISEN COMPANY
VANCE TOWNSHIP PROPERTY
U N 1 O NVI LLE-I N D IAN TRAIL ROAD
AND FAITH CHURCH ROAD
UNION COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
wooer
s
z
WETLAND DELINEATION
OF USCOE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY
THE MATHISEN COMPANY
VANCE TOWNSHIP PROPERTY

UNIONVILLE-INDIAN TRAIL ROAD
AND FAITH CHURCH ROAD
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATES OF SURVEY
September 13, 1989
May 1, 1990
PREPARED BY
Mark Ray
James Spangler
Michael Vincent
y

I
t
i
1
1
1
1
1
t
f
l
1
1
1
1
b
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I. Project Description .........................................
II. Site Description ...........................................
III. Extent of Wetlands .........................................
IV. Conclusion ..............................................
V. References ..............................................
VI. Figures
VII. Wetland Determination Data Forms
VIII. Site Soil Borings
IX. Permit Application
PAGE
1
2
4
5
6

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Pumos
Woolpert Consultants was retained by The Mathisen Company to perform a wetland
delineation on a 456.4-acre tract (Figure 1) proposed for development as a multi-use
housing development with associated recreational, community, commercial, and school
facilities.
This report provides information concerning the extent and nature of USCOE
jurisdictional areas on the site and how the proposed construction interacts with them.
B. Methods
Field work was partially performed on September 13, 1989 using the USCOE Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency
Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989) and other required data sources produced by
the USCOE and other federal/state agencies. These include: Wetland Plants of North
arolina, Hydric Soils of Union county. North Carolina, Union County Soil Information,
USGS quadrangle map (Matthews quadrangle) and FEMA floodplain maps. No National
Wetland Inventory maps were available for this region.
Wetland determination points were chosen based on observable topography, vegetation
communities, and hydrology. The existing ponds and floodplain boundaries of South
Fork Crooked Creek were included in the investigations (Figure 2). All the sites were
analyzed by the three parameter approach that examines vegetation, soils, and hydrology
and were assessed using the plant community procedure that includes fallow agricultural
areas. Only sites that exhibited wetland characteristics as defined by the Unified Federal
Method (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989) were included
within the USCOE jurisdictional wetland boundary. The areal extent of delineated
wetlands was measured from site plans with an electronic planimeter. The site was
revisited on May 1, 1990 to confirm wetland boundaries by examining spring season
herbaceous ground cover and hydrology.
K
t
1
L
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The parcels surveyed covered 521 acres located approximately one mile northeast of Indian Trail,
North Carolina in Vance Township, Union County. (Adjacent areas being considered for
purchase are included in the total.) State Route 1367 (Unionville-Indian Trail Road) borders the
southern boundary and State Route 1518 (Faith Church Road) bisects the eastern half of the
property.
A. oils
. The site lies on gently rolling central piedmont underlain by metamorphic rocks near the
border of the Carolina slate belt and the Charlotte belt. Bedrocks within the project site
are dominantly argillite and mudstone shales and slates. These parent materials produce
fine grained soils with typically low permeabilities. Site soils, which are shown in Figure
3, range from 20 to 40 inches deep with permeabilities from .06 to .2 inches per hour.
These conditions generally support plant communities that tend to thrive in moist
conditions. T
The Cid and Lignum-Cid Complex soil series' were not listed in the 1985 list of hydric
soils in North Carolina. Because these soils typically exhibit permeability and seasonal
high water tables and have met the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) criteria for hydric soils, they were recently listed. Local topography, geology,
' and hydrology have produced "wetter" soils than are typically found in the region.
However, many of the sites checked showed no indication of hydric soil or hydrology.
In some cases, facultative dominated uplands were encountered. Areas of hydric soils
exhibited low chromas and mottling or sometimes just oxidized root channels,
concretions, and organic streaking.
B. Hydrology
Several, small intermittent streams drain the site and a portion of the 100-year floodplain
of South Fork Crooked Creek extends north under State Route 1367 onto the property.
Two old farm ponds (1.93 and 1.65 acres in size) including adjacent wetlands and a third
smaller pond, .18 acres in size, are located on the property.
As Figure 2 shows, the site lies on the sub-basin that divides several first order headwater
drainages. Most of the south and central portions of the site drain south in an
intermittent stream to a confluence with Crooked Creek, 700 feet south of the culverted
road crossing at Unionville-Indian Trail Road (State Route 1367).
Wetland hydrology, as observed in site soils, was almost entirely related to locations
within or adjacent surface drainages or the ponds. High water tables ranged from 0 to
18 inches deep in drainageways and in adjacent depressional areas receiving upland
runoff. Limited perched water table conditions were also observed (Site H).
Artificial drainage (ditching and tiling) was absent from many areas. Some limited
drainage efforts appear to be predominated by deepening of existing drainages.
Agricultural operations have not needed to drain extensively because the majority of site
I
2
t

soils (both in cultivated and undisturbed sites) did not exhibit wetland hydrology (see
Wetland Data Forms and Site Soil Borings, Chapters VII and VIII).
C. Vegetation and Wildlife
s Most of the site is wooded with young deciduous forest and secondary growth pole
timber that is 30 to 50 years old. The dominant trees are southern red oak uercus
falcata , a variety of hickories Car a spp.), winged elm Imu alata , an
d sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). Scattered stands of Virginia and loblolly pines inns
Virginian a; P. taeda are also located on the site. Red maple Acer rubrum and willow
oak uercus hellos dominate the wet sites. A rare plant, Schweinitz's sunflower
?. (Helianthus schweinitzii), has also be found on the site in the past. However, no
populations or individuals of this plant were noted throughout the project site.
A variety of wildlife was observed during site investigations. The available habitats
primarily serve upland wooded and open land species. Signs of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and ground hogs Marmota monax were the most commonly
observed, and a raccoon (Procyon lotor sign was noted in wetland areas.
Forty-six species of common birds were also observed nesting or migrating through the
area. Some of the more notable ones include: Prairie warblers endroica discolor ,
chuck will's-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis), eastern bluebirds Sialia sialis , and
bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus). Bullfrogs and green frogs (Rana catesbiana; R.
clamitans and cricket frogs Acris cre itans were noted in Sites A and C. The Carolina
darter (Etheostoma collis , which is a significantly rare species in the state, occurred in
Crooked Creek outside the project area.

t
1

III. EXTENT OF WETLANDS
During the site visits, 39 wetland determination samples were taken throughout the parcel to
obtain an assessment of wetland extent and to delineate wetland/upland boundaries. Two to six
sample sites were esablished within each district wetland delineation site. The wetlands on the
site were essentially of two types. Some new wetlands in each category were identified for the
May sample using detailed topographic mapping and large-scale orthographic photography. The
wetland boundary and sample sites are shown on Figure 4. Wetland determination forms for
each site are also included in this document
(Chapter VII).
A. Riverine wetlands
The width of the riverine wetlands associated with drainages varies between five and 15
feet. The total delineated on-site wetland of this type is 1.84 acres. The controlling
hydrological characteristic of these wetlands is frequent inundation by seasonal storm
flooding and pooling. The soils are predominantly deep, dark, sandy clay with
homogenous structure to deeper than 36 inches. Typical vegetation includes willow oak
uercus hp ellos), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple Acer rubrum ,
cardinal flower obelia cardinalis , sedges Carex spp.), and trumpet creeper (Cam psis
radicans .
B. Palustrine wetlands
Several small, low, wet areas are scattered throughout the site. Two of these were
identified from aerial photography subsequent to the site visit, and one was on a parcel
added to the development after September. These areas are typified by seasonal water
tables near the surface and inundation during all or part of the growing season. The soils
are typically medium brown with high organic matter, including some muck soils.
Vegetation within these palustrine emergent marshes and wet woods includes red maples
Acer rubrum , willow oak uercus hp ellos), spotted water hemlock (Cicuta maculata),
sedges Carex spp.), bulrushes Sci us spp), water lilies N m haea odorata , cattails
T(h_a lalifolia , and sugarcane plumegrass rianthus i anteus . These wetlands vary
in size from .02 to 1.93 acres. The total on-site acreage of palustrine wetlands is 5.93
acres.
The total delineated extent of on-site lands within U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
jurisdiction is 7.77 acres. A conceptual master plan has been designed to minimize the
actual acres of wetland filled so that the construction could be permitted under
Nationwide Permit 26.

1
4

1
I IV.
1
1
1
CONCLUSION
Figure 5 shows the proposed site plan with its final built condition, nature preserve, and detention
pond design. Comprehensive efforts have been made to avoid, then minimize, wetland take on
the entire development. Approximately 6.22 acres of additional open water and vegetated
palustrine wetland (at 10 different sites ranging from .24 to 1.24 acres) will be produced by
careful design in the detention pond areas (see Figure 5). These designs should preserve off-site
water quality in compliance with the North Carolina Antidegradation policy. The primary
functions of the existing wetlands and replaced wetlands (flood control and sediment retention)
would be effectively enhanced by the proposed detention basin construction.
This proposed construction plan is being submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, for consideration as an action permissible under Nationwide Permit 26 [33
CFR 330.5 (a)] given the following considerations:
1. The discharge of fill material shall not cause the loss or substantial adverse modifications
of more than 10 acres of streams and wetlands (total take .79 acres, of which .23 acres
are palustrine and .56 acres are riverine). See Figure 4.
>! 2. The stream is located above headwaters in a drainage divide location.
3. Fill areas will not occur near public water supply intakes.
4. No federally threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats will be adversely
affected, in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
5. The fill shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants.
6. The action will not adversely affect historic properties listed on, or eligible for listing on,
the National Register of Historic Places.
The applicant will release a pre-discharge notification to the District Engineer at least 20 days
prior to filling wetlands per 33 CFR 330.7 and will abide by 33 CFR 325.7 concerning
modifications, suspension, and renovation of Nationwide Permits. Please advise if a separate
clean water certification (section 401 permit) from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management can be waived for the proposed development. A separate Sediment and Erosion
Control Plan will be produced and submitted to the North Carolina Division of Land Quality.

V.. REFERENCES
Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS - 79/31.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Appendix
C. Sections 1 and 2. Region 1 - Southeast, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, Union county,
North Carolina.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating, Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
Godfrey, R. K., and Wooten, J. W. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of the Southeastern
United States, Vol. I and II, University of Georgia Press, Athens, Ga.
Huffman, R. T., Tucker, G. E., Wooten, J. W., Kilmas, C. V., Freel, M. W., Forsythe, S. W.
and Wilson, J. S. 1982. "Preliminary Guide to the Onsite Identification and Delineation of the
Wetlands of the South Atlantic United States," Technical Report Y-78-7; US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Hydric Soils of the State of North Carolina. 1985, (First edition) United States Department of
Agriculture in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington,
D.C.
Munsell Soil Color Charts. 1975 edition. Munsell Color, a division of Macbeth, Baltimore,
MD.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1988. 1988 Wetland Plant List - North Carolina. United States Department
of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the National and Regional Wetland
Plant List Review Panels.
Sharitz, R. R., and Gibbons, J. W. 1982. "The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins)
and Carolina Bays: A Community Profile," FWS/OBS-82/04, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Theriot, R. F., and Sanders, D. R., Sr. 1986. A Concept and Procedure for Developing and
Utilizing Vegetation Flood Tolerance Indices in Wetland Delineation. Technical Report Y-86-1, .
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
6

' Theriot, R. F. In Review. "Flood Tolerance Indices of Plant Species of Southeastern Bottomland
Forests," Technical Report, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Wharton, C. H., Kitchens, W. M., and Sipe, T. W. 1982 "The Ecology of Bottomland
Hardwood Swamps of the Southeast: A Community Profile," FWS/OBS-81/37, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

I

1

1

t

VI. FIGURES

U

t

?-?_-? ? ?? ? •?' `?/? I `` ?' d? ,sue===°? _-? _ ,: f`?''.,-?\.'/ceo?
3Z
YOO
ti- Figure 1
THE MATHISEN COMPANY ,
Vance Township Property
00
Vicinity Map
Scale: 1' = 2000' O
•\??, ?c-?? /? c 1000 2000
O . O i f/ ark : - • ?; / r Cl( Jsy ?j! `j
685\
-J/ f??? r
,•r
• 523 r ' i f
?' •? ?" For •? i 1 ° ? .\ \••
,
toll n • • •• -n a \? -
I Kci
1501
1z
14
367 \?c. {
?' /?' J ? •\ \74 `? 1 1 O. • "ice 1"" saw _k 650
?• .?? :? 0• 667 ?? {w. \ i
?? o sth I'rrd' .•'' O 6 ; i
151
100 •1 t?? ?? ?a??r 1519
• .U.
b 1367 1 j 1 \ •,<. /' \
• •1 { ll• • ?n• I /
• ? 1 ?\ - ; • ?1 q • °so ?• 00kea 1361)
' rt •1 I ,1.? ^?Q ,l l d /? '

° .?<-'yam '? ? ??, ?? l:• I _ ?c-? ? .(. .(. .r.??\ t:::.r61o
f ,? fir. 669 ( ' ` Figure 2
. - o ) THE MATHISEN COMPANY r:
Vance Township Property }
xvDrainage and Floodplain
Scale: 1 2000'
0 1000 2000
?\ ark ryl< oLegend
Sub-basin divide /.
Drainages
• ? 11523
.? • For _ /?1 ?,
o \ 4, per.: _ .o
C 66o Y ?? «
1501
J
%
d
< 74 " Daly \I f
n l i \\\ ?Yti? d t3 650
\ xi• •. ?\ ?t` ?p.- .? ' • 667 :, \\O .d.,y,.
,lop pq
e
i a 1367
67

1

1
1

E

F"
1

1

VII. WETLAND DETERMINATION
DATA FORMS

0
1
1

1
r
1 1

1

u
n

VEGETATION SYMBOL LEGEND
OBL - Obligate Wetland plants; occur almost always (estimated
probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions.
FACW - Facultative wetland plants; occur usually (estimated probability
>67% to 99%) in wetlands.
FAC - Facultative plants with a moderate likelihood (estimated
probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in wetlands.
FACU - Facultative upland plants; sometimes (estimated probability 1%
to 33%) occurs in wetlands but more often occurs in
non-wetlands.
NA - No agreement has been reached by the regional interagency review
panel.
NO - Non-dominant member of Plant Community Stratum represented.
NR - Has not been reviewed for regional indicator status.
NC - Has not yet been considered because of its recent addition to
the list.
NL - Has not been included in the list.
Morph* - Plant indicated demonstrated morphological and/or physiological
adaption for occurrence in wetlands.
Note: A plus (+) sign indicates a higher frequency of wetland
occurrence within the prefixed category.
A minus (-) sign indicates a lower frequency of wetland
occurrence within the prefixed category.
H - Herb layer
Sh - Shrub layer (less than twenty feet tall, includes multisteemed
plants)
Sp - Sapling layer (less than 4 inch diameter at breast height; over
20 feet tall)
V - Vine layer (climbing on other vegetation - liana)
Bryo - Bryophyte layer (mosses, macrolickens, etc.)
T - Tree layer (greater than 4 inch diameter at breast height and
greater than 20 feet tall)

