20140193 Ver 1_Notice of NCDEQ - MP Addendum Request_20201006

Strickland, Bev
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Casey, Erin, Kim, and Todd;
Wiesner, Paul
Tuesday, October 6, 2020 11:47 AM
Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Davis, Erin B; Kim Browning; Tugwell, Todd J CIV
USARMY CESAW (US)
Jake McLean; Reid, Matthew; Eric Neuhaus; Shawn Wilkerson; Allen, Melonie
Notice of NCDEQ - DMS Mitigation Plan Addendum Request: Henry Fork Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Project (DMS# 96306) - (SAW- 2014-00538) (DWR#20140193) -
Catawba 03050102_Catawba County
Hen ryFrk_96306_MPAddendum_2020.pdf
Follow up
Completed
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) has prepared a Mitigation Plan Addendum for the Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS#
96306). WEI has identified five additional wetland areas that have developed following site construction. These five
wetland areas were not identified in the approved Jurisdictional Determination (USACE) and they were not identified as
having hydric soils in the LSS soils report from the IRT approved Mitigation Plan. As a result, WEI is proposing a creation
credit ratio of 3:1 for the additional 0.661 acres for a total of 0.220 Riparian WMUs.
WEI is not seeking additional wetland credit above the approved Mitigation Plan and the DMS credit ledger will not be
updated. The purpose of proposing these additional areas for credit is to offset any wetland credits that may be at risk
of losing credit at project closeout. These additional areas have been monitored since March 2019 (MY4) and will
continue to be monitored through project closeout. Upon IRT review and approval of this wetland addendum,
Wildland's will document the additional wetland areas in this year's annual monitoring report (MY5) and through project
closeout.
The site is currently in MY5 (2020) and is scheduled to close in 2023.
Digital copies were uploaded to the IRT SharePoint page (10/6/2020) and DWR's Laser Fiche system (10/6/2020) for IRT
review. A copy is also attached.
Project information is as follows:
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project # 96306
Institution Date: 2/15/2014
RFP 16-005298 (Issued: 6/6/2013)
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03050103 Expanded Service Area
Catawba County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID: SAW- 2014-00538
DWR#: 20140193
Proposed Mitigation Protect Credits:
4,807.667 SMU (cool)
4.222 WMU (riparian)

Full Delivery Provider: Wildlands Engineering Inc. — Contact: Jake McLean, [e-mail], [phone]
NCDEQ- DMS Project Manager: Matthew Reid, [e-mail], [phone]
The Mitigation Plan Addendum has been uploaded to the IRT/ NCDEQ SharePoint Mitigation Plan Review page and can
be accessed here:
IRT SharePoint page:
https://ncconnect.sharepoi nt.com/sites/I RT-DMS/SitePages/Home.aspx
Hen ryFrk_96306_M PAddendu m_2020. pdf
https://ncconnect.sharepoi nt.com/sites/I RT-
DMS/IRT%20Up1oad%20Documents%20Here/Forms/AlIItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FIRT%2DDMS%2FIRT%20UpIoad%20D
ocuments%20Here%2FHenry%20Fork%20%2896306%29%2FHenryFrk%5F96306%5FMPAddendum%5F2020%2Epdf&par
ent=% 2Fsites % 2FIRT% 2DDMS% 2FIRT%20U pload % 20Docu ments % 20Here%2FHen ry%20Fork%20%2896306%29
Please let me know if you have questions or call to discuss.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
Pau l.wiesnera-ncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Nle�
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

w
W 1LDLANDS
I. N'-,I N I. i V- N[
October 6, 2020
Mr. Matthew Reid
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Wetland Addendum
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
DEQ Contract No. 005782
Catawba River Basin — HUC 03050103 Expanded Service Area
Catawba County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Reid,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) conducted a wetland assessment in 2020, Monitoring Year (MY)
5 of 7, to identify additional potential wetland areas on the Henry Fork Mitigation Site (Site) that have
been created by this project. Additional supplemental data including a potential wetland area table,
map figure, groundwater gage plots, photo log, and wetland data sheets have been included with this
addendum letter.
Background
In anticipation of additional wetlands created on the Site after construction, section 8.2 (Wetland
Mitigation Credits) of the Henry Fork Mitigation Plan states: "DMS reserves the right to request
additional wetland credits created by the project. Wetland credits will be proposed based upon
additional gauge data and/or wetland delineation." Therefore, in February and March 2019 (MY4), three
groundwater gages were installed in locations adjacent to credited wetland areas to provide
groundwater data to support the potential expansion of wetland areas on the Site. The purpose of
delineating these extra areas is to offset any wetland credits that may be at risk of losing credit.
Wildlands is not, however, seeking additional wetland credit above the original asset table amount.
Wildlands defends and maintains a 7.2% (17 consecutive day) success criteria in the IRT approved
Mitigation Plan but the USACE commented that a 8.5% (20 consecutive day) success criteria would be
required. Wildlands updated the success criteria in the MYO report. The final performance standard
established for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground
surface for 20 consecutive days (8.5%) of the 236 day growing season (March 20 through November 11)
under typical precipitation conditions.
Data Collection and Analysis
As stated above, three additional groundwater gages (GWG 13 —15) were installed in February and
March 2019 before the start of MY4 growing season, for the purpose of providing groundwater data to

