Wetland Delineation Report J&J Solar

Prepared by Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Prepared for X-ELIO
J&J Solar Ranch, LLC Wetland and Waters Determination Report

Limestone County, Texas
6.1.2023
J&J Solar Ranch Wetland and Waters Determination June 1, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1. Review Team and Contact Information .............................................................................................................................. 3
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1 Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1. Supplementary Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.2. Supplementary Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.3. Historical Aerial Imagery Review ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland and Waters Delineation Methods ......................................................................................... 7
3.2.1. Wetland Indicator Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1. Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation ................................................................................................................................. 8
4.1.1. Topography and Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.2. Soils Data ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.3. Water Resources Data ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
4.1.4. Aerial Imagery Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.3. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland Delineation Results ................................................................................................................. 14
4.3.1. Antecedent Precipitation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
4.4. Wetland and Waters Descriptions ..................................................................................................................................... 15
4.4.1. Jurisdictional Interpretation .................................................................................................................................................................. 15
5. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 22
7. APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 23
8. APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ..........................................................................................................................................24
9. APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATA SHEETS ...................................................................................................................................44
EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 1

List of Figures
Figure 1. Study Area (Imagery: 2022 NAIP) ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. J&J Solar Ranch is located east of STH 14, between County Roads 456 and 462 in Limestone County, Texas. . 6
Figure 3. Topography (LiDAR) is gently sloping with overland drainage generally directed to the south. ........................... 11
Figure 4. NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database Hydric Soil Classification identified thirty-one (31) non-Hydric and two
(2) Predominantly Non-Hydric soil units within the Study Area. ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Three riverine features, one freshwater forested/shrub wetland, and 11 freshwater ponds were identified within
the Study Area. ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Antecedent precipitation totals were lower than normal for the preceding three-month period. The region was
experiencing moderate drought conditions as of April 2023. ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. Delineated wetlands, northern portion of Study Area. ............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 8. Delineated wetlands, southeastern portion of Study Area. .................................................................................................... 20
Figure 9. Delineated wetlands, southwestern portion of Study Area. ................................................................................................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1. NRCS Soils and Hydric Rating .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. Aerial Imagery and Antecedent Precipitation ................................................................................................................................ 10
Table 3. Wetland Descriptions................................................................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 4. Upland Confirmation Points .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 5. Stream Descriptions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide X-ELIO with an evaluation of potential existing wetlands and
jurisdictional waters within the Study Area (Figure 1) that may preclude, constrain, or otherwise affect
development of J&J Solar Ranch. The Study Area encompasses all potential locations for the proposed solar
facility, including associated access roads, and seeks to avoid potential wetland impacts.
EOR conducted an initial screening and onsite wetland review of the Study Area to evaluate the presence
or absence of wetlands and other jurisdictional waters within the Study Area.
Evaluation of the Study Area began with an initial review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) hydric soil classification data. Additionally, offsite evaluation measures
included review of historical aerial imagery, Texas Rivers and Streams GIS web layer, and high-resolution
digital elevation data.
The desktop (Level 1) review identified several stream systems and connected wetlands. The desktop review
identified additional features with the potential to contain wetland hydrology or stream characteristics. A
Level 2 onsite delineation, performed by EOR on May 15-17, 2023, found that the Study Area contains 30
wetlands and two (2) streams.
EOR recommends submittal of this report to USACE for concurrence of delineated wetlands and waters.
Design should avoid impacts to wetlands and waters to the maximum extent practicable. If proposed
impacts are less than 0.10 acre, the project is likely authorized under Nationwide Permit 51 (NWP 51)
without need for pre-construction notification to USACE. If impacts greater than 0.10 acre are unavoidable,
EOR recommends further consultation regarding design specifics to determine next steps. Likely, an
Approved Jurisdictional Determination should be requested from USACE to determine if impacted waters
are regulated, if the project may be authorized under NWP 51 with pre-construction notification, or if an
Individual Permit may be required. Individual Permits require significant review and consultation with the
USACE and other agencies, including issue of public notice.
1.1. Review Team and Contact Information

The delineation was performed by Hallie Brychel, Kimberly Walsh, and Ethan Hau.
Wetland Delineators
Hallie Brychel, Environmental Scientist Ethan Hau, Environmental Scientist
hbrychel@eorinc.com ehau@eorinc.com
Kimberly Walsh, Environmental Engineer

kwalsh@eorinc.com
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. (EOR)

1334 Dewey Court
Madison, WI 53703
608.839.4422

Figure 1. Study Area (Imagery: 2022 NAIP)

2. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project includes construction of J&J Solar Ranch, LLC within an approximately 778.5-acre site
in Limestone County, Texas. J&J Solar Ranch is located just east of the intersection of Highway 14 and
Limestone County Road 462 in Mexia, Texas. All of the project parcels are included in the Study Area except
the portion of the southernmost parcel consisting of forested floodplain. The Study Area intersects Original
Texas Land Survey Abstract Labels A-30, A-10, and A-29, A-17. The Study Area is within 8 parcels (Figure
2). The construction of the solar facility will take place on private lands, with potential access roads crossing
the right-of-way. The majority of the Study Area is used for agricultural production and grazing cattle.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation

EOR employed an initial screening process using the National Wetland Inventory and SSURGO soil hydric
classification layers, topography (LIDAR) data, and aerial imagery to determine if there is potential for
wetland impacts from a proposed project.
3.1.1. Supplementary Data Collection
The following data were collected and reviewed prior to reviewing historical aerial imagery:
• Texas statewide high resolution digital elevation data and 2-foot elevation contours (Figure 3)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) SSURGO hydric soil classification data (Figure 4)
• National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data (Figure 5)
• Texas Rivers and Streams Web Layer (Figure 5)
• National Hydrography Dataset waterbodies (Figure 5)
3.1.2. Supplementary Data Analysis
The National Wetland Inventory and SSURGO hydric soils classification layers were reviewed to identify
mapped wetlands and areas of potential wetland soils within the Study Area. If neither the National Wetland
Inventory layer nor the SSURGO soils layer identified a wetland within the Study Area, various topographic
analysis tools were used to analyze the high-resolution digital elevation data to evaluate likely drainage
paths and depressions. These tools were helpful in identifying potential wetlands within the Study Area.
3.1.3. Historical Aerial Imagery Review
Historical aerial imagery was acquired from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) via the Texas
Natural Resource Information System (TNRIS) (Appendix A). All areas exhibiting a potential wetland
signature within the Study Area were identified in each aerial photograph.