1

1
1

1
I
L

1
SEPTEMBER 13, 1989
SURVEY SAMPLES
1
1

1
r-,

1

1

1
u

DATA M"
R0JT1W ONSITE DE-rUNMTIDN METH
Field Investigator(s):Mark Ray Date: 9/13/89
Project/Site:7ndian Lakes State:N.C. County:Union
Applicant/Owner:The Mathisen Company Plant Community/Name:A-1
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant cominity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No X (If yes, explain on back)
-------------------------------------------------------
VEGETATI[N
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Acer rubrum FAC T/sh
2. Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ T/sh
3. Betula nigra FACW T
4.
5. Quercus phe os FACW- sh
6. Erianthus giganteus FACW H
7. Scirpus cyperinus 08L H
8.
9. Partherwissus quinquefo is V
lA.
11. Echinochloa crusgalli FACW - H
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Percent of domirmt species that are OBL, FALW, and/or FAC 100
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Percent hydrophytic
Series/phase: Cid Subgroup :2
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? . Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 Y 5/4 Mottle Colors: 5Y 5/2
Other hydric soil indicators: organic streaking
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Sandy clay with high organic matter streaking in subsurface
Is the ground surface inu dated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 0-611, adjacent permanent pond 3'
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
in hvdrooeriod Zone IV
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Saturated in root zone, seasonal high water, .6-0.2 permeability, oxidized root charnels
URSOiII.TIt)W DETE}*WTI(N AND RATIONALE
' Is the plant community a wetland? Yes -X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2. Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

DATA FORM
RQlTIW Nun OErFW ATmN METHOD'
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9/13/89
Project/Site: Indian Lakes State: N.C. County: Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company plant Comwity #/Name: A-2
Note_ If a more detai?ed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook_ - - -
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant commnity7
Yes X No (If no, explain an back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes --- No -X --(Ifyes,explainan back)-------------------------------
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
' 1. Quercus phellos FALW- T U. Lonicera japonica FAC- V
2. Scirpus atrovirens OBL H 12.
3. Leersia vin inica FACW H 13.
' 4. Smilax rotundifo is FAC V 14.
5. Rhexia mariana FACW+ H 15.
6. Toxicodendron radiaans FAC H 16.
7. Sin s radians FAC V 17.
' 8. Fraxinus pemsylvanica FACW Sa 18.
9. Aruidinaria testa NL H 19.
10. Soehmeria cylindrica FACW+ H 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 91
Is the hydraphytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrophytic
' SoLS
' Series/phase: Cid and Lignum-Cid complex Subgroup:z
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
IS the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
' Matrix Color: 2.5 YR 6/4 Mottle Colors: 5 YR 5/8
Other hydric soil indicators: organic streaking in subsoil of Sandy A horizon soil
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
' Rationale: o is streakinci
HYOR 3-013Y
' Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: none at 18"
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
drainage ttems, drift lines, buttressed willow oaks
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Other field evidences noted; .06-.2 permeability; reported seasonal high water tables
III, MOL OE?=W AND RATIONALE

Is the plant commnity a wetland? Yes
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
1 This data form an be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
X No
all r_riteria met
1
DATA FUH
' RUJU E ON511E DE UN WTIM MElt-Ml

' Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9/13/89
County: Union
C
N
State
.
.
.
Project/Site: Indian Lakes
Plant Comnnity #/Name:A-3
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Compary-
If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a fie d notebook_ - - -
Note
' _
Do normal envira vental conditions exist at the plant c0ffm pity?
Yes X No (if no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
a
°
' l ors
-----
(Ifyes,explainan back) agricultural 9
No
Yes X ----------
----
-
- - VEGETATION
' Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
' 1. Quercus falcata FACU- Sa 11. Solidago erecta
Juniperus virginia
Sa 12
FAC Nc H
F917 Vh
.
+
2. Liouidambar styraci ua
FACU Sa 13. Rubes allegheriensis UPL
3. Carya ovata
a giabra FACU Sa 14. Quercus stellata
Car
4 FACU Sa
' y
.
5. Lobelia puberula FAvCYV- H 15. Agrostis hyemalis
i FAC H
HL
us
6. Bidens aristosa FACW H 16. Andropogon scopar
4- ropogon virginicus
FACW- H 17 F? H
.
7. Echinochloa cam I 11
Smilax rotundifolia FAC H 1B. Agalinus purpurea
B
.
9. Rhexia mariana FACW+ H 19. Verbena brasilensis FAC- H
10. Gnapha ium obtusifo ium NL H 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 53
is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrophYtjc
SOILS

Series/phase: Badin and Cid Subgroup ,z
' Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
X
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No X
' Matrix Color: 10 YR 5/3 and 10 YR 4/2 Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators resent

' FIYDRl1L?Y
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other-field evidence of surface irxixtation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators resent
' ICTIDNAL OETF30IATION Ar0 RATIONALE
Is the plant comnxnity a wetland? Yes No X
inally hydrophytic plant comaxnity
h a mar
lthou
i
i
is present, hydric
g
g
on: a
s
Rationale for jurisdictional dec
soils and wetland hydology are absent.
can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
f
d
t
1
orm
a
a
This
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
1
1 DATA F"
FDHW ONSITE DEiE14,WTItN METHOD'
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9/13/89
' Project/Site: Indian Lakes State: N.C. County: Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Plant Com wity #/Name: B-1
is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook_
re detailed site description
If

1 -
a mo
Note_
it
? - - -
y
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant commn
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(if yes, explain on back) - - - -
X
No
Yes - - -
- -
-
- - -
VEGUATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Li iHailar st raciflua FAC+ T/Sa 11. Cinna arundinacea FACW H
H
2. Ql rcus p hellos FACW- T 12. Lobelia puberula FACW- H
3. Acer rubrum FAC Sa 13. Bidens aristosa FACW
NL H
4. Toxicodendron radicans FAC V 14. Prenantles serpentaria
L
B
5. Smilax rotuidifolia FAC Sh/V 15. Cicuta maculata O H
F
B
6. Lonicera ica FAC- Sh 16. Solidago rugosa
Rtbus al egheniensis UPL Sh 17. Lycopus virginicus OBL
7
H
.
B ro 18. Ulnus alata FACU+
ha um s p
8 Sh
. _
.
9. C imacitm america w ro 19. Morus rubrua FAC T
10. Parthenocissus quirquefolia FAC V 20.
Percent of domrirrant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 84
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
' Rationale: percent hydrophytic
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid Subgroup:z
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X

' Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 YR 6/4 Mottle Colors: 5 yr 5/6 and 2.5 YR 5/4 and 2/5 YR 3/0
black)
ki
t
ng (
rea
Other hydric soil indicators: Prevalant organic s
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: organic streaking
WDUM
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 18 inches by squeeze test
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
drainage tterns, oxidized root charnels
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: drainage pattern, anaerobic condtions in root zone
1
a?mcr?oNAL DETGNMTION AND RATIONALE

Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No
' Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Commuiity Assessment Procedure.
"
"
Soil Taxonomy.
Z Classification according to
t
. DATA F"
WINE ON! = DErER4MTM4 METHOD'
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9/13/89
i
Project/Site: Indian Lakes on
State: N.C. County: Un
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company Plant Community #/Name:B-2
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions-exist-at the plant connnity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
(Ifyes, explain anback)
Yes
No X
-------------------------------
--
--- VEGETATIOM
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Ambrosia artemisiifolia FACU H U.
12
T/S
2. Liquidambor styraciflua FAC .
a
3. Toxicodendron radicans FAC V 13.
4. Botrychiun dissectum FAC H 14.
5. Vitis rotundifoliun FAC V 15.
6. Vacciniun sp. NLorFACU Sh 16.
7. Po onatun bi ortm FAC-
8. Craetaegus f abet ata NL H 17.
Sh 18.
9. Pinus Virginian NL Sh 19.
10. Lindera benzoin FACW 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 64
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Percent hydrophytic (but common ragw eed, an upland herb, is the dominant herb - 50%cover)

Series/phase: Cid Subgroup:'
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 Y 5/6 Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indications present
H1fOFd)f.O6Y

1
1

Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in-pit/so-ii probe hole
List other field evidence of surface inundation or
Surface water depth:
: below 15 inches; hit bedrock
soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators present, including hydric soil characters
3URiICIIONAL DETETdUMTION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: although the vegetation community contained many facultative species,
the drier cocoon ragweed was the dominant herb soils and hydrology also indicate a drier facultative
co mamty
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

DATA FORM
RQlTDE ONSITE DETET[IATI(N METHOD'
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9113189
Project/Site: Indian Lakes State: N.C. County: Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company Plant Community #/Name: C-1
Note_ If a more detailed site description - is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook_ - - -
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant comunity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No X (If yes, explain an back)
--------------------------------------------
VEGEfATIOMI -----------
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Quercus phellos FACW- T U. Agrostis hyemalis FAC H
2. Jinni rus vi iniana FACU- Sh/Sa 12. Andropogon scoparius NL H
3. Carya g abra FACU Sa 13. Corns florida FACU Sh
4. Craetaegus f ata NL Sh/Sa 14. Andropogon virginicus FAC- H
5. 15.
6. Quercus ste ata FACU T 16.
7. Diospyros virginiana FAC Sh 17.
8. Lonicera japonica FAC V 18.
9. Solidago erects NL T 19.
10. Diospyros virginiana FAC Sh 20.

Percent of dominant species that are OSL, FACW, and/or FAC 40
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: percent hydrophytic, yet dominated by Q. phellos (willow oak)
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid Subgroup:2
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 YR 5/6 Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators present
HYUUM
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
flat, yet well-drained
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: No indicators present
OEfEfH[NMTI(N AND RATIONALE

Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: no criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

DATA FORM
FORM ONSITE DEraMMTI(N MEtlml
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9113189
Project/Site: Indian Lakes State: N.C. County: Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Lama Plant Community */Name:C-2
Note: If a more detailed site description -is necessary, use the bads of data form or a field notebook- - - -
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes - - - No - X - - (If yes, explain on back) - - - - -
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Echinochloa crux alli FACW- H 11. Solidago rugosa
R wxlus caroliniana
OBL H 12 FAC H
FACU Sh
.
2. Typha latifo is
3. Baccharis halimifolia FAC Sh 13. Ulmus alata FACU+ Sh
H
4. Lobelia puberula FACW- H 14. Andropogon virginicus FAC-
OBL H
5. Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ Sh 15. Eleocharis obtusa FACW H
6. Acer rubrum FAC- Sh 16. Polygmn pemsYlvanicum FACW H
7. Erechites hieracifolia FAC- H 17. Cyperus strigosus
8. 18.
9. Gnaphalium abtusifoiiun NL- H 19.
10. Eup itorium serotirxn FAC- H 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, aid/or FAC 81
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
? Rationale: percent hydrophytic
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid Subgroup :2
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes X No
Matrix Color: lA yr 6/4 Mottle Colors: 7.5 YR 5/8
Other hydric soil indicators: G1 N7 at 8 Indies
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: G1 near surface
HYDROL06Y
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hnle: 0-2 inches
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
drainage pattern - drainage swale
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale Arainage swale adjacent pond and hydric soil conditions
3URISDICTIONAL OET944DATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No
t, Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
a
DATA FUN
ROUTUEE ONSI'TE DETERIMTION METHOD'
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9/13/89
Project/Site: Indian Lake State: N.C. County: Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company Plant Community */Name:C-3
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.

? - - - - - - - - -
- -
it
- - - - - - - - - - -
y
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant comnn
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
?i
--------------------
(Ifyes, explain anback)
Yes No X
-----------
-
- - - - - - - - - - VEGETATI(N
dicator
I
Indicator n
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Typha latifolia OBL H U. Salix nigra OBL Sh
Pblygaxm peMlvanic m FACW H 12. Lonicera japonica
2 FAC V
.
Lycopus virginiana OBL H 13. Bidens aristosa
3 FACW H
.
4. Bidens aristosa FACW H 14.
FAC T/Sa/Sh 15
.
5. Pin tataeda
6. Corrus florida FACU Sa 16.
7. Liiquidambar st raciflua FAC+ Sa 17.
8. Baccharis ha imifo is FAC Sh 18.
9. Rotala romasior OBL H 19.
10. 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 93
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrophytic -
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid Subgroup:z
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 5 Y 5/3 Mottle Colors: 5 YR 4/6
Other hydric sod indicators: oxidized channels
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: high organic matter content in surface horizon, manganese concretions

wan=
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 15 inches
List other field evidence of surface injndation or soil saturation.
estimated hydroperiod zone IV, rhizospheres present water marks saturated root zone
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: several indicators present
TID DEfERM WI(N AND RATIUMLE
MWI(
.
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
z Classification according to "Soil Taxonany."
a
DATA FORA
W DE ONSUE DETER) MTIW METHOD'
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9113189
Project/Site: Indian Lake State. N.C. County:. Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Cortpany Plant Community k data form or afield If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bads o of f data . id notebook- - - -
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant conm,nity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes 7= - No - X - - (If yes, explain on back) - -
VEGETATIW
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. TV" latifolis OBL H U.
2. Lycopus vi niana OBL H 12.
3. Polygonum pemsy vanicxm FACW H 13.
4. Cvoerus strigosus FACW H 14.
5. Rotate-a ramasior OBL H 5
6. E eocharis obtusa OBL H 16.
7. Leersia virginica FACW H 17.
8. Echinochloa crusga i FACW- H 18.
9. 19.
10. 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 1W
is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydroOwtic
Sons
Series/phase: Cid (sample at upland edge) Subgroup: 2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes X No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes X No
Matrix Color: 2.5 Yr 3/2 Mottle Colors: 10 YR 3/3
Other hydric son indicators: G1 5Y 4/1
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Low chroma matrix with mottli and 1 ,muds layer
WD UM
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes X No Surface water depth: 0-6 inches
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: surface
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
estimated hydroperiod zone II or III
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: inundation
?iANAL pETEfNIATIW AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the an
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

1

1
1
I
r
1
1

1

r
DATA FOIE
FOE M ONSITE DETERIATIDN MEMI
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9/13/89
Project/Site: Indian Lake State: N.C. County: Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company Plant Community #/Name: D-1
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do normal enviravental conditions exist at the plant c arity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes X No (If yes, explain on back) surcharged at 3 foot culvert flowing under road
-------------------------------------------------------
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Echinochloa crusgalli FACW- H
Bidens frondosa FACW H
Poovum ems 1 vani pm FACW H
Poygonum apathi o iun FACW H
Cyperus strigosus FACW H
Arundinaria gigantea FACW H
Rubes bifrons NL Sh
Uniola atifolia NL H
1.1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 75
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrophytic, dominance by FACW species
Series/phase: chewacla Subgroup:2
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes X No
Matrix Color: 2.5 YR 3/2 Mottle Colors: 5Y 5/2
Other hydric soil indicators: Gley 5Y 6/1, High organic matter in the surface horizon
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: High organics and gley, low matrix with mottles
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: surface
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
drift lines, water marks, scour - regional intermittent stream
Rationale: drainaoe patterns. debris. saturation
JUPMMMCTM44L DETER 4WTION AND RATI04AL.E
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

