The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200369 Ver 1_App_C_TechnicalSupplement TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT & 30% DESIGN WITS END STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA FULL DELIVERY PROJECT TO PROVIDE STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS WITHIN CATALOGING UNITS 03040105 OF THE YADKIN RIVER BASIN Prepared for: NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared by: Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc. Ph: 919-755-9490 218 Snow Avenue 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 October 5, 2020 TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT & 30% DESIGN WITS END STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA FULL DELIVERY PROJECT TO PROVIDE STREAM & RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS WITHIN CATALOGING UNITS 03040105 OF THE YADKIN BASIN TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 2 Soil & Wetland Background................................................................................................................ 2 Wetland Characterization........................................................................................................ 2 Soils.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Technical Supplemental Data.............................................................................................................. 6 Groundwater Monitoring Gauges........................................................................................... 6 PreliminaryJurisdictional Determination Request.................................................................. 7 Bathymetry Survey.................................................................................................................. 7 Subaqueous Soil Sampling....................................................................................................... 8 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 8 Methods.................................................................................................................... 8 Results....................................................................................................................... 9 Discussion: ...............................................................................................................10 Detailed Soils Evaluation.......................................................................................................11 Introduction............................................................................................................11 Methods..................................................................................................................12 Results and Discussion............................................................................................12 Reference Wetlands..............................................................................................................13 Conclusions............................................................................................................................13 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Project Soils................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 – Summary of 2020 Growing Season Gauge Data........................................................................... 7 Table 3 – Summary of Soil Profile Descriptions of Subaqueous Soil Cores.................................................. 8 Table 4 – Initial Average Depth of Organic Material/Unconsolidated Sediments........................................ 9 Table 5 – Summary of Soil Profile Descriptions of Subaqueous Soil Cores................................................10 Table 6 – Summary of Wetland Mitigation Assets and Credits..................................................................14 APPENDICES Appendix A. Figures Figure 1 – Soils Figure 2 – Subaqueous Sampling Technical Proposal Figure 7 – Area Soils Preliminary Mitigation Plan Figure 6 – 30% Restoration Plan Table B1 – Morphological Stream Characteristics Appendix B. Gauge Data Appendix C. PJD Submittal Appendix D. Survey – Carolina Surveyors Appendix E. Subaqueous Soil Photo Log Appendix F.Soil Profile Descriptions Appendix G. Reference Wetland Photo Log Executive Summary Upon the Interagency Review Team’s initial review of the Wit’s End Technical Proposal and associated field visit (06-01-2020), there was a discussion of the proposed wetland reestablishment areas. Specifically, there were concerns regarding the presence of drained hydric soils in the upper reaches of UT-3 and under the Waxhaw Branch pond, and the use of the F19 – Piedmont Floodplain Soil hydric soil indicator. As a result, the following requests were made to justify the areas proposed for wetland reestablishment: a detailed soils evaluation with representative soil profile descriptions, including subaqueous soil sampling – aka soggy bottom tests, a map of soil boring locations, and photos of representative soil profiles. Following the IRT’s recommendations and request for additional supporting data and documentation, Restoration Systems (RS) completed the following tasks in support of the proposed wetland mitigation assets: Five groundwater gauges were installed in February 2020 within upland areas, areas proposed for wetland preservation, and areas proposed for wetland reestablishment. Wetland hydrology was observed in wetland preservation areas, and not observed in the uplands or areas proposed for wetland reestablishment. A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination was submitted, and field reviewed/approved by Bryan Roden Reynolds on September 29, 2020, confirming 8,209-l ft of jurisdictional streams, 6.383-ac of jurisdictional wetlands, and 11.588-ac of jurisdictional ponds. Completed a topographic and bathymetric survey of the Waxhaw Branch pond, which revealed the historic floodplain to be intact and not significantly altered from agricultural activities or the construction of the pond dam along Waxhaw Branch. Performed a subaqueous soils investigation (aka soggy bottom tests) within Waxhaw Branch, including five transects and 53 soil cores confirming the presence of a confining clay layer with hydric soil indicators and accumulation of sediment to be less than 1-ft. Completed a detailed soils investigation including over 230 soil borings with 177 soil borings exhibiting a F3 – Depleted Matrix, F8 – Redox Depressions, or F19 – Piedmont Floodplain Soils hydric soil field indicator representing 6.38-ac of existing wetlands and 25.46-ac of drained hydric soils. Note – these acreages match the PJD, which includes areas outside of the proposed easement boundary, and do not match the wetland assets in Table 6, which only contains assets within the proposed project boundary. Fifty-two representative soil profile descriptions with photos are included in this report A field survey of nearby existing forested wetlands associated with stream orders and landscape positions comparable to those observed within the Wit’s End project. Based on the additional data collected coupled with groundwater monitoring gauge data and the verbally approved Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, there is substantial evidence to support the use of the identified hydric soil field indicators related to the proposed wetland assets. Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Page 1 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Introduction An Interagency Review Team (IRT)site visit took place on June 1, 2020, with the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and Restoration Systems (RS) to review the Technical Proposal for the Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site(Project). At the conclusion of the site visit, there wasdiscussion regarding the areas proposed for wetland rehabilitation, the presence of drained hydric soils, and the use of the F19 – Piedmont Floodplain Soil (F19) hydric soil indicator. DWR requested additional soils work to be provided, including a detailed soils evaluation with representative soil profile descriptions, a map of soil boring locations, and photos of representative soils. Beforeapproving any approach for the proposed wetland rehabilitation areas,the USACE, Todd Tugwell, mentioned he would solicitother opinions, including discussing the approach with the USACE Union County Project Manager conducting the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination review. To-date, RS has installed groundwater monitoring gauges in existing, and drained wetlands within the Project area,submitted and held a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination(PJD)site visit, completed a project-wide topographic base map including a bathymetry survey of the Waxhaw Branch pond, collected subaqueous soil cores from the Waxhaw Branch pond, conducted a detailed soils evaluation within the Project area, and assessed local stream and wetland reference areas. Detailed stream studies were conducted on proposed Project tributaries and two reference streams. Reference streams provided design morphological stream characteristics for existing and proposed Project tributaries. Based on data collected, Grant Lewis of Axiom Environmental developed a 30% stream design, with reach specific justification, which is in included in Appendix A along with morphological tables. This Technical Supplement details the means, methods, and conclusions of RS’ effort to documentProject soilsand existing wetlands. Data collected will act as the basis for wetland mitigation credit, which will be fully detailed in the Project’s Restoration Plan. Soil & Wetland Background A narrative was included in the previously submitted Wit’s End Technical Proposal dated March 9, 2020, which provides a discussion concerning the characterization of the Project wetlands and soils. This narrative is provided below as it provides a foundation in understanding the Project soilsand theirability to support wetland hydrology. Wetland Characterization The Projectcontains existing wetlands within forested areas located in thefloodplain of Waxhaw Branch. Existing wetlands are also present on neighboring properties along unnamed tributaries and downstream along Waxhaw Branch. Within and adjacent to the Projectare six agricultural ponds (totaling ~14 acres) inline or adjacent to existing streams, the largest being 12.85-acres. The existing wetlands and agriculture ponds are located in the soil map units of Badin channery silt loam (BaB), Cid channery silt loam (CmB) and Goldston-Badin complex (GsC). The majority of the wetlands are located in CmB, a non-hydric soil; however, all existing wetlands include a hydric soil field indicator. Hydric soil field indicators observed within the existing wetlands included: F3 – Depleted Matrix, F8 – Redox Depressions, and F19 – Piedmont Floodplain Soils. After discussing the Projectsoils with Mr. Daniel Spangler (member of the soil survey team for Union County Soil Survey, 1996) and evaluating the Projectsoils, it is evident the CmB soil map unit within areas of the Projecthas inclusions of Secrest. It may be more appropriately mapped as the Secrest-Cid complex (ScA), which is listed as a hydric soilfor Union county. Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 2 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 The existing wetland complex within the floodplain of Waxhaw Branch includes varying hydroperiods, which is reflected by the multiple hydric soil field indicators. Hydrology inputs to the system include precipitation, surface runoff from adjacent slopes, groundwater from adjacent ridges and slopes, and overbank flooding from Waxhaw Branchand Project tributaries. Surface depressions formed from remnant stream channels, windblown trees, and natural topography retain hydrological inputs and are associated with F3 and F19 indicators. Areas between these depressions have a soil surface that is slightly higher, relative to the depressions, with a water table within 12-inches of the soil surface which exhibit F8 and F19 indicators. A series ofgroundwater gauges have been installed within the existing wetlands and areas with drained hydric soils to document the hydrology of the system. Waxhaw Upland Slope Branch F3 F19 F19 F8 F3 Photo 1 – Hydric soil field indicators (F3, F8, and F19) and associated landscape position in existing wetlands along the floodplain of Waxhaw Branch. Soils Based on the Union County Soil Survey (USDA 1996) and Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2017), the Projectcontains the soil series outlined in Table 1. Existing wetlands and drained hydric soils were mapped by a licensed soil scientist (NCLSS # 1297) on February 15 and December 2, 2019; February 20, 2020; July 9-10, 14-15, 21-23; and September 1, 2020, as soils of the Cid and Secrest series (Figure 1, AttachmentA); soilboring logs are included in Appendix F. Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 3 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Table 1–ProjectSoils Map Unit Map Unit Name Hydric Status Description Symbol (Classification) This series consists of well-drained soils on interfluves. Slopes range from 2-8 percent. Parent Badin channery silt loam BaB Non-hydric material is residuum weathered from (Typic Hapludults) metasedimentary rock and/or metavolcanics. Depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. This series consists of moderately well-drained and somewhat poorly drained soils on nearly level and gently sloping soils on flats, on ridges in uplands, in Cid channery silt loam depressions, and at the head of intermittent CmB Non-hydric (Aquic Hapludults) drainageways. Slopes range from 1-5 percent. Parent material is residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. Depth to the water table is 12-30 inches. This complex consists of well-drained soils on Goldston-Badin complex interfluves and hillslopes on ridges. Slopes range GsB (Typic Dystrochrepts/ Non-hydric from 2-8 percent. Parent material is residuum Typic Hapludults) weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. Depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. This complex consists of well-drained soils on Goldston-Badin complex hillslopes on ridges. Slopes range from 8-15 percent. GsC (Typic Dystrochrepts/ Non-hydric Parent material is residuum weathered from Typic Hapludults) metavolcanics and/or argillite. Depth to the water table is more than 80 inches. This complex consists of moderately well-drained and somewhat poorly drained soils on nearly level and gently sloping soils on flats, on ridges in uplands, in Secrest-Cid complex depressions, and at the head of intermittent *ScA (Aquic Hapludults/ Aquic Hydric drainageways. Slopes range from 0-3 percent. Parent Hapludults) material is residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite. Depth to the water table is more than 12-30 inches. *Soil series is not mapped according to soil survey but was observed during on site soil investigations. Geology The Project is within the Carolina Slate Belt, where the Cid and Secrest soil series formed in residuum, weathered from argillite and other fine-grained metavolcanic rocks. The soils in the Carolina Slate Belt are highly variable and, at times, mapped as complexes due to the scale at which they are mapped. For instance, the Cid soil map unit within the Project is a single contiguous map unit that spans over 19,000- acres and is found at elevations ranging from 200 to 650 feet. Parent Material The USDA official series description (Attachment F) describes unweathered bedrock below the soil surface at ~32 – 34 inches for Cid and ~62 – 80 inches for Secrest. Depth to bedrock is the main difference between Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Page 4 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 the two soil series. The bedrock iscomprised of hard, slightly fractured slate, argillite, or other fine-grained metamorphic rock. Argillite is a fine-grained sedimentary rock composed predominantly of indurated clay particles. Argillaceous rocks are basically lithified muds and oozes and contain variable amounts of silt- sized particles – the argillites grade into shale when the fissile layering typical of shale is developed. Mudstone is a fine-grained sedimentary rock formed from silt and clay and is similar to shale but has less laminations. Mudstone colors are variable and include brown/yellow color, indicating that even when reduced, the soil would not necessarily exhibit chroma 2 colors or less. Landscape The landscape surrounding the Project includes ridges and side slopes with soils (Badin and Goldston) that are shallow to bedrock, which leads to increased surface and subsurface runoff. As a result, the existing agricultural practices have utilized grassed drainageways to convey these hydrological inputs down gradient. These grassed drainageways convey water to the ditched streams and associated floodplains as well as the agricultural ponds. During the field assessment, areas of standing water and saturated soil were observed within the floodplain of Waxhaw Branch and the associated unnamed tributaries where seeps and drainageways enter the floodplains along the toe of slopes. The Union County Soil Survey notes the geographic setting for both soil series as the following, “…nearly level and gently sloping Secrest and Cid soils on flats, on ridges in the uplands, in depressions, and at the head of intermittent drainageways.” However, a review of Cid and Secrest mapped soil units in the surrounding area show these soils were also mapped to include floodplains of perennial streams (Appendix A – Figure 7). The geographic setting for the Cid and Secrest soils within the Project includes areas associated with the floodplain of perennial streams, including Waxhaw Branch and extend upslope along perennial tributaries that contribute to Waxhaw Branch. The association of the Project Cid and Secrest soil series with perennial stream floodplains in a lower landscape position than what is described provides support that historic floodplain wetlands existed within the Project. Additionally, 70+ years of agricultural land practice on the Project has caused variation to the floodplain soils. The highly erodible soils on the adjacent slopes have resulted in the accumulation of sediment across the floodplain soils. Floodplain hydrology across the Project has been significantly affected by these same land practices, including the straightening/ditching of streams and the construction of agricultural ponds. Considering these variables are main components of the soil-forming process, it is clear that Project soil