document additional wetland areas. On June 23, 2020, Wildlands personnel performed a Site
investigation to identify additional potential wetland areas on the Site. Five areas (Wetlands AA through
EE) were delineated and mapped using global positioning system (GPS) data collection and three
wetland data points (DP1— 3) were collected. Please refer to the attached hydrologic data for
groundwater gage plots and summary table of the success criteria for each gage on Site.
Wetlands AA, BB, and CC are located south of Wetland N enhancement area. Before construction and as
a former golf course, this area was identified as a ditch with a linear wetland that fed into intermittent
stream channel UT2. During construction, the outlet of the ditch was plugged thus raising the
groundwater level and creating conditions for anaerobic wetland processes to occur. GWG 15 was
installed in MY4 to be representative of the low area and to document hydrologic conditions for the
proposed wetland areas south of wetland N. For two consecutive years, GWG 15 has achieved the
wetland hydrologic success criteria established for the Site. Wetland data point 1 (DP1) documents the
hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions representative of Wetlands AA, BB, and CC.
Wetland DD is located in the footprint of a former golf course inline pond bed (pond 3) that was filled
during construction. Before construction, UT1 flowed through pond 3 before making its way to the
Henry Fork river. The restoration of UT1 realigned the stream channel and took pond 3 offline. The
restored hydrology of UT1 has allowed for frequent overbank flooding of riparian wetland areas, thus
expanding the hydrologic function into this area. GWG 1 was installed during the MYO baseline data
collection and is in close proximity to Wetland DD. GWG 1 has achieved the wetland hydrologic success
criteria for the Site in MY2 through MY5 thus far. Wetland data point 2 (DP2) documents the hydrology,
vegetation, and soil conditions representative of Wetland DD.
Wetland EE is located in and around the pre -construction footprint of UT1 near the previous UT1A
confluence, adjacent to Wetlands J and K enhancement areas. The restoration of UT1A has increased
the floodplain access from overbank flooding and resulted in a gain in wetland function well beyond the
mapped wetland re-establishment area (Wetland 1). GWG 13 was installed in MY4 and has achieved
wetland hydrologic success criteria for the past two years. Wetland data point 3 (DP3) was collected
near GWG 13 and details the conditions of Wetland EE.
Wetland Credits
The combined area from Wetland AA through EE totals 0.661 acres. Pre -construction, these five areas
were not wetlands and were not identified as such in the approved Jurisdictional Determination for the
Site. Also, the additional wetland areas (AA — EE) were not identified as having hydric soils in the LSS soil
report from the Mitigation Plan. Therefore, a creation credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for all five wetland
areas where a rise in groundwater elevations have created conditions necessary to support wetland
conditions and promote wetland functions. In total, an additional 0.220 riparian wetland mitigation
units (WMUs) are available to offset any wetland credits that may be determined to be at risk of losing
credit. Please refer to the attached summary table of the additional wetland areas on the Site.
Conclusion
This wetland addendum summarizes the data collection and analysis of five proposed wetlands
(Wetland AA— EE) that have been identified on the Site after construction was complete. Following DMS
and IRT approval of this wetland addendum, Wildland's will document the additional wetland areas in

this year's annual monitoring report. It will be stated in the report that these additional areas are only to
be used as offset if any existing wetland credits are found to be at risk.
Feel free to contact me at 828-545-3865 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jake McLean
Project Manager
[e-mail]

Additional Potential Wetland Areas
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year S - 2020
Restoration (R) or
MitigationCredits
Wetland ID
Location
Existing Acreage
Approach
Restoration Acreage
(WMU)
Restoration Equivalent (RE)
Ratio
Floodplain towards
Wetland AA
N/A
Creation
0.042
3:1
0.014
river from UT2
Wetland BB
Floodplain towards
N/A
Creation
0.097
3:1
0.032
river from UT2
Creation of wetland
Floodplain towards
Wetland CC
N/A
functions that
Creation
0.123
3:1
0.041
river from UT2
support hydrologic,
Floodplain in
vegetative, and
footprint of Pond 3
Wetland DD
N/A
wetland soils
Creation
0.197
3:1
0.066
near head of UT1
Reach 2
East hillslope near
Wetland EE
N/A
Creation
0.202
3:1
0.067
UT1 Reach 2
Total
0.661
0.220