DATA FUH
Fcuri E ONSITE DETuHmTItN METHOD'
Field Investigator(s): Date:
Project/Site: State: County:
Applicant/Owner: Plant Community */Name:O-2
Note: If a more detaied site description -is necessary, use the back of data form or a - field notebook-------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant =vwity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes --- No -X --(Ifyes,explainon back) -------------------------------
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Li idambar st raciflua FAC+ Sa/Sh ' 11. Gnaphalium obtusifolium NL H
tnorata FACW H
Pluchea cart
/Sh 12
2. Quercus Phe as FACW- p
.
Sa
Quercus stellata FACU Sa
V 13
y,, is radiCa m FAC .
4. A inaria gigantea FACW H 14.
5. Uniola atifolia NL H Z.
6. Lobelia cardinalis FACW+ H 16.
7. Eupatorium serotin m
Toxicodendron radicans
8 FAC
FAC H 17.
V 18.
.
9. C imacium americarxm ro 19.
10. Tradescentia sp. FAC + H 20.
Percent of dominant species that are 0BL, FACW, and/or FAC 79
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: percent is

SOILS
Series/phase: Cid Subgroup:
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No x Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes x No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 Y 6/6 Mottle Colors: 7.5 YR 2/0
Other hydric soil indicators: larg e manganese concretions, 7.5 YR 2/0 matrix below 15 inches
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: sandy surface horizon with low chroma subsoil matrix, concretions

F?1?Y

a
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: surface
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
drift wood, water marks and sediment its, regional intermittent stream, surface scour
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: drainage.patterns, subsoil permeability (0.6-0.2) and seasonal high water
aJRLSDICTIOW DETT R4WTION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant caimnity a wetland? Yes
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Cammnity Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
X No
n11 rritPria met

DATA FORM
F0ff E 04S M DETER4WTION METHOD1
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9113189
C. County: Union
N
State
Project/Site: Indian Lake .
.
Plant Community #/Name:O-3
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company
is ne
more detailed site description
If cessary, use the bads of data form or a field notebook_
-
a
Note_ - - -
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant mmulity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
(Ifyes,explaincn back)
X
No
Yes -------------------------------
--
-
-
- - VEGE7ATI1N
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Acer ruby m FAC Sh 11. Bidens aristosa FACW H
V 12
2. Cam psis radicans FAC .
3. Comus amanun FACW+ Sh 13.
4. Tradescantia Sp. FAC ±
FACW- H 14.
Sh/Sa 15.
5. Quercus phe os
6. BoePn?eria cylindrica FACW + H 16.
7. Lobelia cardinalis FACW+ H 17.
8. Uniola latifolia NL H 18.
--
9. Sim lax rotundifo is FAC V 1q.
10. Ti a heterophy a NL Sa 20.
Percent of damnant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 83
Is the hydraphytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hYdrophytiC
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid Subgroup.'
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes X No
Matrix Color: 2.5 YR 6/4 Mottle Colors: 2.5 YR 5/4
Other hydric soil indicators: 1 5Y 5/1 at 18 inches
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: 1 in root zone
WDR0.p(,Y
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: saturated at surface, water at 12"
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
much drift wood, shallow red maple roots - windfall
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: saturation, drift lines, morphological plant adaptations
JIUSa71:TI0OL 000101ATI0?1 AND RATIONAL
is the plant comunity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

DATA FORM
RQJiIAE ONSITE DETU; W ICN W71 10Dl
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9113189
Project/Site: Indian Lakes State: N.C. County: Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Cgmpany plant Community,#/Name:D-4
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
- -
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes - - No - X - - (If yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
I
a
1
I
1
t
r
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW Sa
U mus rubra FAC Sa/Sh
U mus amer Cana FACW Sa
unio a atifolia NL H
FACW H
?llos FACW- Sa
FAC V
FAC H
OBL Sh
Lobelia cardinalls FACW+ H
ll. Ratabida fulgida NL H
12. Climacium americanum - ro
13. Corns florida FAN Sh
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 77
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrophytic, FACW/FAC forest of green ash-red elm-willow oak
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid Subgroup:
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes x No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 YR 3/2 Mottle Colors: 5 Y 4/2
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X NO
Rationale: Low chroma matrix with mottles
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes X No Surface water depth: 4-6 inch pool at one point
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 0-18 inches
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
buttressed green ash trucks, regional intermittent stream
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: inundation, saturation, morphological adaptations, drainage pattern
aJRZSDWrMiAL DEMNMTIM AND RATIQrALE
Is the plant cawnity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
DATA FORM
RUMN MSM OET8WMT1ON MEM1
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray Date: 9/13/89
Project/Site: Indian Lakes State: N.C. County: Union
Applicant/Owner: The Mathisen Company Plant Community #/Name: D-5
Note_ If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a fie d notebod<_ _ - -
Do normal envirornu tal conditions exist at the plant com'nitV
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)-
Has-the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes - - - No - X - - (If yes, explain on back) - -
VEGEfATIDrI
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Quercus falcata FACU T 11.
2. Comus f orida FACU Sh 12.
3. Pane a vu garis FAC- H 13.
4. Car a ovata FACU _S/_T 14.
5. U1mus a ata FACU+ Sa 15.
6. Cammpsis radicam FAC V 16.
7. Solidago erects NL H 17.
8.
9' 19.
.
10. 20.
Percent of domirmt species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 28
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: percent hydrophytic, dominated by facultative upland, oak-hikory-elm forest
SODS
Series/phase: Cid . Subgroup:2
Is the soil an the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 YR 6/4 Mottle Colors: 2.5 YR 5/8
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: bright chroma, no hydric indications present
WUROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: below 18 inches (hit slate bedrock)
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: defined drainage pattern ends at this point
FICTIONAL OETB'+(DVATI(N AND RATIONALE
Is the plant commmmity a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all criteria met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Community Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
11
1

1
1

f]

11
1

MAY 1, 1990
SURVEY SAMPLES

DATA FGH
ROUr2E OEM DEFRIFNAT] N MEDW
Field Duestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Irdian Trail State: North Carolina County: Union
Ppplicfnt/Owner: Mathisen Plant Cammity #/Name: A-1 north extension
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal envirav ntal conditions exist at the plant cammnity? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes Nb (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
- -------------------------------
Yes-- --- - - (If yes, exal - bads)
VHETATIIN
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Daninant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Geraniun caroliniarxm NL H U. Pensteron laevigatus ND/FAC H
2. Loliun maltiflonm NL H 12. Carex Mans ND/FACW H
3. Oenod ra laciniata FPLU H 13.
4. Ra uiculus sardous FAC+ H 14.
5. Nasturtium officianale C6L H 15.
6. Salix nigra OBL Sh,T 16.
7. Pcer r br m FAC Sh 17.
8. Juncos efflas FACW+ H 18.
9. Badnarris halmnifolia FAC Sh 19.
10. Licpidmbar styraciflua FPC+ T 20.
Percent of damnant species that are OEL, FACW, and/or FAC 73
Is the hydrgpFytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: PercE nt hydraphytic
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid •`Ltgra-p:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: hbttled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 y 5/4 Mottle Colors: 2.5 y 5/2
Other hydric soil indicators: Oxidized root dnamels 2.5 y 4/6
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Hydric soil list and oxidised root dwmis present, obligate plants present
HdH3 06Y
Is the grand surface irxndated? Yes X No Surface water depth: 1 inch in places
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-sta ding water in pit/soil probe hole: Wells Lp to within 0-2 ind-es of surface
List other field evidence of surface iruxiation or soil saturation.
Cambarts chimneys
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale:
.TJ) K 1DETF3i MMM PIED FATION UE
Is the plant commtnity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: All parameters met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Praoedure and the Plan
Corm pity Assessrant Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil TamamW."
I .

1

1
1

S Series/phase: Cid S4rMp:2

DATA FUH
FCUr2E OEM DErOWTIIIN WOW
Field Dwestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/50
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: Lhion
Applicant/Owner: M3thisen Plant Comwity #/Name: A-4
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bad< of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do rornal environmental conditions exist at the plant cammmity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No X (If yes, explain on back)
-------------------------------------------------------
VMATIIN
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Damreit Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Pim s taeda (dead) FAC T
2.-Q rcus phellos FALW T
3. LiCpidambar styraciflUa FACt T, .
4. JLnipert,is virginiena FACt1-
_
Sp.
5. Celtis laevigata FAUN Sp.
6. Ulms alata FACUt Sp, Sh.
7. Crataegus sp. - Sh.
8. Acer rbnm FAC Sh.
9. Fraxinus pemsylvanias FXV Sh.
10. To dcodandran radians FAC V
U. Lonicera japonica FAC- V, H
12. Vitis robndifolia FAC V
13. Galium tinctorium FXV H
14. Umla multiflora FACU- H
15. Viola papilcnacea FAC H
16. Oxalis dilenii NL H
17. Smilax glama FAC V
18. Carex caroliniana (ND) FXV H
19. Cam granularis (ND) FACW H
20. Carex vulpinoidea (ND) OBL H
Percent of dominant species that are GEL, FACW, and/or FAC 69
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Percent hydrophytic Sedges plus eleocnaris tenuis (FAGW) present as ran-dominmts.
Sams
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Orange 2.5 Y 5/4 Mottle Colors: Bri(It grey 1A YR 5/6, 2.5 Y 3/2 at 18"
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion net? Yes No X
Rationale: Root zone is predominantly anaerobic, soil matrix color appears to be non-cid inclusion
of upland soil
Fm3CLIE(
Is the grand surface imr dated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface in xiation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no parameters met
alUSMUM& DEMHMTIIN PW RAT>INU
Is the plant commit)( a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: lad- of hydric soil and hydrology
1 This data form can be used for the Fydric Soil Assesment Procedure and the Plan
Cam inity Assessment Proced".
2 Classification aooording to "Soil Tacray."
DATA FORM
FCUrDE OEM CETUMAT31N MEHW
Field Dwestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spagler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina . Canty: Lhion
Pppliant/Owner: Mathisen Plant Comm.nity #/Name: A-5
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data fonn or a field notebook.
Do normal Environmental conditions exist at the plant a manity? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
-------------------------------
Yes --- No-X--(If yes, explain on back)
VEGLTATIDd
. Lndicator Indicator
Domirmt Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Licpidmbar styraciflua FPC+ T 11.
2. Uln s aiata FACU+ Sh,T, 12.
3. Acer norm FPC ShSp 13.
4. Ural phellos FPGW- T, Sh. 14.
5. Nyssa sylvatica FPC Sh. 15.
6. Toxicoderxdran radians FPC V 16.
7. Canpsis radians FPC V, H 17.
8. Smilax gla m FPC H 18.
9. 19.
10. 20•
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FXX 2nd/or FPC 69
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: pew hydradWic
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid S4roLp:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipezbn present? Yes No X
Is the soil: M3ttled? Yes X No Gley+ed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Bright orange 2.5 Y 5/6 Mottle Colors: Orange faint 10 YR 5/6 at 2 to 18"
Other hydric soil indicators: Oxidized most darnels with organic streaking
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: Fe concretion, mn concretion(?)
FNO?.Q?Y
Is the grand surface in,rxdated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface in.rdation or soil saturation.
Water stained leaf litter, organic matting in tuns layer and several uwegetated depressions
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale:
JJU93LTM& OUCH ATIIN NO MTIDWl.E
Is the plant commnity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters met
'.This data form can be used for the Fydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Comnnity Assessut Procedure.
2 Classification aooording to "Soil Tm axay."
DATA Fa;M
FCUr2E OEM OErgHNU]IN MEHW
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1190
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina County: Non
Ppplicant/Oaner. Mathisen Plant Comity #/Nacre: A-6 (100' from edge of water)
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-
oo normal environmental conditions exist at the plait camnity? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed'? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - (If yes, explain on back)
Yes No
VMAT3 N
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominert Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Licpidmbar styraciflua FPCr Sh,T, 11. Cirsiun vulgare FPC H
2. Lonicera ,japonica FPC- V 12. Alliun maderse FPCU- H
3. Urcus pnellos FPGW- Sh,T. 13. Prurella vulgaris FPC- H
4. Pcer rr brm FPC Sh, ,T 14.
5. Juniper s virginiana FPLU- p_ 15.
6. Smilax,rabititblia FPC V 16.
7. Toxicoderchm radicxrs FPC H 17.
8. Potentilla simplex NL H 18.
9. Salvia lyrata FAC- H 19.
10. Sisyrinchiun albidm FPLU H 20.
Percent of damirant species that are OBL, FPLW, and/or FPC 77
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: peroart hydrophytic
SAILS
Series/phase: Cid 9-bgra.p:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: Yellow/orange 10 yr. 5/6 Mottle Colors: Orange 10 yr. 5/8 at 19"
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: Low moisture, no criterion met, appears to be inclusion of non-rydric soil in Cid series.
RdIum
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to freestending water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale:
JLJUSUWrM AL GEF ngmTIDV PAD RATIDNAIE
Is the plant carmnity a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: soils and hydrology do rot corroborate vegetation
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Cammity Assessmnt Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
DATA FISM
FCUrl E aaw DETffl4DATIM MEHW
Field Irrestigator(s): Mirk Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina County: lhion
Ppplic a*JOwrer. M sthisen Plant Cmwity #/Name: B-1
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------- -----------
Do normal envira'rt?ental conditions exist at the plant canwity?
Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?

