20150261 Ver 1_401 Application_20150315

Kimley »>Horn
March 9, 2015
Mr. Brad Shaver
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
512 N Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Union Chapel Test Well and Raw Water Line Project — Nationwide 12 Permit Application
Richlands, Onslow County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Shaver and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of our client, the Onslow Water and Sewer Authority ( ONWASA), Kimley -Horn is submitting the
attached Pre - Construction Notification package for authorization under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 for
the above referenced utility line project located in Onslow County. The project proposes to construct a
test wellhead structure, blend water treatment facility, and 22,900 linear feet of finished and raw water
main through a currently forested utility easement and then continuing within the existing roadway of
Union Chapel Church Road. Kimley -Horn staff delineated the project corridor on November 12, 2014 and
identified three wetland features (wetlands WB, WC, and WD) within the raw water line corridor. The
wellhead and treatment facility site was intentionally located in an upland area adjacent to an existing
forest road.
The proposed impacts to WB, WC, and WD include the temporary disturbance associated with open -cut
trenching to install the waterline, and then backfilling the trench consistent with the conditions of NWP 12.
The water line easement will not be maintained in an effort to avoid permanent impacts associated with
forested wetland conversion.
The wellhead and water line are being proposed to facilitate a feasibility study conducted by ONWASA to
determine the suitability of a municipal drinking water supply well field in this area using the Castle Hayne
aquifer. If the test wells show adequate supply rates, ONWASA may ultimately construct additional
wellheads and a municipal water treatment plan in this vicinity via the subsequent coordination and
requisite permitting process determined at that time. However, the currently proposed project involves
only the construction of the test well and water line that will connect to existing ONWASA water mains
until aquifer utilization rates are determined by the feasibility study. This study is being conducted to
comply with the requirements of the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area rules that mandate the
reduction in withdrawals from the Black Creek aquifer.

Kimley »>Horn
To assist in your evaluation, the following documentation has been included with this application:
• Pre - Construction Notification a USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Map
• Signed Agent Authorization Letter 0 Permit Exhibits
• Vicinity Map a USACE Wetland Data Forms
• USGS Topographic Map a Preliminary JD Request Package
• Jurisdictional Features Map 0 NCDWR Review Fee of $240
Page 2
If there is any additional information that you need to assist in the processing of this Nationwide Permit
application, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 678 -4155 or Jason. Hartshorn@Kimley-
horn.com.
Sincerely,
— 1��
Jason Hartshorn
Environmental Analyst
Attachments
Cc: Pete Crum, PWD, Kimley -Horn
Carl Baker, Onslow Water and Sewer Authority