morphological properties have been affected. Especially considering existing wetlands have been partially restored at the Project only by ceasing agricultural production and returning the land to forested vegetation. Once the stream is restored and reconnected to the floodplain, the restored wetlands will exhibit one of these hydric soil field indicators. Soil Series Characteristics/Morphology Furthermore, the USDA official series description for the Cid and Secrest soil series describes a perched water table at a depth of 12 – 30 inches during the winter and spring. This water table depth is for Cid and Secrest soils located on interstream divides, lower side slopes, or broad flats around the heads of drainageways. The Cid and Secrest soil series found within the Project are associated with the floodplain of a third-order stream where historically, before agricultural land use, the water table would be within 12 inches of the surface. When considering the soil hydrology characteristics include somewhat poorly drained, slow runoff, and slow permeability, all of which would be representative of finding the Cid soil series on the floodplain of a perennial stream. Another contributing factor to support wetland hydrology for the Project’s Cid soils is the restrictive properties, including the shallow depth to bedrock (~29-34”) and moderate shrink-swell potential, both limiting the vertical movement of water in the soil. There is also documentation that slate fragments found in the soil surface can reduce evaporation losses, which Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Page 5 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 are present in the Projectlandscape and support historic retaining wetland hydrology (Daniels, Buol, Kleiss, Ditzler, 1999). To further demonstrate the Project’s ability to support wetland hydrology, there are multiple agricultural ponds (totaling ~14 acres), the most extensive being 12.85-acres with eight distinct topographic crenulations providing hydrology inputs. The largest pond is identified in the 1970 Wingate, NC USGS Topo Quad, and a review of historic aerials show the pond consistently retains hydrology annually independent of the season and even through periods of documented drought conditions. Also, an additional five agricultural ponds (totaling ~5 acres) exist adjacent to the Project. Discussionswith property owners revealed that the smaller agricultural ponds are fed by springs, which further demonstrates the Project’s historical ability of the landscape and soil to support wetland hydrology. Hydric Field Indicators Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, version 8.2 (USDA 2018) states, “The indicators are used to identify the hydric soil component of wetlands; however, there are some hydric soils that lack any of the currently listed indicators. Therefore, the lack of any listed indicator does not prevent classification of the soil as hydric.” The guidance also notes that hydric soils and their indicators are dynamic with changes and additions expected as new research and field testing takes place. Lastly, when not mapped as a complex,the Cid and Secrest soil series are not identified as hydric soils for Union County; however, when mapped as a complex, the soil map unit is listed as hydric with Wehadkee being the hydric component. While Cid and Secrest are not mapped as hydric, the range of soil properties for each soil series in the Union County Soil Survey and USDA official series description match hydric soil indicators. Specifically, the range of soil matrix chroma and redoximorphicconcentrations for Cid meets the F8 and F19 indicators, and for Secrest meets the F3, F8, and F19 indicators. Considering the range of soil properties, combined with Project-specific soil morphological properties and associated Project floodplain landscape position, there is clear evidence that indicates the Project’s Cid and Secrest soil series historically supported jurisdictional wetlands and are candidates for wetland restoration. Technical Supplemental Data Groundwater Monitoring Gauges Wetland gauge data gathered from the beginning of the 2020growing seasonis presented in Table 2. RS used the AgACIS Monroe 2 SEweather station(34.9797, -80.5233) located in Union County, NCfor precipitation and temperature data. The weather station documents daily average temperature above 28°F from March 1 movingforward. The 1987 US Army Corps Wetland Delineation Manualdefines growing seasonas, “the portion of the year when soil temperature (measured 20 inches below the surface) is above biological zero (5° C or 41° F). This period can be approximated by the number of frost-free days. The estimated starting date for the growing season is based on 28° F air temperature thresholds at a frequency of 5 years in 10 (HQUSACE, March 692).” Based on this data and bud bursts of two species documented at Wit’s End wetland hydrology was documented to begin on March 1. Also, rainfall was normal for January,above normal for February, and below normal for March. Of the four gauges (gauges 2-5) wereplaced in and around the forested wetland, three gauges (gauges 2, 4, and 5) met wetland hydrology. Gauge 3 is on a toe slope landscape position where groundwater and surface water enter the floodplain and was positioned to represent the wetland boundary. Gauge 1 was placed at the base of a drainage swale in the agriculture fieldand is representative of the drained hydric soils being proposed for wetland restoration. Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 6 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Table 2 – Summary of 2020 Growing Season Gauge Data Gauge Summary (Downloaded 7/23/2020)* Modified Growing Season (3/1 –11/3, 248 WETS Growing Season (3/23 –11/6, 228 days)**days)*** Gauge # of Days Wetland # of Days Wetland % of Growing Season% of Growing Season #Hydrology MetHydrology Met GW-115652 GW-23213104 GW-3 156 9 4 GW-4 4016188 GW-5 4016146 * Groundwater monitoring well hydrographs along with rainfall and temperature data can be found in Attachment B. ** A proposed modified growing season is included based on mean daily temperature observed to be above 28°F at the nearby AgACIS Monroe 2 SEweather station ***The standard growing season associated with the WETS table from the nearby AgACIS Monroe 2 SE weather station is presented for comparison PreliminaryJurisdictional Determination Request RS performed a jurisdictional delineation on July 9-10 and 14-15, 2020. The PJD included eight streams totaling 8,209 linear feet, ten wetlands totaling 6.383 acres, and four bodies of open water totaling 11.756 acres. The PJD was submitted on August 7, 2020, and a field review was completed onSeptember 30, 2020, with Mr. Bryan RodenReynolds.The PJD was verballyapprovedas submitted except forthe two small historic agriculture ponds located along UT-3. Mr. Roden Reynolds indicated that with the newly released Navigable Waters protection Rule, these pond features maynot be considered jurisdictional. He was going to discuss with Todd Tugwell before making a final determination. The PJD identified the F3 (Depleted Matrix), F8 (Redox Depressions), and F19 (Piedmont Floodplain Soils) hydric soils indicators within the existing wetlands. The PJD request is included in Attachment C. Bathymetry Survey A bathymetry survey was completed along with a standard topographic survey by Carolina Surveyors, Inc (Attachment D). Thefieldwork for the survey was conducted in late June 2020, and a survey drawing was received on July 13, 2020. The survey shows a broad flat historic floodplain associated with Waxhaw Branch. The lowest elevation is contour584, an isolated depression located adjacent to the dam. Elevations for the edge of the water at the time of the survey ranged from 590-feet on the downstream end to 593-feet on the upstream end. The survey identified a small sandbar near the existing dock associated with a boat ramp, and marshy irregular terrain on the northern upstream area associated with Waxhaw Branch. The crenulations where streams and ephemeral features enter the pond appear relatively unchanged from historicalconditions beforeconstructingtheponddam. In general, the bathymetry survey did not identify any areas of significant manipulation from excavationduring the construction of the impoundmentor aggradationof sediments due tothe impoundment. The bathymetry survey wasused to identify appropriate representative areas for transects to perform subaqueous soil sampling. Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 7 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Subaqueous Soil Sampling Introduction Subaqueous soilsampling was conducted on July 22& 30, 2020, to identify the presence and depth of overburden onthe historic soil surfaceand to assess soil morphology of the clay subsoil (restrictive layer) for comparison to Project soils proposed for wetland rehabilitation. This information will allowfora better understanding of Project soils ability to support wetland rehabilitation and prepare for design and construction approaches beforedewatering the pond. This sampling effort provided physical samples and photographs from representative transects. Methods A transect sampling approach was chosen to capturethe variability of the pond bed across the valley in multiple representative locations. Transects were identified based on a bathymetry survey of the pond included in the topographic survey. The transects were selected as representative sections ofthe upstream, middle, downstream, and crenulations entering the pond. On each transect a floating rope was fixed on either end to the shore, allowing a sampling platform to move along the transect with soil cores sampled at 5-meter increments. A modified version of the following NRCS subaqueous soil sampling protocol was used: “In order to sample from the exact location with depth, some soil mappers use a piece of PVC pipe with an inside diameter a little larger than the teeth on the bucket auger. The auger is placed into the pipe, and the sample is collected in the typical fashion. While the bucket is being removed, the PVC pipe is pushed deeper into the soil. The sample is retrieved and placed in a tray (typically a meter-long piece of vinyl gutter). The augerbucket is pushed down the pipe again, the spoil from pushing the PVC pipe down is removed, and then the next depth is sampled. This procedure is effective for sampling the upper 75 cm of the soil. Below this depth, however, collecting samples with a bucket auger becomes very difficult.” (Accessed July 7, 2020 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcseprd1343022) The identifications and labeling scheme for the transects and associated soil cores are provided below. Table 3 – Summary of Soil Profile Descriptions of Subaqueous Soil Cores Subaqueous Soil Sample Subaqueous Soil Sample Transect IDCore ID Dam1 – 18 Duck Blind1 – 14 Island1 – 10 West Cove1 – 4 Center6 – 10 The modified version was conducted by vibrating and/or driving a 1.5-inch diameter clearPVCtube with a rubber mallet into the sediment until refusal or the water depth exceeded the tube. After driving the tube into the sediment,the tube was capped and removed by hand. This process allowed an intact sediment core to be collected and preserved for assessment. This method was repeated for all sampling locations and provided physical samples and photographs from representative transects(Appendix A). Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 8 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Photos were taken in the field with a ruler to estimate the thickness of the soil horizons upon removing the soil core. Additionally, 13 intact soil cores (8 from the Dam transect and 5 from the Center transect) were brought back for additional analysis. Additional analysis included a soil profile descriptions and sending samples to the NCDA&CS Agronomic Services Division – Soil Testing Lab for the following analyses: soil texture, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, weight per volume, pH, Mehlich buffer pH (acidity), CEC, base saturation, manganese, sulfur, zinc, copper and humic matter. To remove the soil core from the tube, excess water was siphoned from the topand then a solid plastic probe matching the inside diameter of the tube was used to push the sample onto a tray. The soil core was then split open to complete the soil profile description. Soil profile descriptions were completed for 9 of the soil cores on July 31, 2020. Five of thesoil cores were allowed to air dry in the tubes for 30-days to assess the subsidence of the overburden sediment. Results Sampling Observations When driving the tubes, four phases could generally be felt. First, freely sinking (clear water). Second, pushing through with gentle force (a mix of organic material andunconsolidated sediments). Third, a firm boundary was hit(Restrictive layer).In shallow areas, this was often a gravelly layer thatbecame the point of refusal. In deeper areas, a tight restrictive clay layer could be felt, which took considerable force to penetrate. A fourth deeper soil layer (Underlying layer) allowed additional core depth with less effort than the third layer. In shallow areas, tubes were driven to the point of refusal, typically a rocky layer. In deeper areas, cores were driven through the restrictive layer into the underlying layer.Photographs of the subaqueous soil cores can be found in Attachment E. Table 4 – Average Initial Depth of Organic Material/Unconsolidated Sediments DepthofOrganic Material/ Transect IDUnconsolidated Sediments (inches)* Dam15 Duck Blind12 Island10 West Cove3 * Note, sedimentsubsidencediscussion follows Table 5. Soil Profile Descriptions The soil profile descriptions of the subaqueous soil cores generally included 3 to 4 distinct soil horizons that were described. The upper material was a mix of unconsolidated silt and varying degrees of decomposed organic material and ranged in thickness from 2 to 6-inches. The following horizon was the original surface horizon and ranged in texture fromsilt loamtosilty clay loam. The thickness of the original surface ranged from 2 to 6-inches. Some of the soil cores includedredoximorphicconcentrationsand depletions in this horizon. The third soil horizon was representative of the historic restrictive layer and ranged in texture from silty clay loam to clay with redoximorphicconcentrations and in someinstances redoximorphicdepletions. A notabledifference between the second and thirdhorizons was the third horizon included a higher percentage of redoximorphicconcentrations. This is likely due to the restrictive nature of the clay subsoil. Some of the soil coresincluded channer rock fragments, but only modified soil texture in soil cores that were close to shore. Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 9 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Table 5 – Summary of Soil Profile Descriptions of Subaqueous Soil Cores Subaqueous Soil Soil Profile Depth of Organic Sample ID Depth to Restrictive Soil Description Material/Unconsolidated (Transect-Core Layer (inches) Number* Sediments (inches) Number) Dam-11348 – 13+0 – 4 Dam-12369 – 11+0 – 3 Dam-13486 – 8+0 – 2 Dam-14497 – 11+0 – 5 Dam-15509 – 12+0 – 5 Center-6 518 – 11+0 – 6 Center-7 3714 – 16+0 – 5 Center-9 5211 – 16+0 – 6 Center-103511 – 17+0 – 6 * Soil profile description of the subaqueous soil cores can be found in Attachment F. Subsidence In air drying the soil cores, it was anticipated the upper portion of the soil core that contained organic material and unconsolidated sediments would display linear shrinkage. However, the soil cores were unable to thoroughly dry while in the clear plastic tubes; this was partlybecause of the restrictive clay layer at the base acting as a clay plug. Also, the upper portion of the tube was at a length that made it difficult for water to evaporate. After attempting to air dry in the tube for 30-days, the soil cores were extracted from the tubes and allowed to air dry in the sampling tray. After drying exposed in an unconfined position, shrinkage was observed throughout the entire soil cores, including the upper organic material and unconsolidated sediments andthe clay subsoil. While the amount of shrinkage could not be quantified, it was evident the subaqueous soil cores experienced notable shrinkage throughout – observed estimate of ~50% shrinkagein the overburden material and ~25% shrinkage in the restrictive clay layer. Discussion: The subaqueous soil sampling effort provided insight regarding the current conditions of the Project soils andinformation of the historic soil properties beforebeing inundated. Specifically, the composition and extent of overburden observed did notpresent concerns for restoration. Arestrictivelayer was identified, and notable similarities of the subaqueous soils relative to the drained hydric soils in agriculture production were observed. An apparent layer of overburden was observed within the soil cores and is a mixture of partially decomposed organic material and silt. This layer was observed predominantly in the deeper areas of the pond, including the middle of the historic valley of the Dam, Duck Blind, and Center transects. A difference in depth of the overburden was observed when comparing the initial sampling observations relative to the extracted soil profile descriptions. The overburden observed in the initial sampling observations appeared thicker because the fluid nature of the material streaked down the outer soil core. Additionally, the overburden contains organic material thatacts as a sponge and expands when under saturated conditions. After drying, this material experienced notable shrinkage, and as a result, it is expected this material will decrease in-depth and area after the pond is dewatered. Additionally, the amount of material Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 10 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 observed in the samples is not excessive in depth or area andwill not require excavation to the historic soil surface to support wetland hydrology.Moreover, there did not appear to be any differences in soil morphology that would affect the fertility of the soil and the ability to plant and grow trees in the historic pond bed. A restrictive layer was observed both during the sampling effort by feel and post removal during the process of evaluating the soil cores and completing the soil profile descriptions. The restrictive layer observed along the margins of the pond included channers and is likely shallow to bedrock based on observations of the surrounding side slopes. Soils along the margins of the pond and extending upslope into