(If yes, explain on back)
No
Yes
----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - -
------------------
VMATIlN
Indicator Irndicator
Dadnent Plait Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. MNosatis discolor FAG H 11. Carex Frarkii OEL H
2. Euonpus americai s ND/FAc H 12. Heucnera americans ND H
3. Scirpus atrovirens DEL H 13. Toxicodendron radical FAC H
' 4. Glyceria striata CEL H 14. Sium suave CEL H
5. Carya ovata FAQ1 T 15. Sisyrinchium albidm FPLU H
6. Smilax rotundifolia FPC V 16.
7. Pani cum Argatum FAC+ H 17.
8. Allium canes FPGU- H 18.
9. Vitis rohndifolia FPC V 19.
10. 3 us efflsus FALW+ H 20. Le=ryum albidm - Br

Percent of dominant species that are GEL, FAY, and/or FAC 73
Is the hydrgpfnytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrophytic

SOIlS
Series/phase: Cid Stbgrot,p:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No thdetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: 2 YR 6/3 Mottle Colors: 5 YR 5/6
Oilier hydric soil indicators: organic streaking, oorncretims;
Is the hydric soil criterion net? Yes X No
Rationale: streeking and concretions
RdFCULY
Is the ground surface irudated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inixktian or soil saturation.
drainage pattern drift lines
is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: lard pattern and drift line
3JUSCMUMOL DETER4MTIIN ft PATEK E
Is the plant comanity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Ommnity Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Tanaonany."
DATA FUH -
FCUrI E GEM DET6+9 AM METHV
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: Union
Applicant/Over: Mathisen Plant Cominity #/Name: B-2
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field r&-ebook. ---------------------------------------------
Do normal swira'nental caxiitions exist at the plant conwit? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - (If yes, explain on back)
Yes No
VWATIM
Mxlicator Indicator
Dominent Plant Species Status Stratus Dmrff t Plait Species Status Stratn.m
1. Sallvial _rata FAC- H 11.
2. Pblygorun orientale FACU- H 12.
3* lVica mrtica NL H 13.
4. ms alata FACU+ Sh 14.
5. Licpida bar styraciflua FAC Sh 15.
6. Diospyros virginiarra FAC Sh 16.
7. CaTpsis radicaru FAC H 17.
S. Lacbca biemis FAUJ H 18.
9. 19.
1D. 20.
Per'cant of dominant species that are CEL, FACW, and/or FAC 50
is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Raticale: percent hydrophytic
SODS
Series/phase: SL9roLp:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Ux&2nTiined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipetn present.? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 Y 5/6 Mottle Colors:
Oilier hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met.? Yes No X
Rationale:
FNDiam
Is the ground surface Ardated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-staiding water in pit/soil probe hole: below 18 ir&es -
List other field evidance of surface inrxiation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators met
JIUSELTM& DEfEMATIDV AM RATEWLE
Is the plait community a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: soils and hydrology do not corroborate vegetation
1 This data form can be used for the Fydric Soil Asst Procedure and the Plan
Carmnity Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

t
1

1
t

DATA FUN
ROUr1W OEM DErER4WTIDd MEMD1
Field Rvestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Incur Trail State: North Carolina Cou ty: Union
Applicant Dmw: Mathisen Plant Comwity #/Name: B-3
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do normal enviraTwtal conditions exist at the plant ccmanity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
---- -------------------------------
Yes--- No-X-- (If yes, oplain on back)
VMATJMN
indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species States Stratum
1. Peer r.br m FPC T
2. Licpidgtw styraciflua FPCt T
3. Carya meta FPLU Sh,T,
4. Ulmus alata FPCU+ Sp,Sh
5. Galiun tinctoriun FPGW H
6. Heudnera americ ena FPLU V
7. Salix nigra DaL Sh
8. Lycapm an°ricarus DEL H
9. Fe nthorim sedoides DEL H
10. Leucabryun albid n - Bra
11. Smilax roti-dfolia FPC V
12. Sysyrinchium albidm (ND) FPGU V
13. Solidago sp. (ND) - H
14. Carex caroliniana FPLW H
15. Carex Lupulina DEL H
16. Carex tribuloides FPGW+ H
17. Brow secalirus NL H
18. Festuca elatior NL H
19. Oxalis violaeca NL H
20. helica mutica NL H
Percent of dxnirrarnt species that are Dal., FPLW, and/or FAC 45
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: -percent hydrophytic
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid &JogrCuP:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No U7determined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No x Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Gray brawn 2.5 y 6/2 Mottle Colors: 5 y 6/3, 10 yr. 6/8 (faint), 10 yr. 4/4
(faint) at 12"
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: low chrama with mottles
F?fi3il.ObY
Is the grand surface inuxiatsd? Yes No X Surface wager depth:
Is the soil saturation? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 15 inches
List other field evidence of surface irxxdation or soil saturation.
8" capillary water. 15" water table
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X %
Rationale: water table in root zone
aJRE 1JrfII1rI4L MIUMAATJM Pro RATEWLE
Is the plat comnnitY a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: greater than 25 percent hydreo ytic vegetation with hydric
soil and hydrology
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Co wity Assesm* Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Tammy."
MTA FaH
falfM 0N5l.TE DETRMTIDV MEfFfW
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spengler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: Union
Ppplicent/Nmr: Mathisen Plant Comnnity #/Nave: Br-4
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do nonrel envirawe ntal conditions exist at the plant com pity? Yes X No (If no, explain on bad<)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? --------------------------------------------- - - - -
Yes - - - No - X - - (If yes, explain on back)
VEGETATION
Indicator Irdicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Daninant Plant Species Status Stratus
1. Licpidarrbar styraciflua FACt T 11.
2. Quercts stellata FAW T 12.
3. RUi s serotina FACU Sh 13.
4. Junipers virginiare FPLU- Sh 14.
5. Ulmus alata FACIJ+ Sh 15.-
6.' Smilax rotsdifolia FAC H,V 16.
7. Parthenocissus quinc}efolia FPC V 17.
8. Nyssa sylvatica FPC Sig. 18.
9. Carya ovata FAGU H 19.
10. 20.
Percent of dominant species that are DEL, FXV, at:/or FAC 50
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrephytic Sms
Series/phase: Cid S4roLp:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Yellow gray clay 2.5 y 6/6 Mottle Colors: Mediun orange 10 yr 4/4, 2.5y 6/4 at 10-15"
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion net? Yes No -X
Rationale: no criteria met, bright matrix
Rd FUM
Is the gmrd surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-staling water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface in elation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: No water at 18" - soil seems sarewhat poorly drained only
1J MDMCrM AL DET9MATJ1N AND R4T1INgE
Is the plant camunity a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: vegetation rot supported by soils and hydrology
1 This data form can be used for the FWric Soil Assesm ent Procedure and the Plan
Comunity Assemott Procedure.
2 Classification acoxding to "Soil Ta>aonony."
DATA FU H
RUDE UEETE DEfB+WTIIN MEHW
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina County: Union
Ppplicant/Nmr: Mathisen Plant Cmmnity #/Name: B-5
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data fonn or a field r&Amoik.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do nomal envircrnrsntal cordticns exist at the plant carmnity? Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No X (If yes, explain on back)
-------------------------------------------------------
vaGUaTmu
indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratun Dominant Plant Species Status Stratun
1. Peer rubmn FPC/OBL Sp,T 11. Carya glabra FPQi T
2. Juniperus virginiana FPCU- Sh 12. Carex sp. - H
3. Smilax rotuxdifolia FPC V,H 13. Lmcobr" albidm - Bryo
4. Elymis canadensis FPC H 14.
5. Carex tribuloides FPCW+ H 15.
6. Sisyrindniun albidm FPLU H 16.
7. Peniam microcarpon NL H 17.
8. Dicram,m conde nsatum Br 18.
9. Ulnas alata FPCU* Sh 19.
10. Parthenocissus quirgefblia FPC H 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OSL, FPCW, and/or FAC 54
Is the hydrcphytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydraphytic
sons
Series/p m: Cid 99r o p:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Yellow-grey 2J-y-6/4 Mottle Colors: 10 yr. 5/6 at 12"
Other hydric soil indicators: Slightly sulphitic, organic streaking pH 4.7
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: high organics and prodx.?tion of hydrae sulfide
HdRo Y
' Is the groaid surface inndated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 15"
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Cleared ground, dark litter, rings on trees
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale:
JUIUMLTM& OEi i4TIIN PJtD ia4TID?11 E
Is the plant camnity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: site directly adjaoa7t upland; may be upland soil type
hydrologically affected by iaca t wetland
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
Ommity Assessu t Procedure.
2 Classification aan'ding to "Soil Taxonomy."
1

u
1

1

1
1
1
1
DATA Fam
TiQMW GEIfE OETS HIr1A IN WNW
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Cori ty: Union
Ppplicent/Urr: Mathisen Plant Comnnity #/Name: Gl
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do normal enviramental conditions exist at the plant ccmmnity?
Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been sigiificently disturbed?
Yes No (If yes, explain on back)
-------------------------------------------------------
VWAT.IDV
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Strati Danirent Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Arnica acaulis NC H
2. Pgrostis hyemalis FPC H
3. Pndrepogon sooparius NL H
4. Oxalis violacea NL H
5. Houstonia caerulea NL H
6. Fragaria virginiana FA-C-- H
7. Jcniperus virginiena FPCU- Sh,T
8. Crataegus flabellata NL Sh
9. Oerothera laciniata FPCU H
10. Oxalis stricta NL H
11. Ulms alata FPCU+ T Sh,
12.
13.
14.
15. Cladina rangiferina - Br
16. Pseudopam elia caperata - Bryo
17. Panmotrem cetratam - Br
18. Cladonia oylindrica - Br yo
19. Cladcnia cristatella - Br
20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FPLV, and/or FPC 14
Is the hydrephytic vegetation criterion met? Yes - No X
Rationale: percent hydrophytic
SOILS
Series/phase: Cid Subgrmp:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 Y 6/6 Mottle Colors: 10 YR 5/6, 2.5 Y 6/4
Other hydric soil indicators: Nbrgar?ese concretions - faint
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale:
HY
Is the grand surface iru dated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-staxiing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inxdation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion net? Yes No X
' Rationale: no indicators met
Jl RI9H3M K DET8#9AT1IN PM RAT MOLE
Is the plant amenity a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: no parameters met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assesswnt Procedure and the Plan
Camnrnity Assessment Procecin.
2 Classification aomrding to "Soil Ta ummy."
DATA FUH
FCUr2C DUE GETUHDATDN hEHW
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: BxHan Trail State: North Carolina Carty: Lhion
PpplicaeJ&mr: Mathisen Plant Comity #/Name: D-6 .
Note: If a more detailed site description is recessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do normal enviramw(tal conditions exist at the plant cmimnity? Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, ad/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
- -------------------------------
Yes--- No----(Ifyes, explain on -back)
VMATmV
Irdcator lxhcator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum mdnerrt Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Fraxim s americEm FAW T 11.
2. Quests phellos FPCW- T 12.
3. Lonieera japonica FPC H,V 13.
4. Erianthas gigantea FPCW H 14.
5. Carex granularis FACW H 15.
6. Carex lupulina GBL H 16.
7, 17.
8. ?•
9. 19•
1D. 20•
Per'oert of d3Mnatet species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 86
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: gra Mmid marsh
SAS
Series/please: Cid SubgroLp:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Hist;osol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present?- Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 2.5 Y 5/3 Mottle Colors: 10 YR 5/6, 2.5 Y 5/2
Other hydric soil indicators: Oxidized root dwmis color 7.5 YR 4/6, pH 50
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
' Rationale: oxidized root deamels
RdR3 aY
Is the grand surface Andated? Yes X No Surface water depth: 0-12 indees
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: surface
List other field evidence of surface in rdation or soil saturation.
depressianal, bare soil
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X ?b
' Rationale: im ndation, saturation thraig,mt Solum
JJU3H3MK DET6irTl ATIN PAD RUMPLE
Is the plant camnity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters net
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assesmert Procedure and the Plat
Camanity Assess er t Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Tm axrty."
I
DATA FUH
' FWW 01&M OET6WTIEN hETr W
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
' Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: thion .
Applicatt/Owner: Mathisen Plant Cormnity #/Name: E-1
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field r&2bodk.
---------------------------------------- ---------------
Do normal enviromwtal conditions exist at the plantcomnity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
' --------------
x
(I
X
No
Yes ---------------
-------
----
--
-
---
VHEfAT1>al

Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Licpidaabar styraciflua FAC+ T 11. Eleocharis dYmm a L
2. Quercus phellos FACW- T 12. Ponic m microcarpon NL
3. Caren arnectas FALW H 13. ar s ta?uis ND/FAC
' 4. Lonicera japonica FAC- H 14.
5. Junes efft.s FACW+ H 15.
6. 16.-
7. 17.
8. Lolium multiflor m NL H 18.
9. Nyssa sylvatica FAC Sh 19.
10. Arnica acaulis NC H 27.

Percent of domrinett species that are DEL, FACW, and/or FAC 58
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hMdrophytic, dominated by willow oak
__i!kl
' Series/phrase: Cid SubgroLp: z
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No lhdetennined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
' Is the soil: M ttled? Yes X No G1 Yes No X
Matrix Color: Grey 5 Y 5/3 Mottle Colors: Orange 1D YR 5/6, 10 YR 6/1
Other hydric soil indicators: Water table 12"
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
' Rationale: Oxidized root charnels
Rdre m
r Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes X No
Depth to free-stading water in pit/soil probe hole: Yes - peraquic mime water table at 12 inches
List other field evidmoe of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Capillary water - Canbarns holes
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: water table - seasonal wetness
a UMMMM I_ DEF6ir MTJM AND FATMAE
' Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters met
This data form can be used for the FWric Soil Assessmmrrt Procedure and the Plan
03MMity Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Tmaonomy."
1

1

1
1
11'

1
1

t

DATA FUH
FCL f2E 0NSM CEIERM ATIDV MEiH W
Field Intestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/1/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina County: Union
Ppplicar*J weer: Mathisen Plant Cam?nity #/Name: E-2
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do nonrel enviraraantal ar ditions exist at the plat camr pity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been sig ificently disturbed?
Yes No X (If yes, explain on bad<)
-------------------------------------------------------
VHGETATJM
Indicator Indicator
Dominertt Plant Species Status Stratum Damnant Plant Species Status Stratun
1. Liquidambar styraciflua FPC+ T, .
2. Pcer rtbrun FPC T, Sp.
3. Baccharis halmnifolia FPC Sh
4. Rt us allegheniensis NL Sh
5. Partherocissus cpincWFolia FPC Sh
6. Toxicodendron radians FPC H
7. Lonicera japonica FPC- Sh
8. Al lium schoanprasA N_ H
9. Solidago canadersis FPLiJ H
10. Dicraw condersatum - H
11..
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
1s.
19.
20.
Percent of dominant species that are CE L, FALV, ad/or FPC 73
Is the hydrgtytic vegetation criterion net? Yes X No
Rationale: pew h tic
SMLS
Series/phase: Ligx-C Subgroup: Z
d Coplex
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetemmned
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Yellow-gray 2.5 Y 6/6 Mottle Colors: Orarje 1t1YR 6/8, small 10 YR 7/1 at 15"
Oftr hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion net? Yes No X
Rationale: no criteria met
Is the grand surface irurdated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface im-dation or soil saturation.
Drainage patterns at confluance of two streams
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators
1RI.SM]CTMK DEM?V4 TIIM M RATMWE
Is the plant camnnity a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: another facultative dominanted upland, vegetation not supported
by soils and hydroloay
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Pssessnent Procedure and the Plan
Comanity Assessrent.Proced re.
2 Classification according to "Soil TaxorM."