Map Figure

i
i
i
i
l Potential Wetland EE ;
Z` 0.202 acres
Potential Wetland BB
0.097 acres Potential Wetland DD
Potential Wetland AA A Wetland N 0.197 acres Wetland 1
\ 0.042 acres
L i Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
----- Bankfull Line
Reach Break
♦ Reference Gage
Barotroll Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY5
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Potential Wetland Areas
O Wetland Data Point (DP#)
W1LDLAND S nk�
CNGIN-CR NG
'WetlandA
er Potential Wetlan7CC
U
0.123 acres y
Wetland R -- -
,Wetland Bl-�
�\ Wetland 2 C�AAAVQ
C410
�d \ Wetland 2 Wetland 1
Reference Gage
'. , `;'• -' Wetland C
' �fl^ Wetland P _
Wetland Q
— 11:
Wetland M
Wetland
`
Wetland J
i
ti
Wetland H
a
�4
AN Iffie land I
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
0 150 300 Feet Wetland Addendum
I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Catawba County, NC

Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved2/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season'(Percentage)
Gage
year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
Year 6 (2021)
Year 7 (2022)
Reference
No/18 Days
Yes/59 Days
Yes/79 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/57 Days
(8%)
(25%)
(34%)
(26%)
(24%)
No/0 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/48 Days
Yes/42 Days
Yes/27 Days
GWG 1
(0%)
(10%)
(20%)
(18%)
(11%)
Yes/ 29 Days
No/7 Days
No/12 Days
Yes/39 Days
Yes/23 Days
GWG 2
(12.3%)
(3%)
(5%)
(17%)
(10%)
n
Yes/236 Days
No/3 Days
No/5 Days
Yes/35 Days
Yes/22 Days
GWG 3
(100%)
(1%)
(2%)
(15%)
(9%)
No/3 Days
Yes/25 Days
Yes/46 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/105 Days
GWG 4
(1.3%)
(11%)
(20%)
(29%)
(44%)
N/A
Yes/189 Days
Yes/102 Days
Yes/236 Days
Yes/132 Days
GWG 5'
(80%)
(43%)
(100%)
(56%)
Yes/79 Days
Yes/89 Days
Yes/96 Days
Yes/76 Days
Yes/120 Days
GWG 6
(33.5%)
(38%)
(41%)
(32%)
(51%)
No/7 Days
Yes/21 Days
Yes/44 Days
Yes/44 Days
Yes/58 Days
GWG 7
(3.0%)
(9%)
(19%)
(19%)
(25%)
No/1 Days
No/14 Days
No/11 Days
No/19 Days
No/13 Days
GWG 8
(0.4%)
(6%)
(5%)
(8%)
(6%)
a
N/A
No/13 Days
Yes/20 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/105 Days
GWG 9
(6%)
(9%)
(29%)
(44%)
GWG 10 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/236 Days
Yes/133 Days
(100%)
(56%)
GWG 11 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/61 Days
Yes/80 Days
(26%)
(34%)
GWG 12 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/36 Days
Yes/52 Days
(15%)
(22%)
GWG 13 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/236 Days
Yes/133 Days
(100%)
(56%)
GWG 14 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/67 Days
Yes/58 Days
(28%)
(25%)
GWG 15 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/45 Days
Yes/57 Days
(19%)
(24%)
N/A, not applicable
'Growing season dates March 20- November 11 (236 days)
Success criteria is 20 consecutive days (8.5%) of the growing season.
3GWGs 5 and 9 were installed on April 7, 2017.
°GWG 3 was relocated in January 2017.
sGWGs 10-13 were installed on February 20, 2019.
sGWGs 14-15 were installed on March 7, 2019

Monthly Rainfall Data
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Henry Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020
10
9
8
7
c 6
c
0
m 5
L
.�
w
a` 4
3
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
2020 Rainfall -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
' 2020 rainfall collected by NC CRONOS Station Hickory 4.8 SW, NC
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Conover Oxford Shoal, NC

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s >- c on n > u
ii Q 7 < cn O O p
� � Q Z
1 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s > c W n > u
� g ¢ z im
1 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
o
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #3
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
N
O
O
o
0
22 days
3
0ON
l7
m
0
o ti
l7 �-
w
0
c
in
v
0
w
— — — — — — — — —
— —
— — —
— — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
c s >- c on n > u
ii Q 7 < cn O O p
� � Q Z
1 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
M
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s > c W n > u
� g ¢ z im
1 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s >- c on n > u
ii Q 7 < cn O O p
� � Q Z
1 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s > c W n > u
� g ¢ z im
1 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
is
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s > c W n > u
2: <g ¢ z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
2
4.0 w
S
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
o
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #8
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
N O
OD rq
n O
0 0
13 days
3
o
l7 rq
w m
0
0 ti
0
cc
in
c
w
---------------------
c s >- c on n > u
� g ¢ z im
1 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
o
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #9
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
N
v
20
en
ou 0
8.0
0 0
105 days
3
o
10
6 -
0
7.0
0
0 ~
`m
v
0
n
c
w
6.0
-10
5.0
v
_
-20
4.0 w
c
m
m
3.0
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
L
1.0.0
-60
c s
> c on
C >
2:
z
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
O Manual GWG Measurements

