20140843 Ver 1_FW ECS Project # 31-2738 - NCWAM_20150514

Strickland, Bev
From: Devane, Boyd
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:30 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: ECS Project # 31 -2738 Jule Noland Property - Wetlands #2014 -0843
Attachments: 31 -2738 - Jule Noland Property - NCWAM.pdf
From: Wanda Austin [mai Ito: wa ndajoycea usti n(d)a ma il.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:27 PM
To: Higgins, Karen; Devane, Boyd; rlmclean3Cd)aol.com; Davidson, Landon; Caroline -A- Contracting
Subject: Fwd: ECS Project # 31 -2738 Jule Noland Property - Wetlands
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Wanda Austin <wandajoyceaustinggmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:04 PM
Subject: Fwd: ECS Project 4 31 -2738 Jule Noland Property - Wetlands
To: Brent Pack <brentpglaurelridgegolicom>
Attached is the WAM for your files. I will forward to the agencies with my response. The overall rating is
LOW.
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: AStandiield <AStandfieldgecslimited.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:46 PM
Subject: ECS Project 4 31 -2738 Jule Noland Property - Wetlands
To: wandajoyceaustinggmail.com
Cc: BFulton <BFulton _,ecslimited.com >, JRoth <JRoth o,ecslimited.com >, MFogleman
<MFo Leman o,ecslimited.com>
Good afternoon Wanda,
Attached is a copy of the Report of Wetland Assessment Services for the Jule Noland Property located in
Waynesville, North Carolina. Please forward the report as appropriate. Feel free to contact our office with any
questions.
Thank you,
=►Jo

Adm rdstratve As§stant
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP 1812 Center 1Flark W�ve, Su. to Chadotte, INC 282.1.7
ll : 704-525-5152 704-319-7803 F::: 704-357-0023 www ecs�hiirnuied coirn
me, sagevbtlachippents, Delete messagevbtlachippents it not intencled recipient,

ECS CAROLINAS, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
�.r Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F -1078
December 11, 2014
Mr. John Harmon
Harmon Graham Properties
PO Box 120
Waynesville, North Carolina
Reference: Report of Wetland Assessment Services
Jule Noland Property
Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31 -2738
Dear Mr. Harmon:
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) is pleased to provide the results of a Wetland Determination
conducted for the above referenced site. Our services were provided in accordance with ECS
Proposal No. 08- 17399P.
Background
The approximate 9.832 -acre undeveloped tract is located between Jule Noland Drive and
Dellwood Road, west of Lake Junaluska in Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina. The
Haywood County Parcel Identification Number associated with the site is 8616 -49 -2446. Based
on information provided by Ms. Wanda Austin, a wetland delineation was completed on the
property in February 2014. The delineation report, completed by Altamont Environmental Inc.,
was utilized as part of this evaluation, and can be found as an attachment to this report
(Attachment 1). The aforementioned report identified a 3.28 acre wetland within the floodplain
portion of the site. As part of the proposed development of the property, impacts are proposed
to the wetland. Per federal regulations, mitigation for the impact to the wetland is required. An
assessment of the wetland using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method ( NCWAM)
has been requested to approximate the quality and function of the wetland, and to determine if
the mitigation ratio suggested by the permitting agencies is consistent with the wetland quality
and function. The NCWAM Wetland Assessment Form and the NCWAM Wetland Rating Sheet
are found in Attachment 2.
ECS personnel conducted a field investigation of the site on December 9, 2014.
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Overview
NCWAM is a process that began in 2003, and was developed by an interagency team of federal
and state agency staff. The purpose of the NCWAM is to provide a method to assess the
function of a wetland relative to a reference condition for each of the 16 North Carolina general
wetland types. The intent was to develop a process that is accurate, consistent, rapid,
observational, and scientifically based. NCWAM was created to be used for project planning,
alternatives analysis, compliance and enforcement, mitigation planning, and tracking functional
assessment.
1900 Hendersonville Road, Suite 10, Asheville, NC 28803 • T: 828 - 665 -2307 • F: 828 - 665 -8128 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Mid - Atlantic, LLC • ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Illinois, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

Report of Wetland Determination Services
Jule Noland Property
Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31 -2738
December 11, 2014
Literature Review
ECS reviewed information relative to the site prior to the site visit, these included:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic map of the site. The topographic
map does depict surface waters on the site, including two blue line streams which are
Mauney Cove Branch and Factory Branch.
• ECS reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Wetlands Inventory Map of the site. The
map does not depict wetlands on the site.
• ECS reviewed the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of
Haywood County. Soils depicted on the soil survey include Dellwood -Urban Land complex
(DhA), Dillsboro loam (DsB,DsC), Evard -Cowee complex (EvD, EvE), and Saunook -Urban
land complex (SfC). No soils mapped on the site are identified on the Hydric Soils List for
Haywood County.
• ECS reviewed the wetland delineation report completed by Altamont Environmental Inc.,
which included an assessment of the vegetation, hydrology, and soils identified at the site.
NCWAM Findings and Conclusions
ECS visited the site on December 9, 2014 to perform the NCWAM. Review of the vegetation,
soils, and hydrology within the wetland area were compared to the findings of the Altamont
Environmental Inc., report. ECS concurred with those findings.
ECS utilized the Dichotomous Key to General North Carolina Wetland Types that accompanies
the NCWAM User Manual, Version 4.1, in order to classify the wetland type that had been
previously delineated. A classification of Bottomland Hardwood Forest was assigned to the
wetland. The wetland is dominated by herbaceous species, which is not typically associated
with a Bottomland Hardwood Forest. No evidence of organics or muck was identified during the
evaluation. Past disturbance to the wetland via clearing and maintenance, and an adjacent
berm /gravel path are stressing the wetland and not allowing for the successful growth of
hardwood species. It is anticipated that short periods of inundation occur, with surface flow to
drainage features located within the wetland, and subsequent drainage into Factory Branch
located on the northern property boundary. The wetland did not demonstrate indicators of long
periods of inundation.
ECS compiled data obtained from the site and incorporated that data into the NCWAM Wetland
Assessment Form. Through a series of metrics associated with different attributes and site
characteristics, a rating of the wetland is measured and provided through the NCWAM Wetland
Rating Sheet. The rating for the wetland evaluated on the project site was given an Overall
Wetland Rating of LOW. ECS would like to note that data incorporated into the rating system
was derived from professional opinions obtained at the site, and the snapshot of the site on the
day it was evaluated.

Report of Wetland Determination Services
Jule Noland Property
Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 31 -2738
December 11, 2014
This report and associated attachments, along with the NCWAM results, can be provided to the
permitting authorities to support the opinion of lowering the mitigation ratio assigned to the
wetland. ECS cannot guarantee concurrence of our opinion with regulatory authorities.
Closure
ECS appreciates the opportunity to provide wetland services for your project. Please contact us
at (828) 665 -2307 if you have any questions concerning this letter.
Sincerely,
ECS Carolinas, LLP
W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS
Senior Soil /Wetland Scientist
/P
stfiVZA. Roth, CHMM
Environmental Services Manager
Attachments: Wetland Delineation Report by Altamont Environmental Inc., 2014
NCWAM Wetland Assessment Form, NCWAM Wetland Rating Sheet
3

ATTACHMENT 1
Wetland Delineation Report by Altamont Environmental Inc., 2014

'4
wt
Luc..:
I
H Y D R O E CO LOG Y
Jule Noland Wetland Delineation
Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
2511 Midland Road
Shelbyville, Tennessee 37160
February 14, 2014
Prepared for
John Harmon
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
2511 Midland Road
Shelbyville, Tennessee 37160
Project Number 2504
Prepared by
Altamont Environmental, Inc.
231 Haywood Street
Asheville, NC 28801
828.281.3350

Wetland Delineation
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
Jule Noland Wetland Delineation
Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
2511 Midland Road
Shelbyville, Tennessee 37100
February 14, 2014
P;\Harrnon, John \Wetland polineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Doex
February 14, 2014
Page li
Natalie Bouchard,
G. Alexander Price, P.E.