DATA FORA
RUDE DEVE DEiHHMTIM MEHW
Field Divestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spengler Date: 511/90
Project/Site: Irxiian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: lhion
Ppplicmt/O#w: Methisen Plant O mmnity #/Name: E-3
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do normal enviramental conditions exist at the plant amnity? Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been sigiificantly disturbed? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes - No - - - - (If yes, Wlain on bad<)
VECETACM
Didicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratus Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Pons copallina N_ Sh U.
2. Ligustn.m sinalse NC Sh 12.
3. RaTx iculus sardo s FPCt H 13.
' 4. Pnn,s serotina FAW Sh 14.
5. 15•
6. 16•
7, 17.
S. 18•
9. 19•
10. 20•
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FPCW, and/or FPC 25
Is the hydrq:trytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X
' Rationale: percent hydrcphytic
Sim.S
Series/phase: Ligxm Cid Complex &4roup:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histnsol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale:
HYi1UM
t Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale:
1JUSIUdD& DErB+WPM PPD MT Nq E
1 Is the plant o mtnity a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: no parameters met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure aid the Plan
Ccm mity Assessmait Procedure.
2 Classification accordirg to "Soil Tammy."
1
1

1

I
1

DATA FGH
RGUF rE G&TE D=M+IMTIDd MEd}
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina County: Union
Ppplicant/Dmr: Mathisen Plant Comtnity #/Name: F-1
Note: If a more detailed site description is recessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental mrditions exist at the plant a mmnity?
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes X No (If ro, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, ad/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes X No (If yes, explain on badk) Burnt over then filled (probably stream dredge material)
-------------------------------------------------------
VEHATIEN
Indicator Indicator
Dcminr`rnt Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Parthenocissuis cpinncuefolia FAC H
2. Unicera japonica FPC- V
3. Smilax rotundifolia FPC V
4. Rubus allegneniensis NL Sh
5. Geum allepicum FAQ4 H
6. Pcer r bran FPC Sa
7. Ulmus alata FPCU+ Sh,Sp
8. Campsis radicas FAC V
9. Solidago caradensis FPCU H
10. Al l ium c fx>adense FPCU H
11. Panic um vi rgaU.m ND/FPC+ H
12. Iniperu.is virginiara ND/FPCU- Sh
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
1s.
19.
20.
Percent of dominant species that are CBL, FACW, ad/or FPC 55
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: perecent hydrephytic
sons
Series/phase: Cid SubgMp:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
' Matrix Dolor: Medium bron 25-y 5/4 Mottle Colors: Orange (in play zone) 2.5 y 5/6
Other hydric soil indicators:
is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: Ashes in subsoil sugg est burning and filling in the past. Adjacent unfilled soils are
upland in character.
FNiJUM
' Is the grwnd surface inrrlated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Top of bark beside charnel 3 feet higher than water.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion net? Yes No X
' Rationale:
JUREEMMMK DEd13MATEN PM FATEW E
Is the plant commnity a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: disturbed area determination shows no previous wetland
for site, vegetation rot supported by soil and hydrology
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plan
ComWity Assesme t Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonmy."
DATA FOAM
FCUrJ[?E U&M DErER4MTI1N MEHW
' Field Investigator(s): Nark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina County: Lhion
Applicant/Nner: Mathison Plant Commnity #/Name: F-2
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant. Dann pity? Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes --- No----(Ifyes,ex------------------------------------
VH£fTATIIN
' Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dim ent Plant Species Status Stratun
1. LigAdambar styraciflua FPCt T 11. Gam canedense FPC H
2. Acer rLbrun FPC T,Sa 12. Lonicera japonica FPC V
3. Uln s alata FPC11} Sa,Sh 13.
' 4. Pnn.is serotina FPCU Sh 14.
5. Salvia lyrata FPC H 15.
6. Pmsonia tabernaam tana FPCW H 16. Allium canadense ND/FPCU-
7. Sterile composite - 17.
8. Sanicula canads sis NL H 18.
9. 19.
10. PanicLm virgatun FPC+ H 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FPCW, 2nd/or FPC 66
Is the hydroplYytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydr0pf>)/tic
SAS
' Series/phase: Cid SLbgrcLP:Z
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Lhdetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gley+ed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Light gray 2.5 7-5/4 Mottle Colors: Yellow, br. orange (smell) lA yr 2/2 at 18"
Other hydric soil indicators: Oxidized root dwnels, concretions
Is the l-ydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: root channels oxidized, concretions
HdRUGY
' Is the gravid surface iruxiated? Yes X No Surface water depth: 0-1 inch
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-staling water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface ini-dation or soil saturation.
Some spotty?ooling fran last night's rain (Rain of 1")
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: hydric soil diaracters positive
1Ja.'SECrJD& DEIEtMTIIN PM RATMOLE
I Is the plant om nity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters net
This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessnent.Procedire and the Plan
Comanity Assessm nt Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxcnony."
' DATA Fam
UIDE ONUM DEOi 111N METit W
Field Lwestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
' Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: Won
Ppplicant/Okner: Mathisen Plant Comnnity #/Name: F-3
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field rotebook.
'
- - ----
-
----------------
normal environmental conditions exist at the plant a mnitp.
Do
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
' (If yes, explain on back) In stream darnel corridor- - -
No
X
Yes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
-
-
VWAT3N

Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratun Dominant Plait Species Status Stratxm
' 1. Caren vulpinoidea OBL H 11.
2. Sol idago sp. - H 12.
3. Carex lurida DEL H 13.
' 4. Smilax rota difb is FPC V 14.
5. Ulmus alata FAQ Sa,T,Sh 15.
6. Pacer r bruo FAC T 36.
7. Liquidambar styraciflua FAG} T 17.
' 8. Parthernocissus cpinc efolia FAG V 18. Allium caiederse MD/FALU- H
9. 19. Impatiens capensis ND/0BL H
10. 20. Carex frariki i ND/03L H
'
Percent of dominant species that are DEL, FPCW, and/or FPC 60
Is the hydrephytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydroMAic, although dominated by wingE elm. Two dominant arrJ two no'}-domirent
' obligates present
Series/phase: Cid Subgr'ap:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No thdeterdr ed
Is the soil a Histcsol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
' Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Medium gray-brown 2.5 Y 57/2 Mottle Colors: Bright orange 10 YR 4/4 at 30-20"
Other hydric soil indicators: Low chroma/mottled
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: low chram and mottled
FtYD ROGY
' Is the grouid surface inndated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil sahrated? Yes X No
Depth to free-sta-drg water in pit/soil probe hole: Sahfrated at 1811, gw at 22"
List other field evidence of surface in.ndaticn or soil saturation.
Bare soil, drift lines, water-stained leaves, buttressing sweetpm, drainage patterns
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: several indicators present
3 HUMOL TIDd AND FATMOLE
Is the plant commnity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters met
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assesmit Procedure and the Plan
Ccmmnity Alssessrent. Prooedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."

y

DATA Phi
F?lf'IAE ?6LfE OL?6t+?19tIDd hETFiiI?
Field Irnestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: B*dian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: Lhion
Ppplicant/0wner: Mathisen Platt Wm pity #/Name: F-4
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bad< of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do normal enYvirahme tal conditions exist at the plat camnity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, ad/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No X (If yes, splain on back)
-------------------------------------------------------
VHETATIDd
Irdicator Irdicator
Dominant Plat Species Status Stratum Daninat Plat Species Status Stratum
1. Pcer r bnm FPC T,
2. Quercus phellos FPLW T
3. Licpidmbar styraciflua FPC+ T
4. Ulmis alata FPLU+ Sh
5. To dcodendron radio em FPC H,V
6. Comas racemosa NL Sh
7. Glyceria striata ®L/ND H
8. Paniam microcarpon NL H
9. Sisyrinchiun albidm FPCU H
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
is. -
19.
20.
Percent of dominent species that are Q3., FXV, and/or FPC 64
Is the hydreph is vegetation criterion net? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hyddrophytic plus presence of obligate nardomihant
sms
Series/phase: Cid SLbgrcLP:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Ux&-ermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Dolor: Brom* ra 2.5 T-5/4 Mottle Colors: Gray, brt. orange 10 yr. 4/4, faint 2.5 y
at 15"
Other hydric soil indicators: Oxidized root charnels, iron concretions
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: oxidized root dhannels, iron concretions
Is the ground surface inxdated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-staling water in pit/soil probe hole: not foul
List other field evidmm of surface irxrlation or soil saturation.
Cleared grand, darker litter, crayfish burrows
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: several indicators plus hydric soil characters
JIUSDUMOL DEfER4MTJM Pro R4TIDNYF
Is the plat cammity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters net
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil As tt Procedure aid the Plat
Wmi ty Assesmnxtt ProcecLm
2 Classification according to "Soil Tammy."

1

DATA Fam
RDUf1TE O EDE DEffRtMTIDNd MEnIW
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail Stage: North Carolina Couity: lhion
Pppliant/Nmr: Mathisen Plant Canamity #/Name: F-5
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data fonn or a field rotebodt.
-------------------- -----------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant co mnity?
Yes X No (If no, explain on hack)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No X (If yes, explain on bad<)
-------------------------------------------------------
VH1C<TATIN
Irdicator Judicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Urc s p,ellos FPLW T U.
2. LicpidamSar styracif1ua FPC+ T 12.
3. Ulmis alata FACU+. Sh,T, 13.
4. Pcer nbrw FPC T, 14.
5. Viburr m pnnifolium FPW Sh 15.
6. Toxiaxhr rcn radians FPC H,V 16.
7. Smilax roburdifolia FPC V 17.
8. Lonicera japonica FAC H 18.
9. Partheiocissus cpin%efolia FPC H 19.
10. Caren grarularis FPLW H 20. Leucobrycm.sp. - Br
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FXV , and/or FPC 71
Is the hydro tytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: oercent hvdrophAic

Series/phase: Cid 34rouP:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No L x&xrmired
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes -'No
Matrix Colon: 2.5 Y 6/4 Mottle Colors: 10 YR 6/8, 10 YR 4/4 at 15"
Other hydric soil indicators: Concretions, heavy fibrous organics in A horizon.
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: concretions, organic tunic layer
Is the ground surface imrdated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inrdation or soil saturation.
Water-stained surface layer, drift lines, bare soil, buttressing.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion net? Yes X No
Rationale: several indicators including tree franc buttressing
1f151111 fID?Y?L DErER4MTZN Pro RATEIKE
Is the plant carmnity a wetland? Yes X No
(rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters met
1 This data form an be used for the Fydric Soil Assameit Procedure ad the Plat
Camanity Assamit Procedure.
2 Classificatim according to "Soil Tammy."
DATA FUH
FCUr2E OWE D}=fUM ATIiN MERM
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: lhion
Applic nt/Oxw: Madmen Plait Comwity #/Name: F-6
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
--------------------------------------------------------
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant cam?,nity? Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, ad/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? ------------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes - - - Nb - - - - (If yes, explain on bacdk)
VWATIN
Indicator Indicator
Da inant Plant Species Status Stratum Dartirent Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Quartos phellos FALW T, 11.
2. Toxicodendran radians FPC V,H 12.
3. Carex grarularis FPLW H 13.
4. Pcer rtbn.m FAC Sp 14.
5. Liquidmbar styraciflua FPC+ Sp,Sh 15.
6. Ulnas alata FALL T= Sp 16.
7. Sisyrinchium albidum FAC11 H 17.
8.
9. 19.
10. 20•
Percent of dominant species that are GBL, FACW, and/or FPC 73
Is the hydrgtr tic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrophytic
SOI1S
Series/phase: Cid Subgrap:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Uidetennined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: 10 YR 6/4 Mottle Colors: 10 YR 6/8 at 5 to 18 ind?es (12 inches)
Other hydric soil indicators: concretions
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: concretions
Rdre m
Is the grarnd surface in r dated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inndation or soil saturation.
Bare soil, driftline, water-stained leaves depressional areas
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: several indicators plus hydric soil characters
JII N II I I r, F P04 M ft RATENU
Is the plant camunity a wetlad? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters net
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessrent Procedure and the Plan
Cammnity Assemaht Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
DATA FUH -
ROUTIW HIM CEfEFi4MTff bEnW
Field Irwestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/50
Project/Site: Mxlian Trail State: North Carolina County: lhicn
Ppplicant/Ooner: Mathisen Plant Comnnity #/Name: G-1
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
--------------------------------------------------------
Do normal ervira mff7tal conditions exist at the plant camtnity? Yes No - (If ro, explain on .bad<)
Has the vegetation, soils, ad/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes No ((If yes, x
-------------------------------------------------------
U: r-:1: H

Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Coreopsis major NL H 11. Lonicera japonica FPC H
2. Krigia dandelion NC H 12. Vitis rotirKdifolia FPC H,V
3. Vaccinam stamineA FPCU Sh 13. Ligaidambar styraciflua FPC+ Sh
4. Qxrcus alba FAW 14. Oxalis di1enii NL H
5. Urct.us marila-dca NL T, 15. Penstema7 laevigabus FPC H
6. Salvia lyrata FPC- H 16. Pcer rtbrr.m FPC Sh
7. Smilax rohr0fol is FPC V 17.
8. Nyssa sylvatica FPC Sh 18.
9. CwW ovata FPC1J Sh 19.
10. Ulm.us alata FPCU+ 2,0.

Percent of dominant species that are CBL, FAM and/or FPC 42
Is the hydrq:hytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: percent hydrepnytic
SODS
Series/phase: Cid 94roLp:2
i
d
ne
Is the soil on the hrydric soils list? Yes X No Uxletecm
Is the soil a Histosol? 'Yes No X Histic epipe(tn present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 10 R 4/2 at 4" belay A horizon Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators: soil very rocky, could not dig pit
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators present
HYD?.Q?Y
Is the grand surface inrdated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-staxiing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface ini-elation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met'? Yes No X
Rationale: 12 inch culvert collects storn ster from watershed of site. Widely scattered depressional
areas with water stained leaves. Well-drained.
Jl1Rl.5?fID?YaL 00IMATIDd PM RUENALE
Is the plait commnity a wetlerrP Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: no criteria met
This data form can be used for the "ic Soil Asses m * Procedire and the Plan
Om"ity Assemrent Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonary."