the crenulations are likely associated with the Cid soil series. Soils in the historic floodplain included a restrictive clay layer with a texture ranging from silty clay loam to clay. The clay layer was observed to shrink and crack after drying, which is representative of 2:1 clay mineralogy, which restricts the vertical movement of water in the soil profile. These historic floodplain soils of the pond are likely a deeper version of the Cid soil series observed during the development of the Union County Soil Survey. Potential for hydrology loss following dam removal is not expected for the restored stream and wetlands. The surrounding upland soils are shallow to bedrock, and the bedrock is observed in the downstream stream bed. Additionally, the 2:1 clay mineralogy will initially dry and crack following dam removal; however, remaining organics are anticipated to fill in the cracks to support the restoration of the soil structure. After restoration, the soil will regain historic structure upon returning to the natural wetting and drying annual cycle associated with the wet winter months, as observed in the existing downstream wetlands. The soil profile descriptions of the subaqueous soil cores shared similar morphological properties to Project soils identified for wetland reestablishment currently in agriculture and silviculture production. The common properties included: redoximorphicconcentrations found as pore linings and in the matrix alongwithsoil peds, chroma 3 redoximorphicdepletions, and chroma 3 soil matrices. These findings provide further support that even after 50+ years of being inundated, the mineralogy of these soils still displays properties that are not normally associated with being in a saturated and anaerobic condition for an extended period. Additionally, the data demonstrates the soils were not over excavated to construct the dam as a surface horizon was still observed. Detailed Soils Evaluation Introduction A detailed soils evaluation within the Project areawas conducted to provide additional data to justify and support the proposed wetland reestablishment areas forthe Project. This work was performed on July 9- 10, 14-15, 21-23, and September 1, 2020. Soils were evaluated by hand auger and use of a sharpshooter shovel to extract soil profiles which were described in the field. Representative soil profiles were described in the field and identified a hydric soil field indicator if present.Hydric soil indicators identified include F3 (Depleted Matrix), F8 (RedoxDepressions), and F19 (Piedmont Floodplain Soils). It should be noted the Project landscape has been in agriculture and silviculture production for an extended period, including terracing, plowing, relocating/ditching streams, and installation of farm ponds. These activities disturb hydric indicators of these as they manipulate the upper 8-inches where the indicators are located. Additionally, the short hydroperiod of these soils produces hydric indicators that are easily eliminated through the land practices mentioned above. Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 11 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Methods Over 230 soil borings were performed, with 177 of the soil borings exhibitinga hydric soil field indicator. The exercise included52 soil profile descriptionsrepresentingsoils observed in the various landscape positions and associated intermittent and perennial streams within the Project. Twenty-two soil profile descriptions were observed to have an altered F8 hydric soil indicator where land use practices have removed the indicator. However, these soils displayed evidence of a historic seasonal high-watertable (SHWT) within 12-inches of the soil surface and includeda consistent subsoil of soil profile descriptions displaying the F8hydric indicator. Soil borings were almost exclusively in the Cid soil map unit except foreight inthe Goldston soil map unit. The soil borings within the Goldston soil map unit were in a small linear floodplain associated with an intermittent stream (UT4) where soil profile descriptions reflected soils more closely related tothe Cid soil map unit. The soil borings within the Cid soil map unit are variable, as shown in the soil profile descriptions and associated photos. The variability falls within the rangeof the official series description for both the Cid and Secrest soil map units and is largely dependent on landscape position. When these soils are associated with intermittent and perennial streams with active floodplains, the restrictive soil properties (including expansive mixed clay mineralogy and shallow to bedrock) allow retention of surface water. These features of the soil support wetland hydrology as water is retained through the winter months (wet season) and remains into the early springdue to slow permeability and moderately low saturated hydraulic conductivity. Within a couplemonths of the start of the growing season, vegetation begins to uptake available soil and surface water, which drives the short hydroperiod of these wetlands. Results andDiscussion The soil profile descriptions and associated photos can be found along with official soil series descriptions for Cid and Secrest soil series in Attachment F. F3 Depleted Matrix Soil Borings The F3 depleted matrix hydric indicator was observedin 13 soil borings in the wetland preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation areas. This indicator is found along the middle and outer floodplain of the downstream reach of Waxhaw Branch. This indicator was also observed in some isolated locations of proposed wetland reestablishment areas associated with first and second-order streams.The restrictive soil layer consists of channery bedrock in the Cid soil series and expansive clay mineralogy associated with the deeper Secrest soil series. F8 Redox Depressions Soil Borings The F8 redox depressions hydric indicator was observed in 127 soil borings in the preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation areas, especially along first-order intermittent and perennial streams. The restrictive soillayer consists of channery bedrock and expansive clay mineralogy in the Cid soil series and the stickiness and plasticity clay consistency associated with the deeper Secrest soil series. The F8 indicators were observed in closed depressions along the floodplains and were bounded by the toe of slopes and stream banks. Altered F8 Redox Depressions Soil Borings An altered version of the F8 redox depressions hydric indicator was observed in 22 of the soil borings in the rehabilitation areas, especially along first and second-order intermittent and perennial streams currently in agriculture production. The restrictive soil layer consists of channery bedrock in the Cid soil series and expansive clay mineralogy associated with the deeper Secrest soil series. Redoximorphic concentrations were observed between 5 – 12-inchesrather than the required 0 – 4-inchesdepth Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 12 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 required. However, by having redoximorphicconcentrations within the upper 12-inchesthis is evidence that a SHWToccurs at a depth that would support wetland hydrology. In addition, soils in preservation areas that display this hydric indicator were observed to have redoximorphicconcentrations from 0 – 4- inches and extenddeeper into the profile from the 5 – 12-inchesdepth range. This altered version ofthe F8 indicator is being included as land practices, mainly plowing and colluvium from surrounding side slopes in agriculture production, have filled in the historicallyclosed depressions. Due to these depressions filling in with sedimentfrom agricultural practices, the observed depth at which the redoximorphicconcentrations would occurhas been altered. F19 Piedmont Floodplain Soil Borings The F19 piedmont floodplain soils hydric indicator was observed in 37 of the soil borings in the wetland preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation areas along floodplains of second and third-order perennial streams. The restrictive soil layer consists of channery bedrock and expansive clay mineralogy in the Cid soil series and the stickiness and plasticity clay consistency associated with the deeper Secrest soil series.It should be noted groundwater is often the source of hydrology for the F19 hydric indicator, and flooding may be rare. Additional Soil Borings Spoil was observed in 21 soil boring locationswhere existing and historic pond dams were present. These areas include an abundance of large channers mixed in with excavated clay from when the ponds were excavated. Due to the abundance and size of the rock material, auger refusal occurred at shallow depths (<6-inches). Ten upland soil borings were completed and were observed at low elevations along the side slopes upgradient of toe slope landscape positions. It should be noted that several upland data points for the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination ended up meeting an existing hydric indicator and were determined to be uplands from the result of ditching and altered hydrology. Reference Wetlands To better understand the variability ofthese soils in this setting, a desktop and field reconnaissance was performed to see if these soils are associated with wetlands under natural conditions. Four reference areas were identified that included Cid and Goldston soil map units. These reference locations were northeast of the Projectassociated at the head of an ephemeral streamin the Cid soil map unit, northwest of the Project associated with a floodplain of an intermittent stream in the Goldston soil map unit, within the Project along the downstream floodplain of Waxhaw Branch in the Cid soil map unit, and downstream of the Project along the floodplain of Waxhaw Branch in the Cid soil map unit. All four areas included forested vegetation and met the three parameters for a jurisdictional wetland (Attachment G). Conclusions In summary, the detailedanalysisprovidedhereinprovides firmsupport and justification for the proposed wetland mitigation assets, includingdocumented wetland hydrology with groundwater monitoring gauges; averballyapproved PJD documentingexisting wetlands with the presence of F3, F8, and F19 hydric soil indicators; a bathymetry survey detailing an intact historic floodplain; a detailed subaqueous soil sampling effort displaying less than a foot of overburden on the historic soil surface - confirming the bathymetry survey; a detailed soils investigation identifying hydric soil indicators associated with the proposed wetland reestablishment areas; and identifying nearby existing reference wetlands Wits EndWetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% DesignPage 13 SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 incomparablelandscapesandstreamorders.Moreover,thehydrologyofthissystemhasbeenextensively modifiedforagricultureandsilviculturelandmanagementactivitiesfor80+years.Theextensive straighteningandoverexcavationofhistoricstreamsexpeditestheremovalofprecipitationandhas removedwetlandhydrologyandtheassociatefloodplainstorageassociatedwiththeProjectstreams.The presenceofexistingwetlandsinforestedandmodifiedforestedareasalongthesestraightenedstreams providesclearevidencetheproposedreestablishmentwetlandareaswillsupportwetlandhydrology followingrestoration. Presentedbelowisasummaryoftheproposedwetland&streammitigationassetsandratios. Table6ΑSummaryofMitigationAssetsandCredits WetlandMitigationRiparian WetlandFeaturesTypeAcreage* MitigationTypeRatioRiverineWMU Drained,Filled,or ReestablishmentRiparianRiverine23.3191:123.319 PermanentlyInundated ExistingEnhancementRiparianRiverine1.4162:10.708 ExistingPreservationRiparianRiverine4.91810:10.492 Totals29.6523acres24.519WMUs *Acreageaccountsforeasementbreaksandthewidthassociatedwiththeproposedstreamrestorationchannels. Mitigation StreamMitigationTypeLinerFootage*SMUs Ratio Restoration11,0541:111,054 Enhancement(LevelI)2321.5:1170 Enhancement(LevelIII)6815:1136 Totals11,96711,360SMUs *Basedon30%designΑFigure6ΑAppendixA. WitsEndWetlandMitigationSiteΑTechnicalMemo&30%DesignPage14 SAW202000455,NCDWR20200369 Appendix A. Figures Figure 1 – Soils Figure 2 – Subaqueous Sampling Technical Proposal Figure 7 – Area Soils Preliminary Mitigation Plan Figure 6 – 30% Restoration Plan Table B1 – Morphological Stream Characteristics Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Appendix SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 ³ ! ! ! ! ³ Table B1. Wits End Morphological Stream Characteristics REFERENCE - Spencer Proposed (Waxhaw Branch Existing (Waxhaw Branch Proposed (Waxhaw Branch Existing (Waxhaw Branch VariablesREFERENCE - UWHARRIE CreekUpstream)Upstream)Downstream)Downstream) E 4E 3Eg 4/5Ce 3/4Eg 4/5Ce 3/4 Stream Type 2 0.600.410.660.661.041.04 Drainage Area (mi) 57.643.861.361.385.085.0 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Dimension VariablesDimension Variables Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (A)14.210.415.020.415.020.4 bkf Existing Cross-Sectional Area (A)21.6 - 34.015.039.2 - 64.320.4 14.210.4 existing Mean: 12.1Mean: 9.1Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean: 11.614.513.216.9 Bankfull Width (W) bkf Range: 11.2 - 13.0Range: 6.8 - 10.1Range:10.4to13.3Range:13.4to15.5Range:12.0to13.4Range: 15.6to18.1 1.31.01.61.2 Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean: 1.21.3 Bankfull Mean Depth (D) bkf Range: 1.1 - 1.3Range: 1.1 - 1.4Range:1.1to1.4Range:1.0to1.1Range:1.5to1.7Range: 1.1to1.3 2.11.32.41.6 Mean: 1.7Mean: 1.8Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean: Bankfull Maximum Depth (D) max Range: 1.6 - 1.7Range: 1.4 - 1.9Range:2.0to2.3Range:1.2to1.7Range:2.1to2.7Range: 1.4to2.0 Mean: 12.7Mean: 14.8Mean: Mean: 17.420.3 Pool Width (W) pool No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 12.0 - 13.3Range: 12.1 - 17.4 Range: 14.5to20.3Range: 16.9to23.7 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Mean: 2.1Mean: 2.1 Mean: Mean: 1.82.1 staightening activitiesstaightening activities Maximum Pool Depth (D) pool Range: 2.0 - 2.2Range: 1.9 - 2.2 Range: 1.6to2.1Range: 1.8to2.4 15010032150 Mean: 50Mean: 50Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean: Width of Floodprone Area (W) fpa Range: Range: Range:150to150Range:50to150Range:20to150Range: 100to200 Dimension RatiosDimension Ratios 12.96.92.78.9 Mean: 4.2Mean: 5.9Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean: Entrenchment Ratio (W/W) fpabkf Range: 3.8 - 4.5Range: 5.0 - 7.4Range:11.2to14.4Range:3.7to9.7Range:1.5to11.3Range: 6.4to11.1 8.914.08.314.0 Mean: 10.1Mean: 7.8Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean: Width / Depth Ratio (W/D) bkfbkf Range: 10.0 - 10.2Range: 4.9 - 8.3Range:7.4to12.2Range:12.0to16.0Range:7.1to8.9Range: 12.0to16.0 1.61.31.41.3 Mean: 1.4Mean: 1.3Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean: Max. D/ D Ratio bkfbkf Range: 1.3 - 1.5Range: 1.3 - 1.5Range:1.5to1.9Range:1.2to1.5Range:1.4to1.8Range: 1.2to1.5 1.51.01.81.0 Mean: 1.0Mean: 1.0Mean:Mean:Mean:Mean: Low Bank Height / Max. D Ratio bkf Range: Range: Range:1.3to 1.6Range:1.0to1.3Range:1.5to 2.2Range: 1.0to1.3 1.71.7 Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: 1.8Mean: 1.6Mean: Mean: Mean Depth (D/D) Range: 1.7 - 1.8Range: 1.5 - 1.7Range: 1.5to2.0Range: 1.5to2.0 poolbkf No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of 1.21.2 Pool Width / Bankfull Mean: 1.0Mean: 1.6Mean: Mean: riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Width (W/W) Range: 1.0 - 1.1Range: 1.3 - 1.9Range: 1.0to1.4Range: 1.0to1.4 poolbkf staightening activitiesstaightening activities 1.21.2 Pool Area / Bankfull Mean: 1.1Mean: 1.4Mean: Mean: Cross Sectional AreaRange: 1.1 - 1.2Range: Range: 1.0to1.4Range: 1.0to1.4 Existing (Waxhaw Branch Proposed (Waxhaw Branch Existing (Waxhaw Branch Proposed (Waxhaw Branch VariablesREFERENCE - UWHARRIEREFERENCE - UWHARRIE Upstream)Upstream)Downstream)Downstream) Pattern VariablesPattern Variables Pool to Pool Spacing (L)58.067.6 Med: 51.2Med: 29.8Med: Med: p-p Range: 36.7 - 64.3Range: 16.2 - 44.2Range: 43.5to72.5Range: 50.7to84.5 Meander Length (L)101.4118.3 Med: 85.9Med: 41.4Med: Med: m No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 60.2 - 97.1Range: 28.8 - 64.6Range: 72.5to130.4Range: 84.5to152.1 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Belt Width (W)29.033.8 Med: 27.8Med: 21.3Med: Med: belt staightening activitiesstaightening activities Range: 24.0 - 32.6Range: 14.5 - 26.3Range: 21.7to43.5Range: 25.3to50.7 Radius of Curvature (R)43.550.7 Med: 20.5Med: 9.7Med: Med: c Range: 11.9 - 27.7Range: 4.5 - 17.6Range: 29.0to58.0Range: 33.8to67.6 Sinuosity (Sin)1.141.261.011.151.061.15 Pattern RatiosPattern Ratios 4.04.0 Pool to Pool Spacing/Med: 4.2Med: 3.4Med: Med: Bankfull Width (L/W) Range: 3.0 - 5.3Range: 1.9 - 5.1Range: 3.0to5.0Range: 3.0to5.0 p-pbkf Meander Length/Med: 7.1Med: 4.8Med:7.0Med:7.0 No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Bankfull Width (L/W) Range: 5.0 - 8.0Range: 3.3 - 7.5Range: 5.0to9.0Range: 5.0to9.0 mbkf riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Meander Width RatioMed: 2.3Med: 2.5Med: Med: 2.02.0 staightening activitiesstaightening activities (W/W) Range: 2.0 - 2.7Range: 1.7 - 3.0Range: 1.5to3.0Range: 1.5to3.0 beltbkf Radius of Curvature/Med: 1.7Med: 1.1Med: Med: 3.03.0 Bankfull Width (Rc/W) Range: 1.0 - 2.3Range: 0.5 - 2.0Range: 2.0to4.0Range: 2.0to4.0 bkf Profile VariablesProfile Variables Average Water Surface Slope (S) ave 0.01680.01280.00520.00460.00420.0039 Valley Slope (S) valley 0.01920.01610.00530.00450.00530.0045 Riffle Slope (S)0.00780.0067 Mean: 0.0283Mean: 0.0260Mean: Mean: riffle Range:0.0096 - 0.0846Range:0.0157 - 0.0887Range:0.0055to0.0092Range:0.0047to0.0078 Pool Slope (S)Mean: 0.0013Mean: 0.0006Mean:0.0005Mean:0.0004 pool No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 0 - 0.0082Range: 0 - 0.0117Range: 0.0000to0.0032Range: 0.0000to0.0027 riffles and pools due to channel riffles and pools due to channel Run Slope (S)0.00180.0016 Mean: 0.0000Mean: 0.0054Mean:Mean: run incisionincision Range: 0 - 0.0091Range: 0 - 0.0413Range: 0.0000to0.0037Range: 0.0000to0.0031 Glide Slope (S)0.00050.0004 Mean: 0.0027Mean: 0.0070Mean: Mean: glide Range: 0 - 0.0102Range: 0 - 0.0210Range: 0.0000to0.0037Range: 0.0000to0.0031 Profile RatiosProfile Ratios 1.71.7 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 1.7Mean: 2.0Mean: Mean: Slope (S/S) Range:0.6 - 5.0Range:1.2 - 6.9Range:1.2to2.0Range:1.2to2.0 riffleave 0.10.1 Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.1Mean: 0.1Mean: Mean: No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Slope (S/S) Range: 0 - 0.49Range: 0 - 