Wetland Delineation
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
Table of Contents
February 14, 2014
Page iii
1.0
Property Owner Information ......................................................................................... ............................... 1
2.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................... ............................... 2
3.0
Property Information .................................................................................................... ............................... 3
3.1 U.S. Geologic Survey and North Carolina OneMap ........................................ ............................... 3
3.2 Property Survey Plat ......................................................................................... ..............................3
3.3 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Map ....................................................... ............................... 3
3.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory ......... ............................... 4
3.5 U.S. National Flood Insurance Program Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map ............................... 4
4.0
Site Investigations ........................................................................................................ ............................... 5
4.1 Wetland Determination Site Investigation ..................................................... ............................... 5
4.2 Wetland Delineation Site Investigation .......................................................... ............................... 5
4.2.1 Methods ............................................................................................................. ............................... 5
4.2.2 Investigation Results .......................................................................................... ..............................5
5.0
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... ..............................7
Figures
1. Site Map
2. Site Aerial Map
3. Wetland Area Map
Tables
1. Data Point Latitude and Longitude
Appendices
A. Haywood County Property Record Card
B. Survey Plat
C. USDA Web Soil Survey
D. USFS National Wetlands Inventory
E. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
F. Representative Photographs
G. Wetland Determination Data Forms
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Docx

Wetland Delineation
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
1.0 Property Owner Information
Name: Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
Mail: 2511 Midland Road Shelbyville, Tennessee 37160
Phone: [phone]
Email: belle7233 @gmail.com
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Docx
February 14, 2014
Page 1

Wetland Delineation
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
2.0 Introduction
February 14, 2014
Page 2
Altamont was retained by Harmon Graham Properties, LLC (Harmon) to determine, and delineate if existent,
wetland(s) located on the property located at Jule Noland Drive, Waynesville, Haywood County, North
Carolina (Subject Site). Harmon expressed interest in developing the Subject Site. If wetland(s) are located
on the Subject Site, permits prior to construction and /or mitigation fees may be required. Consequently,
Harmon requested that a wetland delineation be performed on the Subject Site.
A wetland delineation is performed by qualified professionals. However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
( USACE) must complete a jurisdictional determination to identify the presence or absence of jurisdictional
waters, including wetlands on a site. According to USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 08 -02, dated June
26, 2008, "An approved jurisdictional determination is an official USACE determination that jurisdictional
"waters of the United States," or "navigable waters of the united States ", or both, are either present or
absent on a particular site. An approved jurisdictional determination precisely identifies the limits of those
waters on the project site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act /Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899." Ajurisdictional determination by the USACE is necessary prior to submitting permits to impact
wetlands or open waters. Once the USACE has reviewed the wetland delineation report prepared herein, the
USACE will visit the Subject Site to issue a jurisdictional determination.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Docx

Wetland Delineation
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
3.0 Property Information
February 14, 2014
Page 3
The Subject Site is located between Jule Noland Drive and Dellwood Road in Waynesville, Haywood County,
North Carolina. According to the Haywood County Geographic Information Services (GIS), the Subject Site is
identified by parcel identification number 8616 -49 -2446, and is an approximately 9.076 -acre undeveloped
parcel. The Haywood County Property Record Card is included as Appendix A.
3.1 U.S. Geologic Survey and North Carolina OneMap
The location of the Subject Site outlined on the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute quadrangle map is
included as Figure 1. A site aerial map with aerial imagery from North Carolina OneMap (NC OneMap) is
included as Figure 2. The NC OneMap 2012 hydrology data identifies that Mauney Cove Branch flows along
the northwestern Subject Site boundary to Factory Branch, which flows into Lake Junaluska approximately
900 feet east of the Subject Site.
3.2 Property Survey Plat
According to the survey plat recorded in Haywood County Registry in Plat Cabinet "C ", Slot 4325, the Subject
Site is approximately 9.832- acres, which is slightly larger than the area reported on the Haywood County GIS
website. The Subject Site is bound by Dellwood Road and an unnamed parcel to the northeast, the Wayne
Robinson parcel and the Jacqueline M. Hayes parcel to the northwest, Jule Noland Drive to the south, Russ
Avenue to the west, and the Clifford L. Bolin parcel to the east. A Bojangles' restaurant is located on the
Clifford L. Bolin parcel. A peninsula of the Subject Site extends east and is bound by the Clifford L. Bolin
parcel and the Waynesville Christian Fellowship parcel to the north, Jule Noland Drive to the south, and the
Lewis N. Green parcel to the east. The survey plat identifies Mauney Cove Branch along the northwestern
property boundary. Mauney Cove Branch meanders on and off the Subject Site and converges with Factory
Branch on the northern property border. Factory Branch then meanders on and off the Subject Site along
the northeastern property boundary along Dellwood Road. Factory Branch continues east along Dellwood
Road until entering a concrete box culvert.
The plat identifies an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line and 20 -foot sewer easement parallel to the northwestern
property boundary adjacent to Mauney Cove Branch, and the northeastern property boundary adjacent to
Factory Branch. An 18 -foot walking trail easement lies within the 20 -foot sewer easement. A 45 -foot road
and utility public right of way is identified along Jule Noland Drive. An additional 20 -foot sewer easement
connects the main 20 -foot easement line to a manhole located on Dellwood Road. A 20 -foot utility
easement connects the road and utility easement from Jule Noland Drive to a fire hydrant located on the
Clifford L. Bolin parcel. A 25 -foot utility easement connects the road and utility easement from Jule Noland
Drive to Russ Avenue. The survey plat is included as Appendix B.
3.3 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Map
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Cooperative Soil Survey Web Soil Survey (WSS) report for
the Subject Site is included as Appendix C. According to the WSS, the majority of the Subject Site (3.2 acres)
is Dellwood -Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (DhA), and 2.5 acres of the
Subject Site is Evard -Cowee complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes (EvE). The remaining Subject Site area is
comprised of urban land complexes and Dillsboro loam soils.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Docx

Wetland Delineation
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
February 14, 2014
Page 4
3.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), no wetland areas
were identified on the Subject Site. According to the USFS, these data were collected in the 1980s.
Consequently, the NWI may not accurately reflect current site conditions. The USFS National Wetlands
Inventory map is included as Appendix D.
3.5 U.S. National Flood Insurance Program Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
According to the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map ( DFIRM), a
Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA)- mapped stream was not identified on the Subject Site.
Consequently, a FEMA- mapped floodplain was not identified on the Subject Site. The DFIRM identified
Factory Branch, along the Subject Site's northwestern border. The DFIRM map is included as Appendix E.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Docx