DATA FEM
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Coutty: Lhion
Ppplic a*JO ner: Mathisen Plant Cm pity #/Narm:: G-2
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the badk of data form or a field notebook.
Do nontel envir ie7tal corditions exist at the plant a m pity? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes X No (If no, explain on bad<)
Fos the vegetation, soils, aid/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? --------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - -
Yes - - - No - X - - (If yes, explain on back)
VMAT]IN
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Platt Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Acer rLbr m FPC SH,T 11.
2. Junipenls virginiana FPL1J- Sp 12.
3. Carya ovata FPCU Sh 13.
4. Vitis rotuxdifolia FPC V 14.
5. Liquidmbar styraciflua FAC Sh 15.-
6. 16.
7. Urcus marilatdica NL T 17.
8. Corrus sp. Sh 18•
9. Coreopsis major NL H 19.
10. Medola virginia a NL H 20.
Percent of dominant species that are CEL, FPCW, and/or FPC 44
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: percent hydroptnytic
SAS
Series/phase: Cid &Jroup:2
Is the soil on the Wic soils list? Yes x No Lhdetenmined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No x Histic epipedan present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Oolor: Yella*-orange 2.5 Y 6/6 Mottle Colors: Brt. Orange - weak 10 YR 5/8 pH 5.1 at 18"
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
I Rationale: m indicators met
RdR31W
Is the ground surface in dated? Yes No X Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inrdation or soil saturation.
None
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators present
JIJUSaWfID& Otit6RWTIIN PAO Po4TIIME
Is the plant camnnity a wetland? Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: no parameters net
1 This data form can be used for the Flydric Soil Asseme7t Procedure and the Plan
Omwity Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
DATA FUH
Fawn GEM DEII:FNr IM hEHW
Field Investigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: I Indian Trail Stage: North Carolina Canty: lhion
Applicant/0wner: Mathisen Plant Comity #/Name: H-1
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field rotebock.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do ronmai envimmB-tal conditions exist at the plant commnity? Yes No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? yes Yes --- No ---- (I-- - -in on
---ado) -------------------------------
VH?TATIDd
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Strab? Daninant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Pins taeda FPC T 11. Querns velutina NL _ p
2. Hieracium venos NL H 12.
3. Carex caroliniam FAN H 13.
4. Vaccinium sp. HAS 14.
5. Nyssa sylvatica FR?S _ 15.
6. Pinus virginiana NL Sp 16.
7. Houstonia caerulea FAC H 17.
8. Acer n.bnm FAC H 18.
9. Licljidambar styraciflua FAC} Si,Sp 19.
10. Querns marilandica NL Sh 20.
Percent of d3mirnent species that are OBL, FALV, ad/or FAC 64
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hrydraptytic
SM-S
Series/phase: Cid 9-bgroLp: 2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: Yella* brown 2.5 -y6/4-6/6 Mottle Colas: Bright yellow 10 yr. 6/8, 10 yr. 7/14-1511
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: no indicators present at 15 nod's, but cola goes predominantly low chram mottles
just below 18 incises
FIUUJEf
Is the ground surface inndated? Yes. No X 9xfaoe water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free-stading water in pit/soil probe hole: 8"
List other field evidence of surface in rdation or soil saturation.
Cap water at 4", ground water at 8"
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: high water table
DErgHBA M ft R4TI WLE
Is the plant camanity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: 1tXl feet from Margin of obvious wetland area.
Soils Marginal, but plants and vegetation support decision.
1 This data fonts can be used for the Hydric Soil Asses a t Procedure and the Plan
Cm unity Assessu3 t Proced".
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxan W-11
DATA FOr'H
FtUTBE 01&M DETEFihQN M WNW
Field Irnestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: Indian Trail State: North Carolina Canty: Union
Ppplicant/Owner: Mathisen Plant Comnnity #/Name: H-2
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do nornai envirama?ttal conditions exist at the plant co mnity? Yes x No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetaticn, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
-- -a- -------------------------------
?- Yes--- No-X-- (I--- explain on
VEUATIDV
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plait Species Status Stratum Do inert Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Pcer rr brum FPC T,Sh 11.
2. Pius taeda FPC Sh 12.
3. Queras marilandica NL H 13.
4. Hieracium ve msun NL H 14.
5. Vaccinium stamineum FPW Sh 15.
6. Carya glabra FPCU Sh 16.
7. Quercus phellos FALV Sh 17. -
8. Carya ovata FPCU Sh 18.
9. Krigia dandelion N; H 19. l.eucobrytm albidm &yo
10. Nyssa sylvatica FPC Sh 20. Cladina raxgiferina - Br
Percent of dominant species that are CBL, FPLV, and/or FPC 45
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion net? Yes No X
i Rationale: pendent hydrephytic, facultative dmdnated (Pcer/Pins)
SM S
Series/phase: Cid SLbgMp:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetennined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: M3ttled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No X
Matrix Color: 10 yr. 5/8 at 18" --pH 4.6 Mottle Colors:
Other Wic soil indicators:
Is the dydric soil criterion met? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators present
FNQ3.OIaY
' Is the ground surface iced? Yes No X Surfaoe water dapth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No X
Depth to free--standing water in pit/soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface imdation or soil saturation.
None
Is the wetland hydrology criterion net? Yes No X
Rationale: no indicators met
3 LTM#L DErSH ATIDV Pro MTEW
Is the plan commnity a wetlarP Yes No X
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: no parameters net
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessmit Procedure and the Plan
0munity Assesmeit Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
DATA FUH
FCUrDE M M DEfGWTJM bEliW
Field Iwestigator(s): Mark Ray/Jim Spangler Date: 5/2/90
Project/Site: Irxtian Trail State: North Carolina County: Union
Ppplicff*JDwer: Mathisen Plant. Comity #/Name: H-3
Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do norral envirarnental ocrditions exist at the plant oaimanity? Yes X No (If no, explain on back)
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
- - ---- -------------------------------
Yes - - -No -X - explain on baJ<)
VMATIEN
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dcmirat Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Carex carolirriana FPLW H 11.
2. Eleodnaris tenuis FPLW H 12.
3. Urcus phellos FPLW ?S _ 13.
4. Smilax rotrxiifblia FPC H 14.
5. Nyssa sylvatica FPC Sh,Sa 15.
6. Hyperion densiflor.m FPLW- Sh 16.
7. Cam arrectats FPLV H 17. -
8. Liquidambar styraciflua FPC+ Sh 18. Pulacamiun palustre DI
9. 19.
10. 20. Dicrain soopariun - a-yo
Parcernt of dominant species that are O3L, FPLW, and/or FPC 1m
Is the hA phytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale: percent hydrep7ytic
SDIl.S
Series/phase: Cid 94ra.p:2
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes X No
Matrix Color: Gray gley 5 Y 611 Mottle Colors: Orange 10 YR 5/6, 10 YR 5/8, pH 4.4
Other hydric soil indicators: 2 inch peaty epipedon
Is the hydric soil criterion net? Yes X No
Rationale: Gley, low dram and mottles, peaty hmis layer (less than 6 inches)
RdJU-GGY
' Is the ground surface inundatecP Yes X No Surface water depth: 0 to 3 indnes
Is the soil saturatecP Yes X No
Depth to free-stading water in pit/soil probe hole: 0 - 2 inches
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Dark leaf litter, shallow root zone of tip?ps, buttressing of oaks?
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No
Rationale:
JIUSEMIDK T1DM Pro RUMPLE
Is the plant canm ity a wetland? Yes X No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision: all parameters met
1 This data form an be used for the Hydric Soil Assessnert Procedure and the Plan
wmu ity Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Tacrary."

A

1

1

VIII. SITE SOIL BORINGS

CAI 4co
f? CRS
lo, 1. s e MEgOO ,/ •"? ^ ` cam, eE?
0
1 ", \ Pt NS
oo,
1a, ??•
tri
^t r O s v
-c
1.0
`?.
P in!(. Lb
N ?k\? ?UOOS ?I7 ?? W v
ejYY
J'8' 1 010
I `
'I
-r ,t
\
NN /*
/I "N
_ ?i .• .. ?1,'1 ? ? ?,! ? - -,? '• '?? 1. ? - ?? -
ri ?\ - ?{ ?':.Y .?-f?/?'.? ? 1?? •\ 4?M , Yom- `\ 1 `\/ f' i?/ N"?, I ,
14
Odom
Cl
04
eol
,
vpp
6 ?)Vat 4,7
a. Ao,
Cl
Q,
_ r 1
141
O\S\
r, t>l /? r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
12.5
DESCRIPTION
To soil Woods
Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
Stiff Brown Silt
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Tan Silt

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
of Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
.ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-0
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, N.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING
DEP'
(FT
0.0
0.2
0.5
3.0
12.5
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
rH
p 10 20 30 40 60 80 10(
To oods
SClayey Silt Moist
Ver Stiff Brown Cla a Silt
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Tan Silt
with Rock Fragments - Stiff to Hard
Drilling
Boring Terminated at 12.5 Ft.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
of Boring.
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST"BORING RECORD'
BORING NUMBER B-1
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, N.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAWENGINEERING
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.1
3.0
? ,Da
1
1
1
1
i
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION
(FT.)
n
Topsoil Woods
Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
Stiff to Very Stiff Brown Tan Silt
with Rock Fragments

Boring Terminate at 20 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-2
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING
*PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
3.5
12.5
DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION
(FT.)
To soil Woods
Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
Very Stiff Brown Tan Silty

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered.at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST` BORING . RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-3
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW:ENGINEERING
0 PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
1.8
1
i
1 12.0
15.0
? .oo
t
1
i
1
1

DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION
(FT.)
n
Topsoil
Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
Stiff Brown Tan Silt

Very Stiff Brown Tan Silt
Hard Brown Tan Silt
Boring Terminated at 20 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST BORING RECORD J
BORING NUMBER B-4
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING
• PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.4
3.0
8.0
12.0
DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION
(FT.)
n
Topsoil Woods
Stiff Red Brown Slightly Sandy Clayey
Silt
Stiff Orange Brown Slightly Sandy
Silt

Very Stiff Tan Silt

Boring Terminated at 12 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-5
DATE DRILLED 4-24-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING
*PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
t

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.4
2.0
12.0
1

1
1
1
1
1

DESCRIPTION ELEVATION
(FT.)
n
Topsoil (Woods) - Weathered Rock
Under Fallen Tree
Stiff Red Brown Slightly Sandy Clayey
Silt
Very Stiff to Hard Green Brown Silt

Boring Terminated at 12 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST BORING RECORD l
BORING NUMBER B-6
DATE DRILLED 4-24-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE:1 OF 1 j
LAW ENGINEERING --
* PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
2.0
9.2
DESCRIPTION
To soil Woods
Stiff Red Brown Cla a Silt
Hard Brown Silt

Auger Refusal at 9.2 Feet. No Ground
Water Encountered at Time of Boring

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 3d 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-7
DATE DRILLED 4-25-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.1
2.0
9.5
DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION
(FT.)
n
Topsoil Woods
Very Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Tan Silt

Auger Refusal at 9.5 Feet. No Ground
Water Encountered at Time of Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-8 j
DATE DRILLED 4-25-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
A:LAW ENGINEERING
PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
2.5
12.0
DESCRIPTION
To soil Woods
Stiff Brown Clayey Silt Wet
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Tan Silt
with Rock Fragments

Boring Terminated at 12 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-9
DATE DRILLED 4-25-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
1= ,it -
LAW "'ENGINEERING
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
3.0
12.0
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil Woods
Stiff Brown Tan Clayey Silt
Very Stiff Brown Tan Silt

Boring Terminated at 12 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100

TEST.'BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-10
DATE DRILLED 4-25-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045.
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
`.,LAW ENGINEERING
iJzk'T1f
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
8.0
12.0
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION
(FT.)
To soil Woods
Very Stiff Tan Silt

Hard Tan Silt with Alternating Seams
of Hard and Very Stiff

Boring Terminated at 12 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST 'BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-11
DATE DRILLED 4-24-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL; M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING
• PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
2.0
10.0
12.0
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil Woods
Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
Hard Tan Silt

Very Hard Tan Silt
Boring Terminated at 12 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100.
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-12
DATE DRILLED 4-24-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0 0 10 20 30 40 0 80 1
0.4 To soil
2.:
12.C
DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
i
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Tan Silt
Boring Terminated at 12 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
00 1
TEST BORING> RECORD -
BORING NUMBER B-13
DATE DRILLED 4-24-90
PROJECT NUMBER-CHD.1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
2.0
12.5
DESCRIPTION
To soil Woods
Stiff Brown Tan Sli htl Clayey Silt
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Tan Silt

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-14
DATE DRILLED 4-25-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
`.LAW ENGINEERING
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION
(FT.) (FT.)
0
0.0
0.1
1.0
2.5
4.0
12.5
Topsoil Woods
Firm Gray Clayey Silt Moist
Stiff Brown Tan Sli htl Cla a Silt
Stiff Brown Tan Silt
Hard Brown Tan Silt

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-15
DATE DRILLED 4-25-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
`, LAW ; ENGINEERING ?l
O PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
12.5
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil Woods
Firm Gray Cla a Silt Moist
Stiff Brown Tan Silt
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Tan Silt

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-16
DATE DRILLED 4-25-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
`,,LAW ENGINEERING
DEP'
(FT
0.0
0.1
1.0
3.0
12.5
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION. ® PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
F"P )
rH
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 10(
Topsoil (Woods)
Stiff Red Brown Clayey Silt
Stiff Brown Silt
Very Stiff Brown Silt
Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.
TEST BORING RECORD
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
BORING NUMBER B-17
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
1 - A6: LAW:,:. = ENGINEERING `J' _?

1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
1.5
3.5
12.5
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil Woods
Stiff Gray Brown Cla a Silt
Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
Very Stiff To Hard Brown Silt

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-18
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1 _J
`.' LAW `ENGINEERING
rH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
1.0
2.0
8.0
12.5
DESCRIPTION

with Rock
=-
?
St.
ffB
Silt
Very Stiff Brown Silt

Hard Brown Silt

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 00
40 60 80 1
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-19
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW 'ENGINEERING `?
L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH DESCRIPTION
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
1.0
2.5
7.5
12.5
Topsoil Woods
Firm to Stiff Gray Clayey Silt
Moist
Stiff Brown Tan Clay a Silt
Very Stiff Brown Tan Silt with Rock
Fragments
Hard Brown Tan Silt

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

II
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-20
DATE DRILLED 4-25-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
`;.LAW<- ENGINEERING
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
1.0
2.0
6.0
DESCRIPTION
To soil
Stiff Brown Slightly Cla e Silt
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Silt with
Rock Fragments

Auger Refusal at 6 Feet. No Ground
Water Encountered at Time of Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION ® PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST <BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-21
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
`.:LAW ENGINEERING
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.1
2.0
12.5
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil
Stiff Brown Slightly Clayey Silt
Very Stiff to Hard Brown Silt with
Rock Fragments

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30.40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-21A
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
..:LAW ENGINEERING - ---
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
1.0
2.5
8.2
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil Plowed Field
Very Stiff Brown Slightly Cla e Silt
Hard Brown Tan Silt with Rock
Fragments

Auger Refusal at 8.2 Feet. No Ground
Water Encountered at Time of Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-22
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
`;LAW ENGINEERING
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
1.0
3.0
5.5
12.5
DESCRIPTION
Topsoil Plowed Field
Very Stiff Brown Clayey Silt
Very Stiff Brown Silt with Rock
Fragments

Hard Brown Silt with Rock Fragments

Boring Terminated at 12.5 Feet. No
Ground Water Encountered at Time of
Boring.

SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-23
DATE DRILLED 4-26-90
PROJECT NUMBER CHD 1045
PROJECT INDIAN TRAIL, M.C.
PAGE 1 OF 1
`, LAW'ENGINEERING
1

C

L

J

J

H
IX. PERMIT APPLICATION

1
SAW26-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION FORM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT 26
NOTES: If Item A.7. (below) is 10 acres or more or if any of the conditions
listed in Section B. (below) are not met, the applicant must submit an
individual permit application. Please contact the District for forms and
information.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Applicant is required to obtain a Section 401 Water quality Certification from
the State of Worth Carolina for NWP 26 to be valid. This certification should
be furnished with this pre-discharge notification.
PLEASE PRINT
A.
1. OWNERS NAME: The Mathisen ComDan
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: 104 Faith Church Road
Indian Trail, North Carolina 28079
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 882-1193
4. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK: COUNTY: Union
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE STREAM NAMES, ROAD NUMBERS, ETC.): 456.4 acre
tract at Northeast junction of Unionville-Indian Trail Road and Faith
Church Roa
5. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: Earthwork requiring fillin of .79 acres of
al?lustrine and riverine wetland wit associate creation of 6.Z acres o
additional open water an pa uT strinwetland
6. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To develo a residential/recreation/community
service/school multi-use suvdivision development
?-
7. APPROXIMATE SIZE OF WATERS AND WETLANDS WHICH WILL BE LOST OR
SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSELY MODIFIED AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED WORK (EXPRESS
IN TENTHS OF ACRES): .8 acres of fill plus .7 acres inundation (part of
wet an creation
8. INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT BELIEVES IS APPROPRIATE: All material
to be used on site or removed to a locally approved (contained-upland) waste
site.

9. DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ON OR
' NEAR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA? YES [ ] NO [X]
IF YES, INDICATE WHAT SPECIES.
10. DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES WHICH ARE LISTED OR
DETERMINED ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC
PLACES THAT OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT? YES [ ] NO [X]
t 11. WILL THE ACTIVITY INTERFERE WITH NAVIGATION? YES [ ] NO [X]
B. CONDITIONS. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET FOR THE NATIONWIDE
PERMITS TO BE VALID (33 CFR 330.5-.6):
MET NOT MET
1. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL WILL NOT [X] [ ]
' OCCUR IN THE PROXIMITY OF A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
INTAKE.
' 2. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL WILL NOT [X] [ ]
OCCUR IN AREAS OF CONCENTRATED SHELLFISH PRODUCTION
UNLESS THE DISCHARGE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO AN AUTHORIZED
SHELLFISH HARVESTING ACTIVITY.
1 3. THE ACTIVITY SHALL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPT THE [X] [ ]
MOVEMENT OF THOSE SPECIES OF AQUATIC LIFE INDIGENOUS TO
THE WATERBODY (UNLESS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE FILL IS
TO IMPOUND WATER).
4. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST [X] [ ]
' OF SUITABLE MATERIAL FREE FROM TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN TOXIC
AMOUNTS.
I5. ANY STRUCTURE OR FILL AUTHORIZED SHALL BE PROPERLY [X] [ ]
MAINTAINED.
' 6. THE ACTIVITY WILL NOT OCCUR IN A COMPONENT OF THE [X] [ ]
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM; NOR IN A RIVER
CURRENTLY DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS AS A "STUDY RIVER" FOR
POSSIBLE INCLUSION.
' 7. THE CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF THE ACTIVITY WILL [X] [ ]
NOT IMPAIR RESERVED TRIBAL RIGHTS.
t

7

11
r

C. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. THE FOLLOWING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SHALL BE
FOLLOWED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE
PRACTICES MAY BE CAUSE FOR REQUIRING AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT. APPLICANT
SHOULD PROVIDE EXPLANATION FOR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES NOT MET.
MET NOT MET
1. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WATERS [X] L ]
OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE AVOIDED OR MINIMIZED
THROUGH THE USE OF OTHER PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES.
2. DISCHARGES IN SPAWNING AREAS DURING SPAWNING
SEASONS SHALL BE AVOIDED.
[ Xl [ l
3. DISCHARGES SHALL NOT RESTRICT OR IMPEDE THE [X] [ ]
MOVEMENT OF AQUATIC SPECIES INDIGENOUS TO THE WATERS OR
THE PASSAGE OF NORMAL OR EXPECTED HIGH FLOWS OR CAUSE
THE RELOCATION OF THE WATER (UNLESS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
^" Tit 7 Tl111T1FOUN iTD 'WATERS)
yr ME FILL IS 1 T0 i 4. IF THE DISCHARGE CREATES AN IMPOUNDMENT OF WATER, [X] [ ]
ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE AQUATIC SYSTEM CAUSED BY THE
ACCELERATED PASSAGE OF WATER AND/OR THE RESTRICTION OF
ITS FLOW SHALL BE MINIMIZED.
5. DISCHARGE IN WETLAND AREAS SHALL BE AVOIDED. [X]
I
h

11
i
J

6. HEAVY EQUIPMENT WORKING IN WETLANDS SHALL BE PLACED [X] [ ]
ON MATS.
7. DISCHARGES INTO BREEEDING AREAS FOR MIGRATORY [X] [ l
WATERFOWL SHALL BE AVOIDED.
8. ALL TEMPORARY FILLS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THEIR [X] [ ]
ENTIRETY.
OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
IF APPLICABLE:
AGENT'S NAME: Gary Stewart
AGENT'S ADDRESS: 8731 Red Oak Boulevard
AGENT'S PHONE NUMBER: [phone]
AGENT'S SIGNATUR DATE

1

1

C

0
1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor August 19, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph:D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Mark Ray
Woolport Consultants
409 East Monument Avenue
Dayton, Ohio 45402-1226
Dear Mr. Ray:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Headwaters or Isolated Wetlands
Residential development, Mathison Co.
Union County
Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 1.5 acres of wetlands for pond creation
and housing development as described in your 21 May 1991 letter,
we have determined that the proposed fill can be covered by
General Water Quality Certification No. 2176 issued November 4,
1987. A copy of the General Certification is attached. This
Certification may be used in qualifying for coverage under Corps
of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 26.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney
at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
George T. Everett
GTE:JD
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Regional Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 9 19/733 -23 14 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prekention Pais
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Entplo?cr
ti
AUG 1991
DIVISION OF ENVIRON cTr
P{a nEn QUALITY
9 Branch
August 21 0 91 ?'j
8 L 9.5
MEMO TO: John Dorney 6
FROM: Rex Gleason lov
PREPARED BY: Michael Parke
SUBJECT: 401 Certification Review
Mathisen Company
Union County
The subject project has been reviewed by the staff of this
office for issuance of a 401 Certification.
The applicant proposes to fill approx. 0.79 acres of
palustrine and riverine wetlands. In addition, approximately 0.71
acres of palustrine wetlands will be inundated by the creation of
6.22 acres of open water and vegetated palustrine areas as part
of the stormwater management program.
It appears that the applicant has taken precautions to
minimize wetland impacts through careful planning of the proposed
development. Although some existing wetland uses may be
compromised as a result of the proposed development (wildlife,
commercial value, etc,.), the primary use (stormwater control)
should remain intact through the creation of the above mentioned
stormwater retention areas.
It is recommended that a 401 Water Quality Certification be
issued.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
advise.
MLP
~ C
~ o z ~
z o C~J
~ ~ ~
O
Z z ~ o
rn ~ ~ ~
Z = ~
O D ~ ,
I7 _ i
~ ~ i.
a o ~ ~
~ z O ~ 'i _i
a ~ ~ M
` ~ i \
~C i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~
- \
-

~ -i _ _
y ~ Y.~
~x ~
Y
\
~ / ~ - - -r" .
/
~ M - ,i
k ~ -
- -
~ l ~ ~ - ~
~
~ ~ _ ~

fl F -
M~ ~ _ -
~W~ i
~ 1
\ ~ ~ / , i ~ ~ ~II ~ ~ 1 / ~ ~ ~ t a
1 i j~
\ - 1~ ~ ! ~
~ ~
~ ` ~

~ 1 ~
~ ~ \ - N i I /

~ r yi'
~Y+,.y ~ 1~ ~ r' ~y
\ / ~
~ ~ ~ _ t
~
/ CSf
1. r. m
~ ~
_ ~ _
~
1
V ~ V ~

/ _ ~ ~
~ ~
r~" ~ y O C)
~ \
/ ~ ~ji . -
i'
i / / i ~ - ~ \ _ _
I ~ ~ \ ~
y.t
Y
~ .
~ ~ i ---1- - ~ _
\ _ -r- _ _ -1- --L._. ~ y ~
0 ~ .p W ~ d A
~ ~
- ~T' _r _i _I - ~
i
~ Z - _ _ cm
~ m 7 f'~` •
~ ~ - ~ ~ t, ~ ~
D Z ~ ~ ~ -
O r .r ~ I I
n N ~
~o ~ ~1_1 yrn 1 ~ ~ ~ 1
1 1
~ w ~ ~ ~ I I o I i ~ ~ i ~t _ j~
- v g+dd~~
~ o ~ N a~ ~ ~ ~
8 ~ N co D ~ y
m~ Z ~ ~ _ ~ ~
o~ ~ N
- -
,
- _ ~ ~
-1-- •1 r~ ~ j ~~z,.,

~ ~ ~ . ~ --111 o~
i' '
~
~ ~ - ' ~ --i II
- o ~
~ a~~ I
z .

r

~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ ~
i
c t~'fi
n ~
m J
w~ ~ (1~ m ~ ` ~ ~ C
~D a ~ t
~ m
m~~= ~ _ V'
D ~ 1 "
rn
C a
m
b~ ~d
r Z
Z
Z

w
0
N
O ~ (n ~ p i,~
N w ~ Q =
II N ~ z
i r ~
m N
r ~ N m
z c~
3 ~ ~ w I ~ a 2 a ~ ~ u a: a ~ a
~ a ~ o ~ ~ u ~
~ M
01 ~ I I
II I ~ N I A
I I I Y ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~
~ H ~ ~ J
Il r - ~ ~ I
-(~2) ~ s / ~ i_ ~ H i W }
~ ~i ~ ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ ~ o - ~ U ~ ~
Q ~ ~ -mss O n
\ ` d~ Z G ~ O p
t`~"~ ~ r ~l~C ~ W z N N ~ ~ ~ ~ I Z
~ ~ ~ d.
W ~ ~a v Q ~ ~ V i Z Z
s~ x ~ J ~ W ~ k U N 8 Q 0 0
R4q 11 X ~ ~ W W ~ ~mX ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q.
~l ,y ~ X X ~ Q ~ Z
~ x Q W w _Q W a_ ~ ~ ~ \ U ~ Z ~ U
~'•y ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ - ~ Z z ~ ~ - t_ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
~ m O z w U a O ~
~ x UO?~Q~ tl~ ~ ~ Gx C) Q Q o - ~ ~ ~~l w x
~ A ~ i ~_ti V. ~N ~.iOODY ~z~ ~ o X ~ W ~ a
~ ~ I ` I ~ a-~ OOw~- O7_~,1 ~ ~L ~ O W Q F. ~ ,1 _J W o -
~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ _ A ~ . - ~ i d~NW UUIUm~-fL
_
~ _ \ ~ l ~ V ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
1 - ~ ~ \ V ~ ~ - 1 - ~ ~ _ - 1
~ I

- 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I ~ ~ )t ~y
~ ~1 - i Act _ - ~
~ ~ j ~ ~ ~l ~ - _ .a ~ 8 - ~ ~ m ~ ~~ti
~ l I ( ~ A ? - , , t ~ ~ _ - r~- ~ ~ 0? 8 ~ . r Q c
N ~ ~ ~ o 8
~1 ~ ~ ~
. ~ i ~ I _ ~ ~ \ J ~ ~ 1 _ ~ v, ~ I ~ ~ ' J ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ 1 ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i '1 % it ~ ~ ~ L U
O ~ e~ ~ ~J 1 ~ N a? I _
~ ( i ~ ~ i - \ ~ o~y V Qy l ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~
o ~ / - ~ ~ 1 i V~ I ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ c 1 0 10 ~
~ ~ , ~ ~
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ i ~ ~1 ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ _ I ~ ~ ~ I in i
~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A i ~ ~ 7 ~
Opp ~ i % / ~ ~ ` ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ,1 ~ _ ~
~ ~ T ~ / ~ ~ ~ / \ r- ~ o d
~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ , ~ a _1 Z ~ O
i ! ~ C_ ~ I ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ / / ~ 0 - - Z r- ~ ~
~ ~ " ~ ~ I ~ _ ' ~ ~ % ~ .
~ W(0
1 - I ~
~ ~ ~l ~ ~ - - ~ { ~ i - - ~ i z - ~ ~ ~ II ~ O i
~ ~ ~ , C I O = . i ~ ; ~ Z ~ / ~
i ~ 4 LL ~ 6- •o
~ _ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ed~ ~ / Q ~ ~ ~ , / ~ ~ _ _ f ~ ~ Q Q
- ~ ~ j i ~ ~ 'S ~ 4 << / w
~ ~ - , - ~ ~ / J - 7 , / - ~ / V ~9 w
~ A ~ P ~ / - ~ O
i A V / / _ 11~~ ~ ~ ~h ~ I c ~ i W
S
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ _ ~ ; - i r,~~ ~ - o -
i r ~ ~ ~ t \ ~ = , ~ - ~ ii l ~ _ ~ -
\ ~i ~ - ~ ~ - - p
_ ~ _ ' ~ -
1 r i ~ (}i _ ~ ~ i ~ % i i' I I ci _ r ~L_ ( ~ - ~ - f~ i - ~ ~ ~ I
~ ( ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ i~ i _ \ _I - _ ~ / ~ o
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ I i~ ! 'i ` y-v.w ~ f~ ~ ~ w ~ O ~
i ~ i a ii - - i ~ ~I ~ - - ~ ~ e~ I ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ , i ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ _ _.~(Y[ ~ ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ -tf ~ r` ; . i ~ ~ / ~ / / / / J
_ ~ 1 ii ~ ~ t i ~ / / ~ ~ \
J ' i ~ ~ / 0_ ~ i
~ - ~ ~ ~ i O ~ ~ ~i ~ =a- _ ~ V ~ [ _ ~ ~ ~
n - - td - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ r ~ i 0 i; - , - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ '
~ ~ ! A / - 1 ) ~ i ~ i ~ - ~ a
P ~ ~ 01'9 Q ~ ~ { ~ ~ ~ 6 i ~ ~ ~ ~ - i v -
i 7~ ~ ~ ~ . -
,a - ~ i ~ ' " ~ ~ Q ~ _ -
~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - 1 ~ - - ~ 1 / ~ dyp
/ ~ ~ I ~ i ~ r' i 1 , % ~ i 1 ~ i i ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ V
~ ~ _ i. - _ ~ 1 _ _ ~ - 1 V ~ 1 ~ t _ _
~ J ~ ~ _ - ` ~ , - ~
i ~ ~ . ~ ~ - I ~ ~ ~ - ~,1 ~ \ - l
~ ~ ~ _ ~l l i ~i) - ~
I f ~ ~ ~ ~ j i t - / ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ r ~ / ( ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
/ ~ / r''1 ~ r / - ~ ~ J_ ~ r i fry fr ~ ~
~ ~ ~ _ W~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V A ~
~ j ~ _ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ l ' ~ i % 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i f,
i ~ % ~i
~ - ~ 1 i / ~
o ~ ~ j, ~j' i
~ - ~ , ! - - ,
~ ~ ~ _
~ ~ ~ ti, ti I i _ = _ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~
- - - ti-.~ _ - _ ~ ~ / ~ i i/ ~ ~ - .F ~ i
~ ~ - ~ ,p 0 1 N' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
~V ~ ~ ' o ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i A ~ ~
~ ~ t , - ~ _ - ~ i / i
t ~ - i i ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~
` - ~ ~ ~ - 1 ~ I , ~ r, ~ ~ ~ / j i
~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I - l j I
~ ~ ! I i
l / ~ J
~ ~ l L- 1 ~ i ~ %
i'
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ ~
~ i ' ' d I i ~ ~ i
li 1 ~ _ I ~ 'i i ~ ~ ~
~ _ ~ i ~ i 1 i /
~ ~ 1 / ~ 1 ~ / _ _ 1 ~ ~ , ~ 1
~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ! / ~ ~ I ~
_ i~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ /
_ ~ ~ l i ~ J / } I / ' - i~ ~ - ~ i
J ; ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a / / / ~ /
~ ~ ~ ~ % - ~i ~ ,
~ / ~ 7 l ~ ~ ( i ~ i / ~ ~ ~ - V:~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ _1 / 1 1Rl
C_, ~ ~ ~ i ~ _ ~
i ~ ~ ~ i i
~V ( i _ ~ ~
f I
~ ~ i I ~ , 1 ~ I i I i j ~ ~ i ~ ~i - ~
C ~ ~ - - ~ V ~ ~
dp ~ j ~ V ~ ~ ~ I \ ~ /
~ ~ 6 r ~ _ / i ~ / 0 ~ ~ I ~ . ~
~ ~ ' 1 ~ ~ I
l ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ 1~
I i 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \
i t ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i a _
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - r,r 1 j
i _ ~ ' - ~ _ ~ i ~ l/' 1 __l i /
~ ~ /
~ - - O - i~ ~ ~ , " ~ j - - ~ /i ~ / ~ _ ~ 1\ ~ ~ ~ ,
- ~ ~ / r' _ / i ~ ~ r„ ~ J ~ ~
i
- % ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 - i~ ~ _ a ` - 9
/ ~ t ~ \ , ~ i
r i - b
~~1 ' ~ ll ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ ~ ` % ~p ~i ~ 1 i I
~I ~ a a - _ 'T i ! j ~ ~ ~ h ~
i i ~ N n U' M_ N ,
~ a' ~ ~ ~ ~ o - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ '
~ i ~ ( ~ o ~ ~
~ ~ I - - ~ ~ ~ I / ! • ~ ~
~ ~ J N _ ~ ~ ~ et" N _
~ \ ~ ~ - ~ ~ / i Y
~ ~ I ~ , M - r ~
- - ~ ~ \ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ ~I ,
- - ~ ~ ) / f ~ i ~ ~ ~ l
/ ~ ~ ' ~ / ` / ~ L1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ - _
l ~ - - 0 ~ r"
~ ~ ~
r ~
~ I
l~ ~ ~ ` _ J
i ~ ~ ~ ~
1 1 _ o l i ~ y
~ ~ ~ n 1 i
i ~ ~ i ~
- ~ - \ i ,
- ~ ~ ~ - - r ~ , J
~ / _ ~ .
1 . ~
r ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ \ ~ / J
~
A'~ ' 670 ~0
' o i
~~'b
.r ~ i
~ \ 4 '
0 1