Figure 2. J&J Solar Ranch is located east of STH 14, between County Roads 456 and 462 in Limestone County, Texas.

3.2. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland and Waters Delineation Methods

EOR followed the methodology prescribed in the USACE Jurisdictional Determination (JD) Form
Instructional Guidebook and outlined in the Great Plains Regional Supplement to the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual to delineate wetlands within the Study Area (USACE 2010). EOR
determined the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of streams within the Study Area using physical
characteristics described in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05. Wetland and upland observations and data
were recorded in the field using BioApp’s mobile version of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Automated
Wetland Determination Data Form – Great Plains Region. Sample points and delineated boundaries were
collected in the field using corrected differential Global Positioning System (GPS) and mapped using
ArcMap v. 10.8 and QGIS v. 3.28.
3.2.1. Wetland Indicator Methodology
EOR conducted field work on May 15-17, 2023, to validate the presence/absence of wetland resources
identified through the offsite analysis and to identify wetland boundaries. A transect was established in a
representative transition zone of the potential wetland. The transect consisted of sample point in the
potential wetland, and if wetland criteria were met, one point in the upland. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology
were documented at each sample point and provided in data sheets.
Vegetation
Observed plant species were identified and assigned corresponding Great Plains Region wetland indicator
status. The wetland probability indicator status of dominant plant species was determined using the 2020
National Wetland Plant List v3.5.
Soils
Soil profiles were collected to a minimum of 24 inches. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil
Color Charts. Soils were described to include those hydric indicators immediately below the A-horizon. A
hydric soil determination was made based upon soil characterization (texture, color), soil order, ponding,
and flooding frequency.
Hydrology
As required in the 1987 Manual, the presence of subsurface hydrology or indicators thereof was
characterized in the rooting zone to a minimum of 24 inches. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators
were identified according to the Great Plains Regional Supplement.
Delineation Boundary Determination

Wetland boundaries were determined after taking into consideration the parameters of soil, hydrology,
vegetation, topography, and professional judgment at paired upland and wetland sample points. Boundary
GPS data was collected at sufficient and appropriate intervals, depending on curvature and assumed
accuracy.

4. RESULTS
4.1. Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation
4.1.1. Topography and Hydrology
Regionally, the Study Area is situated in the Post Oak Savanna Region of Texas. Drainage patterns are
generally well-developed. The site is a mosaic of pasture, annual agricultural production, emergent
wetlands, stream systems, and manmade freshwater ponds. Topography (LiDAR) is moderately sloped with
overland drainage generally directed to the south-central portion of the Study Area. (Figure 3). Elevations
range from 450 to 514 feet above mean sea level.
4.1.2. Soils Data
NRCS SSURGO data mapped thirty-one (31) non-Hydric and two (2) Predominately Non-Hydric soil units
within the Study Area (Figure 4). Hydric ratings were based on those identified in the SSURGO database
(Table 1).
Table 1. NRCS Soils and Hydric Rating

Unit Area
Soil Unit Drainage Class Hydric Classification
symbol (acres)
Wf Whitesboro loam, frequently flooded Moderately well drained Predominantly Non-Hydric 90
BnA Branyon clay, 0-2% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 76.8
AxB Axtell fine sandy loam, 1-3% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 71.2
HeB Heiden clay, 1-3% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 70.6
WnA Wilson clay loam, 0-2% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 56.7
CrB Crockett loam, 1-3% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 47.7
LrB Lavender-Rock outcrop complex, 1-5% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 32.3
StA Styx loamy fine sand, 0-2% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 30.1
CrC2 Crockett loam, 2-5% slopes, eroded Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 27.5
PeB Personville loamy fine sand, 1-5% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 27.1
RaA Rader fine sandy loam, 1-3% slopes Moderately well drained Predominantly Non-Hydric 24.8
HeB Heiden clay, 1-3% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 22
CrB Crockett loam, 1-3% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 19
MaA Mabank fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 17.8
MaA Mabank fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 15.5

GsA Groesbeck loamy fine sand, 0-2% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 13.8
StA Styx loamy fine sand, 0-2% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 10.9
NoB Normangee clay loam, 1-3% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 8.9
LrB Lavender-Rock outcrop complex, 1-5% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 7.4
TaA Tabor fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 4.5
PeB Personville loamy fine sand, 1-5% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 3.6
FhC2 Ferris-Heiden complex, 2-5% slopes, eroded Well drained Non-Hydric 2.3
FhC2 Ferris-Heiden complex, 2-5% slopes, eroded Well drained Non-Hydric 1.6
TaA Tabor fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 1.1
Edge fine sandy loam, 2-5% slopes, moderately

EgC2 Well drained Non-Hydric 0.5
eroded
SaB Silawa fine sandy loam, 1-3% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 0.1
4.1.3. Water Resources Data
National Wetland Inventory mapped data included three riverine features, one freshwater forested/shrub
wetland, and 11 freshwater ponds (Figure 5). An area surrounding one of the mapped streams in the
southern portion of the Study Area was identified as FEMA Flood Zone A (100-year floodplain).