Wetland Delineation February 14, 2014
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC Page 5
4.0 Site Investigations
4.1 Wetland Determination Site Investigation
Altamont conducted a preliminary wetland determination investigation on January 14, 2014. This visual
investigation included: examining general Subject Site topography, digging soil test pits, taking photographs,
observing vegetation, collecting global positioning system (GPS) data points, and documenting the
approximate extent of the wetland area. During the preliminary determination Altamont personnel marked
the approximate boundary of the wetland area with pin flags. Altamont personnel used the USACE Wetland
Determination Data Forms — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (data forms) as a general guide to
determine if the area was a wetland. However, Altamont did not complete the data forms in sufficient detail
to complete a wetland delineation. Consequently, a wetland delineation site visit was necessary.
4.2 Wetland Delineation Site Investigation
Altamont completed the wetland delineation site investigation on February 5, 2014. Representative
photographs are included as Appendix F.
4.2.1 Methods
Altamont personnel, Natalie Bouchard, and BDY Environmental, LLC (BDY) personnel, Chris Flemming,
conducted the wetland delineation. Natalie Bouchard, E.I.T., was trained in wetland delineation techniques
in 2013. Chris Flemming, M.S., was trained in wetland delineation techniques in 2007. Altamont partnered
with BDY to complete the wetland delineation. The investigation consisted of the following:
• Walking the Subject Site boundaries. Note: property boundaries were not staked or established and
the property boundaries were approximated from available Haywood County GIS information.
• Digging soil test pits throughout the Subject Site.
• Observing vegetation.
• Taking photographs.
• Completing data forms at five locations to document wetland and upland conditions on the Site.
• Hanging flagging to mark the wetland boundary.
• Collecting GPS points at each wetland boundary flag and at each location where the data forms were
completed. Altamont personnel used a Trimble XH 2005 Series Pocket PC global positioning system
(GPS) unit to collect point locations. According to the manufacturer, the GPS unit has a subfoot
accuracy.
4.2.2 Investigation Results
The Subject Site is predominately shrubby vegetation with areas of open fields. A small section of surface
vegetation appeared to have been recently removed and stockpiled on the southwest corner of the Subject
Site. Mauney Cove Branch was identified parallel to the northwestern property boundary on the Subject Site.
This stream runs northeast to the point where it converges with Factory Branch at a location slightly north of
the Subject Site. Factory Branch was observed to continue east from the confluence until reaching a
roadway culvert on Dellwood Road just north of the Subject Site.
The Subject Site is bounded by Jule Noland Drive to the south, Russ Avenue on the west, Mauney Cove
Branch and Factory Branch to the north, and commercial development to the east. A stormwater culvert was
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Docx

Wetland Delineation
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
February 14, 2014
Page 6
observed along the southern property boundary. The culvert appears to discharge stormwater from Jule
Noland Drive onto the Subject Site.
Altamont observed a gravel road /walking trail within what appeared to be the 20- foot -wide sewer easement,
which includes the 18- foot -wide walking trail easement, as depicted on the Survey Plat (Appendix B). The
trail appeared to be elevated above the existing grade on the Subject Site in that location. This gravel road
appears to be acting as a berm between the Subject Site and Mauney Cove Branch and appears to be
preventing stormwater runoff from the Subject Site from entering the branch along the northwest property
boundary. A drainage ditch was observed on the southeastern side of the gravel road, parallel to the road
and Mauney Cove Branch. The ditch appeared to discharge to Factory Branch. The site aerial map is
included as Figure 2.
Altamont and BDY delineated the boundaries of the wetland area on the Subject Site by observing
vegetation, hydrology, and the soils. During the site visit Altamont and BDY completed a total of five data
forms at five different locations on the Subject Site. Two data forms were completed at upland locations
(UPL -1 and UPL -2), and three data forms were completed at wetland locations (WL -1, WL -2, and WL -3).
Copies of the completed data forms are included as Appendix G. Areas where all three wetland indicators
(vegetation, hydrology, and soils) were present were classified as a wetland. Notably, the soils observed at
data form location WL -2 were somewhat marginal, and are likely still developing wetland features. Black
concretions were observed in the upper 4 inches of the soil profile. Notwithstanding the concretions, the
soils appeared to be high chroma.
The wetland delineation identified a 3.28 -acre wetland situated in the northwest portion of the Subject Site
adjacent to the gravel roadway parallel to Mauney Cove Branch (see Figure 3). The wetland area does not
include the gravel road, as this area is elevated and appears to be dry. Altamont and BDY hung flags at the
wetland boundary location, and used the GPS unit to document the flag location. Each flag is numbered in
the field, and likewise numbered in Figure 3. The latitude and longitude of the GPS points collected on
February 5, 2014 are included in Table 1.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Docx

Wetland Delineation February 14, 2014
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC Page 7
5.0 Conclusions
Altamont and BDY have performed a wetland delineation and determined a 3.28 -acre wetland is situated on
the Subject Site. Altamont recommends this report be submitted to the USACE for a jurisdictional
determination.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Wetland Delineation Report.Docx

FIGURES

I �� I: -. ���, I . ti i' ` v°`�, �y t, � •,, �'. ti'�l . " �; _ _ ._FinvCrli
,
k
u I �
L ttc.k� rr° i rr wfr
V
-s9 sI' ��. L'i arii Knat
:III. I�-
-
;'� ,� f _ Y. ✓ _ —` .'S =� - !. � Subject Site .� „� _ _ �• ,
IAL
4�� � ,� �� h ■ ++ ;>:_� X1,1 _ {�` ''
+w�l S I•'� r _ 7. .s x 1pe+l�,�rl . ,y g ,1�' `I+
'w!'Wfi_ 111 16 • _
s
Ctllfe{y BMsS °14 w..
3o a ?555
IF
�d mmiC�' G6 U8 k
7� :. yMa�lr �+fGrs'1
.WN
X AA
zi
ter.. -� -y r .-� -, • ', r
4` �l� _ � � 1141, I �T :r. � Ur..� I dai•-
•rt .T� 7 J 'I, r! >�716�' •!• y.�d 1! ' ¢ ��.��,
,1 II
Legend { >•l�� ; F.$:
Subject Parcel
Data Sources:
USGS Topography - Clyde and Dellwood Quadrangle
Subject Parcel: Haywood County GIS u '
F r, v1 I11e,f• & r,lnr,u r c,i,v
112% ZAI '017,0 —C R2l ?M1 35%.
xwwr, ar��s w�n�rwasrwraw 1rwrlas„.ctw
DRAWNI BY:I NATALIEI BOUCHARD SCALE
PROJECTI MANAGER:I ZANI PRICE Feet
CLIENT:I HARMONI GRAHAMI PROPERTIES,I LLC 0 1,000 2,000
OATEN 02/11/2014
SITEI LOCATIOM MAP
JULElNOLANDlPROPERY
HAYWOOD! COUNTY,! NORTH! CAROLINA
P: \HARMON,I JOHN \ WETLAND I DELINEATION -1 JULEI NOLAND \FIGURES
FIGURE I
1
Y. 4 GTroa
SITEI LOCATIOM MAP
JULElNOLANDlPROPERY
HAYWOOD! COUNTY,! NORTH! CAROLINA
P: \HARMON,I JOHN \ WETLAND I DELINEATION -1 JULEI NOLAND \FIGURES
FIGURE I
1

• • ��,F;�� (��,', . I' .� � rte.
DELLWOOD RD
ELD N.INq
Factory Branc
F
�y a �a
2575 256
i
?La
1.> � k� e
Unal uska
JULE NOLAND DR 2585
Gravel Road
LU
G z
U- Q CPNpLEFt y
i
Legend
Subject Parcel n ,' Data Sources:
Hydrology Hydrology - NC OneMap 2012
5 -ft Contours
Orhoimagery - NC OneMap 2010
4 Roads - NCDOT 2007
Roads Contours - NCDOT 2005
SITEIAERIALIMAP FIGURE
w�r�r ,ar��w�n�rwa•��ranrA.a�..caa - )
JULEINOLANDIPROPERY L
DRAWNIBY:INATALIEIB000HARD HAYWOODI COUNTY,I NORTHI CAROLINA
PROJECTI MANAGER:I ZANI PRICE SCALE
Feet
CLIENT) HARMONI GRAHAMI PROPERTIES,I LLC 0 200 400
DATE:I 02/03/2014 PAHARMON,I JOHN\ WETLANDI DELINEATIONI -1 JULEI NOLAND \FIGURES