J I.

~ C
~ o z ~
z o C~J
~ ~ ~
O
Z z ~ o
rn ~ ~ ~
Z = ~
O D ~ ,
I7 _ i
~ ~ i.
a o ~ ~
~ z O ~ 'i _i
a ~ ~ M
` ~ i \
~C i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~
- \
-

~ -i _ _
y ~ Y.~
~x ~
Y
\
~ / ~ - - -r" .
/
~ M - ,i
k ~ -
- -
~ l ~ ~ - ~
~
~ ~ _ ~

fl F -
M~ ~ _ -
~W~ i
~ 1
\ ~ ~ / , i ~ ~ ~II ~ ~ 1 / ~ ~ ~ t a
1 i j~
\ - 1~ ~ ! ~
~ ~
~ ` ~

~ 1 ~
~ ~ \ - i I /
I N

~ r yi'
~Y+,.y ~ 1~ ~ r' ~y
\ / ~
~ ~ ~ _ t
~
/ CSf
1. r. m
~ ~
_ ~ _
~
1
V ~ V ~

/ _ ~ ~
~ ~
r~" ~ y O C)
~ \
/ ~ ~ji . -
i'
i / / i ~ - ~ \ _ _
I ~ ~ \ ~
y.t
Y
~ .
~ ~ i ---1- - ~ _
\ _ -r- _ _ -1- --L._. ~ y ~
0 ~ .p W ~ d A
~ ~
- ~T' _r _i _I - ~
i
~ Z - _ _ cm
~ m 7 f'~` •
~ ~ - ~ ~ t, ~ ~
D Z ~ ~ ~ -
O r .r ~ I I
n N ~
~o ~ ~1_1 yrn 1 ~ ~ ~ 1
1 1
~ w ~ ~ ~ I I o I i ~ ~ i ~t _ j~
- v g+dd~~
~ o ~ N a~ ~ ~ ~
8 ~ N co D ~ y
m~ Z ~ ~ _ ~ ~
o~ ~ N
- -
,
- _ ~ ~
-1-- •1 r~ ~ j ~~z,.,

~ ~ ~ . ~ --111 o~
i' '
~
~ ~ - ' ~ --i II
- o ~
~ a~~ I
z .

r

~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ ~
i
c t~'fi
n ~
m J
w~ ~ (1~ m ~ ` ~ ~ C
~D a ~ t
~ m
m~~= ~ _ V'
D ~ 1 "
rn
C a
m
b~ ~d
r Z
Z
Z

w
0
N
O ~ (n ~ p i,~
N w ~ Q =
II N ~ z
i r ~
m N
r ~ N m
z c~
3 ~ ~ w I ~ a 2 a ~ ~ u a: a ~ a
~ a ~ o ~ ~ u ~
~ M
01 ~ I I
II I ~ N I A
I I I Y ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~
~ H ~ ~ J
Il r - ~ ~ I
-(~2) ~ s / ~ i_ ~ H i W }
~ ~i ~ ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ ~ o - ~ U ~ ~
Q ~ ~ -mss O n
\ ` d~ Z G ~ O p
t`~"~ ~ r ~l~C ~ W z N N ~ ~ ~ ~ I Z
~ ~ ~ d.
W ~ ~a v Q ~ ~ V i Z Z
s~ x ~ J ~ W ~ k U N 8 Q 0 0
R4q 11 X ~ ~ W W ~ ~mX ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q.
~ ,y ~ X X ~ Q ~ Z
~ x Q W w _Q W a_ ~ ~ ~ \ U ~ Z ~ U
~'•y ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ - ~ Z z ~ ~ - t_ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
~ m O z w U a O ~
~ x UO?~Q~ tl~ ~ ~ Gx C) Q Q o - ~ ~ ~~l w x
A 1 ~ i ~N ~.iOODY ~z~ ~ o X ~ W ~ a
~ ~ I ` I ~ a-~ OOw~- O7_~,1 ~ ~L ~ O W Q F. ~ ,1 _J W o -
~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ _ A ~ . - ~ i d~NW UUIUm~-fL
_
~ _ \ ~ l ~ V ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
1 - ~ ~ \ V ~ ~ - 1 - ~ ~ _ - 1
~ I

- 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I ~ ~ )t ~y
~ ~1 - i Act _ - ~
~ ~ j ~ ~ ~l ~ - _ .a ~ 8 - ~ ~ m ~ ~~ti
~ l I ( ~ A ? - , , t ~ ~ _ - r~- ~ ~ 0? 8 ~ . r Q c
N ~ ~ ~ o 8
~1 ~ ~ ~
. ~ i ~ I _ ~ ~ \ J ~ ~ 1 _ ~ v, ~ I ~ ~ ' J ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ 1 ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i '1 % it ~ ~ ~ L U
O ~ e~ ~ ~J 1 ~ N a? I _
~ ( i ~ ~ i - \ ~ o~y V Qy l ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~
o ~ / - ~ ~ 1 i V~ I ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ c 1 0 10 ~
~ ~ , ~ ~
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ i ~ ~1 ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ _ I ~ ~ ~ I in i
~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A i ~ ~ 7 ~
Opp ~ i % / ~ ~ ` ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ,1 ~ _ ~
~ ~ T ~ / ~ ~ ~ / \ r- ~ o d
~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ , ~ a _1 Z ~ O
i ! ~ C_ ~ I ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ / / ~ 0 - - Z r- ~ ~
~ ~ " ~ ~ I ~ _ ' ~ ~ % ~ .
~ W(0
1 - I ~
~ ~ ~l ~ ~ - - ~ { ~ i - - ~ i z - ~ ~ ~ II ~ O i
~ ~ ~ , C I O = . i ~ ; ~ Z ~ / ~
i ~ 4 LL ~ 6- •o
~ _ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ed~ ~ / Q ~ ~ ~ , / ~ ~ _ _ f ~ ~ Q Q
- ~ ~ j i ~ ~ 'S ~ 4 << / w
~ ~ - , - ~ ~ / J - 7 , / - ~ / V ~9 w
~ A ~ P ~ / - ~ O
i A V / / _ 11~~ ~ ~ ~h ~ I c ~ i W
S
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ _ ~ ; - i r,~~ ~ - o -
i r ~ ~ ~ t \ ~ = , ~ - ~ ii l ~ _ ~ -
\ ~i ~ - ~ ~ - - p
_ ~ _ ' ~ -
1 r i ~ (}i _ ~ ~ i ~ % i i' I I ci _ r ~L_ ( ~ - ~ - f~ i - ~ ~ ~ I
~ ( ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ i~ i _ \ _I - _ ~ / ~ o
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ I i~ ! 'i ` y-v.w ~ f~ ~ ~ w ~ O ~
i ~ i a ii - - i ~ ~I ~ - - ~ ~ e~ I ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ , i ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ _ _.~(Y[ ~ ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ -tf ~ r` ; . i ~ ~ / ~ / / / / J
_ ~ 1 ii ~ ~ t i ~ / / ~ ~ \
J ' i ~ ~ / 0_ ~ i
~ - ~ ~ ~ i O ~ ~ ~i ~ =a- _ ~ V ~ [ _ ~ ~ ~
n - - td - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ r ~ i 0 i; - , - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ '
~ ~ ! A / - 1 ) ~ i ~ i ~ - ~ a
P ~ ~ 01'9 Q ~ ~ { ~ ~ ~ 6 i ~ ~ ~ ~ - i v -
i 7~ ~ ~ ~ . -
,a - ~ i ~ ' " ~ ~ Q ~ _ -
~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - 1 ~ - - ~ 1 / ~ dyp
/ ~ ~ I ~ i ~ r' i 1 , % ~ i 1 ~ i i ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ V
~ ~ _ i. - _ ~ 1 _ _ ~ - 1 V ~ 1 ~ t _ _
~ J ~ ~ _ - ` ~ , - ~
i ~ ~ . ~ ~ - I ~ ~ ~ - ~,1 ~ \ - l
~ ~ ~ _ ~l l i ~i) - ~
I f ~ ~ ~ ~ j i t - / ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ r ~ / ( ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
/ ~ / r''1 ~ r / - ~ ~ J_ ~ r i fry fr ~ ~
~ ~ ~ _ W~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V A ~
~ j ~ _ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ l ' ~ i % 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i f,
i ~ % ~i
~ - ~ 1 i / ~
o ~ ~ j, ~j' i
~ - ~ , ! - - ,
~ ~ ~ _
~ ~ ~ ti, ti I i _ = _ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~
- - - ti-.~ _ - _ ~ ~ / ~ i i/ ~ ~ - .F ~ i
~ ~ - ~ ,p 0 1 N' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
~V ~ ~ ' o ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i A ~ ~
~ ~ t , - ~ _ - ~ i / i
t ~ - i i ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~
` - ~ ~ ~ - 1 ~ I , ~ r, ~ ~ ~ / j i
~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I - l j I
~ ~ ! I i
l / ~ J
~ ~ l L- 1 ~ i ~ %
i'
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ ~
~ i ' ' d I i ~ ~ i
li 1 ~ _ I ~ 'i i ~ ~ ~
~ _ ~ i ~ i 1 i /
~ ~ 1 / ~ 1 ~ / _ _ 1 ~ ~ , ~ 1
~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ! / ~ ~ I ~
_ i~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ /
_ ~ ~ l i ~ J / } I / ' - i~ ~ - ~ i
J ; ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a / / / ~ /
~ ~ ~ ~ % - ~i ~ ,
~ / ~ 7 l ~ ~ ( i ~ i / ~ ~ ~ - V:~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ _1 / 1 1Rl
C_, ~ ~ ~ i ~ _ ~
i ~ ~ ~ i i
~V ( i _ ~ ~
f I
~ ~ i I ~ , 1 ~ I i I i j ~ ~ i ~ ~i - ~
C ~ ~ - - ~ V ~ ~
dp ~ j ~ V ~ ~ ~ I \ ~ /
~ ~ 6 r ~ _ / i ~ / 0 ~ ~ I ~ . ~
~ ~ ' 1 ~ ~ I
l ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ 1~
I i 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \
i t ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i a _
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - r,r 1 j
i _ ~ ' - ~ _ ~ i ~ l/' 1 __l i /
~ ~ /
~ - - O - i~ ~ ~ , " ~ j - - ~ /i ~ / ~ _ ~ 1\ ~ ~ ~ ,
- ~ ~ / r' _ / i ~ ~ r„ ~ J ~ ~
i
- % ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 - i~ ~ _ a ` - 9
/ ~ t ~ \ , ~ i
r i - b
~~1 ' ~ ll ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ ~ ` % ~p ~i ~ 1 i I
~I ~ a a - _ 'T i ! j ~ ~ ~ h ~
i i ~ N n U' M_ N ,
~ a' ~ ~ ~ ~ o - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ '
~ i ~ ( ~ o ~ ~
~ ~ I - - ~ ~ ~ I / ! • ~ ~
~ ~ J N _ ~ ~ ~ et" N _
~ \ ~ ~ - ~ ~ / i Y
~ ~ I ~ , M - r ~
- - ~ ~ \ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ ~I ,
- - ~ ~ ) / f ~ i ~ ~ ~ l
/ ~ ~ ' ~ / ` / ~ L1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ - _
l ~ - - 0 ~ r"
~ ~ ~
r ~
~ I
l~ ~ ~ ` _ J
i ~ ~ ~ ~
1 1 _ o l i ~ y
~ ~ ~ n 1 i
i ~ ~ i ~
- ~ - \ i ,
- ~ ~ ~ - - r ~ , J
~ / _ ~ .
1 . ~
r ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ \ ~ / J
~
A'~ ' 670 ~0
' o i
~~'b
.r ~ i
~ \ 4 '
0 1

J I.