0.9Range: 0.0to0.7Range: 0.0to0.7 poolave riffles and pools due to channel riffles and pools due to channel Run Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.00Mean: 0.4Mean:0.4Mean:0.4 incisionincision Slope (S/S) Range: 0 - .55Range: 0 - 3.2Range: 0.0to0.8Range: 0.0to0.8 runave Glide Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.16Mean: 0.5Mean: Mean: 0.10.1 Slope (S/S) Range: 0 - 0.61Range: 0 - 1.6Range: 0.0to0.8Range: 0.0to0.8 glideave Table B1 continuted. Wits End Morphological Stream Characteristics VariablesExisting (UT 2)Proposed (UT 2 and 4)Existing (UT 4)Existing (UT 3)Proposed (UT 3) E 6Ce 3/4Cg and D 4/5G 4/5Ce 3/4 Stream Type 2 0.090.090.100.250.25 Drainage Area (mi) 14.814.816.030.630.6 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Dimension Variables Dimension Variables Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (A)4.04.34.07.87.8 bkf Existing Cross-Sectional Area (A)4.0 - 7.44.04.6 - 1016.4 - 35.27.8 existing Mean:Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: 4.87.510.68.010.4 Bankfull Width (W) bkf Range:4.1to7.0Range:4.4to17.9Range: 6.9to8.0Range:7.1to10.3Range:9.7to11.2 0.80.60.51.00.7 Mean:Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Bankfull Mean Depth (D) bkf Range:0.6to1.0Range:0.2to1.0Range: 0.5to0.6Range:0.8to1.1Range:0.7to0.8 1.40.90.71.31.0 Mean:Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Bankfull Maximum Depth (D) max Range:1.2to1.4Range:0.4to1.4Range: 0.6to0.9Range:1.1to1.5Range:0.9to1.2 Mean: Mean: 9.012.5 Pool Width (W) pool No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 7.5to10.5Range: 10.4to14.6 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Mean: Mean: 0.91.3 staightening activities staightening activitiesstaightening activities Maximum Pool Depth (D) pool Range: 0.8to1.1Range: 1.1to1.5 3350501075 Mean:Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Width of Floodprone Area (W) fpa Range:22to40Range:30to60Range: 25to75Range:8to23Range:50to100 Dimension Ratios Dimension Ratios Mean:Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: 5.45.16.71.37.2 Entrenchment Ratio (W/W) fpabkf Range:4.7to8.3Range:3.1to9.6Range: 3.6to9.4Range:1.1to2.2Range: 5.2to9.0 6.014.029.88.014.0 Mean:Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Width / Depth Ratio (W/D) bkfbkf Range:4.1to2.0Range:4.4to89.5Range: 12.0to16.0Range:6.512.919.8Range: 12.0to16.0 1.81.41.31.41.3 Mean:Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Max. D/ D Ratio bkfbkf Range:1.4to2.0Range:1.3to3.0Range: 1.2to1.5Range:1.3to1.4Range: 1.2to1.5 1.11.01.42.31.0 Mean:Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Low Bank Height / Max. D Ratio bkf Range:1.0to 1.5Range:1.0to 1.8Range: 1.0to1.3Range:1.7to 3.0Range: 1.0to1.3 1.71.7 Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: Mean: Mean Depth (D/D) Range: 1.5to2.0Range: 1.5to2.0 poolbkf No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of 1.21.2 Pool Width / Bankfull Mean: Mean: riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Width (W/W) Range: 1.0to1.4Range: 1.0to1.4 poolbkf staightening activitiesstaightening activitiesstaightening activities 1.21.2 Pool Area / Bankfull Mean: Mean: Cross Sectional AreaRange: 1.0to1.4Range: 1.0to1.4 VariablesExisting (UT 2)Existing (UT 4)Proposed (UT 2 and 4)Existing (UT 3)Proposed (UT 3) Pattern Variables Pattern Variables Pool to Pool Spacing (L)29.941.8 Med: Med: p-p Range: 22.4to37.4Range: 31.3to52.2 Meander Length (L)52.473.1 Med: Med: m No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 37.4to67.3Range: 52.2to94.0 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Belt Width (W)15.020.9 Med: Med: belt staightening activities staightening activitiesstaightening activities Range: 11.2to22.4Range: 15.7to31.3 Radius of Curvature (R)22.431.3 Med: Med: c Range: 15.0to29.9Range: 20.9to41.8 Sinuosity (Sin)1.001.021.101.031.10 Pattern Ratios Pattern Ratios 4.04.0 Pool to Pool Spacing/Med: Med: Bankfull Width (L/W) Range: 3.0to5.0Range: 3.0to5.0 p-pbkf 7.0 Meander Length/Med: Med: 7.0 No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Bankfull Width (L/W) Range: 5.0to9.0Range: 5.0to9.0 mbkf riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Meander Width RatioMed: Med: 2.02.0 staightening activitiesstaightening activitiesstaightening activities (W/W) Range: 1.5to3.0Range: 1.5to3.0 beltbkf Radius of Curvature/Med: Med: 3.03.0 Bankfull Width (Rc/W) Range: 2.0to4.0Range: 2.0to4.0 bkf Profile Variables Profile Variables Average Water Surface Slope (S) ave 0.00890.00760.00760.00710.0066 Valley Slope (S) valley 0.00890.00780.00840.00730.0073 Riffle Slope (S)0.01300.0113 Mean: Mean: riffle Range:0.0092to0.0153Range:0.0080to0.0133 Pool Slope (S)Mean: Mean: 0.00080.0007 pool No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 0.0000to0.0053Range: 0.0000to0.0046 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Run Slope (S)0.00310.0027 Mean: Mean: run staightening activitiesstaightening activitiesstaightening activities Range: 0.0000to0.0061Range: 0.0000to0.0053 Glide Slope (S)0.00080.0007 Mean: Mean: glide Range: 0.0000to0.0061Range: 0.0000to0.0053 Profile Ratios Profile Ratios 1.71.7 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: Mean: Slope (S/S) Range:1.2to2.0Range:1.2to2.0 riffleave 0.10.1 Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: Mean: No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.7Range: 0.0to0.7 poolave riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Run Slope/Water Surface Mean: Mean: 0.40.4 staightening activitiesstaightening activitiesstaightening activities Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.8Range: 0.0to0.8 runave Glide Slope/Water Surface Mean: Mean: 0.10.1 Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.8Range: 0.0to0.8 glideave Table B1 continuted. Wits End Morphological Stream Characteristics Proposed (UT 3A and 3 VariablesExisting (UT 3A)Existing (UT 3 upstream) upstream) G 4Ce 3/4G 4/5 Stream Type 2 0.100.100.12 Drainage Area (mi) 15.215.217.6 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Dimension Variables Dimension Variables Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (A)4.14.14.7 bkf Existing Cross-Sectional Area (A)7.0 - 8.94.114.2 - 20.2 existing Mean:Mean:Mean: 5.87.65.7 Bankfull Width (W) bkf Range:5.8to5.8Range:5.3to6.1Range: 7.0to8.1 0.70.50.9 Mean:Mean:Mean: Bankfull Mean Depth (D) bkf Range:0.7to0.7Range:0.8to0.9Range: 0.5to0.6 1.00.71.0 Mean:Mean:Mean: Bankfull Maximum Depth (D) max Range:0.9to1.0Range:0.9to1.1Range: 0.6to0.9 Mean:9.1 Pool Width (W) pool No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 7.6to10.6 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Mean:0.9 staightening activitiesstaightening activities Maximum Pool Depth (D) pool Range: 0.8to1.1 9850 Mean:Mean:Mean: Width of Floodprone Area (W) fpa Range:8to8Range:7to8Range: 25to75 Dimension Ratios Dimension Ratios Mean:Mean:Mean: 1.56.61.3 Entrenchment Ratio (W/W) fpabkf Range:1.4to1.6Range:1.1to1.5Range: 3.6to9.3 8.314.06.8 Mean:Mean:Mean: Width / Depth Ratio (W/D) bkfbkf Range:8.3to8.3Range:5.9to7.6Range: 12.0to16.0 1.41.31.2 Mean:Mean:Mean: Max. D/ D Ratio bkfbkf Range:1.3to1.4Range:1.1to1.2Range: 1.2to1.5 1.61.02.9 Mean:Mean:Mean: Low Bank Height / Max. D Ratio bkf Range:1.4to 1.8Range:2.3to 3.4Range: 1.0to1.3 1.7 Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: Mean Depth (D/D) Range: 1.5to2.0 poolbkf No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of 1.2 Pool Width / Bankfull Mean: riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Width (W/W) Range: 1.0to1.4 poolbkf staightening activitiesstaightening activities 1.2 Pool Area / Bankfull Mean: Cross Sectional AreaRange: 1.0to1.4 Proposed (UT 3A and 3 VariablesExisting (UT 3A)Existing (UT 3 upstream) upstream) Pattern Variables Pattern Variables Pool to Pool Spacing (L)30.3 Med: p-p Range: 22.7to37.9 Meander Length (L)53.0 Med: m No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 37.9to68.2 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Belt Width (W)15.2 Med: belt staightening activitiesstaightening activities Range: 11.4to22.7 Radius of Curvature (R)22.7 Med: c Range: 15.2to30.3 Sinuosity (Sin)1.021.101.03 Pattern RatiosPattern Ratios 4.0 Pool to Pool Spacing/Med: Bankfull Width (L/W) Range: 3.0to5.0 p-pbkf Meander Length/Med:7.0 No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Bankfull Width (L/W) Range: 5.0to9.0 mbkf riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Meander Width RatioMed:2.0 staightening activitiesstaightening activities (W/W) Range: 1.5to3.0 beltbkf Radius of Curvature/Med:3.0 Bankfull Width (Rc/W) Range: 2.0to4.0 bkf Profile VariablesProfile Variables Average Water Surface Slope (S) ave 0.00900.00840.0089 Valley Slope (S) valley 0.00920.00920.0092 Riffle Slope (S)0.0142 Mean: riffle Range:0.0100to0.0167 Pool Slope (S)Mean:0.0008 pool No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 0.0000to0.0059 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Run Slope (S)0.0033 Mean: run staightening activitiesstaightening activities Range: 0.0000to0.0067 Glide Slope (S)0.0009 Mean: glide Range: 0.0000to0.0067 Profile RatiosProfile Ratios 1.7 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: Slope (S/S) Range:1.2to2.0 riffleave 0.1 Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.7 poolave riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Run Slope/Water Surface Mean:0.4 staightening activitiesstaightening activities Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.8 runave Glide Slope/Water Surface Mean:0.1 Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.8 glideave Table B1 continuted. Wits End Morphological Stream Characteristics VariablesExisting (UT 1)Proposed (UT 1)Existing (UT 5)Proposed (UT 5) Eg 4Ce 3/4Eg 4Ce 3/4 Stream Type 2 0.050.050.040.04 Drainage Area (mi) 9.59.58.08.0 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Dimension Variables Dimension Variables Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (A)2.82.82.42.4 bkf Existing Cross-Sectional Area (A)3.0 - 6.02.82.4 - 6.12.4 existing Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: 4.66.33.45.8 Bankfull Width (W) bkf Range:4.0to5.1Range: 5.8to6.7Range:3.1to3.7Range: 5.4to6.2 0.60.40.80.4 Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Bankfull Mean Depth (D) bkf Range:0.5to0.7Range: 0.4to0.5Range:0.7to0.8Range: 0.4to0.4 1.00.61.30.5 Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Bankfull Maximum Depth (D) max Range: 0. 9 to 1. 0Range: 0.5to0.7Range:1.0to1.6Range: 0.5to0.7 Mean: Mean: 7.57.0 Pool Width (W) pool No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 6.3to8.8Range: 5.8to8.1 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Mean: Mean: 0.80.7 staightening activitiesstaightening activities Maximum Pool Depth (D) pool Range: 0.7to0.9Range: 0.6to0.8 45501330 Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Width of Floodprone Area (W) fpa Range:40to50Range: 25to75Range:10to15Range: 15to50 Dimension Ratios Dimension Ratios Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: 10.28.03.65.2 Entrenchment Ratio (W/W) fpabkf Range:7.8to12.5Range: 4.3to11.2Range:3.2to4.1Range: 2.8to8.1 8.014.04.614.0 Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Width / Depth Ratio (W/D) bkfbkf Range:5.7to10.2Range: 12.0to16.0Range:3.9to5.3Range: 12.0to16.0 1.61.31.71.3 Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Max. D/ D Ratio bkfbkf Range:1.3to2.0Range: 1.2to1.5Range:1.4to2.0Range: 1.2to1.5 1.31.01.31.0 Mean:Mean: Mean:Mean: Low Bank Height / Max. D Ratio bkf Range:1.1to 1.5Range: 1.0to1.3Range:1.0to 1.6Range: 1.0to1.3 1.71.7 Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: Mean: Mean Depth (D/D) Range: 1.5to2.0Range: 1.5to2.0 poolbkf No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of 1.21.2 Pool Width / Bankfull Mean: Mean: riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Width (W/W) Range: 1.0to1.4Range: 1.0to1.4 poolbkf staightening activitiesstaightening activities 1.21.2 Pool Area / Bankfull Mean: Mean: Cross Sectional AreaRange: 1.0to1.4Range: 1.0to1.4 VariablesExisting (UT 1)Proposed (UT 1)Existing (UT 5)Proposed (UT 5) Pattern Variables Pattern Variables Pool to Pool Spacing (L)25.023.2 Med: Med: p-p Range: 18.8to31.3Range: 17.4to29.0 Meander Length (L)43.840.6 Med: Med: m No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 31.3to56.3Range: 29.0to52.2 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Belt Width (W)12.511.6 Med: Med: belt staightening activitiesstaightening activities Range: 9.4to18.8Range: 8.7to17.4 Radius of Curvature (R)18.817.4 Med: Med: c Range: 12.5to25.0Range: 11.6to23.2 Sinuosity (Sin)1.061.101.041.10 Pattern Ratios Pattern Ratios 4.04.0 Pool to Pool Spacing/Med: Med: Bankfull Width (L/W) Range: 3.0to5.0Range: 3.0to5.0 p-pbkf Meander Length/Med: Med: 7.07.0 No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Bankfull Width (L/W) Range: 5.0to9.0Range: 5.0to9.0 mbkf riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Meander Width RatioMed: Med: 2.02.0 staightening activitiesstaightening activities (W/W) Range: 1.5to3.0Range: 1.5to3.0 beltbkf Radius of Curvature/Med: Med: 3.03.0 Bankfull Width (Rc/W) Range: 2.0to4.0Range: 2.0to4.0 bkf Profile Variables Profile Variables Average Water Surface Slope (S) ave 0.02620.02530.01130.0107 Valley Slope (S) valley 0.02780.02780.01180.0118 Riffle Slope (S)0.04300.0182 Mean: Mean: riffle Range:0.0303to0.0505Range:0.0129to0.0215 Pool Slope (S)Mean: Mean: 0.00250.0011 pool No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Range: 0.0000to0.0177Range: 0.0000to0.0075 riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Run Slope (S)0.01010.0043 Mean: Mean: run staightening activitiesstaightening activities Range: 0.0000to0.0202Range: 0.0000to0.0086 Glide Slope (S)0.00280.0012 Mean: Mean: glide Range: 0.0000to0.0202Range: 0.0000to0.0086 Profile Ratios Profile Ratios 1.71.7 Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: Mean: Slope (S/S) Range:1.2to2.0Range:1.2to2.0 riffleave 0.10.1 Pool Slope/Water Surface Mean: Mean: No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.7Range: 0.0to0.7 poolave riffles and pools due to riffles and pools due to Run Slope/Water Surface Mean: Mean: 0.40.4 staightening activitiesstaightening activities Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.8Range: 0.0to0.8 runave Glide Slope/Water Surface Mean: Mean: 0.10.1 Slope (S/S) Range: 0.0to0.8Range: 0.0to0.8 glideave Appendix B. Gauge Data Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Appendix SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 ³ ! Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/26/20 12/14/20 12/2/20 11/20/20 11/8/20 10/27/20 10/15/20 10/3/20 9/21/20 9/9/20 8/28/20 8/16/20 8/4/20 7/23/20 7/11/20 6/29/20 6/17/20 6/5/20 5/24/20 5/12/20 4/30/20 4/18/20 4/6/20 3/25/20 3/13/20 3/1/20 2/18/20 2/6/20 1/25/20 1/13/20 1/1/20 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/26/20 12/14/20 12/2/20 11/20/20 11/8/20 10/27/20 10/15/20 10/3/20 9/21/20 9/9/20 8/28/20 8/16/20 8/4/20 7/23/20 7/11/20 6/29/20 6/17/20 6/5/20 5/24/20 5/12/20 4/30/20 4/18/20 4/6/20 3/25/20 3/13/20 3/1/20 2/18/20 2/6/20 1/25/20 1/13/20 1/1/20 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/26/20 12/14/20 12/2/20 11/20/20 11/8/20 10/27/20 10/15/20 10/3/20 9/21/20 9/9/20 8/28/20 8/16/20 8/4/20 7/23/20 7/11/20 6/29/20 6/17/20 6/5/20 5/24/20 5/12/20 4/30/20 4/18/20 4/6/20 3/25/20 3/13/20 3/1/20 2/18/20 2/6/20 1/25/20 1/13/20 1/1/20 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/26/20 12/14/20 12/2/20 11/20/20 11/8/20 10/27/20 10/15/20 10/3/20 9/21/20 9/9/20 8/28/20 8/16/20 8/4/20 7/23/20 7/11/20 6/29/20 6/17/20 6/5/20 5/24/20 5/12/20 4/30/20 4/18/20 4/6/20 3/25/20 3/13/20 3/1/20 2/18/20 2/6/20 1/25/20 1/13/20 1/1/20 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/26/20 12/14/20 12/2/20 11/20/20 11/8/20 10/27/20 10/15/20 10/3/20 9/21/20 9/9/20 8/28/20 8/16/20 8/4/20 7/23/20 7/11/20 6/29/20 6/17/20 6/5/20 5/24/20 5/12/20 4/30/20 4/18/20 4/6/20 3/25/20 3/13/20 3/1/20 2/18/20 2/6/20 1/25/20 1/13/20 1/1/20 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/27/21 12/15/21 12/3/21 11/21/21 11/9/21 10/28/21 10/16/21 10/4/21 9/22/21 9/10/21 8/29/21 8/17/21 8/5/21 7/24/21 7/12/21 6/30/21 6/18/21 6/6/21 5/25/21 5/13/21 5/1/21 4/19/21 4/7/21 3/26/21 3/14/21 3/2/21 2/18/21 2/6/21 1/25/21 1/13/21 1/1/21 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/27/21 12/15/21 12/3/21 11/21/21 11/9/21 10/28/21 10/16/21 10/4/21 9/22/21 9/10/21 8/29/21 8/17/21 8/5/21 7/24/21 7/12/21 6/30/21 6/18/21 6/6/21 5/25/21 5/13/21 5/1/21 4/19/21 4/7/21 3/26/21 3/14/21 3/2/21 2/18/21 2/6/21 1/25/21 1/13/21 1/1/21 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/27/21 12/15/21 12/3/21 11/21/21 11/9/21 10/28/21 10/16/21 10/4/21 9/22/21 9/10/21 8/29/21 8/17/21 8/5/21 7/24/21 7/12/21 6/30/21 6/18/21 6/6/21 5/25/21 5/13/21 5/1/21 4/19/21 4/7/21 3/26/21 3/14/21 3/2/21 2/18/21 2/6/21 1/25/21 1/13/21 1/1/21 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/27/21 12/15/21 12/3/21 11/21/21 11/9/21 10/28/21 10/16/21 10/4/21 9/22/21 9/10/21 8/29/21 8/17/21 8/5/21 7/24/21 7/12/21 6/30/21 6/18/21 6/6/21 5/25/21 5/13/21 5/1/21 4/19/21 4/7/21 3/26/21 3/14/21 3/2/21 2/18/21 2/6/21 1/25/21 1/13/21 1/1/21 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 12/27/21 12/15/21 12/3/21 11/21/21 11/9/21 10/28/21 10/16/21 10/4/21 9/22/21 9/10/21 8/29/21 8/17/21 8/5/21 7/24/21 7/12/21 6/30/21 6/18/21 6/6/21 5/25/21 5/13/21 5/1/21 4/19/21 4/7/21 3/26/21 3/14/21 3/2/21 2/18/21 2/6/21 1/25/21 1/13/21 1/1/21 Groundwater Level (in) Rainfall Amounts (in) 2020-04-30 2020-04-27 2020-04-24 2020-04-21 2020-04-18 2020-04-15 2020-04-12 2020-04-09 2020-04-06 2020-04-03 2020-03-31 2020-03-28 2020-03-25 2020-03-22 2020-03-19 2020-03-16 2020-03-13 2020-03-10 2020-03-07 2020-03-04 2020-03-01 2020-02-27 2020-02-24 2020-02-21 2020-02-18 2020-02-15 2020-02-12 2020-02-09 2020-02-06 2020-02-03 2020-01-31 2020-01-28 2020-01-25 2020-01-22 2020-01-19 2020-01-16 2020-01-13 2020-01-10 2020-01-07 2020-01-04 2020-01-01 F)°Tmperature ( 2021-04-28 2021-04-25 2021-04-22 2021-04-19 2021-04-16 2021-04-13 2021-04-10 2021-04-07 2021-04-04 2021-04-01 2021-03-29 2021-03-26 2021-03-23 2021-03-20 2021-03-17 2021-03-14 2021-03-11 2021-03-08 2021-03-05 2021-03-02 2021-02-27 2021-02-24 2021-02-21 2021-02-18 2021-02-15 2021-02-12 2021-02-09 2021-02-06 2021-02-03 2021-01-31 2021-01-28 2021-01-25 2021-01-22 2021-01-19 2021-01-16 2021-01-13 2021-01-10 2021-01-07 2021-01-04 2021-01-01 F)°Tmperature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ppendix C. PJD Submittal Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Appendix SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Wits End Jurisdictional Request Supplemental Information A.Parcel 1.0 Snyders Store Rd1.03168005 Information Buford, NC 281742.04006015 –Parcel2.0 Old Pageland Monroe3.04006014A Address and Rd Buford, NC 281744.03168004 Parcel Index 3.0 Old Pageland Monroe5.04006019 Numbers Rd Buford, NC 281746.04006018 4.0 Snyders Store Rd7.04006013 Buford, NC 281748.03168003D 5.0 Old Pageland Monroe9.03168003C Rd Buford, NC 28174 6.2907 Old PagelandNote: Attachment A is a map with corresponding Monroe Rd Buford, NCparcels for each of the PINs listed. 28174 7.2911 Old Pageland Monroe Rd Buford, NC 28174 8.0 Snyders Store Rd Buford, NC 28174 9.0 Snyders Store Rd Buford, NC 28174 C.Property 1.Wits End LLC1.1226 Andover Rd, Charlotte, NC 28211 Owner 2.Wits End LLC704-576-8810 dmarshall11@aol.com Information 3.Wits End LLC2.11232 Colonial Country Ln, Charlotte, (Property 4.Max Shelton and SarahNC 28277 Owner S. Brooks704-576-8810 dmarshall11@aol.com 3.11232 Colonial Country Ln, Charlotte, Information 5.Randy H. Guion NC 28277 is listed in 6.Jessie B. Guion 704-576-8810 dmarshall11@aol.com the same 7.Jessie B. and Virginia L. 4.2407 Faulks Church Rd, Wingate, NC order as Guion 28174 Parcel 8.Bibi Mariam Niazi-Sai Information 9.Gina Brooks Morris704-233-5427 5.2921 Old Pageland Monroe Rd, Monroe, NC 28112 980-721-3561 6.2909 Old Pageland Monroe Rd, Monroe, NC 28112 704-242-1903 7.2909 Old Pageland Monroe Rd, Monroe, NC 28112 704-242-1903 8.PO Box 1219, Monroe, NC 28111 704-694-0731 9.2250 Shaw Ferry Ln, Lenoir City, TN 37772 865-986-7905 ginamorris7221@gmail.com ³ ͻͼ “maybe” “may be” WITS END PJD – TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE” SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION Site Latitude Longitude Estimated Type of aquatic Geographic number (decimal (decimal amount of resource (i.e., authority to which degrees) degrees) aquatic wetland vs. non-the aquatic resource in wetland waters) resource “may be” review area subject (i.e., (acreage and Section 404 or linear feet, if Section 10/404) applicable) STREAMS Waxhaw 34.911525 -80.4434323401Non-wetland 404 Branch waters (Per Stream) UT-1 34.917436 -80.446253140 Non-wetland 404 waters (Int Stream) UT-2 34.917305 -80.442819641 Non-wetland 404 waters (Int Stream) UT-3 34.911810 -80.4480801078Non-wetland 404 waters (Int Stream) UT-3 34.911692 -80.4449861269Non-wetland 404 waters (Per Stream) UT-3A34.912796 -80.447243671 Non-wetland 404 waters (Int Stream) UT-4 34.908694 -80.443574828 Non-wetland 404 waters (Int Stream) UT-5 34.908273 -80.442331181 Non-wetland 404 waters (Int Stream) WETLANDS AA 34.908818 -80.4416073.186 Wetland 404 AB34.907919 -80.4416082.131 Wetland 404 AC 34.917201 -80.4453410.292 Wetland 404 AD 34.916484 -80.4436450.057 Wetland 404 AE 34.915145 -80.4434750.051 Wetland 404 AF34.914039 -80.4449600.034 Wetland 404 AG 34.915370 -80.4456540.034 Wetland 404 AH 34.917102 -80.4457140.389 Wetland 404 AI 34.911509 -80.4486630.134 Wetland 404 AJ 34.912309 -80.4469850.075 Wetland 404 Pond 134.909539 -80.4417800.168 Open water404 Pond 234.915139 -80.44432011.344 Open water404 Pond 334.911541 -80.4483400.113 Open water404 Pond 434.912258 -80.4468830.131 Open water404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AA-UP Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Floodplainnone Slope (%):3 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.909394 Long:-80.44148 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? NO Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesNo Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks:Area appears to be a drained wetland where hydrology has been altered by relocating the stream to the opposite (right) side of the valley. Historically this area was likely the outer edge of the wetland boundary . HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present?Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AA-UP Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.Quercus phellos 100 Y FACWThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2(A) 2.Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3.2(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.100%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 100= Total CoverOBL species0x 1 =0 50% of total cover:5020% of total cover:20 FACW species110x 2 =220 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species35x 3 =105 1.FACU species2x 4 =8 2.UPL species0x 5 =0 3.Column Totals:147(A)333(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =2.3 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Liquidambar styraciflua 30 Y FAC 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5FACW be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3.Quercus phellos 5FACW 4.Ligustrum sinenese 5FAC 5.Juniperus virginiana 2FACU Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 47= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:23.520% of total cover:9.4 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2. 3. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4. 5. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AA-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-210YR 3/2100SiL 3-10+10YR 6/2505Y 8/130DMSiCL 10YR 6/820CM 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? YesNo Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AA-WET Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Floodplainnone Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.909359 Long:-80.441595 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? NO Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesNo Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present?Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks:Monitoring wells were installed within Wetland AA in Feb 2020. Wetland hydrology was observed in the wells during the growing season and within normal rainfall for 32-40days in March-April representing 13-16% of the growing season. US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AA-WET Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.Quercus phellos 80 Y FACWThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:10(A) Liquidambar styraciflua Y FACTotal Number of Dominant 2.10 Species Across All Strata: 3.10(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.100%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 90= Total CoverOBL species75x 1 =75 50% of total cover:4520% of total cover:18 FACW species133x 2 =266 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species40x 3 =120 1.Diospyros virginiana 10 Y FACFACU species4x 4 =16 2.Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FACUPL species0x 5 =0 3.Column Totals:252(A)477(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =1.9 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 20= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:1020% of total cover:4 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Y FACW 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3.Celtis occidentalis 2FACU 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 22= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:1120% of total cover:4.4 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Microstegium vimineum 60 Y OBLapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Juncus effusus 25 Y FACW 3.Carex lurida 15 Y OBL Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4.Cinna arundinacea 15 Y FACW 5.Solidago gigantea 3FACW Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6.Phytolacca americana 2FACU herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 120= Total Cover 50% of total cover:6020% of total cover:24 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AA-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-310YR 3/2100SiL 3-12+2.5Y 5/3452.5Y 6/310DMSiCL 10YR 5/830CPLProminent Redox Concentrations 7.5YR 4/610CMProminent Redox Concentrations 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? YesNo Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AB-UP Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Toeslopenone Slope (%):5 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.908259 Long:-80.442863 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:GsC - Goldston-Badin Complex NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesNo Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks:Vegetation is disturbed as the area is along the edge of an existing ag field under row crop production. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present?Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AB-UP Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0(A) 2.Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3.2(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.0%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 0= Total CoverOBL species0x 1 =0 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 FACW species0x 2 =0 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species0x 3 =0 1.FACU species75x 4 =300 2.UPL species0x 5 =0 3.Column Totals:75(A)300(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =4.0 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3. 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 0= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Cynodon dactylon 40 Y FACUapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Glycine max 30 Y FACU 3. Triticum aestivum 5FACU Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4. 5. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 75= Total Cover 50% of total cover:37.520% of total cover:15 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AB-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-310YR 3/2100SL 3-52.5Y 6/4100SL 5-12+2.5Y 5/6100SiCL 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AB-WET Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Floodplainconcave Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.908434 Long:-80.442739 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? NO Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AB-WET Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 60 Y FACWThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:8(A) Carya glabra Y FACUTotal Number of Dominant 2.30 Species Across All Strata: 3.Quercus phellos 25 Y FACW13(B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.62%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 115= Total CoverOBL species15x 1 =15 50% of total cover:57.520% of total cover:23 FACW species135x 2 =270 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species24x 3 =72 1.Quercus phellos 10 Y FACWFACU species65x 4 =260 2.Carya glabra 10 Y FACUUPL species0x 5 =0 3.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Y FACWColumn Totals:239(A)617(B) 4.Celtis occidentalis 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =2.6 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 40= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:2020% of total cover:8 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Carya glabra 10 Y FACU 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3.Celtis occidentalis 5 Y FACU 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 20= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:1020% of total cover:4 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Microstegium vimineum 15 Y OBLapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Lolium arundinaceum 15 Y FAC 3.Persicaria hydropiperoides 10FACW Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4.Cinna arundinacea 10FACW 5.Boehmeria cylindrica 5FACW Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6.Campsis radicans 2FAC herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 57= Total Cover 50% of total cover:28.520% of total cover:11.4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1.Smilax rotundifolia 5 Y FAC 2.Smilax bona-nox 2FAC 3. 4. 5. 7= Total Cover 50% of total cover:3.520% of total cover:1.4 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AB-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-210YR 4/2957.5YR 4/65CPLSLProminent Redox Concentrations 2-42.5Y 7/1707.5YR 4/620CPLSLProminent Redox Concentrations 7.5YR 5/810CM 4-13+2.5Y 6/3607.5YR 4/620CPLSiCLProminent Redox Concentrations 7.5YR 5/820CM 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AC-UP Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Toeslopenone Slope (%):5 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.916775 Long:-80.444524 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on 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 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks:Vegetation is disturbed as the area is along the edge of an existing ag field under row crop production HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AC-UP Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0(A) 2.Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3.2(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.0%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 0= Total CoverOBL species0x 1 =0 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 FACW species0x 2 =0 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species0x 3 =0 1.FACU species75x 4 =300 2.UPL species0x 5 =0 3.Column Totals:75(A)300(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =4.0 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3. 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 0= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Glycine max 40 Y FACUapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Triticum aestivum 30 Y FACU 3.Solanum carolinense 5FACU Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4. 5. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 75= Total Cover 50% of total cover:37.520% of total cover:15 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AC-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-310YR 3/2100SiL 3-82.5Y 5/4902.5Y 6/810CMSL 8-15+2.5Y 5/6802.5Y 6/410DMSiCL 2.5Y 6/810CM 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AC-WET Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Floodplainconcave Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.916746 Long:-80.444604 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on 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 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks:All woody vegetation has been removed and hydrology is being controlled by the adjacent pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AC-WET Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5(A) 2.Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3.5(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.100%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 0= Total CoverOBL species50x 1 =50 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 FACW species45x 2 =90 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species40x 3 =120 1.FACU species0x 4 =0 2.UPL species0x 5 =0 3.Column Totals:135(A)260(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =1.9 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3. 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 0= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Lolium arundinaceum 40 Y FACapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Carex vulpinoidea 30 Y OBL 3.Juncus effusus 25 Y FACW Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4.Carex lurida 20 Y OBL 5.Persicaria hydropiperoides 20 Y FACW Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 135= Total Cover 50% of total cover:67.520% of total cover:27 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AC-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-510YR 3/28510YR 4/615CPLSiLProminent Redox Concentrations 5-122.5Y 5/36510YR 4/615CPLCLProminent Redox Concentrations 10YR 5/820CM 12-18+2.5Y 5/47510YR 4/625CMCLProminent Redox Concentrations 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AH-UP Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Toeslopeconvex Slope (%):5 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.91739 Long:-80.446074 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? NO Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesNo Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present?Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AH-UP Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACWThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:7(A) Liquidambar styraciflua Y FACTotal Number of Dominant 2.25 Species Across All Strata: 3.Quercus alba 25 Y FACU8(B) 4.Acer rubrum 25 Y FACPercent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.88%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 100= Total CoverOBL species0x 1 =0 50% of total cover:5020% of total cover:20 FACW species62x 2 =124 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species95x 3 =285 1.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACWFACU species32x 4 =128 2.UPL species0x 5 =0 3.Column Totals:189(A)537(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =2.8 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:2.520% of total cover:1 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 30 Y FACW 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Ligustrum sinense 30 Y FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3.Quercus alba 5FACU 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 65= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:32.520% of total cover:13 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Lonicera japonica 10 Y FACapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5FAC 3.Solanum carolinense 2FACU Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4.Cinna arundinacea 2FACW 5. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 19= Total Cover 50% of total cover:9.520% of total cover:3.8 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AH-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-610YR 3/270SL30% Channery (2-4" in size) 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AH-WET Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Floodplainconcave Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.91741 Long:-80.445967 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on 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 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks:Hydrology is being controlled by the adjacent pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AH-WET Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Y FACWThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:6(A) Diospyros virginiana Y FACTotal Number of Dominant 2.20 Species Across All Strata: 3.6(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.100%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 40= Total CoverOBL species0x 1 =0 50% of total cover:2020% of total cover:8 FACW species192x 2 =384 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species64x 3 =192 1.