COUNTY RD 2635 2 N
�-4 a:f
All
Co Fac
-0 tory Branch
. UPL2�
23
22—
Wetland Area 3.28 Acres WL 3 19 -
18 �
WL2
3 UPL1
1 2
JULE NOLAND DR
,J#r _
u .
2595
2615
Legend
Notes:
1. "GPS" = global positioning system.
Wetland Points
2. Field investigation and wetland boundary, wetland, upland, and GPS verification ponts were
• Wetland Boundary Points
completed on February 5, 2014. Points were collected with a Trimble XH 2005 Series Pocket PC.
A Upland Points
3. "UPL" indicates an upland data point. Refer to Wetland Determination Data Form for more detailed
information.
• GPS Verification Points
4. "WL" indicates a wetland data point. Refer to Wetland Determination Data Form for more detailed
Wetland Boundary
information.
Hydrology
5. "GPS Verification Points" were collected on the Bojangles' dumpster corners to verify the accuracy
Subject Parcel
of the GPS unit.
6. Data sources are as follows: hydrology and orthoimagery data from NC OneMap 2012; parcel from
5 -ft Contours
Haywood County GIS; roads from NCDOT 2007; 5 -foot contours from NCDOT 2005.
•
FIGURE
WETLANDS LOCATION
n ?a y?I. 5q
;r. ..r n-_
* + saw
/�
w,.wr,ar��w�n�rwas�wrawrk
JULEI NOLANDI PROPERTY
{
DRAWNI By:I NATALIEI BOUCHARD
SCALE
HAYWOODI COUNTY,I NORTHI CAROLINA
�J
PROJECTI MANAGER:I ZANI PRICE
Feet
CLIENT) MOUNTAINI ENVIRONMENTALI SERVICES
0 100 200
DATE:I 02/11/2014
P:\HARMON,I JOHN \WETLANDI DELINEATIONI -1 JULEI NOLAND \FIGURES

TABLE

Table 1.
Data Point Latitude and Longitude
Dellwood Road, Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
Sample Point
Point Type
Latitude
I Longitude
Decimal Degrees
1
Wetland Boundary
35.5235
- 82.9873
2
Wetland Boundary
35.5236
- 82.9871
3
Wetland Boundary
35.5236
- 82.9870
4
Wetland Boundary
35.5237
- 82.9869
5
Wetland Boundary
35.5238
- 82.9868
6
Wetland Boundary
35.5239
- 82.9868
7
Wetland Boundary
35.5240
- 82.9866
8
Wetland Boundary
35.5239
- 82.9864
9
Wetland Boundary
35.5239
- 82.9863
10
Wetland Boundary
35.5238
- 82.9861
11
Wetland Boundary
35.5237
- 82.9860
12
Wetland Boundary
35.5238
- 82.9858
13
Wetland Boundary
35.5238
- 82.9856
14
Wetland Boundary
35.5238
- 82.9854
15
Wetland Boundary
35.5240
- 82.9852
16
Wetland Boundary
35.5241
- 82.9853
17
Wetland Boundary
35.5241
- 82.9854
18
Wetland Boundary
35.5246
- 82.9853
19
Wetland Boundary
35.5247
- 82.9853
20
Wetland Boundary
35.5247
- 82.9852
21
Wetland Boundary
35.5248
- 82.9854
22
Wetland Boundary
35.5248
- 82.9856
23
Wetland Boundary
35.5248
- 82.9858
24
Wetland Boundary
35.5248
- 82.9859
25
Wetland Boundary
35.5248
- 82.9860
26
Wetland Boundary
35.5247
- 82.9861
27
Wetland Boundary
35.5246
- 82.9862
28
Wetland Boundary
35.5245
- 82.9863
29
Wetland Boundary
35.5244
- 82.9865
30
Wetland Boundary
35.5243
- 82.9866
31
Wetland Boundary
35.5243
- 82.9867
32
Wetland Boundary
35.5242
- 82.9869
33
Wetland Boundary
35.5241
- 82.9870
34
Wetland Boundary
35.5240
- 82.9871
35
Wetland Boundary
35.5239
- 82.9872
BJ 1
GPS Verification
35.5242
- 82.9852
BJ 2
GPS Verification
35.5242
- 82.9853
BJ 3
GPS Verification
35.5242
- 82.9852
BJ 4
GPS Verification
35.5242
- 82.9853
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation - Jule Nola nd \Sample_Points_Lat_Long Page 1 of 2

Table 1.
Data Point Latitude and Longitude
Dellwood Road, Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
Sample Point
Point Type
Latitude
I Longitude
Decimal Degrees
UPL 1
Upland
35.5237
- 82.9859
UPL 2
Upland
35.5249
- 82.9853
WL 1
Wetland
35.5240
- 82.9864
WL 2
Wetland
35.5239
- 82.9855
WL 3
Wetland
35.5247
- 82.9858
Notes:
1. Field investigation and wetland boundary, wetland, upland, and GPS verification ponts were
completed on February 5, 2013.
2. Points were collected with a Trimble XH 2005 Series Pocket PC.
3. Datum: North American Datum (NAD) 1983.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation -Jule Noland \Sample_Points_Lat_Long Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX A
HAYWOOD COUNTY PROPERTY RECORD CARD

Map generated by the Haywood County Map Server. 21312014
Report For 8616 -49 -2446
HARMON GRAHAM PROPERTIES LLC
2511 MIDLAND RD
SHELBYVILLE, TN 37160
Account Information:
PIN: 8616 -49 -2446
Deed: 860/1816
Site Information:
JULE NOLAND DR
GREAT LAURELS OF LAKE JUNALUSKA
COMMERCIAL UNDEVELOPED, BILLBOARI
Heated Area: 0
Year Built: 0
Total Acreage: 9.076
Township: TOWN OF WAYNESVILLE
Site Value Information:
Land Value: $902,000
Building Value: $0
Market Value: $902,000
Defered Value: ($0)
Assessed Value: $902,000
Sale Price: $0
Sale Date: 1/16/2014
Taxes 2012: $4,882.53
Tax.-,z gnI $5 7RF tia
1: 2590
Disclaimer: The maps on this site are not surveys. They are
prepared from the inventory of real property found within this
jurisdiction and are compiled from recorded deeds, plats and other
public records and data. Users of this site are hereby notified that
the aforementioned public primary information sources should be
consulted for verification of any information contained on these
maps. Haywood county and the website provider assume no legal
responsibility for the information contained on these maps.