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s > c W n > u
� g Q z im
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
is
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s >- c W n > u
�
ii m m N O O
Q p g Q z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
2
4.0 w
S
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
d
-20
d
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 ? C 75OU O. > U
i Q m N � 0 ° Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #12 — — Criteria Level 0 Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 w
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s >- c on n > u
�< 7�; Q Z in
■ Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s >- c on n > u
�< 7�; Q Z in
■ Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #14 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
-.04 20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
c s > c W n > u
� g Q z im
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #15 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 m
c
z
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Wetland Data Sheets

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority. AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Henry Fork Mitigation Site City/County: Catawba County Sampling Date: 6-23-20
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Jordan Hessler & Mimi Caddell Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.703299 Long:-81.366247 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Codorus Loam (CsA) & Hatboro Loam (HaA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Vegetation and Hydrology indicators are strong in this area
HYDROLOGY
Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
x Surface Water (Al)
_True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_Saturation (A3)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
x Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
x Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x
No Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Ground water gage #15 is near data point 1.
See gage data attached.
Remarks:
2.25" rain event 4 days prior to site visit.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DPI
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
2. Acer negundo
3. Acer rubrum
4. Betula nigra
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover: 20
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1. Acer rubrum
2. Acer negundo
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: 5
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Juncus effusus
2. Carex longii
3. Carex lupulina
4. Solidago spp.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 48
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
20
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
10
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
5
No
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
5
No
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
40
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
_ 20% of total cover:
8
OBL species 60 x 1 = 60
FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
5
Yes
FAC
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
5
Yes
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 140 (A) 265 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.89
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is !-3.0'
10
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20% of total cover:
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
30
Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
30
Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
30
Yes
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5
No
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
95
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
20% of total cover:
19
height.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 7.5YR 4/3 80 10YR 5/2 20 D M Loamy/Clayey
8-14 7.5YR 4/3 50 10YR 5/2 50 D M Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Soils look to be transitioning to wetland soils.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
X Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority. AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Henry Fork Mitigation Site City/County: Catawba County Sampling Date: 6-23-20
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Jordan Hessler & Mimi Caddell Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.702921 Long:-81.364125 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Codorus Loam (CsA) & Hatboro Loam (HaA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
x Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 5
Water Table Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Ground water gage #1 is near data point 2. See gage data attached
Remarks:
2.25" rain event 4 days prior to site visit.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP2
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Alnus serrulata
10 Yes
OBL
Number of Dominant Species
2. Betula nigra
5 Yes
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
3. Platanus occidentalis
5 Yes
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
20 =Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover:
4
OBL species 80 x 1 = 80
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 20 x 2 = 40
1.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 100 (A) 120 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.20
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is !-3.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Leersia oryzoides
60 Yes
OBL
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Carex lupulina
10 No
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Juncus effusus 10 No FACW
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
80 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
40 20% of total cover:
16
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 4/3 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
6-14 7.5YR 3/4 90 10YR 4/2 10 D M Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Abrupt change in soil color at 6".
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
x Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority. AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Henry Fork Mitigation Site City/County: Catawba County Sampling Date: 6-23-20
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc State: NC Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): Jordan Hessler & Mimi Caddell Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.703183 Long:-81.362086 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Hatboro Loam (HaA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
x Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
x Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) X
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132) —Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Ground water gage #13 is near data point 3. See
gage data attached
Remarks:
2.25" rain event 4 days prior to site visit.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP3
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Salix nigra
10 Yes
OBL
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Betula nigra
5 Yes
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
3.
Alnus serrulata
5 Yes
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Platanus occidentalis
5 Yes
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
25 =Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
13 20% of total cover:
5
OBL species 40 x 1 = 40
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 75 x 2 = 150
1.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 115 (A) 190 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.65
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is !-3.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Juncus effusus
60 Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Carex lupulina
10 No
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Sagittaria latifolia 10 No OBL
4.
Typha latifolia
10 No
OBL
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
90 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
45 20% of total cover:
18
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 RM M Loamy/Clayey Mica flakes mixed in
8-14 2.5YR 3/1 100 Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
x Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Wetland Photographs

Potential Wetland AA — northern view (612312020) 1 DP1/Potential Wetland BB — eastern view (612312020) 1
Potential Wetland CC —western view (612312020) 1 DP2/Potential Wetland DID — northern view (612312020) 1
Potential Wetland DD — southern view (612312020) 1 DP3/GWG 13/Potential Wetland EE — southwest view

Potential Wetland EE — southern view (612312020)