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 30 Y FACWFACU species0x 4 =0 2.Diospyros virginiana 30 Y FACUPL species0x 5 =0 3.Column Totals:256(A)576(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =2.3 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 60= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:3020% of total cover:12 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 40 Y FACW 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Diospyros virginiana 5FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3.Ligustrum sinense 2FAC 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 47= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:23.520% of total cover:9.4 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Cinna arundinacea 80 Y FACWapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Persicaria hydropiperoides 10FACW 3.Boehmeria cylindrica 10FACW Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4.Rubus spp.5FAC 5.Solidago gigantea 2FACW Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6.Parthenocissus quinquefolia 2FAC herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 109= Total Cover 50% of total cover:54.520% of total cover:21.8 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AH-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-310YR 3/29010YR 4/25DMSiLProminent Redox Concentrations 7.5YR 4/65CPL 3-72.5Y 5/3707.5YR 4/625CMSiCLProminent Redox Concentrations 7.5YR 3/45CPL 7-15+2.5Y 6/3607.5YR 4/640CPLSiCLProminent Redox Concentrations 7.5YR 3/45CM 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AI-UP Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Toeslopenone Slope (%):5 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.911532 Long:-80.448521 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? NO Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AI-UP Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.Liquidambar styraciflua 50 Y FACThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3(A) Celtis occidentalis Y FACUTotal Number of Dominant 2.25 Species Across All Strata: 3.Juniperus virginiana 25 Y FACU7(B) 4.Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.43%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 100= Total CoverOBL species0x 1 =0 50% of total cover:5020% of total cover:20 FACW species0x 2 =0 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species120x 3 =360 1.Bambusa vulgaris 40 Y FACUFACU species135x 4 =540 2.Liquidambar styraciflua 10FACUPL species0x 5 =0 3.Celtis occidentalis 10FACUColumn Totals:255(A)900(B) 4.Prunus serotina 10FACU Prevalence Index = B/A =3.5 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 70= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:3520% of total cover:14 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Ligustrum sinense 50 Y FAC 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Bambusa vulgaris 20 Y FACU be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3. 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 70= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:3520% of total cover:14 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Parthenocissus quinquefolia 10 Y FACapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Lonicera japoinica 5FACU 3. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4. 5. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 15= Total Cover 50% of total cover:7.520% of total cover:3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AI-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-310YR 4/4100SL 3-1110YR 5/6100SiCL 11-16+10YR 5/6957.5YR 5/85CPLSiCL 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? YesNo Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AI-WET Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Floodplainconcave Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.911539 Long:-80.448571 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesNo Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks:Hydrology is being controlled by the adjacent pond and ditching of the adjacent stream HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present?Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AI-WET Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:4(A) 2.Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3.5(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.80%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 0= Total CoverOBL species10x 1 =10 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 FACW species35x 2 =70 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species25x 3 =75 1.Juglans nigra 10 Y FACUFACU species15x 4 =60 2.Salix nigra 10 Y OBLUPL species0x 5 =0 3.Column Totals:85(A)215(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =2.5 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 20= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:1020% of total cover:4 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Ligustrum sinense 10 Y FAC 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5FACW be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3. 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 15= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:7.520% of total cover:3 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Solidago gigantea 25 Y FACWapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Rubus spp.10 Y FAC 3.Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5FAC Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4.Bambusa vulgaris 5FACU 5.Arundinaria gigantea 5FACW Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 50= Total Cover 50% of total cover:2520% of total cover:10 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0= Total Cover 50% of total cover:020% of total cover:0 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AI-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-810YR 4/3100SiL 8-162.5Y 4/37010YR 5/620CPLCLProminent Redox Concentrations 7.5YR 5/610CM 16-22+2.5Y 5/4707.5YR 5/620CMCLProminent Redox Concentrations 10YR 5/610CPL 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? YesNo Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AJ-UP Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Toeslopenone Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.912292 Long:-80.447139 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? NO Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesNo Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present?Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AJ-UP Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.Juglans nigra 60 Y FACUThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2(A) Quercus phellos 2.10FACWTotal Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3.8(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.25%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 70= Total CoverOBL species0x 1 =0 50% of total cover:3520% of total cover:14 FACW species15x 2 =30 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species50x 3 =150 1.Juglans nigra 10 Y FACUFACU species90x 4 =360 2.UPL species5x 5 =25 3.Column Totals:160(A)565(B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A =3.5 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 10= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:520% of total cover:2 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Ligustrum sinense 40 Y FAC 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Ligustrum japonica 5FAC be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3.Quercus phellos 5FACW 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 50= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:2520% of total cover:10 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Lonicera japoinica 10 Y FACUapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Rubus spp.5 Y FAC 3.Rosa multiflora 5 Y UPL Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4.Phytolacca americana 5 Y FACU 5. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7. (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 25= Total Cover 50% of total cover:12.520% of total cover:5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1.Lonicera japoinica 5 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 5= Total Cover 50% of total cover:2.520% of total cover:1 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AJ-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-510YR 4/4100SL 5-112.5Y 5/49510YR 3/45CPLSiCLSharp boundary on RC features 11-16+2.5Y 5/4752.5Y 7/115DMSiCLSharp boundary on RC features 2.5Y 6/65CM 2.5Y 7/85CM 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? YesNo Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site:Wits End City/County:Buford/Union Sampling Date:7/15/2020 Applicant/Owner:Restoration Systems LLC State:NC Sampling Point:AJ-WET Investigator(s):A. Baldwin Section, Township, Range:Buford Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Floodplainconcave Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRR-P, MLRA-136 Lat:34.912295 Long:-80.447061 Datum:NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name:Cmb - Cid channery silt loam NWI Classification:NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? YesNo Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?YesNoIs the Sampled Area within a wetland? Hydric Soil Present?Yes NoYesNo Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Remarks:Hydrology is being controlled by the adjacent pond and ditching of the adjacent stream HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes NoDepth (inches): Saturation Present?Yes NoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:AJ-WET Dominance Test Worksheet: AbsoluteDominantIndicator Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Number of Dominant Species % CoverSpecies?Status 1.Juglans nigra 25 Y FACUThat Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:7(A) Salix nigra Y OBLTotal Number of Dominant 2.25 Species Across All Strata: 3.Quercus phellos 5FACW9(B) Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5.78%(A/B) 6. 7.Prevalence Index worksheet: 55= Total CoverOBL species50x 1 =50 50% of total cover:27.520% of total cover:11 FACW species80x 2 =160 Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius)FAC species35x 3 =105 1.Juglans nigra 30 Y FACUFACU species55x 4 =220 2.Salix nigra 5OBLUPL species0x 5 =0 3.Acer rubrum 5FACColumn Totals:220(A)535(B) 4.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =2.4 5. 6.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 7.1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 45= Total Cover2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 50% of total cover:22.520% of total cover:9 1 4 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 1.Ligustrum sinense 5 Y FAC 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2.Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW be present, unless disturbed or problematic 3.Quercus phellos 5 Y FACW 4. 5.Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. 15= Total Cover (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 50% of total cover:7.520% of total cover:3 Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, 1.Juncus effusus 30 Y FACWapproximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 2.Carex lurida 20 Y OBL 3.Persicaria hydropiperoides 15FACW Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 4.Solidago gigantea 15FACW 5.Lonicera japonica 10FAC Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including 6.Rubus spp.5FAC herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft 7.Toxicodendron radicans 5FAC (1 m) in height. 8. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 9. 10. 11. 100= Total Cover 50% of total cover:5020% of total cover:20 Hydrophytic Vegetation Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius YesNo Present? 1.Lonicera japonica 5 Y FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 5= Total Cover 50% of total cover:2.520% of total cover:1 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:AJ-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators). DepthMatrixRedox Features 12 TypeLoc (inches)%%Texture Color (moist)Color (moist)Remarks 0-210YR 4/39510YR 6/65CMSLDistinct Redox Concentrations 2-1210YR 5/38510YR 3/615CMSiLDistinct Redox Concentrations 12-18+10YR 5/48010YR 5/820CMSiLProminent Redox Concentrations 12 Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand GrainsLocation: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix 3 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hydric Soil Indicators: 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Histosol (A1)Dark Surface (S7) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 136, 147) Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) Black Histic (A3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)(MLRA 136, 147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T,U) Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) 3 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Sandy Redox (S5)wetland hydrology must be present, Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) Stripped Matrix (S6)unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? YesNo Remarks: US Army Corps of EngineersEastern Mountains and Piedmont Region - Version 2.0 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County:Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.511.5 10.Natural valley00.511.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County:Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.511.5 10.Natural valley00.511.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.5 11.5 10.Natural valley00.5 11.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.5 11.5 10.Natural valley00.5 11.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County:Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.511.5 10.Natural valley00.511.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.5 11.5 10.Natural valley00.5 11.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.5 11.5 10.Natural valley00.5 11.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.5 11.5 10.Natural valley00.5 11.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: irerennial i Absent Weak Moderate Strong A.Geomorphology (Subtotal = ______) 1ª. Continuity of bed and bank 0123 2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg0123 3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0123 ripple-pool sequence 4.Particle size of stream substrate0123 5.Active/relict floodplain0123 6.Depositional bars or benches0123 7.Recent alluvial deposits0123 8.Headcuts0123 9.Grade controls00.5 11.5 10.Natural valley00.5 11.5 11.Second or greater order channelNo = 0 Yes = 3 ªMan-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B.Hydrology (Subtotal = ____) 12.Presence of Baseflow0123 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria0123 14.Leaf litter1.510.50 15.Sediment on plants or debris00.511.5 16.Organic debris lines or piles00.511.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C.Biology (Subtotal = ___) .Fibrous roots in streambed3210 .Rooted upland plants in streambed3210 .Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123 2.Aquatic Mollusks0123 2.Fish00.511.5 2.Crayfish00.511.5 2.Amphibians00.511.5 2.Algae00.511.5 2.Wetland plants in streambedFACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual Notes: Sketch: ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ WITS END PHOTO LOG Photo 1: Wetland AA Upland Data Point – July 15, 2020 Photo 2: Wetland AA Wetland Data Point – July 15, 2020 Photo 3: Wetland AB Upland Data Point – July 15, 2020 Photo 4: Wetland AB Wetland Data Point – July 15, 2020 Photo 5: Wetland AC Upland Data Point – July 15, 2020 Photo 6: Wetland AC Wetland Data Point – July 15, 2020 Photo 7: Wetland AH Upland Data Point – July 15, 2020 Photo 8: Wetland AH Wetland Data Point – July 15, 2020 Photo 7: Wetland AI Upland Data Point – July 14, 2020 Photo 8: Wetland AI Wetland Data Point – July 14, 2020 Photo 9: Wetland AJ Upland Data Point – July 14, 2020 Photo 10: Wetland AJ Wetland Data Point – July 14, 2020 Photo 11: Waxhaw BranchUpstream Data Point entering pond facing downstream – Feb 13, 2019 Photo 12: Waxhaw Branch Downstream Data Point facing downstream – July 15, 2020 Photo 13: UT-1 Data Point facing downstream – July 15, 2020 Photo 14: UT-2 Data Point facing downstream – July 15, 2020 Photo 15: UT-3 Intermittent Data Point facing downstream – July 15, 2020 Photo 16: UT-3A Data Point facing downstream – July 15, 2020 Photo 17: UT-4 Data Point facing downstream – July 15, 2020 Photo 18: UT-5 Data Point facing downstream – July 15, 2020 Appendix D. Survey – Carolina Surveyors Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Appendix SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 Appendix E. Subaqueous Soil Photo Log Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Appendix SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 WITS END SUBAQUEOUS SOIL PHOTO LOGPage 1 of 6 Photo 1: Dam transect, soil cores 1-10 (Left to Right) – July 30, 2020 WITS END SUBAQUEOUS SOIL PHOTO LOGPage 2 of 6 Photo 2: Dam transect, soil cores 11-18 (Left to Right) – July 30, 2020 WITS END SUBAQUEOUS SOIL PHOTO LOGPage 3 of 6 Photo 3: Duck Blindtransect, soil cores 1-10 (Left to Right) –July 30, 2020 WITS END SUBAQUEOUS SOIL PHOTO LOGPage 4 of 6 Photo 4: Island transect, soil cores 1-10 (Left to Right) –July 30, 2020 WITS END SUBAQUEOUS SOIL PHOTO LOGPage 5 of 6 Photo 5: West Cove transect, soil cores 1-4 (Left to Right) – July 30, 2020 WITS END SUBAQUEOUS SOIL PHOTO LOGPage 6 of 6 Photo 6: Centertransect, soil cores 6-10(Left to Right) – July 31, 2020 Appendix F. Soil Profile Descriptions Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Appendix SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #1 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinFebruary 13, 2019 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.908665° N, 80.441294° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 50° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ 9-in 2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % 0-2 2.5Y 3/3 80 C/PL 10YR 4/6 20 Clay loam C/PL 10YR 5/8 20 2-9 2.5Y 4/3 75 Clay C/M 5YR 3/4 5 C/PL 10YR 5/8 15 9-13+ 2.5Y 5/3 90 Clay C/M 5YR 3/4 5 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil boring is in vicinity of monitoring gauge #5 Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #2 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinFebruary 13, 2019 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.909608° N, 80.442448 ° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 50° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ 7-in 1-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % C/PL 10YR 4/6 5 0-1 2.5Y 4/3 85 Clay loam C/M 10YR 3/6 10 C/PL 10YR 4/6 20 1-9 2.5Y 5/3 65 Clay C/M 7.5YR 3/4 15 C/PL 10YR 5/8 15 9-15+ 2.5Y 5/3 80 Clay C/M 7.5YR 3/4 5 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Debris lines in floodplain from surface water and water stains on trees, no channery observed Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #3 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinFebruary 13, 2019 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.911654° N, 80.444949 ° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 50° 3 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toeslope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Fallow F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 9-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % 0-2 2.5Y 4/3 95 C/PL 10YR 4/6 5 Clay loam C/PL 7.5YR 4/6 15 2-12 2.5Y 5/3 80 Clay C/M 7.5YR 5/8 5 C/PL 7.5YR 4/6 5 12-15+ 2.5Y 5/3 65 C/M 7.5YR 5/8 15 Clay D/M 2.5Y 6/2 15 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Active seeps observed in vicinity along toe of slope, some channery observed but not enough to modify texture Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #4 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinFebruary 13, 2019 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.911654° N, 80.443118 ° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 50° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toeslope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Fallow F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 10-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % 0-1 10YR 3/2 100 Clay loam C/PL 2.5YR 6/4 10 1-10 2.5Y 5/3 85 Clay C/M 10YR 6/6 5 C/PL 2.5YR 6/4 10 10-17+ 2.5Y 5/3 75 Clay C/M 10YR 4/6 15 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Active seeps observed in vicinity along toe of slope, some channery observed but not enough to modify texture Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #5 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinDecember 2, 2019 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.912926° N, 80.447357° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 50° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toeslope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Successional forest F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 10-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % 0-2 10YR 4/3 100 Loam C/PL 7.5YR 4/6 5 2-7 2.5Y 6/4 75 Clay loam C/M 7.5YR 5/8 20 C/PL 7.5YR 4/6 15 C/M 7.5YR 5/8 15 Channery 7-14+ 2.5Y 5/3 75 Clay C/M 10YR 5/8 5 D/M 2.5Y 5/2 5 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #6 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinDecember 2, 2019 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.912926° N, 80.447357° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 50° 3 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toeslope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Fallow F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 9-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % 0-4 2.5Y 4/3 95 C/PL 10YR4/6 5 Loam C/PL 7.5YR 4/6 10 4-9 2.5Y 5/4 80 Clay loam C/M 7.5YR 5/6 10 C/PL 7.5YR 4/6 15 9-15+ 2.5Y 5/3 70 Clay loam C/M 7.5YR 5/6 15 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Active seeps observed in vicinity along toeslope, channery observed but not enough to modify texture ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #7 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinDecember 2, 2019 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.912926° N, 80.447357° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy, 55° 3 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Successional Forest F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:______________________________ N/A 2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % 0-2 2.5Y 4/3 95 C/PL 10YR4/6 5 Loam C/PL 10YR4/6 10 2-9 2.5Y 5/3 65 C/M 10YR 5/8 10 Silt loam D/M 2.5Y 6/2 15 9+ N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Ex. Channery 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Active seeps observed in vicinity along toeslope, bedrock observed in nearby streambed __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #8 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinFebruary 26, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.909723° N, 80.441730° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy, 55° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toeslope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ 7-in 2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % 0-2 10YR 3/2 100 Silt loam 2-12 2.5Y 4/3 80 C/PL 7.5YR 4/4 20 Clay loam 12-15 2.5Y 6/3 80 C/M 10YR 4/6 20 Clay C/M 10YR 5/8 30 15-23+ 2.5Y 6/3 60 Clay D/M 10YR 6/1 10 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Debris lines observed in vicinity along toeslope from ephemeral flow of surrounding slopes, soil profile is near ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ monitoring well 3 Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #9 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ AlexBaldwinFebruary 26, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wi t’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC: 34.909210° N, 80.442087° W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy, 50° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ 5-in 3-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTH MATRIX REDOXIMORHPIC FEATURES TEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR % TYPE/LOCATION COLOR % 0-3 10YR 3/2 100 C/PL7.5YR 4/6 5 Silt loam 3-9 2.5Y 5/3 80 C/M 7.5YR 4/6 20 Clay loam C/M 7.5YR 4/6 20 9-16 2.5Y 5/3 65 Clay D/M 2.5Y 6/2 10 C/M 2.5Y 5/6 45 16-25+ 2.5Y 6/2 45 Clay C/M 10YR 3/6 10 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Surrounding area includes depressions retaining surface water, debris lines observed from surface flow, soil profile is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ near monitoring well 4 Photo 1 Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #10 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ February26, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.909398°N, 80.442512°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy, 50° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8& F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ 3-in2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-210YR 3/2100Silt loam C/M10YR5/615 2-102.5Y 5/3 75Clayloam C/M7.5YR 5/610 10-18+2.5Y6/490C/M10YR 5/610 Clay 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Surrounding area includes depressions retaining surface water, debris lines observed from surface flow,soil profile is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ near monitoring well 2 Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #11 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ September 1, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.909013°N, 80.441633°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy, 85° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-210YR 5/2100C/M7.5YR 4/610Clayloam C/M7.5YR 4/420 Silty clay 2-9 2.5Y 6/2 75 loam C/M7.5YR 5/810 C/M7.5YR 4/65 9-15+ 2.5Y6/3 90C/PL7.5YR 4/620Clay C/M10YR 5/815 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Surrounding area includes depressions retaining surface water, debris lines observed from surface flow,soil profile is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ between monitoring wells4 and 5. Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #12 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July22, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.912317°N, -80.446252°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Fallow F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A7-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-410YR 3/2100Silt loam 2.5Y 6/345 4-7 C/M 10YR 4/6 10 Clayloam 2.5Y 5/445 7-12+ 2.5Y 7/2 70 C/M10YR 5/8 30Clay 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dry conditions made augering difficultin the subsoil, possibly indicating cemented silt particles ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #13 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July22, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.9118367°N, -80.447785°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Squash Disturbed F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A10-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-82.5Y 4/3100Loam 8-102.5Y 6/3100Clayloam C/M10YR 6/810 10-20+ 2.5Y5/680 Clay D/M2.5Y 6/310 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Garden area appears tobe tilled annually, surface has channers, surface horizon has an abrupt boundary from historic ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ plowing of the area Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #14 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July22, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.912251°N, -80.443548°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 2 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Soybeans F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A3-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-310YR 3/2100Silt loam 3-62.5Y 4/390C/PL10YR 3/610Clayloam C/PL10YR 3/65 6-12+ 2.5Y5/685 Clay C/M10YR 6/810 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #15 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July23, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.911456°N, -80.449060°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 2 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Successional forest F8& F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A6-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% C/M7.5YR 4/615 0-6 10YR 3/270 Silt loam C/PL7.5YR 4/615 10YR 3/245 6-9 C/M 7.5YR 4/610Clayloam 2.5Y 4/345 C/PL7.5YR 5/815 9-16+ 2.5Y5/3 80 Clay C/M7.5YR 4/65 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #16 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July23, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.911533°N, -80.449593°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 2 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Edge of field Disturbed F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A4-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-42.5Y 4/4100Silt loam C/PL10YR 4/65 C/M10YR 3/65 4-18+2.5Y 5/4 45Clayloam D/M2.5Y7/215 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #17 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July23, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.911676°N, -80.448180°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope/Historic Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Successional forest F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A10-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-310YR 3/3100Silt loam C/PL7.5YR 4/65 3-102.5Y 5/485Clay loam C/M10YR 5/810 C/PL7.5YR 4/610 C/M10YR 5/820 10-15+ 2.5Y 5/4 60 Clayloam D/M2.5Y 7/210 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Area is below existing pond dam and appears to be disturbed from excavation of pond and building of dam, ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ephemeral channelon the right bank is conveying surface water from adjacent ag fields Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #18 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July23, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.913254°N, -80.447921°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope/Historic Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Successional forest F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A3-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-32.5Y 4/3100Silt loam C/PL10YR 5/810 Silty clay 3-8 2.5Y 6/475 loam D/M2.5Y 7/215 C/PL10YR 5/815 C/M7.5YR 4/65 8-15+ 2.5Y 6/4 45Clayloam D/M2.5Y 7/235 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Area is below existing pond dam and appears to be disturbed from excavation of pond and building of dam, ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ephemeral channelon the right bank is conveying surface water from adjacent ag fields Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #19 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July23, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.912642°N, -80.447347°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 3 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope/Historic Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Soybeans F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A6-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-62.5Y 4/385C/PL10YR 3/615Silt loam C/PL10YR 3/615 6-9 2.5Y 5/365 Clayloam C/M10YR 4/620 C/M10YR 5/820 9-15+ 2.5Y 6/6 70Clay D/M2.5Y5/310 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 2 shows redox concentration porelinings observed ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #20 NAME: _____________________________________ Alex Baldwin DATE:____________________________________ July15, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.908434°N, -80.442739°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny, 90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8& F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A6-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-210YR 4/2100C/PL7.5YR 4/65Sandyloam C/PL7.5YR 4/620 2-4 2.5Y 7/170Sandy loam C/M7.5YR 5/810 C/PL7.5YR 4/620 Silty clay 4-13+ 2.5Y 6/360 loam C/M7.5YR 5/820 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from wetland data point of existing wetland ABsubmitted in PJD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #21 Alex BaldwinJuly15, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.908290°N,-80.442778°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Sideslope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Edge of ag field,mix of forbesand wheat N/A GsC SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A N/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-310YR 3/2100Sandyloam 3-5 2.5Y 6/4100Sandyloam Silty clay 5-12+ 2.5Y 5/6100 loam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from upland data point adjacent to wetland AB submitted in PJD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #22 Alex BaldwinJuly15, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.909359°N,-80.441595°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 3 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8& F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 6-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-310YR 3/2100Siltloam C/PL10YR 5/830 Silty clay loam 3-12+2.5Y 5/345C/M7.5YR 4/610 D/M2.5Y 6/310 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from existing wetland AAsubmitted in PJD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #23 Alex BaldwinJuly15, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.916749°N,-80.444609°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): ______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Herbaceous edge of ag field F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:______________________________ N/A 6-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-510YR 3/285C/PL10YR 4/615Siltloam C/PL10YR 4/615 5-122.5Y 5/365Clay loam C/M10YR 5/820 12-18+2.5Y 5/475C/M10YR 4/625Clayloam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from wetland data point inexisting wetland ACsubmitted in PJD _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #24 Alex BaldwinJuly15, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’sEnd Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.916810°N,-80.444492°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Soybeans Drained F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 8-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-310YR 3/2100Siltloam 3-82.5Y 5/490C/M2.5Y 6/810Sandy loam C/M2.5Y 6/810 Silty clay 8-15+ 2.5Y 5/680 loam D/M2.5Y 6/410 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from upland data point adjacent to existing wetland ACsubmitted in PJD Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #25 Alex BaldwinJuly15, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.909419°N,-80.441453°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest Drained F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 8-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-210YR 3/2100Siltloam C/M10YR6/830 Silty clay 2-10+ 10YR 6/250 loam D/M5Y 8/120 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from upland data point adjacent to existing wetland AAsubmitted in PJD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #26 Alex BaldwinJuly15, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.917410°N,-80.445967°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Disturbed Forest F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 0-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% C/PL7.5YR 4/65 0-3 10YR 3/290 Silt loam D/M10YR 4/25 C/PL7.5YR 4/625 Silty clay 3-7 2.5Y 5/370 Loam C/M7.5YR 3/45 C/PL7.5YR 4/640 Silty clay 7-15+ 2.5Y 6/360 loam C/M7.5YR 3/45 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from wetland data point inexisting wetland AHsubmitted in PJD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #27 Alex BaldwinJuly15, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.917398°N,-80.446059°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Sideslope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest N/A CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A N/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% Extremely 0-6 10YR 3/230 70 channery loam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from uplanddata point adjacent to existing wetland AHsubmitted in PJD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #28 Alex BaldwinJuly14, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.912288°N,-80.447192°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Disturbed Forest F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:______________________________ N/A 2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-210YR 3/295C/M10YR 6/65Sandyloam 2-1210YR5/385C/M10YR 3/6 15Silty loam 7-15+ 10YR 5/480C/M10YR 5/8 20Siltyloam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. NOTES: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from wetland data point inexisting wetland