APPENDIX B
SURVEY PLAT

'A V. R-
LAKE WNµlyLA
0.' L 0" ELI. :
cc
Zl
LW -ALOW. A$•Cft,
46
�; A"I o ✓ v-'o. x n.
_VP
JAIMP
POLL.
dFP
LL, -.rmwa
-; a77
15 1=1
MR; I -.-1
ew " i i
- r a ,-
/ SOMPT H
THE GREAT LAUPaS Ch' LAKE AINALUSKA
em.. -r.
vts;,
4
I
glqw-;-

APPENDIX C
USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY

F
in
N
319730
35° 31'31" N
35° 31'21" N
Soil Map — Haywood County Area, North Carolina 3:
(Subiect_Parcel)
319780 319830 319880 319930 319980 320030 320080 320130 320180
319730 319780 319830 319880 319930 319980
3
Map Scale: 1:2,120 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5 ") sheet
Meb s
N 0 30 60 120 180
0 100 200 400 600 Few
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural%Resources Web Soil Survey
r Conservatiom6ervice National Cooperative Soil Survey
35° 31'31" N
M
M
O
N
M
M
O
M
N
M
O
M
M
35° 31'21" N
320030 320080 320130 320180
3
N
2/10/2014
Page 1 of 3

MANLEGEND
Areaxofilntorest�AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000.
Soil Map Unit Polygons
�+
Soil Map Unit Lines
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Soil Map Unit Points
Specia hPoi ntTeatu res
Blowout
0
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
0
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
0
Landfill
IL
Lava Flow
,&
Marsh or swamp
OR
Mine or Quarry
0
Miscellaneous Water
QPerennial
Water
V
Rock Outcrop
+•
Saline Spot
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Sandy Spot
4b.
Severely Eroded Spot
0
Sinkhole
0%.0
Slide or Slip
p
Sodic Spot
Soil Map— Haywood County Area, North Carolina
(Subject_ Parcel)
MAPJNFORMATION
4
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000.
43
Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
M
Very Stony Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Wet Spot
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
Other
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
ri
Special Line Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
WaterNFeatures
measurements.
Streams and Canals
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Transportation
Web Soil Survey URL: http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
t++
Rails
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
0%.0
Interstate Highways
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
US Routes
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Major Roads
Albers equal -area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
Local Roads
This product is generated from the USDA -NRCS certified data as of
Background
the version date(s) listed below.
®
Aerial Photography
Soil Survey Area: Haywood County Area, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Dec 18, 2013
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 12, 2011 —Dec 9,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA NaturaluResources Web Soil Survey 2/10/2014
r Conservatiom6ervice National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map— Haywood County Area, North Carolina
MapxUnihLegend
Subject–Parcel
HaywoodvCountyArea ,�NorthvCarolina�NC606)
MapxUnitxSymbol
MapWnitNName
AcresNinv4O1
Percentxofv4O1
5
Udorthents -Urban land
0.3
3.6%
complex, 2 to 50 percent
slopes
DhA
Dellwood -Urban land complex,
3.2
34.7%
0 to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
1.8
19.6%
DsB
Dillsboro loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes
DsC
Dillsboro loam, 8 to 15 percent
0.8
8.3%
slopes
2.3%
DuC
Dillsboro -Urban land complex,
0.2
2 to 15 percent slopes
EvD
Evard -Cowee complex, 15 to 30
0.2
2.4%
percent slopes
EvE
Evard -Cowee complex, 30 to 50
2.5
27.9%
percent slopes
SfC
Saunook -Urban land complex,
0.1
1.1%
2 to 15 percent slopes
Total s4orArea%ofJnterest
9.1
100.0%
USDA NaturalJ2esources Web Soil Survey 2/10/2014
Conservatiom6ervice National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

APPENDIX D
USFS NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY

I;k
.aMraWrr",�n. Southland
h
National Wetlands Inventor Community
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not
responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All
wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on
the Wetlands Mapper web site.
User Remarks:
Jan 13, 2014
Wetlands
Freshwater Emergent
_ Freshwater ForesledJShrub
- Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Esluann2 and Marine
- Freshwater Pond
_ Lake
RivarIne
_ lather
Riparian
Herbaceous
ForesteWShrub
Riparian Status
= Digital Data

APPENDIX E
DIGITIAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

'I- LL7i?N vy0 y
N+ F TIi �• ."
GRID NORTH
MAP SCALE 1" — 500° (1 6,000)
�'` �``;
.� •, ! r;:r <,r't li!- Ia.ITaJJ'' . %' .
250 13 5.00 1000
(2i3 F o my I I o j, w at I ms I� Ic x
I ME
ld
PANEL "11I.1
JULE KOLANO DR
{r
I� Ll 11
FIRM
'# {
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
X19+
CORTLAND VP OELLN.00D RD
CT
r s
rL 1
arpy
NO R-1 -I I C'ARO Ll \_1
PANEL 8616
_
_T 6 i 1
J ()wn of�'Faa Tics -ILi4.
Lel.
',E 49C #TOR D�AGR!1.1W NAP 11.MX FOR F RV
DEI,KJOLE
k11, ^[;- _. �:."CIi °z4i�'d °9'IiE71'IO.N ...
6Law4�IJTi
.]iB9ItiC�IC:II]11
j
370124
cM1Z,��
G�vrsra
C+1�V;%
Delft EMEL ;
Iwrvouolslu�lr vovr m■ d
[:DH I I. ANl l -N
G7
C L
WAYNESvLLE. T" *F 3M"4 Iliti J
1..1,14KC,LN lb
r t,�7a
Irrrlr s
LN 41r%J}
�_3
^'
HatM Mr LAW Ttte RW I VEW can WNW ■ ft"a3 later
+harl penP ��t< wa a'arnrltatslp t�etrar>dwtr!r
4dlP5* ellPVk•'t^R i R® In .'*Uitu- S7�?.�v� �+ y4 Rh�o1
CLUB KNOLL AVE
EFFECTIVE DATE MAP NUMBER
APRIL 3, 2012 3TQ10661600,1
r
'
1 {i
f
"-�
Saab: t,1 Ntlnh camlIna
A DI :C op
r
1'1.- rlcral I.MgTS nsy MiMag%!Mvna Ag nti+
} L
Thin in rn p1AGlai e" & a pomen or ine sW* reMrenr+kE &W nw h
I _
. ''•,,,4 c st} '`
xa® eximintM �Fnp F -htlT On Line This neop� does na reAcot ehangm
or anm)dnlwglg wt rh may haw Down Made *vtAQ•j6i+rtl to laws data on aarp
*•. '�,
r-tlr Nock For tp unest iwodurt IniO macron eb*LR NaNanfM nom tMUpance
J,%, I
PraTnm Aoofi mnpe check thr FP MA Flood Map Sinrn of � melt Prrna gov

APPENDIX F
REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

Wetland Delineation Photos Taken: January 14, 2014 and February 5, 2014
Jule Noland Road Property— Haywood County, North Carolina Page 1
Photograph 1: Representative view of the Subject Site facing south to Jule Noland Drive.
Photograph 2: Representative view of gravel road on Subject Site, facing west to Russ Avenue. Note: a 20 -foot sewer
easement and 18 -foot walking trail easement are located on the gravel road.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation - Jule Noland \Appendix F. Representative Photographs - Dellwood.Docx

Wetland Delineation Photos Taken: January 14, 2014 and February 5, 2014
Jule Noland Road Property— Haywood County, North Carolina Page 2
Photograph 3: Representative view of Mauney Cove Branch on the Subject Site.
Photograph 4: View of vegetation at WL -1. Note: the cattails were outside of the vegetation radius plots.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation - Jule Noland \Appendix F. Representative Photographs - Dellwood.Docx

Wetland Delineation Photos Taken: January 14, 2014 and February 5, 2014
Jule Noland Road Property— Haywood County, North Carolina Page 3
Photograph 5: View of hydric soil at WL -1 on the Subject Site.
Photograph 6: View from WL -2 facing upland area to the east.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation - Jule Noland \Appendix F. Representative Photographs - Dellwood.Docx

Wetland Delineation Photos Taken: January 14, 2014 and February 5, 2014
Jule Noland Road Property— Haywood County, North Carolina Page 4
Photograph 7: View of hydric soil at WL -3 on the Subject Site.
Photograph 8: View of non - hydric soil at UPL -1 on the Subject Site.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation - Jule Noland \Appendix F. Representative Photographs - Dellwood.Docx