o � -r
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
® Yes
❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Union Chapel Test Well and Raw Water Line Project
2b.
County:
Onslow
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Richlands
2d.
Subdivision name:
n/a
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
n/a
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Onslow Water and Sewer Authority (ONWASA) owned property
easement (raw water line)
(well site) and
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
n/a
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Carl H. Baker
3d.
Street address:
228 Georgetown Road, P.O. Box 1415
3e. City, state, zip:
Jacksonville, NC 28450 -1415
3f.
Telephone no.:
(910) 455 -0722
3g.
Fax no.:
910 - 455 -5607
3h.
Email address:
CBaker @onwasa.com0
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
® Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Pete Crum, PWD
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Kimley -Horn
5c.
Street address:
4500 Main Street, Suite 500
5d.
City, state, zip:
Virginia Beach, VA 23462 -3050
5e.
Telephone no.:
(757) 355 -6674
5f.
Fax no.:
n/a
5g.
Email address:
Pete.Crum @Kimley - Horn.com
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
Onslow Parcel PINs:
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
433901460654 and
433902671801
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 34.831162 Longitude: - 77.553583
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
4.72 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Catherine Lake
proposed project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
B;NSW
2c.
River basin:
White Oak
3.
Project Description
3a.
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project site is located in a managed pine plantation with occasional natural forested areas. General land use in the
vicinity of the project consists of managed pine plantations, agriculture, residential development, and industrial mining
activities.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.22 acres
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
0.00 linear feet
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Construction of approximately 22,900 LF of finished and raw water main and construction of a corresponding blend water
treatment facility.
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will construct a well head facility consisting of a pump and utility structure at the well head location. The
primary test well will be an 8" diameter PVC well extending to a depth of 125 feet, reaching the Castle Hayne aquifer. To
minimize or negate the potential connection between the Castle Hayne aquifer and the surficial aquifer (surface water
bodies), the well will be screened between 75 and 125 feet only. Supporting the test well and well head facility will be an
8" raw water main. The main will be constructed through open cut trenching and will backfill using appropriate conditions
required by Nationwide Permit #12. The test well, well head facility, and raw water main will be constructed with typical
site development, well intallation, and utility line construction equipment such as bulldozers, track hoes, drilling rigs, dump
trucks, and /or cranes.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: The proposed project is located within Martin
Marietta Aggregates -owned property, and the area may have
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
been delineated in the past, however as of the date of this
submittal, it is unknown if any determinations have been
made for the property. A jurisdictional determination request
for the project area has been included within this permit
application.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known): n/a
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
No previous permits have been obtained for this project in the past. The existing test well (UC -1) was constructed in
uplands and required no coordination with USACE prior to installation.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
The proposed project is part of a feasibility study by ONWASA to determine the suitability of a municipal drinking water
supply well field in this area using the Castle Hayne aquifer. If the test wells show adequate supply rates, ONWASA may
ultimately construct additional well heads and a municipal water treatment plant in this vicinity. However, at this time, the
project only involves the construction of test well UC -2 and associated raw water line connecting to existing water mains
until aquifer utilization rates are determined.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ❑ Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ®T
Trenching to
install utility line
Headwater Forest
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
.067
W2 ❑ P ®T
Trenching to
install utility line
Headwater Forest
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
.062
W3 ❑ P ®T
Trenching to
install utility line
Headwater Forest
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps
❑ DWQ
.093
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts - 0.22 acre (temporary)
2h. Comments: Impacts will be temporary in nature and will occur within the alignment of the proposed raw water main. The
easement will not be maintained.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
0
3i. Comments: No stream impacts will result from the proposed project.
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑ PEI T
4f. Total open water impacts
0
4g. Comments: No impacts to open waters are proposed as part this project.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: No ponds or lakes will be constructed as part of the proposed project.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes [Z No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
n/a
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
n/a
5k. Method of construction:
n/a
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number-
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
re uired?
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
0
0
6i. Comments: The project is located in the White Oak river basin, therefore no protected riparian buffers will be impacted by
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