From Mitigation Plan:
Jurisdictional Determination
Hydric Soil Evaluation September 9, 2013 (Proposal Phase)
Hydric Soil Investigation May 13, 2014 (Design Phase)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WII.MINOTCN DISTRICT
Action ID: 2014-00538 County: Catawba (,.5_G.S_ Quad: Hickory
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: WE[ — Henry Fork, LLC: 1 Attn.: Shawn Wilkerson
Address: 1430 South Mint Street Suite 10
Charlotte. NC 28203
Telephone Number: 704-332-3306
Sire (acres): 48 Nearest Towns' Hickory
Nearest Waterway: UTs to Henry Fork and Henry Fork Coordinates: 35.703751 lei, 81.36488(1 W
River Ba_tdni HLJC: South Fork Catawba (03050102)
Location description_ The site is located on a tract of land fVarcel ID 279108883819) which was a part of the former
Hertry River Golf Course at 2575 Mountain View Road in Hickory Catawba Courtty North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property_ We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Proo-ram Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request
an approved JD (which may be appcaled), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide
new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
D. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbars Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years fmrn the date of this
notilication.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirernenis of
Section 404 of the Clean 'Water Act (CWA)(33 USC C 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification,
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We strongly suggest you bane this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to C WA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no Chan.ge in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetiarnds have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S_, to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the Iaw or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upotx for a period not to exceed Cive years from the date of this
notification_
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA)_ You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their- requirements.
ISM
13'10CEIM SEP 0 2 209

The Wilmington district is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http:flrea latory _u,sacesurvey_coml_
Copy furnished:
Wildlands ,Engineering, Inc., Attn.: Ian akardt, 1430 South Mint Street_ Suite x04, Charlotte, N. C 28203
NCDENR— Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attn.: Paul Wiesner, S Itavenscrnft Drive, Suite 102, Asbrville, NC 28801

E: PRELIMWARY JURISDICTIONAL DFTF.RN.(INATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district fur further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the ID.
SECI70atiI Ti:= l�E C1EST FOR APPRAL or OWFCT)IONS `I'O AN INITIAL. PRaFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (13cscribe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record_)
AUUITIONXl, INFORMATION: The appeal is Iimited to a review ofthe administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarity the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QURSTIONS OR INFORMA110M.
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding tlae appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David Brown CFSAD-PDO
828-27I-7980 U.S_ Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room IOYI 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
_ Phone. [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Lngineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunizX to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number: - -- -
Signature of appellant or agent_ i
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn,: David Brown, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
Nortb Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, loom 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

♦- _ •art -... �_yK_-�'�.t:.�`' � � � # �' �# - :� � -�'�'��^1�- 'tr�
7 4 - _+� s �4d,'- 'fir
i e*- 4• ........ r
Air
t
r. 4 /r � r /r 1 4. ti. i� 4♦
.4
}
.jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. were delineated by
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. on April 3 and 4, 2014.
Jurisdictional features verified by the USACE
on August 20, 2014
—,—,■ Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Delineated Wetlands
Project Streams
�'-A
Intermittent
Perennial
....... pitches
Data Point Location
y T r-
3 Affi:
►► ;. _ 2010 Aerial Phorograc
Figure 3 Site Map
W I L D L A ICI D S 0 150 300 Feet Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
I Catawba River Basin
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Catawba County, NC

Table i. HemyFork Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Summary of On -Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional
Feature
Classification
Length
(LF)*
Acreage
Watershed:
(ac)
NCDWQ
Stream
Scores
U5ACE
Stream
Scores
UTi
Perennial RPW
3,071
330
39,5h2.5
54144
UT -.A
Intermittent RPW
353
23
27.25
49
UTiS
Perennial RPW
49x
33
31.25
49
UTz
Intermittent RPW
1,945
-
66
27
43
Wetland A
Headwater Forest
-
0.182
-
-
-
Wetland 6
He a d wate r Fo rest
-
o.oi3
-
-
-
Wetland C
Headwater Forest
-
0.003
-
-
-
Wetland D
HeadwaterForest
-
0.094
-
-
-
Wetland E
H ea dwate r Fo re st
-
0,004
-
-
-
Wetland F
Headwater Forest
-
0-067
-
-
-
wetland G
Headwater Forest
-
0.021
-
-
-
Wetland H
Headwater Forest
-
0.056
-
-
-
wetland I
Headwater Forest
0.078
-
-
-
Wetland J
Headwater Forest
0.036
-
-
Wetland K
Headwater Forest
0,062
-
-
-
Wetland L
Headwater Forest
0.00
-
-
Wetland M
Headwater Forest
0.i3i
-
-
-
Wetland H
Headwater Forest
0.084
-
-
Wetland O
Headwater Forest
-
0,028
-
-
-
Wetland P
Headwater Forest
0,023
-
Wetland Q
Headwater Forest
o.06
-
Wetland R
Non -tidal Freshwater
Marsh
0.059
Wetland 5
Non -tidal Freshwater
Marsh
o 159
Pond i**
-
a.zo
-
Pond a**
-
0.81
-
Pond3**
-
-
0,20
Pond 4**
-
-
0.37
*Linearfootage includes stream length through ponds.
**Ponds are manrna de impoundments and prior discussion with Corps indicates that they will be treated as
streams for quantification of impacts.