Wetland Delineation Photos Taken: January 14, 2014 and February 5, 2014
Jule Noland Road Property— Haywood County, North Carolina Page 5
Photograph 9: View of vegetation at UPL -2.
a
r =
r
r
Photograph 10: Representative view of groundwater encountered on the site. Groundwater is approximately 10 inches
to 18 inches below the surface in some locations.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation - Jule Noland \Appendix F. Representative Photographs - Dellwood.Docx

Wetland Delineation Photos Taken: January 14, 2014 and February 5, 2014
Jule Noland Road Property— Haywood County, North Carolina Page 6
Photograph 11: View of drainage connection from the northeastern extent of the wetland. This drainage pattern flows
northeast where it reaches Factory Branch.
Photograph 12: View of stormwater inlets on Jule Noland Drive.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation - Jule Noland \Appendix F. Representative Photographs - Dellwood.Docx

Wetland Delineation Photos Taken: January 14, 2014 and February 5, 2014
Jule Noland Road Property— Haywood County, North Carolina Page 7
Photograph 13: View of stormwater culvert discharging to the Subject Site.
P: \Harmon, John \Wetland Delineation - Jule Noland \Appendix F. Representative Photographs - Dellwood.Docx

APPENDIX G
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjectlSite: i�+ W-O-Ro R r t CitylCounty: kigk$.-ooc�. COUAAJ Sampling Dater -6 -I
Applicant/Owner: KQk1"rvtov\ l2,r"�Ayv% FrOpO —r it$ Lt ,G State: % — Sampling Paint: W L
Investigator(s);1-J.-..(3 vc- %.rk .tL C+ Rc - *% jm► &3 Section, Township, RangetLA%ae/wesVitilr"
Landform (hiltslope, terrace, etc.): S11A M Joe 07 staff. Local relief (concave, convex, none): Jt�y �� Slope ( %): e--5;e,
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L.Rfs N Lac: 35, f,2goo Long; - TA A95 .9 ° Datum: Ab S_S
Sail Map Unit Name: Nkiisloro f (),a% CD tL�) , NWI classification: itJO A/E
Are ctimatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed?
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic?
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances,, present? Yes_
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No V/
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc,.
Hydrophytic'Vegetation Present? Yes V/ No
H drlc Soil Present? Yes � No Is the Sampled Area
y within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Neo4'1*y )oerV.% C tov.u, C.ree_y- aro ALu v_,OrA4+ wt.-� bar eV%"VtCA ti. e Ae [_v_X 1 YCILru,ogy
k}15"If was �n��`ie� rtv \1o�.i, al A' K��,� p.5�" ra`, -VA�
CQ N b� � Wc���v'MC I ), y P) A..t:, � � � r,`�;w -,� e-i 1 "* SIVkA I
HYDROLOGY
Primary, Indicators (minimum of one is requlred:
check all that amply)
_ Surface Water (Al)
— True Aquatic Plants (1514)
t%High Water Table (A2)
— Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
^ Water Marks (151)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Salts (C6)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Iron Deposits (155)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (157)
Water- Stained Leaves (Bg)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations;
Surface Water Present? Yes
No —%e!f Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
t�
' No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present'? Yes
tr
� No Depth ( inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recordpd Data (stream gauge, moniloring well, aerial photos, previous i
Remarks:
_Q
Ca t`P rrLiA��4V4j-
W" �Voru,6
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required).
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C6)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Microtopagraphic Relief (04)
FAC- Neutral Test (DS)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
1. t ,'A� t
US Army Corps of Engineers Lastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2,0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
t Absolute dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plots size 0 % Cover S[
1�N `tA C4 CID 061-
2.
4.
6.
rL
�_ Total Cover
50% of total cover to 20% of total cover: �f
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: iS t )
•
ff
Sampling Point; W L
Number of Dominant Species
That Are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (13)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: (A/13)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 -
FAC species
x 3 -
FACU species
x 4 -
11PL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
a. V2 2 - Dominance Test is #50°ia
9, 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0°
50% of rota! cover; 20% of total cover; vever — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plot size: �J
t data In Remarks or an a separate sheet)
j
I/' A- _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. , L116 CAJUS A U 3
2.::Sy ff
T C_
JtL W
3. A r4 tea ea, y h t Qk% n, Wj%
L0
FA C V
4. Caz i dui J?; Y% 0 ► tllP- 4
ko
t �.
5,Sehrr A axy -diaCa
10
71
11.
1 11) 0 • Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover, ;
Woody Vinc Stratum (Plot size: lip 1
I. (O 5(i c d d 1h tn17 yr ?, OA % C a` A IS
3.
4.
55 - Total cover
50% of total cover: L7 20% of total cover:?
or on a separate
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at brcaLil height (013H), regardless of
height,
SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 In. [GBH and greater than or equal to 3.29 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb -- All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Paint:' L___A_
Profile Description. (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Dolor (moist) Color fmoist) % Tyra Lo c' Texture Remarks
Remarks
-I A, 91-S V42 Ia D
11- i(D 190 o le Kl6 C_ rA
'Type: C= Concentration, D- Depletion, RM- Reduced Matrix, MS-Masked Sand Grains. 'Location; PL-Pore Lining. M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils';
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipeddn (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (Se) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin park surface (59) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont F)oodplain Sails (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ZDepleted Matrix (F3)
(MLkA 136, 147)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depresslons (F8)
_— Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 13 6)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
, Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 146)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed);
Type:
Depth (inches);
Hydric Sail Present? Yes V/ No 0 (- yt, ). ms+ri c+ t oe.
U5 Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and piedmont a Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: E1w v R+J er City /County, Ha vrooA COV AiA sampling Datc:2 -6
ApplicanYOwner: "mr'n&OA 9rt�in.Aw,, Fro�er4;es Stater Sampling Point3iA%+�'
Investigator(s):! Section, Township, Range!IA A�Sd�11�
Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): SH,0%� 4VQ- OF 5 a Local relief (concave, convex, none): Caws A C- slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA); 1A )V Let: S, $ Lang: - $ Q . `i.Sel 5� Datum: AJA
Sail Map Unit Name:. V4rJ * Gtlwt'L .,,oe x (EyJ5 ) NWI classification: ALINE
Are climatic d hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Y Na (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Salt �, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes V Na
Are Vegetation Soil or 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 f
Hydric Sol] Present? Yes '� No within a Welland? Yes —V No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes v No
Remarks:
511 ViS;} -.ro "+ 4S c.e+kd�r flu .;, tt a✓� Q prai+� A�e b'sv' rc 4kk e ", ij
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
sec LLdDLry Indl s (minimum of two required)
P01 dlcators minimum of o e uirEd _
h ck all lh t i
— Surface Soil Cracks (138)
Surface Water (Al)
„ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
­�Oxldlzed Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (B1)
' Iresence of Reduced Iran (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 (CO)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ other (Explain in Remarks)
stunted or Stressed Plants (01)
~ Iron Deposits (135)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Shallow Aquiterd (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (B9)
Mierotopographie Rt:lief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC- Neutral Pest (D5)
Field Observations:
No
vl Depth (inches):
Surface Water Present? Yes _
Water Table Presenl7 Yes '� No_
►t
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca pillar, frin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available:
Remarks:
i _, �,rn7y Carps of Lnglneers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
1 Absolute Dominant indicator
Tree Stratum (Plat size: © ) Cover cies7 status
1.
2. A ) — -
3.- i0 5 5 i
6,
7,
50% of total cover;
SgplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. A r-& ,r rulQrru m
3.
4,
7.
8�
Total Cover
20% or total cover.
1-5
Aj4T stAk4- AL6,w :5 �/. w�&rz vwl - Total Cover
50% of total cover; 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
I. 3D
2. U)N Guy -t r_ 'A U i S ac) mss -
3. :S U try -C4 'fir''v.S 1) S © � W
6. p_ s>'�10�1 vt++ r�si tat' rn 5 F�iC
9.
to.
1t.
00 a Total Cover
50% of total cover: 24% of total cover: aD
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size; )
7.
2.
5.
. Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover;
r5 here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling Point: 'W L
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Number of Dominant Species
OBL species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
— _ - (A)
Total Number of dominant
FAC species
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
UPL species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A!B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply thy:
OBL species
x 1 -
FACW species
x 2 -
FAC species
x 3 =
FACT) species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = RIA -
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 Dominance Test is >60%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present. unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
5aplinglShrub - 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 3.26 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W L 9
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) - Calor (moist) a SYl?, �Loc� Texture Remarks
Jo YR 3-81? 5 K y/ Is >LQAV
MS= Mask4d Sand Grains.
Hydric Soli Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solle:
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck WQ) (MLRA 147)
Histle Epipcdon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (Se) (MLRA 147, 148)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(ML.RA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al U) (LRR N)
— Redox Dark Surface (1`6)
i Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
— Depleted Darr Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
+i/°Iron•Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA. 136)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
— Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
"Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
— Sandy Redox (S5)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches);
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V" No
6 afiti
i
Stopit a stS Ao 'L-,-- S�Ak dedclo c-"f`"Al- 16kLC3
a.V-J' cam k i \ CIA C-0 "tea .
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Praject1Slte: eilwya CLrQ CitylCounty; Ka '1 00A COO Kk sampling Cate:v2 -15
Applicant/Owner: Ykmr rw ,n r w% r e, ri► a Slater sampling Polni: '
Investigator(s):1Y• '3e1VL.&krk dI.CL _LS" Section, Township, Range:% n,dsVili�
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):. f IZI ' Local relief (concave, convex, none): AJO Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): , L-g ,L1i Lai: OS. Sol 7 A Long: . g158a _ Datum:
Soil Map unit Name: W o¢A _ C'�4�n ��V\d c�hyw C k NWI classificatlow A�
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions an the site typical for this time of year? Yes No , __ (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil _ , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Na
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 No Is the Sampled Area `
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wotland? Yes *' No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes v No
Remarks:
arb,t - s e w► ri^ be— e—KVV KL „Jcjl" )r yJ kQ6y .
i a16►i s cerr VC + - — Glko —% OL10- a grvtc„ 0.53t` fzW lt: •t+ , r-s cee >o 1
,n. juoc-Ak
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators 1m117mum of t44quired
Pri9ary Indicators nlmurn otone is required' check all that I _ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al) „ True Aquatic Plants (1314) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
ligh Water Table (A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (81 a)
Saturation (A3) -_, oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Mass Trim Lines (616)
Writer Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iran (C4) _ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) — Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6) — Crayfish Burrows (Ca) .
Drift Deposits (B3) — Thin Muck Surface (C7) — Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _, Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
iron Deposits (85) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) J Shallow Aqultard (03)
Water- Stained Leaves (139) ^ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (813) FAC•Neutral Test (05)
Field Observations: It
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth th Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes_ No • Depth (inches) :�gill —
Saturation Present? Yes _ _ No Depth (inches); Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Includes ca Mary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), If available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -- Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) -- Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Fiat size: )
Z.
2.
3.
4. ON
5.
f�.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicato
% Cover Species? Status
= Total Cover
5fl9r'o�of total cover: 20% of total cover
5aolinalStarub stratum (Plot size:
7..t►� °5 spry•
2, ABC N)Pe'iy^
3, g cti5 ,
4.
5.
7.
9.
Total %Q_ over of:
Multipl� by;
OBL species
x t -
FACW species
x 2 -
=Total Cover
rO
x3=
50% of total cover: LS
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
x 5
Column Totals:
(A) (t1j
2. -<,` St` J?J a7
1 tO %re-A5
a
05L
3.: (_Ct �S
4 N10 C CL
7G
S. Ve. CSiCdf -V
SaA1A' OM
5
01& L
6.
7,
B.
J.
11.
/ = Total Cover
509`0 of total cover: '7 5 20% of total cover: 1
W-Qgdy Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 t )
1.
2. I CaN G 6
3.
A.
a,
Remarks:
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
rs here or on a separate sheet)
Sampling Point:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are O13L, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species r�
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: t (A113)
Prevalence Index worksheet;
Total %Q_ over of:
Multipl� by;
OBL species
x t -
FACW species
x 2 -
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5
Column Totals:
(A) (t1j
Prevalence Index - BlA -
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators,
_ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 • Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index Is 53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 It (1
m) tail.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless5
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft iii
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
U5 Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Faint: wL W
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document tho indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth _ Matrix Redox Features
finches) Color moist — __Q /, _Rq _Type_ Loc TOXturt � Remarks
ADJ 70 \06M 150f
Hydric Soil Indicators:
H €stosol (Al)
-_, Histic Eplpedon (A2)
— Black Hlstic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
-_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Ail)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) (I-RR N,
MLRA 147,14B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (Inches):
Qark Surface (S7)
-`- Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
✓Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Bark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Redox Depressions (FB)
ZIron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red. Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Indicators for problematic Hydric Soils':
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland 'hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
- Hydric soil Present? Yes V No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

VVETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Lastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjecUSite: De\ \wooA ROEA. City /County: hkA v✓ooA Sampling Date :v2 -6-1
ApplicantlQwner: l'iarr,wcA C7rrA w% FraFe rii esi LL Stater Sampling Point:
Investlgator(s): _ e Section, Township, Range`. K *
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.); _)(N& Locaf relief (Concave, convex, none); Napa
Subregion (LRR or MLRA).., Ai Lat; a Long: t S Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: ' P C Ga E NWI ciassificatfon:
Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for lhls time of year? Yes No (If 17o, explain in Remarks.)
Ara Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 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, No
Hydric Sall Present? Yes No
4—
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the sampled Area f
within a Wetland? Yes No V
5► a v� ', wd-S C,6Adi.,. CA �u1�o�;.� ��,, a�Qra��� -r,�t� o.-6V' r�t�.�w�� a ve.,ii,
GtS i r' by µ+e- 1/Ja nEsv�l�c ( AyN) /Vary Co�cvl',►t 1:vua,xt SFu4'ion
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators.
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that
_
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
J High Water Table (A2)
— Hydrogen sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Saturation (A3)
_, oxidized Rhlzospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (81)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (62)
^ Recent Iran Reductlon in Tilled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (B3)
— Thin Muck Surface (C7) -
Algal Mat or Crust (64)
— tither (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (85)
`
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Water- Stalned Leaves (1219)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
fieia unseruarlons: '1/
Surface Water Present? Yes _ No Depth (Inches)':
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (Inches):
Saturation Present? Yes — No Depth (Inches):
Rema
gauge,
— Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (118)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (616)
Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
— Crayfish Burrows (CS)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
shallow Aquitard (D3) •
Mlcrotopographic Relier (04)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I'
if
a "t 4,c
_,Cc o cs 0+ i C_ _Slag voc re ObS k_ k,
US Army Carps of E_n(jincers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -- Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
t Absolute Dominant Indicatoi
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ lb 0 ) Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
4, d {2{
7
501Y6 of total cover
5aplingfShrub Stratum) (Plot size. -
i,
2.
3,
5.�,0
s.
7.
Total Cover
20% of total cover:
® Total Cover
F
50Q/,D of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb stratum (Plot size; )
1. a r D e_ &V. Ci e rk % 's ` Fee l
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
v Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: i I?
W- oodyVlne Stratum (Plot size: SO4 )
1.
2.
3.
4. n 3S C'V
= Total Cover
50% of total cover; 20`31; of total cover;
rs here or on a separate sheet.)
�b1 ; Lf G&r ok %:: s 'lie-&F ov,%6 w w r-
Anee, l" 0.(hL ti, tfv4� $ rtes ,
Sampling Paint: 0 TL —A-.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAG; (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: (A18)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total Cover or:
Multioly by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 -
FAC species
x 3 -
FACU species qo —
x4= .36 0
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals.
(A) 360 (B)
Prevalence Index - BIA = Y
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 • Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is X3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophydc Vegetation' (Explain)
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplingfShrub - 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.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft In
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present's Yes No
', S "Jem _S �\a d es .
US Army Corps of Engineers Lastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: �-
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Pepth Matrix Redox Features
(Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Lac Texture ReMgrks
0-1b log 316 JkQ lh OaLw+
RMFReduc
Hydric Soil Indicators;
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis':
_ Histosol (Al)
— Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Eplpedon (A2)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147, 148)
_, Coast Prairie Redox (A15)
_ Slack Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 146)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
" Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
- Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
— Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 135, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A16) (LRR N)
— Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
— Depleted Dark Surface (177)
^ other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
— Redox Depressions (F8)
_
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
— Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA.136)
_ Sandy Gieyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (55)
— Piedmont Floodplaln Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
- I Hydric Soil Present? Yes No L-�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2,0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and piedmont Region
Project/site: Dg%\Wj,;Ck Rork OtylCounty; IAQ vraa0k CEO r-4 sampling bate:o2 -6 -If
Applicantli]wnt r: "af r1A A r M f-di State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):19- i3auc.V,L C dL n IL C. Section, Township,
, Ran L I ^ e VIt
Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): k-Cfir a Lcccal relief (concave, convex, none): 0AJ Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): olk Lat: ?� 5 a 1� ° Long; ' •q86 3Z _ Datum: Ab 193
Soil Map Unit Name: f NWI classification: t/oA/E
Are climatic % hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes u No_ (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Sail , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes A/-- No
Are Vegetation , soil , cr Hydrology naturally problematic7 (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important futures, etc.
Hydrophytic VegelaWri Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Presen17 Yes No
Remarks: \ y`
-T LiL c lt� jo 'I,�tQN , i}h oy" "�',-c �v" bt kwav,
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators;
Prlmary Indicators (minitnum of one Is required; cl P k all that i1 )I
Surface Water (Al)
^ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_
Wlgh Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iran (C4)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Decent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7) ..
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
i other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (85)
_ inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Water- Stalned Leaves (89)
Aquatic Fauna (8 13)
Field observations: /
Surface Water Present? Yes No V Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): i
Saturation Present7 Yes '✓ No_ Depth (inches): 31%
(includes capillary fringe)
gauge,
Remarks:
lie- o ,t vas
1++Air- oc -f-v( S- c,n
previous
/I`i - aL /slI{. fka,w
Surface Soli Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Drainage Patterns (816)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (CB)
_ Saturation visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D )
MicrotopograpNc Relief (134)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No-
(A0, CC? rdYtv-41611 � (J• r�7 ��
rA,-Fa.Vk 4 ;e- A ,
-\-* S Yi e Cu r oji;A .
us luny r:� p,c of i n.gincers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: J PL. -
1 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plat size: ) %Cover_ S e e s Number of Dominant Species J
1. That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Tate! Number of Dominant 3. - Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
5, That Are 08L, FACW, or FACT: (AIB)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total 4_Cnver ef: Multiply 0.v!
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 - —
SaplinglShrub Stratum (Plot size:. i t 1
FACW species x 2
1.
S
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3
UPL species x 5 -
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index - BA -
4
5,
6.,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
Rapid Pest For Fiydrophytic Vegetation
—12
8.
- Dominance Test is >50%
®_
- -
9.
3 - Prevalence Index Is s3.0'
= Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptatlons' (Provide supporting
f 50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:. )
data in Remarks or an a separate sheet)
1, Oyi6c
le.tL +Ka �T
Problematic Hyd►ophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.Stj
,g ,ns,�
I kaeao La34at1eYLj to FACt
* �
3.- e—
mo;'k0 eAV%44 0
Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must
A%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
h,
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
—� -
5,
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
SaplinglShroh - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3,28 ft (1
10.
m) tall
11.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
10D - Total Cover
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover: _ 20% of total cover:. C
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.20 ft In
height,
1.
2.
UP
3.
4.
Hydraphytic
5.
Vegetation
= Total Cover
Present? Ycs Na
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
U5 Army Carps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: () PL
Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color {moist
Hydric soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ 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 (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type Loc' Texture Remarks
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Betuw Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (FB)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Flpodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Alo � (-, s a'►1 � �` V� j i r ~-b ra p
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Fxplain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