4.1.4. Aerial Imagery Analysis
The Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS) hosts a web map service with NAIP aerial
imagery collected every two years during leaf-on conditions statewide in Texas. EOR reviewed eleven (11)
photos from 1996 to 2022 (Appendix A). Of these, five (5) images had normal antecedent precipitation
levels in the three months preceding the image date (Table 2). Wetland signatures were identified as Level
1 boundaries and are overlaid on historical aerial imagery. Antecedent precipitation conditions were
determined using the USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool.
Table 2. Aerial Imagery and Antecedent Precipitation
Antecedent
Image Capture Date* Image Source Precipitation
(1981-2010)
2022-07-19 NAIP Dry

2020-10-30 NAIP Normal
2018-11-14 NAIP Wet
2015* Texas Ortho Imagery Program N/A
2014-10-15 NAIP Wet
2008-09-23 Texas Ortho Imagery Program Normal
2004* NAIP N/A
1996* Texas Ortho Imagery Program N/A
*Exact date is not determined. Images were collected during the growing season during leaf-on conditions statewide in Texas.
4.2. Recommendations
Analysis of the high-resolution LiDAR data, current and historical site images, and SSURGO soils data
identified potential wetland areas that required additional onsite data collection. A Level 2 delineation was
performed to delineate the boundaries of all wetland areas within the Study Area.

Figure 3. Topography (LiDAR) is gently sloping with overland drainage generally directed to the south.

Figure 4. NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database Hydric Soil Classification identified thirty-one (31) non-Hydric and
two (2) Predominantly Non-Hydric soil units within the Study Area.

Figure 5. Three riverine features, one freshwater forested/shrub wetland, and 11 freshwater ponds were identified
within the Study Area.

4.3. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland Delineation Results
4.3.1. Antecedent Precipitation
The wetland delineation was conducted on May 15-17, 2023. Antecedent precipitation data from the EPA’s
Antecedent Precipitation Tool indicated the three-month antecedent precipitation was drier than normal
prior to field work; with the previous month receiving 1.39 inches (Figure 6). The greater region had been
experiencing long-term drought conditions prior to the site visit, as indicated in the Palmer Drought Severity
Index (PDSI) of “Moderate Drought.” However, ponded water was observed during the field visit at many
areas typically appearing dry on aerial imagery, likely from a ~0.9-inch rain event recorded on May 14 at
the Mexia Limestone County Airport weather station. According to the WebWIMP Water Balance model this
time of year is identified as a “Wet Season” where the Study Area is located.
Figure 6. Antecedent precipitation totals were lower than normal for the preceding three-month period. The region
was experiencing moderate drought conditions as of April 2023.

4.4. Wetland and Waters Descriptions

EOR identified 30 wetlands and two (2) streams within the Study Area (Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9; Table
3, Table 5, and Table 5). Details of sample points can be found in the site photographs and data sheets
included in Appendix B and Appendix C. Additionally, GIS files are provided as an attachment to this
report.
4.4.1. Jurisdictional Interpretation
Once aquatic features are identified, the next regulatory consideration is whether the features are
jurisdictional Waters of the United States (WOTUS) subject to Section 404 of the CWA and/or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act, as administered by the USACE and EPA. Only the USACE can make
determinations on the jurisdictional status of waters. However, EOR has provided interpretations of likely
jurisdictional status of delineated resources within the Study Area based on regulatory guidance current as
of the publication date of this report.
EOR assumed that the two (2) streams (S31 and S32) found on site are WOTUS due to the downstream
connection with other potential jurisdictional bodies of water including Traditional Navigable Waterways.
Three (3) of the delineated wetlands (18, 21, and 22) appeared to have a potential hydrologic connection
to the streams and therefore would be likely classified as WOTUS under USACE guidance. The remaining
twenty-seven (27) delineated wetlands appeared to be isolated, with no inlets or outlets. Therefore, it is
likely that these 27 wetlands would not be considered WOTUS under USACE guidance. Further, several of
the wetlands appeared to be excavated, artificial ponds that may be excluded under the definition of
WOTUS.

Table 3. Wetland Descriptions

Sampling Circular 39 Wetland Type / Cowardin Wetland Type Jurisdictional (EOR
Wetland ID Size (Acres)
Point(s) Wetland Description Opinion)
Type 4/ PUBFx
1 0.83 5W, 5U No
Deep Marsh
Type 2/ PEM1B
2 0.03 6W, 6U No
Wet Meadow
Type 2/ PEM1B
3 0.16 12W, 12U No
Wet Meadow
Type 1/ PEM1A
4 0.02 13W, 13U No
Seasonally Flooded Basin
Type 4/ PUBFx
5 0.64 11W, 11U No
Deep Marsh
1
Photo log (pg. Type 1/ PEM1A
6 0.01 No
43) Seasonally Flooded Basin
Type 1/ PEM1A
7 0.01 7W, 7U No
Type 1/ PEM1A
8 0.03 1W, 1U No
Type 1/ PEM1A
9 0.06 8W, 8U No
Type 1/ PEM1A
10 0.01 9W, 9U No
Type 1/ PEM1B
11 0.3 16W, 16U No
Type 5/ PUBFx
12 0.5 14W, 14U No
Open Water Wetland
15W, 15U, Type 2/ PEM1B

13 2.16 No
35W, 35U Wet Meadow
Type 2/ PEM1B
14 0.07 34W, 34U No
Wet Meadow
Type 2/ PEM1B
15 0.06 36W, 36U No
Wet Meadow
Type 5/ PUBFx
16 0.4 37W, 37U No
Open Water Wetland

Sampling Circular 39 Wetland Type / Cowardin Wetland Type Jurisdictional (EOR

Wetland ID Size (Acres)
Point(s) Wetland Description Opinion)
Type 2/ PEM1B
17 0.002 33W, 33U No
Wet Meadow
Type 5/ PUBFx
18 0.54 32W, 32U Yes
Open Water Wetland
Type 2/ PEM1B
19 0.6 10W, 10U No
Wet Meadow
4W, 4U, 3W, Type 4/ PUBFx