the proposed project.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
ONWASA has avoided and minimized wetland impacts to the extent practical by locating the well head within upland areas of
the ONWASA -owned property parcel to fully avoid wetland impacts from the well head. Additiionally, access roads into the
well site and electrical and support structures will also be located within the upland areas of the site to further avoid wetland
impacts. Impacts resulting from the proposed raw water main have been minimized by keeping the construction footprint
within the 30' ONWASA easement, and using the shortest possible route through this area before running the water main
along the existing roadway corridor east of the property that entirely avoids impacts to stream features in the vicinity.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts will be minimized to the extent practical throughout the construction process by confining the construction footprint as
narrowly as practical in the wetland crossings. Staging and construction access will be located in upland areas throughout the
corridor, and silt fencing will be installed around the permitted limits of disturbance to ensure all equipment is located within
the project corridor at all times. Best Management Practices (BMP) and measures will be used to reduce stormwater impacts
to receiving waters and minimize runoff from the construction sites.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: n/a
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type n/a
Quantity n/a
3c. Comments: n/a
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
n/a linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
n/a square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
n/a acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
n/a acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
n/a acres
4h. Comments: n/a
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
n/a
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
0
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
n/a
6h. Comments: The project is located in the White Oak River Basin which is not subject to riparian buffer protection rules, and
therefore no impacts to protected riparian buffers will result from the proposed project.
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments: n/a
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project is located within Onslow
County, in an area subject to coastal stormwater regulations, however the project will
have less than 10,000 square feet
of built upon area and therefore does not require a stormwater management plan.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
n/a
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
® DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
n/a
❑ Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
® Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ® No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments: The proposed project will replace existing capacity and does not
surpass the minimum threshold criteria described in 15A NCAC 01C .0408.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): n/a
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed project will construct a test well and water main connecting to existing infrastructure in the project vicinity in
an effort to assess the Castle Hayne aquifer in the area. If the aquifer is found to adequately , and will ultimately replace
existing capacity due to the CCPCUA rules.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The proposed project will not generate any wastewater.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5.
Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a.
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b.
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
El Raleigh
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Database (updated October 2014), no known
occurrences of any federally threatened or endangered species have been recorded within 1.0 mile of the project area.
Since no T & E occurrences were found in the database search, no survey was conducted for the site.
6.
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a.
Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper (Accessed December 2, 2014)
7.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a.
Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
® Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? A search
of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS Service (Accessed December 2, 2014) revealed
One National Register (Catherine Lake Historic District, HPO Site ID ON0946) and three Study List sites (HPO Site IDs:
ON0949, ON0954, and ON0984) within one mile of the project area. All HPO sites are south of the project area around
the southern edge of Catherine Lake, which is approximately 0.75 miles from the Site. Based on the nature of the project
and the project's location within a managed timberland near a quarry operation, and given the distance to the HPO
properties from the project area, the proposed project will not have any impact on the National Register or Study List
sites.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a.
Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b.
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: N/A
8c.
What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Panel 3720432800J
Pete Crum, PWD
3/9/2015
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

SIGNED AGENT
AUTHORIZATION

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: Kimlev -Horn and Associates, Inc. c/o Pete Crum CPWD
Address: 4500 Main Street, Suite 500, Virginia Beach VA 23462
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/Description: Union Chapel Test Well and Raw Water Line Project
Date: 2/12/2015
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: Brad Shaver
Field Office: Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
Onslow Water and Sewer Authority (ONWASA) hereby designates and authorizes Kimley -Horn and
Associates, Inc. to act on our behalf as our agent solely for the purpose of processing Jurisdictional
Determinations, Section 404 permits /Section 401 Water Quality Certifications applications, and to
furnish upon request supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward
until successful completion of the permitting process or revocation by the owner.
In addition, I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property /properties identified
herein, do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Authorized this the day of 65&V AN, Q
CARL, AKC N.
Print Property Owner's Name Property Owner's Signature
Cc: Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650

FIGURES

Qa
0
e.
Duffy Fielder
pa\ \yi
lNeSfQ
CU
vLI
258 tnec��
tea
CD
°
oWn Ro,
70
CL
�a
-0
d
3
JONES
DUPLIN Project Location
AVE�N
a
w°,
ONSLOW
�o
Q
Legend
PENDER
°�� pra
Ha Project Study Area
0� 6
12
O�
°�
a� \e rs
0 4,000 8,000
Miles
Q��t
Feet
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Kimley)))Horn
ONWASA -Union Chapel Project
Onslow County, NC
December 2014

• • • • fry. • ivy► /• f � � • .. • r
• Y, _ - - r' Roger • • ' ` /' - r10
. I I it '�. ♦ P �0 '' i' ---- %'
23.0
Cem
On
�...
_ � ti4 �� I ` 8 M 15�; • 1311 I
1
• • —; Bethel
t a _ C
b Q 18 I 1' •� -� cf11
I ( • . ;r
I 1 . •
� ►I `` / 1S r i
• I :• •0
•
a i - ••
0 01 22' %
• V♦ Z4 • _ ._.�- �s
ti - 0
6227. BM 15
• . i j ti •
• ' CathMnt ' i I • • •
.,,. . Lake _ �,t �_
all Legend • .....:.
•• 27.5 r
•
• • • 0 1,000 2,000
Project Study Area � — -
Tral er Feet
• Cathezine Par
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Kimley>Morn ON(Catherine Lake Quad, 1980)
WASA - Union Chapel Project
Onslow County, NC
December 2014

i % A .
S '� �NoB BaB rr (ji ,2Z'7
f
Ln
/"*-%E=
HYDRIC SOIL TABLE
Map Unit
Soil Unit Name
Hydric
BaB
Baymeade fine sand (0 -6% slopes)
Incl.
Ln
Leon fine sand
Yes
Mu
Murville fine sand
Yes
NoB
Norfolk loamy fine sand (2 -6% slopes)
Incl.
St
Stallings loamy fine sand
Incl.
Wo
Woodington loamy fine sand
Yes
Kirnley))) Horn
L4
w
W.r
Legend
Project Study Area
0 300 600
Feet
Jr U-
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map
( Onslow County, 1992)
ONWASA - Union Chapel Project
Onslow County, NC
December 2014

WETLAND DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal plain Region
Pro]ectlS W Union Chapel WTP UC -2 Option C city /county: Onslow County Sampling Date: 11/12/2014
Applicant/Owner: ONWASA state: NC Sampling Point: 0131
Investigator(s): Pete Crum, PWD, Steve Barbian Section, Township. Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local reiief (concave, convex. noney Convex Slope ( %) 5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Soil Map Unit Name: Wo - Woodi
loa
Lat: 34.829723 Lang: - 77.553355
fine sand Nwl classification: UPL
Datum: NAD83
Are climatic I hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes © No = (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil Ror or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes m No ❑.
Are Vegetation Sail Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No— ✓ ✓
within a wetland? Yes No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ✓
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface l68)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (B161
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Shallow Aquitard (133)
FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (6 13)
High Water Table (A2) Mari Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Saturation (A3) hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Water Marks (131) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Sediment Deposits (62) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (133) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Deposits (135) HOther (Explain in Remarks)
Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑Iron
❑Inundation
Field observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
includes capillary fringe)
No 4, Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
No ✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes Nom
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: OP1
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
5
1. Pinus taeda
65
Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
6
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
83
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A1B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
65
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
0
50 /o of total cover:
o
32.5 20 /o of total cover: 13
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FAC species x 3 =
1. Persea borbonia
50
Y FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2. Quercus rubra
15
Y FACU
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
65
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
32.5 20% of total cover: 13
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1. Ilex coriacea
25
Y FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. Persea borbonia
15
Y FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
40
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20 20% of total cover: 8
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Smilax rotundifolia
15
Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
15=
Total Cover
Vegetation
z
50% of total cover:
7.5 20% of total cover: 3
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: OP1
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 Loc7
Texture Remarks
0 -14 10YR 3/2 70
30 UCSG
FSL
14 -20+ 10YR 5/4 60 10YR 7/4 30
LFS
10YR 5/8 10
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15313)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
❑
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ❑✓
(inches):
—E—
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. Region
Project/Site: Union Chapel WTP UC -2 Option C city /county: Onslow County sampling Date: 11/12/2014
Appilcant/Owner: ONWASA state: NC Sampling Point: OP2
Investigators) Pete Crum PWD, Steve Barbian Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None slope ( %) 5 -10
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 34.830993 Long: - 77.553241 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: NoB - Norfolk loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes NWl classification: UPL
Are climatic I hydro I is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes © No ❑ (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil Ror or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances° present? Yes ❑ No ❑.
Are Vegetation Sail Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No _ within a Wetland? Yes Q No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No _ ✓
Remarks:
Test well site - area cleared about 1.5 years ago and has since naturally re- vegetated.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is re©uired: check all that apply)
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (BIG)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry- Season water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Shallow Aquitard (133)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (B13)
High water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide odor (C1)
Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Sediment Deposits (132) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Snails (Cea)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Deposits (B5) other (Explain in Remarks)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑Iron
✓
El
Field observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No- Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes- No- ✓ Depth (inches):
includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes No M.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Moist soil observed at approximately 8" below ground surface but water table not observed within
upper 24" of soil profile - NC CRONOS station at New River MCAS in Jacksonville recorded 0.51"
of rain in the 24 hours prior to site visit.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: OP2
4. Prevalence Index = B/A =
5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7. x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
20 = Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
80 Y FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
.% Cover,
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
2.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
1.
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
7
(A)
2.
8.
5.
Total Number of Dominant
5
g.
3.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Species Across All Strata:
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
(B)
4.
height.
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A1B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
8
OBL species
x 1 =
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Ilex coriacea
10
Y FACW
FACU species
x 4 =
2. liquidambar styraciflua
5
Y FAC
UPL species
x 5 =
3. Persea borbonia
5
Y FACW
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
4. Prevalence Index = B/A =
5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7. x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
20 = Total Cover _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
85 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 42.5 20% of total cover: 17
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1. Rhynchospora pusilla
80 Y FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. Andropogon virginicus
5 N FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
1.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
2.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
5.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover
g.
Ll
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Present? Yes No
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
85 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 42.5 20% of total cover: 17
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
= Total Cover
Vegetation
Ll
Present? Yes No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Location was clear cut approximately 1.5 years prior to date of this investigation and has since
naturally re- vegetated.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: OP2
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 Loc7
Texture Remarks
0 -8 10YR 3/1 60 10YR 6/1 40 M
FSL
8 -18+ 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 6/1 10 M
LFS
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15313)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
❑
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth
Hydric Soil Present? Yes i No ❑
(inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal plain Region
Pro]ectlS W Union Chapel WTP UC -2 Option C city /county: Onslow County Sampling Date: 11/12/2014
Applicant/Owner: ONWASA State: NC Sampling Point: OP3
Investigator(s): Pete Crum, PWD, Steve Barbian Section, Township. Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local reiief (concave, convex, none): Convex slope (%) 5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 34.831139 Long: - 77.553447 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Norfolk loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Nwl classification: UPL
Are climatic I hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes © No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil Ror or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes M No ❑.
Are Vegetation Sail Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _ No— ✓ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No— ✓ ✓
within a Wetland? Yes No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ✓
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave surface l68)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (B161
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Shallow Aquitard (133)
FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (6 13)
High Water Table (A2) Mari Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Water Marks (131) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Sediment Deposits (62) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (133) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Algal Mat or Crust (154) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Deposits (135) HOther (Explain in Remarks)
Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑Iron
❑Inundation
Field observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
includes capillary fringe)
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Nom
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: OP3
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
.% Cover,
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
1.
2
1.
4.
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
height.
Total Number of Dominant
3
3.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
8.
5.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover
g.
/
Percent of Dominant Species
67
5.
Present? Yes
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A1B)
6.
height.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
1. Ilex coriacea
25
Y FACW
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
2
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
25
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
45 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 22.5 20% of total cover: 9
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1. Andropogon virginicus
30 Y FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. Solidago altissima
15 Y FACU
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
1.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
2.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
5.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover
g.
/
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Present? Yes
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
45 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 22.5 20% of total cover: 9
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
= Total Cover
Vegetation
F
/
Present? Yes
No
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: OP3
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 Loc7
Texture Remarks
0 -12 10YR 5/2 100
LFS
12 -16 10YR 5/2 50 10YR 6/4 50
LFS
16 -24 10YR 6/4 95 10YR 6/8 5
LFS
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15313)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
❑
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ❑✓
(inches):
—E—
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal plain Region
Project/Site: Union Chapel WTP UC -2 Option C city /county: Onslow County sampling Dale: 11/12/2014
Appllcant/Owner: ONWASA State_ NC Sampling Point: OP4
Investigators) Pete Crum, PWD, Steve Barbian Section, Township, Range
Landfvrm (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( %) <5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 34.827869 long: - 77.546004 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Baymeade fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification_ UPL
Are climatic I hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes © No ❑ (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil Ror or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances° present? Yes m No ❑.
Are Vegetation Sail Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No _ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes Q No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No —4
Remarks:
Headwater wetland area. A portion of this area was impacted by prior access path clearing.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two reguired)
Surface Soil Cracks (€313)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (BIG)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry- Season water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Shallow Aquitard (133)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (613)
High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide odor (C1)
Water Marks (131) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Sediment Deposits (132) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (Cei)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Deposits (135) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑Iron
✓
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes _
Saturation Present? Yes_
includes capillary fringe)
No 4, Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yeswi No J—.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: OP4
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Sphagnum present around drainage feature.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
7
1. Persea palustris
45
Y FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. Pinus taeda
15
Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant
7
3
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A1B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
60
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
30 20% of total cover: 12
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FAC species x 3 =
1. Persea palustris
45
Y FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2. Ilex coriacea
30
Y FACW
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
75
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
37.5 20% of total cover: 15
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Smilax rotundifolia
5
Y FAC
2. Smilax bona -nox
5
Y FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
10
= Total Cover
Vegetation
IV] Ll
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover: 2
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Sphagnum present around drainage feature.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: OP4
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 Loc7
Texture Remarks
0 -6 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 6/1 10 RM M
FSL
6 -10 10YR 6/1 85 10YR 3/1 15
LFS
10+ 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 6/1 5 RM M
LFS
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15313)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
❑
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth
Hydric Soil Present? Yes i No ❑
(inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal plain Region
Pro]ectlS W Union Chapel WTP UC -2 Option C city /county: Onslow County Sampling Date: 11/12/2014
Applicant/Owner: ONWASA State: NC Sampling Point: OP5
Investigator(s): Pete Crum PWD, Steve Barbian Section, Township. Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local reiief (concave. convex. noney Concave Slope ( - /o) 5 -10
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 34.827926 Long: - 77.542313 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map unit Name: Baymeade fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes Nwl classification: UPL
Are climatic I hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes © No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil Ror or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes m No ❑.
Are Vegetation Sail Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ _ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ _ No— within a Wetland? Yes Q No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No
Remarks:
Headwater wetland area
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface l68)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (8751
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Shallow Aquitard (133)
FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (6 13)
High Water Table (A2) Mari Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Saturation (A3) hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Water Marks (131) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Sediment Deposits (62) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Drift Deposits (133) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Algal Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Deposits (135) HOther (Explain in Remarks)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water - Stained Leaves (139)
❑iron
✓
✓
Field observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
Water Table Present? Yes _
Saturation Present? Yes _
includes capillary fringe)
No- 4, Depth (inches):
No Depth (inches): >18
No Depth (inches): 6
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yeswi No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: OP5
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
7
1.
Persea borbonia
30
Y FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Acer rubrum
25
Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant
7
3
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
100
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A1B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
55
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover:
27.5 20% of total cover: 11
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FAC species x 3 =
1.
Ilex coriacea
35
Y FACW
FACU species x 4 =
2.
Persea borbonia
25
Y FACW
UPL species x 5 =
3.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
60
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
30 20% of total cover: 12
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1.
Osmunda claytoniana
5
N FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Ilex coriacea
40
Y FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
45
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
22.5 20% of total cover: 9
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
5
Y FAC
2.
Smilax bona -nox
5
Y FAC
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
10
= Total Cover
Vegetation
z
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover: 2,5
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: OP5
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 Loc7
Texture Remarks
0 -14 10YR 3/1 100
FSL
14 -18 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 3/1 10
FSL
18+ 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 6/8 10 C M
FSL
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2 Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15313)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
❑
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
0
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth
Hydric Soil Present? Yes i No ❑
(inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0