ATTACHMENT 2
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method Forms

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
mating t,aicuiator version 4. 1
Wetland Site Name Jule Nolan Property Date 12/09/14
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name /Organization ECS- Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains - Nearest Named Water Body Mauney Cove Branch
River Basin French Broad USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 06010106
F;

4. Soil Texture /Structure - assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
E ; B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ? 1 inch
4c. ;A No peat or muck presence
r; B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
r- A T A F A >- 10% impervious surfaces
7 D 7 B 17 B < 10% impervious surfaces
f r- C r C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
7 a r- D r- D >_ 20% coverage of pasture
r E r- E r E >- 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F r F r F >- 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G r G ? 20% coverage of clear -cut land
F H F H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment area /wetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
F"Yes r" No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A ? 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
' E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
<_ 15 -feet wide [; > 15 -feet wide [; Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes � No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
' Exposed - adjacent open water with width >- 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type /wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box
in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the
wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
A
A
? 100 feet
B"
B
From 80 to < 100 feet
C;
C
From 50 to < 80 feet
D
D
From 40 to < 50 feet
E
E
From 30 to < 40 feet
F
F
From 15 to < 30 feet
G;
G
From 5 to < 15 feet
H
H
< 5 feet

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

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
E Yes C No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
[:A
>_ 25%
coverage of vegetation
C B
< 25%
coverage of vegetation
17c. Check
a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
[:A
[:A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
o
@
B
[] B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U
E; C
E; C
Canopy sparse or absent
� 0
[:A
A
Dense mid - story/sapling layer
B
B
Moderate density mid - story/sapling layer
°—
E:C
E:C
Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
[:A
[:A
Dense shrub layer
J
B
B
Moderate density shrub layer
c')
C
C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
[:A
[:A
Dense herb layer
m
E; B
B
Moderate density herb layer
_
[:C
C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
[:A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
E;C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man - placed natural debris.
[:A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
E;B Not
21. Vegetation /Open Water Dispersion — wetland type /open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
[:A B []C D
r7,. r rT
y
82"' �keYlh
1 i V
YJ
22. Hydrologic Connectivity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
[:A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
[:C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Initial wetland appears to have been a Bottomland Hardwood Forest wetland. A berm and prior clearing activities have altered the connection
between the adjacent stream and the wetland. The wetland is now dominated by herbaceous species. Subsequently, saturation and slight
evidence of inundation were noted, with surface flow navigating to a drainage feature which flows to the an adjacent creek. For the aforementioned
reason, the site does not stay inundated for a duration to support it meeting the definition of a Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Jule Nolan Property Date 12/09/14
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name /Organization 3- Brandon Fulton, LSS, P
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y /N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y /N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y /N) NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NO
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NO
Habitat
Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW