20160011 Ver 1 _Wetland Report 2015 _20160104

Hornet Project
818 Acre Site
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Preliminary On -Site Determination
of Wetlands and Waters
(U.S. Army Corps 1987 Methodology
and Subsequent Guidance)
Site investigations conducted May 8 and 11, 2015
Determination Prepared By:
Craig R. Wyant RLA
A Fine Line Design
Post Office Box 163
High shoals NC 28077
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Prepared For:
Joshua R. Hough, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
Haskell
111 Riverside Ave.
Jacksonville, FL 32202
[phone]
[phone] M
[e-mail]
Note: All areas indicated as wetland, waters, or jurisdictional in this document are
subject to verification by the U.S. Army Corps
& North Carolina Division of Water Resources.
C n ane i7ae / PLSIG1 • 140 Cffi- Fix 163 • Hiy6 Sl,,,,I, 0 I''C • 28077 0 (7(4) )4GX79.3

AGENT CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
I, Ramey ,
representing Frito-Lam Inc.
hereby certify that I have authorized Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS to act on my behalf and
take all actions necessary to the processing, issuance, and acceptance of this request for
wetlands determination, permitting and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
We hereby certify that the above information submitted in this application is true and
accurate to the best of our knowledge.
`1
Agent's signature
May] 2015
Date
4C P 4
Applicant's sign Lure
May 28, 2015
Date
Completion of this form will allow the agent to sign all future application correspondence.

Hornet Project
Frito-Lay Inc.
Mecklenburg County, NC
Site Investigations Conducted May 8 and 11, 2015
Site Context
The Hornet Project Study Area consists of approximately 18 acres of land consisting of Tax
Parcel ID 20324102 located in Mecklenburg County, NC. Approximately 9 acres of the site consists of
and existing industrial manufacuring/shipping facility. the remaining 9 acres of the site is undeveloped
and mostly forested. The entire site is located within the Catawba River Basin and appears on the Fort
Mill, NC -SC quad of the U.S. Geological Survey. The site generally occurs within the sub -basin of
Steele Creek, along the northeast side of Nevada Boulevard. The Study Area is generally bounded by
developed industrial or commercial properties on all sides. Historically, the site has been used first as a
U.S. Army Corps Munitions Facility, then later as a tire manufacturing/shipping facility, and for the
past thirty years has been used for its present use as a snack food manufacturing/shipping facility.
The southwest half of the site is fully developed as an idustrial/shipping facility for a snack
food manufacturer. The northeast 9 acres remains forested with a medium aged mix of trees dominated
by Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) that is generally less than ten inches DBH in most areas.
It appears from topographic features found on site that mass grading has occured at some time in the
past. A broad and nearly level filled area appears to have historically been built up over exiting grade in
the eastern portion of the site. A fill slope that is approximately ten feet in height is apparent around the
edge of the filled area. A level railroad spur runs entirely around the site perimeter on the northwest and
northeast sides.
Purpose of Stud
This site investigation was conducted to determine if the site contains areas which would be
considered as wetlands or waters under sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and subject to the
permitting and regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corps and the NC Division of Water Resources.
The study was conducted to identify the approximate location and extent of areas which exhibit the
field indicators of wetlands or surface waters and to delineate these areas in the field and on a topo-
graphic map of the site. A search of the U.S. Army Corps database does not indicate any previous
Jurisdictional Determinations or other actions previously completed on this site (e-mail attached).
Site Hydrologic Features
The primary watercourse in the vicinity of the site is Steele Creek (NC Stream Index 11-137-10
and Hydrologic Unit Code 03050103) within the headwaters of Sugar Creek sub -basin (03-38-34). The
site is located approximately 0.8 mile (4,225 feet) from Steele Creek. Steele Creek is the nearest FEMA
Floodplain downstrem of the site. Sugar Creek is the nearest Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW).
The entire site is located above headwaters. The USGS quad map indicates that this site does
not contain named streams or channels which appear as an intermittent or solid blue line. the USGS
quad map indicates that the upper end of an intermittent blue line stream occurs on the property adja-
cent to the site on the southeast side.
Steele Creek and its tributaries are not listed as a 303(d) impaired stream, however Sugar Creek
is listed as impaired. The Study Area is located approximately 2.8 mile upstream of the conflence with
Sugar Creek. This may have some importance if Section 404/401 permits are required for develop-
ment.
e�ir�e / uESIGN • Post 0f{ice Box 163 0 H 9h Shoals 0 NC 0 28077 0 [phone]

National Wetland Inventory maps indicate that this site has no areas mapped as wetland. Like-
wise, there are no streams or other features indicated on USDA-NRCS soils maps or on the Mecklenburg
County Polaris 3G GIS layers.
Field indicators of wetland hydrology were observed within two isolated depressional areas of
the Study Area. It is suspected that the hydrology in these areas are supported by sheet flow stormwater
runoff from surrounding woodlands and from rainfall directly onto the site. There are no streams or
stormwater conveyances flowing into or out of either of the two depressional areas. They have been
determined to be isolated without a continuous hydrologic connection to surface waters. The larger of
the two areas occurs on a depression near the top of the man-made filled area. This area could have
resulted from a settling of the area following mass grading or could have been a left over relic of some
other rior use of the area. It does not appear to be naturally occuring given its location and topographic
posiion on the ridge. The second area occurs along the edge of the exiting railroad spur track. This area
occurs in a lowered ditch line running parallel to the track. It is expected that this area was man made
due to grading of the area and does not appear to be naturally occurring. There are no streams or
conveyances leading into or out of this area and it is not hydrologically connected to surface waters.
Observed indicators include inundation, saturation, oxidized root zones, water stained leaves, and
morpological plant adaptations.
One man-made ditch was observed on the site which runs adjacent and parallel to the edge of
the parking lot just outside the fencing. This conveyance is trapezoidal in cross section, nearly straight
and relatively void of meanders, and scored very low on the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form.
Flow is in direct response to stormwater runoff from the paved parking area and surrounding wooded
area. This ditch is not a channelized stream and has not been dug to drain a wetland. It flows through
upland. It eventually flows downstream into a larger ditch located on the adjacent property, under
Nevada Boulevard, and into Steele Creek approximately .8 mile beyond.
e�ir�e / uESIGN • Post 0f{ice Box 163 0 H 9h Shoals 0 NC 0 28077 0 [phone]

Wb
—�`V92[L�tl ` I4�9L� ;�,, l .,` ftp)'-tr
Tank I �' Is �." r A63 .
�'• *� 4 ` J ��`$ -ti`s - tt� l-
r:✓- � �! l' • \f .- 1, .r ! .rte , —62� i � `��' �(!, ih
it
\ s : a'
CD
41
y
� ti..�� �3 4 I 1-' ter—. ^--•4'���' � � 1 .. _ i i 1 I,'�Y �`� .r' 1
W r/ f
S NT PA
1
LL
l X h V
Source: USGS 7.5 minute quad, Charlotte West, NC (1993) and Fort Mill NC/SC (1993)
Hornet Project Scale: I"=2000'
Mecklenburg County, NC NORTH Project Location

I F y\ ii I
FSS�1PC' , _� ;:; • Pf3��#1ti � _6"sd � ,��',�- f/� :s.: - _. ��
'�U �Ih � P�BHh ^-"P4J8lih RZueta r j:��
+ 3 "� 4FQiCts �ti ?FOIA
a��Y#rsl tR;l�{�rak V pto h--41}bl�x,
114
1A
YT
49 F8T9�
*
PIMA
" I
)- --PFora
,
PFOiA f
***'Area
4
d1Fx
^r r
PraA
♦" '� FR Z d '
/x �v6Fx
+ PFOC
f'FQrt
�i`� �✓ �•f i P�MfFh �;f �.
Source: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, Charlotte West and Fort Mill Quads (1991)
Hornet Project Scale: I"=2000'
Mecklenburg County NC NORTH N.W.I. Maps

Catawba River Basin
Name
Index Number
Classification
Class Date
(Description
Special Designation
Stamey Creek (Golden Creek)
11-29-13
C
03/01/62
From source to Linville River
Stanfords Creek (Camp Branch)
11-32-1-2-1
C
09/01/74
From source to Goose Creek
J
Stanley Creek
11-119-3-(2)
WS -Iv
08/03/92
From a point 1.0 mile upstream of Gaston County SR 1918 to Dutchmans Creek
Stanley Creek
11-119-3-(1)
C
03/01/62
From source to a point 1.0 mile upstream of Gaston County SR 1918
Stapps Branch
11-38-32-17-1
C
03/01/62
From source to Little Mulberry Creek
Steele Creek
11-137-10
C
09/01/74
From source to North Carolina -South Carolina State Line
Steels Creek
11-35-2-12-(7)
WS-III,B;HQW
08/03/92
From a point 1.7 miles upstream from N.C. Highway 181 Bridge
to Clear Water Beach Lake,
Upper Creek
Steels Creek
11-35-2-12-(5)
WS-III,B;Tr,HQW
08/03/92
From Little Fork to a point 1.7 miles upstream from N.C. Highway 181 Bridge
Steels Creek
11-35-2-12-(1)
WS-III;Tr,ORW
08/03/92
From source to Little Fork
Stein Branch
11-38-7
C;Tr
07/01/73
From source to Johns River
F_
Stewart Branch (South Fork Cane Creek)
11-140-3
C
09/01/74
From source to Cane Creek Reservoir, Cane Creek
Stewart Creek
11-137-1-2
C
09/01/74
From source to Irwin Creek
Still Branch
11-38-34-11-3-7
C;Tr,ORW
03/01/89
From source to Gragg Prong
Stillhouse Branch
11-24-9
C;Tr
07/01/73
From source to North Fork Catawba River
Stillhouse Branch
11-15-5
C
03/01/62
From source to Mackey Creek
1
Stillhouse Branch
11-24-6
C;Tr
07/01/73
From source to North Fork Catawba River
Thursday, February 09, 2012 Based on Classifications as of 20120208 Page 54 of 61

N
0
0
FIGURE 3-1: CATAWBA RIVER SUBBASIN - 03050103
U
GASTON 3
H
�W
C
- -- rn oQ
x
al
i ille
Use Support ratings based on J
Draft 2010 Integrated Report.
QSubbasin Boundary
County Boundaries
Municipality
NPDES WW Discharge
4 Major
0 Minor
Monitoring Sites
0 Ambient
© Fish Community
a Benthos
Use Support Rating
Supporting
Impaired
Not Rated
No Data
3.2
CATAWBA
G
Charlotte
ee�
G�
CABARRUS
MECKLENBURG
Geek
CYeer - �
. e
Matthews
v
Creek
Vlint
Hill
Stallings
Indian Trail
Weddington Monroe
J, �3 Wesley
Chapel��
Marvin
4�
e�
eLittle Ttk-
Mineral UNION
Springs
Waxhaw �'re
�x
aw reek
1elC, .
fieG
Ciro
V.' C
Creek
v S
f----------------
0 2 4 8ZL 12 16
Miles

Sat, Jun 13, 2015 8:16 PM
Subject: RE: JD Database Request for Mecklenburg County Parcel
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 3:24 PM
From: Elliott, William A SAW <[e-mail]>
To: "Craig R. Wyant" <[e-mail]>
Conversation: JD Database Request for Mecklenburg County Parcel (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Craig, upon a quick scan of our ORM files, I do not see anything on that piece of
property.
--Original Message --
From: Craig R. Wyant [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 2:59 PM
To: Elliott, William A SAW; Hough, Joshua R.; Rersonya, John A.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] JD Database Request for Mecklenburg County Parcel
William
I have been asked to review a 15 acre parcel on the forested portion of property owned by
Frito-Lay in Charlotte. I am checking with you to determine if you have a JD on file for
this parcel for any previous delineations?
Tax Parcel Id No(s): 20324102
Latitude 35.1159 Longitude -80.9366
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Craig
Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS
A Fine Line Design
Post Office Box 163
High Shoals, NC 28077
704-240-0793
[e-mail]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Page 1 of 1

Soils
The soils of the site have been mapped by the Mecklenburg County NRCS and are found on
sheets 6 and 11 of the Mecklenburg County Soil Survey (MRCS June 1980).
Soils which have been mapped for this siteconsit of the following series:
IrA Iredell Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to I% slopes,
moderately well drained, very slowly permeable
IrB Iredell Fine Sandy Loam, 1 to 8% slopes,
moderately well drained, very slowly permeable
None of the soil series on this site are mapped as being entirely hydric, however the Iredell
soils are listed by the NRCS as having hydric inclusions in depressions.
Undisturbed upland soils exhibited very high chroma matrix colors throughout the profile
with colors of 10YR4/4 to 7.5YR 4/4 occurring to a depth of at least 16 inches. It appears from
topographic features found on site that mass grading has occured at some time in the past. A broad
and nearly level filled area appears to have historically been built up over exiting grade in the eastern
portion of the site. A fill slope that is approximately ten feet in height is apparent around the edge of
the filled area..
Pronounced indicators of hydric soils were observed only within the depression occuring
within eastern portions of the site. These areas exhibited low matrix chroma and mottling within the
upper part of the profile, oxidized rhizospheres, and concretions within the root zone. These indica-
tors are present due to prolonged periods of saturation or inundation.
e�ir�e / uESIGN • Post 0f{ice Box 163 0 H 9h Shoals 0 NC 0 28077 0 [phone]

Source: USDA -MRCS Soil survey of Mecklenburg County sheets 6 and 11
Hornet Project (9
Mecklenburg County NC NORTH
Scale: I"=2000'
USDA-NRCS Soils Survey

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
Technical Guide
Section II -A-2
March 1990
HYDRIC SOILS
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Hydric codes (HC): 1 - hydric soils, only because of saturation for
a significant period during the growing season;
2 - hydric soils that are frequently flooded for
long or very long periods during the growing
seasc::; and
3 - hydric soils that are ponded for long or very
long periods during the growing season.
Vegetation codes (VC): 1 - hydric soils that support woody vegetation under
natural conditions; and
2 - hydric soils that do not support woody vegetation
under natural conditions.
Hydric soils in this county cannot be farmed under natural conditions without
removing woody vegetation or hydrology manipulation.
A. Map units that are all hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component.
Map Unit
Symbol HC VC Map Unit Name
NONE
B. Map units with inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots.
Map Unit Hydric Normal location
Symbol Map Unit Name Inclusion HC VC of Inclusion
HeB Helena sandy loam, 2 to poorly 1 1 depressions
8percent slopes drained along drainageways
soils
IrA Iredell fine sandy loam, poorly 1 1 depressions
0 to 1 percent slopes drained
soils
Mo Monacan loam poorly 1 1 depressions
drained adjoining upland
soils sideslopes
Hydric Soils List, USDA NRCS,
Mecklenburg County, NC

Official Series Description - IREDELL Series
LOCATION IREDELL SC+AL GA NC VA
Established Series
Rev. RLV ECH
10/2006
IREDELL SERIES
https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD—Docs/I/IREDELL.html
The Iredell series consists of moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils. These soils formed in material weathered from diabase,
diorite, gabbro, and other rocks high in ferro-magnesium minerals. They are on uplands throughout the Piedmont. Slope is dominantly less
than 6 percent but ranges up to 15 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, mixed, active, thermic Oxyaquic Vertic Hapludalfs
TYPICAL PEDON: Iredell sandy loam --pasture. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap1--0 to 5 inches; dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic;
many fine and medium roots; 1 percent fine pebbles; few fine black concretions; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. (4 to 7 inches thick)
Ap2--5 to 7 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam; moderate medium granular structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic;
many fine and medium roots; few fine black concretions; neutral; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 3 inches thick)
Btssl--7 to 11 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) clay; moderate medium angular blocky structure; very firm, very sticky, very plastic; many fine
and medium roots; common distinct clay films on faces of peds; common slickensides; many fine (1 to 2 mm) black concretions; slightly
acid; gradual smooth boundary.
Btss2--11 to 20 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) clay; moderate medium and coarse angular blocky structure; very firm, very sticky, very plastic;
many fine and medium roots along faces of peds; common distinct clay films on faces of peds; common slickensides and pressure faces;
common fine black concretions; few fine weathered feldspar crystals; neutral; gradual smooth boundary.
Btg--20 to 24 inches; dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) clay; moderate medium and coarse angular blocky structure; very firm, very sticky,
very plastic; many fine and medium roots, mostly along faces of peds; few fine pores; common distinct clay films on faces of peds; few
1 of 5 5/13/15 7:11 PM

Official Series Description - IREDELL Series
https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD—Docs/I/IREDELL.html
medium black concretions; few fine weathered feldspar crystals; slightly acid; gradual smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bt
horizon is 13 to 30 inches)
BC --24 to 27 inches; olive (5Y 4/3) loam; common medium distinct very pale brown (10YR 7/3) and few fine distinct dark grayish brown
(2.5Y 4/2) and black (N 2/0) mottles; moderate medium and coarse angular blocky structure; firm, sticky, plastic; many fine and medium
roots along faces of peds; few medium pores; common distinct clay films on faces of peds; common soft dark grayish brown and black
saprolite; neutral; clear wavy boundary. (0 to 8 inches thick)
C1--27 to 32 inches; finely mottled dark greenish gray, very pale brown, and yellowish brown loam; 80 percent saprolite that crushes
easily; many fine roots and few distinct clay films along cleavage planes; neutral; gradual wavy boundary.
C2--32 to 44 inches; finely mottled dark greenish gray, very pale brown, black and yellowish brown sandy loam; 90 percent saprolite that
crushes easily; many fine roots and few distinct clay films along cleavage planes; moderately alkaline; gradual wavy boundary.
C3--44 to 62 inches; finely mottled dark greenish gray, yellowish brown, black and very pale brown sandy loam; 90 percent saprolite that
crushes easily; few fine roots along cleavage planes; 10 percent fragments of hard rock; moderately alkaline.
TYPE LOCATION: Chester County, South Carolina; on U.S. Highway 72 bypass one mile south of Chester; site is across road from
Southside School, 233 feet north of fire hydrant.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Thickness of the solum ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Depth to paralithic contact (Cr horizon) is 40 to
more than 60 inches. Depth to hard bedrock is more than 60 inches. Linear extensibility totals 6.0 cm or more between the surface and
paralithic contact. Most pedons have few to many dark concretions throughout the profile. Many pedons have few to many dark mottles or
soft bodies in the B and C horizons. Some pedons have few to many flakes of mica or crystals of feldspar in the B and C horizons. The soil
is strongly acid to neutral in the A horizon, moderately acid to mildly alkaline in the B horizon, and neutral to moderately alkaline in the C
horizon. Content of rock fragments, up to 24 inches in diameter, ranges from 0 to 30 percent in the A horizon and E horizon, 0 to 20 percent
in the Bt horizon, and 0 to 10 percent in the C horizon.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of IOYR to 5Y, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 2 to 4. It is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, silt loam, or
clay loam in the fine -earth fraction.
A thin or discontinuous E horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 6 or 7, and chroma of 1 to 3. It is sandy loam, fine
sandy loam, loam, silt loam, or clay loam in the fine -earth fraction.
2 of 5 5/13/15 7:11 PM

Official Series Description - IREDELL Series
https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD—Docs/I/IREDELL.html
The upper part of the Bt or Btss horizon has hue of IOYR or 2.5Y, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 3 to 6. The middle part of the Bt or Btss
horizon has hue of IOYR to 5Y, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 3 to 6. The lower part of the Bt of Btss horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value
of 4 to 6, and chroma of 2 to 6. Content of clay in the Bt or Btss horizon ranges from 40 to 85 percent in the upper part and from 35 to 60
percent in the middle and lower part. The weighted average content of clay of the upper 20 inches of the Bt or Btss horizon ranges from 40
to 60 percent.
The BC horizon has hue of IOYR to 5Y, value of 4 to 6 and chroma of 3 to 6. Mottles may occur in shades of red brown, or yellow. Texture
is clay loam, loam, or sandy clay loam.
The C horizon commonly is mottled or multicolored in shades of white, gray, brown, yellow, or black. It commonly is sandy loam, sandy
clay loam, loam, or silt loam with as much as 90 percent soft pararock fragments.
The Cr horizon, where present, is highly fractured, highly weathered rock.
COMPETING SERIES: These are the Polkton and White Store series. Polkton soils have a depth to a seasonal high water table of 1.5 to
2.5 feet, a paralithic contact at a depth of 20 to 40 inches and formed from Triassic siltstone, mudstone, shale, and conglomerates. White
Store soils have a depth to seasonal high water table of 1.0 to 1.5 feet and are formed from Triassic siltstone, musdtone, sandstone, shale,
and conglomerate. Similar soils in other families are the Brewback (T), Crawfordville(T), Enon, Pittsboro, Virgilina, Winnsboro, and
Wynott series. Brewback soils (T) have iron depletions in the upper part of the argillic and a paralithic contact at a depth of 20 to 40 inches.
Crawfordville soils (T) have a paralithic contact at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Enon and Winnsboro soils do not have slickensides and have
a depth to a seasonal high water table at greater than 6 feet. Pittsboro and Wynott soils have a depth to paralithic contact of 20 to 40 inches.
Virgilina soils have smectitic mineralogy and a depth to lithic contact of 20 to 40 inches.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Iredell soils are on uplands throughout the Piedmont. Slopes range from 0 to about 15 percent, but generally
are less than 6 percent. The soils formed in materials weathered from diabase, diorite, gabbro, and other rocks high in ferro-magnesium
mineral. The average annual rainfall ranges from 37 to 60 inches, the frost -free season ranges from 190 to 225 days, and mean annual
temperature ranges from 59 to 66 degrees F.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the similar Brewback, Crawfordville, Enon, Pittsboro, Winnsboro, and Wynott
series and the Cullen, Davidson, Helena, Lloyd, Mecklenburg, and Wilkes series. Cullen and Mecklenburg soils have a Bt horizon with a
hue of 5YR or redder. Davidson and Lloyd soils are rhodic. Helena soils do not have slickenslides and are strongly to very strongly acid
throughout. Wilkes soils are shallow to paralithic contact.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Moderately well drained; medium runoff; very slow permeability.
3 of 5 5/13/15 7:11 PM

Official Series Description - IREDELL Series
https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD—Docs/I/IREDELL.html
USE AND VEGETATION: Most areas are used for growing cotton, small grain, hay, or pasture. Forested areas are dominantly in post and
white oaks.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: The Piedmont areas of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. The series is
of large extent.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Statesville Area, Iredell County, North Carolina; 1901.
REMARKS: Prior to 1998, Bt horizons having vertic characteristics that were less than 20 inches thick were too thin to place these soils in
Vertic Hapludalfs. The eighth edition of the Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 1998 changed the requirements for Vertic subgroups and now these
soils fit.
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon - the zone from the surface of the soil to 7 inches (Apt and Ap2 horizons)
Argillic horizon - the zone from 7 to 24 inches (BtssI, Btss2, and Bt horizons)
MLRA = 136
ADDITIONAL DATA:
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
S0I-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
SCO016 IREDELL 0-15 59- 66 190-225 37-60 300- 550
SCO 146 IREDELL 0-15 59- 66 190-225 37-60 300- 550
SOI -5 F1oodL F1oodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
SCO016 NONE 1.0-2.0 PERCHED DEC -APR 60-60
SCO146 NONE 1.0-2.0 PERCHED DEC -APR 40-60 SOFT
SOI -5 Depth Texture 3 -Inch No -10 Clay% -CEC-
SC0016 0- 7 GR -L ST -L 1-5 65- 80 10-25 9-13
SCO016 0- 7 FSL SL 0-1 80- 96 10-20 8-12
SCO016 0- 7 L SIL CL 0-1 95-100 15-35 9-15
SCO016 7-24 C 0-0 60-100 40-60 26-30
4 of 5 5/13/15 7:11 PM

Official Series Description - IREDELL Series
SCO016 24-27 L SCL CL
SCO016 27-62 VAR
0-1 85-100 15-35 15-30
SCO146 0- 7 GR -L ST -L 1-5 65- 80 10-25 9-13
SCO146 0- 7 FSL SL 0-1 80- 96 10-20 8-12
SCO146 0- 7 L SIL CL 0-1 95-100 15-35 9-15
SCO146 7-27 C 0-0 60-100 40-60 26-30
SCO146 27-44 L SCL SL 0-1 85-100 10-35 10-25
SCO146 44-62 WB - - - -
SOI -5 Depth -pH- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
SCO016 0- 7 5.1- 7.3 .5-2. 0- 0 2.0-6.0 LOW
SCO016 0- 7 5.1- 7.3 .5-2. 0- 0 2.0-6.0 LOW
SCO016 0- 7 5.1- 7.3 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6-2.0 LOW
SCO016 7-24 5.6- 7.3 0.-.5 0- 0 0.0015-0.06 VERY HIGH
SCO016 24-27 6.1- 7.8 0.-.5 0- 0 0.06-0.2 HIGH
SCO016 27-62 - - - -
SCO146 0- 7 5.1- 7.3 .5-2. 0- 0 2.0-6.0 LOW
SCO146 0- 7 5.1- 7.3 .5-2. 0- 0 2.0-6.0 LOW
SCO146 0- 7 5.1- 7.3 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6-2.0 LOW
SCO146 7-27 5.6- 7.3 0.-.5 0- 0 0.0015-0.06 VERY HIGH
SCO146 27-44 6.1- 7.8 0.-.5 0- 0 0.06-0.2 MODERATE
SCO146 44-62 - - - -
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD-Docs/I/IREDELL.html
5 of 5 5/13/15 7:11 PM

Veeetation Communities
Approximately half of the overall site consists of existing development of buildings, parking and a
small amount of maintained landscape.
The remainder of the Study Area is mostly forested with mixed successional Eastern Red Cedar, pine
and hardwoods which have regrown from prior land uses occuring over the years. Remaining areas
are open planted grasses or young successional growth and occur generally along rights of way and
in former disturbed areas. The undeveloped portion of the site contains primarily three vegetation
community types:
ComunityTyne One - Non-Hydrophytic Forested Upland
This community consists of a well established canopy of mixed hardwoods and pine and a
well represented subcanopy and herbaceous understory. The dominant species within all strata are
primarily FAC, FACU, or UPL. This community type dominates the majority of the Study Area.
Community Type Two - Hydrophytic Forested Depressions
This community consists of a canopy of mixed hardwood tree species with little or no
subcanopy and herbaceous understory . Nearly all dominant species within all strata of this commu-
nity are FAC or FACW species. Other portions of the site which have this community type are
dominated by primarily FAC species with various distributions of FACW or FACU throughout the
community. This community is also found in limited areas along the man-made ditch.
Community Type Three - Non-Hydrophytic Open Areas
This community consists almost entirely of open cleared herbaceous grasses and forbs.
Canopy or sub -canopy species are sparsely represented within this community and consist of scat-
tered individuals. The dominant species observed within this community consist of FAC, FACU, or
UPL species of grasses and herbs typically associated with upland open successional land. This
community occurs within rights of way.
The distribution of dominant species corresponds strongly with topographic position and observa-
tion of changes in soil characteristics and hydrologic indicators. In the wettest portions of the site the
dominant species were entirely hydrophytic.
e�ir�e / uESIGN • Post 0f{ice Box 163 0 H 9h Shoals 0 NC 0 28077 0 [phone]

Hornet Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
• ',�{y '� ,� -a 410'x`; z
i
� r
Source: 2014 aerial photography from Mecklenburg County Polaris 3G GIS Layers
Scale: I"=200'
NORTH Site Aerial Photograph

Wetland Determination Methodoloa
Those portions of the site which have been identified as jurisdictional under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act include waters and wetland areas
which satisfy the definition of a wetland in the Xorps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-11] January 1987, U.S. Army Corps Environmental Laboratory and subse-
quent Corps and DWQ guidance. Methodology used in this study include the use of the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Environmental Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers July 2010, U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. EPA guidance for determi-
nation of Significant Nexus, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins Version 4.11 Effective Date:
September 1, 2010. Jurisdiction may potentially be identified as Traditionally Navigable Waters
(TNW), Perennial Streams, Relatively Permanent Waters (Intermittent RPW), Seasonal Intermittent
RPW, Intermittent Non-RPW, Impoundments, Adjacent Wetlands, and Abutting Wetlands. Ephem-
eral Channels and Isolated Waters are typically not jurisdictional without a Significnt Nexus Deter-
mination.
A routine on-site determination method utilizing the multi -parameter approach was imple-
mented to identify the upper wetland boundary of all areas which satisfy the three parameters as
described in the manual:
1. Hydrophytic Vegetation
2. Hydric Soils
3. Wetland Hydrology
The following methodology was utilized to make the determination:
1. Preliminary data gathering and synthesis.
Data sources include:
USGS Quadrangle Maps
National Wetlands Inventory Maps
USDA-NRCS Soil Survey for Mecklenburg County
Mecklenburg County Flood Data
Mecklenburg County topography & tax parcel data
Mecklenburg County aerial photography
Applicant provided plat map documents
2. Selection of Routine on-site Determination Method
3. Identification of Plant Community Types
The site was divided into its major vegetation communities for charactization. Those portions
of the site which exhibited characteristic hydrophytic vegetation were reviewed for presence of
hydric soils and evidence of wetland hydrology.
4. Transects were established approximately perpendicular to the major water courses for location of
sample observation points.
5. Observation points were located along transects within each major vegetation community to
observe and record the characteristics of hydrophytic vegetaion, hydric soils and wetland hydrol-
ogy.
e�ir�e / uESIGN • Post 0f{ice Box 163 0 H 9h Shoals 0 NC 0 28077 0 [phone]

Each sample observation point (sample plot) consisted of one or more 18-24" deep test pits
dug with a spade to characterize soils and hydrology, and a thirty foot radius area to characterize
tree and woody vine species; a fifteen foot radius area to characterize a representative sample of
the sapling, shrub and woody vine species; and a five foot radius to document herbaceous plant
species. All observed data was recorded on an appropriate Data Form as well as notation of
Atypical Conditions and Normal Environmental Conditions. A determination was made whether
or not the sample plot was a wetland based upon available and observed data. Sample plots are
identified in the field with numbered pink and orange surveyor's flagging.
When a wetland/non-wetland determination had been made at all sample plots, an upper
wetland boundary was assumed to occur between wetland plots and non -wetland plots. Numer-
ous additional test pits were dug along each transect to identify the boundary location. Once
boundaries had been located along each transect, the characteristics at this point were utilized to
determine the boundary location between transects until the entire site had been divided into
wetland and non -wetland areas. This boundary was then confirmed and adjusted through the use
of visual observation and additional test pits on either side of the line. Soil profiles were ob-
served using a Dutch auger and a one inch tube sampler. Estimated wetland boundaries were
measured in the field and sketched on a topographic map of the site.
All prelininary wetland boundaries have been marked in the field with pink and black striped
surveyor's flagging. Each flag has been assigned a sequential number.
6. Tributary channels on the site were demarcated and recorded by walking the length of the
channel. Stations were established at regular intervals along the channel length for observation,
photography and measurement. Representative transect stations were marked in the field with la-
belled surveyor's flagging. Measurements which were taken include: top width, bottom width,
depth of channel (left bank and right bank), width and depth of water, and notation if flow was
occurring at the observation point. A stream evaluation form for the USACE and NCDWR was
prepared for a typical portion of the channel to observe and record channel characteristics and any
special features associated with the chanel. Photographs were taken along the length of each chan-
nel. The location of all transects and channels were noted on a topographic base map of the site.
e�ir�e / UESIGN • Post 0f{ice Box 163 0 H 9h Shoals 0 NC 0 28077 0 [phone]

References
Site Base Topography and Boundary provided by Mecklenburg County Polaris 3G Geographic
Information System (GIS)
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual TR YR -87-1, 1987, U.S. Army Corps
Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army Corps of Engineers July
2010.
U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. EPA guidance for determination of Significant Nexus.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Peren-
nial Streams and Their Origins Version 4.11 Effective Date: September 1, 2010.
N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
User Manual, Prepared by the N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team
Version 4.1. October 2010
USGS 7-1/2 minute Charlotte West (1993) and Rock Hill (1993) Quad maps
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, Charlotte West and Fort Mill Quad maps, 1991
Classifications & Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin,
NCDENR, Raleigh, North Carolina
Catawba River Basin Wide Water Quality Management Plan, NCDENR Division of Water Quality,
2010
USDA -PLANTS Database, Wetland Indicator Status
National List of Plant Species Which Occur in Wetlands, 1988, US FWS
Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, Sheets 6 and 11, September 1988, USDA NRCS (SCS)
Hydric Soils of the United States, 1990, NTCHS / SCS
Munsell Soil Color Charts, 2000, Kollmorgen Corporation.
Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas, June 1987, Albert E. Radford.
Aquatic andWetland Plants of the Southeastern United States,Monocotyledons, 1979, Godfrey and
Wooten
Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States, Dicotolyledons, 198 1, Godfrey and
Wooten
Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs, 1972, George A. Petrides
Field Guide to the Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes of the U.S., 1980, Edward Knobel
Fruit and Twig Key to Trees and Shrubs, 1946, William M. Harlow
Wildflowers of North America, 1984, Frank D. Venning
Manual of the Grasses of the United States (two volumes), 1950 & 1971, Hitchcock.
e�ir�e / uESIGN • Post 0f{ice Box 163 0 H 9h Shoals 0 NC 0 28077 0 [phone]

Summary of'Channel and Wetlands Findings
Hornet Project Study Area
Site Investigations Conducted May 8 and 11, 2015
404 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WERE NOT OBSERVED ON THIS SITE
Wetlands
Sample Plot # Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (JD)
WL -1-13 Isolated Wetland Area in Upland,
15,103.37 SF (0.35 AC) (No Corps JD, DWR JD only)
WL -2-B Isolated Wetland Area in Upland,
2,425.24 SF (0.06 AC) (No Corps or DWR JD)
ONE NON -JURISDICTIONAL DITCH IN UPLAND WAS OBSERVED ON THIS SITE
Streams
Transect Drainage Length
Area On -Site
USACE NCDWR
Score Score
JD Classification
S-lA 01 acre 250 if 34 12.25 Ephemeral Non-RPW
Ditch in Upland (No JD)
Note: All areas indicated as wetland or jurisdictional in this document are subject to
verification by the U.S. Army Corps & North Carolina Division of Water Resources.
e�ir�e / DESIGN • Post Office BJ . 163 0 h96 Shoals 0 NC 0 28077 0 [phone]

address ! parcel# ! owner / landmark
ed Search Market Analysis Search Help
r�+. .'f:�= --�� Str€ets Aerials IH�k�rid
?20324:401 -•---------- -� ---� -
_�- 2-BQ
20K 14106
f {]p•i-solated Wetland
�-�- Upl�.nd"� Flags 2.1 through 2.8'••,
2,425.24 SF
_ __ _-• __ 0.06 acre o _ -_ _ �' '". '•
'`�'�-------- - - Upland
Upland ,2r�a2�1 L}2
' Isolated Wetland
Flags 1.1 thru 1.t7
15,103.37 SF
0.35 ac. -----
❑ 203245 99
inary Determination of
1-B 1-C
,,, �• loA o o �•,
X2,50 if
Ephemeral Non-RPW Ditch '. 4-A ' Prelim
(No JD)p We
and Waters
Hornet Project
Upland
/ Charlotte, NC
Prepared by:
-------- "' NORTH
- -` Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS
/ Scale: 1"=1 Field Investigation on 5-8-15 and 5-11-15

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 5-14-15
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Mecklenburg Ci : Charlotte
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.1160° 1, Long. -80.9360° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: King's Branch
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: King's Branch
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050103
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 5-8-15
L Field Determination. Date(s): 5-8-15 and 5-11-15
SECTION H: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: Trade using small craft to SC stae border during high water.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Two isolated wetland areas that are not hydrologically connected to surface waters and one Non-RPW man-
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

made ditch. Wetland areas are at least 700 feet from the nearest RPW. There are no streams or stormwater
conveyances flowing into or out of the wetland areas..

SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it
helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-
round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with
perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts
and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus
between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable
water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request
is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section
III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that
tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 1.0 acres
Drainage area: 1.0 acres
Average annual rainfall: 42 inches
Average annual snowfall: 6 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 2-5 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT to Steele Creek to Sugar Creek.
Tributary stream order, if known: First.
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
® Artificial (man-made). Explain: Trapezoidal ditch constructed to accommodate stormwater flow.
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain: Straightened and re -aligned through sediment basin.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 4-6 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes: M.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ® Vegetation. Type/% cover: herbaceous vegetation/75%
0 Other. Explain: natural soils.
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: generally stable.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Not present.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Ephemeral flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime: stormwater driven ephemeral.
Other information on duration and volume: Flows in direct response to stormwater runoff.
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings: groundwater observed within wetland.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
❑ shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
❑ sediment deposition
❑
❑ water staining
❑
❑ other (list):
ElDiscontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
IN High Tide Line indicated by: E Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Does not exhibit characteristics of a natural stream channel, shallow trapezoidal cross section, straight
alignment.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: stormwater unoff from parking area and surrounding wooded area.
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Variable corridor width on one side only.
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Forest wildlife tracks observed.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: .
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximily (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:woody 50% cover.
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:Weak wildlife indicators.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: N/A.
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: Non-RPW does not exhibit characteristics which would significantly affect
downstream TNW.
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IIID: N/A.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
M Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Visual observation and use of stream assessment forms to document field characteristics.

® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Visual observation and use of stream assessment forms to document field characteristics.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: NCDWQ and USACE Stream Forms.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0 acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?"
® which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
'See Footnote # 3.
'To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:Ditch is Non-
RPW. Wetland areas are at least 700 feet from the nearest RPW. There are no streams or stormwater conveyances flowing
into or out of the wetland areas..
® Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): 250 linear feet, 4 width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: 0.5 acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Charlotte West, NC (1993) and Fort Mill NC/SC (1993).
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey, Mecklenburg County, NC.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Charlotte West, NC and Fort Mill NC/SC.
® State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Mecklenburg County GIS, 2014.
or ® Other (Name & Date):On site photographs, 5-8-15 and 5-11-15.
® Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: 2000-2003 Preliminary Determination.
0 Applicable/supporting case law:

Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): site investigations, 5-8-15 and 5-11-15.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Review area was inspected multiple times to determine if there was a continuous
hydrologic surface connection of two isolated wetland areas. Wetland areas are at least 700 feet from the nearest RPW. There are no streams
or stormwater conveyances flowing into or out of the wetland areas. they are in depressions and are completely surrounded by upland that is
at a higher grade elevation. There is one ephemeral Non-RPW ditch that flows through the review area and has been dug adjacent to an
existing parking area and fence to carry surface stormwater flow. The ditch does not satisfy the Significant nexus determination because it
does not .

WETLAND DCTERMINATI 0N DATA FORfUI — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProJect1Slte: Hornet Project C;,tylcoo rty; Mecklenburg County, NC Sampling fate. 5-8-15
ApplicantfOwner: Frito-Lay Inc. State: NC Sampling Point; WL 1-A
Investigator(s)- Craig R. Wyant RLA Section, Township, Range, N/A
Landform (hilisiope, terrace, etc.); Hillslope Local relief (concave. convex, noiae.); None Slope fAy 2-8%
Subreglon (LRR or MLW1); Lat; 35.1159 Long: -80.9364 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name_ IrB Iredell fine sandy loam, 1-8% slopes NWI classification-. Upland
Are dlrnatJc f hydrologic conditions on tire site typical for this ume of year? Yes X No (If nor explaln In Remarks.)
Are Vegetalon Nn • Soll No . or Hydrology No significantly c1sturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation NO , soil NO , or Hydrology NO naturally problematic' (I F needed, explain any answiirs in Remarks-)
SUMMARY' OF FINDINGS - attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Ver�+tallw Present? Yeas No X Is the Sampled) Area
Soll Present'? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes NO X
Hydrology Present? Yes i No X
Remarl€s�
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrok indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two requred)
fl rr;u„ ": r:,.ltors frrinlrrium of one is recitilred: check
all that aoolvl
_ Stitface Soli Cracks (1367
',(`titer (Al) _
Tnie Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ sparsely Vegetated Concave Sm -face (EB)
I -I .:il1 Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (131M
_ SALF ation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Wa or Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Wiaw Table (C2)
_ S{ i-ment Deposits (132) —
Recent Iron Reduction In Tiled soils (6)
_ Drilt Depoelts (B3) _
Thln Muck Surface (C7)
_ ::..i::�i::" °_+i , ::I::::ri ; ,;: 4 Imager+ (O9)
_ Algal Mator Crr.--- rr`ul) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
�t_ti ::' ;',��:: ,r_si i};�" : (D7)
_ Iron Deposits {Ba;
_ ;;: r i::'::' r: �) luon (0
_ Inundation Visible s;" ,aerial Imagery (BT)
� S—d : '.: A:(D.: )
_ Water -Stained Leary::-, (B9)
M-C.01::;:::rp:.:lAi :: i<:: ref (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-New-,ifl'='
Field Observations;
Surface Water f= -esent? Yes No X
Depth (Inches]: N/A
Water Table Present? Yes No X
depth (inches)_ >16"
Saturatlon Present? Yes No X
Depth pnches): >l 6"
wetland Hyrtology fent? Yep No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Rewrded Data (stream gauge, monitoing well. aerlal photos. previous inspectloits), If available;
Remarks-.
US Army- Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Flue 9tm a) – Use sdentfflc narnes of plants"
6-
75 � Total Cover
Sampling Point_ WL 1-A
Dominance Test worksheet;
Number of Dominant species
That Are OGL. FACK or FAC; 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
13
Species Across All Strata_ (B)
Perceni of Dornnant Species 308
That Are OBL, FACW, or F .
AC: (AS)
Provalersce Index worksheet;
Tota ,1 Cover of- Multipty by -
50%
y50% of total corer: 2094 of total cover
0$L 1 =
Sapling stratum (Plot size= }
1. Diospyros virginiana 10 Y FAC
2- Juniperus virginiana 10 Y FACU
4a
5.
20 - -clr _cr.+cr
F.A, , spc-c cs
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Tree stratum (Plot size: )
% CoverSpecies?
x 4 =
Status
1. ninSp3zrnc
1-0
y
FAC
2- Juniperus virginiana
15
Y
FACU
3- Caryglabra
15
Y
FACU
4. Ulmus alata
15
Y
FACU
6-
75 � Total Cover
Sampling Point_ WL 1-A
Dominance Test worksheet;
Number of Dominant species
That Are OGL. FACK or FAC; 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
13
Species Across All Strata_ (B)
Perceni of Dornnant Species 308
That Are OBL, FACW, or F .
AC: (AS)
Provalersce Index worksheet;
Tota ,1 Cover of- Multipty by -
50%
y50% of total corer: 2094 of total cover
0$L 1 =
Sapling stratum (Plot size= }
1. Diospyros virginiana 10 Y FAC
2- Juniperus virginiana 10 Y FACU
4a
5.
20 - -clr _cr.+cr
F.A, , spc-c cs
K 2
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
URL species
x 5
Column Totals_
(A) (R)
Prevalence Index = EVA
50% of total cover: APir )I Icbi c zy c,P _ 1 - Rapid gest for Hydroptiytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plat size: ) — ! 2 - On -y- r r Ice Test Is >50%
1. Elaeagnus umbellata 10 y iT� — 3 - Plmvalunce index Is X3,0'
2. Juniperus virginiana 10 Y FACU — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3 -
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
4-
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
S.
'Indicators of taydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6 t►e prese-il r. -I cossdislurbed orproblematic.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1- Lonicera japonica
200 Total Cwer
20% of total cower
10 Y FAC
2„
3-
Galium aparine
Asplenium playneuron
10 Y
5 Y
FACU
FACU
4-
Allium canadense
5 Y
FACU
5.
Cyperus esculentus
5 Y
FACW
6-
7-
E'*W1Ii HMM; R4Z i
Woody Ulne Stral= (Plot size:
i.
50% of total cover,
rs here or on a separate
35 =Total Coaxer
20% of total cover
Total Carer
20111G of total cover
N
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximately 20 ft (6 -r°+ ), -rare it n e i ht and 3 r.
(7.6 cm) crlargler In cLd"T:M!Qr HI brcr,sl 1- C' (31-1 :: -":Hl
Sapling - Woody (plants. excluding wormy viii es
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in he i= -r ar d es s
than 3 in- (7-6 cm) DBH.
Shrub- Woody .:l-r.-r.:s
approximately a to 20 ft (1 to 6,M) in €reigns.
Hein -fi.l erbart.�r;s ; xx,-'.xP:�rriy, -Rants. including
her: ric:.:m-,, vines, : 4:_; r::IL! ; e- L!. and woody
;:HT,.: r:;3c:I'pt"WOC(N'.°iius c:ti W-,-,approxlrriately3
ft 0 m) in height.
Wroodyvine - All woody vr,es, regardless of height,
Hydrophytic
Vegetation) X
Present? Yes tlo
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Roirlt: WL 1-A
Profile Description: I Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or oonfirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth `,latrix Redox Features
(Inchesr Cola (mast) '9 Celcr (mass) 114 Type Lire" Texture Remarks
0-2 l OYR 4/2 100 loam
2-10 1OYR 4/3 100 sandy loam
10-16 1OYR 4/3 75 7.5YR 4/4 clay loam Few small Mn conc.
'Type: C=Concentration, ❑=depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains -
Hydric Sail Indicators;
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon 'A2)
_ Black Hlstic (A:}:i
Hydrogen Suffice- A4)
Slrrhl c -d I -i
2 cm N't :::'..I (L.RR N)
_ Deple^L:d -.: UIV I J: t :..r I-,:xr ;A11 }
Thick Claris Surface W 2.1
Srrr:`y `t4.i::k,, P' rc P. f.S' ; (LRR N,
Pr1LRA1A7.1.18}
S,r:.-y Gleyed N'3tr:•: fS4:
_ Strippev Ma -.1x :v?i
Rostrictive Layer (if observedl.
nH•.rl:
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=1Vlatrix.
Indcators for Problematic Hydric Soil
Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cn Muck ,:Al v; Rol LRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8.a (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Praile ,edcx (,416)
_ Thin Dark Surface () IMLRA 147, 140) JIVILRA 141, 14HI
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmor- F cod- ain Soils (F19)
_ Depleted Morax (F3) (rs9 LRA 136, 1411
Redox Dark Surface (F6) _-..'ery Sl- G.l c%%, C3, < v1-3ce JF12)
_ Depleled Dark Surface (7) :}I -,L:- ;=xr}kri r HL:'rH.I :S
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Il1LRA 1361
Urnbric Surface (F13: �relLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators ofhydrophyticvegetation and
Pledmonl Floodplaln . } Is (.- 1::: (' LRA 148) -0. L:' P.',:: '1 ::-.} G: - r+ must be presenl,
Red Parent Material (F21) (Ml -RA 127, 147) 1-1less vlStLrbed or problematic_
Hydric Soil Present-? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Test Pit at Upland Sample Plot 1-A
Soil Profile at Upland Sample Plot 1-A
Hornet Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
Sample Plot 1-A
Upland
�ne�ov2e / UtSI(;N • P -f O{{i- Boa 163, Higk A..k, NC 28077 • (7(:-1) )-1( J14 ),

ft
+
Alt

19 k
aL47 11
y }
o
4
l° a
t y
•'�_'r.'i .. �. J��„ �1 vein � �' � � _
y yWi�lk '
� .ts
4°.u.-
_ +51I
i k

WETLAND DCTERMINATI 0N DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProJect1Slte: Hornet Project C,tylcomnty Mecklenburg County, NC Sampling Date: 5-8-15
ApplicantfOwner: Frito-Lay Inc. Vie: NC sarnpling Point; WL I B
Investigator(s)- Craig R. Wyant RLA Section, Township, Range, N/A
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc); Depression in Upland Local relief (concave. convex, not*); Concave slope (%); 0-2%
Subreglon (LRR or MLRA); Lat; 35.1160 Long: 80.9360 Dam;
Soil Map Unit Name= IrA Iredell fine sandy loam, 0-1% slopes WWI classification-. Upland
Are dIrnat1c f hydrologic conditions on die site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If nor explaln In Remarks)
Are Vegetatlon VP.0Soll No . or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation NO , Soil NO , or Hydrology NO naturally problematic' (I F neededr explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site leap showing sampling point l ations, transects, important features, etc.
r hy�SC: `a utptallw Present? Yes X No is the Sampled Area
5411 Present'? Yes X Na within a Wetland? Yes X No
4':: r`iriA Hydrology Present? Yes __X_ No
Remarks-.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrok Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two retired)
gtors frninlrrium of one reut■red:
check all that awhA
_ St* face Soll Cracks (1367
X Sur n :r ',A`ater (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
X H-.:il1 Water Table (A2)
X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_X Drainage Patterns (131[1)
X S:.rlu ation (A3)
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
X Moss Trim Lines (1316)
X V'i a or Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_X Dry -Season Wiaw Table (C2)
— s{=rl.-Ment Deposits (132
Recent Iron Reduction In Tiled sails (C6)
_ R;I; I,,I --. ' ...fir} s .°
_ Drilt Deposits (B3)
_ Thln Mink surface (G7)
X::ri ; %:: 4 Imagery (O9)
_ Algal Mat or Q'r.--- ff`I
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ S°..- Icd ::' '-,I I::° -"(,(I I I sI — -: tD7)
_ Iron Deposits (Ba;
C Iuon (0
_ Inundation Visible s;" ,aerial Imagery (BT)
_ In", d :'.: A:.. r:=rr1
X Water -Stained Lea,::-, (B9)
.2L M-r:'rp:..IAi :: I<:: Ief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC-New-,i
Field Obset'vations;
Surface Water Pi-esent? Yes X No
Depth (Inches): 0-6"
Water Table Present? Yes X No
depth (inches)- 077
Saturatlon Present? Yes X No
Depth Qnches)- 0„
wetland Hyrtology fent? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerlal photos. previous mspectloixs), If available;
Remarks-.
Winter precipitation is approximately 4 inches above normal.
US Army- Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point_ WL 1-B
6-
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet;
Tree stratum (Plot size: )
96 Cover
ecies?
Status
Number of Darnina nt species
1.
Populus deltoides
30
Y
FAC
Thal Are OGL. FACK or FAC; 8 (A)
Total Number of Dtxrinant10
2_ Quercus phellos 15 Y FAC
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Y FAC
Multiply by -
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover
Species Across All Strata_ (B)
4,
Acer rubrum
10
Y
FAC
!
�. �
s_
Juniperus virginiana
10
Y
FACU
Percxml of Dominant specles 80.0
That Are OBL, FACW, or F4C: (AS)
6-
75
= Tonal Ower
Prevalence Index worksheet;
Tota ria Cir of_
Multiply by -
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover
061-s� L ni es
V V
x 1 =
Sapling stratum (Piot size_ t
!
�. �
x 2 =
1.
Quercus phellos
25
Y
FAC
s
a-
Acer rubrum
10
Y
FAC
FAG speccieie s
x 3 =
3_
Diospyros virginiana
10
Y
FAC
FACU species
4 =
4,
Ulmus americana
5
Y
FACW
UPL Species
x 5 =
5
Ulmus alata
5
Y
FACU
Column Totals_
(A) (B)
55
50% of total Cover: Ic:lr c u,"r c
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1
1.
2.
3_
4_
5.
- - c.rr' +'comer
50% of Mal Carer: 20% of tc:lr
Herb stratum (Piot size: )
1_
2_
3-
_
7-
7_
10.
10.
11,
Woody Ulne Stral= (Plot sire:
1.
3,
4..
50% of total cover:
50% of total Carer,
rs here or on a separate
= Total Caoer
20% of total cover
Prevalence index = VA
1 - Rapid gest for Hydrophyfic Vegetation
X 2 - On -T- r r 1Ce Test Is >50%
3 - Plmvalunce index Is s3,0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheen
Problematic Hydrophyfic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of 1-ydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be prese-il r. -I css dislurlbecl or problemat c,
Definitions c31 Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Wloody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 -r`+ a, -rare it nei h' and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) crlarger In owa:T:M!Qr ;I brcr,sl r.c, t�rl :-'?FH)
Sapling - Woody plants. excluding wormy vi - yes
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in he i= -r an d ess
than 3 in_ (7.6 cm) DBH.
ShirUb- Woody .:l-r.-r':s
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6,m) in €reignz.
Herts -fi.l erbart.�t:s ; xx,-'.xP:�rriy, -Rants, including
her',:ric:.:m-,, vIn es, : 4:_;r::IL!"- )',i e. L!. and woody
::HT,.: r:;3c:t^^OtWoo(ry'.°in!s c--%11--,-,approxlmately3
ft 0 m) in height.
Woody vine -AII woody v res, regardless of height,
Hydrophytic
= Total Carer Vegetation
20,14 of total co mr. present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Poiret: WL 1-B
Profile Description: I Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators,I
Depth
`,1 trix
Redox Features
Histic Epipedon 'A2)
(Inchest
color (mast)
'9 Celor (marl) 114 Type
Lire" Texture Remarks
0-2
l OYR 2/1
100
muck
2-6
l OYR 4/1
60 10 YR 4/4 40
clay loam
6-12
1OYR 4/2
75 10 YR 4/4 25
sandy clay loam few Mn concretions
12-16
l OYR 3/1
100
fine sandy loam
C=Concentration, ❑-depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, M Masked Sand Grains- 2Locetion= PL=Pore Lining, M= latrix.
Hydric Sail Indicators;
Histosol (Al)
_X Dark Surface (S7)
Histic Epipedon 'A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8.a (MLRA 14 7, 148)
_ Black Hlstic (A3'i
_ Thin Dark Surface (89) IMLRA 14r, 1.40)
Hydrogen Suffice- A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X SIr::lil c -,I I -, ; .: i:.,`o;
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
2 r�-r r"A—:-.::'..1v: (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surfaoe(F6)
_ Deple^L:rl -L: U11: I J: x :e., -1-,:x- ;A,11 }
_ Depleted Dark Surface (7)
Thick Clark Surface W2.1
X Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Srrr:`y M.i:ek,, PJ rc,'PI f.S' ; (LRR N,
Iron -Manganese Masses (F 12) (LRR N,
Pal L RA 1A 7, 1.18 }
Il1LRA 1361
S—,,r:.'y Gleed rV3tr:•: fS4:
_ Umbric Surface (F13: 1`0LRA 136, 122)
Pledmord Floodplaln:_Lrlsf.-1::; (MLRA 148)
Strippev `;lauix (Sv}
Red Parent Material (F21) (Ml -RA 127, 147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Ty -,:e sandy clay loam
IX::IF 6 inches
,ema-Ks:
Indcators for Problematic Hydric Soil
2 crn Munk Gh1 v; Rol LRA 147)
Coast Praile ,edcx (,4113)
JIILRA 141, 14x3
Piedmcr- F ccd ain Soils (F1 2-:
(r69LRA 136, 1411
-..eery Sl- .i c%%, C a,< vi -ace — 12:
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0: L~ P.'1:: '1y:: -.r c.r, r+ must be present,
.i-ilesa vlstLrbed or oroblematic-
Hydric Soil Present-? Yeti X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

Wetiand Type
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
❑ Yes [X No
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1 WL -1-B
Hornet Project
Depression in Upland
witnin
Date
Assessor NamelOrg.anixation
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 9 -Digit Catalogue Unit
udefLonWtude fdeci-dearees)
Evidenc=e of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle andfor make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septi ctanks, underground storage tanks (U,STs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• .Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• HabitatJplant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Q Yes DJ No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State enclanrIred or threatened species
❑ NCDWO riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (P NA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.G. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
(] Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, If any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ TidaI (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes CR No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes [A No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes @ No
Ground Surface Cond ition)Vegetat ion Condition — assessment area condition metric
Chi a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
®A 71A Not severely altered
B OB Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
reduced diversity [f appropriate],. hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (.Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for North Carolina
hydric soils (see USAGE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch S 1 foot deep is considered
to affect surface water only, while a ditch - 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding
regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
[2A CZA Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
EIB ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C El Water storage capacity or duration is substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water StorageJSurface Relief —assessment arealwetiand type condition metric (evaluate for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA.
%,T
3a. ❑A
❑A
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water - 1 foot deep
NB
[XB
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 fact deep
❑G
[]G
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D
❑D
Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. F1
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑13
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
RC
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
ix

4. Sail Text urelStructure—assessment area condition metria
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent guidance for National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
MB Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting red oxi mo rphi c features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
El Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon a 1 inch
4c. ❑A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
i. Discharge into %FMland — assessment area oppcsrtunity metria
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
NA MA Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing,. but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
0 El Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
i. Land Use— oppadunitymetric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a CIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment
area. (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
DJA ❑A IRA > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B 710% impervious surfaces
0 ❑C ❑C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
❑D ❑D CJD a 20% coverage of pasture
❑E ❑E T7 a 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑F ❑F T7 2 20% coverage of maintained grassiherb
❑G ❑G ❑G �: 20% coverage cf clear-cut land
UJH ❑H EKH Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lads of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment areafwetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑`fes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the open water. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland?
❑A a 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
El From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels+braids for a total width.
❑s 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributarylopen water?
❑Yes ❑Nc
7e. Is the tributary or other open ,rater sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — open water width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — open water width 2t 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
9. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland typetwetland complex condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at
the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
JRA [2A a 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D Fro n7 40 to < 50 feet
El ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 3D feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration —assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
W Evidence of long -duration inundation orvery long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetiand Size — wetiand typer'wetiand complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metria evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
'o%'T WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A ? 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑ B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C: El ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑ D ❑ D ❑ D From 2.5 to < 50 acres
❑E F1 F_ El From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F El El From 5 t < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to e 5 acres
❑H ❑H E From 0.5 to < 1 acre
Ni CQI (II From 0.1 to r 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑ K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is dear -out
12. Wetland Intactness — wetiand type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (a g0%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin is e 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked In each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) andior loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water s 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A z 500 acres
El ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
7 M From 50 to a 100 acres
5JD ND From 10 to { 50 acres
❑E El r 10 acres
❑F ❑F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Ye= ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open uwraters,+tributary or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect— wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a IDIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas � 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass.
❑A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
[RB No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
❑C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition —assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
[AA Vegetation is dose to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has a 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50% cover of exotics).
xi

17. Vegetative Structure – assessn-*nt arealwetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
❑'Yes []No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 1B.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
ERA �: 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
M3aA [RA Canopy closed, or nearly dosed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
CU
El ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense mid-storylsapling layer
I?E]B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
MC 3C Mid-storyisapling layer sparse or absent
.,®A ❑A Dense shrub layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
0[IC [RC Shrub layer sparse or absent
Im❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
CAC ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
19. Snags – wetland type condition metric
[AA Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
❑B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution wetland type condition metric
❑A. Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
[_B. Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH. few are } 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not
21. Vegetationl0pen Wates Dispersion –wetland typ0Dpen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open -'crater in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A ❑B C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may se'..erely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
NA Overbank and overland flcrwr are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank o—w is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes Assessment area occurs within a depression on a broad forested ridge. There is no continuous surface
hydrolgic connection to downstream waters. There are no streams or stormwater conveyances flowing
into or out of this area. Area is at least 200 feet from the nearest conveyance with upland between. A
majority portion of the area is forested with medium aged trees with little or no understory or herba-
ceous vegetation present. Hydrology is mostly supplied from sheet flow stormwater runoff from sur-
rounding upstream areas.
xll

Test Pit at Wetland Sample Plot 1-B
Soil Profile at Wetland Sample Plot 1-B
Hornet Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
Sample Plot 1-B
Wetland
�ne�o'r�e / DESIGN • Post Offs- Dox 163, Hiq6 A..k, NC 2S(v/ • (T(: -L) 240-0793

Vegetation Community at Wetland Sample Plot 1-B
Vegetation Community at Wetland Sample Plot 1-B
Hornet Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
Sample Plot 1-B
Wetland
one�oa2e / rtsI(;N • Post Office box 163, Higk ��oa�s, NC 28077 0 (7)4) 240-0793

^f
k ••r_
'pe

Vegetation Community at Wetland Sample Plot 1-B
Vegetation Community at Wetland Sample Plot 1-B
Hornet Project Sample Plot 1-B
Mecklenburg County, NC Wetland
ti�ze�o�2e / UUsI(;N • P -f O{{i- B— 163, h9k A..k, NG 28077 0 [phone]

-
5
toF
a..
_fr
HORNET
I-
r
rs
3
'
r
-
5
toF
a..
_fr
HORNET
I-

1
I
r + i
�'�4 ,tea ,,. ��
� - ��
_ �
�+Ib! � .+•
- � -0+S
•
�
■
_
�
rte
v

WETLAND DCTERMINATI 0N DATA FORfUI — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProJect1Slte: Hornet Project C;,tylcoo rty; Mecklenburg County, NC Sampling fate. 5-8-15
ApplicantfOwner: Frito-Lay Inc. State: NC Sampling Point; WL 1-C
Investigator(s)- Craig R. Wyant RLA Section, Township, Range, N/A
Landform (hilisiope, terrace, etc.); Hillslope Local relief (concave. convex, norms); None Slope fAy 2-8%
Subreglon (LRR or MLRA); Lat; 35.1161 Long: -80.9358 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name_ IrA Iredell fine sandy loam, 0-1% slopes NWI classification-. Upland
Are dlrnatJc f hydrologic conditions on We site typical for this ume of year? Yes X No (If nor explaln In Remarks.)
Are Vegetatlon Nn • Soll No . or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation NO , soil NO , or"ydrology NO naturally problematic' (I F neededr explain any answiirs in Remarks-)
SUMMARY' OF FINDINGS - attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
`arer�+tallw Present? Yeas No X Is the Sampled Area
Soll Present'? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes NO X
Hydrology Present? Yes i No X
Remarl€s�
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrok Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two requred)
Fr r r; u „ ": r:,.ltors frrinlrrium of one is recitilred: check
all that aoolvl
_ Stitface Soli Cracks (1367
',(`titer (Al) _
Tnie Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ sparsely Vegetated Concave Sm -face (EB)
I -I .:il1 Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (131M
_ SALF ation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Wa or Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Wiaw Table (C2)
_ S{ i-ment Deposits (132) —
Recent Iron Reductlon In Tiled soils (6)
_ Drilt Depoelts (B3) _
Thln Muck Surface (C7)
_ ::..i::�i::" °_+i , ::I::::ri ; ,;: 4 Imagery (O9)
_ Algal Mator Crr.--- (TI _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
�t_ti ::' ;',��:: ,r_si i};�" : (D7)
_ Iron Deposits {Ba;
_ ;;: r i::'::' r: �) luon ( 4
_ Inundation Visible s;" ,aerial Imagery (BT)
� S—d : '.: A:.. r<rr1 (D.: )
_ Water -Stained Leary::-, (B9)
M-C.01::;:::rp:.:lAi :: i<:: ref (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-New-,ifl'='
Field Observations,
Surface Water f= -esent? Yes No X
Depth (Inches]: N/A
Water Table Present? Yes No X
depth (inches)_ >16"
Satura,tlon Present? Yes No X
depth pnches): >l 6"
wetland Hyrtology fent? Yep No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoing well. aerlal photos. previous inspectloits), If available;
Remarks-.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VELE 17ATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of prints.
Sampling Point, WL 1-C
50% of total cover; ?OM! ,)I lett c:u,"rir; _ 1 - Rapid gest for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) ! 2 - On -T- r r Ice Test Is >50%
i. Juniverus virginiana 10 Y FACU — 3 - Pmvalunte index Is :53,o'
2. Elaeagnus umbellata 5 Y UPL — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3 -
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
4-
Problematic Hydrophytic: Vegetation' (Explain)
S.
'Indicators of 1-ydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6 t►e prese-il r. -I css disturbed or problemat c,
1- = Total Carer
50% or total cover, 20% of token cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Absolute
D rrilnent Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet;
5
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% CoverSpecies?
Status
Number of Darnina nt Species
Y
1.
Carya ovata
25
Y
FACU
Thai Are oet., FACK or FAC;
3 (A)
2-
Juniperus virginiana
20
Y
FACU
�a g
Ca labra
15
Y
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
15
3-
Species Across All Strata_
(B)
4,
Quercus alba
10
Y
FACU
s-
Dios yros virginiana
p
5�
Y
FAC
Percent of Damina" Species
That Are o6L. FAC , or FAC.
20.0 (AS)
6-
75
= Tonal Carer
Prevalence Index worksheet;
Tota ria Cir of_ Multiply
by -
50% of total cover:
2094 of total oover
ORL 1 =
Sapling datum (Plot size: }
r: �. � x 2 =
i. Carya ovata
20
Y
FACU
FAC species x 3 =
rp%i, ecce
FACU species x 4 =
uP� species x-
t;olurm totals_ (A)
(B)
2- Juniperus virginiana 15 Y FACU
3- Ulmus alata 10 Y FACU
4, Rhus glabra 5 Y UPL
5.
6-
Prevalence index = EVA-
VA_50
50
- c:rr c:.rr'.r
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover; ?OM! ,)I lett c:u,"rir; _ 1 - Rapid gest for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) ! 2 - On -T- r r Ice Test Is >50%
i. Juniverus virginiana 10 Y FACU — 3 - Pmvalunte index Is :53,o'
2. Elaeagnus umbellata 5 Y UPL — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3 -
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
4-
Problematic Hydrophytic: Vegetation' (Explain)
S.
'Indicators of 1-ydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6 t►e prese-il r. -I css disturbed or problemat c,
1- = Total Carer
50% or total cover, 20% of token cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1- Lonicera japonica
5
Y
FAC
2. Allium canadense
5
Y
FACU
3- Asplenium playneuron
5
Y
FACU
a- Cv_perus esculentus
5
Y
FACW
5
6-
7-
10.
ii,
Woody Vlne Stral= (Plot size:
1.
3,
4..
50% of total corer:
50% of total cover,
rs here or on a separate
20 =Total Cower
20% of total cover
N
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 -r°+ a, -rare it nei h' and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or largler In cL�,!:T:M!Qr ;r brcr,sl 1- C' (31-I ;-')F#H)
Sapling - Woody plants. excluding wormy v,., es
approximately 20ft(6 m) or more in hei= -- and ess
than 3 in- (7-6 cm) DBH.
Shrub- WoWy .:l-r.-r.:s
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6,m) in €reignz.
Hein - fi.l erbart .�t:s ; xx,-'.xP:�rriy, -taunts, including
her',:rir:,:m-,, vines, : 4::; r::IL!", c) :; rr:. and woody
':H.171.} ..; C1,-Ot WOo(ry V1-1r::z i:•ti% It -ail approxlrrialdly 3
fl, (1 m) in height.
Woody Ane -AII woody v r,es, regardless of height,
Hydrophytic
= Total Carer Vegetation
_ 2004 of total cover.
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Poiret: WL 1-C
Profile Descrll}tion: I Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators,)
Depth `,1 trix Redox Features
flnchav color (mast) '9 Celor (mass) 114 Tvlos' Texture Remarks
0-3 1OYR 2/1 100 loam
3-9 l OYR 4/2 100 sandy loam
9-16 1OYR 5/4 60 1OYR 5/2 40 sandy clay loam Few small Mn conc.
C=Concentration, ❑-Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MF`Masked Sand Grains- 2Locetion= PL=Pore Lining, M= latrix.
Hydric Sail Indicators;
Histosd (Al)
Histic Epipedon 'A2)
_ Black Hlstic (A:}:i
Hydrogen Suffice- A4)
Slrrhl c -d I -i �
2cmN't :::'..1v:(L.RRN)
_ Deple^L:d -.: UIV I J: t :..r I-i:_cr ;A11 }
Thick Clark Surface W 2.1
Srrr:`y `t4.i::k,, Pl rc P. f.S' ; (LRF N,
Pa1LRA1A7.1.18}
Sti.r,-,,r:.N'.3tr:•: fS4:
_ Strippev 41 -.Ix :v?i
Rostrictive Layer (if observedl.
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8.a (MLRA 14 7, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (89) IMLRA 14r, 140)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Mow (F3)
Redox Dark 9urFace(F6)
_ Depleled Dark Surface (FT)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Ircn-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Ir1LRA 1361
Umbric Surface (F13: X1`0 LRA 136, 122)
Pledmonl Floodplaln . }Is r-1::; NLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (Ml -RA 127, 147)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil
2 crn Munk Gh1 v; (M1 LRA 147)
Coast Praile ,edcx (,416)
JIVILRA 141, 14HI
Piedmor- F cod tiro Soils (F1 2-:
(r69LRA 1-36, 1411
-..eery Sl- .i c',".t C=a,< vi -ave — 12:
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0: r:' P.',:: ',y::-,} G:, r+ must be present,
.i-ilesa vlstLrbed or ordblematic_
Hydric Soil Present-? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Test Pit at Upland Sample Plot 1-C
Soil Profile at Upland Sample Plot 1-C
Hornet Project Sample Plot 1-C
Mecklenburg County, NC Upland
�ne�o'r�e / DESIGN • Post Offs- Dox 163, Hiq6 A..k, NC 2Scvl • (T(: -L) 240-0793

1 L 1
Ac
w'
.
a�
j�
.i
�•
psi'. - .�
.�., •rte. . �' �
1� - �.r. ��
. � l.r . _ k .i -', � , e
Ilk
�_
a♦
�� ��V
1 L 1
Ac
w'
.
a�

Au
tj
OL
T fie, 3G``�xC � •�`� � °,�� !�� � ~ �, �,�� "� � �
ZJ
..Y
t L r
t
r
F C'
3
Aix. s
s+ ,,, . �. „fir.. • .. _ '.,>�:."

FlIll
-q t N. �
q y I =
x j,
a
K Ik I 1e i j
ae
1
D lb
'F

WETLAND DCTERMINATI 0N DATA FORfUI — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProJect1Slte: Hornet Project C;,tylcoo rty; Mecklenburg County, NC Sampling fate. 5-11-15
ApplicantfOwner: Frito-Lay Inc. State: NC Sampling Point; WL 2-A
Investigator(s)- Craig R. Wyant RLA Section, Township, Range- N/A
Landform (hilisiope, terrace, etc.); Hillslove Local relief (concave. convex, noiae.); None Slope ); 2-8%
Subreglon (LRR or MLRA); Lat; 35.1167 Long: -80.9364 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name_ IrA Iredell fine sandy loam, 0-1% slopes NWI classification-. Upland
Are dlrnatJc f hydrologic conditions on We site typical for this ume of year? Yes X No (If nor explaln In Remarks.)
Are Vegetatlon Nn • Soll No . or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation NO , soil NO , or Hydrology NO naturally problematic' (I F needed, explain any answiirs in Remarks-)
SUMMARY' OF FINDINGS - attach site map showing sampling point fooations, transects, important features, etc.
Ver�+tallw Present? Yeas X No is the Sampled Area
Soll Present'? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes NO X
Hydrology Present? Yes i No X
Remarks-.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrok Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two requred)
qtors frrinlrrium of one is recitilred: check
all that aoolvl
_ Stitface Soli Cracks (1367
',(`titer (Al) _
Tnie Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ sparsely Vegetated Concave Sm -Face (EB)
I -I .:il1 Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (131M
_ SALF ation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Wa or Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Wiaw Table (C2)
_ S{ i-ment Deposits (132) —
Recent Iron Reductlon In Tiled soils (6)
_ Drilt Depoelts (B3) _
Thln Muck Surface (C7)
_ ::..i::�i::" °_+i , ::I::::ri ; ,;: 4 Imagery (O9)
_ Algal Mator 0'r.--- rr`ul) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
�t_ti ::' ;',��:: ,r_si i};�" : (D7)
_ Iron Deposits {Ba;
_ ;;: r i::'::' r: �) luon ( 4
_ Inundation Visible s;" ,aerial Imagery (BT)
� � :=i : '.: A:(D.: )
_ Water -Stained Leary::-, (B9)
M-C.01::;:::rp:.:lAi :: i<:: ref (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-New-,ifl'='
Field Obset'vations;
Surface Water f= -esent? Yes No X
Depth (Inches]: N/A
Water Table Present? Yes No X
depth (inches)_ >16"
Satura,tlon Present? Yes No X
depth pnches): >l 6"
wetland Hyrtology fent? Yep No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoing well. aerlal photos. previous inspectloits), If available;
Remarks-.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plat size: )
1. Juniperus virginiana
Absdute Dtcminant Indlotor
% CoverSpecies? Status
30 Y FACU
z- Fraxinus pennsylvanica
25
Y
FACV
3- Diospyros virginiana
15
Y
FAC
4. Ulmus alata
15
Y
FACU
6-
85 = Tonal Carer
Sampling Point, WL 2-A
Dominance Test worksheet;
Number of Dominant Species
Thal Pre r; GL. FACK or FAC: 7 (A)
Total Number of Dtxrrnant
14
Species Across All Strata_ (B)
Raroent of Dominant Specles 500
That Are OBL, FACW, or F .
AC: (AS)
Prevalence Index worksheet;
Tota ria Cir of_ Multiply by -
50%
y50% of total cover: 20% of total oover
ORL 1
Sapling datum (Plot size_ }
Asplenium playneuron
5
Y
F`� 's "�
x 2
1, Juniperus virginiana
10
Y
FACU
ecce
Cyperus esculentus
a- Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
Y
FAC
s
FAC species
x 3
3- Quercus phellos
10
Y
FAC
FAdCU species
x 4
7-
URL species
x 5 =
4.
Column Totals_
(#) (6)
Rrevalence index = VA
30 � 'rdP. * ncvL,. r.
50% of Ictal carer: ?[] -A Icbi c:u c,P _ 1 - Rapid gest for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: } X 2 - On -T- r r Ice Test Is >50%
1. Elaeagnus umbellate 0 y I jpj, — 3 - Plmvalunce Index Is X3,0'
2. Juniperus virainiana 10 Y FACU — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3 -
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
4-
Problematic Hydrophytic: Vegetation' (Explain)
5.
'Indicators of 1-ydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6- tie prese-il L. -I cssdlsturbed orproblematic,
200 Total Cower
50% or trial cover, 20% of total comer.
Herb Stratum (Plot: size
1-
Asplenium playneuron
5
Y
FACU
2.
Lonicera japonica
5
Y
FAC
3-
Cyperus esculentus
5
Y
FACW
4-
Galium aparine
5
Y
FACU
5.
6-
7-
$,
35 =Total Caner
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plat sire: }
1. Campsis radicans 5 Y FAC
3.
4.
Total Carer
50% of fatal cover, 20,14 of total cover.
rs here or on a separate sheet,)
N
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 -r`+ a, -rare it nei h' and 3 in.
(7,6cm) crlarWr In ewa:T M!Qr ;I brcr,sl 1" C' (31-1 :")PHi
Sapling- Woody plants. excluding wW., y vi - les
approximately 20ft(6 m) or more in hei= -- and ess
than 3 in- (7-6 cm) DBH.
Shrub- UUot�dy.:l-r.r.:s r:�c: r.:: rq •ar��:�d•y ,iiz::,
approximately 3 to tax ft (1 to 6,m) in €reignz.
Heil: -A.l erbart.�t:s ; xx,-'.xP:�rriy, -Rants, including
her: tjc-,:m-,, vIn es, : 4:_;r::IL!"- )',i e- L!. and woody
:: HT .: r:t3c:t'}t Woo(N �.°i ius (--% W -j-1 approximately 3
ft 0 m) in height.
Wroodyvine -AII woody vres, regardless of height,
Hydrophytic
Vegetalion
Present? Yes X Nc
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Poiret: WL 2-A
Profile Description: I Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,)
Depth
`,°l trix
Redox Features
(Inchesr
cola (mast)
'9 Cdcr (mass) 114 Type'
Texture Remarks
0-2
10YR 3/2
100
sandy loam
2-8
l OYR 4/4
75 l OYR 4/3
sandy clay loam
8-12
1OYR 4/4
75 l OYR 4/2
sandy clay loam
12-16
l OYR 4/4
100
clay Few small Mn conc
C=Concentration, ❑-depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MF`Masked Sand Grains- 2Locetion= PL=Pore Lining, M= latrix.
Hydric Sail Indicators;
Histosd (Al)
Histic Fpipedon 'A2)
_ Black Hlstic (A:}:i
Hydrogen Suffice- A4)
Slrrhl c -d I -i
2cmN't :::'..1v:(L.RRN)
_ Deple^r:d -.: U& I J: t :..r I-i:xr ;A11 }
Thick Dark Surface W 2.1
Srrr::y 't4.i:ek+; r./ rc}'rl f. S' ; (LRF N,
Pal L RA 14 7, 14 8)
Sar c -y Gleyed Matr :•: f S4:
_ Strippev 41 -.Ix :v?i
Rostrictluc Layer (if observed).
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8.a (MLRA 14 7, 148)
_
Thin Dark Surface (89) IMLRA 14r, 140)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Wow (F3)
Redox Dark SurFace(F6)
_ Depleled Dark Surface (FT)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Ira7-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Ir1LRA 1361
Umbric Surtace (F13: {MLRA 136, 122)
Pledmonl Floodplaln . }Is r-1::; (M LRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (Ml -RA 127, 147)
Indcators for Problematic Hydric Soil
2 crn Muck Gh1 v; (Ml LRA 147)
Coast Praile ,edcx (,416)
IIrILRA 141, 14HI
Piedmcr- F ccd tiro Soils (F1 2-:
(r69LRA 1-36, 1411
-..eery Sl- .i c%%, C a,< vi -ace — 12:
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0: r~ P.'1:: '1y::-.} G:, r+ must be preseni.
J -iless vlStLrbed ororoblematic_
Hydric Soil Present-? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Test Pit at Upland Sample Plot 2-A
Soil Profile at Upland Sample Plot 2-A
Hornet Project
Mecklenburg County, NC
Sample Plot 2-A
Upland
�ne�ov2e / UtSI(;N • P -f O{{i- Boa 163, Higk A..k, INC 28('77 • (7(:-1) 240-0793

r.: 1
�I oil .+'• �`,'-. '
it
t
L l
Y
i
F
A�11
c
*
6.
+
jar' -i a x -

took_.. k
Y
-A
• o
-4.
� a
1
f
took_.. k
Y
-A

NP
lax -
FJ
y
7
--
..1,, r. _ mx
� rMv
4 ,
F A 6 A4 � .. �1 - s t l y'
k? �
k jr; ,
}

WETLAND DCTERMINATI 0N DATA FORfUI — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProJect1Slte: Hornet Project C,tylcoonty Mecklenburg County, NC Sampling Date: 5-8-15
ApplicantfOwner: Frito-Lay Inc. Vie; NC sarnplln,g Point; WL 2-B
Investigator(s)- Craig R. Wyant RLA Section, Township, Range, N/A
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc); Depression in Upland Local relief (concave. convex, not*); Concave slope (%); 0-2%
Subreglon (LRR or MLRA); Lat; 35.1169 Long: 80.9362 Dau n:
Soil Map unit name, IrA Iredell fine sandy loam, 0-1% slopes NWI classification-. Upland
Are dIrnat1c f hydrologic conditions on die site typleal for this time of year? Yes X No (If nor explaln In Remarks)
Are Vegetation Nn . Soll No . or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation NO , Soil NO , or Hydrology NO naturally problematic' (I F neededr explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARYOF FINDINGS - Attach site leap showing sampling point l ations, transects, important features, etc.
r hy�5r: `a utptallw Present? Yes X Na is the Sampled) Area
5411 Present'? Yes X Na within a Wetland? Yes X No
4':: r`iriA Hydrology Present? Yes __X_ No
Remarks-.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrok Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two retired)
gtors frninlrnum of one reut■red:
check all that awhA
_ St* face Soll Cracks (1367
X Sur n :r ',A`ater (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
X H-.:il1 Water Table (A2)
X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_X Drainage Patterns (131[1)
X S:.rlu ation (A3)
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
X Moss Trim Lines (1316)
X V'i a or Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_X Dry -Season Wiaw Table (C2)
— s{=rl.-Ment Deposits (132
Recent Iron Reduction In Tiled soils (6)
_ R;I; I,,I --. ' ...fir} (.°
_ Drilt Deposits (B3)
_ Thln Mink surface (G7)
X::ri ; %:: 4 Imagery (O9)
_ Algal Mat or Q'r.--- ff`I
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ S°..- Icd ::' '-,I I::° -"(,(I I I sI — -: tD7]
_ Iron Deposits (Ba;
C Iuon (0
_ Inundation Visible s;" ,aerial Imagery (BT)
_ In", d :'.: A:.. r:=rr1
X Water -Stained Lea,::-, (B9)
.2L M-r:'rp:..IAi :: I<:: Ief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC-New-,i
Field Obset'vations;
Surface Water Piesent? Yes X No
Depth (Inches]: 0-175
Water Table Present? Yes X No
depth (inches)_ 277
Saturatlon Present? Yes X No
Depth Qnches)- 0„
wetland Hyrtology fent? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerlal photos. previous mspectloixs), If available;
Remarks-.
Buttressing on trees.
US Army- Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VELE rATION (Five Strata) — Use sdentiflc nates of plants.
6-
70 = Tonal Cover
50% of total coaxer: 20% of total cover:
Sapling stratum (Plot size_ }
1, Quercus phellos 30 Y FAC
z- Ulmus americana 10 Y FACW
4a
5.
50% of total Cover: APir [)I Ic:lr c zy c
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1
1.
2.
3-
4-
5.
- " c:rr +'over
Sampling Point_ WL 2-B
Dominance Test worksheet;
Absolute
Dominant Indlo or
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
% C�o,rer
ecies7
Status
1. Quercus phellos
25
Y
FAC
2- Populus deltoides
25
Y
FAC
3- Ulmus americana
20
Y
FACM
4.
than 3 in- (7-6 cm) DBH.
FAC species x 3 =
6-
70 = Tonal Cover
50% of total coaxer: 20% of total cover:
Sapling stratum (Plot size_ }
1, Quercus phellos 30 Y FAC
z- Ulmus americana 10 Y FACW
4a
5.
50% of total Cover: APir [)I Ic:lr c zy c
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1
1.
2.
3-
4-
5.
- " c:rr +'over
Sampling Point_ WL 2-B
Dominance Test worksheet;
Number of Dominant species
6
Thal Are OGL, FACK or FAG;
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
6
Species Across All Strata_
(B)
Pard of Dornnant Speales
1000
That Are OBL, FACW, or F AC:
. (AS)
Prevalence Index worksheet;
3-
Tota ,1 Cuytr of- Multipty by-
yDBL
061-suedes x 1 =
4
SPCC cs .� K. 2
than 3 in- (7-6 cm) DBH.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
6
UPL species x 5
approximately a to 20 ft (1 to 6,m) in €reigns.
Column Totals_ (A)
(B)
Prevalence index = EVA
1 - Rapid gest for Hydrophyfic Vegetation
X 2 - On -y- r r 1Ce Test Is >50%
3 - Plmvalunce Index Is X3,0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Proadde supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of t-ydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be presc-,1 L. -I css disturbed or problemat c.
Definition% c] 1 Five Veastation Strata:
50% of total Corer: 20% of tc.1
'—
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines..
Herb stratum (Plot size= )
approximately 20 ft (6 -r`+ ), -rare it n e i ht and 3 r.
1-
(7.6 cm) or larger In cL'd"T:M!Qr cit tar Cr, $1 t' .0 (31-1 :: -":Hl
2=
Sapling - Woody plants. excluding wW., y °,,i.ies
3-
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in he i= -r ar d es s
4
than 3 in- (7-6 cm) DBH.
5,
Shrub- UUC�Gdy.:l-r.r.:s r:�c: r.:: rq •ar��:�d•y ,i,z:ti,
6
approximately a to 20 ft (1 to 6,m) in €reigns.
7-
HOT -fi.l herpart.)t:s --1 -i-,x°:)(:riy; giants. including
8,
hvines, : 4:_; r::IL!"- )',i e- L!. and woody
.:HTr.:} ..XC1,—ptWOOCy'•°in!s c--%11--,-1approxlma1ely3
g
ft 0 m} in height.
= Total Coaxer
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover-
Woody
over
Woody Vine Stratum (Plat We: }
1. Toxicodendron radicans 5 Y FAC
3.
4.
5 � Total Corer
50% of total corer, 20°4 of total cover
rs here or on a separate sheet.)
Woody vine -All woody v r,es, regardless of height,
Hydrophytic
Vegetation)
Present? Yes X Nc
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WL 2-B
Profile Description: I Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or oonfirm the absence of Indicators,)
Depth VlatriX Redox Features
(Inchesp color (mast) % Cdcr (mass) 114 TypeTexture Remarks
0-2 1 QYR 2/1 100 muck
2-7 1 QYR 4/1 60 7.5YR 4/4 40 -clay
7-16 1 OYR 4/1 75 7.5 YR 4/4 25 sandy clay
CmConcentration, D -Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, M& --Masked Sand Grains- 2 Locetion: PL=Porc- Lining, M=Wlatrix.
Hydric Soil Indilcators.
— Histosd (Al)
_X Dark Surface (S7)
— Hisfic Epipedon 'A2)
— Po.lyvalue Below Surface (S8 (M L RA 14 7, 148)
Black Hlstic (A3'i
X Thin Dark Surface (89) IMLRA 14r, 140)
Hydrogen Suffice- A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Sir,lil k-- I I
Deplimed Wow (F3)
2 r�-r l"A -: -. : I --: (L R R N)
Redox Dark Surface(F6)
DePJe^ L! Ll —L! ("IV [ J x :e., -1-,:x.- ;Ai I
Depleted Dark Surface (7)
Thick Dark Surface W 2.1
X Redox Depressions (F8)
r-::+; M.j::k,,- r./ r c., P. I f S': (LRF N,
Iron -Manganese Masses (F 12) (LRR N,
Pal L RA 1A 7, 1.18
IWILRA 1361
S -,,r:. -y Gleed rV .3 tr S4:
Umbric Surface (F13: 1`0 L RA 136, 122)
Pledmorol Floodplaln s f.- 1::: (M LRA 148)
Stripp.--- Vlauix (S
Red Parent Material (F21) (Ml -RA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if ab served):
Ty -,:e sandy clay loam
IX::11- 6 inches
7,ema-Ks:
Inclicatcws for Problematic Hydric Soil
— 2 crn Muck GAl ^-: Rol LRA 147)
— Coast Praile ,edcx (A16)
JIVILRA 141, 14x3
— Piedmor -. F ccd ai n Soils (F1 2-:
(rLqLRA 136, 1411
.-..-ery Sl- G.1 c%%, C a, < v i --ace 12:
' N -i L! - : .- x pi .-j i -i r- H L! 'T' H. I S
3 Indiicatofs of hydrophytic vegetation and
-0.' L:' P.'1:: '1 Y:: - D Gr, r+ must be present,
i -i le ss -- iS tL rbed or E)rolblematic-
Hydric Soil Present-? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Test Pit at Wetland Sample Plot 2-13
Soil Profile at Wetland Sample Plot 2-B
Hornet Project Sample Plot 2-B
Mecklenburg County, NC Wetland
ti�ze�o�2e / UE.SI(;N • P -f O{{i- B— 163, Higk A..k, INC 28077 0 [phone]

y , � !
s.
T i b
P. �Y4W,

Jul, w
�tr
R fill
;1, l

WETLAND DCTERMINATI 0N DATA FORfUI — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProJect1Slte: Hornet Project C;,tylcoo rty; Mecklenburg County, NC Sampling fate. 5-11-15
ApplicantfOwner: Frito-Lay Inc. State: NC Sampling Point; WL 3-A
Investigator(s)- Craig R. Wyant RLA Section, Township, Range- N/A
Landform (hilisiope, terrace, etc.); Hillslove Local relief (concave. convex, noiae.); None Slope (m); 2-8%
Subreglon (LRR or MLW1); Lat; 35.1166 Long: -80.9374 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name_ IrB Iredell fine sandy loam, 1-8% slopesI classification-. Upland
Are dlrnatJc f hydrologic conditions on tire site typical for this ume of year? Yes X No (If nor explaln In Remarks.)
Are Vegetalon Nn • Soll No . or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation NO , soil NO , or Hydrology NO naturally problematic' (I F needed, explain any answiirs in Remarks-)
SUMMARY' OF FINDINGS - attach site map showing sampling point fooations, transects, important features, etc.
Ver�+tallw Present? Yeas X No is the Sampled) Area
Soll Present'? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes NO X
Hydrology Present? Yes i No X
Remarks-.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrok Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two requred)
r:,.ltors frrinlrrium of one is recitilred: check
all that aoolvl
_ Stitface Soli Cracks (1367
',(`titer (Al) _
Tnie Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ sparsely Vegetated Concave Sm -Face (EB)
I -I .:il1 Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (131M
_ SALF ation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Wa or Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Wiaw Table (C2)
_ S{ i-ment Deposits (132) —
Recent Iron Reductlon In Tiled soils (C6)
_ Drilt Deposits (B3) _
Thln Muck Surface (C7)
_ ::..i::�i::" °_+i , ::I::::ri ; ,;: 4 Imagery (O9)
_ Algal Mator 0'r.--- rr`ul) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
�t_ti ::' ;',��:: ,r_si i};�" : (D7)
_ Iron Deposits {Ba;
�) luon ( 4
_ Inundation Visible s;" ,aerial Imagery (BT)
� � :=i : '.: A:(D.: )
_ Water -Stained Leary::-, (B9)
M-C.01::;:::rp:.:lAi :: i<:: ref (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-New-,ifl'='
Field Obset'vations;
Surface Water f= -esent? Yes No X
Depth (Inches]: N/A
Water Table Present? Yes No X
depth (inches)_ >16"
Saturatlon Present? Yes No X
Depth pnches): >l 6"
wetland Hyrtology fent? Yep No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Rewrded Data (stream gauge, monitoing well. aerlal photos. previous inspectloits), If available;
Remarks-.
US Army- Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VELE rATION (Five Strata) — Use sdentfflc narnes of plants.
Sampling Point_ WL 3-A
50% of total cover: -A Ic:lr c:u c,P _ 1 - Rapid gest for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plat size: } X 2 - On -r- r r Ice Test Is >50%
1. Elaeagnus umbellate 0 y ITS — 3 - Plmvalunce index Is X3,0'
2. Juniperus virainiana 5 Y FACU — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3_ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
4_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
5.
'Indicators of I-ydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6- tie prese-il L. -I cssdislurbed orproblematic.
15 = Total Cower
50% of total cower: 209 of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
i-
Absolute DornInant Indloator
Dominance Test worksheet;
Y
FACU
Tree Stratum (Pleat size: )
% CoverSpecies?
Status
Number of Domina nt Species
FAC
FAC
4_
i. Juniverus virginiana
60 Y
FACU
Thal Are Oet-, FACK or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
6
12
(A)
2_ Ulmus alata 20 Y FACU
Quercus 10 N FAC
3_ phellos
6_
Species Across All strata_
(B)
4. Diospyros virginiana 5 N FAC
Percent of Domnant Species
5
That Are OBL, FACW, or FLAC:
50.0
(AS)
6-
95 = Tonal Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet;
Tots; ,1 Cc of- Multiptyby
50% of total corer:
20% of total cover
DBLscLvia � x 1 =
V
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: }
!
F.,., O `� x.3 -
1. Diospyros virginiana
10 Y
FAC
�
FAC speciciee s x 3 =
-s
2-
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5
4a
Column Totals_ (#)
(B)
5.
6_
Prevalence Index = EVA
10 zc:lr _ c:.+cr
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: -A Ic:lr c:u c,P _ 1 - Rapid gest for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plat size: } X 2 - On -r- r r Ice Test Is >50%
1. Elaeagnus umbellate 0 y ITS — 3 - Plmvalunce index Is X3,0'
2. Juniperus virainiana 5 Y FACU — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3_ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
4_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
5.
'Indicators of I-ydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6- tie prese-il L. -I cssdislurbed orproblematic.
15 = Total Cower
50% of total cower: 209 of total cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
i-
Asplenium playneuron
5
Y
FACU
2-
3_
Lonicera japonica
Vitis rotundifolia
5
5
Y
Y
FAC
FAC
4_
Galium aparine
5
Y
FACU
5.
Diospyrosvirginiana
5
Y
FAC
6_
7_
25 =Total Coaxer
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover-
Woody
over
Woody Vine Stratum (Plat size: }
il. Campsis radicans 5 Y FAC
2- Lonicera japonica 5 Y FAC
3,
4.
10 = Total Cover
50% of total cover, 20,14 of total cover
rs here or on a separate sheet,)
N
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximately 20 ft (6 -r`+ ), -rare it n e i ht and 3 r.
(7,6 cm) or larwr In CL•,!—TM!Qr cit brCP $1 1- C' c31-1 :: -":Hl
Sapling - Woodlyplants. excluding wW., y vi - les
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in he i= -r ar d es s
than 3 in_ (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub- UUt�Gdy.:l-r.r.:s r:�c: r.:: rq •ar��:�d•y ,iiz::,
approximately a to 20 ft ( 1 to 6,m) in €reigarr.
MOTh -A.l erbart.�t:s ; xx,-'.xP:�rriy, -Rants. including
her: rir:.:m-,, vines, : 4:_; r::IL!"- )',i e- L!. and woody
;: HT .: r:;3c:1-pt tiNOOo(N �.°i'ws c--% IF a-1 approxlmalely 3
ft f 1 m) in height.
Woody Ano -Aal woody v r,es, regardless of height,
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X Nc
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Rohr: WL 3-A
Profile Description: I Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or oonfirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth `,1 trix Redox Features
(Inchesr Cola (mastl % Golor (mass) % Type Lire" Texture Remarks
0-1 1OYR 4/3 100 loam
1-4 1 OYR 4/4 100 fine sandy loam
4-16 1OYR 4/4 75 10YR 3/3 25 sandy clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, ❑=depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains -
Hydric Sail Indicators;
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon 'A2)
_ Black Hlstic (A:}:i
Hydrogen Suffice- A4)
Slrrhl c -d I -i
2cmN't :::'..1v:(L.RRN)
_ DeplesL:d -.: UIV I J: t :..r I-,:xr ;A11 }
Thick Claris Surface W 2.1
Srrr:`y `t4.i::k,, P' rc P. f. S' ; (LRR N,
Pr1LRA1A7.1.18}
S,r:.-y Gleyed N'3tr:•: fS4:
_ Strippev Ma -.1x :v?i
Rostrictive Layer (if observedl.
nH•.rl:
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=1Vlatrix.
Indcators for Problematic Hydric Soil
Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cn Muck ,:Al v; Rol LRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8.a (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Praile ,edcx (A16)
_ Thin Dark Surface (89) IMLRA 147, 140) JMLRA 141, 14HI
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmor- F cod- tiro Soils (F19)
_ Depleted Morax (F3) (rs9 LRA 136, 1411
Redox Dark 9urFace (F6) _-..'ery Sl- G.l c%%, C3, < v1-3ce JF12)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (7) :}I -,L:- ;=xr}kri r HL:'rH.I :S
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Il1LRA 1361
Urnbric Surface (F13: �relLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators ofhydrophyticvegetation and
Pledmonl Floodplaln . } Is (.- 1::: ('MLRA 148) -0. L:' P.',:: '1 ::-.} G: - r+ must be Ixesenl,
Red Parent Material (F21) (Ml -RA 127, 147) 1-1less vlStLrbed or problematic_
Hydric Soil Present-? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Test Pit at Upland Sample Plot 3-A
Soil Profile at Upland Sample Plot 3-A
Hornet Project Sample Plot 3-A
Mecklenburg County, NC Upland
ti�ze�o�2e / UtSI(;N • P -f O{{i- B— 163, Higk A..k, INC 28077 0 704) 240-0793

1r !w1a
A
IL
jF

WETLAND DCTERMINATI 0N DATA FORfUI — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProJect1Slte: Hornet Project C;,tylcoo rty; Mecklenburg County, NC Sampling fate. 5-11-15
ApplicantfOwner: Frito-Lay Inc. State: NC Sampling Point; WL 4-A
Investigator(s)- Craig R. Wyant RLA Section, Township, Range- N/A
Landform (hilisiope, terrace, etc.); Hillslove Local relief (concave. convex, noiae.); None Slope ); 2-8%
Subreglon (LRR or MLW1); Lat; 35.1157 Long: -80.9369 Dales:
Soil Map Unit Name_ IrB Iredell fine sandy loam, 1-8% slopes NWI classification-. Upland
Are dlrnatJc f hydrologic conditions on tire site typical for this ume of year? Yes X No (If nor explaln In Remarks.)
Are Vegetalon Nn • Soll No . or Hydrology No significantly c1sturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation NO , soil NO , or Hydrology NO naturally problematic' (I F needed, explain any answiirs in Remarks-)
SUMMARY' OF FINDINGS - attach site map showing sampling point fooations, transects, important features, etc.
Ver�+tallw Present? Yeas No__X Is the Sampled Area
Sc511 Present's Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes Rio
X
Hydrology Present? Yes i No X
Remarl€s�
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrok Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two requred)
r:,.ltors frrinlrrium of one is recitilred: check
all that aoolvl
_ Stitface Soli Cracks (1367
(Al) _
Tnie Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ sparsely Vegetated Concave Sm -Face (EB)
I -I .:il1 Water Table (A2) _
Hydrogen sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (131M
_ SALF ation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Wa or Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Wiaw Table (C2)
_ S{ i-ment Deposits (132) —
Recent Iron Reductlon In Tiled soils (6)
_ Drilt Depoelts (B3) _
Thln Muck Surface (C7)
_ ::..i::�i::" °_+i , ::I::::ri ; ,;: 4 Imager+ (O9)
_ Algal Mator 0'r.--- rr`ul) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
�t_ti ::' ;',��:: ,r_si i};�" : (D7)
_ Iron Deposits {Ba;
�) luon ( 4
_ Inundation Visible s;" ,aerial Imagery (BT)
� � :=i : '.: A:(D.: )
_ Water -Stained Leary::-, (B9)
M-C.01::;:::rp:.:lAi :: i<:: ref (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-New-,ifl'='
Field Observations;
Surface Water f= -esent? Yes No X
Depth (Inches]: N/A
Water Table Present? Yes No X
depth (inches)_ >16"
Saturatlon Present? Yes No X
Depth pnches): >l 6"
wetland Hyrtology fent? Yep No X
(Includes capillary fringe)
Describe Rewrded Data (stream gauge, monitoing well. aerlal photos. previous inspectloits), If available;
Remarks-.
US Army- Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use sdentfflc narnes of plants.
Sampling Point: WL 4-A
50% of total carer. 20% of tol
Absolute
D rrilnenl Indloator
Dominance Test worksheet;
Tree datum (Pleat size: )
% CoverSpecies?
Status
Number of Domina nt Specifies
2.
i. Juniperus viriziniana
30
Y
FACU
Thal Are OeIL, FACK or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
,Species Across All Strata_
6 (A)
13 (B)
2- Quercus phellos 15 Y FAC
3- Diospyros virginiana 10 Y FAC
4. Ulmus alata 10 Y FACU
5- Fraxinus ennsylvanica
�
10
Y
FAC
Percent of Damnanl ,pedes
That Are OBL, FAC, or F.4C:
46.2 (AS)
6-
6-
be prese-il r. -I cssdislurlbed orproblematic.
75
Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet;
Tota ,1 Cover of- Multipty
by -
y50%
50%of total cover:
2094 of total oover.
0$1-soLvia � a€ 1 =
V
Sapling datum (Plot size_ t
F.,... r:r,{ { ` K. -
i, Prunus serotina
10
Y
FACU
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
URL species x 5
z- Juniperus virginiana 10 Y FACU
3- Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FAC
4a
Column Totals_ (A)
(R)
5.
Prevalence Index = VA
6-
25
= Tera r:.rr:r
Hydlrophytic Vegelallon Indicators:
50% of total carer. 20% of tol
1 - Rapid gest for Hydrophyfic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: }
! 2 - On -r- r r Ice Test Is >50%
'I. Elaeagnus umbel Iata 10 y ITPT,
— 3 - Plmvaltmce Index Is :53,0'
2.
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supping
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3-
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4 -
5.
'Indicators of 1-ydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6-
be prese-il r. -I cssdislurlbed orproblematic.
10 = Total Carer
50% of total carer: 20% of token cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size= )
i- Asplenium playneuron 5 Y FACU
2„ Lonicera japonica 5 Y FAC
3- Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 Y FACU
5,
6-
7-
I�.
10.
15 =Total Cover
50% of total corer: 20% of total oover
Woody Vl"e Skralum (Plot sire: }
-I. Lonicera ianonica 5 Y FA
5 � Total Carer
50% of total carer, 20,14 of total cower
rs here or on a separate sheet,)
N
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines.
approximately 20 ft (6 -r`+ ), -rare it n e i ht and 3 r.
(7,6 cm) or larger In cLd"T:M!Qr HI brCP $1 1- C' (31-1 :: -":Hl
Sapling - Woodlyplants. excluding wormy vi - les
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in he i= -r ar d es s
than 3 in- (7-6 cm) DBH.
Shfub- WoWy .:l-r.-r':s
approximately a to 20 ft (1 to 6,m) in €reigns.
Herts-fi.l erbart.�r;s; xx,-'.xP:�rriy,-Aants.including
her: rir:.:m-,, vI"es, : 4:_; r::IL!"- )',i e- L!. and woody
;:HT,.: L!XC1,-OtWOo(ry",°i�ws c--%1r-a-1approxIrrialeIy3
ft f 1 m) in height.
Woody Ano-AII woody vr,es, regardless of height,
Hydrophytic
Vogelallon
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point WL 4-A
Profile Description: I Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indic: .,inr s,l
Depth
`,latrix
Redox Features
(Inchesr
wire tmastl
11/0 [alar (manly Type
l nc Te,x!t.-re. Remarks
0-2
l OYR 4/3
100
sandy loam
2-10
l OYR 4/4
75 l OYR 3/3 25
sandy clay loam
10-16
7.5YR 4/4
100
clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration, ❑-depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, M Masked Sand Grains- 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M= latrix.
Hydric Solt Indicators;
Histosd (Al)
Histic Fpipedon 'A2)
_ Black Hlstic (A:}:i
Hydrogen Suffice- A4)
Slrrhl c -d I -i �
2cmN't :::'..1v:(L.RRN)
_ Deple^.r:r1 U& [� J: t :e., -1-,:x.- ;Al I
Thick Dark Surface W 2.1
Srrr::y M.i:ek+; r./ rc}'rl f.S' ; (LRR N,
Pal L RA 14 7, 148 )
Sar c -y Gleyed Metr :•: r 4
_ Gtrip;.ev 41 -.Ix :v?i
Rostrictivc Layer (if observedl.
na•�ss:
Dark Sur%ce (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface 9S8.a (MLRA 14 7, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (89) IMLRA 14r, 1.481
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark 9urFace (F6)
_ Depleled Dark Surface (FT)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Ircn-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Ir1LRA 1361
Umbric Surface (F13: X1`0 LRA 136, 122)
Pledmonl Floodplaln :_ } Is r-1::; NLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (Ml -RA 127, 147)
Indcattxs for Problematic Hytrin Soil
2 crn Muck Gh1 v; Rol LRA 147)
Coast Praile ,edcx (,4111)
IMLRA 141, 14HI
Piedmer- F ccd- tiro Soils (F19)
(r69LRA 13E , 1411
-..'ery Sl- G.l c%%, C a,< vi -ace JF12)
:}I ir: xpl-yi-i r Hz:'rH.I :S
31ncicatofs of hydrophytie vegetation and
0: r:' P.'1:: '1y::-.} c.,,>r+ must be preseni,
.i-ilesa vlstLrbed or problematic_
Hydric Soil Present-? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

R;''
HORNE
f x
e �' � rye•.. ��' i � l��„��rr�������� d•

v
( ,�, �,p, ',! �„ ,•�,,, r _. a .,,- �
-
t
Vn
c �`
��
v
( ,�, �,p, ',! �„ ,•�,,, r _. a .,,- �
-

OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
Transect S -IA — Ephemeral Non-RPW UT Steele Creek
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: Frito-Lay Inc. 2. Evaluator's Name: Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS
3. Date of Evaluation: March 11, 2015 4. Time of Evaluation: AM
5. Name of Stream: UT Steele Creek 6. River Basin: Catawba
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 1.0 acres 8. Stream Order: First
9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 250 if 10. County: Mecklenburg
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks): From 1-485 South of Charlotte, take Tryon Street exit
and turn South. Follow 1.5 miles to Nevada Boulevard on left. Turn left onto Nevada Boulevard. Follow approximatel .7 miles to site
on left..
12. Site Coordinates (if known): N35.11530, W80.93760
13. Proposed Channel Work (if any): unknown
14. Recent Weather Conditions: No rain in past 24 hours,
15. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny; 75 degrees
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES IQyes, estimate the water surface area:_
18. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES eO 19. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: 0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 50 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
50 % Forested 0 % Cleared / Logged 0_% Other
21. Bankfull Width: 5' 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 1'
23. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
24. Channel Sinuosity: X Straight _Occasional Bends _Frequent Meander _Very Sinuous _Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each
characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the
worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character
of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more
continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of
100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 34 Comments: Little to no flow occurs in eroded channel from small upland
drainage area
Evaluator's Signature �"1 Date May 11, 2015
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 05/03 .

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Transect S -1A — Ephemeral Non-RPW UT Steele Creek
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
0
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
0
U(no
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
�
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
0.4
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
0
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 — 5
0
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
�0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
�
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0 — 5
5
04
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
MRoot
14
depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0 — 5
4
H
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture or livestock production
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
0
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
0
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
M
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
0
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
C
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
04
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 — 4
0
00-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
34
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Transect S -IA Non-RPW Ditch
Date: May 11, 2015
Project/Site, Hornet Project
Latitude: 35.1153
Evaluator: Craig R. Wyant RLA
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude: -80.9376
Total Points:
Strqam Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at stinfemuf1ent 12.25phemeral
termittent Perennial
a -g- Quad ame:
ff Z, 19 or perennoai if � 30*
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_ 3.0
Absent Wreak Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0 1 2
j 1 2
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
O 1 2
1.5
4. Particle size of strearn substrate
no 1 2
3
S. ActivelreIict floodplain
fl 1 2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
tD 1 2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 1 2
Q 1 2
3
S. Headcuts
3
9. Grade control
0.5 1
1.6
10. Natural valley
0 O.S 1 1.6
Yes = 3
11. Second or greater order channel
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ 5.5 __)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
0.5
No = 0
1 1.5
es = 3
G. Biology (Subtotal = _ 3.75 e)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2 1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
3
TJ
2 1
1 2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1 2
3
22. Fish
M
0.5 1
1.5
23. Crayfish
.0
1 0.5 1
1.5
24. Amphibians
{D
0.5 1 1
1.5
25. Algae
tl
0.5 1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACJU = 0.75; BL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Nates:
Sketch:
1'
7'
4'

&r ''1 +$_
q
,Y
i

w,r,i!gz,�
`
1 it.
�'• "
-
�.YI•.F
_
• _ PP_f_' I's
�''
1 �
s
w'iJ
-

"3
'r 1.5f, ks •�W l f { r
t
. �' �#Ar
77�
ftpp
L
■T '. .
— s
or�4
• et,` R aa�i� u--ly�.y '+�L,'p'�Y °`�., �fy1 .. Ya
t s aF
T
' 1, HORNET;
f F