20 0.94 No
3U Deep Marsh
Type 5/ PUBFx
21 0.57 28W, 28U Yes
Open Water Wetland
Type 2/ PEM1B
22 0.12 27W, 27U Yes
Wet Meadow
Type 5/ PUBFx
23 0.84 17W, 17U No
Open Water Wetland
Type 5/ PUBFx
24 0.29 24W, 24U No
Open Water Wetland
Type 5/ PUBFx
25 0.29 21W, 21U No
Open Water Wetland
Type 2/ PEM1B
26 0.37 20W, 20U No
Wet Meadow
Type 2/ PEM1B
27 0.05 19W, 19U No
Wet Meadow
Type 5/ PUBFx
28 0.33 23W, 23U No
Open Water Wetland
Type 2/ PEM1B
29 0.02 39W, 39U No
Wet Meadow
Type 1/ PEM1A
30 0.08 18W, 18U No
1 The wetland boundary for Wetland 6 was delineated based on indicators visible in drone imagery. See pg. 43.

Table 4. Upland Confirmation Points

Level 1 Wetland ID Sample Point Description
33 2U Shallow depression with surface water with upland vegetation.
Shallow depression with surface water but dominated by upland

n/a 22U
vegetation.
32 25U Upland point for S31.
32 26U Upland point for S32 and S31. Grassy, upland, vegetated shoulder.
32 30U Upland point for S31. Grassy bank shoulder.
Upland shrub/savanna vegetation. Did not meet hydric soils, wetland

n/a 38U
vegetation, or hydrology.
Table 5. Stream Descriptions

Bank Jurisdictional
Stream Size Sampling Cowardin Linear
Flow Type Substrate Height (EOR
ID (Acres) Point(s) Classification Feet
(ft) Opinion)
S32 0.65 29W, 29U, 26U Intermittent R4SBC Clay Loam 2705.15ft 2-3 ft Yes
30U, 31W, 31U, Clay/Clay

S31 1.33 Intermittent R4SBC 3776.19 ft 3-4 ft Yes
26U, 25U Loam

Figure 7. Delineated wetlands, northern portion of Study Area.

Figure 8. Delineated wetlands, southeastern portion of Study Area.

Figure 9. Delineated wetlands, southwestern portion of Study Area.

5. CONCLUSIONS
This wetland and waters investigation was undertaken to assist X-ELIO with the planning and permitting of
J&J Solar Ranch, LLC in Limestone County, Texas. The purpose and objective of the wetland delineation was
to identify the extent and spatial arrangement of wetlands and other potential waters of the U.S. within the
project area.
The Study Area contains 30 wetlands and 2 streams. The two (2) streams identified, as well as three (3)
identified wetlands are likely jurisdictional waters; however only the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
can make determinations on the jurisdictional status of waters. Because the project likely involves
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and regulated resources under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, project
activities may be regulated under the Clean Water Act.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
EOR recommends submittal of this report to USACE for concurrence of delineated wetlands and waters.
Design should avoid impacts to wetlands and waters to the maximum extent practicable. If proposed
impacts are less than 0.10 acre, the project is likely authorized under Nationwide Permit 51 (NWP 51)
without need for pre-construction notification to USACE. If impacts greater than 0.10 acre are unavoidable,
EOR recommends further consultation regarding design specifics to determine next steps. Likely, an
Approved Jurisdictional Determination should be requested from USACE to determine if impacted waters
are regulated, if the project may be authorized under NWP 51 with pre-construction notification, or if an
Individual Permit may be required. Individual Permits require significant review and consultation with the
USACE and other agencies, including issue of public notice.
The information provided by EOR regarding wetland boundaries is a scientific-based analysis of the wetland
and upland conditions present on the site at the time of the fieldwork. The delineation was performed by
experienced and qualified professionals using standard practices and sound professional judgment. The
ultimate decision on wetland boundaries and jurisdictional determinations rests with the USACE. As a result,
there may be adjustments to boundaries based upon review by a regulatory agency. Agency determination
can vary from time to time depending on various factors including – but not limited to – recent precipitation
patterns and the season of the year. In addition, the physical characteristics of the site can change over time
depending on the weather, vegetation patterns, drainage activities on adjacent parcels, or other events. Any
of these factors can change the nature and extent of wetlands on the site.

7. APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGE REVIEW

8. APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Sample Point 1W Sample Point 2U
Sample Point 1U Sample Point 3w

Sample Point 4u Sample Point 5U
Sample Point 4w Sample Point 5W

Sample Point 6U Sample Point 7U
Sample Point 6W Sample Point 7W

Sample Point 8w Sample Point 9U

Sample Point 10U Sample Point 10W

Sample Point 11u Sample Point 12W

Sample Point 13U Sample Point 14u
Sample Point 13W Sample Point 14u

Sample Point 14w Sample Point 15w
Sample Point 14w Sample Point 16u
Sample Point 15u Sample Point 16u

Sample Point 16w Sample Point 17U


Sample Point 20u Sample Point 21w







Sample Point 35W Sample Point 36w


Wetland 6 – No field data available. Aerial footage

of wetland located at the bottom left. Looking south at Wetland 3, 5, 6, and 11.2
Wetland 6 – Wetland located within tree line

located in the middle of the field. Small and
isolated.
2 Wetland 6 referenced in Table 3. Wetland

Descriptions

9. APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATA SHEETS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region
Project/Site: J&J Solar Ranch City/County: Limestone County Sampling Date: 2023-05-15
Applicant/Owner: X-ELIO State: Texas Sampling Point: JJ-1W
Investigator(s): Ethan Hau, Hallie Brychel, Kim Walsh Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR): LRR J, MLRA 86A Lat: 31.61472317 Long: -96.51552783 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: Crockett loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✔ No

Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
within a Wetland? Yes ✔ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
2. (excluding FAC−): 1 (A)
3. Total Number of Dominant

4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.00 (A/B)
1.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3.
OBL species 12.00 x1= 12.00
4.
FACW species 0.00 x2= 0.00
5.
FAC species 0.00 x3= 0.00
0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) FACU species 15.00 x4= 60.00
1. Lolium perenne 15 Y FACU UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Ludwigia peploides 10 Y OBL Column Totals: 27.00 (A) 72.00 (B)
3. Ammannia coccinea 2 N OBL
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.67
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
5.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7. 1
✔ 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
8. 1
4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
10. 1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
27.0 = Total Cover
1
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1.
2. Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
0
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: JJ-1W
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
1 2
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 3/2 88 10YR 5/6 12 C M/PL CL
6-24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M CL
1 2
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
3
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H)
Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✔ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ✔ Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
3
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
✔ Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled)
Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) ✔ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✔ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) ✔ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 4
Water Table Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Applicant/Owner: X-ELIO State: Texas Sampling Point: JJ-1U
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Sideslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✔

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No ✔
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Hordeum pusillum 20 Y FACU Column Totals: 79.00 (A) 314.00 (B)
3. Medicago polymorpha 5 N FACU
4. Sisyrinchium rosulatum 2 N FAC
5. Ambrosia psilostachya 2 N FACU
6.
7. 1
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
8. 1
10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
1
79.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:

SOIL Sampling Point: JJ-1U
1 2
0-6 10YR 3/2 88 10YR 5/6 12 C M/PL CL
6-24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Styx loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:
Shallow depression with surface water but upland plant community present.



1. Gleditsia triacanthos 5 Y FACU
2. Rubus trivialis 5 Y FACU
3.
4.
5.
10.0 = Total Cover
2. Phalaris caroliniana 10 Y FACW Column Totals: 46.00 (A) 149.00 (B)
3. Hordeum pusillum 6 N FACU
4. Ammannia coccinea 5 N OBL
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
36.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-14 10YR 3/1 85 10YR 3/6 15 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type: Rock
Depth (inches): 14 Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ✔ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): .5
Remarks:
Presence of surface water likely ephemeral, briefly after precipitation events only.

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Footslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Soil Map Unit Name: Rader fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Ambrosia psilostachya 5 Y FACU UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Lemna minor 5 Y OBL Column Totals: 20.00 (A) 50.00 (B)
3. Lolium perenne 5 Y FACU
4. Alopecurus aequalis 5 Y OBL
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
20.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-4 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M SCL
4-16 10YR 4/2 60 10YR 5/4 40 C M SL
1 2
3
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) ✔ Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18)
✔ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✔ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks)
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
✔ High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
✔ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
✔ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): .5
Water Table Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 8
Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 7 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Trifolium dubium 8 N FACU Column Totals: 62.00 (A) 249.00 (B)
3. Oxalis corniculata 8 N FACU
5. Verbena halei 1 N UPL
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
62.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-4 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M SCL
6-16 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 5/4 5 C M SL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Rader fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Ranunculus sardous 15 Y FAC UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Lolium perenne 10 Y FACU Column Totals: 42.00 (A) 108.00 (B)
3. Persicaria hydropiper 10 Y OBL
4. Sium suave 5 N OBL
6.
✔ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
42.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-6 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M SCL
6-18 10YR 3/1 75 10YR 4/6 25 C M SCL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Shoulder Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-2
Soil Map Unit Name: Rader fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
4. Ranunculus sardous 5 N FAC
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
90.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-12 10YR 3/1 85 10YR 5/6 15 C M/PL SL
12-18 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M SCL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Whitesboro loam, frequently flooded NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Lemna minor 10 Y OBL UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Ranunculus sardous 7 Y FAC Column Totals: 26.00 (A) 53.00 (B)
3. Xanthium strumarium 5 N FAC
4. Ludwigia peploides 3 N OBL
5. Elymus repens 1 N FACU
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
26.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-7 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M/PL SL
7-24 10YR 4/1 85 10YR 5/6 15 C M SL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Backslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Cynodon dactylon 15 Y FACU UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Ambrosia psilostachya 10 Y FACU Column Totals: 39.00 (A) 149.00 (B)
4. Lolium perenne 5 N FACU
5. Trifolium resupinatum 2 N FACU
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
39.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-7 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M/PL SL
7-24 10YR 4/1 85 10YR 5/6 15 C M SL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Persicaria pensylvanica 20 Y FACW UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Ludwigia peploides 5 N OBL Column Totals: 33.00 (A) 69.00 (B)
5.
✔ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
33.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-4 10YR 3/1 85 10YR 3/6 15 C M SL
4-24 10YR 4/1 85 10YR 3/6 15 C M SCL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Phalaris caroliniana 10 Y FACW UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
3. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 10 Y FACU
6. Rumex pulcher 3 N FACW
7. Sabatia campestris 2 N FACU 1
8. 1
1
43.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-5 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 3/6 5 C PL SL
5-7 10YR 3/2 80 10YR 3/6 20 C M SCL
7-24 10YR 4/1 85 10YR 3/6 15 PL SL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 17 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Ludwigia peploides 25 Y OBL UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Alopecurus aequalis 20 Y OBL Column Totals: 59.00 (A) 74.00 (B)
4. Cyperus difformis 3 N OBL
5. Ucarex 3 N OBL
6. Juncus texanus 3 N OBL
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
59.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-8 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M CL
8- 10YR 4/2 15 10YR 4/6 5 C M CL
10YR 4/4 80 CL
1 2
3
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Xanthium strumarium 5 N FAC Column Totals: 55.00 (A) 215.00 (B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
55.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-7 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL SL
7-20 10YR 3/1 100 C M CL
20-24 10YR 4/4 100 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Hordeum pusillum 15 Y FACU UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
3. Phalaris caroliniana 10 Y FACW
5. Alopecurus aequalis 6 N OBL
6. U carex 2 N OBL
7. Poa palustris 1 N FACW 1
8. 1
10. 1
56.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-2 10YR 3/2 50 5YR 4/6 50 C M CL
2-14 10YR 4/3 45 5YR 4/6 50 C M CL
10YR 5/6 5 CL
14-24 10YR 4/3 40 5YR 4/6 20 C M C
10YR 5/6 40 C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Shoulder Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 3-7

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3. Ambrosia psilostachya 10 Y FACU
4. Plantago rhodosperma 5 N FACU
5. Sisyrinchium rosulatum 5 N FAC
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
45.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-4 10YR 4/1 85 5YR 5/6 15 C M SL
2-24 10YR 4/2 75 5YR 4/6 25 C M SL
1 2
3
✔ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Investigator(s): Ethan Hau, Hallie Brychel, Kim Walsh Section, Township, Range: sec T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Soil Map Unit Name: Crockett loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Echinochloa crus-galli 5 Y FAC UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Ludwigia peploides 5 Y OBL Column Totals: 15.00 (A) 32.00 (B)
3. Poa palustris 3 Y FACW
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
15.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-4 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M SL
4-9 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M SCL
9-16 10YR 4/3 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M SCL
16-24 10YR 4/3 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Cynodon dactylon 15 Y FACU Column Totals: 41.00 (A) 157.00 (B)
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
41.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-4 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M SL
4-9 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M SCL
9-16 10YR 4/3 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M SCL
16-24 10YR 4/3 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Echinochloa muricata 10 Y FACW Column Totals: 37.00 (A) 66.00 (B)
4. Persicaria pensylvanica 5 N FACW
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
37.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-6 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C PL LS
6-24 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C PL SCL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 5 N FACU Column Totals: 53.00 (A) 209.00 (B)
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
53.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-6 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C PL LS
6-24 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C PL SCL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Hordeum pusillum 5 N FACU Column Totals: 29.00 (A) 56.00 (B)
4. Lemna minor 3 N OBL
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
29.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-10 10YR 3/1 80 CL
10YR 4/1 20 CL
10-20 10YR 4/1 60 10YR 5/6 5 C M CL
10YR 4/4 35 CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Sherardia arvensis 8 Y UPL UPL species 8.00 x5= 40.00
3. Xanthium strumarium 5 Y FAC
7. Helenium amarum 1 N FACU 1
8. Ranunculus sardous 1 N FAC 1
1
32.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-3 10YR 3/1 100 SCL
3-24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M SCL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Alopecurus aequalis 15 Y OBL UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
3. Ranunculus sardous 10 Y FAC
4. Eryngium hookeri 3 N FACW
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
40.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-15 10YR 4/1 92 10YR 5/6 8 C PL SCL
15-24 10YR 3/1 100 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 5 N FACU
6. Helenium microcephalum 1 N FACW
7. 1
8. 1
1
38.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-15 10YR 4/1 92 10YR 5/6 8 C PL SCL
15-24 10YR 3/1 100 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Dip Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Soil Map Unit Name: Crockett loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Eleocharis palustris 50 Y OBL UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Eryngium hookeri 40 Y FACW Column Totals: 98.00 (A) 159.00 (B)
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
98.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 92 10YR 4/6 8 C PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type: Rock
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Crockett loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 10 Y FACU Column Totals: 45.00 (A) 163.00 (B)
6. Helenium microcephalum 2 N FACW
7. 1
8. 1
1
45.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 92 10YR 4/6 8 C PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type: Rock
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Crockett loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: PUBHh

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Ranunculus sardous 3 Y FAC UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
5. Helenium microcephalum 2 Y FACW
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
12.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-20 10YR 4/1 65 10YR 5/6 15 C M C
10YR 4/3 20 C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Crockett loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: PUBHh

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Xanthium strumarium 15 Y FAC UPL species 4.00 x5= 20.00
3. Pyrrhopappus pauciflorus 4 N UPL
7. Euthamia occidentalis 2 N OBL 1
8. 1
1
37.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-20 10YR 4/1 65 10YR 5/6 15 C M C
10YR 4/3 20 C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Wilson clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Alopecurus aequalis 10 Y OBL Column Totals: 43.00 (A) 60.00 (B)
3. U carex 5 N OBL
4. Bromus japonicas 3 N UPL
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
43.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-20 10YR 4/1 98 10YR 5/4 2 C PL C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Wilson clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Bromus japonicas 12 Y UPL Column Totals: 40.00 (A) 171.00 (B)
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
40.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-20 10YR 4/1 98 10YR 5/4 2 C PL C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Are Vegetation ✔ , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No ✔

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Column Totals: 0.00 (A) 0.00 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
100
Remarks:
Disturbed vegetation from cattle, assume hydric.

1 2
0-20 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL SCL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Summit Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 3-7

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Trifolium resupinatum 10 Y FACU Column Totals: 39.00 (A) 157.00 (B)
7. 1
8. 1
1
39.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-20 10YR 3/1 93 10YR 5/6 7 C PL SL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Branyon clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Plantago rhodosperma 3 Y FACU Column Totals: 13.00 (A) 34.00 (B)
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
13.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-12 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL CL
12-24 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M/PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Shoulder Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Soil Map Unit Name: Branyon clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Trifolium resupinatum 10 Y FACU Column Totals: 28.00 (A) 110.00 (B)
4. Lepidium virginicum 3 N FACU
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
28.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-12 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL CL
12-24 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M/PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Heiden clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Column Totals: 10.00 (A) 30.00 (B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
10.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-7 10YR 4/1 100 C M CL
7-24 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Heiden clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3. Oenothera speciosa 5 Y UPL
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
28.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
70
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 4/1 100 CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:
Outside and up of ponded area.

Soil Map Unit Name: Lavender-Rock outcrop complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3. Carex echinata 5 Y OBL
5. Juncus effusus 1 N OBL
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
19.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-8 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M/PL CL
8-16 10YR 3/1 20 5YR 4/6 80 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
74.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-8 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M/PL CL
8-16 10YR 3/1 20 5YR 4/6 80 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Echinodorus cordifolius 60 Y OBL UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
90.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-6 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 5/6 3 C PL CL
6-18 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
4. Phalaris caroliniana 2 N FACW
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
62.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Groesbeck loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Column Totals: 15.00 (A) 15.00 (B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
15.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-6 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M/PL SL
6-8 10YR 4/1 75 10YR 4/6 25 C M SL
1 2
3
3
Type: Rock
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Backslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 3-7
Soil Map Unit Name: Groesbeck loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:

1. Prosopis glandulosa 20 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC

20.0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Ambrosia psilostachya 2 N FACU Column Totals: 97.00 (A) 388.00 (B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
77.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-8 10YR 3/1 50 10YR 5/6 10 C M/PL SL
10YR 4/3 40 SL
1 2
3
3
Type: Compacted/rock
Depth (inches):
8 Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Groesbeck loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3. U Carex 7 N OBL
5. Cyperus virens 2 N FACW
7. Persicaria pensylvanica 1 N FACW 1
8. 1
1
53.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-12 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M/PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Mabank fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Column Totals: 0.00 (A) 0.00 (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:
Unvegetated slope leading into pond, assume hydrophytic

1 2
0-8 10YR 4/1 10 10YR 5/6 3 C M C
10YR 6/2 87 C
8-16 10YR 7/2 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Mabank fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
17.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:
Unvegetated slope leading into pond, assume hydrophytic

1 2
0-8 10YR 4/1 10 10YR 5/6 3 C M C
10YR 6/2 87 C
8-16 10YR 7/2 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Axtell fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Eleocharis palustris 5 Y OBL Column Totals: 16.00 (A) 36.00 (B)
3. Ludwigia peploides 3 N OBL
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
16.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-3 10YR 4/1 60 10YR 5/6 10 C M C
10YR 6/1 30 C
3-12 10YR 4/1 30 10YR 5/6 40 C M C
10YR 6/1 30 C
1 2
3
3
Type: Rock
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
High Water Table (A2) ✔ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Axtell fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: None

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Bromus japonicus 15 Y UPL UPL species 24.00 x5= 120.00
3. Pyrrhopappus pauciflorus 5 Y UPL
4. Hordeum pusillum 5 Y FACU
5. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 5 Y FACU
6. Trifolium resupinatum 5 Y FACU
7. Monarda citrioda 2 N UPL 1
8. Xanthium strumarium 2 N FAC 1
9. Verbena halei 2 N UPL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1
51.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-2 10YR 3/2 100 CL
2-10 10YR 3/1 20 10YR 5/6 20 C M C
5YR 5/8 10 C
10YR 6/1 50 C M C
1 2
3
3
Type: Rock
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Shoulder Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 3-7
Soil Map Unit Name: Whitesboro loam, frequently flooded NWI classification: PEM1A

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:
This point is an upland confirmation point in the water/stream corridor.

1. Ulmus crassifolia 70 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
2. Maclura pomifera (excluding FAC−): 1 (A)
15 N FACU
3. Celtis laevigata 10 N FAC Total Number of Dominant

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
FAC species 85.00 x3= 255.00
0 = Total Cover
1. Solidago altissima 20 Y FACU UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
3. Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 15 Y FACU
4. Symphyotrichum lanceolatum 10 N FACW
6. Ulmus crassifolia 5 N FAC
7. 1
8. 1
1
70.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-12 10YR 4/1 98 10YR 5/4 2 C M SCL
1 2
3
3
Type: Hard Clay
Depth (inches):12 Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Interfluve Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 3-7

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Xanthium strumarium 20 Y FAC Column Totals: 64.00 (A) 245.00 (B)
4. Oenothera speciosa 7 N UPL
5. Cirsium texanum 1 N UPL
7. 1
8. 1
1
64.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
47.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-8 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M/PL CL
8-18 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3. Ranunculus sardous 10 Y FAC
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
45.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-8 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M/PL CL
8-18 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Whitesboro loam, frequently flooded NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1. Triadica sebifera 3 N FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
3.0 = Total Cover
1. Rumex pulcher 5 Y FACW UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Carex crus-corvi 4 Y OBL Column Totals: 15.00 (A) 35.00 (B)
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
12.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-8 10YR 4/1 99 10YR 4/6 1 C PL C
8-16 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:

1. Maclura pomifera 15 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
2. Ulmus crassifolia (excluding FAC−): 2 (A)
5 Y FAC

1. Ulmus crassifolia 20 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
20.0 = Total Cover
2. Bromus japonicus 7 N UPL Column Totals: 94.00 (A) 356.00 (B)
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
54.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-7 10YR 4/1 99 10YR 4/6 1 C M CL
7-16 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Iva annua 8 Y FAC UPL species 1.00 x5= 5.00
2. Juncus marginatus 8 Y FACW Column Totals: 30.00 (A) 78.00 (B)
4. Carex echinata 3 N OBL
7. Oenothera speciosa 1 N UPL 1
8. 1
10. 1
30.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-16 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Summit Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 3-7

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3. Bromus japonicus 8 N UPL
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
51.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Shoulder Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 3-7

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1. Rubus trivialis 3 N FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
3.0 = Total Cover
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
72.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-16 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 5/6 3 C M/PL C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Iva annua 2 Y FAC Column Totals: 6.00 (A) 12.00 (B)
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
6.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-12 10YR 3/1 60 10YR 5/6 10 C M CL
10YR 5/1 30 CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
4. Iva annua 2 N FAC
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
41.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-12 10YR 3/1 60 10YR 5/6 10 C M CL
10YR 5/1 30 CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Lolium perenne 3 N FACU Column Totals: 25.00 (A) 38.00 (B)
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
25.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-16 10YR 4/1 97 10YR 5/6 3 C M SCL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Trifolium resupinatum 15 Y FACU UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
3. Phyla nodiflora 6 N FAC
4. Desmanthus illinoensis 4 N FACU
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
35.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-16 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 5/6 3 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Eryngium hookeri 12 Y FACW UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Rumex pulcher 10 Y FACW Column Totals: 53.00 (A) 147.00 (B)
4. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 8 N FACU
7. Phalaris caroliniana 3 N FACW 1
8. 1
10. 1
53.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-24 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 20 Y FACU UPL species 10.00 x5= 50.00
7. 1
8. 1
1
65.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-24 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Carex echinata 10 Y OBL Column Totals: 35.00 (A) 81.00 (B)
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
35.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
3. Iva annua 10 Y FAC
4. Trifolium resupinatum 10 Y FACU
7. 1
8. 1
1
60.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Wilson clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: R4SBC

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
7. Oenothera speciosa 1 N UPL 1
8. 1
10. 1
48.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-5 10YR 3/1 99 10YR 4/6 1 C M CL
5-18 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Wilson clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: R4SBC

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
7. Asclepias viridis 2 N UPL 1
8. 1
1
101.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 96 10YR 4/6 4 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Rumex pulcher 7 Y FACW UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
11.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 4/1 98 10YR 5/6 2 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Iva annua 10 Y FAC UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Rumex pulcher 7 Y FACW Column Totals: 32.00 (A) 94.00 (B)
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
32.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-6 10YR 3/1 100 CL
6-18 10YR 4/1 100 CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
2. Column Totals: 15.00 (A) 15.00 (B)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
15.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-12 10YR 3/1 50 C
10YR 5/1 50 C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:

1. Celtis laevigata 20 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC


1. Celtis laevigata 5 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.0 = Total Cover
3. Helianthus annuus 3 N FACU
4.
5.
6.
7. 1
8. 1
1
26.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-18 10YR 3/1 100 C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): None Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0-2
Soil Map Unit Name: Crockett loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:

1. Prosopis glandulosa 15 Y FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC


1. Prosopis glandulosa 10 Y FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
10.0 = Total Cover
3. Bromus arvensis 2 N FACU
7. 1
8. 1
1
86.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-24 10YR 3/3 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Soil Map Unit Name: Crockett loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI classification:

Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Cyperus entrerianus 21 Y FACW UPL species 0.00 x5= 0.00
2. Juncus marginatus 5 N FACW Column Totals: 38.00 (A) 95.00 (B)
6.
7. 1
8. 1
10. 1
38.0 = Total Cover
1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-16 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 5/6 3 C M/PL CL
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:


Is the Sampled Area
Remarks:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
1. Baccharis neglecta 20 Y FAC UPL species 1.00 x5= 5.00
5. Medicago polymorpha 3 N FACU
6. Physalis philadelphica 1 N UPL
7. 1
8. 1
1
47.0 = Total Cover

1
1.
2. Hydrophytic
0
Remarks:

1 2
0-16 10YR 4/1 100 C
1 2
3
3
Type:
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Field Observations:
Remarks:

Wetland Delineation Report J&J Solar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wetland Delineation Report J&J Solar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prepared by Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.

Prepared for X-ELIO

J&J Solar Ranch, LLC Wetland and Waters Determination Report

1.1. Review Team and Contact Information .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation ....................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1. Supplementary Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.2. Supplementary Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.3. Historical Aerial Imagery Review ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland and Waters Delineation Methods ......................................................................................... 7

3.2.1. Wetland Indicator Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

4.1. Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation ................................................................................................................................. 8

4.1.1. Topography and Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1.2. Soils Data ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1.3. Water Resources Data ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

4.1.4. Aerial Imagery Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 10

4.3. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland Delineation Results ................................................................................................................. 14

4.3.1. Antecedent Precipitation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14

4.4. Wetland and Waters Descriptions ..................................................................................................................................... 15

4.4.1. Jurisdictional Interpretation .................................................................................................................................................................. 15

7. APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 23

8. APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ..........................................................................................................................................24

9. APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATA SHEETS ...................................................................................................................................44

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 1

Figure 7. Delineated wetlands, northern portion of Study Area. ............................................................................................................. 19

Figure 8. Delineated wetlands, southeastern portion of Study Area. .................................................................................................... 20

Figure 9. Delineated wetlands, southwestern portion of Study Area. ................................................................................................... 21

Table 2. Aerial Imagery and Antecedent Precipitation ................................................................................................................................ 10

Table 3. Wetland Descriptions................................................................................................................................................................................ 16

Table 4. Upland Confirmation Points .................................................................................................................................................................. 18

Table 5. Stream Descriptions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 2

1.1. Review Team and Contact Information

Kimberly Walsh, Environmental Engineer

Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. (EOR)

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 3

Figure 1. Study Area (Imagery: 2022 NAIP)

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 4

3.1 Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation

3.1.1. Supplementary Data Collection

3.1.2. Supplementary Data Analysis

3.1.3. Historical Aerial Imagery Review

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 5

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 6

3.2. Onsite – Level 2 Wetland and Waters Delineation Methods

3.2.1. Wetland Indicator Methodology

Delineation Boundary Determination

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 7

4.1. Offsite – Level 1 Wetland Delineation

4.1.1. Topography and Hydrology

4.1.2. Soils Data

Table 1. NRCS Soils and Hydric Rating

Wf Whitesboro loam, frequently flooded Moderately well drained Predominantly Non-Hydric 90

HeB Heiden clay, 1-3% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 70.6

HeB Heiden clay, 1-3% slopes Well drained Non-Hydric 22

CrB Crockett loam, 1-3% slopes Moderately well drained Non-Hydric 19

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 8

Edge fine sandy loam, 2-5% slopes, moderately

4.1.3. Water Resources Data

EOR: wat e r | ec o l ogy | c om m u ni t y Page | 9

4.1.4. Aerial Imagery Analysis

Table 2. Aerial Imagery and Antecedent Precipitation

2022-07-19 NAIP Dry