HYDRIC SOIL EVALUATION
FOR THE PROPOSED HENRY RIVER MITIGATION SITE
CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Prepared by:
Jason A. Payne
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1308
SOIL.
A. P4r •,�
September 9, 2013

— 1 — September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purposeof report...................................................................................................................................... 2
SiteLocation............................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 2
Findings.......................................................................................................................................................2
SoilUnit 1 (S1) — Hydric Soil........................................................................................................................................................3
Soil Unit 2 (S2) — Hydric Fill Over Hydric Soil...........................................................................................................................3
Soil Unit 3 (S3) — Non-Hydric Fill Over Hydric Soil..................................................................................................................3
Soil Unit 4 (S4) — No Evidence of Buried Hydric Soil..............................................................................................................4
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 4

— 2 — September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report has been prepared to assist Wildlands Engineering during planning and design
for the proposed mitigation site located at the Henry River Golf Course in Catawba County, NC.
A detailed evaluation was conducted to characterize soils across the site, with a focus on
identifying hydric soils.
SITE LOCATION
The site is located on an approximately 90-acre property, southwest of the intersection of
Highway 321 and Interstate 40, at 2575 Mountain View Road (Parcel# 279108883819), in Hickory,
NC. The evaluation area is situated in the floodplain of, and south of the Henry Fork River, north of
the terminus of Mountain View Road.
METHODOLOGY
The hydric soil evaluation began with a cursory review of NRCS soils maps, recent aerial photos
and a USGS topographic map for the area. The site analysis was performed on July 25, 2013. Soil
auger borings were advanced throughout the study area. The hydric soil status at each location was
noted, and is based upon the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - A Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0, 2010). During the site evaluation, each soil
boring was assigned to one of four different soil types or units:
• Soil Unit 1 (S1) — Hydric, relatively undisturbed
• Soil Unit 2 (S2) — Hydric soil that has been buried, with hydric indicators in the fill material
• Soil Unit 3 (S3) — Hydric soil that has been buried. Fill material is non-hydric
• Soil Unit 4 (S4) — Non-hydric soil (no evidence of buried hydric soil)
Following the site investigation, field data were compiled to prepare the hydric soil map for the
project.
FINDINGS
Evidence of anthropogenic site manipulation is abundant throughout the study area. One finds
much evidence of ditching and/or channelization of streams across the site. Additionally, fill
material has been placed over a majority of the floodplain area during past construction for the golf
course. The soil beneath is generally undisturbed.
The Soil Units are briefly discussed below and representative soil profile descriptions using the
USDA - NRCS standard nomenclature are appended for hydric soil areas S1, S2 & S3. The attached
"Henry River Project Hydric Soils Evaluation" map illustrates the approximate location of soil borings
and soil map units across the site. Two, separate hydric soil areas were mapped during the
evaluation. The western hydric soil area occupies approximately 1.49-acres, and consists only of S2

-3— September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
and S3 borings. The eastern hydric soil area occupies 3.03-acres, and consists of S1, S2 and S3
borings.
Soil Unit 1 (S1) — Hydric Soil
Soils in this area had no fill material and generally had typical diagnostic soil horizons. While
several hydric soil indicators were present, indicator F3 was the most common.
Indicator F3 - Depleted Matrix. A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more
chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface.
This soil typically had a silt loam textured surface horizon that ranged from 4 to 8 inches with
oxidized rhizoshperes present. The subsurface textures were generally clay loam, grading to silty
clay, with a matrix color of chroma 2 or less.
Soil Unit 2 (S2) — Hydric Fill Over Hydric Soil
Soil Unit 2 had fill material deposited during construction of the golf course. The soil beneath
the fill was relatively undisturbed. Depth of fill was variable, but ranged from 6-to-12-inches. The
buried soil had a loam textured surface horizon underlain by either loam, clay loam, or sandy clay
loam subsurface horizons and met hydric indicator F3 Depleted Matrix.
Here, the affects of hydrologic manipulation on the site are less pronounced and fill material has
been on -site long enough to develop hydric indicators. While some of the fill material may have
been hydric in origin (deposited from adjoining wetland or dredge from the ditches), most fill
material was sourced from upland areas. There was evidence of active reduction and oxidation
reactions in all borings. The soil either met indicator F3 Depleted Matrix or F6;
Indicator F6 - Redox Dark Surface. A layer that is at least 10 cm (4 inches) thick, is entirely
within the upper 30 cm (12 inches) of the mineral soil, and has:
a. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 1 or less and 2 percent or more distinct or
prominent redox concentration occurring as soft masses or pore lining, or
b. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less and 5 percent or more distinct or
prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings.
Soil Unit 3 (S3) — Non-Hydric Fill Over Hydric Soil
Soil Unit 3 clearly had fill material deposited during construction of the golf course. The soil
beneath the fill was relatively undisturbed. Depth of fill was quite variable, but ranges from 12-to-
26-inches. The buried soil had a silty clay loam surface horizon underlain by clay, silty clay or clay
loam subsurface horizons. These areas met hydric indicator F3 - Depleted Matrix. While there was
some evidence of recent reduction and oxidations reactions within some fill, it did not meet any of
the hydric indicators.

-4— September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
Soil Unit 4 (S4) — No Evidence of Buried Hydric Soil
Most of Soil Unit 4 evidenced fill material, but in all cases neither the fill material nor the
original soil met any hydric soil indicators within a depth reasonable for remediation. For example,
some borings exhibited fill depths of greater than 36-inches, and were terminated. Since these
areas contained mostly fill material without hydric soil indicators, a representative soil profile
description was omitted.
rnmri iicinm
This report presents information that may be used as reference for planning and design for
the proposed work at the Henry River Mitigation site. Specifically, soil borings provide evidence
of areas where hydric soils are either present or present below fill material. Soil units for each
of these areas were delineated on the attached map. The site hydrology has been altered by
ditching and/or channelization of streams and the addition of the fill material. Subsequently,
opportunities exist for wetland restoration. These findings represent a professional opinion
based on Hydric Soil Investigation and knowledge of the current regulations regarding wetland
mitigation in North Carolina and national criteria for determining hydric soil.

.
.702,0
a
)\ ))\{ %
=
t /;±a{r 2
\
&
2 w- po §
«
I
J6f)`= @
■
.
,
r
z
k
k
/ CO
w E
.o2: ©
/
n Cl)
&
-
-
))/)/\ 7
C°°
C
I L
\ J
o
U
--
GCl)
<
, } »
%
p §°
E
g
U
u 2
u =
w
�
u: U
> 3
� •� R
E -0 £
2 2 U

/4G�ly I� `UCH �(C ;•�{ i z5�/'
Ron
Texture
m
ColorStructure Matrix
Mottle Colors
Color)
iiG�l91�
ili��
�
•
[j■Ofi
■��L
�
iiO
�

HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Catawba County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Prepared by:
The
Co Lena
Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
May 13, 2014

INTRODUCTION
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. is considering mitigating a section of the Henry Fork project site in the
Catawba River Basin (03050101). The site is accessed off Mountain View Road (SR 1192) in Hickory,
Catawba County, NC. The Catena Group, Inc. (Catena) was retained to perform a detailed soil
investigation that would, in part, determine the depth of fill material that was previously observed
during a preliminary soil and site.
METHODOLOGY
The field investigation was performed on April 29, 2014. Seventy-two (72) hand -turned auger borings
were advanced throughout the study area on a seventy-five ft by seventy-five ft grid (Figure 1). Each soil
boring was marked in the field with a red pin flag noting the boring number, soil unit number, and either
depth of fill material or depth boring was terminated. Hydric soil status was based upon the NRCS Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the Unities States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils
(Version 7.0, 2010).
RESULTS
There is clear evidence of human manipulation throughout the study area. In addition to ditching
and/or channelization of streams, fill material has been placed over the majority of the study area. Six
Soil Units were created based on data collected from soil borings and are described below and
summarized in Table 1. Table 2 lists the classification and fill depth when applicable for each soil boring
(appended).
Soil Unit 1. Soil Unit 1 had a typical surface diagnostic horizon that met hydric soil indicator F3.
F3 Depleted Matrix. A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less
and that has a minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or 5 cm (6
inches), or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface.
Soil Unit 2. Soil Unit 2 consists of non-hydric soil that appeared to be undisturbed.
Soil Unit 3. Soil Unit 3 clearly has overburden material deposited as a result of human manipulation.
The soil material below the overburden was relatively undisturbed and met hydric indicator F3 Depleted
Matrix. The overburden was classified as hydric and met hydric indicator F3 Depleted Matrix.
Soil Unit 4. Soil Unit 4 clearly has overburden material deposited as a result of human manipulation.
The soil material below the overburden was relatively undisturbed other than a compressed soil
structure and a truncated profile, remnants of past surface manipulations. This material still appeared
to be hydric and met indicator F3 Depleted Matrix. The overburden did not meet any hydric soil
Henry Fork Hydric Soil Investigation May 13, 2014
Catena Job #4172 1