AJsubmitted in PJD _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #29 Alex BaldwinJuly14, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.912293°N,-80.447136°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Disturbed Forest Disturbed F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 11-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-510YR4/4100Sandyloam Silty clay 5-11 2.5Y5/4 95 C/PL10YR 3/4 5 loam C/M2.5Y 6/65 Siltyclay C/M2.5Y 7/85 11-16+ 2.5Y5/4 75 loam D/M2.5Y 7/115 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from upland data point adjacent to existing wetland AJsubmitted in PJD Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #30 Alex BaldwinJuly14, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.911539°N,-80.448571°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Disturbed Forest F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 8-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-810YR4/3100Siltloam C/PL10YR 5/620 8-162.5Y4/370Clay loam C/M7.5YR 5/610 C/PL10YR 5/610 16-22+ 2.5Y5/4 70 Clay loam C/M7.5YR 5/620 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from wetland data point adjacent to existing wetland AIsubmitted in PJD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #31 Alex BaldwinJuly14, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.911538°N,-80.448532°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Disturbed Forest Disturbed F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 11-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-310YR4/4100Sandyloam Silty clay 3-11 10YR 5/6100 loam Silty clay 11-16+ 10YR 5/695C/PL7.5YR 5/8 5 loam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Description is from upland data point adjacent to existing wetland AIsubmitted in PJD ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #32 Alex BaldwinJuly23, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.911951°N,-80.443547°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Soybeans F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:_____________________________ N/A3-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-310YR 3/2100Silt loam C/PL10YR 3/610 3-13 2.5Y 4/3 80 Clayloam C/M10YR 6/810 C/PL10YR 3/65 13-16+ 2.5Y5/680 Clay C/M10YR 6/815 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #33 Alex BaldwinJuly22, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.912414°N,-80.446197°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° 5 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Side slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Fallow field N/A CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A N/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-210YR4/3100Sandyloam 2-10 2.5Y 6/4100 Silt loam 10-15+ 2.5Y 5/495C/PL7.5YR 5/8 5 Clay loam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile included channers in the clay subsoilbutabundance was belowthe threshold to modify texture. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #34 Alex BaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.913645°N,-80.443817°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was parallel to the dam and ~150-ft upstreamfrom the dam. F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A N/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% Silty clay 0-4 5Y 2.5/2100 with organics 4-85Y 3/2100Silty clay C/PL&M10YR 5/615 Channery 8-13+ 5Y 5/2 75 silty clay D/M5Y 5/310 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile was collected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods. Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described on July 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photos1-3:Undisturbed, Split Profile (Wet), SplitProfile (Dried)Photos4-5: Split Profile (Wet) 0-8”and 8-13” SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #35 Alex BaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.915113°N,-80.444394°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was perpendicularto the dam and ~700-ft upstreamofthe dam. F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/AN/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 5Y 2.5/150Hemic 0-6 5Y 4/350Organic SiL 6-115Y 4/2100Clay loam C/M2.5Y5/615 11-17+5Y 5/3 60C/PL10YR 5/810Clay D/PL& M2.5Y 6/115 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile was collected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods. Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described on July 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photos1-3:Undisturbed, Split Profile (Wet), SplitProfile (Dried)Photos4-6: Split Profile (Wet) 0-8”, 5-13”,and 13-17” SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #36 Alex BaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.913635°N,-80.443871°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was parallel to the dam and ~150-ft upstreamfrom the dam. F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/AN/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 5Y 2.5/275 Organic silty 0-3 clayloam 5Y2.5/125 Silty clay 3-9 5Y 5/2 85 C/M 10YR 5/815 loam 5Y 5/350 Silty clay 9-11+ C/PL & M10YR 5/815 loam 10Y 6/235 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile was collected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods. Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described on July 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photos1-3:Undisturbed, Split Profile (Wet), SplitProfile (Dried)Photos4-5: Split Profile (Dry)2-5”and 8-11” SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #37 Alex BaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.914504°N,-80.444040°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was perpendicularto the dam and ~470-ft upstreamofthe dam. F8 & F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/AN/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-55Y 5/285D/M6Y 6/215Silty clay C/M2.5Y5/620 5-14 5Y 5/365Silty clay D/M5Y 6/315 14-16+5Y 6/270C/M2.5Y6/830Silty clay 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile was collected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods. Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described on July 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photos1-2:Split Profile (Wet), SplitProfile (Dried)Photos3-5: Split Profile (Wet) 0-8”,6-13”,and 10-16” SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #38 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.913139°N,80.443371°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,80° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Mostly herbaceouswith scatteredtrees F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 4-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-410YR 3/285C/PL7.5YR 4/615Clayloam C/M7.5YR 4/420 4-8 2.5Y 6/3 60Clayloam C/PL5YR 5/820 C/PL7.5YR 4/610 8-18+ 2.5Y5/4 90C/M10YR 5/810Clay D/M2.5Y 6/315 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Location is immediately downstream of dam along Waxhaw Branch in an area that is not in ag production. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #39 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.912102°N,80.442632°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,80° 3 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Fescueand mixed forbes F8& F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A4-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-410YR 3/2100Clayloam C/PL7.5YR 4/615 Channery 4-132.5Y 5/3 75 loam C/M10YR 6/810 C/M10YR 6/810 Channery 13-17+ 2.5Y 6/4 90 clay D/M2.5Y 5/310 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=MaskedSand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Location is within adrainage swaleofanexisting ag field. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #40 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.910826°N,80.443371°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,80° 1 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Toe slope VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Soybeans F8&F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-22.5Y 4/3100Loam C/PL7.5YR 4/615 2-11 2.5Y 5/3 65 Clay C/M10YR 5/820 C/PL7.5YR 4/620 11-16+ 2.5Y5/460 Clay C/M10YR 6/820 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Location is within anexisting ag field, near an isolatedwoodedmotte in the middle of the field that is shallow to ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ rock. Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #41 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.910066°N,80.442703°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,80° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8& F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A3-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-310YR 4/3100Loam C/M7.5YR 4/615 Silty clay 3-16 2.5Y 6/3 65 loam C/M10YR 5/820 16-25+2.5Y5/360Clay 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appearshydric indicators arerelict fromthe result ofrelocating and excavatingthe nearby stream (Waxhaw Br). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #42 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.908502°N,80.441688°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,85° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8& F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A1-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-12.5Y4/3100Loam 1-82.5Y 6/375C/PL7.5YR 4/625Clay loam C/PL7.5YR 4/620 C/M10YR 4/615 8-18 2.5Y 5/3 45 Clay D/M2.5Y 6/220 C/PL7.5YR 4/615 18+ 2.5Y6/445C/M10YR 5/825Clay D/M2.5Y 7/315 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appears hydric indicators arerelict fromthe result ofrelocating and excavatingthe nearby stream (Waxhaw Br). Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #43 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.908673°N,80.443558°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,85° 3 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Silviculture, 15-yr old pines F8& F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A 2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-22.5Y4/395C/PL7.5YR 4/65Loam C/M7.5YR 3/410 2-8 2.5Y 5/375Clay loam C/M7.5YR 5/815 8-14+2.5Y 6/685D/M2.5Y 6/410Clay 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appears hydric indicators arerelict fromthe result ofrelocating and excavatingthe nearby stream (UT to Waxhaw Br), debris piles and lack of herbaceous vegetation in areas indicate surface water flow and ponding. Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #44 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.909122°N,80.444522°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,85° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Silviculture, 15-yr old pines F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A0-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% C/PL7.5YR 5/610 0-5 2.5Y 4/385 Clay loam C/M7.5YR 3/45 5-13+2.5Y 6/690D/M2.5Y 6/410Clay 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appears hydric indicators arerelict fromthe result ofrelocating and excavatingthe nearby stream (UT to Waxhaw Br), debris piles and lack of herbaceous vegetation in areas indicate surface water flow and ponding. Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #45 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.909434°N,80.442972°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,85° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Forest F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A1-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-12.5Y 4/3100Loam C/PL7.5YR 5/820 1-112.5Y 5/4 70Clay loam C/M7.5YR 4/610 C/M5YR 4/620 11-15+2.5Y 5/4 70Clay C/M7.5YR 5/810 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appears hydric indicators arerelict fromthe result ofrelocating and excavatingthe nearby stream (Waxhaw Br), debris piles and lack of herbaceous vegetation in areas indicate surface water flow and ponding. Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #46 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.910432°N,80.443211°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,85° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Soybeans F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A4-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-42.5Y 4/3100Loam C/M10YR 5/810 4-13 2.5Y 5/4 80 Clay loam D/M2.5Y6/210 C/M10YR 5/815 13-21+ 2.5Y 5/6 70Clay D/M2.5YR 6/415 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appears hydric indicators arerelict fromthe result ofrelocating and excavatingthe nearby stream (UT to Waxhaw Br). Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #47 Alex BaldwinSeptember 1, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.911911°N,80.444798°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Partly Cloudy,85° 0 LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Soybeans F8 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/A2-in DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-22.5Y 4/3100Loam C/PL7.5YR 4/620 2-152.5Y 5/3 60 C/M7.5YR 4/65Clay loam C/M10YR 6/615 2.5Y 5/445 13-21+ D/M2.5YR 6/2 10 Clay 10YR 5/845 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appears hydric indicators arerelict fromthe result ofrelocating andexcavatingthe nearby stream (UT to Waxhaw Br). Photo 1Photo 2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #48 Alex BaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.913625°N,-80.443924°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was parallel to the dam and ~150-ft upstreamfrom the dam. F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/AN/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-22.5Y 2/1100Organic SiL Silty clay 2-6 2.5Y 4/3100 loam 2.5Y 5/330C/M10YR 6/820 6-8+ Clayloam Gley 1 2.5Y 5/4 30 D/M20 5Y/5GY 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile was collected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods. Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described on July 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photos1-3:Undisturbed, Soil Core(Wet), SplitProfile (Wet)Photo4:Detailed soil ped of 6-8” SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #49 Alex BaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Streamand Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.913615°N,-80.443977°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was parallel to the dam and ~150-ft upstreamfrom the dam. F19 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/AN/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-52.5Y 2/1100Organic SiL 2.5Y 4/360 Silty clay 5-7 loam 2.5Y 2/140 2.5Y 5/335C/M10YR 6/820 7-11+Clayloam Gley 1 5Y 5/3 35 D/M20 5Y/5GY 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile wascollected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods. Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described on July 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photos1-3:Undisturbed, Soil Core(Wet), SplitProfile (Wet)Photo4:Detailed soil ped of 7-11” SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #50 Alex BaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.913605°N,-80.444031°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was parallel to the dam and ~150-ft upstreamfrom the dam. F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/AN/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-52.5Y 2/1100Organic SiL 2.5Y 4/350 Silty clay 5-9 loam 2.5Y 2/150 C/M2.5Y 5/610 9-12+ 2.5Y 5/2 60Clayloam D/M2.5Y 5/330 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile was collected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods.Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described on July 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photos1-2:Undisturbed, Split Profile (Wet)Photo3:Detailed soil ped of 9-12” SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #51 Alex BaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.914295°N,-80.443946°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was perpendicularto the dam and ~390-ft upstreamofthe dam. F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/AN/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 0-62.5Y 2/1100Organic SiL Silty clay 6-8 2.5Y 2/170 D/M2.5Y 4/330 loam Silty clay 8-11+ 2.5Y 4/2 100 loam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile was collected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods. Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described onJuly 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photo1:UndisturbedSoil Core Photo2:Extracted Soil Core(Wet) SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FORM PROFILE ID:_____________ SPD #52 AlexBaldwinJuly31, 2020 NAME: _____________________________________ DATE:____________________________________ PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ Wit’s End Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Union County, NC:34.914926°N,-80.444210°W LOCATION: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sunny,90° N/A LANDSCAPE POSITION: ________________________________ SLOPE (%): _______________________________________ Pond Bed/ Floodplain VEGETATION/CROP: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Openwater,this transect of soil cores was perpendicularto the dam and ~630-ft upstreamofthe dam. F3 CmB SOIL MAP UNIT: __________________________ HYDRIC SOIL FIELD INDICATOR:________________________________ N/AN/A DEPTH TO WATER: _____________________________ DEPTH TO SHWT: _______________________________ DEPTHMATRIXREDOXIMORHPIC FEATURESTEXTURE 12 (inches) COLOR%TYPE/LOCATIONCOLOR% 2.5Y 4/250 0-6 Organic SiL 2.5Y 4/350 2.5Y 4/250 6-11Siltyloam 2.5Y 5/350 2.5Y 5/245 11-16+ C/M2.5Y 5/610Clayloam 2.5Y 5/345 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. NOTES: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Soil profile was collected using a combination of vibracore and push probe methods. Sample was collected on July thstnd ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30, described on July 31, and photographed after drying onAugust 2. Photos1-2:Undisturbedand Extracted Soil CorePhoto3:Split Profile (Wet) Appendix G. Reference Wetland Photo Log Wits End Wetland Mitigation Site – Technical Memo & 30% Design Appendix SAW-2020-00455, NCDWR 20200369 WITS END REFERENCE WETLANDS PHOTO LOG Photo 1: Basin wetland NE of Project upstream of an ephemeral stream – March 12, 2020 Photo 2: Floodplain wetland NW of Project upstream of UT4 – Mar 12, 2020 Photo 3: Waxhaw Branch Project Area Floodplain Wetland Left bank – Feb. 26, 2020 Photo 4: Waxhaw Branch Downstream of Project Floodplain Wetland Right bank – March 12, 2020