indicator. A typical soil profile for Soil Unit 4 is appended. Soil Unit 4 comprised the majority of the
study site.
Soil Unit S. Soil Unit 5 clearly has overburden material deposited as a result of human manipulation.
The overburden material and the soil beneath did not meet any hydric soil indicator.
Soil Unit 6. Soil Unit 6 clear has overburden material deposited as a result of human manipulation. The
surface of the overburden material currently meets hydric indicator F3 Depleted Matrix. The material
below the surface did not currently meet any hydric soil indicator.
Table 1. Summary of Soil Boring Classification and Hydric Indicator (if applicable).
Soil Unit
Classification
Hydric Indicator
1
Undisturbed Hydric Soil
F3
2
Undisturbed Non-Hydric Soil
n/a
3
Hydric Overburden/Buried Hydric Soil
F3
4
Non-Hydric Overburden/Buried Hydric Soil
F3
S
Non-Hydric Overburden/Buried Non-Hydric Soil
n/a
6
Hydric Overburden/Non-Hydric Soil
F3
CONCLUSION
Seventy-two (72) soil borings were advanced throughout the study area. Borings were placed into one
of six Soil Units. The depth of fill material was noted at each boring when applicable. It is anticipated
that Priority 1 stream restoration, combined with limited soil manipulation, has the potential to re-
establish approximately 5.6 acres of wetlands (Figure 1).
The findings presented herein represent Catena's professional opinion based on our Hydric Soil
Investigation and knowledge of the current regulations regarding wetland mitigation in North Carolina
and national criteria for determining hydric soil.
Henry Fork Hydric Soil Investigation May 13, 2014
Catena Job #4172 2

Table 2. Classification of Each Soil Boring and Depth of Fill Material (if applicable).
Boring No.
Soil Unit
Depth of Fill
I Boring No.
Soil Unit
Depth of Fill I
1
5
N/A
49
2
N/A
2
4
34
50
3
22
3
4
24
51
4
14
4
4
26
52
4
38
5
4
24
53
4
36
6
4
34
54
4
31
7
4
32
55
4
32
8
4
34
56
2
N/A
9
4
27
57
4
27
10
4
13
58
4
15
11
4
18
59
4
8
12
4
16
60
5
N/A
13
4
20
61
5
N/A
14
4
18
62
4
28
15
4
19
63
4
25
16
4
19
64
4
17
17
4
13
65
4
27
18
4
21
66
4
30
19
4
27
67
4
20
20
4
23
68
3
17
31
4
16
69
4
12
32
4
15
70
5
N/A
33
4
24
71
6
N/A
34
5
40
72
4
28
35
4
24
73
5
N/A
37
4
45
74
5
N/A
38
4
29
75
5
N/A
39
2
N/A
76
5
N/A
40
2
N/A
77
4
22
41
2
N/A
78
5
N/A
42
2
N/A
79
5
N/A
44
4
38
80
2
N/A
45
4
38
81
1
N/A
46
2
N/A
82
5
N/A
47
2
N/A
83
5
N/A
48
2
N/A
84
5
N/A
Henry Fork Hydric Soil Investigation May 13, 2014
Catena Job #4172 2

m �
m �
- LL
w
a r-
m m
�nl co
O 4V*
ro m ,I m m
0
ry "'cc
or, n m m L
LL W U
_T
N } Q -`�
Q 7, ccm m 1—_ 16
CL
� N
j°
N ! -
cn � i -
07 f
R . �•' '� � Via:• I/7
m - -+
i
•r +�
O
,u T Z N +�
mis `1 'a -0 -0 v j
Q _ T c a
M ti
a3
o U1 -am m 2 +
N m Z V
N
Z 9 d d L7
[G
L7 L7
d o
H in U T T V £
2 Z Z 2 j Q
d = r N C•. lC7 [D
r.'
a Q 0 ib 0 0
m
0
�
o
r
N
�
a
�
v
g
�
�
a
�
U
�
❑
Vj
�

The Catena Group, Inc
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919.732.1300
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
Catena Job: 4172 Henry Fork Hyd. Soil Inv.
County: Catawba
Date: 4/29/14
Sheet: 1 of 1
Iva 0
c
as
c
a
Structure /Texture
Consistence /
Mineralogy
Matrix
Color
Mottle Colors
(Quantity, Size, Contrast, Color)
1
Fill
13
O,M parting to
1,M,SBK / C, CL
FI / S, P
Variegated
Ab
18
1,M, SBK parting to
1,M,GR / SL
FIR / SS, SP
10YR 3/1
m,2,D 7.5YR 4/4
Bt
28
1,M,SBK / CL
FI / SS, SP
2.5Y 4/1
m,2,P 10YR 4/4; m,2,P 7.5YR 5/6
BC
36
1,CO,SBK / C
FI / SS,SP
2.5Y 5/2
m,2,P 10YR 4/6; m,2,P 2.5Y 4/6
Evaluated by: MW JR